The Glade 4.0

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10 ... tions?lite

Not sure how I feel overall. Part of me goes with the "they did the crime and their time" and then move on. But the rate which sex offenders re-commit crimes has me thinking.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Depends on the level of the crime.

A dude that has one pic on his computer of a 17yo girl naked is in the same boat legally as the dude that raped a dozen 6 year olds or a pair of 15 year old kids that were sexting each other.

The "sex offender" laws in this country are wholly retarded.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I agree with Muse, the sex offender laws are broken. 17 year old who diddled his 16 year old girlfriend and got labelled a sex offender is no where near as much of a reason to be worried as some dude who had pre-teen porn he filmed and starred in on his computer.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Sexual harassment, which can be as simple as ogling a co-worker, can also get you labeled as a sex offender. It's an extreme edge case, but is possible. The point is, not all sex offenders are pedophiles, or even in the grey area where the victim is legal in one state but not in another. A high percentage of sex offenders commit their offense against other adults, and do not pose a threat to children.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

What is the point of prison and letting them out again if they have zero chance of rejoining society? Might as well leave them locked up with that mentality. I'm sure some folks would be all for that. "Out of sight, out of mind." Not very fair to the people who honestly want to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

That's the whole point of the prison system. If society doesn't think it works, then may as well just start executing folks (because leaving everyone locked up isn't feasible).

I have zero pity for repeat offenders, but every person deserves their second chance if the system granted it.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

Basically what it comes down to is those few sexual predators like the one in the Megan Kanka case. Those cases are exceedingly rare, but also exceedingly gruesome, and they tend to fall victim to the same sort of mentality that wants to ban guns after a mass shooting. Unfortunately, its a lot easier to argue in favor of guns than it is to argue in favor of sex offenders.

There are various therapies for those offenders with a compulsion as well, with effectiveness ranging from 15% to 61%.

Only a very small percentage of sex offenders have truly intractable paraphillias that would put them into the class of "sex offender" envisioned when most people think of the creepy guy in the van that says "Free candy" on the side.

The problem is basically one of moral panic. There's little evidence that Megan's Laws have had any meaningful effect, and they do have a cost to implement. As some here have mentioned, it is possible depending on the state and the law to be named a sex offender for being, say , 19 and nailing your 16 year old girlfriend (16 and 18 would be legit in any state I'm aware of). Now, many states have tiers of severity, and the Federal law has been amended since 2006 to include a tier system but even the lowest tier is quite onerous to be in.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Their city their rules.

Personally it seems overbearing especially given the variance in the "sex offender" scope of crimes

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I've always felt that if society feels that convicts are able to be let out then their rights and.freedoms need to be restored. If society doesn't think that the convicts should be able to fully rejoin society then the convicts might as well stay locked up.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Just being out of prison doesn't mean one is off the hook for a crime. Prison is just one type of punishment. That's why we have things like parole. A person on parole is out of prison, but they are still serving their prison term; it's cheaper to allow those criminals that appear to be parole candidates to get out of prison and have the opportunity to demonstrate that they should have some of their freedoms restored early. Same with probation; the person has some of the freedoms of a free person but not all, and that's the punishment for the crime.

The problem with sex offender registries isn't inherent in the fact that they extend beyond a prison term; it's the way they do it. The recidivism they are intended to counter is already very, very low, and for the truly sick worst-of-the-worst individuals, a registry can't really overcome their compulsion anyhow. On top of that, they are essentially an ostracism, like putting a scarlet "A" on someone. They go way beyond public openness in the justice system and allowing people to make their own decisions about who to associate with. Instead, the government slaps a label on someone, creates a public registry and sometimes sends around mailers to call attention to it, and then slaps all kinds of residency restrictions on sex offenders that force them to ostracize themselves regardless of whether the public wants it or not. The irony is that the laws are a response to public panic over "sex offenders" in the first place; the government took one anecdotal incident and ran with it to create the impression of "Sex offenders" as incurable sexual werewolves that prey on small children.

Now, if you mean once a person has completed all prescribed punishment, jail or not, then they ought to have their rights restored, then yes, up to a point I agree. I think all felons that are done with their punishment ought to be allowed to vote. I don't see why someone who, for example, kills his wife's lover in a jealous rage ought to be barred from, say, banking, working with children, or other trustworthy positions. I would object to violent, repeat offenders being allowed to have guns again without review, but their ought to be a review process for that by which the person can petition, under established parameters (not just the unrestricted discretion of the judge) to have guns again. I don't think that felons ought to be, by law, barred from private employment of any kind except at the discretion of the employer. There might be a very few exceptions to that; I don't think an espionage convict should be allowed to work in private jobs with access to classified information, for example.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think it's way overboard, especially the not allowed to have decorations or lights, now I could understand not being allowed to give out candy, but the not decorating thing, that's just ridiculous.

And yeah, the sex offender laws are broken, you could actually be labeled a sex offender just for wearing an outfit that was too revealing. Think really need to be based off the crime itself.

Sex offenders should not be allowed to deck their houses out like Gingerbread Houses or put up decorations that might entice children.

_________________

Define "Sex Offender".

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

See also: Arafys.

(kidding)

_________________

Theoretically... yeah.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I don't have a problem with imaginative punishments. If you want to tar and feather someone once a week, whatever.

The problem I have with the registry is that it's nothing more than a categorized list, that allows for changing punishments based on the whims of legislators. For example, there was that case in Florida, I believe, where the legislature basically said "if you're on the list you can't live within X distance of this huge list of facilities". Well, that basically pushed them out of the city.

Set whatever punishment you want, but you can't keep changing the rules.

I think that's a very good point Arathain. I wonder how far we would have to go before the courts start striking down these types of laws. I mean, what if we made a law that required all sex offenders to report to jail and spend the night there on Halloween? Surely that would violate due process. Where's the line?