stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
| reply to bokamba
Re: This Completely Misses The Point!
There is no research that shows that this law actually deters or protects. It was the brain child of the parents of Megan Kanka (sp) not criminal justice professionals. Conversely, there have been houses burned down because a person appears on the registry, people run out of town, and homes broken into and people assaulted. Not all the individuals wounded by the vigilantes of Megan's law were convicted sex offenders.
It is one thing to give the information to police. It is another to give it to every hot head in every neighborhood. Police are notoriously bad about prosecuting these thugs because they perceive former sex offenders as "scum" and sympathize with the thugs. To steal a quote from George Bush, "they have as much use for them as flees."
I am former Chair of the Prison and Corrections Section of the State Bar in my state. I've talked to a number of corrections professionals who think the law is a horrible idea, but people know what they know and no politician wants to be perceived as "pro sex offender" so these laws pass state legislatures with little debate.
Stopping ex-cons from reintergrating into society does not reduce crime. It encourages people to either live in a criminal subsculture, or go out and buy a new driver's license on the streets to hide so deep that the police lose track of them as well.
What we do about them is an important issue. Background checks for certain jobs/positions (e.g. day care, boy scouts, etc) are good. Police knowledge of who is in town can be helpful. What the California Attorney General has done is not a good idea. IMHO, it is disguised punishment (they cannot admit the real purpose because it would probably violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on ex post facto laws and could raise some cruel and/or unusual punishment laws).s
Laws passed by the Legislature to encourage thugs to roam the streets and dispense "justice" are a really bad idea and I fear that is precisely the real reason for this loaw. |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
|
Do you have kids?
If a sex offender moves into my neighborhood, I have a right to this information to better protect my family. I should also have access to details of the case, so I know if the sex offender was 17 and did the wild thing with a 15yr old girlfriend, or if it was a 50yr old guy molesting little kids. |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
·Verizon BroadbandA..
| Most states don't give you the information you seek and with all due respect, this individual also has the right not to have his house torched or to be beaten in the streets.
The other problem frankly is that there are a huge number of false accusations out there, (remember McMartin preschool). In a different generation, I'd have a prosecutor who had a case crumble give a deal say to fourth degree criminal sexual conduct with an agreement that my client receive diversion and no permenant record. Now, with Megan's laws we are seeing those things posted on the net.
It is a popular belief that innocents will not plead guilty. When a person is offered a sweat heart deal if you plea and are gambling on a potential life sentence if the jury believes a kid in the box, many people will take the deal.
How do we put all this on the web if you think that society has the right to do this renige on the deal in the first place (remember the promise for no record. It is functionally meaningless once you are posted on perverts.com). |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
·Verizon FIOS
|
Simple. Err on the side of giving people the information they need to better protect their family. And you come down HARD on people using the list to get "revenge" or whatever against those people.
False accusations are all over, but not too many get convicted.
I should know if a convicted child molester moves in next door, and be armed with the information I need when his son wants to invite my son over for a sleep-over. It is as simple as that. |
|
IgorKane
@140.192.x.x
 from:
PliotronX 
| For the love of this country, stop using the phrase "better protect my family". There are plenty of ways to do that without knowing where the sex offender lives. And if you think that this is crucial, explain to me why you aren't interested in knowing where convicted burglars live. With maps and photographs. Or anyone who has commited a number of other crimes that may have a negative impact on your family.
Somehow we assume that a person who vandalizes a bench in the park, or breaks your car window, or steals your TV is less dangerous than a 17 year old with "feelings" for a 15 year old. And at the same time we assume that all other "petty criminals" will recover and change their lives, but a person taking pictures of her kids is a criminal whose face may as well hang in the post office next to the infamous "top-10" list. Does anyone see a problem with this, or am I an immoral individual with no values or beliefs? |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
·Verizon BroadbandA..
| reply to mglunt
"False accusations are all over, but not too many get convicted."
The research from Innocence Projects on the subject demonstrate that there are more innocents being convicted than was ever imagined. The Department of Justice did a publication called convicted by juries exonerated by science that is really scary in this regard.
Here is a link to the publication:
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf
I understand what you are saying, but I think that we have different values (safety v. civil liberties). Peace!
Stu |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to IgorKane
I think the possibility of living next to a child molester is a little more serious than a vandal or a burgler. Ask anyone with a child, and I can guarentee you that they would rather have their TV stolen than have someone molest their child. That argument doesn't hold any water.
If I don't know the neighbor who moved in recently is a sex offender, I might let him watch my kid, or let my kid go over and play with his kids (if the state gave his back to him), etc. That is a real way to protect your family other than locking them in the house.
As for the 17yr old with a 15yr old... that is why I said earlier that they should list the offense... so that I know if it is just something minor like that or if it was a 50 yr old guy molesting a 5 yr old. |
|
IgorKane
@140.192.x.x
from:
PliotronX
| The argument holds water because at this point in time we have drawn a relatively arbitrary line of using somewhat extreme measures to protect children from one type of crime but not others (a TV was an example. If your children are sleeping at home or are watching it, do you think they don't have a chance of becoming victims in this situation?). You try to remove ambiguity by offering to list the offense. Good on the surface, terrible when we talk about privacy, especially when we come to a situation where any offense is "statutory" - offense against the law, not directly against an individual. Why would anyone consider stripping people of their privacy and dignity for a minor offense that would be irrelevant in a State with a different statute on the books is beyond me.
It is the government's responsiblity to protect the privacy of its citizens by filtering out certain offenses. You cannot err on the side of "more information" because we believe in privacy (therefore the answer "Simple" doesn't really cut it). This goes back to the whole "liberty/ temporary security" discussion that is very hard to argue with. States that filter by level of offense have it mostly right.
I say mostly because I think that as a society we have a bigger problem that cannot really be solved this way - this is reactive, and not preventive. Ultimately every criminal would have to be listed, because the argument of "protecting the family" can be taken to any extreme and is also hard to argue against. But no knee-jerk reaction has ever solved anyone's problems, only has put off the resposibility of dealing with it. |
|
JimmySask
join:2004-06-24
Regina, SK
| reply to mglunt
What goes along with that though? How much detail do you display? The woman busted for taking pictures of her child in the tub (which is a perfectly natural thing for most parents) is listed as someone in posession of child porn, with no detail as to why? Or to the opposite end, where the serious offender moves in down the block, the neighborhood hotheads get a dose of extreme detail, and decide to form a lynch mob? |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to IgorKane
Someone simply convicted of burglery isn't a child molester until they molest a child. If they are inside watching TV, then odds are the parents are in the house as well. ...and I wouldn't stand around waiting for the Police if something was happening to my child. Buglery and child molestation are not even close to being in the same category. Short of murder etc, molestation is the worst thing that could happen to a child.
The list has its faults, like the statutory situation, but fix that... don't remove the lists.
As far as I am concerned, the minute someone molests a child, his right to privacy on that matter goes out the window. I'd rather be armed with the information I need than be in the dark because you don't want to offend a child molester.
When you have kids, here is what I want you to do. Check out the list for your state, and move to the area with the highest concentration of sex offenders. Move in right next door to one of them. What? Doesn't sound like a good idea to you? Wouldn't put your family at risk like that? My point exactly. |
|
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA
| reply to JimmySask
said by JimmySask :What goes along with that though? How much detail do you display? The woman busted for taking pictures of her child in the tub (which is a perfectly natural thing for most parents) is listed as someone in posession of child porn, with no detail as to why? Or to the opposite end, where the serious offender moves in down the block, the neighborhood hotheads get a dose of extreme detail, and decide to form a lynch mob? Hear hear Jimmy a man or woman should be able to molest children without worrying about the community clamping down on his or her butt.
Sheesh what is this world coming to when you can't even grope kids without some parent taking offense.
[/sarcasm]
--
DO NOT DOWNLOAD FROM OPENWARES!»methlabs.org/howtotell/ |
|
