Sex Offender Registry: Is It Just?

[KrustyKidd]

How will the registry prevent more crimes, other than setting up a list of targets for vigilanties? Pragmatically, a pedophile registry cannot possibly do anything besides give some ridiculous false sense of security.

Wrong. It would enable parents to make damm sure their kids stayed away from that person. You people seem to be having a hard time seeing the evil that these people commited and, how everything possible must be done to minimize the danger, including warning children and parents of specific individuals who are proven to have commited these types of crimes. It is far eaier to find a person who has never commited a sex crime than to find one who only did it once. You can go right ahead and play roulette with your kid's life by ignoring the fact that these people exist and are among you all you want, but mine, nope.

I fail to see the difference as far as the criminal act goes between a child or a women or man or boy of any age who as been duped in one way or the other or viciously attacked in a sexual manner by a person bent on or driven by any reason to satisfy his or her craving by way of illegal criminal sex acts.

Then maybe this is why you don't see how inhuman these people are, and how a registry should be in place. See, they didn't commit a crime like using a date rape drug on a girl that is out and about on the town on a friday night and has the mental and possible physical ability to defend hereself. They entered into the sanctity of the home and nieghborhood where kids should be able to be kids. Planned, lured and took advantage of somebody that has absolutely no opportunity to defend themselves. Destroying a person just to get off and, those people who loved that person. You find that at an equal evil level as a drunken colledge kid who doesn't understand that 'no' means 'no'?

But a registry especially a public one for a crime based on sexual assault of one sort or another in my mind bears resemblence to when we burn't people alive mainly women for the crime of being labelled a witch.

Wow. No wonder you don't get it with a comparisson like that. Being labelled something without proof and being confirmed as capable of destroying a helpless child's whole life I think are a little different.

It is up to authorites I think if they think a crime of this nature superceeds all other crimes is to initially increase jail time to whatever they think is appropiate. And from what I'am reading here is nothing short of throwing the key away for good is the answer.

Correct. And death if we had capital punishment in this country. These people are evil and not able to be rehabilitated with the surity of success required to be admitted into a trusting society with any reasonable degree of safety for our children.

This of course could also apply to a long list of other serious crimes that are just as equally offensive and damaging to different members of society that are the cause of serious personal ramifications.

Wrong. Children are our future. Children are us, the embodiement of imortality and, are also a very large population group. Far bigger than any other potential victim quorum you can come up with. And, they are helpless to thwart people like this if attacked instead trusting us to do it for them. Given your opinions you seem to be betraying that trust best you can.

[Black Dog]

Lost in the usual fear mongering and "won't somebody please think of the children!!" rhetoric is the fact that the majority of child sexual abuse cases involve either family members or someone known to and trusted by the victim. So the chances of anyone's chld getting picked up by a stranger are, statistically, quite slim. Now, the argument here is that a registry will prevent people from letting strangers enter into positions of trust with their kids, but I'm not sure how a registry that is accessible to anybody serves that purpose. Something are better dealt with at the local law enforcement level.

[KrustyKidd]

Lost in the usual fear mongering and "won't somebody please think of the children!!"

No, this is about kids and they don't have to thought of as they are the main benificiaries of this program.

the fact that the majority of child sexual abuse cases involve either family members or someone known to and trusted by the victim.

Uh huh. And then when they do their time, they get on the registry. Your point is .....?

So the chances of anyone's chld getting picked up by a stranger are, statistically, quite slim

Uh huh. You can send your sone to Michael Jackson's for the weekend but it won't be any of my kids. If you choose not to look at the registry you can go right ahead. Your children will be happy to know you are politically correct, even if you care not or have no idea who in your neighborhood may or may not still be waiting to molest a child. Even with the info right in front of your eyes.

Now, the argument here is that a registry will prevent people from letting strangers enter into positions of trust with their kids, but I'm not sure how a registry that is accessible to anybody serves that purpose. Something are better dealt with at the local law enforcement level.

No, that was one argument put forth. The point is to know where the increased danger to children lies so that they can be better protected by avoiding those people. When you're dealing with your own kids, stats mean squat.

[betsy]

But a registry especially a public one for a crime based on sexual assault of one sort or another in my mind bears resemblence to when we burn't people alive mainly women for the crime of being labelled a witch.

It is like the Inquisition. I do understand the fear and anger....but is it just?

If this registry is part of the sentence...then the system has a responsibility to protect these offenders. They provide protection to inmates inside the prison whom they deemed would be in danger from fellow inmates ....then they should provide the same since obviously the registry will put the offender at high risk.

[KrustyKidd]

It is like the Inquisition. I do understand the fear and anger....but is it just?

Just? Tough. Eight percent of these people go on to commit new sexual crimes. With odds like that, I think the public is entitled to some slack. Like the inquisition my ass, these are convicted criminals who do great harm and with an almost ten percent chance to reoffend it is hardly based on 'fear' and 'unreasonable rationale.' If it were akin to the inquisition we would have everybodies name on the damm thing so let's try to keep this in perspective shall we?

[Leafless]

KrustyKidd

What is your primary concern with the eight percent?

All sexual offenders or pedophiles?

Are you claiming all sexual offenders of any nature be on the registry or pedophiles only?

Your own stats indicate out of all sexual offenders 21% are pedophiles.

Eight percent of that is a re-offending rate of 1.6 is low in my estimation.

[KrustyKidd]

What is your primary concern with the eight percent?

Eight percent of released offenders of all types of sexual crimes recommit. That means that pretty much one out of every ten people on a registry will commit the same offence.

Your own stats indicate out of all sexual offenders 21% are pedophiles.

Yes so eight percent of peds will recommit. Basically, every tenth name on the registry will attempt to molest a child again. These people are not suspected 'witches' in some superticious world whom we randomely pick out for persecution, they are convicted child molestors with a ten percent chance of reoffending. Hardly fear based, the rationale to steer your child away from any in your neighborhood is a logical one given the risk and repercussions.

[betsy]

Dear geoffrey,

Pragmatically, a pedophile registry cannot possibly do anything besides give some ridiculous false sense of security.

Let's say some new guy moved in next door to you, your wife and 2 kids. Seems like a nice guy, helped you push you car out a snowbank one morning, had a beer over the back fence with him and talked about how you both dislike the skyrocketing salaries of pro athletes.

Then your wife calls and tells you she just got a flat tire about 10 miles from home. You wonder if he would mind watching your kids for 1/2 hr while you help the wife...

Would you if his name was in the registry? Or would you have already told your kids, "Never, ever go near that man"?

So what happens if one of the kids in the neighborhood disappeared? The practical response is to go after this registered guy living in your area. The suspicion and investigation most likely will focus around him.

Worse, he could even be lynched before the cops step in.

Then years later you find you've got another Milgaard. The child was killed by someone else...perhaps even by her own parents...or cousin...or sister's boyfriend. Majority of child crimes are perpetuated by people whom the child or the family knows.

If I am a sex offender bent on re-offending, will I be dumb enough to do my crime against someone from my own community...when I know for a fact that everyone will be upon me? Why should I mess up my own backyard...when actually, this backyard can provide me with some nice "cover?" Only a dumb convict with a death wish...or with an uncontrollable impulsive urge...will commit a crime in his own neighborhood, knowing that everyone knows who and what he is.

Some criminals have the intelligence of a Bundy.

So yes, we'll be lulled into a false sense of security. Our eyes will mostly be on this guy whom we know.....and we'll tend to overlook the other unknown who lurks about.

Vigilance with our children and constant reminder of the dangers is what we need to focus on. Like animals of the wild, you train your young to survive any predators that lurks about.

[betsy]

My mom used to give me various scenarios and how to handle them. One of them that stuck most in my mind was:

What will you do if someone comes to you and say, 'your mommy was in an accident and is in the hospital....and she needs you right away. She asked me to come and fetch you. Hurry."

[betsy]

You ever wonder why on earth an 8 year old willingly gets in a stranger's car? She was fed a line....a very plausible line that was hard for an eight year old to deal with. So kids better learn how to handle those pitches.

[betsy]

Yes so eight percent of peds will recommit. Basically, every tenth name on the registry will attempt to molest a child again. These people are not suspected 'witches' in some superticious world whom we randomely pick out for persecution, they are convicted child molestors with a ten percent chance of reoffending. Hardly fear based, the rationale to steer your child away from any in your neighborhood is a logical one given the risk and repercussions.

8% of peds will re-offend. What about the 92% who won't?

The killer was found to have a long list of names taken from the registry. Who knows how many more would've been executed had he not committed suicide.

The best way is to train your child to steer away from ANY possible situations that may endanger his safety.

Getting a child to focus on ONE PARTICULAR KNOWN EX-OFFENDER could backfire....with the child's vigilance being lulled into false security when he is among others!

This ex-offender will be the "big bad wolf" with children. They'll end up tending to watch out only for him!

[Black Dog]

Uh huh. You can send your sone to Michael Jackson's for the weekend but it won't be any of my kids. If you choose not to look at the registry you can go right ahead. Your children will be happy to know you are politically correct, even if you care not or have no idea who in your neighborhood may or may not still be waiting to molest a child. Even with the info right in front of your eyes.

Nice strawman, but the issue is whether a national registry, accessible to the entir epublic is a good idea. I say law enforcement should have the right to inform people when a convicted pedophile has entered tehir neighbourhood, but I fail to see why that information should be accessible to everyone.

Eight percent of these people go on to commit new sexual crimes. With odds like that, I think the public is entitled to some slack.

Uh...that stat is for "non-violent" offenses which include drug and property crimes. The actual stat for repeat sexual offenses is 6.2 per cent.

[Leafless]

KrustyKidd

You wrote- " Yes so eight percent of peds will recommit. Basically every tenth name on the registry will attempt to molest a child again."

Your stats are deceiving.

The fact is 11.3% of all federal offenders are sexual offenders.

That means every 11out of 100 federal inmates are sexual offenders.

Out of those 11 offenders 21% are peds.

So approx. 2 out of 100 federal inmates reoffend as peds and you are advocating a registry with the capability to virtually destroy totally that person's life who has paid his or her debt to society. Also as we already know the registry also has the potential to induce vigilante type justice.

I think you are being unreasonable and overeacting and biased. For instance, what are the chances percent wise for a child anywhere in Canada to be molested by a new sexual offender one that is not on the registry compared to one who's name is on the registry?

I believe it would be a lot higher.

Now, I do support a public criminal registry for all convicted criminals ( which you will probably never see anyways for many reasons ) and incidently I do support the death penaltly for certain crimes so I don't think Iam being unreasonable nor biased.

[KrustyKidd]

So what happens if one of the kids in the neighborhood disappeared? The practical response is to go after this registered guy living in your area. The suspicion and investigation most likely will focus around him.

Maybe. Now with a registry, the chances of a kid ending up in this guy's backyard helping him find his puppy are lowered and, the chances of something happening in the first place.

So yes, we'll be lulled into a false sense of security.

Missing the point. These guys are at an increased risk to offend so it is pointing out an obvious danger rather than 'lulling'

8% of peds will re-offend. What about the 92% who won't?

8% will reoffend is a large number. The 92% who do not are still at increased risk to offend with no guarantees they will not.

Uh...that stat is for "non-violent" offenses which include drug and property crimes. The actual stat for repeat sexual offenses is 6.2 per cent.

Gee, it's six out out of a hundred rather than 8. My argument is destroyed.

I say law enforcement should have the right to inform people when a convicted pedophile has entered tehir neighbourhood,

Cool. We agree, done with you then.

Your stats are deceiving.

Out of the child molestors, 6.2% will reoffend. I don't give a damm if a grannie who didn't pay her parking tickets is not on the list, it is the former whom I advocate having the public informed of where he is as they reoffend.

you are advocating a registry with the capability to virtually destroy totally that person's life who has paid his or her debt to society.

You seem to discount the inhuman phsyce involved in the perpetrator's soul and equate it to somebody that has one. To commit an offence as heinious as this means the person has something missing upstairs. I don't care if they never get out of jail and, belive they hav and can never pay their debt to society. Hence, they shouldn't be living amongst us in the first place.

I think you are being unreasonable and overeacting and biased. For instance, what are the chances percent wise for a child anywhere in Canada to be molested by a new sexual offender one that is not on the registry compared to one who's name is on the registry?

Much more. Now, what are the odds if there are a hundred convicted and freed molestors and a hundred average people who have never commited a sexual crime. Which group do you think will commit a sexual crime first? (your answer must come in the form of a question)

[Leafless]

KrustyKidd

You wrote- " Much more. Now, what are the odds if their are a hundred freed molestors and a hundred average people who have never commited a sexual crime. Which group do you think will commit a sexual crime first."

You are areal card KrustyKidd!

Fact is there are 32-million people in Canada not 100.

How many of the 32-million who are some sort of sexual pervert or sexual predator who might molest your children have never been caught and punished by law?

LOTS I think new and ones keep cropping up! Nobody has accurate statistics on that one concerning the population as a whole regarding personal sexual thoughts and motivations that could lead to illegal sexual acts with other people. Fact is the world isn't a perfect place.

Get over your witch hunt with people who have paid their debt to society and just supervise your own children properly while their young and you shouldn't have any problem period.

[KrustyKidd]

Fact is the world isn't a perfect place.

Yes and one edge is the fact that 6.2 % of those who have done it will do it again and thus, the public would benifit by knowing where these peole are so they can make damm sure their kids don't ever go near them. That is a sound rationale similar to announcing a high collision area on the roads. Hardly a witch hunt. In a witch hunt, you simply throw everybody into a group and then begin to randomly pick out whomever you wish. Here, there are clear indications of high risk offenders.

[Wilber]

Get over your witch hunt with people who have paid their debt to society and just supervise your own children properly while their young and you shouldn't have any problem period.

Tell that to the parents of a victim, face to face. I don't think I would want your subsequent dental bill.

[theloniusfleabag]

With a lot of these percentages being bandies about, I have a question. For these 'repeat offenders', is the number applied to only those caught, tried and convicted?

Betsy,

or with an uncontrollable impulsive urge...will commit a crime in his own neighborhood,

That is basically what pedophilia is, an urge that cannot be denied, even when you know it is illegal/immoral and viewed by almost everyone else as abhorrent.

Just so everyone else is aware, pedophiles are know as 'skinners' in prison, and they generally have to get special treatment like being kept out of the general populace. Even the other convicts find them repugnant, and will beat them, sometimes to death, if they happen to get a hold of one.

Pretty much everyone is capable of masturbation, raping a child represents fulfilling a need far more dark and sinister than the sexual act itself.

What if we issued a caveat to the registry, saying "As of tomorrow, pedophiles will be castrated if caught, abduction as part of the crime is the death penalty", who could argue on behalf of the pedophiles if they are aware of the consequences?

I have to side with KrustyKidd on this one, penalties beyond what may seem even unreasonable regarding child molesters is OK by me.

[KrustyKidd]

Pretty much everyone is capable of masturbation, raping a child represents fulfilling a need far more dark and sinister than the sexual act itself.

Thank you Lonius, I was beggining to feel that my point was falling on deaf ears. These people are not common criminals, they are impulsive animals who will destroy anything to get their way. To even think that they have been rendered harmless or that the public should not be aware of the dark soul inside one of their neighbors is irresponsible.

[Leafless]

KrustyKidd

You wrote- " I was beginning to think my point was beginning to fall on deaf ears."

Be aware KrustyKidd loud stereo neighbours music has resulted in homicide.

So what do we do in this ONE case.

Start a registry to protect the lives of loud stereo users so they can all live in the same neighbourhood with no one else to disturb but themselves??

The simple fact is 'the world is not a perfect place' and you must accept that or society should have a right to discriminate and split into groups excluding all others according to that groups personal preferences.

What kind of functional society would you then have as this is what you are advocating....special preference for certain segments of society?

[KrustyKidd]

Be aware KrustyKidd loud stereo neighbours music has resulted in homicide.

Playing loud music is not the same as murdering a soul. I think that those who are playing loud music would be quickly identified and given a warning or ticket by the authorities, hence, no registry required and, if there were one, nobody would give a shit.

What kind of functional society would you then have as this is what you are advocating....special preference for certain segments of society?

Still don't get it huh? An ax murderer has more goodness in their hearts than these people. You are dealing with a concsience that may be darker than Hitler's. Not a casual gang banger or a speeder but a person that has put all social and ethical virtues behind the one thing they want more than anythng else - an orgasm. A ten second blitz of pleasure that they arre willing to sacrifice everything for - their freedom, soul and the life of a helpless human being.

And you don't wish to know where they are, even if they are more liekely to commit the offence again more than any other group of people.

My one argument has remained the same throughout this thread - have a registry so that parents can know who in their neighborhood is at high risk to molest their childrren and make sure their children know to avoid those people. Others, including yourself have bandied about witch hunt, equating it to stereos, against their rights, not necessary, diluting the 6.2 reoffending fact with the dumping in of every type of crime commited even though it changes not the 6.2 sex offender fact. I can see that you have no solid argument and are simply thrashing about hoping to hit one that might stick so, wonder, what is the one actual reason you are against this?

Edit:

The argument that some might use it to seek vengeance is moot as any system can be abused. In fact, these people abused the social system to begin with yet we don't go on a 'witch hunt' to shut down society simply because some use it for personal gain. Possibly, having such a registry would act as a further detterent. I doubt it though as people like this are so selfish that the repercussions of their actions are not likely to stop them. Neither will stern warnings to not reoffend. So, what to do to protect your kids if they are out and about amongst us? We have no mind reading ability so we go on past performance - those that offended and were released at at a 6.2% risk to reoffend. Much higher than the average person is to offend for the first time.

[Leafless]

Wilber

You wrote - " Tell that to the parents of a victim , face to face. I don't think I would want your subsequent dental bill."

There are a lot of victims in this country Wilber that are basically laughed at in a place that is suppose to administer justice called courts.

The legal system tells this to victims of various crimes every day and you know what...they legally get away with it and there is a severe penality for assaulting a judge.

BTW- How would you know what the parents of a victim would reply.

As far as I know most socialist forgive and forget. In any case I wouldn't be the only one requiring dental work if in fact I would be requiring any at all.

[Leafless]

KrustyKidd

You wrote- " So, what to do to protect your kids if they are out and about amongst us."

Who are you talking about ' wild carelss driving housewives' in minivans.

You also wrote- " What is the actual one reason you are against this."

I simply do not approve of outright character assassination, discrimination and induced potential vigilante justice by our legal system no matter what the reason after the legally prescribed sentence has been served.

If conditons such as this is attached to the sentence then I think it would be better to keep this type of offender incarcerated indefinately.

[betsy]

Well, if we're going to have a registry as part of the sentence (which endanger the lives of these ex-convicts), then just as they would if these convicts were still inside the prison, law enforcers should ensure that these felons are all protected. After all, basically...they're still "serving their sentences."

Btw, can the family of the slain men sue?

[Wilber]

Btw, can the family of the slain men sue?

Can the families of their victims sue? They may have paid their legal debt to society but what about their debt to their victims and their families?