Sex offender act might not be worth its cost to Nevada

[Hawkeye-X]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/15/sex-offender-act-might-not-be-worth-its-cost/

The sex offender list is very draconian.

Why no lists for murderers, kidnappers, drug dealers, ex-felons.

Why are the sex offenders singled out?

I believe that yes, with treatment for a long period of time, these sex offenders can become a valuable member of society, even with the risk of recidivism high.

I say, do away with the sex offender list and keep it out of the public eye. Keep it within the law enforcement circles for investigatory purpose.

I also know that there is a law that orders sex offenders to give up their DNA for the database for 'future crimes'. Again, draconian.

Hawkeye-X

[bluestateguy]

1. The same could be said about drug laws

You're not going to find public support for easing the sex offender laws, but you might find it for easing the drug laws.

[alexandria]

2. Wow i have seen it all.

You are defending sex offenders?

[Hawkeye-X]

4. No. I'm not defending sex offenders. I'm rejecting the idea of a list

ONLY for sex offenders.

Again, I repeat my inquiries - where are the list for murderers, drug dealers, kidnappers, thieves, and others?

Unless there are such list of offenders above, I think it's quite unfair for sex offenders to be singled out.

Hawkeye-X

[alexandria]

9. To quote the great Artie Lange....

Waah Waah Waah why are you picking on us poor sex offenders.
If you are a sex offender and you did something to a innocent child,you should be took out the back and shot.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. Why are you defending murderers? -nt

[Hawkeye-X]

15. What if...

What if the person who offended was underage, and the victim was underage, and it was consensual? Too bad, it's statuary rape. Sex offender list!

What if someone needed to pee urgently and there was no bathroom nearby and the cops was eating lunch in a picnic table? Too bad, indecent exposure. Sex offender list!

What if someone accidentally touched a clothed person and a witness nearby called the cops and you did nothing? Too bad, sexual assault. Sex offender list!

These are just a few of SO many wrong concept of the sex offender list that people are convicted of because of something stupid they did 10-20 years ago?

And yes, if you must ask - I know someone that is on the list. He did nothing, of course, and still got arrested. He has completed the treatment for sex offenders, and there are people who should NOT even be there, and some people who SHOULD be in prison, but are on probation instead to save costs.

Fortunately he is done with his probation, but still remains on the sex offender list for another 8 more years - and he has to register once a year.

Hawkeye-X

[alexandria]

20. What if is not a very good argument..nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Most of law is based on "what if." -nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Search by author is your friend.

Our Egyptian-named friend posts on a variety of subjects, criminal justice being but one.

[Still Sensible]

3. I don't have a problem with the idea of a sex offender list

but I have serious problems with how they have generally been employed.

When child predators are on the same list as a drunk college kid that took a piss behind the bleachers at a football game... something is wrong.

When serial rapists are on the same list as a girl who showed more skin than was allowed on spring break... something is wrong.

When a distributor of kiddie porn is on the same list as a 19-year-old that had consensual sex with his/her 17-year-old lover... something is wrong.

And then when politicians scare up votes by passing "tough on crime" laws that restrict where all these sex offenders can live--to the point that in some places the answer is "nowhere." Yes, it is all fucked up.

[Hawkeye-X]

5. Bingo.

That's why the sex offender list needs to be removed entirely.

There are too many variables to define what is a sex offender and what is not.

Although I'm all for listing every single Republican sex offenders.

There is such a unregistered sex offender in the U.S. Senate.

Hawkeye-X

[customerserviceguy]

8. They're not on the same lists

Sex offenses are categorized by seriousness and the likelihood to reoffend. The guy taking a piss, and the girl showing skin are NOT level three offenders.

Nowhere is only operative when we're talking about civilized areas. Level three sex offenders should consider themselves lucky to live anywhere outside a prison.

[Still Sensible]

19. When you go to the list in my state, Oklahoma,

I see one big list with no categories. And I suspect even in those places where there are categories the stigma of being on any sex offender list is so great that people don't necessarily get to the category before condemning someone.

[customerserviceguy]

35. That's because they only list level threes.

If they listed everybody, then what's the use of the level system?

By the way, here's the list of crimes for Oklahoma:

"Abuse or Neglect of Child/Child Beating (when sexual abuse or sexual exploitation is involved); Assault With Intent to Commit a Felony (if the offense involved sexual assault); Kidnapping; Caretaker Abuse or Neglect (when sexual abuse or sexual exploitation is involved); Trafficking in Children; Incest; Crime Against Nature/Sodomy; Forcible Sodomy; Child Stealing; Indecent Exposure/Indecent Exhibitions/Obscene or Indecent Writings, Pictures, etc./Solicitation of Minors to Participate in any crime under this section; To Procure or Cause Minors to Participate in Obscene or Indecent Writings, Pictures, etc.; Guardians--Parents--Custodians Consent to Participation of Minor in Obscene Writings, Pictures; Facilitating, Encouraging, Offering, or Soliciting Sexual Conduct with a Minor (Misdemeanor); Unlawful Sale, Purchase, or Trafficking of Obscene Movies, Photographs, Pictures, Drawings, Video Games, Etc.; Procuring a Child Under 18 Years of Age for Prostitution, Lewdness, or Other Indecent Acts; Inducing, Keeping, Detaining, or Restraining for Prostitution a Child Under 18 Years of Age; Rape in the First Degree/Rape in the Second Degree/Rape by Instrumentation; Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under 16/Sexual Battery to a Person Over 16."

I don't see flashing your boyfriend or pissing on a tree in that list. And the pictures and movies they're talking about are not "Deep Throat" or Playboy, they're kiddie porn. Anybody guilty of one of the above offenses needs to be judged harshly by those around them, especially those responsible for the safety of minors.

[chrisa]

6. So, you wouldn't want to know if.

A Sex Offender who molested a 5 year old girl moved next door, and you happened to have a 5 year old daughter? Really, how many Sex Offenders are sorry about what they did (minus crocodile tears and fake sorrow)? Many of them feel like we're (the public) the ones with the problem.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. There you go. Most sex crimes are committed against if not the youngest amongst us,

then certainly the most helpless. Sex offenders don't usually assault people of their own stature and strength.

Keep the list. Fuck sex offenders.

[NYC Liberal]

14. Why release them at all if they are still a threat?

My view is - if you release someone from prison that should mean that they don't present any serious threat to others. If they don't, there's no reason for a list. If they do, then they shouldn't be released in the first place.

[Hawkeye-X]

16. Exactly. See my above comment

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. I agree with you. Keep 'em in and never let them out.

I could be wrong, and usually am, but I believe I've read that sexual offenders have the highest rate of recividism amongst all felons. To release a monster like that back into society and then have him or her harm another helpless person should keep prison administrators and psychologists awake nights for the rest of their lives...

[dustbunnie]

21. It isn't that simple.

What if someone has raped 4 women, but there is only sufficient evidence to prosecute for one? The offender will receive a sentence based on the one crime.

How do you tell the difference between someone who would rape one time for whatever reason, versus someone who is a predator and craves it? You can only look to the opinions of doctors and experts, but they are simply that, opinions. You can't sentence based on the presumption that an offender will rape again.

This isn't a problem when evidence clearly indicates that the offender is a serial rapist, in that case they go away for life usually. But not every case is clear cut.

[NYC Liberal]

25. But we force them to submit to all kinds of restrictions, tracking,

public registration, etc. -- things that would be unconstitutional to impose on anybody else -- based on their threat alone, as part of their sentence, do we not? Is that not the whole point?

[dustbunnie]

27. Drug offenders don't usually kill people at random. Murderers who kill an alcoholic husband -

probably won't go out on some killing spree later on. (Murderers usually receive harsh sentences so it's not that relevant). Thieves are usually non-violent.

Predators are in a different class. They look like the average person, but clearly, are far from that.

[NYC Liberal]

28. "Murderers usually receive harsh sentences"

So why can't we do the same for rapists and child molesters? Murderers committed a heinous crime and many are violent by nature, so we give them long sentences.

If "predators are in a different class" and are as dangerous as you say (not disagreeing), then give them longer sentences instead of putting them in prison for a few years, then releasing them with borderline-effective restrictions.

[dustbunnie]

30. I have no idea what the deal is with child molesters.

They're given light sentences, which is very odd, and don't get it. But the Walsh Act asks for minimum 25-30 yr sentences, so even if they're required to be on a list afterward, that list would probably be much thinner than the current registry, just by virtue of the fact that many would die in prison.

As far as rapists go, I guess society has deemed anywhere between 6-25 years as appropriate sentencing based on individual circumstances. Rape is always terrible, but is there a difference between a 20-year-old who commits such a crime while drunk or drugged out, and feels terrible remorse afterward, and someone who harbors secret urges to do it again and again? I guess it's difficult to divine in many cases, and the remorseful drunken rapist can probably be rehabilitated.

[NYC Liberal]

31. Yes I don't get it either.

I think part of it might be the fact that many times, rape or molestation goes unreported and you hit the statute of limitations. But nonetheless, what we need is longer sentences, not borderline unconstitutional restrictions after prison that are lifelong. We don't have them for murderers or many other crimes -- and even if those criminals are released and put on probation, that only lasts for a limited amount of time.

And yes, obviously there needs to be differentiation based on the crime and circumstances--just like there is now even with murder. Consensual sex between a 19 and 16 year old is different from rape, even though legally that is what it's called.

[dustbunnie]

32. It's probably partly that.

And maybe also because many times it's just the word of a child against that of an adult? Absent obvious signs of abuse, or kidnapping, maybe judges are loathe to give 30-year sentences based only on the testimony of children? I don't know, am just surmising. I also remember one case in Vermont, where the judge handed down a ludicrous, light sentence because the offender had a very low IQ.

I know the registry thing is not the best idea, and lots of people get lumped onto it because they had sex with their 15-year-old girlfriend, or took a drunken pee in a public place. If only there was a way to just track the really potentially bad offenders. Well, guess they could if they wanted to.

Take a look at the sex offender map for NYC. It's ridiculous. Apparently the only safe place to live is in the river!!!

http://www.familywatchdog.us/ShowMap.asp?frm=0

[dustbunnie]

18. Because it's considered an infringement of a person's constitutional rights -

You can't keep people in prison for crimes they haven't committed yet, even if there is a likelihood they will re-offend.

[NYC Liberal]

22. I'm saying increase sentences for sex crimes

If sex offenders are *overall* considered to be "incurable", then their prison sentences should be longer.

It makes no sense to say - "This person is a sex offender, committed heinous crimes and shows no remorse. Let's sentence him to a few years in prison, then when he gets out, we'll put him on a 'list' even though he hasn't been cured and remains a threat."

The answer is not registries and lists and tracking - the answer is longer minimum sentences if these people are such a threat.

Else, why not let murderers out after a few years and then subject them to tracking, public registration, etc. -- after all, we can't give them longer sentences based on the threat they pose.

[dustbunnie]

26. Well, the OP refers to the Walsh Act, which also stipulates much stiffer sentences -

in addition to the federal registry.

The difference between murderers and child molesters, serial rapists, is that most murderers will only offend once. Crimes of passion, burglary gone awry, etc. Predator criminals have a hard time resisting their urges. However, you can't incarcerate them forever based on their first crime, even if doctors assert the person will re-offend.

Serial murderers, along with serial rapists, go away forever once it's been established that their crimes are in fact repetitive, so that answers your question. They are given long sentences.

In cases where organized crime, gang murders are concerned, these types of people are also placed on LE lists. And it usually isn't difficult to glean who they are based on appearance. The average child molester could be any seeming milquetoast dude walking down the street.

[NYC Liberal]

29. "However, you can't incarcerate them forever based on their first crime"

Sure you can - we do it all the time for murderers. Someone commits what is legally a "first degree" murder we put them in prison for life. Or even execute them. So tell me why the same cannot be done for sex offenders?

Your solution is to put sex offenders back on the street, then slap some restrictions on them that are borderline unconstitutional. My solution is to say that if the crime they committed is so heinous that those restrictions are needed in the first place, why are they being released?

You say that we can't sentence based on what a person "might" do. If that's the case, then what are the restrictions for post-prison?

[dustbunnie]

33. Well, okay, supposing people were open to that.

How egregious does the crime have to be to merit life in prison. A first-time child molester might be guilty of "touching" or simply doing "stuff" to himself while the child is present. They only later go on to kidnapping and doing worse. Can you really see society putting people away for life, for touching a child? As awful as it is, I don't see it.

I think some states wanted to approve the death penalty for child rape, but some people argued that since many molesters are family members, it would put undue pressure and guilt on the child, and many families wouldn't come forward. Life in prison might have the same effect.

Again, to use the 20-year-old college kid who rapes a girl at a frat party example... is he someone who desperately regrets his crime afterward and would never do it again, or is he a manipulative sociopath who cries like a baby on the stand while already planning his next crime? If it's the former, does he deserve 10 years, or forever? How can you tell for sure what's in his mind?

[NYC Liberal]

34. I don't see it either

But then again, as I said, if they are such a threat that it warrants requiring public registration, restrictions, tracking, etc., then they shouldn't be released. Period. When a murderer is released, they are considered to have paid their "debt" and are free. As you said, we can't sentence people based on the possibility of a crime being committed in the future. But these post-prison restrictions are based on just that: the threat, or the possibility, that the person will commit another crime.

So, we can look at recidivism rates for different 'types' of sex offenders and sentence accordingly. But let's have none of this "You've served your prison sentence, we're letting you go free...oh but we still think you're a threat so here is a list of restrictions and requirements that you have -- for life." These sex offender lists essentially ARE a life sentence.

My point isn't to argue for better classification of sex offenders (I do support that). My point is that these sex offender registries and all of the other restrictions placed on sex offenders once they've served their prison sentence, should be done away with once they're out. Prison is where we put people who are threats to the public. If they're no longer a threat, then they should be released -- and accordingly, should have all of their civil rights restored to them.

[dustbunnie]

36. I'm torn on this issue.

The rational part of me agrees with you, for several reasons. People are often convicted of a crime they didn't commit and shouldn't have to pay for that the rest of their lives. Those who may have done something terrible are never able to move on and improve their lives because the registry guarantees they'll be hounded forever. People who may have done something innocuous like pee in public, or were dumb enough to have sex with their underage girlfriend are lumped in with truly awful people.

I don't know that long sentences are always the way to go. To me, it's like the death penalty issue. Innocent people are convicted for rape crimes based on circumstantial evidence. Can you imagine sentencing someone to 30 or 40 years for a rape crime or child molestation that the person didn't commit? People also go to prison when they should be in a hospital.

I also think of people like John Wayne Gacy, who went to prison for child molestation, then later on killed a lot of boys because no one tracked him. I suppose you're right... from a rational point of view, people should be released from their debt once they've done the trime, but as a woman, geez, I would like to know if my neighbor once committed a terrible rape.

[Hawkeye-X]

12. That's why you have the police department to check for you.

To see if there is a sex offender in the area.

Hell, in my 5 mile radius, here are the number of sex offenders:



Chances are, there's a sex offender next door to you.

Too many variables involved.

Hawkeye-X

[CreekDog]

37. the biggest risk for that is from someone she knows or in her family

not from a stranger.

i'm not saying i wouldn't want to know, but let's have a reality check about where the greater risk lies.

[T Wolf]

7. When they start keeping lists of the cretins who commit "economic" crimes and subject them

to after-incarceration sanctions, I will take these selective lists more seriously as legitimate.

It is simply a pretend-to-do-something bullshit that we have come to expect from the law-and-order assholes.

And this opinion comes from the father of two daughters who realized that there is more danger out there than imaginary perverts waiting behind every tree.

[chrisa]

11. Yeah, true.

I think peer pressure to do things like drinking unsafely is much more dangerous and common.