Great idea

[safeinOhio]

register gun offenders just like sex offenders. Cops are taking a bite out of crime.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100516/NEWS07/5160392/1322/ Baltimore-officers-zero-in-on-gun-crimes
Officers familiarize themselves with a list of 120 dangerous criminals and patrol where they live, talking to them and working acquaintances for tips. The serving of arrest warrants has been reprioritized to focus on people with violent backgrounds. Gun offenders also are required to register with the city, much like sex offenders do in many places.
"I'm not trying to win the drug war," Bealefeld said. "I'm out to win the war on violence and deal effectively with violence."
Experts and other police leaders don't see Bealefeld as an innovator, but he's notable for his focus on guns. He rejected a zero-tolerance policy for minor offenses that the department followed in the early 2000s, which calls for enforcement on quality-of-life crimes to prevent more serious offenses.
"I consider possessing a gun on the streets of this city, illegally, a crime of violence," Bealefeld said.

[Travis Coates]

1. Fail

"I consider possessing a gun on the streets of this city, illegally, a crime of violence," Bealefeld said.

Where I'm from it's a misdemeanor.

My question is, aren't criminals already "in the system"? They certainly are if they're on parole or probation. So, what changes?

The problem (as seen W/ sex offenders) is that once you decide to register a class of criminals that class seems to expand.

I know of people who are on the RSO list because they got caught peeing in a park. There's a kid in Georgia who has done somnething like ten years in the state pen because he got a blow job from a 15 YO when he was 17.


You may feel free to question my credentials as a progressive and call me a freeper troll now

[safeinOhio]

2. Thanks for the offer.

This seems to be working in that city. By focusing on violent crime and disregarding minor drug violations, the law works. The big complaint by many here is that most laws that are intended to reduce violent crime don't work. I'd say expand these policies and look at the statistics. If they work they could be applied at the state level. Sorry about your friend and his BJ, but I'm old enough to remember John Sinclair getting 10 for two. Pot laws are still on the books 40 years later. I think there is an effort to narrow down sex registration laws. Other than peeing in the park and getting blow jobs from 15 year olds, both illegal, it seems to work and help parents be aware of offenders to keep their kids safe from. If you had a 10 year child, wouldn't you want to know if the neighbor is a pervert? If you knew he was a violent weapons offender, you could report if you saw him with a gun heading out the door. If you were selling a gun in a private sale, at least you could look the person up to see if he was eligible to purchase a weapon. I see way more up sides than down sides.

[Travis Coates]

3. Again, I ask

Aren't "violent gun offenders" already on a list?

I don't sell guns but if I did I'd be happy W/ a CO driver's license and only that so I know I'm selling in state to in state. I've bought firearms from cops that didn't even ask for that much.

Why waste money on gun control schemes that don't seem to work?

[safeinOhio]

6. As I said and the article points out

it seems to be working. If more studies proof it, why not?

[Travis Coates]

9. Focus

It's common sense, Kennedy said, to focus on a small number of dangerous people instead of rounding up people for "low-level nonsense."

I think this is working because they're focusing on the criminal rather than the tool. Should 'bat offenders" or "knife offenders" be forced to register and submit to "frequent home checks" ?

[safeinOhio]

11. Yes, those convicted of violent crimes

need to be checked on as often as those that are convicted of sex crimes. Sex and violence kind of go together. If a sex offender needs to check in and change his or her address if moving, violent criminals should have to also. Don't committee a violent or sex crime and have all the freedom in the world.

[shadowrider]

13. Just a question

If a sex offender needs to check in and change his or her address if moving, violent criminals should have to also.

Isn't that what parole officers are for? From what I can see, the system is already in place and fails miserably since it's up to the bad guy to take the initiative and provide notifications of a change in status. Many times, the parole officer has no clue where someone is.

The only possible way I can see this working is for authorities to check on the bad guy every other day, every week, etc. Even still, that would work if, and only if, the guy obeys conditions of parole and is where he/she is supposed to be. That's expensive.

[Travis Coates]

20. You're still focusing on the criminal not the tool

And I agree W/ that 100%.

Although I still believe that if you prove yourself by years of exemplary behavior there should be a mechanism by which you can have your rights restored. But that's a topic for a different thread

[marcus5aurelius]

29. We should certainly use the registry

To track you and you're family. You're obviously not too stable :7

[benEzra]

4. If "gun offender" means "tried to rob somebody at gunpoint"

then no problem. If it means "person with no criminal record who works nights at the 7-Eleven caught with a .32 on her person without a license", or "person put a flash suppressor on a rifle with a protruding handgrip, violating the 2-features rule", then I'd question the stigmatize-for-life thing. And this is Maryland, after all.

IF this is an attempt to focus on violent criminals instead of victimless drug (and gun) "crimes" then I applaud it. I'd like to see more details, though.

[Bold Lib]

5. You are 100% correct. This could be an effective tool. Or it could be perverted to the point of

uselessness.

[spin]

7. Gun control should focus on criminals rather than honest citizens ...

when you attempt to put out a fire with a fire extinguisher, you focus on the base of the fire rather than spraying the flames.

Implemented and enforced properly, this approach would reduce violent crime far more than "feel good" laws such as another assault weapons ban or pistol microstamping.

[jody]

8. Such lists can be easily abused as is the Terrorist Watch List with over 1 million names. n/t

[shadowrider]

10. Nah, don't worry. The government would assure us it wouldn't be abused

Promise us even.

[jody]

17. It's impossible for anyone convicted of a federal crime and completed a sentence to get civil rights

restored.

That's how the federal government under Dem & Rep presidents operate.

[safeinOhio]

12. Big difference

Terror list is those suspected, not convicted. A list of violent gun crime violators is very specific to those with a conviction.

Apples and oranges.

[shadowrider]

14. Not debating differences but the potential for abuse

Slippery slope. Register violent gun offenders slides to "Well, we already register bad guys and the system is in place. Why don't we register owners?" It's called project creep.

Not arguing with you. It's potential for abuse that's the question.

[rrneck]

15. I'm generally against

state scrutiny without probable cause. If someone did their time and paid their debt to society, then they shouldn't be on any sort of list at all. If they're still enough of a threat to be on some list, they should still be locked up.

[burrfoot]

21. In principle I agree with you here, but

there's a pretty serious recidivism rate among sexual offenders. High enough that for me, even though they've paid their debt to society by doing their time, I still think the scales tip massively in the favor of the public safety when it comes to making a list of them.

Then again, I'm probably a little biased here. I work with kids, many of whom have been abused. I'd be pretty much ok with locking up habitual or violent perps of this nature for the rest of their lives. I might not be too upset if we had more executions of them either.

I know, I know. Not very progressive of me. I've seen too much of the damage they cause to have any sympathy, though.

I'm thrilled that there's a list and I think they ought to put some people to work by developing a department just to keep tabs on them (PO's have waaaayyy too much to do, and the perps move without notifying anyone a lot). I use that list when looking at places to rent/move/live, when placing kids in homes or when meeting a new family, or even when considering a new running route (though I must confess it's my girl that runs, I'm more of a take-the-dog-to-the-park-smoke-and-drink-coffee kind of guy ;) ).

YMMV, of course.

[rrneck]

23. I hear you.

I don't see anything un-progressive about sending someone to prison. It only gets un-progressive when we set about trying to figure out a way to make money off it and shifting the risk right back onto society.

If the desire to molest children is incurable, and it may well be, molesters should be locked up forever. If anyone is so criminally insane they seem to be a permanent danger to society, they should be removed permanently. Lock 'em the fuck up.

And while we have them locked up forever, we can work on finding a way to make them productive members of society even if we succeed with only a small number of them. That way, lives will be saved outside and inside prison and we'll learn a lot about how to heal damage to the human psyche to boot.

We as a society should accept the cost of subjecting someone to that penalty. I think if we accept that cost we won't be quite so quick to label some teenager incurably deviant that had sex with another teenager, or someone who took a leak by the side of the road and got busted because some kid saw them. As it stands now we get to use anybody we can call a sexual offender for inventory for the private prison industry and then kick them back into society in such a constricted legal limbo they are useless to everyone including themselves.

But it's a tough call for me to make, and I don't have a claim to anything like an adequate solution for the problem. That's just my best poke at it.

And I agree about the running. No pain - no pain. :D

[Caliman73]

25. Actually

Recidivism rates for sex offenders may be inflated. the California DOC has done some study into recidivism and it is finding that those 80% rates that everyone throws out may be high when you are talking about people who are actually offending again. Most returns to prison by offenders are for technical violations such as failing to register upon moving and failure to check in.

Not disputing the damage that they cause with even one offense, but we do need to be factually accurate when making judgments and policy.

[Euromutt]

28. Like Caliman73 says, recidivism among sex offenders isn't anywhere near what it's claimed to be

In 2003, the DoJ published a report on recidivism among sex offenders released from prison in 1994. I quote from the press release (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm):

Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. If all crimes are included, 43 percent of sex offenders were rearrested for various offenses.

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense—43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

<...>

Of the almost 9,700 sex offenders released in 1994, nearly 4,300 were identified as child molesters. An estimated 3.3 percent of the 4,300 released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years.

Earlier studies over the past few decades have produced estimated recidivism rates of 10-20%, with child molesters being less likely to reoffend than those sexually assault adults.

There is a hard core of compulsive offenders, but this is an even smaller percentage. In the case of Georgia, just over 100 of the total 17,000 registered sex offenders are considered "predators," i.e. ~0.6%.

Essentially, the idea that sex offenders are particularly likely to reoffend is an unsupported myth.

[X_Digger]

16. Here's a great idea..

Let's do away with all these constitutionally questionable 'registries'.

On the other hand, we could just tattoo a big red 'OFFENDER' on their foreheads. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

19. Spoken like

a true technocrat blinded by ideology.

[PavePusher]

22. More government "lists"...

Is that really what we need?

Welcome to the Beaureau of the Department of Redundancy Office.

[aikoaiko]

24. This could be done well within certain parameters and it could go horribly wrong.

with overzealous application.

Many states' sex offender lists were a bit too inclusive (including nonpredators with true predators). Hopefully, B-more will focus on the truly dangerous.

[jeepnstein]

26. You're heart is certainly in the right place.

Focusing on the offender and not the tool is a good way to start. I don't know what good a "list" does. Most of the violent offenders in our society can't read anyway and they don't care much about anything.

Personally, I think keeping tabs on the most violent offenders makes sense from an officer safety point of view. The devil's in the details. How do we define "violent"? Not knowing Baltimore's gun laws I won't chime in on whether an otherwise lawful citizen is afforded the freedom to own a firearm but I will say that mere possession does not equate with violence.

If courts would focus on not allowing pleas that allow the gun spec to be dealt away and using intensive probation techniques on violent offenders then I think it would help. Problem is most probation departments are nothing more than a money maker for the courts and they could care less about the offender's rehabilitation. Probation is registration. Adding another list or requirement would do nothing but create another way for them to screw up and get sent back to jail.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

27. You know how some sex offenders are chemically castrated? ...

Why don't we just cut off gun-offenders' trigger fringers too!

PR0BL3M SoLV3D!!11! :eyes: