View Full Version : Sex Offenders Listing...yay or nay?
Faithless
02-03-2005, 12:26 PM
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=11582
My wife just sent me a link to the State of California's web site --
http://meganslaw.ca.gov/
And I did a search nearby my zip and turned-up more info than I probably want to know. :frown:
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=11582
My wife just sent me a link to the State of California's web site --
http://meganslaw.ca.gov/
And I did a search nearby my zip and turned-up more info than I probably want to know. :frown:
i just did a search of my area and my parents' house. eek. what i wish they could add to each offender's profile is the dates in which the committed these crimes.
kasia
02-03-2005, 01:53 PM
yes, b/c i think it is more the result of a mental imbalance - something that the perpetrator can't help. so it's not like we don't want to give them a second chance - it's just a reality that they're likely to recommit & i don't want my kids to be the next victims.
What I'd like to know is, now that you know, what are you going to do about it?
kasia
02-03-2005, 01:55 PM
What I'd like to know is, now that you know, what are you going to do about it?
be more cautious. maybe move.
be more cautious. maybe move.Serious? You'd be playing Whack-a-Mole. The list is a post facto warning. How do you know you're going to be moving to an area that doesn't have a sex offender-to-be? Shouldn't you always be cautious, then? I fail to see how this serves the public good in a practical way.
A surprising number have offenses against children under 14.
A surprising number have offenses against children under 14.
yeah, i noticed that too for my area!
Serious? You'd be playing Whack-a-Mole. The list is a post facto warning. How do you know you're going to be moving to an area that doesn't have a sex offender-to-be? Shouldn't you always be cautious, then? I fail to see how this serves the public good in a practical way.
well, myabe not move. but i think it works in that it does make one more cautious. at least, for those who aren't already
cautious when they're outside.
kasia
02-03-2005, 02:12 PM
Serious? You'd be playing Whack-a-Mole. The list is a post facto warning. How do you know you're going to be moving to an area that doesn't have a sex offender-to-be? Shouldn't you always be cautious, then? I fail to see how this serves the public good in a practical way.
i don't think that most men or even a substantial population of men are child molestors. i think they account for only a small percentage of our population - and i think that, if they are molestors - it is likely that they have committed before and/or have some sort of record.
(i wouldn't include date rapists in this category - b/c that's really just a problem with socialization & education & sexism. does the list distinguish the two?)
i think it becomes more of a concern when we have children.
No, there are forced rapes and assaults on people of age on there too.
i think it becomes more of a concern when we have children.Based on mojo's and your reply, the ultimate purpose of the law is to raise caution (and to save the children). If that is the case, wouldn't a general color-coded "threat level" serve the same purpose? Is there some reason government must take it upon itself to stigmatize this type of ex-convict (now a person as free as you and me) more than any other? Is a murderer not a bigger threat? Or someone with moving violations (they could, after all, run over your children)? The government can publish everyone's birthdate (from birth certificate records) to eliminate underage drinking and save the children from the perils of alcohol.
If you need to be told to be more cautious with your kids then you have failed as a parent. Having a sex offender in close proximity does not increase the need to watch your kids, since you're supposed to be watching your kids to begin with. It's a bad, bad world and parents have to realize that it's not the government's job to babysit for them. This law is along the same lines as the V-Chip and the FCC's obscenity and indecency powers; they limit freedom because parents are too lazy and too irresponsible with their kids.
Aside from the privacy implications, the fundamental problem with this law is that "these people" are out roaming free when we don't want them to be. The other problem is that law is not uniform -- we do not treat murderers or other violent and non-violent ex-convicts the same way. How can a law be just if it is not uniform?
kasia
02-03-2005, 03:10 PM
Based on mojo's and your reply, the ultimate purpose of the law is to raise caution (and to save the children). If that is the case, wouldn't a general color-coded "threat level" serve the same purpose? Is there some reason government must take it upon itself to stigmatize this type of ex-convict (now a person as free as you and me) more than any other? Is a murderer not a bigger threat? Or someone with moving violations (they could, after all, run over your children)? The government can publish everyone's birthdate (from birth certificate records) to eliminate underage drinking and save the children from the perils of alcohol.
If you need to be told to be more cautious with your kids then you have failed as a parent. Having a sex offender in close proximity does not increase the need to watch your kids, since you're supposed to be watching your kids to begin with. It's a bad, bad world and parents have to realize that it's not the government's job to babysit for them. This law is along the same lines as the V-Chip and the FCC's obscenity and indecency powers; they limit freedom because parents are too lazy and too irresponsible with their kids.
Aside from the privacy implications, the fundamental problem with this law is that "these people" are out roaming free when we don't want them to be. The other problem is that law is not uniform -- we do not treat murderers or other violent and non-violent ex-convicts the same way. How can a law be just if it is not uniform?
i think i said this in my very first response to this thread - but i don't think that child molestors can be in the same category as murderers/robbers/ or even other sex offenders. i truly believe that it is a disease.
given that, i would be especially cautious. if i recall correctly, megan was kidnapped from her own bedroom. most children who fall prey to child molestors usually happen to be doing things that parents would normally feel comfortable with their children doing - like sleeping in their own room, maybe even with the window open on a hot summer night. if i knew a child molestor lived nearby, i probably would not allow that.
over 90% of murderers, as opposed to child molestors, are not serial killers. most murders are really assaults gone bad. this is so different from the act of a child molestor who seeks out his victim, takes the time to befriend him/her, comes up with a plan to kidnap or otherwise victimize him/her without parental intervention or intervention by other adults, then completes the act - usually repeatedly over a period of time.
most murderers don't kill again. most child molestors will molest if given the opportunity.
if we wanted to create a similar list for serial killers, i would not be so opposed. problem is, when we do catch these killers, they often get life w/out possiblity of parole or the death penalty.
Interesting. Thanks for this info.
A.R.A.M.
02-03-2005, 03:14 PM
given that, i would be especially cautious. if i recall correctly, megan was kidnapped from her own bedroom. most children who fall prey to child molestors usually happen to be doing things that parents would normally feel comfortable with their children doing - like sleeping in their own room, maybe even with the window open on a hot summer night. if i knew a child molestor lived nearby, i probably would not allow that.
In addition, most child victims (90% according to the Megan's Law website) know the sexual abuser. It usually isn't a stranger sneaking through the window.
i think i said this in my very first response to this thread - but i don't think that child molestors can be in the same category as murderers/robbers/ or even other sex offenders. i truly believe that it is a disease.If it is a disease, then treat it as such -- these people should not be convicted but treated, and not released until they are no longer a threat to society.
given that, i would be especially cautious. if i recall correctly, megan was kidnapped from her own bedroom. most children who fall prey to child molestors usually happen to be doing things that parents would normally feel comfortable with their children doing - like sleeping in their own room, maybe even with the window open on a hot summer night. if i knew a child molestor lived nearby, i probably would not allow that.I think you're thinking of a different case (Elizabeth Smart?). The law originated from NJ so I'm aware that Megan Kanka was lured to the house across her street when her neighbor said he had a puppy. He then assaulted and killed her. The fact that the situation you posed - kidnapped from a bedroom by a person who was NOT a sex offender - shows how ridiculous restricting rights for the sake of focusing on one threat is.
over 90% of murderers, as opposed to child molestors, are not serial killers. most murders are really assaults gone bad. this is so different from the act of a child molestor who seeks out his victim, takes the time to befriend him/her, comes up with a plan to kidnap or otherwise victimize him/her without parental intervention or intervention by other adults, then completes the act - usually repeatedly over a period of time.
most murderers don't kill again. most child molestors will molest if given the opportunity.
if we wanted to create a similar list for serial killers, i would not be so opposed. problem is, when we do catch these killers, they often get life w/out possiblity of parole or the death penalty.The purpose of Megan's Law (according to the people who wrote it) was to give "parents the right to know if there is a sex offender in their neighborhood." For some reason this has been transformed into the government notifying the entire world who and where sex offenders live. Being able to know is a lot different from being notified. There is nothing stopping a parent from looking up court cases and convictions for their neighbors and everyone who could possibly interact with their child.
kasia
02-03-2005, 03:59 PM
If it is a disease, then treat it as such -- these people should not be convicted but treated, and not released until they are no longer a threat to society.
i agree with that 100%. i don't think it should be a crime, i don't believe these people should ever be morally judged. i am only answering the question about what i would do if one lived by me - and the answer is, moral judgments aside, i would keep a close eye on my kid. kinda like how i would if an aggressive dog - say, a chow, lived next door.
I think you're thinking of a different case (Elizabeth Smart?). The law originated from NJ so I'm aware that Megan Kanka was lured to the house across her street when her neighbor said he had a puppy. He then assaulted and killed her. The fact that the situation you posed - kidnapped from a bedroom by a person who was NOT a sex offender - shows how ridiculous restricting rights for the sake of focusing on one threat is.
he also raped her (megan). and elizabeth smart was also raped. i'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that the situation i posed involved a person who was not a sex offender.
The purpose of Megan's Law (according to the people who wrote it) was to give "parents the right to know if there is a sex offender in their neighborhood." For some reason this has been transformed into the government notifying the entire world who and where sex offenders live. Being able to know is a lot different from being notified. There is nothing stopping a parent from looking up court cases and convictions for their neighbors and everyone who could possibly interact with their child.
not everyone has access to his/her neighbors' names.
here's an opposing view - which argues that, similar to my argument, pedophilia is a disease, but not all child molestors are pedophiles...
Megan's Law Won't Protect Kids
Dahut & Weiss, L.L.P. Law Offices
By Katie J. Weiss
Most child molesters aren't pedophiles and can change, but stigmatizing them reduces their chances
With the first implementation in Southern California of Megan's Law, which requires a police department to notify neighborhoods when a registered sex offender is residing in the area, we as a society must ask ourselves whether our criminal justice system is appropriately dealing with these individuals.
Creating mass hysteria in a neighborhood by alerting citizens to the presence of a convicted molester does not solve the problem. Indeed, it adds new problems.
Once a court convicts a defendant of molesting a child, the court, not society, must determine the sentence. Society appears to believe that the appropriate sentence in every case is life in prison.
Granted, a life sentence seems to be the easiest solution, but sentencing every child molester to life without parole is simply not practical. California prisons, even at their current expansion rate, cannot accommodate such a large number of prisoners for that length of time.
Megan's Law is society's attempt to extend the offender's sentence even after he has served his allotted time in prison. Society must accept that child molesters are not going to be put behind bars for life. In addition, we must accept that there are different levels of molestation, and life imprisonment is not warranted in all cases.
Finally, we must also understand that under the current law, the offender is not going to come out of prison any better than when he went in.
Given these truths, we are faced with the question: What can we do to protect society once the offender has served his sentence?
Megan's Law is not the answer. I submit that the answer, however unpopular, lies in the rehabilitation of the individuals during, or instead of, prison.
There are two different types of offenders: those who are pedophiles, and those who are not. Pedophiles are the type of defendant who prompted Megan's Law, and perhaps for these individuals the law is appropriate.
The pedophile is incapable of controlling his urges. His sexual cravings are fixed on children, and his desires and fantasies center on the abuse of children.
These people can be helped, but only if they really want to be rehabilitated. The problem is that most pedophiles are beyond understanding the inappropriateness of their desires, and they believe they do not need help. The most effective treatment for the pedophile who wants to be rehabilitated is impulse-control therapy. Through therapy of this type, the individual learns to keep a tight grip on his emotions and fantasies. He must live in a controlled environment and not be allowed access to children. He must live in an activity-filled life and not allow his fixation on children to overwhelm him.
The reality, however, is that most pedophiles cannot be helped. They live in a fantasy world way beyond an expert's ability to reach them.
Defendants who are not pedophiles commit their crimes for other reasons. Often, they themselves were molested as children and have not dealt with the terrible events that happened to them. Rather, they live to suppress their memories. Under extreme stress or under the influence of alcohol, the one-time victim regresses to that time in his childhood and becomes an offender, usually against someone he knows.
These people can be rehabilitated. For them, therapy would normally include extensive time coming to terms with their own molestation as children. By understanding what happened to themselves, they can gain insight into what led them to molest others.
These defendants are not likely to reoffend. As long as they are diligent in their therapy and do not allow their lives to become too stressful, they can live as lawabiding adults. None of this excuses the behavior of these defendants, but it is important to note that they are much less likely to prey on neighborhood children.
Megan's Law should not apply to them.
Most defendants fall into the second category. Yet, sentencing for the most part, makes no distinction between the two types of molesters. To treat the nonpedophile as a pedophile creates the risk that the defendant actually will become one.
Here is what happens to the typical defendant convicted of first-time child molestation. The defendant is sentenced and put into prison, usually for three to eight years. Then the neighborhood is notified that a convicted molester, when released, is among them, and they should "hide the kids."
Rehabilitation is nonexistent. The individual comes out of prison with all his demons intact. He is dumped into a society that is specifically told to hate him and shun him. He has no life skills. None of the issues of the past molestation has been addressed.
The next time he is in a stressful situation or abuses alcohol or drugs, it is likely he will offend. Being placed in a hostile neighborhood could be just enough to put him over the edge. This behavior is largely avoidable with proper rehabilitation.
Out of self-interest, society should invest money in rehabilitation for sex offenders, rather than pass laws designed to create such a hostile environment that once they are released from prison, they have little chance of ever becoming productive members of society. If we rehabilitate these offenders, we and our children can all sleep safely in our neighborhoods and avoid the hysteria that Megan's Law engenders.
Criminal Justice Registration of Sex Offenders 2593
i don't know - i don't they spelled out the differences very well. they just said - they're different, but fail to explain why.
Faithless
02-03-2005, 03:59 PM
What I'd like to know is, now that you know, what are you going to do about it?
That's a good -- probably look out for them for no reason at all, and see if they've been strolling around my neighborhood.
It's sort of like now having the ability to read thoughts.
i agree with that 100%. i don't think it should be a crime, i don't believe these people should ever be morally judged. i am only answering the question about what i would do if one lived by me - and the answer is, moral judgments aside, i would keep a close eye on my kid. kinda like how i would if an aggressive dog - say, a chow, lived next door.If the law cannot make a distinction between the two then it should be removed because it greatly restricts the freedom of one of them.he also raped her (megan). and elizabeth smart was also raped. i'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that the situation i posed involved a person who was not a sex offender.It's not proven if Smart was raped -- the trial hasn't happened yet. Anyway, I should have been more clear. The abducters were homeless (so this notification thing wouldn't have worked anyway) and they had no prior sex conviction, so there would have been no notification to begin with. My point was that as a parent you should always be aware or what is going on with your child and cannot rely on government stripping other people's rights in order to babysit for you. If Megan's parents told her not go to other people's houses, to check with them first, to ask them to accompany her, etc., it would not have happened.not everyone has access to his/her neighbors' names.
here's an opposing view - which argues that, similar to my argument, pedophilia is a disease, but not all child molestors are pedophiles...
i don't know - i don't they spelled out the differences very well. they just said - they're different, but fail to explain why.I agree with the distinction between sex offenders and child molesters, I understand the original intent of Megan's Law, but the law as implemented is simply flawed. Safety in exchange for liberty, etc., you know the drill.
Got this off FARK:Sex Offender Killed Home Sales, Suit Alleges
By Robin Lipscomb
The Morning News
BENTONVILLE -- A developer of a Springdale neighborhood filed suit Friday against a real estate company it claims fraudulently sold a home to a woman who is married to a Level 3 sex offender.
The suit was filed in Benton County Circuit Court by Fayetteville attorney Thomas Stockland on behalf of NGI Rental.
The suit alleges Capital Realty Group knowingly sold a home to a woman whose husband was convicted of molesting young girls.
The man, Randall Dee Collins, 39, is listed on the Arkansas Crime Information Center Web site as a Level 3 offender living in the 3700 block of Grainger Circle in Springdale.
He and his wife, Carmen C. Collins, are also named as defendants, along with Shirley M. Colunga, a woman who also signed a loan for the home at 3746 Grainger Circle.
Claudia Rodriguez-Iarrain, an agent for Capital Realty Group, is also named.
According to the suit, Carmen Collins hired Rodriguez-Iarrain in 2004 to sell her home, saying she'd married a sex offender and couldn't remain living there because it was too close to a school.
After the home sold, Rodriguez-Iarrain showed new property to the couple, with the criteria their home be at least 2,000 feet from a school, the suit stated.
When the couple decided to purchase the home on Grainger Circle, they drafted the offer so Randall Collins' name would not appear -- thus no credit report or disclosure statement would be required, the suit stated.
The day after closing, the Springdale Police Department distributed fliers in the neighborhood warning a Level 3 sexual offender had moved there, and detailing the man's conviction. Sales in the subdivision "have come to a standstill" because the developer is obligated to tell potential purchasers about Collins, the suit stated. Other residents indicated they will move if Collins isn't removed.
Collins then called the developer and offered to move for $250,000, "or he would stay there and kill their subdivision," the suit alleged.
The suit seeks punitive damages of $2 million, along with attorney fees. It was assigned to Circuit Judge Tom Keith.
Stockland was not available for comment Friday.http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2005/02/05/news/bentonville/06bzsexoffendersuit.txt
More unintended effects (http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/10808323.htm):
Sex-crime site a database, not a date base
By Dan Reed
Mercury News
Important notice to all the state's registered sex offenders: The now publicly available Megan's Law Web site is not an online dating service.
Glen Westberg, 35, of Cupertino, a convicted child molester, recently found that out. He's expected to be charged today with a misdemeanor for trying to set up trysts with other convicted sex offenders he found by searching the database, available on the Internet since December.
Westberg allegedly even referred his potential dates -- about four or five other men -- to his own picture and profile on the site, for him a Match.com for sex offenders.
Here's how the police caught on in a case that appears to be a first of its kind in the state.
Westberg logged on to the site from a public library, he told police.
The Web site, meant to allow the public to learn of registered sex offenders living near them, lists more than 63,000 criminals, many with photos.
Westberg sent a letter suggesting a meeting to one man who was on probation and uneasy about the offer. He showed it to his probation officer, who told him to turn it over to the San Mateo County Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement Task Force.
Bill Ahern, commander of the task force, called Westberg, implying he was the man who received the letter.
Then they set up a date to meet last Thursday at a Starbucks in Redwood City. Ahern brought along an officer who resembled the letter-receiver.
``He didn't hit on the guy,'' Ahern said, ``so we approached him.''
Soon Westberg -- a warehouse worker who was convicted of child molestation in 1992 and 1998 -- was at the sheriff's station, admitting what he had done, Ahern said.
He had found his prospective partners by searching for their convictions and finding men who enjoyed oral copulation. Then off went the letters. Westberg told police he'd received no responses.
In a search of his apartment, officers confiscated two computers, which will be examined for content.
It's against the law for convicted sex registrants to contact others from the Web site, Ahern said, because the government doesn't want them conspiring to abuse others.
If convicted, Westberg faces up to six months in county jail, a $1,000 fine or both.
kasia
02-07-2005, 04:09 PM
^ oh please. how hard is it for them to just go to the county courthouse & pull files to find friends?
i understand the whole safety v. liberty bit, and i'm the first usu. to place liberty first. but when it comes to something like pedophilia, where it's likely that they will recommit & the victims are young children who will be scarred for life, i just don't think i can be that open-minded.
heykitten
02-12-2005, 10:26 PM
I'm not thoroughly sure of the pros and cons but I think the matter is more important than privacy. Especially if the offender will be near or working with children.
^ oh please. how hard is it for them to just go to the county courthouse & pull files to find friends?Which is exactly what I'm asking any parents/guardian to do for anyone who can come into contact with their children. Make it easy for the "good guys" to trample over freedom and it's that easy for the "bad guys."i understand the whole safety v. liberty bit, and i'm the first usu. to place liberty first. but when it comes to something like pedophilia, where it's likely that they will recommit & the victims are young children who will be scarred for life, i just don't think i can be that open-minded.Okay, I think we're talking about different things. This database lists any sex offender, not just pedophiles. Justifying this current law is the same mentality that some people are using to justify persecuting immigrants under the guise of (well, I think they sincerely believe it will work) securing borders from terrorists. Terra's been used to justify a lot of things, and we've seen children being used to justify everything from gambling to this. You know this law sets a precedent that the government has switched from being able to provide information on demand to actively notifying to everyone. That's something that needs to be finegrained and more specific. We need to scrap this overreaching law and create a just one.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.