ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th February 2020, 02:30 PM   #1
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,816
Arrested,tried, convicted, imprisoned, time served released

A child molester here where I live was arrested for molesting a little girl. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison which he served in total.

Now that he has served his time should he be allowed to live anywhere he wants to? Laws on the books say he cannot live anywhere near children but children are everywhere. Where can he live?
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 02:42 PM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,812
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
A child molester here where I live was arrested for molesting a little girl. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison which he served in total.

Now that he has served his time should he be allowed to live anywhere he wants to?
It's an interesting quest-

Quote:
Laws on the books say he cannot live anywhere near children but children are everywhere. Where can he live?
Oh. Never mind.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 02:43 PM   #3
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 19,016
You don't have any caves in the region?
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 02:44 PM   #4
StillSleepy
Critical Thinker
 
StillSleepy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 310
I was thinking Alaska.
__________________
You are so vain, I bet you think this signature is about you, don't you?

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." ~ Patrick F. McManus, “Never Sniff A Gift Fish”
StillSleepy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 02:45 PM   #5
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,972
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
Now that he has served his time should he be allowed to live anywhere he wants to?
No, because his sentence is that post-custodial he cannot live near children. That's part of "his time", and he is in fact still serving it.

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
Laws on the books say he cannot live anywhere near children but children are everywhere. Where can he live?
He can live somewhere there aren't children. Because children are in fact not "everywhere". The laws of his state probably delineate exactly how far he has to stay away from places where children congregate. There are a few locations where individual municipalities have made those distances onerously or impossibly large, but it is only a few locations and moving elsewhere, even to a neighboring town, will likely solve the problem if he happens to have been released in one of those locations.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 03:09 PM   #6
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,947
There are adult only communities. "Active Seniors" communities typically have age restrictions that would completely preclude children. Usually you yourself have to be some minimum age to get in though. Typical rules for a 55+ seniors community might be that one person must be over 55, spouse has to be at least 40, any children of the couple have to be adult children.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 03:20 PM   #7
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,415
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
...The laws of his state probably delineate exactly how far he has to stay away from places where children congregate. There are a few locations where individual municipalities have made those distances onerously or impossibly large, but it is only a few locations and moving elsewhere, even to a neighboring town, will likely solve the problem if he happens to have been released in one of those locations.
I think they usually designate schools, parks libraries, things like that. I have never heard of a community that leaves it so vague as to say "not near children"

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
There are adult only communities. "Active Seniors" communities typically have age restrictions that would completely preclude children. Usually you yourself have to be some minimum age to get in though. Typical rules for a 55+ seniors community might be that one person must be over 55, spouse has to be at least 40, any children of the couple have to be adult children.
Even those communities might not be available for people on sex offender lists.

I lived near one of those adult communities a few years back, it was next to an elementary school. Most of that community would have been too close to the school to be legal for people on sex offender registries to move into (maybe depending on why the person was on the registry to begin with).

It is one of those things where society has trouble balancing its fear of recidivism, its desire to continue punishment, against its desire to rehabilitate previous offenders and prevent recidivism.

One risk is that all the sex offenders end up in the same neighborhood, because that's the only one distant enough from schools and such. Perhaps we don't want them all living next door to each other?
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 03:23 PM   #8
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by crescent View Post

It is one of those things where society has trouble balancing its fear of recidivism, its desire to continue punishment, against its desire to rehabilitate previous offenders and prevent recidivism.
Is there any evidence that these restrictions have an effect on recidivism?
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 03:29 PM   #9
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,972
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
One risk is that all the sex offenders end up in the same neighborhood, because that's the only one distant enough from schools and such. Perhaps we don't want them all living next door to each other?
I can't see why it would be a problem. They're all adults, they won't be at risk from each other.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 03:38 PM   #10
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,803
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
A child molester here where I live was arrested for molesting a little girl. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison which he served in total.

Now that he has served his time should he be allowed to live anywhere he wants to? Laws on the books say he cannot live anywhere near children but children are everywhere. Where can he live?
As a point of fact, there's a couple of reasons why certain individuals do a "max-time" sentence with a walk-away, and this is why the general public should be concerned.

1. They were incapable of earning "good time" while incarcerated.

2. They don't want a parole officer in their business when released.

As far as being a registered sex offender, depending on local or state laws, as long as they register and keep a low profile they can live just about anywhere.

At one time I lived in a pretty up-scale area and there were several registered sex offenders living in the neighborhood near a park and a grade school.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 19th February 2020 at 03:41 PM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 04:35 PM   #11
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,415
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Is there any evidence that these restrictions have an effect on recidivism?
Yes, there is.

State and local laws push more registered sex offenders into low-income Colorado communities

Quote:
The intent of the laws may be unassailable. But throughout the country, they have largely sequestered sex offenders in low-income neighborhoods.

That unequal distribution is “one of the unintended consequences of sex-offender registries,” said Mary Evans, associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Northern Colorado. “The only places in society that will allow them to reenter are socially challenged areas.”
Quote:
One factor that increases the odds an offender will commit another sex offense: living in a disadvantaged neighborhood.

“When individuals re-enter society, they need three things to keep them from re-offending: a job, housing and community connections,” Evans said. Moving into an unstable, challenged community “is a recipe for having them recidivate.”

In a 2010 study in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, a University of California, Irvine team reported that when sex offenders live in disadvantaged neighborhoods, “such neighborhoods may be unable to address such social and health needs of parolees as housing, employment opportunities, drug treatment, health care, and counseling.”

The researchers also found that sex offenders are more likely to wind up in disadvantaged neighborhoods than other criminals, including those who have served much longer prison terms.
Quote:
A lot of current treatment for sex offenders now focuses on reintegrating them into their community, said Apryl Alexander, an assistant professor at the University of Denver graduate school of professional psychology. Alexander is director of the Denver Forensic Institute for Research, Service, and Training (Denver FIRST) Outpatient Competency Restoration Program.

“When we have these residency restrictions, you’re going to be displacing people,” making it hard to forge those connections that help prevent offenders from committing additional crimes, she said.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 04:55 PM   #12
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Thanks. I had a look myself and every study I have seen so far suggests that location restrictions and sex offender registries either have no effect on recividism or lead to increased recividism.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 05:05 PM   #13
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,078
The solution is obvious: send him to space.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 05:24 PM   #14
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,078
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
It is one of those things where society has trouble balancing its fear of recidivism, its desire to continue punishment, against its desire to rehabilitate previous offenders and prevent recidivism.
If someone is such a threat to children that they can't even be allowed to live in the vicinity of them I think it's pretty obvious that they should be in prison or some other secure institution.

The reality is that ostracizing "sex offenders" has nothing to do with recidivism and everything to do with Americans not wanting them to live anywhere near them, without having to pay for their upkeep and being responsible for them while they are incarcerated or institutionalized.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

Last edited by Arcade22; 19th February 2020 at 05:26 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 08:07 AM   #15
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,078
I should ask here: is there any other western country than the US (or at least parts of it) that effectively subjects "sex offenders", especially those who have sexually abused children, to a legal form of ostracism?

It comes off as completely insane to come to the conclusion that someone is so likely to sexually abuse children to such a degree that they cannot be allowed to live near children, yet at the same time tolerate that they be allowed to leave prison or psychiatric institutions.

Are Americans just so very naive and stupid, thinking that as long as they live in their "sex offender" village on the margins of society, they are not going to be able to sexually abuse children?

At least where I live, people who commit crimes and are deemed mentally disturbed enough can be sentenced to secure psychiatric care until they are determined to pose no significant risk of committing serious crimes. That might mean they stay there for the rest of their life.

I read that the person who had spent the most time incarcerated was a rather "special" pedophile who had raped and murdered a young boy, and for that he's been in a secure psychiatric institution for something like 60 years. Had he been not so mentally deficient and lacking in self-control he would likely have been released long ago, despite his grisly deed.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

Last edited by Arcade22; 20th February 2020 at 08:20 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 09:12 AM   #16
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,415
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Are Americans just so very naive and stupid, thinking that as long as they live in their "sex offender" village on the margins of society, they are not going to be able to sexually abuse children?
The great majority of people on the sex offender lists committed no crimes against children. Sexual assault and such, usually against adults.

And the thing is, recidivism rates are low for these types of crimes, and American incarceration rates are much, much higher than most of the developed world.

In your scenario, America is naively releasing dangerous felons. What is much more common here is that people are kept locked up long after they pose any risk to society. Then, once out, they get shamed and ostracized even though such behavior makes them more likely to offend, not less likely (as I cited previously).
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 09:48 AM   #17
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post

It comes off as completely insane to come to the conclusion that someone is so likely to sexually abuse children to such a degree that they cannot be allowed to live near children, yet at the same time tolerate that they be allowed to leave prison or psychiatric institutions.
Most sex offenders have relatively low rates of recividism according to most studies I've seen. This study reports that 95% of sexual offense arrests were first-time (suspected) offenders. Within the article it is stated that "5.3% of the 9,691 sex offenders released in 1994 were re-arrested for a new sex offense within 3 years of being released (Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003), compared with re-arrest rates of 73.8% for property offenders and 66.7% for drug offenders (Langan & Levin, 2002)"
This more recent study found that most sex offenders were at low risk of recividism. A smaller high-risk group were identified, but sex offender notification and registration (SORN) policies had no impact on risk. I have not found any studies that provide support for localisation restrictions in reducing the risk of reoffending, and some report increased risk. The mains reasons given for increased risk are that such policies increase homelessness and economic deprivation and make it more difficult to live a normal life, all of which increase the likelihood of re-offending.

In the UK there has been a similar general approach to increasing monitoring and supervision of sex offenders, but it is less general and more tailored to higher risk offenders from what I understand. There has also been some resistance to implementing US style policies where they have not been shown to be effective.

Last edited by Elaedith; 20th February 2020 at 10:09 AM.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 02:00 PM   #18
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,214
Since I can only read the abstract, I'm curious what group comprised "high risk" group of offenders.

Similarly, it seems people take pains to purposefully include child molesters in with the more general "sex offender" group. Is this being done to disguise the problematic nature of this particular group?
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 02:55 PM   #19
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,078
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
In your scenario, America is naively releasing dangerous felons. What is much more common here is that people are kept locked up long after they pose any risk to society. Then, once out, they get shamed and ostracized even though such behavior makes them more likely to offend, not less likely (as I cited previously).
That's what makes it seem so utterly bizarre. I'm assuming that they are not allowed to live or even be close to schools or anything like that because they are deemed a threat to them. That living in the proximity of many children would either make it easy for them to find a victim, or alternatively trigger

Given that children can be almost anywhere, it does not seem like that would offer them much protection from potential sexual abuse. So unless Americans are somehow oblivious to this rather obvious shortcoming, it seems like there must be some other kind of reason for this.

Which leads to the key question: if Americans just don't want pedophiles, or "sex offenders" in general, to live in their communities why are they not just honest about it and imprison them for life?

They have already demonstrated that, at least in much of the country, they have little hesitation in sentencing people to prison for very long periods of time even for rather insignificant crimes.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 03:14 PM   #20
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by Pterodactyl View Post
Since I can only read the abstract, I'm curious what group comprised "high risk" group of offenders.

Similarly, it seems people take pains to purposefully include child molesters in with the more general "sex offender" group. Is this being done to disguise the problematic nature of this particular group?
The study used semi-parametric trajectory modelling to identify sub-groups of offenders. I'm not highly familiar with the particular statistical method so I can't comment on its validity, but it uses Bayesian information criteria to estimate the number of trajectory groups and posterior probabilities of group assignment as a measure of model precision. Therefore it does not involve classifying offenders as high risk a priori based on any criteria such as checklists or other characteristics. The model identified a low-risk trajectory (79.5% of the sample) who had very low and stable rates of re-arrest. Those in the high risk trajectory had high rates of re-offending from soon after release and this increased from Year 2 post release.

Regarding sex offense incident characteristics "...there was a significantly greater proportion of rapists in the high-risk trajectory whereas there was a significantly greater proportion of child molesters in the low-risk trajectory. Female victims and stranger victims were the more frequent victims for the sex offenders in the high-risk trajectory. Furthermore, a greater proportion of sex offenders in the high-risk trajectory had used a weapon when committing the sex offense for which they were released from prison, and a substantially greater proportion of sex offenders who had a prior criminal history were in the high-risk trajectory" (pp 321-322).

Many studies I've seen include different types of sex offenders and I don't see any sinister reason for it. There are inconsistencies from one study to another regarding recividism rates and I think that is inevitable given different samples and methods of defining recividism. Of course there is always the problem that recividism has to be identified and certain types of sex offenses are more likely to go unreported.

Last edited by Elaedith; 20th February 2020 at 03:15 PM.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 04:06 PM   #21
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,403
Well....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira...age_(community)
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 04:08 PM   #22
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,972
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
The great majority of people on the sex offender lists committed no crimes against children. Sexual assault and such, usually against adults.
Only the ones that committed crimes against children are given prohibitions about interacting with children as part of their sentence.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 05:42 PM   #23
MoeFaux
Suspicious Mind
 
MoeFaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,456
Peeing in an alley can make you a sex offender. So can mooning someone. I miss taking a pee outdoors behind a dumpster when out on the town and flashing friends to make them laugh, but I won't dare risk being put on a list with child molesters and rapists.





The only sex offender I knew first hand, upon being released from his prison term, took his new wife and moved out of the country.


It's an emotional issue. Personally, I'm not sure I would ever trust anyone who served their term. Maybe I've known the wrong kind of bad men, but I don't think those guys change their orientation; instead, they are asked to suppress it while hoping they learned sufficient coping skills in prison. The risk, then, of recidivism is high.
__________________
This post brought to you by the artist fauxmerly known as Moe.
MoeFaux is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 05:58 PM   #24
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,729
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
A child molester here where I live was arrested for molesting a little girl. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison which he served in total.

Now that he has served his time should he be allowed to live anywhere he wants to? Laws on the books say he cannot live anywhere near children but children are everywhere. Where can he live?
More importantly ,perhaps, is how he can possibly excercise the franchise when his local polling place also quite likely serves as a grade school during the day.

Or do you prefer to not examine this felons' ability to cast a vote?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 10:01 PM   #25
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,654
Originally Posted by MoeFaux View Post
It's an emotional issue. Personally, I'm not sure I would ever trust anyone who served their term. Maybe I've known the wrong kind of bad men, but I don't think those guys change their orientation; instead, they are asked to suppress it while hoping they learned sufficient coping skills in prison. The risk, then, of recidivism is high.
How do you square that with this:

Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Most sex offenders have relatively low rates of recividism according to most studies I've seen. This study reports that 95% of sexual offense arrests were first-time (suspected) offenders. Within the article it is stated that "5.3% of the 9,691 sex offenders released in 1994 were re-arrested for a new sex offense within 3 years of being released (Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003), compared with re-arrest rates of 73.8% for property offenders and 66.7% for drug offenders (Langan & Levin, 2002)"
This more recent study found that most sex offenders were at low risk of recividism. A smaller high-risk group were identified, but sex offender notification and registration (SORN) policies had no impact on risk. I have not found any studies that provide support for localisation restrictions in reducing the risk of reoffending, and some report increased risk. The mains reasons given for increased risk are that such policies increase homelessness and economic deprivation and make it more difficult to live a normal life, all of which increase the likelihood of re-offending.
Perhaps the severity of the crime means that even a 5%/3 years recidivism rate is too high. So the issue isn't the risk relative to other types of criminal, but rather that absolute risk given the severity of the crime. In that case we should be concerned with finding methods of lowering those recidivism rates.

Based on the data presented by Elaedith, a sex offenders registry and other measures like limiting their movement and places where they can live, are not effective. We should be looking for other, more effective, solutions.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 10:11 PM   #26
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,415
One way to think of it is that if we have sex offender registries, including maintenance of public facing maps showing where they live --

Then why don't we have murderer registries? With public facing maps showing where they live?

Why don't we have felony assault registries, with public facing maps showing where they live?

Drunk driver registries and maps?

Robbery convictions registries and maps?


Why only for sex offenders?
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 05:17 AM   #27
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,078
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
One way to think of it is that if we have sex offender registries, including maintenance of public facing maps showing where they live --

Then why don't we have murderer registries? With public facing maps showing where they live?

Why don't we have felony assault registries, with public facing maps showing where they live?

Drunk driver registries and maps?

Robbery convictions registries and maps?


Why only for sex offenders?
I don't know what exactly drove America to make "sex offenders" specifically into becoming pariahs. It always struck me as very odd.

Take Facebook for example. "Sex offenders" are not allowed to register and use Facebook. They are the only group of convicted criminals specifically mentioned and absolutely prohibited from being registered there. Murderers, drug dealers, tax cheats and others are apparently okay. This applies everywhere, even in Sweden where there is no similar kind of public attitude of demonising "sex crimes" as "especially heinous" (to quote Law and Order: SVU).
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 06:04 AM   #28
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,851
I don't doubt that cases like this is exist in the real world, but I would like to know if it is an actual case or just a fictitious, made-up Cainkane1 story. Why no link?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 06:10 AM   #29
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,985
Won't somebody think of the child molesters!!!?!
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 06:52 AM   #30
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,654
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Won't somebody think of the child molesters!!!?!
I'm personally concerned with society in general. It seems like a good idea for our programs to achieve the objectives that they set out to achieve, and when they don't to rethink them.

With respect to sex offenders in general and child molesters in particular, the sex offender's registry is a token action: something that officials can say they support as a token to show that they want to improve this problem, this can remove the requirement for further action. But this token action doesn't actually help solve the problem.

I'd like to see us move away from the token and actually look at effective action. How can we lower recidivism rates? How can we lower rates of crimes against children in general, both from first time and repeat offenders? These seem like the meaningful questions.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 06:54 AM   #31
rockysmith76
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 966
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm personally concerned with society in general. It seems like a good idea for our programs to achieve the objectives that they set out to achieve, and when they don't to rethink them.

With respect to sex offenders in general and child molesters in particular, the sex offender's registry is a token action: something that officials can say they support as a token to show that they want to improve this problem, this can remove the requirement for further action. But this token action doesn't actually help solve the problem.

I'd like to see us move away from the token and actually look at effective action. How can we lower recidivism rates? How can we lower rates of crimes against children in general, both from first time and repeat offenders? These seem like the meaningful questions.
castrate any repeat offenders.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 08:59 AM   #32
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
How do you square that with this:



Perhaps the severity of the crime means that even a 5%/3 years recidivism rate is too high. So the issue isn't the risk relative to other types of criminal, but rather that absolute risk given the severity of the crime. In that case we should be concerned with finding methods of lowering those recidivism rates.

Based on the data presented by Elaedith, a sex offenders registry and other measures like limiting their movement and places where they can live, are not effective. We should be looking for other, more effective, solutions.
I seem to have a mental block on spelling recidivism.

Anyway, some studies do report higher rates, sometimes much higher, but 5-6% is not unusual. It's a difficult thing to pin down, because there are obviously different approaches used to define re-offending. Many studies use arrest rates, which may of course not reflect actual offences and be higher than conviction rates. On the other hand offences may go unreported and some types of sexual offences maybe more unlikely to be unreported. Characteristics of offenders also differ between samples. In general though I think it's fair to say that people do tend to overestimate the risk of recidivism in sex offenders and underestimate the prospects of rehabilitation.

Most studies I've found seem to be consistent on SORN measures not working, although some report that the notification aspect may be effective in alerting authorities sooner to repeat offences. I saw one study that suggest 'Megan's law' was effective in one US state, but all the others I've seen report lack of effectiveness for that type of intervention.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 11:11 AM   #33
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,078
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Won't somebody think of the child molesters!!!?!
Here's the thing: unless you are going to kill or imprison/institutionalize them forever, then you will have to deal with them. If you insist on discriminating against them, or subjecting them to outright ostracism, then you are only going to make it more difficult for them to act in a way that benefits society.

That's why this kind of legally mandated discrimination is so counterproductive: you give up the benefits of imprisonment when they leave prison, yet you make it so much more difficult for them to be a productive member of society that you are liable to hurt yourself in the end. Setting them up to fail is not a good way to encourage people to obey the law and act in a pro-social manner.

This is not specific to "child-molestors".
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

Last edited by Arcade22; 21st February 2020 at 11:12 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2020, 11:15 AM   #34
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,125
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
One way to think of it is that if we have sex offender registries, including maintenance of public facing maps showing where they live --

Then why don't we have murderer registries? With public facing maps showing where they live?

Why don't we have felony assault registries, with public facing maps showing where they live?

Drunk driver registries and maps?

Robbery convictions registries and maps?


Why only for sex offenders?
Or domestic violence. That’s a registry that stands a great chance of actually protecting people.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.