The problem I see is that there are tools that exist to make information regarding one specific class of felonies more readily available to the public than exist for other classes of felonies.
I think this is based on the realization that different crimes have different factors when it comes to public protection. If anything, I'm encouraged that this is limited to sex offenders. It means that the government isn't trying to humiliate people, and is only using these tools for offenders that are the greatest threat to the public.
It's nice to know that if you use the sex offender registry to find people to beat up, you might, possibly, maybe, be prosecuted.
A person who uses a sex offender registry for this purpose should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
and is only using these tools for offenders that are the greatest threat to the public.
Not that sex offenders are not a threat, but murderers aren't a greater threat?
Also, if someone is still dangerous, why did we let them out of prison? I think it's obvious that prison/jail time is not a very good source of rehabilitation. In principle it really should only be a place to put people who are dangerous. If someone is not dangerous, like a stoner, we shouldn't be putting them in there. If we believe these sex offenders are still dangerous, we shouldn't let them out.
What possible informed decision could come from knowing a persons place of work or license plate numbers? Are they reasonable?
If a car with that license plate pulled up to a playground, and there were no kids in the car, I'd get my kids out of that playground pretty damned fast.
I haven't taken a position yet on the license plate issue. I'm just pointing out how these tools can allow the public to make informed decisions about their safety.
In my example, the information imparted is that a sex offender is about to offer your kid a lollipop.
Not that sex offenders are not a threat, but murderers aren't a greater threat?
Believe it or not, murder recidivism rates tend to be amongst the lowest. (Depending on which study you look at.) This may be due to other factors, though - such heightened supervision or the fact that they tend to be pretty damned old by the time they are released.
If a car with that license plate pulled up to a playground, and there were no kids in the car, I'd get my kids out of that playground pretty damned fast.
Are you going to carry around a giant binder with all the list of possible license plate numbers and check every single car you see? Even then, if they were truely rehabilitated, you wouldn't have any fear of them. Just further proof that you expect to have people who are not rehabilitated to be released from prison early.
Can you address your attacks on me by calling me cagey and deceiving? I found them quite out of line.
Then perhaps sex offenders should be in prison longer as well?
That's absolutely true. A couple of women close to me were assaulted as children, and in both cases, the perpetrators received an obscenely short sentence. Much shorter than people I know who've been busted for selling drugs.
If a car with that license plate pulled up to a playground, and there were no kids in the car, I'd get my kids out of that playground pretty damned fast.
What if the license plate identified the driver as a convicted bank robber, arsonist, delinquent or general rabble rouser? Would seeing the plate make you react differently towards them?
Someone brought up alcoholics. Would you be against an alcoholic registry that every bar and liquor store has access to that they use to check people out before selling them alcohol? (I'm referring to people found guilty of alcohol related crimes such as DUI.)
Can I just give a big thank you to Jason for starting this thread?
I hadn't seen a forum topic that got me excited in a long time!
Don't thank me. Thank my editor for slapping this on my desk at 3:45 p.m. yesterday and shouting, "Can they do this?!" Thank the Lorain County, Ohio, Recorders office for not knowing whether restrictions on sex offenders by HOAs are legal. In fact, nobody I've talked to seems to know whether it's a Fair Housing breach -- not even the Fair Housing Administration.
Can I just give a big thank you to Jason for starting this thread?
I hadn't seen a forum topic that got me excited in a long time!
Don't thank me. Thank my editor for slapping this on my desk at 3:45 p.m. yesterday and shouting, "Can theydothis?!" Thank the Lorain County, Ohio, Recorders office for not knowing whether restrictions on sex offenders by HOAs are legal. In fact, nobody I've talked to seems to know whether it's a Fair Housing breach -- not even the Fair Housing Administration.
What does your state law say about how the data in the sex offender registry can be used? My state says you can't use it to exact vigilante justice.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not about to try to legally interpret the Ohio Revised Code.
I'm not going by my interpretation of state law but there is a paragraph in large red letters that states the overall usage allowed in regards to the information in the CT sex offender registry.
Are you going to carry around a giant binder with all the list of possible license plate numbers and check every single car you see?
Not at all. The license plates have a uniquely identifying color so you don't have to do that. Like I said, this makes it easy for the public to protect themselves.
Can you address your attacks on me by calling me cagey and deceiving? I found them quite out of line.
I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out the fact that your persuasive writing skills leave a lot to be desired, and I am wanting you to improve. You are too wishy-washy. Saying: "I don't have an issue with the idea behind registries, just the implementation of them." tells me pretty much nothing, and makes it hard to respond to you. Tell me how you would like to see it implemented. As it stands now, it's possible that you are in favor of a registry that does not contain an offender's address. (I'm not really sure what that gets you, but that's not the point.) It's also possible that you are in favor of a registry that is pasted to the back of a trained elephant. See my point?
What if the license plate identified the driver as a convicted bank robber, arsonist, delinquent or general rabble rouser? Would seeing the plate make you react differently towards them?
Of course I would react differently. These offenders all present with varying levels of danger to me personally. That's why a registry isn't necessary for all criminals. You have to balance the rights of the convicted with the rights of the public. The scale tips differently depending on all of the factors involved.
Are you going to carry around a giant binder with all the list of possible license plate numbers and check every single car you see?
Not at all. The license plates have a uniquely identifying color so you don't have to do that. Like I said, this makes it easy for the public to protect themselves.
Just for clarification purposes, how do you feel about this "scarlet letter" program?
How can it be enforced?
What's to stop a convicted sex offender from driving someone else's car or even using a rental car?
This sounds like a "feel good" program that does nothing but further humiliate those whom we are trying to rehabilitate.
What's to stop a convicted sex offender from driving someone else's car or even using a rental car?
Oh, good call. Also, the program might give people a false sense of security when encountering cars without the plates. It would also make it very difficult for a sex offender to lend their car to someone else. What if they have a spouse, do both cars have to have the plates? Unfairly sucks for that spouse.
My issue with this whole "sex offender" thing is that there are many different kinds of sexual offenses.
If a car with that license plate pulled up to a playground, and there were no kids in the car, I'd get my kids out of that playground pretty damned fast.
Is it necessary to interrupt your kids' time at the playground because a guy pulls up that had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18? Well, you don't know this particular information, because all you see is the pink license plate.
and there were no kids in the car
So if he has no kids in the car, that obviously means he's only at the playground for one purpose: to molest your kids. No, he's not there because he has kids back home and he is checking out the playground to see if he approves of it. No, he's not there because he needed to park his car for a second to search for something that fell on the floor. He's only there to molest your kids (even though he could be the unlucky fellow I mentioned above). I could come up with more, but you should get the point. I DO understand the idea of wanting to keep your kids away from a convicted child molester, so should there be a better system than the current pink system? Maybe there should be different types for different sex crimes. Also, what if there are kids in the car? OMG since he is a child molester (because of the pink tag) that means the kids in the car have been kidnapped and/or are being molested, and you must call the police. He could be that poor guy I mentioned above, who is now much older and has kids of his own and is a completely normal person, but you can't be too sure.
The way I would have it is a single criminal database with listings which have a listing of all the courts documents on cases. People can search names and case numbers to see who was convicted, a simple explanation of the case details, and the result of the trial. The onus is on the government to create such a database and gather the information. You could also include the place of incarceration and assigned requirements (such as rehabilitation restrictions which the person must comply with). The idea behind this is so if they violated one of these statutes they could be reported. Personal details such as place of employment and residency are restricted to police only as they have no general purpose for the public. Again, this is my ideal system; people would not be released from prison if they were a threat meaning that keeping the public aware of their location and workplace would serve no purpose. Furthermore, this would not be restricted to only sex offenders but all criminals who have been convicted.
One of the problems with the sex offender list is that it does not give all the details of what they are guilty of doing. You could have a guy who went to jail for raping 10 year old kids passing himself off as some poor kid who got busted when he was 18 for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. The sex offender list does not give enough information to be useful.
Just for clarification purposes, how do you feel about this "scarlet letter" program?
I'm not trying to dodge the issue, but I really haven't had enough time to give it serious thought. I can absolutely see why people are concerned by this. I can also see why people would be in favor of it. It's a tough call.
This sounds like a "feel good" program that does nothing but further humiliate those whom we are trying to rehabilitate.
This could very well be true. It also punishes innocents who are forced to share a care.
Is it necessary to interrupt your kids' time at the playground because a guy pulls up that had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18? Well, you don't know this particular information, because all you see is the pink license plate.
I've thought of that point as well. I suppose you could tailor the program for only the most egregious offenders. Frankly, if I saw a license plate like that, I'd get my kids the hell out of there no matter what. I'm not going to "hope" that they guy really isn't a threat to my kids. But different strokes for different folks.
So if he has no kids in the car, that obviously means he's only at the playground for one purpose: to molest your kids
I never said that. My concern is that the odds that he is interested in meeting children for harmful purposes is heightened. Who know what his real motives are. Again, I'm not going to roll the dice and hope that I was wrong.
so should there be a better system than the current pink system?
Like I said, I need to give it a lot more thought. It's actually quite complicated.
Another thought on the license plates. Unless the offender is really really really stupid, and those stupid ones do exist, who would attempt to actually go after kids while sporting the plates? It's like if you were hunting deer, and you brought a boom box with you.
I'm not going to "hope" that they guy really isn't a threat to my kids.
I never said that. My concern is that the odds that he is interested in meeting children for harmful purposes is heightened. Who know what his real motives are. Again, I'm not going to roll the dice and hope that I was wrong.
If you aren't going to "hope", why let them out of prison if you have any hesitation or doubt? That's probably what I don't understand about your argument.
Personal details such as place of employment and residency are restricted to police only as they have no general purpose for the public.
I quoted just a part, but I think that you've got some good ideas. The major problem I have is that, at a minimum, the public should be able to search the information based on geography. If I'm thinking about moving into a neighborhood, and I have kids, I should be able to see how many child molesters live there.
I suppose that you wouldn't want any personally identifying information released to the public, just statistics. (Such as saying that X number of sex offenders live within a 1 mile radius of a certain address.)
I don't necessarily agree with your proposed implementation, but it is definitely one of those areas where reasonable minds can differ.
Another thought on the license plates. Unless the offender is really really really stupid, and those stupid ones do exist, who would attempt to actually go after kids while sporting the plates?
Is this a bad thing? I know that they can ditch the car, but I'm not opposed to making it more difficult to offend.
The major problem I have is that, at a minimum, the public should be able to search the information based on geography. If I'm thinking about moving into a neighborhood, and I have kids, I should be able to see how many child molesters live there.
This would be easier for me to accept if it wasn't just child molesters. Perhaps a break down of all criminals and what percentages of each crime were committed among the group.
This would be easier for me to accept if it wasn't just child molesters. Perhaps a break down of all criminals and what percentages of each crime were committed among the group.
Yeah, the FBI puts out their stats, but they are stats on a national level. Perhaps a national crime heat map would be good. In fact, it would be awesome.
If you aren't going to "hope", why let them out of prison if you have any hesitation or doubt? That's probably what I don't understand about your argument.
That's a very fair point. For me, it's degrees of fear. I don't have a problem releasing someone who has undergone rehabilitation in prison and will continue to do so outside of prison. If they falter in any way, you put them right back in prison.
This, to me, is much less of a risk than a convicted sex offender hanging around a playground with my children. So when I refer to "hoping," you should also consider the context and the extent of the threat.
I should also point out that my beliefs regarding supervision vary depending on the crime. If it's someone who snatches women out of the park, then supervision is probably pretty meaningless. If it's someone who spends a lot of time grooming their victim, then there ought to be clear signals one can use to intervene and get them back in jail before any harm is done. It's complicated, to say the least.
This would be easier for me to accept if it wasn't just child molesters. Perhaps a break down of all criminals and what percentages of each crime were committed among the group.
I have no problem with that. If I've lost my home to an arsonist, I might want to find out how many arsonists live in my new neighborhood!
That's a very fair point. For me, it's degrees of fear. I don't have a problem releasing someone who has undergone rehabilitation in prison and will continue to do so outside of prison. If they falter in any way, you put them right back in prison.
This, to me, is much less of a risk than a convicted sex offender hanging around playgrounds. So when I refer to "hoping," you should also consider the context and the extent of the threat.
Again, I think this has a lot to do with different expectations. As a young idealist, I'm hoping that we could improve the justice system where such fear of reformed criminals is not necessary. However, you have had much more first hand experience with the system and you have well founded convictions based on what you have seen.
Comments
Also, if someone is still dangerous, why did we let them out of prison? I think it's obvious that prison/jail time is not a very good source of rehabilitation. In principle it really should only be a place to put people who are dangerous. If someone is not dangerous, like a stoner, we shouldn't be putting them in there. If we believe these sex offenders are still dangerous, we shouldn't let them out.
I haven't taken a position yet on the license plate issue. I'm just pointing out how these tools can allow the public to make informed decisions about their safety.
In my example, the information imparted is that a sex offender is about to offer your kid a lollipop.
Can you address your attacks on me by calling me cagey and deceiving? I found them quite out of line.
Someone brought up alcoholics. Would you be against an alcoholic registry that every bar and liquor store has access to that they use to check people out before selling them alcohol? (I'm referring to people found guilty of alcohol related crimes such as DUI.)
How can it be enforced?
What's to stop a convicted sex offender from driving someone else's car or even using a rental car?
This sounds like a "feel good" program that does nothing but further humiliate those whom we are trying to rehabilitate.
Also, what if there are kids in the car? OMG since he is a child molester (because of the pink tag) that means the kids in the car have been kidnapped and/or are being molested, and you must call the police. He could be that poor guy I mentioned above, who is now much older and has kids of his own and is a completely normal person, but you can't be too sure.
I suppose that you wouldn't want any personally identifying information released to the public, just statistics. (Such as saying that X number of sex offenders live within a 1 mile radius of a certain address.)
I don't necessarily agree with your proposed implementation, but it is definitely one of those areas where reasonable minds can differ.
This, to me, is much less of a risk than a convicted sex offender hanging around a playground with my children. So when I refer to "hoping," you should also consider the context and the extent of the threat.
I should also point out that my beliefs regarding supervision vary depending on the crime. If it's someone who snatches women out of the park, then supervision is probably pretty meaningless. If it's someone who spends a lot of time grooming their victim, then there ought to be clear signals one can use to intervene and get them back in jail before any harm is done. It's complicated, to say the least.