Banning sex offenders


Bini
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest LiterateParakeet

I've thought a lot about this thread, mulling over the different opinions.  And what I notice is that while there has been plenty of mention of people who are put on this list for ridiculous reasons (which is horrible), but I haven't seen mentioned that fact that sometimes child molesters and rapists get ridiculously short sentences, and no counseling to help them reform.  

 

I don't care if SO's are hired to work in grocery stores, or at banks, or at Microsoft...etc.  I don't want them to work at schools, or other places they could easily find their next victim--if they so desire.  Bini mentioned that there are a lot of stay-at-home moms on her list, and people often visit one another's homes to buy and sell.  Excluding a known sex-offender from this list is seems very reasonable to me.  

 

I have no problem with SO's using ebay...there's no visiting of other people's homes there.

 

This conversation brings to mind Elizabeth Smart...her father hired a man to give him a hand (a very Christian thing to do on the part of Bro. Smart) and yet we see that he inadvertently brought a sex offender into his home....and we know the tragedy that followed. So yes, absolutely this is about protecting children.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that some things we do "in the name of the children" causes far more damage. A few years back in England a man was rumored to be a pedophile (he wasn't) and was set on fire and killed. Many admitted it was horrible, but justified because the murderers were thinking of children's safety.

The ideal answer would be an overhaul of the SOR, reserving it for the truly dangerous and doling out appropriate justice and consequences from there.

Another incident involved police speaking about sex offenders at a local school... and showing the photos of local sex offenders. Some were parents of students who were ssubsequently bullied.

I'll give Bini and her fellow mods trust they know what they are doing, but until sex offender laws are changed I can't look at a general sweeping way to treat sex offenders as a good idea.

If other people are hurt during a "for the good of the children" act, the act failed. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If other people are hurt during a "for the good of the children" act, the act failed. Just saying.

 

Agreed. To mind is the false saying, "The end justifies the means". If we were to accept this as true, then we should have voted for Satan who indicated that the ends (eternal life) justified the means (destroy agency).

 

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. 

 

The mind staggers and the heart breaks as to what trauma has been perpetrated upon you or someone you love as to so polarize you to this view and I truly hope you do not really mean this. Where in your view do you then leave room for the Atonement coupled with repentance?

 

In the ends to protect the children, where will you draw the line at what means are justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a hard case, and I think--given the lack of resources the OP has to thoroughly check out the situation--I'd probably (highly reluctantly) do as Bini actually did.  Because--yeah--protecting the innocent has to come first.  The social cost to the penitent is a tragedy, but I think it is largely necessary at least until we can implement a more nuanced criminal justice system.

 

But I do think it's worth noting that very few people wake up and think "I'd like to become a pedophile today".  They're often as horrified by their tendencies as anyone; and while recidivism is very high (at least, based on the figures I've seen) my experience is that it tends to come after years--sometimes decades--of struggling mightily to control the urges that lead to that sort of action.  The mental health professions, so far, seem to have been unable to find a reliable way to help these people.

 

I look at pedophiles with extreme pity; and I don't relish the steps I have to take to protect my children from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Vort's perspective on that.  Too often people give SO's a hard time so they can feel noble.  "Look how righteous I am!  I'm joining in on the virtual lynch mob!"

 

I think in this case, the ban was a mistake.  Nobody's being protected here.  The vast majority of the perpetrators in these cases are not strangers, but people the victim knows and is/was close to.  It's not like people from the registry are randomly showing up at some single mom's front door and kicking it in to rape her.  Besides, the ones who are on that list have already been caught, punished, given  treatment and released.  They aren't the ones you have to watch out for.

 

I mean are we honestly saying that everybody who is NOT on the registry is automatically safe?  If you're a single mom and you sold something online are you really going to throw your front door wide open to the stranger who bought your item because, hey, they filter out the sex offenders?

 

Of course not.  That would be absurd.  You always take reasonable precautions with your own safety with ANY person you don't know.  It makes no difference.  It's like when a friend of mine tried to defend these registries by saying "Well at least this way I can tell my kids who to stay away from."  Oh yeah?  Well I teach my kids to avoid ALL strangers, so what exactly is the registry doing to help me?  Statistically if any of my kids were to ever be molested it would be by someone who ISN'T on that registry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean are we honestly saying that everybody who is NOT on the registry is automatically safe?  If you're a single mom and you sold something online are you really going to throw your front door wide open to the stranger who bought your item because, hey, they filter out the sex offenders?

 

Exactly.  I've gone along several times with single women picking up some Craigslist or other purchase.  Usually playing the extremely protective boyfriend.  I can't imagine why a woman who lives alone would be giving out her address to strangers anyway; if it must be delivered, arrange to accept it at a neighbor's house or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.  I've gone along several times with single women picking up some Craigslist or other purchase.  Usually playing the extremely protective boyfriend.  I can't imagine why a woman who lives alone would be giving out her address to strangers anyway; if it must be delivered, arrange to accept it at a neighbor's house or something.

 

Yeah, see that's why I have a problem with the reasoning being used to ban the guy in the subject of this thread... He was literally banned out of fear that he MIGHT do something in a circumstance that wouldn't even happen anyway.

 

Bad call.  Just a bad call.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I'm with Vort's perspective on that. Too often people give SO's a hard time so they can feel noble. "Look how righteous I am! I'm joining in on the virtual lynch mob!"

It's ironic that you say that because just yesterday I was thinking that people love to defend sex offenders (like Josh Duggar) because it makes them feel noble.

Curious. Do sex offenders only get a free pass if they are beloved reality TV stars or football coaches (Sandusky)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

It's ironic that you say that because just yesterday I was thinking that people love to defend sex offenders (like Josh Duggar) because it makes them feel noble.

Curious. Do sex offenders only get a free pass if they are beloved reality TV stars or football coaches (Sandusky)?

 That's a good point. I still hear people defend Penn State and their blind eye for two reasons 1) They are die hard Penn State fans and are living in denial or 2) They haven't read the facts. It's so sickening what happened there that it's hard to comprehend the sheer evil that was going on. 

No, Duggar was not at that level but he easily could be. In particular because the methods used to stop him were totally useless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ironic that you say that because just yesterday I was thinking that people love to defend sex offenders (like Josh Duggar) because it makes them feel noble.

Curious. Do sex offenders only get a free pass if they are beloved reality TV stars or football coaches (Sandusky)?

 

Sure seems that way, but celebrities get a pass across the board, don't they?  I mean, look at Roman Polanski.  Fled the U.S. to avoid being prosecuted for just such a crime and yet he's celebrated worldwide.  

 

As to the first part, I can assure you nobility plays no part in my own motives. 

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say there is a big difference between Sex offenders who escaped going through the legal process... and defending the escape from justice.  

 

And Sex offenders who did not escape.  Who went through the legal process and paid whatever penalty the law required for there actions and now potentially years later are being dragged through the mud all over again because someone wants to hurt them.. And defending them in that sense simply not right to prosecute them a second time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

That is a good point Estradling. But unfortunately we can't be assured that just because someone has served time that they have changed. When I get home I'll post a link to a story about a registered sex offender who printed out child porn at the library and then tried to lure a child into the bathroom.

I'm not suggesting we flog them, but I think caution is prudent. I'm guessing there was a practical reason the sex offender register was created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good point Estradling. But unfortunately we can't be assured that just because someone has served time that they have changed. When I get home I'll post a link to a story about a registered sex offender who printed out child porn at the library and then tried to lure a child into the bathroom.

I'm not suggesting we flog them, but I think caution is prudent. I'm guessing there was a practical reason the sex offender register was created.

 

Of course caution is advised when dealing with people who have a history... But that is not what I am challenging...  I am challenging the mindset that anyone who thinks a sex offender who paid their dues should not be pilloried again...  Is somehow defending sex abuse.

 

That is simply irrational dodge to avoid having to deal with the very hard question of how to handle sex offenders who are trying to (or at least appear to be trying to) repent of their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Of course caution is advised when dealing with people who have a history... But that is not what I am challenging... I am challenging the mindset that anyone who thinks a sex offender who paid their dues should not be pilloried again... Is somehow defending sex abuse.

I didn't say that or intend to imply that if that is how it came across. I work with teenage sex offenders. I work graveyard so I don't do counseling, but I'm very proud of the work my coworkers and the program do. I'm not defending abuse by working there..I'm trying to be part of the solution. If we can help these boys not offend again, that the best thing...prevention. And since often they are victims we are also helping victims.

My call for caution is simply that..caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling for caution is perfectly reasonable.  Ostracizing people in the name of caution is another thing entirely.

 

In a sense, people on the registry are the low hanging fruit, aren't they?  In no other category of criminal history can one so easily tap into the information.  We see people panicking and moving out of neighborhoods because they've seen that a neighbor is on the list, yet they could be living across the street from a one-time murderer and never know it unless they go out of their way to look into it.

 

It wasn't created for practical reasons.  It was created for emotional reasons and politicians use it to get elected.  Every couple of years they trot out the registrants and introduce a few new restrictions and rules just to "be safe" when it's really just a way to play on people's fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets see what you said

 

It's ironic that you say that because just yesterday I was thinking that people love to defend sex offenders (like Josh Duggar) because it makes them feel noble.

Curious. Do sex offenders only get a free pass if they are beloved reality TV stars or football coaches (Sandusky)?

 

Now just the other day you and I were discussing Josh Duggar.  I was defending him, he is a sex offender...  Thus I think it is really easy to see why I think you might be talking about people like me... When you accuse people (me) of letting sex offenders get a free pass.

 

I have never defended the horrible things he did. I have defended someone whom from everything I can see and tell has gone through the legal process, and whom to the best that I can tell appears to be repentant, and trying to take advantage of the atonement.  I have defended his right to try to pull his life back together from what appears to be nothing but a hatchet job of old news

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

In a sense, people on the registry are the low hanging fruit, aren't they?  In no other category of criminal history can one so easily tap into the information.  We see people panicking and moving out of neighborhoods because they've seen that a neighbor is on the list, yet they could be living across the street from a one-time murderer and never know it unless they go out of their way to look into it.

 

It wasn't created for practical reasons.  It was created for emotional reasons and politicians use it to get elected.  Every couple of years they trot out the registrants and introduce a few new restrictions and rules just to "be safe" when it's really just a way to play on people's fear.

 

I agree in the sense that people fear those on the registery and fail to recognize the sex offenders that are closer to us (often the offender is a family member . . . ) 

You are probably right that it wasn't created for practical reasons.  You and I both know that the drug laws are not really about drugs, so I'm willing to concede the possibility that something is amiss here too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Now just the other day you and I were discussing Josh Duggar.  I was defending him, he is a sex offender...  Thus I think it is really easy to see why I think you might be talking about people like me... When you accuse people (me) of letting sex offenders get a free pass.

 

I have never defended the horrible things he did. I have defended someone whom from everything I can see and tell has gone through the legal process, and whom to the best that I can tell appears to be repentant, and trying to take advantage of the atonement.  I have defended his right to try to pull his life back together from what appears to be nothing but a hatchet job of old news

 

I understand now.  I think the difference is from what I read Josh Duggar didn't face charges because the statute of limitations expired (because his parents didn't go to the police when they found out), so for me in that sense he got a "free pass". He committed a crime, but he got neither jail time or therapy. And people are willing to defend his actions because he was just a teenager.  Other teenagers have died for less, and there are plenty of people that are okay with that. 

 

You see it differently; you feel he has repented.  I hope you are right.  I truly do for the sake of potential victims... but I am highly suspect of him (or any sex offender) being able to change without help.  By help, I mean therapy.  I don't think jail time does much to help the offender, but it is a great at preventing further abuse/assault while they are behind bars.

 

ETA: Regarding Sandusky, I was referring to a "free pass" in the mind of the public who refused to believe the allegations because he was a beloved football coach.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand now.  I think the difference is from what I read Josh Duggar didn't face charges because the statute of limitations expired (because his parents didn't go to the police when they found out), so for me in that sense he got a "free pass". He committed a crime, but he got neither jail time or therapy. And people are willing to defend his actions because he was just a teenager.  Other teenagers have died for less, and there are plenty of people that are okay with that. 

 

You see it differently; you feel he has repented.

 

 

No my understanding of Josh case it not just about repentance. MY Understanding that his case was investigated and something done by the legal system about his crime.  (Otherwise there would be no redacted report or sealed record to have been leaked).  I see no evidence that Josh Duggar did not face an impartial investigation into his crimes, even if the investigation might have taken a bit to get started.  For anyone to claim that he did not, they need to explain how exactly a report can be generated about him being investigated without him "really" being investigated.

 

As for his repentance (or at least signs of such) yes I think that is a very good sign. He has gone through the system for his crimes and he is showing sorrow and remorse for what he did.  What more can re realistically ask from someone that committed such crimes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

MY Understanding that his case was investigated and something done by the legal system about his crime.  (Otherwise there would be no redacted report or sealed record to have been leaked).  I see no evidence that Josh Duggar did not face an impartial investigation into his crimes, even if the investigation might have taken a bit to get started.  For anyone to claim that he did not, they need to explain how exactly a report can be generated about him being investigated without him "really" being investigated.

 

As for his repentance (or at least signs of such) yes I think that is a very good sign. He has gone through the system for his crimes and he is showing sorrow and remorse for what he did.  What more can re realistically ask from someone that committed such crimes?

 

Okay, here is what I think was wrong with the police action taken (not taken) in Josh's case:

 

In 2006, Jim Bob told Springdale police that he took Josh to see State Trooper Joseph Hutchens and that Josh “admitted to Hutchens what [Josh, redacted] had done,” according to the police report, obtained exclusively by In Touch through the Freedom of Information Act. At this point, there were five victims and multiple molestations by Josh.

 

In the new interview from prison, Hutchens said he was told by Jim Bob and Josh that “Josh had inappropriately touched [redacted] during the time she was asleep. He said he touched her through her clothing and he said it only happened one time.”

 

He said the fact that it was a one-time incident influenced his decision not to report it. “I did what I thought was right and obviously it wasn’t,” he says. “If I had to do it over again, I would have told him immediately I am going to call the hotline and contacted the trooper that worked those cases and have a full report made. I thought I could handle it myself.

 

Hutchens' failure to report the abuse caused the police to halt their 2006 investigation because the statute of limitations ran out.

 

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-breaking-news-disgraced-cop-who-didn-t-report-molestation-shoots-down-jim-bob-s-story-59235

 

 

Professor Hamilton says the reason that there are statutes of limitation on child abuse is because historically, “[t]he assumption was that if a child had been harmed and they didn’t tell anyone for three or four years, then that was fine. The more survivors that came forward, the more we learned.” Slowly, states have been changing their laws, but in pieces. “Now we have this hodgepodge of statutes across the country,” Hamilton says. She adds, “Once it’s expired, you’re out of luck. We have such short statutes of limitation, we can’t prosecute the vast majority of perpetrators right now.” 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-the-duggar-abuse-investigation-end

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here is what I think was wrong with the police action taken (not taken) in Josh's case:

 

Fair enough...  It shows that Duggar was investigated (my point) and the correct legal action taken (cased closed due to statue of limitation)

 

The trooper who did not report is in jail... and the Law as we have required it and run it course.

 

Now if the people who were using Josh's case as a point in expanding the Statue of limitation on sex abuse cases, or increasing the penalty for failure to report I could understand and even agree with the idea... But that is not how I read it... It more hey the law has done what it can but I didn't like it so lets get vigilantly justice instead..  Not only vigilantly justice but hypocritical vigilantly justice as we ignore other sex offenders whose politics we like (Literate I do not include you in this last bit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I think this is the point where we agree to disagree.  :)  I think it should have been reported sooner and honestly, then there could have been a true police investigation.

 

I think we agree that there is really no point in the media dredging up this story now.  It doesn't help the victims to do so.  The media source that found this was only trying to get ratings (with no care to whom they hurt...potentially the victims).

 

I do hope that something good can come of this though...that parents and church leaders (of various denominations) will understand going forward that sexual abuse is not only a serious matter, but a legal one.  I believe that if incidences of abuse are properly reported, it is better for both the victims and the perpetrator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

This is the article I mentioned the other day.  And while I realize that most sex offenders are someone the victim knows (family or friend), this kind of thing (predators who are strangers) does happen and it is the reason that many people (myself included) worry about known sex offenders.  

 

 

 

Convicted child molester and level 2 sex offender Malcolm Bruce Wheeler Jr. is being investigated by the King County Sheriff’s Office for allegedly downloading child pornography through the Covington Public Library’s wireless Internet, and then sharing those images with another man in the library’s restroom.  

 

Wheeler is also being investigated in a possible child-luring case, after “befriending and playing fantasy games with a minor male at the Covington Library,” according to police documents.

The attempted luring first came to investigators’ attention in April, around the time Wheeler’s brother reported his concerns to sheriff’s deputies that Wheeler was “spending all of his time at the Covington Library since losing his job several months ago.”

 

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/deputies-sex-offender-downloaded-and-shared-child-/nmQfy/

 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

So 30-60 years in prison is a "free pass" these days, huh?

 

I've never heard of someone serving 30-60 years in prison for sexual assault or abuse.  Have you?  

 

While watching an episode of Lockup one fine Saturday night, I couldn’t help but notice a disturbing trend in the sentencing patterns of convicted sex offenders. The amount of actual jail time for sex offenders is short. VERY short. Anecdotal evidence seemed to reveal that sex offenders serve less time than people who were convicted of stealing or drug possession. This observation prompted me to do some research to see if this was actually true, and sure enough, I was right. The exact jail terms differ from state to state but for the most part, first time sex offenders get sentenced to less than 3 years in jail, and some even slide away with just probation.

 

http://www.instantcheckmate.com/crimewire/sex-offenders-have-shockingly-short-sentences/

This article takes a different view but still puts the average sentencing for a sex offender at 7 yrs...which is a far cry from 30 or 60 yrs.  

 

 

  • On average sex offenders serve longer terms in prison and jail than persons convicted of other felony offenses. In fiscal year 2003, the average sentence length for all felonies was 37.3 months, compared to 90.8 months for sex offenses.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2004/12/intriguing_repo.html

 

And one more, this one from a government source

 

While the average sentence of convicted rapists released from State prisons has remained stable at about 10 years, the average time served has increased from about 31⁄2 years to about 5 years; for those released after serving time for sexual assault, the sentence has been a stable 61⁄2 years, and the average time served grew about

6 months to just under 3 years. 

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF

 

 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share