Banning sex offenders

[Bini]

I admin a selling/buying site along with two other people. Our latest contemplation between us is allowing sex offenders to join or remain as members if known. We had a lady send us information on a man verifying he's a SO and one of our admins (the owner) wants to ban him. Her concern is that he's going to people's homes to pickup items, which could pose a danger, as a large part of our site encourages local pickup and our active member base is primarily stay at home women with children.

The other admin is in agreement. I am too. But I'm wondering if I should suggest that we make a public announcement to the forum so people know he's a SO and then they can makeup their own mind? This could allow him to participate. Anyone have any other ideas? Our priority is to keep members safe to the best of our ability.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

First, he's a registered SO?  I was just thinking of that other thread where an innocent man was accused of being a child molester after he took a selfie.

 

Second, I think banning him would be the better choice.  If you announce he is an SO, then that is basically the same as banning him, I think.  Who would want to work with him?  Making his SO status public would basically be ostracizing same as banning him, but with humiliation on his part. The kinder thing to do (assuming he is reformed and deserving of the kindness he did not show to his victim) would be to ban him.

[Bini]

Yes. Registered.

LP I think you're roght. Straight out ban would be kinder to him.

[Guest MormonGator]

First, he's a registered SO?  I was just thinking of that other thread where an innocent man was accused of being a child molester after he took a selfie.

 

Second, I think banning him would be the better choice.  If you announce he is an SO, then that is basically the same as banning him, I think.  Who would want to work with him?  Making his SO status public would basically be ostracizing same as banning him, but with humiliation on his part. The kinder thing to do (assuming he is reformed and deserving of the kindness he did not show to his victim) would be to ban him.

  LitParakeet is right, as she is often.  :)

[pkstpaul]

I have some experience with an SO that, given some understanding of his circumstance, needs some opportunity to overcome the incredible shackles put on all SOs by default. Because of the stigma, he finds doors closed everywhere which only adds to his isolation and the issues that led to his offense. Having said that, you shouldn't be in a position to have to judge each offender and it is a safe bet to treat them all the same (as we see is what happens). 

 

A long winded response, but the short end is that you are better off banning the SO. I only added the explanation because I do understand that SOs shouldn't be painted with one brush and am basically grateful that you felt they could have a chance.

[pam]

  LitParakeet is right, as she is often.  :)

 

What a suck up.  

[The Folk Prophet]

I had a registered sex offender attending a ward I was in once. I was, frankly, astounded at the lack of Christianity, forgiveness, and love that most of the ward displayed toward this man.

 

There is a balance to be found, of course. You wouldn't, of course, have such a man babysit for you. You would, of course, take precautions about where and when children go, etc. But when the man is at church, helping with service projects, etc., you forgive, you love, your forget, etc.,

 

It is a tough balance and one that takes great wisdom and spiritual guidance, methinks. But like I said, I was amazed at how many people just treated him as a write-off, shunned him entirely, and spent a great deal of time posting nasty things on Facebook (the devil's playground) about him.

 

Not sure this is applicable to the OP. Just sharing thoughts.

[Guest MormonGator]

What a suck up.  

 That literally made me laugh out loud. That's awesome. 

[Guest MormonGator]

And besides, I owe her 50 bucks and she said she'd call it off if I publicly supported her. 

(kidding, kidding!) 

[unixknight]

Unless and until this person actually does something to cause trouble, leave him be.  You'd be amazed at how easy it is to get put on that list in some states.  I was once taking to someone very knowledgeable in this area who said that it can be as simple as who happens to catch a person urinating in public.  If an adult sees you do it, it's a misdemeanor, maybe nothing but a citation.  If a kid sees you do it (accidentally, of course) you get a misdemeanor and have to register for 15 years.

 

Add to that, in some categories, the recidivism rate is so low you can be reasonably assured that you won't get any further trouble from such an individual.  (For some reason guys who molest boys have a high recidivism rate, but that seems to be the only category where we see that.)  In any case, the vast majority of cases of this nature, the perpetrator is not a stranger to the victim, but a close friend or family member.  Not really applicable to a public trading site.

 

A person on the registry has done something wrong, been caught, punished, and has been through the justice system.  There's no reason to pile on more.  They have a hard enough time getting life back on track as it is without being constantly reminded of their screwup in the past. 

 

What would the Savior do?

[Guest]

I believe the Savior would protect possible victims from being hurt. Sure, maybe they don't know exactly what category the guy is in, but that just means they don't know what category he is in. Is a possible sale or purchase more important than a gamble against that? 

[unixknight]

Are they also screening for convicted murderers, armed robbers and arsonists?

[Guest]

I'm sure they would if there was asimple way to do that. Are you saying that since there isn't, people should disregard the sex offender registry?

[unixknight]

Yes, I am.  Otherwise, where does it end?  Ban them from public business?  Ban them from eBay? Those with kids already can't go see their kids perform in school plays or participate in school sponsored sporting events without special permission.  Think that isn't difficult and painful?  They say it isn't about punishment, but it is.  

 

As I said, generally speaking, sex crimes have a very low recidivism rate (this according to the DOJ.)  So instead of showing forgiveness and reason, it would become about fear and suspicion.  

 

And by the way, it is possible to look and see specifically how severe the offense was in most states, even if the exact nature of the crime isn't listed.  Is there no room for that?

[NightSG]

I'm sure they would if there was asimple way to do that. 

 

Which state?  Access to criminal records in a lot of places isn't that expensive. $15/mo at PublicData will get you criminal background, driver's license and vehicle registration for all the states it covers.

 

Plus, if your state's sex offender registry doesn't include details, you have no idea what he's being banned for.  One of my former coworkers is stuck with registration as a child sex offender because he got caught with his barely-too-young girlfriend on his 18th birthday.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

Plus, if your state's sex offender registry doesn't include details, you have no idea what he's being banned for.  One of my former coworkers is stuck with registration as a child sex offender because he got caught with his barely-too-young girlfriend on his 18th birthday.

 I've heard stories like that and it breaks my heart. Another reason why we need widespread criminal justice reform, frankly. 

[NightSG]

 I've heard stories like that and it breaks my heart. Another reason why we need widespread criminal justice reform, frankly. 

 

I think he's since had the registration requirement removed, but at the time I worked with him, it was costing him plenty in attorney's fees already.  

[Vort]

I do not know the answer to the question of what to do with sex offenders, especially child molesters. But our current treatment of them is in no possible sense Christian. I would have no problem, in concept at least, with executing certain sex criminals, including forcible rapists and some child molesters. But the scarlet M branding is contrary both to common decency and to (my understanding of) the foundational concepts of our justice system.

[Bini]

The admin are more concerned with the safety of our members than hurting the feelings of a registered SO. That said, it was decided to ban him. We won't be conducting screenings/background checks but if information is provided, we have chosen to be on the safe side.

[Vort]

In the present case, the guy wants to participate in the most banal elements of human interaction. He is looking merely to buy and sell stuff, or maybe trade. But because he is a Registered Sex Offender, which could mean anything from raping babies to having consensual but drunken sex with an equally drunk sorority girl, we pretend we're doing everyone a huge favor by either exposing his legal status or by throwing him out of the club.

 

I for one would appreciate less sanctimonious hypocrisy about protecting children or some such and more open acknowledgement that, yes, we are persecuting this guy, and we're doing it because we think he deserves it. That may not be noble, but at least it's honest.

 

(EDIT: This was not directed specifically at Bini. It is a general comment.)

 

(SECOND EDIT: Not directed specifically at Eowyn, either.)

Edited May 19, 2015 by Vort

[Guest]

 

 

 

I for one would appreciate less sanctimonious hypocrisy about protecting children or some such and more open acknowledgement that, yes, we are persecuting this guy, and we're doing it because we think he deserves it. That may not be noble, but at least it's honest.

 

Nope. Wrong assumption, at least where I'm concerned. Pedophiles always re-offend, given the opportunity, and I think it's reasonable and even necessary to remove every possibility that they have that opportunity. 

[pam]

I just found out recently that one of my neighbors is a registered sex offender.  Lived near him for almost 6 years and had no idea.

 

He's always the one that offers to help people move in or out.  I've seen him shoveling driveways and walks for some of our elderly neighbors.  He always has a smile and a hello when you walk by and he's out in his yard.

 

I've never heard a bad thing said about him from any of my neighbors.  So I do feel bad for some of those who truly are trying to get past whatever they may have done in the past.  Sometimes it's people like you and I (generically speaking) that are their biggest obstacles in being able to do that.

[Crypto]

Nope. Wrong assumption, at least where I'm concerned. Pedophiles always re-offend, given the opportunity

This is not validated by the data, it is not an assumption. I'm also curious of what definition of pedophile you are using, because there is a stark difference between the legal definitions, cultural definitions, and psychiatric definition. There is also a BIG difference between what can cause people to be on a sex offender list, and being a pedophile. [i would like to note that what i'm trying to say is that you can't equate sex offender with pedophile]

 

I'm not addressing anyone in particular to some of my thoughts below, it's just a few thoughts.

I have a friend that is a registered sex offender, long story short he had a girlfriend who was slightly under age, he was slightly over age and the family didn't approve of the relationship. He got taken to court and lost. al la now criminal. This guy is not a sex offender more than anyone else who enters a relationship disapproved of by a family. If it wasn't for the family, i'm pretty sure they would have been married by now  

There are definitely circumstances that warrant discrimination to protect safety, and in bini's case it might be the right call (she knows the circumstances). Studies also indicate isolation, or marginalizing of at risk crime groups (across the board) also prevent reintegration into society and contribute to individuals recommitting crimes. Acting in the name of 'safety' could very well cause more harm, The important point to consider is if it actually is about safety.

Oh, you might want to be careful about dealing with this issue, because in some states you could actually be breaking the law by doing this. (in regards to the ban)

The pitch forks, torches, and tar approach does not serve justice. (Which hopefully has already been served by the court)

Edited May 20, 2015 by Crypto

[Daybreak79]

I've learned that when it comes to finding someone on the Sex-Offenders list try and keep an open mind, find out what they did to be on the list (yes it can be an awkward conversation), and then decide the best way to protect your family if needed.

I know a lady who's husband is on the Sex Offender list and she lives in fear that their ward will find out and pass judgement on her and her children without even knowing his story. I know his story, did he make some serious mistakes, yes - did he ever hurt a child directly or have intent to hurt a child, no. Yet our justice system treats him like he is a repeat offender. In fact the Parole Officers have a hard time with him, because he actually follows the rules and his therapist is pushing to get him through the system faster but everyone seems to want their pound of flesh before they are done with him.

 

So I guess in my perfect world I would like everyone to do their homework, take it to the Lord, and then hopefully pass a righteous judgement that will keep you and your loved ones safe.

 

[Martain]

The difficulty I think lies in our ignorance. While the Lord knows who has and who hasn't sincerely repented and been changed by the Atonement, we do not. I do agree with Vort that the scarlet M is no more Christian than the scarlet A is.

 

As Christians, in a situation where the banned person is given the real reason for the ban, couldn't an alternative be created for those whose labeling is unfair or who have truly changed?

 

If you can't see the details as to why they're on it, can't you indicate that they would need to provide it? Could you not have an appeals process where in essence you take it before the Lord and ask whether or not they have repented such that it is safe for your business to not ban them?

 

I dunno... but surely if you're desire is pure to do what is right by the Lord, couldn't you receive personal revelation regarding how to be both merciful and just in such situations?