Sex Offender Hysteria

Illinois Public Radio has an astounding story on sex offenders who have completed their sentences but are still behind bars because they can’t find a place to live. How hard can it be to find a place to live? Sex offenders in Illinois cannot live close to:

  • Elementary and High Schools
  • Day Care Centers
  • Public Parks
  • Pools
  • Libraries
  • Malls

In addition, they can’t live in a house with a minor. One convicted offender could not return to his mother’s house because his sister was 17 (his conviction did not involve the sister). Sex offenders also cannot live in houses with devices that can access the internet including computers, smartphones and televisions.

Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders have low rates of recidivism relative to many other crimes. It’s almost impossible, however, to argue against a law that is supposed to protect the public from sex offenders. What kind of monster could argue against a law preventing a convicted sex offender from living near a day care center? And who would want a pervert at the mall? Add up every semi-reasonable law, however, and the result is unreasonable and unconscionable. Many people remain in prison for years after their sentences are complete because they cannot find a place to live that satisfies all of the restrictions. Madness.

Comments

Why, in Germany we keep them behind bars even after they have completed their sentence, in many cases until they die. It's perfectly legal, called Sicherheitsverwahrung.

And it is a disgusting misapplication of the law, being ex post facto. Though technically, they are no longer imprisoned, they are simply being held in a psychiatric facility which the inmate is not allowed to leave. That technical distinction is absolutely meaningless, of course, and is simply a way to avoid confronting the fact that a prisoner's court ordered sentence has been extended until they die, an extension that is not actually based on criminal law..

(As a note, however - these abhorrent German rules only apply to convicted pedophiles, and not to all the myriad categories of 'sex offender' found in the U.S. For example, public urination in the U.S. can get you placed on a sex offender list - 'Juan Matamoros was arrested for public urination in Massachusetts in 1986. And that branded him a sex offender to this day in Florida, which lists his crime as “Sex Offense, Other State (Open and Gross Lewd & Lascivious Behavior—2 Counts).”

In 2007, Matamoros had to move his family because he was not allowed to live within 2,500 feet of a city park, and his registry entry now lists him as “transient.”' https://www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/you-might-be-sex-offender-and-not-know-it )

That is only done when the Sicherheitsverwahrung is ordered at the time of sentencing (as the European High Court has ruled, rightly, that post sentence Sicherheitsverwahrung is a violation of human rights). It applies to the most severe offenders with truly horrendous criminal histories and who exhibit a mental abnormality. In the US, a person who committed crimes like these people would get life in prison or thousands of years in prison as their criminal sentence, making Sicherheitsverwahrung or anything of the sort moot.

It has NOTHING to do with not releasing someone who has served their criminal sentence (as it is part thereof) who cannot find a place to live in a society that makes residing in most of residential real estate a criminal offense (such a concept, or a naming-and-shaming web site, is completely foreign in Germany).

Stop spreading misinformation.

Apart from those other cases where the Germans keep them in a different sort of institution. Usually for life. The European Parliament for instance:

Cohn-Bendit published a number of provocative statements regarding "sex with children" in the 1970s and early 1980s, notably in his 1975 book The Great Bazaar (Der grosse Basar) where he describes erotic encounters with five-year-olds in his time as a teacher in an anti-authoritarian kindergarten.

It is now fairly common in the English-speaking world to keep sex offenders deemed irredeemable in some sort of life-long administration detention. Including the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_confinement

Mr. Cohn-Bendit's (self-reported) exploits have been discussed ad nauseum and he is hardly "kept" in the European Parliament. But funny, funny....

I fail to see your second point.... it was also fairly common in the English-speaking world to, say, keep slaves. Or burn those accused on "convicted" of witchcraft. Something being common does not make it right. Even if it is "legal". Especially when said "legality" is based on the now completely disproven claim of "frightening and high" recidivism.

Ad nauseum? So you are basically taking the Clintonian position that it is time to "move on"? The fact that the German tax payers have been giving a generous salary and even more generous pension to a self-confessed politically radical pedophile is not important? The German tax payers sure are nice people. Or perhaps you mean that because he confessed it, it must not be true?

The Greens had - and largely continue to deny - a pedophile problem. Even worse than the British Labour Party.

I am not saying it is right. I am just pointing out that pretty much everyone has thrown Civil liberties out the window in the on-going Witch hunt that is the Satanic Sex Offense Craze. The idea that in Britain a minister could impose a life-long prison term by signing a piece of paper - without any hearing at all - as they can in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well - would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago. Although I think that Canada actually requires a court decision.

Yes it is time to move on, since the allegations are well beyond the statute of limitations. Not a fan of C-B, but the German voter can express their displeasure at the voting booth. Says this German voter, tax payer and, yes, generally nice person.

Back to the issue at hand... he is not "kept" anywhere like the people in the original post. Your attempt at wit fails miserably. Your hysteria about decades old allegation hits the mark.

The allegations did not passively move themselves beyond the statute of limitations. The German state made the deliberate and conscious decision not to prosecute child abuse when one of their elite did it. The German voters can express their displeasure. If they are ever asked or told. The German system is set up to minimize their chances of both.

He was not kept someone like those others. Those others were kept in prison. Not in Parliament. They were not giving millions of dollars as a reward for child sexual abuse (and some very odd behavior involving the Baader Meinhoff Gang). The point is that is the point. We have a choice. Perhaps the American system goes too far. But it is infinitely better than the German system of letting the politically powerful get away with serial child abuse. The French system too:

Mitterrand's autobiographical novel The Bad Life (French: La mauvaise vie) was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting the male brothels of Bangkok, and writes, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide."

That you do not get it is the point, or at least the problem.

We caught the perp. He gave us a full self-report.

WAIT

Germany? I assumed you were talking about civil commitment in the US.
e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/civil-commitment-sex-offenders

If they don't like being behind bars, maybe they should not commit crimes... The wages of crime is punishment.

No shit sherlock.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-viii

There is no reason to interpret that amendment as banning the States from taking reasonable measures to protect the populace from aggression. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Alex posts about excessive punishment, you post a comment "wages of crime is punishment" (duh), I inform you about the bill of rights and excessive punishment. Nobody here saying there should not be "reasonable measures". Slow down. Think.

"How hard can it be to find a place to live? Sex offenders in Illinois cannot live close to:

Elementary and High Schools
Day Care Centers
Public Parks
Pools
Libraries
Malls
In addition, they can’t live in a house with a minor. One convicted offender could not return to his mother’s house because his sister was 17 (his conviction did not involve the sister). "

"The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting."

Cry me a river. Had SCOTUS not stuck its nose where it doesn't belong in Kennedy v. Louisiana, some of those sex offenders wouldn't be around anymore (Scalia: "the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read 'no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.' But that is what the majority opinion said, and there is no reason to believe that absence of a national consensus would provoke second thoughts., at least some of them wouldn't be around").

These days all felons live similar lives. Used to be before modern technology a person who wanted to go straight could find a place to start over and go straight. Now the can't find a place to rent or get a job,any job. This condition IS partially responsible for high recidivism rates.Do people feel after these days with all the Hester Primm coming Dawn.Ha

Very untrue.
Felons are common in the trades( usually drugs )

Fishing, logging, manufacturing, warehousing also.

There are plenty of jobs for felons. Child molesters, not so much. But, human actions have consequences. Perhaps these unfortunates can be settled in upper income neighborhoods were people are more sensitive and understanding.

Sex offenders can't live in a house with a minor? Then how are they expected to raise their children?

They aren't. Child Protective Services will swoop in and take children out of a home for a far less serious offense than that.

Nope. Perfectly legal for a child rapist in Illinois to live with his child.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean CPS won't take the kids. CPS can take the kids if the agent feels the children are under any potential threat.

It does mean the child rapist could try to sue to get the back. However, if a child rapist is still under parole or state supervision, it's virtually certain that the terms of the parole include not being in a house with children.

Also, this is from NY, but I suspect it's just as applicable in Illinois:

"Family Law Attorney - It is generally considered child neglect to expose them to a sex offender, especially by living with one. If he is a convicted sex offender, he probably has rules against living with children, too. If reported to child protective services, they would likely intervene unless the mother moved the offender out and agreed to keep him away from the children."

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-my-children-live-in-a-home-with-a-sex-offender-964938.html

It's not true, of course. Alex (and Tyler, for that matter) is... not the most thorough researcher before posting here.

This is truly an abysmal situation. It wouldn't be so bad but we've lowered the bar on sex offender down.

Public urination can result in being a registered sex offender in several states.

As noted here - https://www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/you-might-be-sex-offender-and-not-know-it

This is really the main problem. There simply has to be differences in punishment and labeling of rapists, pedophiles, and the 'crimes' of public urination or having sex with your 16 year old girlfriend when you are 18. Perhaps if the true sex offenders (rapists, pedophiles) were forced to be castrated (chemically), we could drop all the restrictions on living arrangements.

Even in the case of an older adult having consensual sex with a 16+ minor, the first offense ought to be a suspended sentence. The sex offender roles should be reserved for non-consensual or repeat offenders. Wrecking somebodies life over one incident with little to no actual harm is a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

Why on earth should a 16 year old not have consensual sex with anyone they please? Why should this be any crime? In every state 14 year olds are routinely prosecuted and sentenced as adults....

I'm certainly not opposed to that.

...and 16 year olds may not legally purchase alcohol or tobacco, so the comparison is flawed. Girls are going to be the vast majority of 16 year olds preyed upon by older men.

@Anon7 - you say preyed upon - Grandma and Grandpa said the "love of my life" and a long and productive relationship.

Pssst..... 16 year olds CAN say "no". I am almost certain.

You're willfully ignorant if you deny the nontrivial number of men (Roy Moore comes to mind) who prey on teenage girls.

@Anon7 - okay, let's assume these teenage girls are always preyed upon and cannot be expected to decline in unforced sexual conduct (while you better believe they are held responsible for every single other decision they make, easily as an adult, but fine).

Is "preying" on such a person - absent any force, mind you - to get them to engage in biologically appropriate conduct a crime so much worse that the person convicted thereof will be forced to register as a sex offender (usually for life) and be subject to this catalog of draconian restrictions, when the person who, say, sells drugs to the same teenage girl or say, simply beats them into a bloody mush, does not have to? Where is the logic in that?

In Europe age on consent is usually 14 or 15. No one is preying even on those girls, let alone 16 years old. They are biologically adults.

There are states where 16 is the age of consent

Right. It would also be a felony for someone underage to take a picture of themselves. No victims, except victims of the state. Given a bit of historical context, it wasn't too long ago marrying a 12 year old was celebrated. The entire urbanized area of a country is a strip mall. But what I really think people are losing sight of is the fact that being raped would not have been in the top 100 worst things to happen on a day while attending school. Probably the real reason they don't want anyone near one is to monopolize torture.

That said, much of Alaska is several hundred miles from any person, structure, or even park so it seems there should be places pretty easy to find.

Alex, I feel like this statement "Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders have low rates of recidivism " is part of the problem.

Treating "sex offenders" as a homogeneous group causes us as a society to over punish some offenders while likely letting other sex offenders (a minority) back out under not enough supervision. The devil really is in the details and it would be best to move past the one-size-fits-all thinking about these people.

Western culture is sexually repressed and hence they demonize excessively sexual deviations. A man having sex with a 16 year old is regarded as a crime so severe that it results in the complete destruction of the man's life. Even though it's part of man's biology to be attracted to 16 year olds. Clearly, this is a really f*cked up culture that is in denial of biology. Similar to the progressives' denial of biological origins of wage differences between the genders.

"Western culture is sexually repressed and hence they demonize excessively sexual deviations."

Well 16 is the age of consent in a good many areas. But even saying that, I wouldn't call this "western culture" or at least I don't know how widespread the issue is. In America, this has developed over the last 30 years. For most of American history a man having voluntary sex with a 15 year old would either be forced to marry her or be publicly shamed or potentially run out of town. A public official (usually a school teacher) might lose their job, but that probably only really occurred if it was a repeated occurrence.

Hardly..... in some states a school teacher having a relationship with an 18 year old student will be criminally convicted and forced to register as a sex offender. In Illinois a school teacher having a relationship with a 17 and 364 day old willing student will be labeled a "sexual predator" for life.

That's a different aspect. Those would be a case of a person with authority over someone else abusing them. It's illegal for psychologists to have sex with adult patients, it's illegal for public school teachers to have sex with students, prison guards to have sex with inmates, etc. I don't think they should be sex offenders. But they should lose their license and/or be fired.

"A man having sex with a 16 year old is regarded as a crime": oh balls. UK 16, France 15, Italy 14, etc, etc.

Didn't France just have a debate on the introduction of an age of consent with one minister suggesting it should be 13?

In Germany the age of consent is the same as the age of criminal culpability. Makes sense. A person old enough to be held responsible for a crime is old enough to decide whether or not to have sex, absent any financial, distress or authority situations.

btw - that is criminal culpability, period. None of that prosecuting children as adults when it pleases the government....

Yes, unless something has been passed in the last week, France had no such age limit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#France

The age of consent in France is 15, as specified by Article 227-25 of the Penal Code, which reads: "The fact of the commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a minor under fifteen years of age is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000."

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=B2410A60B956150F3AA2051DEC9E931D.tpdila22v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006418101&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&dateTexte=20160306

Le fait, par un majeur, d'exercer sans violence, contrainte, menace ni surprise une atteinte sexuelle sur la personne d'un mineur de quinze ans est puni de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 75 000 euros d'amende.

It's not going to get any better: http://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-lawmaker-wants-to-outlaw-marriage-for-those-younger-than/article_b19f85aa-7c14-51ff-921c-3c190617f17b.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-2

Surest way to win an election in a society where post-Puritan sexual hysteria reigns is call for forever punishment for deviants, however they're defined. Just a segment of the growing number of felons, who will never pass a background check, be able to rent an apartment or get a job, they will form a new class of untouchables. Businesses are already serving and employing these people. That's the inevitable future.

But in sexually progressive Alabama, they're putting that man in the Senate! (But maybe that's because the US Capitol is far from malls, not counting the national mall.)

Halfway houses are cheaper than prison.

According to the article, sex offenders are not allowed to live in halfway houses. As I said, madness.

Rather than half-way houses, a remote facility like a secular monastery, with lifetime residence. Much cheaper for the state than prison, and considerably less punitive. Easy to control access, no internet, etc.

Another option is to admit that forcible rape and pedophilia are actually capital crimes, and should receive capital punishment.

I was thinking the other day that the State of California kept Charles Manson in prison for 50 years. At $50K a year, that's a quite a lot of resources that the State chose to spend on virtue signaling.

Meh, California has an endless bucket of tax payer money, don't you know.

Why not do this for all criminals? Ship them off to a desert camp or stick a needle in their arms. Would save a lot of money, eh?

And forcible rape IS not a capital crime, per SCOTUS in Kennedy in Louisiana. Pedophilia is not even a crime. Sheeeesh....

We shouldn't allow former thiefs to live near goods!

Alex is just soft on crime.

I say if someone is convicted of a mind crime, he shouldn't be let anywhere near ideas.

Malls?

Sly, Alex. Sly.

There are things about this that just don't jive with me. We hear these stories about people having consensual sex with minors (that is, a 30-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old) and it destroying there lives. I had a personal interest in this subject a few years back so I looked up every sex offender in the registry in my town. About 300 of them. NONE of them fit this description. Not one. They all seemed like pretty bad people to me.

Hmmm, kudos to you. I wonder if this is an example of cherry picked examples?

M'yes, I wouldn't be surprised if like the guy-serving-20-years-in-prison-just-cuz-he-smoked-pot meme it's mostly bullshit.

Just reporting what I saw on my local sex offender list. No statutory rape. Not one in 300. Mostly violent people.

Fourth Amendment violation. Straight up.

And in Illinois. What a surprise. /snark

It would seem, but maybe no lawyer wants to fight the case up to the Supreme Court

They already fought the indefinite incarceration beyond sentencing to SCOTUS and lost

There has to be more to this. Someone convicted of having consensual sex with a 15 year old can never have internet?

According to the Illinois state site, sexual offenders are on the list for 10 years, but sexual predators are on it for life. I would guess that it's a 10 year ban. (presumably there's a work exception.)

http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/faq.cfm?CFID=49187076&CFTOKEN=ea069e13054db862-04A9BB47-9DA2-9B98-54B1DE021DEA40EC&jsessionid=ec30fca4affa6fab079e697712355be6c443#register

Oh and this:

"Illinois laws says a person who commits a sex offense on or after January 1, 2010 and is convicted of this offense on or after January 1, 2010 must refrain from accessing or using a social networking website while on probation, parole or mandatory supervised release."

That doesn't seem to ban internet usage in general.

I skimmed that website also. The restrictions are great, but I'm not sure if the article Alex linked to give a completely honest picture.

Yes, thank you for the link - I didn't find it myself but it is interesting to see how sloppy the reporting was. In particular, the following two FAQs seem at odds with the report. But since there is a class action lawsuit pending, I'm sure I don't understand what the statutes really say (not that this makes the policies much less absurd than they truly are):

Is it a violation of Illinois law for a sex offender to be on a social networking website such as Facebook or MySpace?

Illinois laws says a person who commits a sex offense on or after January 1, 2010 and is convicted of this offense on or after January 1, 2010 must refrain from accessing or using a social networking website while on probation, parole or mandatory supervised release.

Can a child sex offender live with children?

There are no Illinois laws which prohibit a child sex offender from being around children, unless it is at a park, school, or any location designed exclusively for people under the age of 18.

Can a child sex offender live with children?

If they're his own, yes

@Tyler Cowen "And who would want a pervert at the mall?"

In two weeks Alabama voters will tell us.

The only mall they want him by is the national mall!!!

Well it does make Alabama a little safer and at least he'll be among like company. I guess you could consider this a work release program.

Sounds like the old joke where the average IQ of both places goes up.

Alabama gets to vote on whether Anthony Weiner can go to the mall?

Anthony Weiner can go to the mall. Carlos Danger cannot go to the mall.

Sorry about misattributing this post to Tyler.

Since this is an Alex post let me propose that sex offenders be considered sex addicts and treat them with drugs. Then the FDA can be in charge of managing sex offenders. :-)

The problems with Americans is that the simple mention of sex, in any context other than purely biological/medical, makes them hysterical. Too bad, because otherwise they are very nice people in general. But this problem with sex make them unbearable.

These are almost always violent offenders. In my town of 200,000, there is not one person on the sex offender registry that is there for statutory rape. The list is filled with people whose victims are under 10 years old. Wether or not they can go to the mall is not high on my list of priorities.

Of the over 860,000 registered sex offenders, about 20-25% landed on the list when THEY were children themselves. As young as 10.

Maybe when you are someone close to you has their basic rights, such as going to the mall, curtailed, this may become of greater interest to you. Afterall... 1 out of every 150 adult males in America is a registered sex offender.

*you OR someone*

https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/01/why-i-threw-a-sex-offender-bru

https://reason.com/archives/2017/11/01/scarlet-letter-passports-are-unjust-and

https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/15/young-man-arrested-for-underage-sex-was

https://reason.com/archives/2017/09/27/scotus-shouldnt-let-fear-of-sex-offender

I am surprised that they have low rates of recidivism. Naively I would expect the opposite, since you can't "cure" a gay person by putting them in jail. Are the public urinators bringing down the average of the pedos or something?

As an aside, banning people from the Internet has always seemed to me a cruel and unusual punishment. In my head I understand that the idea is to prevent them from using it to contact children, but it sounds horrible.

No, it's reflective of real pedos. You can't cure the attraction but you sure can deter them from acting on it. If society punished heterosexual sex the way it punishes pedophilia, would you do it? I wouldn't.

Would you also stop looking for porn? Or would you still do it and just try to hide it better, particularly if you're the type of person to get caught the first time?

In Palm Beach County FL, there is a village for sex offenders. It is way out west in reclaimed swamp land, and was once a village for migrant sugar cane cutters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Village_(community)

I'm not sure what prompted Cowen to post his blog. In any case, if there is a libertarian case to be made for forgiving sex offenders, it's the 18, 19, 20 year old kid who has consensual sex with a minor who is 16 or 17. Yes, it's a crime even with the minor's consent (because minors can't give consent). Where I reside there's a web site to locate where sex offenders reside, and that includes the kind of sex offenders I have described. Of course, this isn't very different from conflating rape with boorish behavior, or Weinstein with George H.W. Bush. My view is that we live in a highly sexualized society, so it's not surprising that men act like boors. That's not to defend boors but to at least provide an explanation why men and women at times act like dogs. I'd like to believe that we come out of this period of moral outrage over boorish behavior of men with both better behavior of men and less outrage, but I suspect neither.

I don’t know why this is here either. I looked at every person on the register in my community. Over 300. Not one statutory rape. Not one public urination. A lot of crimes against kids under 10 though. Why do I care much if they can’t have Facebook? I encourage everyone to look at the list in there town themselves.

Cannot say anything about your list of fellow citizens deserving extreme scrutiny (maybe they could be forced to wear some identifying mark in public, right?), but this part about public urination is worth repeating - 'Juan Matamoros was arrested for public urination in Massachusetts in 1986. And that branded him a sex offender to this day in Florida, which lists his crime as “Sex Offense, Other State (Open and Gross Lewd & Lascivious Behavior—2 Counts).”' He was not convicted of this crime in Florida, yet it was simply enough to move to Florida, apparently one or two decades after that 'sex crime,' to be put on Florida's sex offender list. Where, one assumes, he will remain for the rest of his life.

And indeed, Cowen didn't post this on his blog. Excellent reading comprehension as always, ray.

And really, how many frequent readers of this blog actually needed to read who it was by to know that it was an Alex post?

I have long thought that Czarist Russia had A very sound policy in exile to Siberia. Drunk drivers don't need to be in costly jails, exile them somewhere with no cars. Make child molesters to go a prison colony with other Adult males. We could use the Brooks Range in Alaska, or some of the Aleutian Islands. We could also leads land from Russia for exile colonies. No need for walls or fences, let guys take of whenever they feel like it. Offer nearby residents a bounty for the heads.

I call Polanski ;-) Always disliked all of his defenders in Hollywood and the Democratic Party.

Didn't work out very well for Czarist Russia, as can be seen in the biographies of the Bolshevik leaders. They commonly escaped from exile.

In Alaska a popular method for females to retaliate against uncooperative mates is to accuse them of molesting their own very young children. Ordinarily this can't be proven, but on the basis of the woman's testimony the father goes to the slammer and is a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. This has little effect on his daily life post-incarceration but is a factor in dealings with the bureaucratic state.

What's with this "in Alaska?" I lived there for 12 years and never noticed this was an Alaska trait. I'm sure you have an anecdote that this happened, but I'd love to see the evidence that this occurs regularly or is more common in Alaska than elsewhere.

I see no reason not to do this for all criminals. 65 million Americans have a criminal record. Shipping them all off to Alaska would definitely free up space in the warmer states, drive down housing prices, alleviate traffic, etc. I am all for this (until I catch a criminal conviction, of course :)

The people sent to Siberia were sent to prison camps-- they weren't just running around loose.

"Sure, this 'sex offense'* was neither violent nor remotely related to children, but, you know, we write laws; we can't be bothered to think about them or be nuanced. We have votes to buy with hysteria!"

(* In some cases, not even related to sex, depending on the state and the offense.)

It's just possible that it's harder to catch sex offenders than, say, bank robbers. I would not rely on any stats that suggested a low recividism rate.

As mentioned in the comments above, the biggest problem is that we've expanded the definition of sex offender so dramatically. Otherwise, I'm fine with draconian punishments and am more troubled by libertarians conspiring with liberals to flood society with dangerous criminals. Pedophiles and drug dealers can live on the moon, for all I care, just not near my family.

"I would not rely on any stats that suggested a low recividism rate." - On what would you prefer to rely, then?

Not that I'm him, but I assume he means the stats would be much higher if you just included people who were actual pedophiles and serial rapists and such, and that including people who urinate in public waters down the rate

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Registered Sex Offender is clearly defined - without any ambiguity whatsoever. So the recidivism rate is for the entire group. And it is low - as every single study would suggest.

Thanks for trying. Still interested in what he means. And, of course, the restrictions have to do with public, child centric uses like schools, parks, daycares, etc. Not keeping this group of ex-offenders living far away from the homes of people like Judah Benjamin Hur. Because that would amount to banishment. Thanks to Judah Benjamin Hur for making clear that that is really what it is.

'Registered Sex Offender is clearly defined – without any ambiguity whatsoever. '

Well, per state that is. In 44 states, being cited for public urination will not put you on a sex offender list. Move to Florida a couple of decades after that citation, you are now placed on Florida's clearly defined list. As noted repeatedly.

I was also trying to raise two separate issues. (1) Rapists and child molesters rarely get caught. This is obvious based on countless surveys of victims. (2) We've defined sex offender so broadly that a lot of people are receiving excessive punishments. That needs to stop. For example, a couple (probably on drugs) had sex at a beach in Florida a year or two ago. They should be punished with some jail time, but being branded sex offenders for life is truly a "cruel and unusual" punishment.

'They should be punished with some jail time'

Why? And that is meant seriously, by the way. Handing them a fine for inappropriate behavior in public would seem to be more than adequate, assuming that simply asking them to stop would be insufficient.

The knowledge that only a microscopic percentage of child molesters and rapists get caught. I also don't care if rapists or child molesters rot in jail. I'd hang them on the spot, if it were up to me.

The main problem is that we cast the net so wide that a lot of comparatively minor offenders are treated extremely harshly.

clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 8:51 am
‘They should be punished with some jail time’

Why? And that is meant seriously, by the way. Handing them a fine for inappropriate behavior in public would seem to be more than adequate, assuming that simply asking them to stop would be insufficient.
--------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB62oaOeqR0

Maybe we can just go the Australia route. Send all these untouchables to some sort of island for sex offenders. I think Jeffrey Epstein was working on this idea. Next time Bill Clinton and Trump fly out on Epstein's Lolita express, just don't let them back in.

People are freaked out by the image of a slobbering sexual predator making a highly unlikely attack on a loved one. At the same time, they're relatively oblivious to the much more likely incidence of a serious automobile accident in which the same loved one might be maimed or killed. Evidently it's more traumatic to have a stranger grope their rear than initiate a head-on collision. People that cause car accidents aren't required to register for the rest of their lives and are allowed to live near freeways. So they're OK with their daughter Meghan texting while tooling around town in the Miata as long as she doesn't hang around at the mall where today's version of Roy Moore is working his magic. Every 15 year-old girl I've ever met is easily persuaded by a thirty-something roue' they've never met before to engage in something or other. At least the one's that have never watched television or been to a movie.

Typical American teen-age girl: https://youtu.be/Ab0umNGzhVk

And I know a (about 28 year old) guy who is a sex offender because he perused a 16 year old girl, seems like that is not pedophilia and should be a lesser crime.

It’s almost impossible, however, to argue against a law that is supposed to protect the public from sex offenders. What kind of monster could argue against a law preventing a convicted sex offender from living near a day care center?

Why isn't it the day care center's responsibility to keep sex offenders away? Presumably, the children should be behind a fence and be under supervision so they can't just wander off, right? And if the sex offender is going to abduct a child, they are probably going to use a car, and not lure one away from an unprotected day care with pieces of gingerbread. There all sorts of systems that day cares can use to make sure that random passing sex offenders don't kidnap them. The onus is on them, not the rest of the world.

I am so so happy today, I have been suffering from hepatitis b for the past 2years now, i have spent a lot on drugs and herbs which has all proved abortive, i have tried all means in life to become hepatitis b negative, but there was no answer until i found MED LAB an online research i contacted them and and they sent me medication and the prescription on how to use it, i am now Hepatitis b Negative, i am very very happy, thanks to MED LAB for helping my life come back newly again without any form of crisis, i promise to tell your name and good deeds to the whole world, Kindly contact MED LAB for cure regarding, HIV, Herpes, Cancer and other deadly diseases. contact via: whatsapp +27619522614

I was diagnosed with HepB 3 months ago and was devastated by the news. I have been ill and sore for over 10 years, with no one being able to figure out what was wrong with me. It was always written off as a virus or infection. Then 2 years ago the severe muscle cramps started. I had them from scalp to toes, and it was when they ran the full spectrum of tests to figure the cramps out, that they discovered the HepB along with severe Vitamin D deficiency, which I link to the HepB. I was so tired and nauseous and in constant pain. I am just sick and tired of feeling sick and tired!!nothing was really working to help my condition.I went off the Sebivo (with the doctor’s knowledge) and started on hepatitis B herbal formula i ordered from Health Herbal Clinic, my symptoms totally declined over a 5 weeks use of the hepatitis B virus natural herbal formula the disease is totally reversed!! Visit there website www. healthherbalclinic. net

Comments for this post are closed