County To List Sex Offenders, Predators In Newspapers

[The Straight Story]

County To List Sex Offenders, Predators In Newspapers

POSTED: 6:34 am EDT June 22, 2005
UPDATED: 7:19 am EDT June 22, 2005

A list of all sex offenders and predators living in Marion County, Fla., will be printed in newspapers this week, according to Local 6 News.

The Leader, Free Press and the Reporter will carry the booklet in Thursday's issues.


The Star Banner will have the supplement in Friday's issue.

The listing, which is being provided by the Marion County Sheriff's Office, will be divided into sections by zip code, along with a photo, name, address, conviction date, and other pertinent information.

http://www.local6.com/news/4637573/detail.html

[wtmusic]

1. This sucks

These people have (ostensibly) done their time. Give them a break, and a chance.

[Midlodemocrat]

2. I disagree.

Where a pedophile is concerned, I want to know where they are so we can avoid them like the plague.

[wtmusic]

3. So you want to take away their rights

to protect yours?

[Midlodemocrat]

4. Not my rights.

I don't have an issue with a sex offender living near me, per se, in fact one does. I DO have an issue with a convicted pedophile living near me and not knowing. There are too many children in this neighborhood and if a convicted pedophile were to move in, I would want to know so we could give him/her a wide berth.

I think protecting the children is the least we can do as a civilized society. The crimes of a convicted pedophile are too heinous to forget or forgive.

[wtmusic]

5. Then let's abandon all pretenses

and make them wear a scarlet "P"...

The society that does not allow people to atone for their crimes is far less civilized than one that does.

[Midlodemocrat]

6. Sorry, I disagree.

All recent research indicates that the recidivism rate for pedophiles is extremely high. That rehabilitation is not possible. Therefore, there is no atonement, because the crimes are going to be ongoing.

I am speaking of protecting children, here, not adults.

[wtmusic]

8. Then again

let's abandon the pretenses and lock them up for life. Because in effect, you're saying that should be part of their punishment (in not one state does the punishment for pedophilia include stigmatization after release).

Does pedophilia deserve a life sentence? As abhorrent as it is, I don't think so (btw I have two young kids). It's my responsibility to look out for them, to teach them to be aware.

What you're saying is let's have democracy for all except this class of people (who have paid their debt to society, according to the law). It doesn't work that way.

[Midlodemocrat]

10. My point is.

A pedophile cannot be rehabilitated. Therefore, they are an ongoing, continuing risk to the community. I have three young kids and I agree with you that it is my responsibility to look out for them, but I am one of the lucky ones. I work from home, so I can be with them 24/7 if need be. Some people aren't so lucky, having to leave kids with others, or on their own.

Where I live, we have a really nice setup with pools, tennis courts, etc. and the 'tweens' love to hang out there. It is very protected with adult supervision, as well as lifeguards, but a lot of these kids, who are too old for daycare, walk to and from by themselves. As parents, you and I both know that there is always the possibility that a predator can get to a child, so I do think it is a good idea to have sex registries.

In VA, where I live, it is online. I found that a convicted rapist lived two blocks from me. Now, that is somewhat of a concern because my eldest is turning 15, but not nearly as much of a concern to me as a convicted pedophile would be. I have a neighbor who doesn't watch her children the way I would, and I would worry about that.

[wtmusic]

15. I have the same fears

and my town publishes a list, and I have been tempted many times to look at it.

I feel strongly that once we give in to fear and cut corners on justice it's very hard to stop. It takes many forms, including the reason we're fighting a losing war on the other side of the world.

The recidivism rate on pedophilia is very high. In the same light, segregationists used to point out that African-Americans were responsible for a high percentage of certain crimes, and they probably were.

[TXlib]

56. well...

The crimes of a convicted pedophile are too heinous to forget or forgive.

The central issue is the OVERWHELMING tendency of such criminals to repeat offend, and escalate their acts.

[kanrok]

7. What "rights" are you referring to?

They have no rights with respect to this information. The State of Florida (like my home state) have laws regarding sexual predator lists. The government is required to maintain this list after a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the individual is a sexual predator. I say plaster this information all over the place. Better to be aware that some sick, perverted bastard is near my kids than not.

[wtmusic]

12. They certainly have the right

to not be unduly singled out. Otherwise we should publish a list of all criminals.

What if someone is wrongly convicted as a sexual predator? Happens all the time. He serves his time and then is stigmatized for life because someone had a vendetta against him? That is bullshit.

Once you open the "sick, perverted bastard" door you are in for trouble. Probably 30% of Americans would consider gays "sick, perverted bastards".

[kanrok]

16. Nope. They don't

These are laws passed by state legislatures. They also withstood constitutional attack. They are constitutional, according to the law of the state in which they were passed. There is a rational reason for publishing these sexual predators names. It is to protect the populace from indiividuals who all likely to repeat their crimes. If you don't like the law, then lobby to change it.

As for your argument that some are wrongly convicted, well, then let's just throw out all laws. Taking your argument to its logical extreme, let's then say we should not have criminal courts beacause there will be people who will be wrongfully convicted. The criminal justice system is set up to allow people wrongfully convicted to appeal. We wouldn't know about the wrongfully convicted if our system did not allow for this. We cannot produce perfection in our system, we can only ensure that it is constitutional.

As for these sick, perverted bastards, I stand by my words. I prosecuted these people and dealt with the mess they left behind after they acted on their selfish desires. I won't fall for your attempt to lump into my definition gay folks. That's an absurd comparison, and not even worrthy of further comment.

[wtmusic]

19. Don't let emotion get in the way

"Sick perverted bastards...the mess...acting on selfish desires"...is *exactly* analogous to what some people feel about homosexuality.

Obviously the comparison is absurd to you, but it isn't to many others. Now, unless kanrok is responsible for what law gets passed and what doesn't, that is a very slippery slope you are on.

The constitutionality of these laws is what is at issue here. I don't believe they are, under 8th amendment and "cruel and unusual punishments". Publishing someone's name, after they have done prison time and are, in theory, "free" is a very unusual punishment, and is in effect a life sentence. Should we also make them wear certain clothes? Put a sign in front of their house? Where do you draw the line?

The "rational reason" you give for publishing their names is the same "rational reason" we had for attacking Iraq. It's called fear.

[kanrok]

24. If its the constitutionality your concerned with

Then you'll be glad to know that the states where these laws have been passed have withstood constitutional scrutiny. But don't trust me, read the Florida Supreme Court decision finding this law constitutional: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2005/sc03-1321.pdf

The information contained on the website is public information. Unless you want to change the First Amendment it's information available to anyone and everyone who wants to read it. It can also be published virtually anywhere.

I was with you until the last sentence. Equating this law with our attacking Iraq is another non sequiter. BTW, fear of having your child attacked by a sexual predator is a totally rational and reasonable basis for this law.

[wtmusic]

29. Wrong

Justice is the only rational and reasonable basis for law. Fear is never such a basis, and should never be. Exactly analogous to our ignoring international law and invading Iraq.

The fact that information is public does not authorize public funding to publish it.

[kanrok]

43. Huh?

I am afraid that some drug-addled criminal will kill me in the course of a robbery. If that occurs I'd like this person to be prosecuted and put in prison for the rest of his life, so he can never hurt anyone else. (This is called "retribution" one of the two major goals of our criminal justice system). I also would like to see that this person's prosecution is known to everyone, since this might stop someone else from doing it in the future. (This is called "deterrence", the other aim of the CJ system). As you can see, fear is a sub-set of what you call "justice." A reasonable argument can be made that all criminal laws are based, in part, on fear. (An argument I made in my first year criminal law class in law school).

In any event, I thought you were concerned with the constitutionality of this law. Did I read your post wrong, or are you abandoning this argument? I suggest you read and inwardly digest the Florida Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the law you rail against.

You also say: "The fact that information is public does not authorize public funding to publish it." Ummm...here it does. The law REQUIRES this information be published.

Lastly, your analogy to war in Iraq is stilted. Equating enacting a law to ignoring a law is not quite analogous, despite your protestations to the contrary.

[wtmusic]

61. Not abandoning it at all

The Florida Supreme Court must yield to the US Supreme Court, and from what I am aware this hasn't been tested in the US Supreme Court. I'm not arguing that it's a law; I'm just saying it's an unconstitutional law and should be eliminated.

Your fear does not give you carte blanche to trample others' rights. It's interesting you cite the robbery example--is armed robbery punishable by life in prison in your state? Didn't think so (this is called "punishment which fits the crime", another aim of the CJ system). Another aim you left out is called "rehabilitation", which is impossible if you want to stigmatize everyone who's committed a crime which you feel is particularly repugnant.

Re: the Iraq analogy I'll make it very clear for you. Sometimes a law is enacted the enforcement of which breaks another. When the system works, this contradiction is discovered and the law is dumped (Jim Crow, f.e.) Enforcement of the new FL law, which unfairly stigmatizes those who have paid their debt to society, is acceptable to people because they're too damn afraid--in exactly the same way that the bombing of Iraq and the thousands of civilian deaths are acceptable to many Americans because they were afraid of being nuked. You saw where that got us. This plays upon the worst in human nature and is a big step backward for society.

[kanrok]

72. Say "Uncle"

It amazes me how many people at this site will continue arguing a point even after being presented with irrefutable facts. You still maintain that the Florida State sexual predator statute is unconstitutional. You provide no objective proof (or real argument) to bolster your point. You are provided with a state court decision, directly on point, demolishing your argument, yet you persist. You make the claim that the US Supreme Court has the final word, WITHOUT determining whether or not a petition for certiorari was ever made to the Supremes, and you use weasal words to continue your blind allegiance to a point you lost. (e.g. "from what I'm aware this hasn't been tested in the US Supreme COurt"...indeed). I'm currently on the road, and have no access to Westlaw, but even I was able to find the following US Supreme Court decisions on sexual predator laws. Interestingly, the Supremes dealt with an issue far exceeding the publicaiton of sexual predators names. Under both state laws, a petition to CONFINE the sexual predator AFTER he was finished serving his criminal sentence was found to be constitutional. Read the cases and then tell me how the Florida statute is constitutional.

Kansas v. Hendricks
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt=9th%26amp%3Bnavby=case%26amp%3Bno=9835377v2%26amp%3Bexact=1


Seling v. Young
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt=9th%26amp%3Bnavby=case%26amp%3Bno=9835377v2%26amp%3Bexact=1

[wtmusic]

75. Hmm

The question asked in both Seling v. Young and Kansas vs. Hendricks is: can a statute authorizing civil commitment of sexually-violent predators, which statute has already been held to be civil in nature on its face, be found punitive as applied to a particular person and thus be subject to challenge under Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto?

The court held that “An Act, found to be civil, cannot be deemed punitive ‘as applied’ to a single individual in violation of the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses and provide cause for release.”

The finding is irrelevant, because never at issue was the state's right to retain particular offenders in confinement after release from prison. Your notion that this concept is merely an extension of ("far exceeding") the publication of all sex offenders' names ignores the fact that the issues are substantively different in nature.

In Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, U.S., No. 01-1231, 3/5/03, called into question was a Connecticut law that mandates that the state department of public safety disseminate registry information to the public in writing and on the Internet. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Its constitutionality was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, but on the basis of procedural due process only. Souter and Ginsburg wrote that "registrants are not foreclosed from challenging such laws under principles of substantive due process or equal protection".

In Smith v. Doe, U.S., No. 01-729, 3/5/03 the constitutionality of a similar AK law was upheld, but the majority opinion included the following: "The fact that the registry is posted on the Internet and therefore has the potential for far greater dissemination than is available by other means does not change the essential goals and nature of the registration scheme. The Internet notification process is more like creating a records archive than forcing someone to appear face-to-face in public with some visible badge of past criminality".

Would the CT law would stand a challenge on substantive due process and/or equal protection? Would publication in a newspaper be considered "forcing someone to appear face-to-face in public with some visible badge of past criminality"? IMO those questions are open (as they are with Justices Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg, who dissented).

One final comment re: your bluster ("say uncle", "demolished my argument", "weasel words", etc ad nauseum)--my experience with attorneys who take this tack is that they usually get waxed in court, in part because they believe this approach helps mask deficiencies and/or lack of preparation of their argument. It really has nothing to do with validity in this case--I'm just saying it doesn't impress me.

http://litigationcenter.bna.com/pic2/lit.nsf/id/BNAP-5KJVBY?OpenDocument

[kanrok]

77. It's about time.

Took you long enough. I am not impressed when people make arguments without doing their homework. You clearly did not until goaded into it. Well done. Smith v. Doe still doesn't make your point, i.e., that the Florida statute is unconstitutional. In fact, it bolsters my contention that the statute IS constitutional. However, it does make me re-think my argument that posting this information in the newspaper is wrong. It appears that the wider the distribution, the more punative it becomes. It is werid to argue that newspapers are more widely disseminated than the internet, but I can easliy make the argument that the newspaper is (at least now) a more effective way of publishing this information. As for the bluster, apparently it worked here. Keep up the good work.

[madeline_con]

27. "Otherwise we should publish a list of all criminals."

All this is public record. Anyone who feels like checking it out can get info on anyone who's in the system.

Publishing the names makes it easier for the average parent to see if pervs live nearby.

[TXlib]

58. We SHOULD publish a list of all criminals...

...who are exceedingly likely to repeat their crimes.

As far as wrongful conviction, all you can do is try to set the system up to minimise that chance, and then assume the convictions are valid.

The problem I have is when the lists don't specify what the offender did. If my next door neighbor were listed as a convicted sex offender, but the published details of his case show he was convicted of statutory rape 15 years ago for being 18 and having sex with his then-16-year-old-girlfriend, I would not be the slightest bit concerned. If they're going to publish the lists, they need to include enough info to determine what kind of crime was committed.

[Evergreen Emerald]

65. When they used and hurt innocent children for their own

...sexual gratification they gave away their rights

[TWiley]

25. And, if the publicity results in hate crimes / lynching?

How would you answer for that?

[madeline_con]

28. simple

punish the lynch mob.

[kanrok]

34. Exactly

[TWiley]

55. hmmm

Why not just turn them over to the lynch mob in the first place?

[ComerPerro]

9. I'm really mixed on this

I mean, I can see how this would be good for families who don't have internet access or can't do searches. That way, they have a more accessible resource.

However, it seems a bit wrong to publish their name, photo and address in the paper. But I suppose it is already widely availible public information.

My biggest reservation about publishing their names and addresses is the potential for harassment, even if they don't do anything at all and live peacefully with the community.

[podnoi]

70. Distraction alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

After having read a previous discussion I did some research and was surprised (well not really) to find out there is a lot of HYSYERIA being pushed in this issue. Pedophiles do not all recommit. In fact Most never do. Repeat offenders do recommit at a very high rate, but isn't it the same with repeaters of other felonies as well?

Please, use your DU sense. What a wonderful issue full of lots of fear and rightious feelings. Perfect to harvest Republicans. They GOT YA!!!

Be informed and be aware, anyone on your block could be a potential pervert. But what are you going to do, lock yourself in your home and imagine terrible things about all your neighbors.

Either we allow redemption and don't harrass those who change until they suicide, or start up the Death Penalty for these acts and be done with it. You can't do it both ways.

[Eugene]

11. Predators AND offenders?

"Sex offence" can apply to prostitution, lewdness,
or even peeing in an alley. I have no problem
with warning about predators, but they should restrict
the list to the those classified as dangerous.
Otherwise people will see a "PERVERT" label
and ignore the details.

[Sgent]

13. If you favor notifications of sex offenders

I expect to see you campaigning for the elimination of voting rights for released felons.

To not do so is intellectually dishonest, and to favor one but disfavor the other borders on hypocracy.

These people have served their time, and they weren't sentanced to lifelong probabtion. Let them live.

[kanrok]

18. Check out the Florida website on sexual predators

It is restricted.

http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/sopu/index.asp?PSessionId=824463894&

"This database contains public record information on offenders classified as sexual predators and sexual offenders under Florida law because of a conviction for a sex-related crime and/or a specified crime against children. This information is made available to interested citizens to help them educate themselves about the possible presence of such offenders in their local communities. The placement of information about an offender in this database is not intended to indicate that any judgment has been made about the level of risk a particular offender may present to others. This information is made available to assist interested persons in forming their own risk assessments based on the offender's personal circumstances and conviction history."

[Evergreen Emerald]

66. That is BS...

Prostitution, lewness and peeing in the street are not sex offenses. Neither is indecent exposure unless there is a prior conviction for a sex offense or repeated exposures to someone under 14 years of age.

Sex offenders offend using Sex. Rape, molest, assault with sexual motivation. They are generally dangerous repeat offenders who knowingly gave away their rights when they chose to mess with another person's privates for their own sexual gratification.

[kanrok]

73. Well said

[T Wolf]

14. Should we not also create and publish lists of other criminals

in order to make people feel safer?

With the movement to actually ban certain criminals who have served their time from living in some areas (sex offenders near neighborhoods with children. schools, etc), it has crossed my mind that corporate criminals, especially those who commit fraud, should suffer the same kind of "branding."

Proposition - Those who prey on the elderly and defraud them through various financial schemes should be banned from living close to retirement communities or areas with older populations.

To Midlodemocrat - would you agree to this?

[madeline_con]

31. corporate criminals

might well face obstacles when they apply for jobs.

Backround checks are doen by lots of companies ofr about $20 $30 a pop.

[yella_dawg]

17. `Scuse me folks.

This county plans to publish a sex offender list, not a pedophile list. Right next to the abhorrent pervert on the list is the cute girl who got tanked and bared her boobs during a street party.

Which is the major argument against sex offender databases in general.

Any of you who ever got stuck out in the sticks and had to take a leak behind a bush is at risk here.

[wtmusic]

20. There you go

My point entirely (I guess I should read the link first) ;). Not too far off: The List of Teachers Who Teach Evolution ("it's for our CHILDREN!!!")

[madeline_con]

21. How many times

do you know of where someone 'in the sticks' got arrested for taking a leak behind a bush? That's absurd.

[yella_dawg]

26. Absolutely

It is absurd. That is my point. Yes, my "arrested for peeing on a bush" example is extreme, but it happens. The Oz man avoided San Antonio, Texas for years after being arrested for peeing on the Alamo. There is a case in California ongoing right now dealing with the issue that a woman who legally bares her breasts at a public beach can still be charged and placed on a sex offender list, in spite of the fact that she broke no law.

Absurd indeed.

[madeline_con]

36. Ozzie as in Osbourne

peed on the Alamo? Isn't that defacing public property? Whatever the details of that were, you don't just whip your wang out and hose down whatever's around. At least go behind a bush, if there's no facility around.

As for the California law, I'm not familiar with the case, but it sounds like they need to decide whether women can go topless or not, apparently. There seems to be some sort of ambiguity.

My own experience was bizarre. The lady across the street's father was a registered offender. Lewd and lacivious on a child under 16. She kept kids after school, and he'd come over to 'fix the screen porch'. When the Moms got wind of it her little enterprise was shut down.

She kept taking pics of my son, and I found out the whole 'no expectation of privacy' situation in FL. Which is wierd, because child models have to have releases signed by a parent.

Her justification for the pics? She'd shoot him the bird, and when he shot back, she'd snap a pic, so she could build a harrassment case against an 8 year old!? When I mentioned her Dad's status, and how I had no idea what she was using the pics for, she said, "He's got clothes on."

I kept calling the cops on her for taking pics, until she finally followed him to a neighbor's backyard, and sick as THIS is, took a pic with a camera she KEPT WITH HER.

I finally told the police I wanted her charged with stalking, and they called her off. Shortly after, she moved away.

[Eugene]

33. It happens in Massachusetts.

And yes, convicted offenders have to register.
The courts had to force the state to reclassify
offenders based on dangerousness to children and
not lump them all together.

[Evergreen Emerald]

67. BS...those are not sex offenses

Jeeezzeee I am sick of that bogus argument.

[mainegreen]

22. Big Brother here we come!!!

The list are bad in so many ways.

One, they are unconstitutional! Before you go all flame-fest on me, just because something is a law and conservative courts have upheld it, doesn't make it constitutional. Everyone here knows that. These lists are absurd. According to these laws teenage lovers of different ages and people who politically streak (a time honored form of activism) should be stigmatized forever. That is unconstitutional. Period. Whats that you say? Pedophiles "re offend". Well, unless we're going to make "futurecrime" an offense we really have two options: 1) let them go after their time or 2) recognize its a mental disease and send them to the state ward until they get better, if they ever do. Think state loony wards too nice? Not punishment enough to fit the crime? Tough. Stop fence sitting America and pick your poison!

Two, these stupid lists have a negative effect on Sexual Assault funding. Why? I have no idea, but for some reason whenever these lists get big in an area, Sexual Assault funding goes down. Geee, ain't that swell?

Three, they do NOT in any way make you safer!!! Unless you stick a GPS with touch sensitive alarm system TM in your kids flesh, the only safety you get from this is in your head. Unless you go all peasanty pitchfork and torch on the individual and drive them out. But guess what? Thats just as bad a crime and just as amoral as their crime. Whoo-hoo! Lets lynch the bugger!

Lets visit reality folks: your rights don't get to supersede someone else's rights. Neither do the rights of you little tikes! Don't like it? Move. Go to a country where freedom doesn't count and they just kill a baddies.

Oh wait, thats what the neo-cons want. Wait, what board am I on?

Hypocrisy check time folks!

RANT RANT RANT RANT
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[kanrok]

32. Interesting logic

Let me re-phrase your positions:

1. I don't care what the courts say, I'm right , they're wrong, this is unconstitutional! (BTW, you can call the Florida Supreme Court many things, I guess, but "conservative" is not on that list. See, e.g., election 2000).

2. These list have a negative efect on sexual assault funding. I don't know why. (I didn't even have to re-phrase that one! As for the effect on some type of non-specific funding your talking about, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it).

3. These laws don't make you safer...because I said so! (Okay, here's an idea, we'll let them all move into your neighborhood without telling you! Feel safe now?)

4. If you don't like my opinion, move to another country! (Gee...who does that sound like?).

[mainegreen]

41. Well lets see

1)Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I don't know about you, but its pretty clear to me that when one group of criminals whose victims live get posted on lists everywhere by the government after their punishment is meted out but no one else's does, including murderers, you've violated this! The whole concept that because these people are registered, its OK its mind boggling! Its called parole people! But we do it this way because it would become obvious how wring it is that some of these people are on parole for a lifetime. Murderers don't get that and Sexual crimes are rarely worse than murder.

2) I was a board member of a Sexual assault awareness organization and hotline here for 2+ years. These lists do not help the cause. They cut funding. Why? I don't know, but rarely have I understood the motivations of politicians or that of DHS.

3 & 4) If these people are such dangers, why are they out roaming about? Does this list create a force field around them, making them unable to harm people? Does it shield your house, your family, your children? No.
These people do work in my neighborhood. One lived in my building. Just like anyone else, some stay bad, some go good. But I was no safer knowing they were there. However, these people were actually less safe since we knew they were there. Since when did saying your rights don't give you the right to stomp on someone else's rights start to equal the rights mantra of my rights and your rights unless your rights violate my morality? Talk about building a straw man If people want to throw away the rights of others for safety I do want them to move. And they can take their stupid patriot act with them. I firmly believe in American freedom. Its not just for libertarians!

[kanrok]

46. I'd like to play more, but, I have to get to work

Nonetheless let's see, again:

1. It doesn't matter what you or I think about the constitutionality of the statute, it matters what the Supreme Court of that jurisdiction thinks. Read the decision. Saying something is "unconstitutional" without some authority is pretty weak. Here's my authority: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2005/sc03-1321.pdf Where's yours? (BTW bald assertions about the Bill of Rights don't count).

2. If you cannot articulate the reasoning behind an assertion, it is worthless.

3&4 Useless arguments as well. Personal experience that canot be verified is not very persuasive. (I'm not saying your making this up, but, let's face it, I don't know you, you don't know me. If you want to make a persuasive argument, verifiable proof would be nice).

[madeline_con]

37. How is publishing PUBLIC records ...

unconstitutional? I wonder if your own kid were molested by the perv next door if you'd go ballistic about not having been informed?

This is a mental disease, and they would be locked up to protect society.


>>>"Two, these stupid lists have a negative effect on Sexual Assault funding." <<

What is sexual assault funding?

>>>"Three, they do NOT in any way make you safer!!!"<<<

This one is interesting. If the community knows which houses the perverts live in, they can avoid them, and the kids take another route to school for example.

[mainegreen]

42. Because it by the goverment

for the expressed purpose of labeling one group of people in a negative way. If you want sex offender lists publicly displayed, for a concerned citizens group and do it yourself. You can do that all you wan't and its covered by free speach. Its not the information I have a problem with. Its the list itself!

[madeline_con]

64. Labeling? If the shoe fits...

It's for the express purpose of warning parents so their children won't be raped and murdered!

It's not some conspiracy, just a courtesy to the parents of these animals' prey!

[Pockets]

23. I agree with listing sex offenders, and maybe other criminals.

Their actions being known is not really punishment, it's just making info public, that people would know about anyway if people lived in communities where everyone knew each other.

I can see how this kind of publicity might haunt them for life, but so do the emotional scars of their victims. Sex offenders don't think about that do they? They obviously were turned on by things that cause lifelong emtional scars. So what's wrong with exposing the truth?

[mainegreen]

30. Because it is exposed,

When they are convicted. The records on file with the government. If you care, go look it up. It the pro-active, public, and post-punishment nature of the list. If an offender is on probation, then sure. Otherwise, their done. Time served. Any further action by the government is wrong. To say that the info is not really punishment bay making it public boggles the mind. We all know how people would react. Suppose we were to publish a list of Atheists? "Oh, don't worry. How can it hurt? Just public info." In just information until some vigilante acts on it. And someone will, guaranteed! And everyone knows thats what will happen.
Hence, its a punishment after punishment is served. Hence, morally and legally wrong.

[Pockets]

35. Not all information has to be good or neutral

Some information is bad. This information just happens to be public and unflattering to the person who in most cases probably raped a child (under age) causing that person to have to reflect on that horrifying moment every day for the rest of his/her life. So the poor guy has his name published, big deal... That certainly is not immoral, and I don't think it whould be illegal either, if it's legal to give away and sell other personal information.

[mainegreen]

44. Because the list is punishment by the goverment.

Some courts admit this while others say its not. Schitzoid! These lists are not just information. They are virtually target lists. Posted by the government. Doesn't this set of warning bells for you? I mean, come on. The 'think of the children' stuff is so tired. That what JAIL is for people! Why don't people understand the nature of jail. Jail is your punishment. If you wan't to get out early, and the state thinks its ok, you get out on probation. If you're to cuckoo to get out you stay at the state funny farm. A person serving their time and then registering to be put on a state-sanctioned, publicly funded target list placed where they live its nutso! It defies the logic of the criminal justice system!

[madeline_con]

39. "If an offender is on probation, then sure. Otherwise, their done. "

If they're released, done doing time and off probation, do they go on the list? Or do you even know?

[mainegreen]

45. registration != probation

[Blue_In_AK]

54. Yes, they do go on the list.

See my post below. My X had to go on the list even though he had completed his sentence and his parole six years before the sex offender registry even became law. Now, THIS really is an ex post facto law and is totally unconstitutional, in my opinion.

[Evergreen Emerald]

68. Most are registered for life even when off probation

In WA "probation" is for life for sex offenders. That way they are monitored more closely.

[madeline_con]

38. Thank you...

for pointing that out!

[davsand]

40. Aren't adult convictions a matter of public record ANYWAY?

There is a mechanism in place to protect Juveniles who are convicted--they seal the court records. That is based on the idea that kids deserve a second chance--no matter WHAT crime they were convicted of doing as a minor.

Adults, however, are NOT protected in that way. An adult conviction is open for public scrutiny--and you can, in fact, go sit in many courtrooms and observe the trials.

Publication of lists of sexual offenders is something that is really a matter of a free speech issue, because it is an attempt to stop publication of material that is otherwise not considered private.

I know a guy that was convicted of rape and did time for it. He liked rough sex. He had sex with his long time girlfriend and took pictures of her when she was tied up. When they had an ugly breakup a few months later (note--that relationship continued publicly and by all appearances happily) she took those pictures to the police and had him arrested. He got convicted and did his time.

I dunno the reality of that relationship, but I do know he's not some horrible monster that I am afraid of. I, personally, doubt that he'll ever harm a woman. Do I think he should be kept on list of sexual offenders for the rest of his life? Yep, sure do--even tho I think he probably got a raw deal. The reason I feel that way is because he WAS factually convicted of a sexual assault. It is public record.

Just my two cents.


Laura

[wtmusic]

63. Yes they are

but the question is do we spend public money to publicize personal information on this one particular class of criminal AFTER they have done their time?

[Pockets]

47. Why not let the victims decide?

"Hey Pat, I know that you relive being raped every day, you have trouble with a healthy sexual relationship with your spouse, your personal relationships are compromised, and your kids, relatives, and people at work think you act a bit strange.... But anyway, your 'former' rapist is rehabilitated now, he doesn't want to have a bad rep or anything and wants to get on with his life. Mkay?"

[mainegreen]

48. Last thoughts

I thinks its sad to see how emotion clouds reason on this topic.
Victims rights don't remove criminals rights. The crime is irrelavent. And come on people, courts aren't always right. We know that. The only safe option is to protect freedom, to err on the side of more rights, rather than less rights. To let people have a second chance. Where are all the liberals here? Where did you go?

so sad

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Pockets]

49. Liberal with information

We are giving the rapist the opportunity to be liberal by being open and honest about his past and his lifelong bond with his victims.

(edit: there are emotional elements to all laws)

[Blue_In_AK]

50. I believe a distinction needs to be made here...

Between true pedophiles and others who commit sexual assaults. There is a different dynamic at work, and yet both end up on the same lists. Someone formerly very close to me pled to a charge of adult rape when he was 19, 25 years ago, living on the street and wacked out on drugs and alcohol. While incarcerated and afterwards, he had extensive counseling. He did his time and his parole, has never committed another sexual offense, and yet must register for the rest of his life. To me, this is just plain unfair, and if such a publication were made here, I would be most upset. It's not fair for him or for his family (which includes my daughter). It's bad enough seeing him on the internet register.

So, yes, for predatory pedophiles notification of a neighborhood is probably not a bad idea, but a distinction needs to be drawn between the different types of sexual assault, IMO.

[Pockets]

51. Offenses are listed to avoid the confusion

But yes I generally agree with that distinction.

The problem is, the idea of letting a serious sex offender move on, when the victim has to live with it for the rest of his or her life.

Can you imagine if the sex offender became his victim's boss years later? The victim might have been passed over for promotions because people think (s)he acts a bit strange, while the ex-sex offender is seen as an assertive go getter. That would be sick.

[Blue_In_AK]

52. I agree it's a complex issue...

...and I think some of the solutions are a bit simplistic. And, of course, there's always the fact that most child molestation takes place within the family, by people close to the victim, and these abuses often aren't even reported. It's the stranger/predators that get all the press, it seems.

[Pockets]

53. At the risk of oversimplifying...

I don't think it has to be complex. I know I probably sound like a broken record, but I just don't want people walking away feeling sorry for these people. There's something about sexual aggressors that I think can be misidentified as a positive personality trait like assertiveness, confidence, maybe romanticism, etc. We can't let society be run by these types of people, which they might well accomplish without being exposed.

If someone is on the registry with a minor offense, people can see that the offense in minor on the list. In some sense, I personally would not even think a minor sex offender should benefit in life from his assertive nature, but that decision can be left to others who have to live and work with him. I personally would probably not want a minor sex offender to be my employer, because it would sicken me to see how his sex-offending personality traits receive the accolades at work.

I'm not a history expert, but I would not doubt that history would show many rulers and elite leaders with habitual sexual offenses on the poor and the weak. Our society would be no different if we let these guys off too easy.

[Evergreen Emerald]

69. So he committed a violent rape?

If indeed he changed his spots through drug/ sex offense counseling there is a possibility that he could petition the court for removal of the requirement to register. He has to be crime free for a certain amount of time. He would need to be evaluated or have his treatment provider verify his changes in behavior.

I am always suspect of those who commit violent rapes--but there is the possibility for change, and the court recognizes that. He should consult an attorney.

[cynatnite]

57. sex offender does not mean pedophile

I'm not crazy about this. People convicted of statutory rape would be grouped in with pedophiles.

As good of an idea as this sounds, it seems to me it does more harm than good.

[TXlib]

59. My $0.02

The criminal justice system ultimately exists to PROTECT SOCIETY; a corollary of that is to punish offenders.

The problem with dangerous sexual predators (typically predators of children) is their OVERWHELMING probability of re-offending. Pedophila is a mental disorder, and one we don't know how to treat.

Often times, the crime that gets them arrested, and on the list is fairly minor, compared to, say, rape & murder (exposing themselves to a child, fondling/being fondled...) These are NOT crimes which warrant life without parole or the death penalty, and typically have fairly short sentences (5-10 years at most).

We know these people are VERY likely to re-offend, and possibly to escalate, becoming full rapists and murderers. However, it is abhorrant to everything the American justice system stands for to punish people for what they MIGHT do in the future. Our justice system is really not well-equipped to handle the cases of dangerous predatory sex offenders well, while upholding all the tenets of justice we require.

So, knowing that these people will probably re-offend, but being legally and ethically unable to punish them for what they MIGHT do, how do we protect society?

Notification lists are one way. At least one state, Connecticut, if i recall correctly, allows for the involuntary civil commitment of such predators upon release from prison. In the setting of a mental hospital, they can be held indefinitely, if necessary, and perhaps the 1% or so who really pose little to no further threat to society can be identified and released.

[madeline_con]

60. worth way more than 2 cents!

That was very reasonable, obviously well thought out.

I truly believe knowing their location is a big step toward protecting our kids.

It might not prevent every tragedy, but it will definitelt reduce those which happen due to an uninformed public. :)

[podnoi]

71. Please read up, don't buy into the FEAR. It ain'ts quite as "they" say

The more I research this the more it appears to be part of the media fear machine driving this.

Quote - "We know these people are VERY likely to re-offend"

From the flink below (APA article)

"One major obstacle is public misconceptions about recidivism, Hanson says. "Even when we're talking with law enforcement officials, they'll guess demonstrated rates to be in the 70s or 80s, so real rates of 10 to 20 percent surprise everybody," he notes."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/newhope.html

Sure even 10-20% is too much. But there are studies that prove that recidivism can be reduced. It would be much more effective put our attention to that so there are fewer repeat offenders. That would go much farther than living in fear.

[TXlib]

74. Is that 10-20% across all types of "Sex offenders"?

There are so many ways to deceive with statistics. I wouldn't be surprised if you lumped ALL sex offenders together and got 20%.

Assessing dangerousness

Psychologists have gleaned a number of important treatment insights in their research--the most basic of which is one size does not fit all.

"A large part of the challenge to managing this group is educating the courts that sex offenders are a highly heterogeneous population and not all of them are at high-risk for re-offending," says psychologist Moss Aubrey, PhD, who does private assessment of male sex offenders in New Mexico.

People commit sexual crimes for different reasons, Aubrey says. "Some are highly predatory, highly psychopathic and have repeated offenses, making them more likely to re-offend," he explains.


This quote from your article suggests they averaged across all sex offenders. I agree that treating ALL sex offenders like the highly predatory and psychopathic child molesters, the worst of the worst, is grossly unjust. My comments were directed toward the category of offenders who truly do represent a continued extreme risk.

[Snotcicles]

62. Think they could do the same for tax evaders? n/t

[hiphopnation]

76. the more it is studied

the more professionals are starting to realize that sex offenders cannot be "cured" or "fixed". It's a real problem. I don't necessarily condone posting their names in newspapers but, what do we do with them?