Sex Offender Laws -

[Yawning Bulbasaur]

What are your thoughts on laws regarding convicted sex offenders, particularly public registries and housing restrictions?

Personally, I think that while they were made with good intentions as a means of increasing public safety, the current sex offender laws in the U.S. do more harm than good by not only plastering those convicted of even the most minor sex crimes (e.g. public urination, sex with an underage person despite an age difference of only a few years) all over the Internet/news media and subjecting them to a lifetime of humiliation/unemployment/social ostracism long after they've served their sentences, but also by restricting where they are allowed to live or work (can't be within half a mile from schools/churches/playgrounds), thus making it nearly impossible for a lot of offenders to ever get their lives back together and forcing many into homelessness, which makes them even more likely to re-offend or even commit suicide since they are stuck in such a miserable position that all they have to look forward to is either prison or death (many homeless sex offenders have even been sent back to prison just for being unable to recharge their ankle bracelets or for not having enough money to re-register).

Not only do the public registries do very little to protect the public from sex offenders, but also do more to threaten the safety of the sex offenders themselves by requiring them to have their photos and addresses publicly available to anyone with an Internet connection, and many have been burglarized, brutally assaulted and even murdered at the hands of vigilante justice.

I do feel however that sex offender registry laws should still apply to those who are either serial offenders or at a very high risk of reoffending, and that since the main purpose of the sex offender registry is public safety that there should be a public registry for other dangerous criminals such as convicted robbers/murderers (including attempted)/drug dealers/gang members.

 

[AnOminous]

What are your thoughts on laws regarding convicted sex offenders, particularly public registries and housing restrictions?

I think no punishment is too severe for actual predators, such as for instance our very own Nick Bate.

However, I also believe the penalties in these laws are essentially criminal in nature, and should be subject to the same due process as other criminal penalties, with proof required, as for other offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think ex post facto protections should apply, that is, they shouldn't be able to change the punishment retroactively for a crime already committed.

This is not currently the case. Civil commitment laws, for instance, as well as registration laws, are considered non-punitive, and have been found to be so by courts when challenged on this basis, so essentially, people can be newly punished after having already served the sentence that would have existed for the crime at the time they committed.

As you also point out, such laws should be reserved for actual predators, people who present a risk to the public. Not, to pick one of your examples, some drunk guy who committed the heinous crime of having his penis seen as he urinated in public.

The fact is, the offenders who are at greatest risk of reoffending are those who are not at all integrated into society, and ostracizing people who have served their time basically puts them in this class. So putting people in this class should be done with some consideration as to focusing this kind of attention on those at high risk of reoffending, as unfortunately, recidivist sex offenders can take advantage of being integrated into society to find more victims.

Also, as much as many of these offenders deserve to be punished severely, the primary consideration should always be to reducing the number of victims. (The last is purely IMO. . .some consider punishment as a moral necessity, but I won't get into the minutiae of Kantian categorical imperatives and all that horseshit right now.)

 

[Zeorus]

Something that came to mind when I read the OP - I wasn't aware that they had to stay away from churches as well as schools. Is this an infringement of their First Amendment rights? How are they supposed to worship?

 

[KatsuKitty]

I think no punishment is too severe for actual predators, such as for instance our very own Nick Bate.

However, I also believe the penalties in these laws are essentially criminal in nature, and should be subject to the same due process as other criminal penalties, with proof required, as for other offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think ex post facto protections should apply, that is, they shouldn't be able to change the punishment retroactively for a crime already committed.

This is not currently the case. Civil commitment laws, for instance, as well as registration laws, are considered non-punitive, and have been found to be so by courts when challenged on this basis, so essentially, people can be newly punished after having already served the sentence that would have existed for the crime at the time they committed.

As you also point out, such laws should be reserved for actual predators, people who present a risk to the public. Not, to pick one of your examples, some drunk guy who committed the heinous crime of having his penis seen as he urinated in public.

The fact is, the offenders who are at greatest risk of reoffending are those who are not at all integrated into society, and ostracizing people who have served their time basically puts them in this class. So putting people in this class should be done with some consideration as to focusing this kind of attention on those at high risk of reoffending, as unfortunately, recidivist sex offenders can take advantage of being integrated into society to find more victims.

Also, as much as many of these offenders deserve to be punished severely, the primary consideration should always be to reducing the number of victims. (The last is purely IMO. . .some consider punishment as a moral necessity, but I won't get into the minutiae of Kantian categorical imperatives and all that horseshit right now.)

All of this can be remedied by simply time-limiting sex offender registration or otherwise offering some sort of assurance you have taken known, effective theraputic steps required not to reoffend. Concomitantly, if there's no known or effective steps to reduce an offender's risk of reoffending, then perhaps lifetime registration is ultimately necessary. I mean, ultimately, if you're at risk to reoffend, you shouldn't be out of prison to begin with and perhaps sex offenses should carry current minimums to life as an alternative.

This really isn't about sex offenders as much as it's about the issue of a permanent criminal underclass to begin with. This problem affects felons of all types. There's no way out of this criminal underclass even if you demonstrate repentence, reparation, and take steps not to reoffend. You can't even leave the country. I believe in debt to society, but ruining a repentant offender's life amounts to usury. There are thousands of drug felons who can't even bankrupt out of this debt and leave for a new life elsewhere; they deserve far more attention than sex offenders.

 

[Kenneth Erwin Engelhardt]

Stuff like sex offender registration always starts out with good intentions, until those in power take on the mindset "the bigger the better" and start expanding its reach to include things like high-school romances, or mooning in public as a prank.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Concomitantly, if there's no known or effective steps to reduce an offender's risk of reoffending, then perhaps lifetime registration is ultimately necessary. I mean, ultimately, if you're at risk to reoffend, you shouldn't be out of prison to begin with and perhaps sex offenses should carry current minimums to life as an alternative.

Depends what you mean by "at risk". The best method for preventing reoffending is counselling, both before and after release, which has a roughly 50% success rate across the board. While that's not great, it's not nothing either.

Unfortunately most laws are made with the intent of posturing rather than with the goal of reducing offending. Sex offenders are, for better or worse, the lowest status group in our society. This means that they're a universally acceptable target for all kinds of ridiculous medieval collective revenge fantasies. While the people endlessly describing the crap they want us to believe they would do to pedophiles in the armpits of comments sections are unlikely to ever be in any position to shape policy, the impulses that drive them to publically fantasise about ludicrous torture porn are not that different to the impulses that drive politicians to devise post-sentence punishments.

 

[Oglooger]

Ruining someone's life f0r urinating in public or being with someone who you were with before you became an adult is just cruel an unusual punishment. The fact you can't even leave the country and start anew is worst.

 

[Yawning Bulbasaur]

Ruining someone's life f0r urinating in public or being with someone who you were with before you became an adult is just cruel an unusual punishment. The fact you can't even leave the country and start anew is worst.

In some cases they actually can (and have) managed to avoid prison time and registry by fleeing abroad, albeit it's usually because they have enough money to do so (like in Roman Polanski's case) or because the crime they were convicted of here isn't illegal in the country they're entering (like this woman who fled to Canada)

 

[Dudeofteenage]

In some cases they actually can (and have) managed to avoid prison time and registry by fleeing abroad, albeit it's usually because they have enough money to do so (like in Roman Polanski's case) or because the crime they were convicted of here isn't illegal in the country they're entering (like this woman who fled to Canada)

Polanski had the tremendous advantage of already being a citizen of another country. He would have found it impossible to gain permission to reside in some other country with a crime like that hanging over his head.

 

[Dark Mirror Hole]

A 19 year old has been put on the Sex Offenders Registry for 25 years because he had sex with a 14 year old who lied about her age on a dating app.
The judge is notorious for being an absolute cunt and a horrible excuse of a human being.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/16/male-teen-has-consensual-sex-with-female

 

[Damocles_Sword]

The registry is designed to basically force people out of communities. Can't be within a mile of a school, park, church, McDonalds with a play place, or anyplace children might congregate. So, basically, no large populace center. I used to live near a hotel that was home to about 75% of the RSO's in that town because that was the one of the few places they could legally live. It was truthfully kinda concentration camp-y. Also notice that the registry in it's wording basically attaches the stigma of pedophilia to everyone that is registered, regardless of their crime.

 

[Red_Rager]

This is an issue I have mixed feelings about, but I am going to have to say on principle I am against legal blacklisting. If someone is such a clear danger to society that they need to be isolated, we already have a place for people like that, jail. If these criminals are chased out of the community and into homelessness then we have no way of keeping an eye on them as they could be anywhere. Probably desperate to keep their heads above water and forced to commit other crimes to make a living. There are already measures in place to manage who can work around children, this process is called conducting a background check.

A 19 year old has been put on the Sex Offenders Registry for 25 years because he had sex with a 14 year old who lied about her age on a dating app.
The judge is notorious for being an absolute cunt and a horrible excuse of a human being.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/16/male-teen-has-consensual-sex-with-female

That teen should not have been put on the sex offender registry in this example. The judge destroyed this guy's life. He did not purposely seek out a 14 year old girl, but was looking for someone closer to his own age. The list should only be for those who are a danger to society and need to be isolated.

The men who show up on To Catch a Predator are worthy of being labeled a sex offender. People who force themselves on other people are worthy of being sex offenders. The asshole who got drunk last night and pissed in public is not worthy of being labeled a sex offender. We have public indecency laws already in place to cover faggotry like that. The list should be reserved only for those who are a danger to society, but the list is used too broadly.

 

[Marvin]

This is an issue I have mixed feelings about, but I am going to have to say on principle I am against legal blacklisting. If someone is such a clear danger to society that they need to be isolated, we already have a place for people like that, jail. If these criminals are chased out of the community and into homelessness then we have no way of keeping an eye on them as they could be anywhere. Probably desperate to keep their heads above water and forced to commit other crimes to make a living. There are already measures in place to manage who can work around children, this process is called conducting a background check.

Oh definitely. If we have to harass them in perpetuity, then we shouldn't release them in the first place.

 

[TheProdigalStunna]

In some cases they actually can (and have) managed to avoid prison time and registry by fleeing abroad, albeit it's usually because they have enough money to do so (like in Roman Polanski's case) or because the crime they were convicted of here isn't illegal in the country they're entering (like this woman who fled to Canada)

Somewhat OT, but if there's one thing I can thank SJW's for, it's that the bleeding hearts are much less likely to defend that Polanski fucker than they did a few years ago.

 

[IronJustice]

I think a lot of you guys said it well. In my own words, our SO system demonizes all without discretion. In some cases it may be justified, but not all SOs are dangerous child molesters. We really need a better way for the registry to be reviewed and get some of these guys off who might lead normal productive lives off the list.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I think that sex offender laws are a misguided compromise between incapacitory laws and punitive laws and their result is that they cause life to be worse for sex offenders sufficiently that they form a grudge against society but they are still able to harm society. Either being better to sex offenders or executing sex offenders would be better than the weird in between state we are in right now

This is not even taking into account that the label of sex offender is made so broad that it affects people who really shouldn't be in the category to begin with

 

[NumberingYourState]

A lot of it is understandably iron-clad (common sense would agree with putting violent offenders away for good), but urinating behind the dumpster outside of an elementary school while drunk isn't physically assaulting or causing long term Physical/Psychological damage to any witnesses -- or I don't think so. Other than being disgusting (as with any public urination), negligence that doesn't involve gratuitous sexual violence shouldn't change your life forever.

 

[idosometimes]

This is not even taking into account that the label of sex offender is made so broad that it affects people who really shouldn't be in the category to begin with

You also run into the problem of every sex offender being treated like a kid fucker.

 

[Terrorist]

It's not the penalties that need to be changed, it's the definition of "Sex Offender". Most people think attempted or successful rape/pedophilia/incest when they think sex offender, and this is more or less what the legal definition should be. These are the people who need to be monitored and restricted. What the definition shouldn't encompass is more marginal stuff like public indecency (its own crime but shouldn't be treated as a sexual offense unless it's sexual in nature), 17 year olds fucking 18 year olds, or underage teens fucking each other. Also, if an underage sex partner is proven to have lied about their age.

Honestly, the rapists and pedos can go fuck themselves and are lucky we don't torture or execute them here (not every country would be so kind). They threw away their chance at a normal life when they committed their crimes. But not all sex offenders committed much of an offense to begin with, or deserve to be grouped with these people.

 

[AnOminous]

I think that sex offender laws are a misguided compromise between incapacitory laws and punitive laws and their result is that they cause life to be worse for sex offenders sufficiently that they form a grudge against society but they are still able to harm society. Either being better to sex offenders or executing sex offenders would be better than the weird in between state we are in right now

The problem with institutionalization is that regardless of what they call it, it really is an ex post facto punishment for a crime committed before the law was passed. The solution would be to make the actual sentence something permanently incapacitating, by keeping high risk offenders away from society for good.