So a sex offender just moved into my neighborhood...

[LucyStoner]

Actually, it is a myth that the recidivism rate for sex offenders drastically outpaces the overall rate of recidivism for other violent crimes. Additionally, we have built up a lot of shared cultural beliefs that sex offenders can never ever stop offending post release and a less impassioned look at the research shows that it's not that simple.

 

I agree that the sentences for many sex crimes pale in comparision to the crime. But the social isolation that is fueled by vigilantism and social harassment contributes to increasing recidivism rates. It's also why jurisdictions stopped posting information on level 1 offenders with a low risk to reoffend. Released offenders need to live somewhere. There's no way to make them all live boxed away from the outside world. We have a level III offender living about a block away. He's absolutely less of a risk to my family than people who may be close to our family but thus far undetected.

 

Caution and compassion needn't be at odds with each other.

Edited August 7, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Guest]

Oh hey no problem.

 

Speaking dispassionately, I also don't want to live near someone that murdered someone else just because they could, either.

 

Ditto violent burglary. Or car theft.

 

 

I'm an equal opportunity Shunner of insane people that have ever shown a propensity for jacking up lives.

 

It's not always everyone's bag to be all open-minded about everything.

 

Sometimes you can just be pissed and.yes afraid (????duh of course ppl are afraid) of rapists and\or child molesters. Duhduhduhduh

Edited August 6, 2016 by OKBud

[LucyStoner]

As a survivor of violent crimes (yes, plural) including rape, I prefer keeping a level head and doing what I need to do to not only protect my family but also protect the community by not mentally making the problem larger than it is. The type of sexual violence that is most likely to occur is the stuff we guard against the LEAST yet the type of sexual violence that is least likely to occur consumes most of our collective attention to the issue of sexual violence. Survivors of sexual violence and potential victims of sexual violence deserve better than that from their communities.

 

Because I have worked with groups that helped released felons re-intergrate into society, I can say with confidence that herd panic mentality benefits no one. I know and trust some people who have served their time on some fairly heinous crimes. If we treat people like once a criminal always a criminal, we pretty much force them to stay a criminal. If crime was only a matter of uncontrollable lunacy it would be a fairly simple to solve.

 

I do sympathize with Umsami. I wouldn't be thrilled if a new level III offender popped up on my block either. But when it comes right down to it I tend to speak up when people are repeating damaging misinformation about this issue. It's too serious a matter for me to stay silent on. It is also too serious a matter to resort to language like duhduhduhduh.

 

My remarks are directed at the posts I followed and not to the OP. I totally get why this is not a great thing to have happen and why people naturally worry about it. I worry too. But because of my history, my interest in lowering recidivism and my desire to keep my family safe rather than fearful, I find it helpful to temper that natural and understandable worry with knowledge and alertness. This isn't because I minimize these issues, it's because they cut quite close to home for me.

Edited August 6, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Guest]

Fallacious.

 

X thatyoudontknowabout (even if multiplied a hubdred times)

 

Does not make x thatyoudoknowabout

 

less dangerous.

 

Not ever. But especially when x stands for crimes that almost always have multiple victims from the same perp. Both before and after getting caught.

 

There's understandably a crowd that wants to come up with more humane-to-them wats of dealing with rapists and child molester.

 

Great.

 

But there's another crowd that could not care less what happens to those pitiful excuses for human beings.

 

Also great.

 

The first crowd says hey! That's not pragmatic. Weeeee are being practical and you're just being emotional

 

Ok. Sure.

 

How about, pragmatically, let's make this a country that's safe for victims before we worry about making it easier for rapists and rapist-adjacents to earn their daily bread.

 

In the mean time I don't at all see what the first crowd thinks they have to gain by pooh poohing the second crowds emotionality.

 

They could tell me that all that fear could be used to THINK on WHAT IS TO BE DONE...but hey man, I gave loads of ideas about what to do about the subject at hand. And sure the first crowd is not going to get on board with any if it.

 

So stop acting like its irrationsl to hate and be afraid of rapist-types in an environment where victims nearly never see their justice served, or their peace returned.

Edited August 6, 2016 by OKBud

[LucyStoner]

Information increases safety. Period.

[Denisemomof4]

It must be a very serious offense to be given a lifetime probation. I never heard of that before.

 

I would keep my children very close. Maybe the neighborhood can come up with teams of people to patrol the play ground, etc, to keep the kids safe

[ThisIsTheDay]

No.  Every time there is discussion of sex offernders' registries, someone brings up this scenario, but these people are not registered.  They fall under the Romeo-and-Juliet laws. 

 

If someone on the sex offenders' registry tells you this is why, they are lying to you.

 

My state, including my local area, prosecutes men who are 18 when sleeping with a 15 year old girlfriend. It's statutory rape, and it's not uncommon.

 

If an 18 yo has sex with a 15-17 year old, they can be prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. While I'm doubtful that lands them on the SO registry, I'm not positive.

[peachskittles]

It must be a very serious offense to be given a lifetime probation. I never heard of that before.

 

I would keep my children very close. Maybe the neighborhood can come up with teams of people to patrol the play ground, etc, to keep the kids safe

 

Not neccesarily...My sister's husband is on lifetime probation for hooking up with a girl at a party.  She said she was 16, he was 18, things happened...Then she went to church and told everyone about the wild party she went to and lo and behold, she was 14.  Her mother and her both told the prosecutor they didn't want to continue with charges, but nah, we need to make sure to make people an example.  They are currently looking for an attorney to drop it to the lowest allowed in Iowa, 10 years instead of lifetime.  We have probation for ALL sex offenders released in Iowa, and from what I can tell more often than not they just give them lifetime probation.

[Guest]

Not neccesarily...My sister's husband is on lifetime probation for hooking up with a girl at a party. She said she was 16, he was 18, things happened...Then she went to church and told everyone about the wild party she went to and lo and behold, she was 14. Her mother and her both told the prosecutor they didn't want to continue with charges, but nah, we need to make sure to make people an example. They are currently looking for an attorney to drop it to the lowest allowed in Iowa, 10 years instead of lifetime. We have probation for ALL sex offenders released in Iowa, and from what I can tell more often than not they just give them lifetime probation.

Iowa has a close in age exemption of four years.

[Bluegoat]

Fallacious.

 

X thatyoudontknowabout (even if multiplied a hubdred times)

 

Does not make x thatyoudoknowabout

 

less dangerous.

 

Not ever. But especially when x stands for crimes that almost always have multiple victims from the same perp. Both before and after getting caught.

 

There's understandably a crowd that wants to come up with more humane-to-them wats of dealing with rapists and child molester.

 

Great.

 

But there's another crowd that could not care less what happens to those pitiful excuses for human beings.

 

Also great.

 

The first crowd says hey! That's not pragmatic. Weeeee are being practical and you're just being emotional

 

Ok. Sure.

 

How about, pragmatically, let's make this a country that's safe for victims before we worry about making it easier for rapists and rapist-adjacents to earn their daily bread.

 

In the mean time I don't at all see what the first crowd thinks they have to gain by pooh poohing the second crowds emotionality.

 

They could tell me that all that fear could be used to THINK on WHAT IS TO BE DONE...but hey man, I gave loads of ideas about what to do about the subject at hand. And sure the first crowd is not going to get on board with any if it.

 

So stop acting like its irrationsl to hate and be afraid of rapist-types in an environment where victims nearly never see their justice served, or their peace returned.

 

Les dangerous than people imagine, often, is really the point.

 

In any case, I find this pretty shocking, despite having been a victim of a sexual predator as a child.  Sexual offenders seem to be the witches of the 21st century. 

[LucyStoner]

Fallacious.

 

X thatyoudontknowabout (even if multiplied a hubdred times)

 

Does not make x thatyoudoknowabout

 

less dangerous.

 

Not ever. But especially when x stands for crimes that almost always have multiple victims from the same perp. Both before and after getting caught.

 

There's understandably a crowd that wants to come up with more humane-to-them wats of dealing with rapists and child molester.

 

Great.

 

But there's another crowd that could not care less what happens to those pitiful excuses for human beings.

 

Also great.

 

The first crowd says hey! That's not pragmatic. Weeeee are being practical and you're just being emotional

 

Ok. Sure.

 

How about, pragmatically, let's make this a country that's safe for victims before we worry about making it easier for rapists and rapist-adjacents to earn their daily bread.

 

In the mean time I don't at all see what the first crowd thinks they have to gain by pooh poohing the second crowds emotionality.

 

They could tell me that all that fear could be used to THINK on WHAT IS TO BE DONE...but hey man, I gave loads of ideas about what to do about the subject at hand. And sure the first crowd is not going to get on board with any if it.

 

So stop acting like its irrationsl to hate and be afraid of rapist-types in an environment where victims nearly never see their justice served, or their peace returned.

As far as I can tell, this response has next to zero to do with what I posted. I certainly never called you emotional or belittled you. You are being fairly callous and insensitive to why it is that I take these matters so seriously. Please don't imply I don't care about survivors or potential victims. FFS. I care so much that I prefer to look at what works to keep people safe and not what fed my own anger and urge for vengeance.

[Guest]

As far as I can tell, this response has next to zero to do with what I posted. I certainly never called you emotional or belittled you. You are being fairly callous and insensitive to why it is that I take these matters so seriously. Please don't imply I don't care about survivors or potential victims. FFS. I care so much that I prefer to look at what works to keep people safe and not what fed my own anger and urge for vengeance.

 

I believe 100% that you care about victims, past and potential. I'm sorry you think I thought you didn't.

 

What does the bolded mean?

[Denisemomof4]

Not neccesarily...My sister's husband is on lifetime probation for hooking up with a girl at a party. She said she was 16, he was 18, things happened...Then she went to church and told everyone about the wild party she went to and lo and behold, she was 14. Her mother and her both told the prosecutor they didn't want to continue with charges, but nah, we need to make sure to make people an example. They are currently looking for an attorney to drop it to the lowest allowed in Iowa, 10 years instead of lifetime. We have probation for ALL sex offenders released in Iowa, and from what I can tell more often than not they just give them lifetime probation.

I had no idea. I also wish there was some level of protection for young men who are lied to about age. I am thankful my boys are beyond this stage.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Denisemomof4

[LMD]

Les dangerous than people imagine, often, is really the point.

 

In any case, I find this pretty shocking, despite having been a victim of a sexual predator as a child. Sexual offenders seem to be the witches of the 21st century.

What? Witches? I'm struggling with what you're saying here... People on the register are only there after being tried and convicted, correct?

I'm currently really, incandescently angry about the shockingly poor justice for victims of child rapists in my own country so I'm trying hard to read your post in good spirits.

[peachskittles]

Iowa has a close in age exemption of four years.

 

https://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=709.4

 

Charged under Section 2, part c, number 4: "The act is between persons who are not at the time cohabiting as husband and wife and if any of the following are true:" "c.  The other person is fourteen or fifteen years of age and any of the following are true:" "The person is four or more years older than the other person."

 

So with her being 14 and him being 18, no exemption according to Iowa Code.  Now the state does have the ability to not charge.  That was not the route they took in his case.

[peachskittles]

http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-make-you-a-sex-offender-2013-10

[Guest]

 

 

In any case, I find this pretty shocking, despite having been a victim of a sexual predator as a child.  Sexual offenders seem to be the witches of the 21st century. 

 

That some people hate, are afraid of, and couldn't care less what happens to, rapists and child molesters?

 

Those are the things I said some people feel/think about them.

 

You think that's surprising? AFAIK witches were innocent. And scared-up out of nowhere. Unlike sexual predators, most of whom are never even punished in any way, shape or form.

[Denisemomof4]

I admit I absolutely HATE the monster who targeted my son and hurt about 20 other kids. My mind goes to places it shouldn't when I think about what I'd like to do to him. My older son, who was NOT the monster's target, had nightmares for years about beating and killing the monster.

 

I think people are amazing who can find compassion and forgiveness. I am not one of them.

[Denisemomof4]

I also admit my thoughts and feelings are not healthy. Thankfully, they fade with time. They will never go away.

 

I do have a sense of peace and happiness knowing he and his brother will never see the light of day outside prison walls. I also know how child predators are treated in prison. Perhaos karma will pay a visit. No tears will be shed here.

[Guest]

I admit I absolutely HATE the monster who targeted my son and hurt about 20 other kids. My mind goes to places it shouldn't when I think about what I'd like to do to him. My older son, who was NOT the monster's target, had nightmares for years about beating and killing the monster.

 

I think people are amazing who can find compassion and forgiveness. I am not one of them.

(((()))) As Malcolm X said, there is a time and a place for anger.

 

If EVER there was something to be angry about, it's this!

[Bluegoat]

What? Witches? I'm struggling with what you're saying here... People on the register are only there after being tried and convicted, correct?

I'm currently really, incandescently angry about the shockingly poor justice for victims of child rapists in my own country so I'm trying hard to read your post in good spirits.

 

Why were people so inclined to become hysterical over witches?  Some of it was because they thought witches were real and dangerous, which isn't that strange really.  Some of it was trying to target particular people for personal gain.  But apart from those things, there was a real kind of social hysteria.  The whole idea of witches seemed to serve a sort of psychological function - a scapegoat, or an approved by society target for hatred and aggression.

 

I think we have a very similar psychological relationship with the idea of a sexual offender.

 

People's reactions to sexual offendors of all types go well beyond the rational, it's become a sort of epitome of evil thing.  In popular tv , for example, it isn't the murderer in many cases who is the really bad guy, he might well be the anti-hero.  But if you see someone who is shown to be guilty of some sort of sexual offence, he is the real evil, unredeemable, character, who it is appropriate to hate and wish dead by the nastiest means possible.

 

People consider it ok to treat them in ways they would be looked at as cruel for in other kinds of criminal behavior.  They consider them unworthy of attempts to help or rehabilitate.  They seem to take pleasure in talking about things like mutilating them.  They don't care if the commonly accepted ideas about them are actually factual or not.  They don't seem to care that for some they are suffering from desires they have no real control over.

 

I've seen people here at the have say really nasty things about flashers - people who are relatively harmless and also are usually under a strong compulsion like a kleptomaniac, people who would much rather be cured than carry on as they are.

 

They are approved social outcasts, and, tellingly I think, in a society that has a pretty unhealthy relationship with sex and in many other ways.  They, we imagine, are entirely different from us, a sort of different species, and that creates a sort of psychological relief valve.

 

"Nothing human is alien to me" is a humbling and grounding thing to accept, and it insists on us becoming compassionate to others.  The desire to create an outcast group, however, seems to be stronger in many cases.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why were people so inclined to become hysterical over witches?  Some of it was because they thought witches were real and dangerous, which isn't that strange really.  Some of it was trying to target particular people for personal gain.  But apart from those things, there was a real kind of social hysteria.  The whole idea of witches seemed to serve a sort of psychological function - a scapegoat, or an approved by society target for hatred and aggression.

 

I think we have a very similar psychological relationship with the idea of a sexual offender.

 

People's reactions to sexual offendors of all types go well beyond the rational, it's become a sort of epitome of evil thing.  In popular tv , for example, it isn't the murderer in many cases who is the really bad guy, he might well be the anti-hero.  But if you see someone who is shown to be guilty of some sort of sexual offence, he is the real evil, unredeemable, character, who it is appropriate to hate and wish dead by the nastiest means possible.

 

People consider it ok to treat them in ways they would be looked at as cruel for in other kinds of criminal behavior.  They consider them unworthy of attempts to help or rehabilitate.  They seem to take pleasure in talking about things like mutilating them.  They don't care if the commonly accepted ideas about them are actually factual or not.  They don't seem to care that for some they are suffering from desires they have no real control over.

 

I've seen people here at the have say really nasty things about flashers - people who are relatively harmless and also are usually under a strong compulsion like a kleptomaniac, people who would much rather be cured than carry on as they are.

 

They are approved social outcasts, and, tellingly I think, in a society that has a pretty unhealthy relationship with sex and in many other ways.  They, we imagine, are entirely different from us, a sort of different species, and that creates a sort of psychological relief valve.

 

"Nothing human is alien to me" is a humbling and grounding thing to accept, and it insists on us becoming compassionate to others.  The desire to create an outcast group, however, seems to be stronger in many cases.

 

I think you could likely find better reasons to indulge yourself in some navel gazing instead of for the poor, oppressed sexual predators.

 

FTR, those accused of being witches did not actually harm anyone. Your analogy collapses right there.

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[eternalsummer]

Why were people so inclined to become hysterical over witches?  Some of it was because they thought witches were real and dangerous, which isn't that strange really.  Some of it was trying to target particular people for personal gain.  

 

They thought witches were real.

 

 

Sexual abuse *is* real, unless you are claiming it is all in our heads.

 

 

I agree that sometimes men are targeted unjustly using the current social antipathy towards sexual assault (false rape accusations, etc.).

 

However, for men (or the rare woman) who actually do sexually assault someone, especially a child, it is nothing like witches.

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, God forbid we naval gaze and question our unquestionable social assumptions about things that make us uncomfortable or attitudes that make us feel righteous.

 

It doesn't matter whether witches are real, if people thought they were.  Someone who mistakenly thinks someone is a witch might be perfectly rational in their reaction, even if they are in fact wrong in their acts objectively speaking.   

 

The difference between an invalid argument, and one that is factually untrue, is pretty basic.  (And it isn't like we don't create mythology about sexual crimes and predators, anyway.)

 

But creation of socially and personally advantageous scapegoats can happen whether something is real or not.  In fact, if it is real, it is much better a scapegoat and outlet.

 

When something is your socially acceptable pariah, it doesn't seem wrong to react that way.  It seems natural and right, and just.  After all, that's what all right-thinking people believe, isn't it?  That act, that person, makes me feel disgusted, doesn't it?  That's always ben the justification for inhumane and irrational treatment of people.  Creating puffed up scapegoats of criminals and deviants has a long history of making people feel safer and happier and more righteous.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yeah, God forbid we naval gaze and question our unquestionable social assumptions about things that make us uncomfortable or attitudes that make us feel righteous.

 

It doesn't matter whether witches are real, if people thought they were.  Someone who mistakenly thinks someone is a witch might be perfectly rational in their reaction, even if they are in fact wrong in their acts objectively speaking.   

 

The difference between an invalid argument, and one that is factually untrue, is pretty basic.  (And it isn't like we don't create mythology about sexual crimes and predators, anyway.)

 

But creation of socially and personally advantageous scapegoats can happen whether something is real or not.  In fact, if it is real, it is much better a scapegoat and outlet.

 

When something is your socially acceptable pariah, it doesn't seem wrong to react that way.  It seems natural and right, and just.  After all, that's what all right-thinking people believe, isn't it?  That act, that person, makes me feel disgusted, doesn't it?  That's always ben the justification for inhumane and irrational treatment of people.  Creating puffed up scapegoats of criminals and deviants has a long history of making people feel safer and happier and more righteous.

 

It certainly does make a difference.  And those who prey on others are generally seen as pariahs in civil societies.  The more heinous a crime is (and yes, violating a defenseless person can be reasonably deemed to be more heinous than other crimes) the greater the social stigma.

[LucyStoner]

I think you could likely find better reasons to indulge yourself in some navel gazing instead of for the poor, oppressed sexual predators.

 

FTR, those accused of being witches did not actually harm anyone. Your analogy collapses right there.

 

Before someone advocates against housing or any reintegration options for sex offenders they should remember that they may not just be hurting "the poor oppressed sex offender". They are making it more difficult for the offender to stay in treatment and not reoffend. So how about thinking about the future victims of the offenders that people feel justified in trying to prevent them from having a place to sleep and eat.

 

If someone has a super high likelihood of reoffending, we shouldn't be sending them back out into the community at all. That we give such short sentences to the worst offenders is appalling. If someone has a much lower chance of reoffending, and the evidence suggests that there are such released offenders, it is in our own best interest to make sure they have a place to live, a means by which to make a living and a stable situation that makes it feasible for them to comply with the conditions of their parole and any treatment requirements.

 

I'm not saying I'm going to invite the guy across the street from us over for brunch. I'm saying that I'm glad he's at a fixed address and not in violation of his parole. And reminding people that most sexual violence occurs within families or groups of people you trust. It's easier for people to fixate on the list of registered offenders than accept that the person who is more likely to harm their children is not a stranger on the registry. They are way more likely to be found at their family reunion, circle of friends or church.

 

*I don't care about the "poor oppressed sex offender", I care about what actually keeps children and other rape victims safe. Since shooting them all is off the table for moral and legal reasons and we routinely release them via this parole/registry situation, we need to keep our heads on and not continue to spread myths and false information about recidivism rates and pathology.

Edited August 7, 2016 by LucyStoner

[eternalsummer]

Yes, but sometimes the scapegoat is scapegoated because it is actually a bad thing

 

I agree that people are happy to condemn unthinkingly - there are many social views that are unquestionable in polite society - women voting, the moral validity of slavery in some situations, relative intelligence of different races, etc.  Anyone who has a different view about those things is automatically not only wrong but also a bad person or a bigot or whatever.

 

 

However, there are some things that are thoroughly castigated/rejected by our society and for which that rejection is valid.  Raping small children is one of them.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Before someone advocates against housing or any reintegration options for sex offenders they should remember that they may not just be hurting "the poor oppressed sex offender". They are making it more difficult for the offender to stay in treatment and not reoffend. So how about thinking about the future victims of the offenders that people feel justified in trying to prevent them from having a place to sleep and eat.

 

If someone has a super high likelihood of reoffending, we shouldn't be sending them back out into the community at all. That we give such short sentences to the worst offenders is appalling. If someone has a much lower chance of reoffending, and the evidence suggests that there are such released offenders, it is in our own best interest to make sure they have a place to live, a means by which to make a living and a stable situation that makes it feasible for them to comply with the conditions of their parole and any treatment requirements.

 

I'm not saying I'm going to invite the guy across the street from us over for brunch. I'm saying that I'm glad he's at a fixed address and not in violation of his parole. And reminding people that most sexual violence occurs within families or groups of people you trust. It's easier for people to fixate on the list of registered offenders than accept that the person who is more likely to harm their children is not a stranger on the registry. They are way more likely to be found at their family reunion, circle of friends or church.

 

*I don't care about the "poor oppressed sex offender", I care about what actually keeps children and other rape victims safe. Since shooting them all is off the table for moral and legal reasons and we routinely release them via this parole/registry situation, we need to keep our heads on and not continue to spread myths and false information about recidivism rates and pathology.

 

I don't disagree with anything you posted.  That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a social stigma for being a sexual predator, or that people are somehow wrong for having a natural negative reaction to those types.

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Yes, but sometimes the scapegoat is scapegoated because it is actually a bad thing

...

However, there are some things that are thoroughly castigated/rejected by our society and for which that rejection is valid. Raping small children is one of them.

As a child rape survivor I do not need to be much reminded.

 

However, I can reject someone socially or insulate myself from the risk they pose without arguing against housing, employment or other options for released offenders. Rejecting someone socially can mean keeping a safe distance. It's unwise to take it on ourselves preclude them from having anywhere to go/work.

 

The sex offender registry here (and I believe other places) stopped listing level I offenders in part due to vigilante driven harassment. Participating in that harrassment or condoning it is wrong and dangerous. The risk to the offender in some instances outweighed the risk to the community by the offender.

 

Released Level II and III offenders are listed because of the greater risk they pose. I find the information, since it is available, somewhat helpful. For example, I am going to make different decisions about safety for my sons if an offender near us targeted boys their ages and lured or abducted their victims than if the offender had a history of sexually abusing girls in their family. Not going to think better of either two offenders but knowledge of does increase my family's safety.

 

I've sat down and tutored a released sex offender. I obviously took reasonable safety precautions but I saw the value in helping him get an education and perhaps just maybe making it a bit more likely that he'd stay the course with the conditions of his release. That doesn't mean I'd look the other way if I saw a warning sign or a parole violation or would hire him to babysit.

Edited August 7, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Denisemomof4]

Lucy, do you happen to know what the reoffense rate is? I think I read somewhere it is very high. Any chance is too high for my comfort. In my ideal world, any offender who is released should live in zones where children aren't allowed. I think being able to reintegrate in neighborhoods with parks and kids is such a sick thing to allow.

 

Again, I admire you and others like you. I do not have that level of grace.

[Denisemomof4]

But then again, it is a slippery slope. If a girl lies about her age and has consensual sex, I do not believe the man should be charged in this case. It is not fair for them to face a lifetime of punishment (probation, registry) IMO

[LucyStoner]

I don't disagree with anything you posted. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a social stigma for being a sexual predator, or that people are somehow wrong for having a natural negative reaction to those types.

 

 

I don't think people are wrong to have a negative reaction to sex offenders. I would never say that. On a personal level, it would be odd not to have a negative reaction. Believe me, I've had the full range of emotions on this matter, up to and including contemplating how I might like to kill the men who hurt me and my friends and family.

 

I think collectively we are foolish when we make group, community or legal decisions based on fear rather than what actually helps to solve the problem.

 

I've been thinking a lot about it and am starting to believe the way we treat offenders post conviction is often uncannily similar to how we treat rape victims. Consistently this culture heaps us with shame, disbelief, infantalizes us, assumes we are destroyed and worthless. If I know anything at all, it's that what we are doing now before and after assaults occur is not doing a bang up job of reducing sexual violence or helping survivors heal.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Lucy, do you happen to know what the reoffense rate is? I think I read somewhere it is very high. Any chance is too high for my comfort. In my ideal world, any offender who is released should live in zones where children aren't allowed. I think being able to reintegrate in neighborhoods with parks and kids is such a sick thing to allow.

 

Again, I admire you and others like you. I do not have that level of grace.

 

There are a lot of mixed statistics on the reoffense data.

 

There are certain types of offenders that are extremely high risk to reoffend.  There are others that are very unlikely to reoffend.

[Denisemomof4]

For those at a high risk to offend to be allowed in the general population and have access to kids is SICK.

 

the monster who targeted my son married a woman with boys in his target age range. Both boys tried to kill him as an adult, and both boys were jailed for a period of time. It makes me sick. When the wife called me after her husband's arrest and I questioned her own boys, she started to cry and told me she couldn't do anything because she needed his money. I told her that her greed shattered the lives of many boys, many families, and told her to never call me again. She plead for my friendship and I hung up on her. IMO her kids were bait and she allowed it all to go down under her own roof. She is as sick, if not sicker, than the beast she married.

[LucyStoner]

Lucy, do you happen to know what the reoffense rate is? I think I read somewhere it is very high. Any chance is too high for my comfort. In my ideal world, any offender who is released should live in zones where children aren't allowed. I think being able to reintegrate in neighborhoods with parks and kids is such a sick thing to allow.

 

Again, I admire you and others like you. I do not have that level of grace.

I am not that grace filled. I think I am pragmatic more than anything. I thought for a long time I had forgiveness in my heart and yet I was downright gleeful to hear of the death of the man who assaulted me. It was sobering to realize that his son and grandson (who was all of 7-8 when I knew him) are on the registry. I know that family cycle can stop yet it went on unabated for them.

 

I haven't been up to my elbows in general recidivism rates (the orgs I worked for were for all released prisoners, not just sex offenders) in 4 years. I've worked with prison related orgs at different points since then but not in a position where I was researching and drafting funding proposals. If I recall correctly, depending on the study and also the type of offense, long term recidivism for sex offenders ranged from ~25% to ~40%. That's over the long haul, not the <10 years out ones which are lower the smaller the time from release.

 

Here's an article that is a helpful, but not complete, look at the issue of the difference between perceived and actual recidivism rates. I looked for this one because it was one that I remembered prompting me to look for more information.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/

 

I agree that anything greater than zero is too high. I just think it's important to not let the notion that it is a number approaching 100% like many seem to believe.

Edited August 7, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Regarding sex offenders not being able to live around children. There are children everywhere. Where are there no children?

 

I remember having a conversation with someone who insisted that sex offenders should all have to live "downtown". She didn't know what to say when I pointed out that there are many children living downtown and children who travel through downtown every.single.day. My son makes a bus transfer downtown more than once a week. It's not like kids downtown deserve less safety than those in a suburb.

 

I agree with not being allowed in places where children congregate. If you were convicted of sexual abuse of a child, you can live your post release life without ever darkening the door of the roller skating rink or the family batting cages or visiting the playground or water park or similar. I'm not going to argue on that.

 

But children are at the grocery store, the social services offices, the bus stops, the library etc. Children live on both sides of the tracks, in houses, in cars, in apartments, in suburban and urban areas. In residential areas and tucked into pockets of housing in industrial areas. Everyone on this board and all of our children have probably already encountered and possibly interacted with one or more persons who has committed a sex crime. How close one lives to one on the registry doesn't change that.

[Denisemomof4]

Lucy, I am not saying I am being realistic. I know I'm not. I still wish there was a way for this to happen. Wishful thinking....

[TranquilMind]

Iowa has a close in age exemption of four years.

 

Most states have something similar.  Ours is 4 years as well.

 

It is exceedingly rare to end up on the registry for having consensual sex with a girlfriend who happens to be below the age of 18.

 

Like really rare.  Courts are too backed up for that nonsense.  There would have to be extenuating circumstances. 

They go after the serious offenders, not the young lovers. 

[TranquilMind]

For those at a high risk to offend to be allowed in the general population and have access to kids is SICK.

 

the monster who targeted my son married a woman with boys in his target age range. Both boys tried to kill him as an adult, and both boys were jailed for a period of time. It makes me sick. When the wife called me after her husband's arrest and I questioned her own boys, she started to cry and told me she couldn't do anything because she needed his money. I told her that her greed shattered the lives of many boys, many families, and told her to never call me again. She plead for my friendship and I hung up on her. IMO her kids were bait and she allowed it all to go down under her own roof. She is as sick, if not sicker, than the beast she married.

 

That's really awful.  I'm so sorry. 

 

[peachskittles]

Most states have something similar.  Ours is 4 years as well.

 

It is exceedingly rare to end up on the registry for having consensual sex with a girlfriend who happens to be below the age of 18.

 

Like really rare.  Courts are too backed up for that nonsense.  There would have to be extenuating circumstances. 

They go after the serious offenders, not the young lovers. 

 

Key word is "girlfriend".  If you randomly hook up, you need to make absolutely, postively sure that s/he is of legal age.  Even if both parties consent, if it is found that someone is of not legal age, the other party can be in trouble if s/he is over the age of 18.

[TranquilMind]

Key word is "girlfriend".  If you randomly hook up, you need to make absolutely, postively sure that s/he is of legal age.  Even if both parties consent, if it is found that someone is of not legal age, the other party can be in trouble if s/he is over the age of 18.

 

Yes, this is true - unless they are within the close age range in states that recognize that.  If consent exists, no legal penalty. 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I have personally known two men who molested either their daughters or their step daughter, and did jail time for it.  And crap.  I had no instinctive aversion to either of them.  They were not slavering obvious guys.  They were kind of jolly and assexual seeming, each of them.  It was so appalling to me to find out that they were like this and I couldn't tell.

 

I agree with trusting your instincts if they are screaming caution at you, but it's important to realize that they might not catch everything. 

[ThisIsTheDay]

I saw this today in the news, and I was reminded of this thread:

 

 

"[Defendant] , 19, pleaded guilty Friday in [...] Circuit Court to misdemeanor charges of having consensual sex with a minor who was 15 years old or older, and of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He had faced felony charges of rape and aggravated sexual battery.

Judge [...] sentenced [defendant] to a year of incarceration on each charge, then suspended six months of each term. [Judge] set the terms to run consecutively, leaving [defendant] with a year to serve behind bars."

 

TODAY, a 19 year old was effectively sentenced to a YEAR in jail for having consensual sex with someone who was 15 years old or older. 

 

[MinivanMom]

The article you linked does not say that the sex was consensual. It states that the 19-yr-old man gave the girl alcohol and then had sex with her when she was too drunk to consent. That's rape.

 

“He provided alcohol to a minor and had sex with her,†city Commonwealth’s Attorney Chris Rehak wrote in an email after the hearing. “The Commonwealth’s rape allegation was based on the victim’s level of intoxication and her ability to consent. While the final outcome included less serious charges, this plea agreement was requested by the victim. The agreement also ensured convictions while sparing the victim the anxiety and scrutiny that unfortunately accompany ... jury trials as a victim of sexual assault.â€

 

So it sounds like the 19-yr-old was offered the plea deal (lesser charge of misdemeanor consensual sex with a minor) in order to spare the girl from going through a trial. It does not sound like she was his girlfriend or the sex was consensual. 

[bolt.]

4 minutes ago, Logan said:

Well im a sex offender and my case happened almost 30 years ago when I was 18. 

Never committed any other crimes except for a DUI 

Wow!

That's quite a first post!

On a thread from 2016!

Edited May 5, 2022 by bolt.