Sex offender neighbors?

kittynh

Penultimate Amazing
K
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
22,634
well, I went to this site

http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/index.asp


and found out my neighbors are all "clean". Odd, since I know one of them is suspected in the disappearance of his girlfriend and her young daughter, but hey...he is only a suspect! Last thing I heard they called in a psychic to try to find the bodies, which means they are still missing...

But, one of my good friends in Keene NH has a sex offended living 2 doors down. His children are all grown, but it's a little creepy pulling up this mans photograph and file.

Is this a good thing or not?
 
I have a friend who manages property for private owners that rent out housing. He was told to use the national data of sex offenders to check the background of applicants. They told him that if these people have a record of violations to reject them for other reasons such as mistakes on the application. Afterall they can't legally refuse to rent based on that.
 
One moved in a few blocks from me. Parents around the area had a big protest on the streets. Most were retarded enough to bring their little kids with them. This is a guy who was convicted of molesting 14 kids and suspected of molesting over a 100 more and they were parading their little brats around right in front of his house. Just letting the guy do some window shopping from his living room.



As a Libertarian I don't have a problem with this type of thing like most do. I feel that this is just part of the punishment you get. Punishment doesn't have to just jail or a fine. If you don't want to be a registered sex offender with your picture on this website don't molest little kids.
 
Whoracle said:
As a Libertarian I don't have a problem with this type of thing like most do. I feel that this is just part of the punishment you get. Punishment doesn't have to just jail or a fine. If you don't want to be a registered sex offender with your picture on this website don't molest little kids.
Click to expand...

Sure, sentences don't have to be limited to fines or jail time. However, I don't understand the logic of tagging someone as a sex offender after they're free. It's all about recidivism: if they're still a real danger to others, why in God's name did you let them out of prison? And if they're not, then isn't it cruel and/or unusual to mark them with a scarlet "A" that will make it exceedingly difficult to lead a normal life? Couldn't you even make the argument that making it nearly impossible to live normally might even push some of them back toward crime?

Jeremy
 
They should think about that before they start molesting kids. When people commit crimes they know it's wrong. Why don't you rob a bank? Because you know you'd be traded for a pack of ciggarettes within 5 minutes if you went to jail.
 
Whoracle said:
They should think about that before they start molesting kids. When people commit crimes they know it's wrong. Why don't you rob a bank? Because you know you'd be traded for a pack of ciggarettes within 5 minutes if you went to jail.
Click to expand...

It's not about them, though. I have no problem with harsh punishments for people convicted of serious and/or violent crimes. In this case, the fact that there are apparently dangerous sex offenders walking around all our neighborhoods is a clear indicator that sentences are not severe enough. Keep them locked up until they are no longer a danger, I say -- even if that day never comes.

But if it does come, there's no need to provoke them further by making their life overly difficult. If someone has paid his debt to society and been rehabilitated, then he should get a fair shot at an honest life.

Jeremy
 
I never said it was the best thing to be doing with them. That's another discussion entirely. I don't have a problem with registering felons.
 
kittynh said:
well, I went to this site

http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/index.asp

and found out my neighbors are all "clean". Odd, since I know one of them is suspected in the disappearance of his girlfriend and her young daughter, but hey...he is only a suspect! Last thing I heard they called in a psychic to try to find the bodies, which means they are still missing...

But, one of my good friends in Keene NH has a sex offended living 2 doors down. His children are all grown, but it's a little creepy pulling up this mans photograph and file.

Is this a good thing or not?
Click to expand...

I remember hearing a news article stating that many offenders were using fake addresses because of this type of tracking. I can't seem to find any web articles on it though...
So... the map may not be accurate if that is the case.

You could perhaps usePlethysmography to test suspected offenders, if you're worried. :D
 
Whoracle said:
As a Libertarian I don't have a problem with this type of thing like most do. I feel that this is just part of the punishment you get. Punishment doesn't have to just jail or a fine. If you don't want to be a registered sex offender with your picture on this website don't molest little kids.
Click to expand...
I have quite a lot of problems with this. The ones that come to mind:

A punishment is not justified simply by the fact that one committed a crime. As a Libertarian, you should agree that that merely citing a law doesn't justify an action.
If this is done to someone convicted prior to these laws being passed, that's ex post facto.

"Sex offender" is an incredibly large category, encompassing everything from raping and killing a girl, to hiring a prostitute (which, as a Libertarian, is something else with which you should have a problem), or accidently touching someone's breast. They aren't all child molestors, and it doesn't all involve little kids (remember, if you have sex with a 17 yo, you can be convicted of a felony, even if you had no way of knowing she was 17). It is absurd to lump them all together.

Even non-sex offenses are now being included in this. One man was required to register for grabbing a girl's arm.

I find this just plain... icky is the only word I can think of. I find this complete disregard for human dignity to be much more worrisome than child molestors going unmonitored.

I can't help but feel that there's a definite slippery slope, as we get more and more used to "those people" being monitored, the category of "those people" will keep getting larger and larger.

This is sold as a way of increasing security, but it just makes people feel more insecure.

It is disturbingly easy to get someone falsely convicted of a sex offense.

Simply because something is a crime, that doesn't mean that it's anyone's business. I don't trust the government's judgment when it comes to what people have a "right" to know. Among the acts now or formerly sex offenses somewhere in the US:
-Having sex with someone under 14, even you're under 14, too.
-Engaging in homosexual intercourse.
-Engaging in premarital sex.
-Engaging in "unnatural" sex.
-Prostitution.
-Pornography.
-Incest.
-Interracial sex.
 
Art Vandelay said:

Even non-sex offenses are now being included in this. One man was required to register for grabbing a girl's arm.

I find this just plain... icky is the only word I can think of. I find this complete disregard for human dignity to be much more worrisome than child molestors going unmonitored.

I can't help but feel that there's a definite slippery slope, as we get more and more used to "those people" being monitored, the category of "those people" will keep getting larger and larger.

This is sold as a way of increasing security, but it just makes people feel more insecure.

It is disturbingly easy to get someone falsely convicted of a sex offense.

Simply because something is a crime, that doesn't mean that it's anyone's business. I don't trust the government's judgment when it comes to what people have a "right" to know. Among the acts now or formerly sex offenses somewhere in the US:
-Having sex with someone under 14, even you're under 14, too.
-Engaging in homosexual intercourse.
-Engaging in premarital sex.
-Engaging in "unnatural" sex.
-Prostitution.
-Pornography.
-Incest.
-Interracial sex.
Click to expand...

You left off urinating in public (how about using a popular, but well hidden tree in a dark corner of a fraternity house yard--sex offense). Yep, sex offense, according to a lot of police officers.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:
You left off urinating in public (how about using a popular, but well hidden tree in a dark corner of a fraternity house yard--sex offense). Yep, sex offense, according to a lot of police officers.

AS
Click to expand...

Obviously you've never worked with trees who have been the victim of this disgusting sex crime. Many wind up blaming themselves. Remember, it's about power, not peeing.
 
Re: Re: Sex offender neighbors?

peptoabysmal said:
You could perhaps usePlethysmography to test suspected offenders, if you're worried. :D
Click to expand...

I suppose it is just a coincidence there is an ad with a photo of a woman's tanned buttocks clad in a white bikini on the right side of the page that says "Curb Cravings". :p
 
AmateurScientist said:
You left off urinating in public (how about using a popular, but well hidden tree in a dark corner of a fraternity house yard--sex offense). Yep, sex offense, according to a lot of police officers.

AS
Click to expand...

This is one of the points that disturbs me - it seems sex offence has a very broad definition. For instance would I be worried about someone who staggering home fro m the pub wee'd up a lamppost? No of course not, but someone with multiple convictions for serious child abuse – of course yes.

Secondly if the person is still a significant risk that people in the community need to know about them – why on earth have they been released back into the community?

Thirdly, it seems to be that "sex" offenders that are singled out, for my personal level of risk I’d rather know if there is a repeat burglar or drunk driver living in my neighbourhood, so will we see this information being published?
 
Art Vandelay said:
"Sex offender" is an incredibly large category, encompassing everything from raping and killing a girl, to hiring a prostitute (which, as a Libertarian, is something else with which you should have a problem), or accidently touching someone's breast. They aren't all child molestors, and it doesn't all involve little kids (remember, if you have sex with a 17 yo, you can be convicted of a felony, even if you had no way of knowing she was 17). It is absurd to lump them all together.
Click to expand...

The sex offender registries I've looked at specified the offense. For example, from Michigan's sex offender registry:

14633114
Name: ALLEN/KENNETH/BERNARD/JR Sex: M Race: B Dob: 06/06/1977
Height: 504 Weight: 150 Hair: BLACK Eye: BROWN
Address: 134 RICHTON City: HIGHLAND PARK State: MI Zip: 48203
Offense: 750.520B1A Description: CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT 1ST DEGREE (PERSON UNDER 13)
Click to expand...

ETA: From Illionois' sex offender registry:

Name: ROBERTO BAHENA

Date of Birth: 4/17/1970

Height: 5 ft. 04 in.

Weight: 120 lbs.

Race: U

Sex: M

Address: 10 W JACKSON

City: CHICAGO

State: IL

Zip Code: 60604

Crimes:

AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE/VICTIM <13
Click to expand...

These are the creeps the public wants to know about.
 
I look at registering sex offenders much like I do the death penalty. In principle I can support both, but in practice it has too many significant problems for me to support it.

People are wrongly convicted so permanent sentences like death or registration go too far in those cases.

In the case of sex offenses, the crime is too broad to be meaningful. I came very close to being on that list myself for having sex with my wife. Actually at the time she was 15 and I had just turned 18 and we weren't married. Cop that busted us was very cool otherwise I would be SOL.

Even genuine child molesters may pose no danger to you or your kids. The guy that fondles his niece may have done it due to opportunity, ie family member left the niece with him, unsupervised, for hours. Assuming the neighborhood kids aren't allowed to remain unsupervised, alone, with other adults it probably isn't a risk simply having the person in the area. Not every child molester is a kidnapper. There needs to be a more selective process is determining who gets registered.
 
Streaking is also considered a sex crime in some states and so is getting caught with your loved one on the beach in a 'isolated' place... when no one is around....

Like Darat wrote, there's other crimes that could be singled out too - any of them considered by laws? What about serious assault?
 
Two quick comments: 1) if a person is *really* a sex offender, if they have raped a child or something, then that person simply cannot live in our society. I'm really sorry. I wish it wasn't true, but it is. Don't let him out on the street and say, "well it'll be ok so long as we know where he lives." It's not ok. There are more than 6 billion people on this planet. There is no room for rapists. Sorry.

2) The system, as it is set up now, is diluted with people who are not actually sex offenders, they are people who got drunk and had to pee, so they went on the street, etc. So, there are so many people in the system, that its usefulness is near zero.

Typical government program. But if you dare to suggest changing it, people will scream "waaaah! think of the children? Why do you hate the children?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom