Sex Offender registries

[nightwind]

I have noticed that while there are registries for sex offenders posted online, this seems to be the only type of crimes in which a registry is posted.

I have always had mixed feelings about such a registry, as I have heard that the false allegation rate in such cases is most likely quite high. And many posted offenders may be the result of false allegations of sexual abuse resulting during child custody disputes and false allegations of rape that sometimes arise from rejected, and angry past lovers, etc.

I then got to wondering, why there are not registries for other crimes such as drug trafficking, drunk driving, burglary, assault, embezzlement, etc. some of which may result in trauma, loss of life, property, etc. And what would be the effect if law enforcement had to notify everyone of these folks?

Would that be a good idea or a bad one? Any thoughts on this?

 

[Ed]

I think that there is a specific law that enables this (Megan's Law?). These people have been convicted, it is far beyond the allegation stage. You might look up some of the fun crimes that they have been convicted of.

 

[Jessica Blue]

I then got to wondering, why there are not registries for other crimes such as drug trafficking, drunk driving, burglary, assault, embezzlement, etc. some of which may result in trauma, loss of life, property, etc. And what would be the effect if law enforcement had to notify everyone of these folks?

Would that be a good idea or a bad one? Any thoughts on this?

It smacks of persecution. Why not just make them wear a big C for criminal on their coats?

If they've done their time, offenders should be given a chance to start again. Take away this chance by throwing their past crimes back at them and exposing them to possible ostracism, abuse and mistrust from the public and it could possibly make things worse for general society. The harder it is for offenders to fit back in, the likelier it is for them to reoffend.

 

[Chaos]

It smacks of persecution. Why not just make them wear a big C for criminal on their coats?

If they've done their time, offenders should be given a chance to start again. Take away this chance by throwing their past crimes back at them and exposing them to possible ostracism, abuse and mistrust from the public and it could possibly make things worse for general society. The harder it is for offenders to fit back in, the likelier it is for them to reoffend.

Of course, that does involve the risk of a "resozialized" child molester looking for another little girl right away.

In recent years, we´ve had relatively many cases of rape, child molestation in Germany etc. were the offender had already served jail time for previous assaults of the same kind - or had been given temporary leave from jail during his jail time without anyone checking wether or not he was likely to do such things again.

When a person has commited such a crime, the top priority must be to keep other, innocent people safe from him. He has chosen to become a criminal, so every restriction that is imposed on his life because of these crimes is entirely his own fault. He does not deserve any more sympathy in that respect than he has given his victims.
I do not advocate a "lock them up and throw away the keys" policy, but in some cases, with some crimes, we should not just forgive and forget once these people are free again.

 

[MoeFaux]

Oh dear, this is going to get me in more trouble.
I really hate the registered sex offender list. It just seems so wrong; the people have paid for thier crime, they've done the time. It's a violation of their rights to post their names everywhere. Man, it just seems wrong.
But....when I think about the Kid I used to babysit, well, if there were the slightest chance that someone would hurt her, I'd want to know about it and protect her.
Wow, it's a really tough call.
Has a sex offender given up the right to privacy? How about the Catholic priests that have been moved around the country? People should have known about that. But, where do you draw the line after a person has served their sentance. I don't know.

I think for everyhting else, it's wrong. That they have "John" TV that lists the names of men who have visited prostitues, well, that's wrong.
I guess my opinion is, is that if a person isn't harming anyone else, it's none of our business.

 

[pgwenthold]

Oh dear, this is going to get me in more trouble.
I really hate the registered sex offender list. It just seems so wrong; the people have paid for thier crime, they've done the time.

Suppose the "registration" was part of the original sentancing? E.g. "You will serve 5 years and have your name placed on a sex offender's list"?

We've had this discussion here before, and I will say what I said then: I have no problem with a sexual offender's list for people who are convicted after such a law would be passed. My objection is to creating a sexual offender list that includes people who were convicted and sentanced before the creation of the list. That, to me, strikes of double jeopardy, as they are given another punishment for the same offense.

In the same way, it is an ex post facto violation. Consider an analogous situation. A guy was arrested for cocaine in 1955, and got charged with drug possession, served a short one month jail sentance, and then was released. In 1985 or whenever, congress passes a law that says the mandatory sentance for possession of cocaine is 8 years in prison. We can't go back and grab the guy who served his sentance and no insist that he has to serve 8 years because that is the minimum penalty for his crime. Adding an additional restriction to his sentance _after the initial sentance was already imposed_ is similarly wrong.

And yes, sex offender registry is an additional punishment, because it is a stigmatization.

Short answer: registry list ok, as long as it applies to those convicted after the registry list was created.

 

[MoeFaux]

Suppose the "registration" was part of the original sentancing? E.g. "You will serve 5 years and have your name placed on a sex offender's list"?

We've had this discussion here before, and I will say what I said then: I have no problem with a sexual offender's list for people who are convicted after such a law would be passed. My objection is to creating a sexual offender list that includes people who were convicted and sentanced before the creation of the list. That, to me, strikes of double jeopardy, as they are given another punishment for the same offense.

In the same way, it is an ex post facto violation. Consider an analogous situation. A guy was arrested for cocaine in 1955, and got charged with drug possession, served a short one month jail sentance, and then was released. In 1985 or whenever, congress passes a law that says the mandatory sentance for possession of cocaine is 8 years in prison. We can't go back and grab the guy who served his sentance and no insist that he has to serve 8 years because that is the minimum penalty for his crime. Adding an additional restriction to his sentance _after the initial sentance was already imposed_ is similarly wrong.

And yes, sex offender registry is an additional punishment, because it is a stigmatization.

Short answer: registry list ok, as long as it applies to those convicted after the registry list was created.

This is a very well thought out answer. I like it very much.

I think you're right.

 

[Glory]

Sex offenders are different from other criminals. The rate of recidivism is very high amongst sex offenders and research has produced almost nothing by way of a cure for the illnesses that cause people to molest children and rape. These crimes are so abhorrent that we as a society are willing to curtail certain civil rights of individuals that may reoffend. And, we have every reason to believe that many of the registered offenders will reoffend. Also, other crimes are not motivated by recognized mental illnesses. Comparatively few burgalers feel an irresistable compulsion to break into buildings and steal things. Sex offenders are different and must be treated as such.

I do have some problems with Megan's Law, though. First and foremost, once an offender is released from prison, where is he supposed to go now that neighbors can band together and force him out of their area? Practically speaking, this law has caused a lot of trouble for law enforcement who have to figure out where to place released felons. No one wants these guys around and we can't keep most of them in prison for ever. It is too expensive and a violation of their rights. I do value the rights of the innocent over the rights of the guilty. It is a problem, though.

Megan's law also affects people who have made plea bargians. If someone pleas to a sex offense, registering with the database is part if the plea. That means that they are not necessarily guilty yet they are held up as guilty in front of the populace. This doesn't sit well with me. It leaves the door open for innocent people to be harrassed and denied a living because they didn't think that a trial would go their way. It also means that guilty people may refuse to plea. This can put the DA at somewhat of disadvantage. Convictions can be tough. The plea bargain can be usefull in ensuring that the guilty will do some time. Meagn's law makes any plea bargain less appealing to the alledged offender.

Ultimately, it is a tough call, however, the idea of applying a simmilar law to other criminals doesn't hold up. Some crimes are different and must be treated differently.

Glory

 

[nightwind]

Sex registries

So, are pedophiles such as the famous Mary K Letourneau, need monitoring all of their lives after release? Are people like this sick woman really beyond help?

 

[espritch]

And yes, sex offender registry is an additional punishment, because it is a stigmatization.

A sex offender registry is a statement of fact: these people are convicted sex offenders. If the truth stigmatizes them, that's their problem. Society's problem is to defend the victims - especially in the case of child molesters where the victims are those least able to defend themselves.

 

[Glory]

Re: Sex registries

So, are pedophiles such as the famous Mary K Letourneau, need monitoring all of their lives after release? Are people like this sick woman really beyond help?

Excellent questions. A lot of people are working on the answers but there is nothing definitive yet. One reason to assume that these people are beyond help is that assuming the opposite poses too high a risk. I don't know about Mary K. Letourneau though. She wasn't fondling kids in dark closets. She had a relationship that is considered inappropriate and was technically illegal. This is yet another illustration of how the registry can be misleading. There is no reason I know of to think that Ms. Letourneau poses an imminent threat to the neighborhood. Are there other registered sex offenders that are in simmilar situations?

Glory

 

[Nikk]

A sex offender registry is a statement of fact: these people are convicted sex offenders. If the truth stigmatizes them, that's their problem. Society's problem is to defend the victims - especially in the case of child molesters where the victims are those least able to defend themselves.

The big drawback of a registry is that it gives offenders a strong incentive to change their identity and go underground in order to avoid harassment. This makes police monitoring and any attempt at treatment impossible. It is therefore quite possible that a registry increases the risk to children.

Bear in mind that there are many very, very, very stupid people out there. In Britain a tabloid "outed" a number of sex offenders (pedophiles) and gave their addresses. Some of the addresses were wrong and innocent people had their houses attacked by rioters. One individual's house was attacked because he was known to be a pediatrician!

 

[WildCat]

It's easy to support sex offender registries in, say, a case of a 30 yr. old man molesting a 6 yr old child. But I've seen 19 yr. olds put on the list because they got their 16 yr. old girlfriend pregnant. I don't see the justice in that.

There should be some leeway about who goes on the lists.

 

[MoeFaux]

It's easy to support sex offender registries in, say, a case of a 30 yr. old man molesting a 6 yr old child. But I've seen 19 yr. olds put on the list because they got their 16 yr. old girlfriend pregnant. I don't see the justice in that.

There should be some leeway about who goes on the lists.

When my religious parents found out about my very ungodly relationship with my boyfriend of 3 years, they threatened to press charges, throw him in jail and the like. He was 18, I was 17. The whole "statutory rape" charge in instances like that is ludicrous.
I really don't know where to draw the line. I just hate that once someone has paid for their crime that they still have their personal freedoms taken away. I like the idea suggested earlier that for some folks, being added to the registry should be part of thier sentance, rather than just something that's thrown on later. A lot of peoples lives are ruined because of that list. I'd like to see statictics on it, on who commitied heinious sex crimes and who just got on it for seeing a prostitute or being with with their underage girlfriend.

 

[shanek]

He has chosen to become a criminal, so every restriction that is imposed on his life because of these crimes is entirely his own fault.

Really? So if we start torturing prisoners, it's entirely their own fault? Castrating them? Slowly killing them by boring through their eyes into their brain with a T-handle augur?

Our Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. If someone has served out whatever sentencing imposed upon them by the justice system, then that's that. They are citizens again, equal to every other citizen there. If there's a problem, it's due to the sentencing and the problem needs to be attacked from that angle.

He does not deserve any more sympathy in that respect than he has given his victims.

But he does deserve his rights.

 

[shanek]

Suppose the "registration" was part of the original sentancing? E.g. "You will serve 5 years and have your name placed on a sex offender's list"?

I'd be fine with that as long as a time period was added; e.g., "...for an additional five years" or even "...for the rest of your life." It should also be appealable.

Same goes for criminals and guns. "And you are forbidden to own or possess a firearm for an additional 3 years" or something like that. But it MUST be done through the justice system, where the person has an advocate who can argue against the sentencing and where the decision can be appealed.

 

[shanek]

These crimes are so abhorrent that we as a society are willing to curtail certain civil rights of individuals that may reoffend.

We are??? Must've missed a meeting...

This isn't something done by "society." It's something done by government. It's time people started realizing the difference between those two entities.

 

[Tony]

This isn't something done by "society." It's something done by government. It's time people started realizing the difference between those two entities.

But then you'd be asking them to think for themselves. How dare you!!!

 

[nightwind]

LeTourneau

So, it has been suggested that Ms. LeTourneaus case is different, and might should not be put on the list.
If Ms. LeTourneau, had of been a Mr. LeTourneau, should he have been put on the list?
So, if it is a woman who is the molester, it is a romance? If it is a man who is the molester, he is an evil pedofile, who should be put on the list?

Also according to statistics I have seen on reputable sites, the conviction rate of sex related crimes is about 85 % if you are guilty or not. These cases are mainly decided on emotion rather facts. Unless the person has an extremely competent lawyer who is experienced in these types of cases, they are going down, guilty or innocent, and when getting out, will then be put on the list.

 

[Suddenly]

I'd be fine with that as long as a time period was added; e.g., "...for an additional five years" or even "...for the rest of your life." It should also be appealable.

Same goes for criminals and guns. "And you are forbidden to own or possess a firearm for an additional 3 years" or something like that. But it MUST be done through the justice system, where the person has an advocate who can argue against the sentencing and where the decision can be appealed.

These things differ from state to state, but typically these sanctions do have a set time (or for life) and operate as mandatory penalties as a result of the underlying conviction. The conviction is appealable and can be attacked by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This is all done through the justice system.

Now, if you don't like mandatory penalties, that is a different topic.

You also may be referring to the trend of seeking mental health related confinement of sex offenders once they serve their sentence. Mental hygene is a very sticky political topic. On one hand, it can be abused and even sounds sinister. On the other hand there are seriously ill people that really need help. Where paedophiles fall in this regard seems a tough question, as some of them do suffer from an illness that makes them a danger to others. However, since they were arrested and served the sentence for a crime based on their behaviour, keeping them confined longer reeks of dirty pool.