Will Jessica's Law prevent more victims?

Question

The Jessica law initiative places life time ankle bracelets on ALL sex offenders, not just children offenses. It also requires ALL sex offenders to live 2000 feet from a school or park. This will cost approx. 200 million a year. Also, the Department of Justice states that 90% of child sex offenses occur in the homes of families and friends. Is it really worth spending this kind of money on a law which will have little affect on the victimization of children. Wouldn't it be better to put money in educating children and people in general on proper sexual behavior? Remember, not everyone has the benefit of good parenting, and these are usually the people who get into trouble. As long as this country does nothing of the conditions that generate dysfunctional people, we will always have victims of one sort or another regardless of the severity of law or the amount of prisons we have. Law makers tried this type of punishment strategy will drug addicts in the 70s, but that didn't work at all.

Answer 1

These laws and restrictions do no good at all.
They merely lull the public into a false sense that something is "being done". Approximately 10% of sex offenders are actual "predators" and it is that segment that needs the attention, but no matter what the facts of a given case are, anyone labeled a "Sex Offender" gets painted with the same broad brush. All molesters, predators and actual rapists are sex offenders, but not all sex offenders are monsters... you gotta look at the actual "crime", not the label
It happens a lot that nothing horrible actually took place... There are thousands of cases where the "Offender" is the poor high school senior dating a sophmore,the 19 year old schmuck who lost his head over girl 2 months from the age of consent or the guy who got in a world of trouble over some experienced little hottie who lied about her age, it happens more than you might think that the only thing a guy did wrong was not ask for identification or make the mistake of turning 18 before his high school sweetheart turned 16. And then there is the married couple who gets nailed for "Lewd and Lascivious Conduct" because they were busted by a park ranger fooling around on a camping trip, 8 miles in, and a mile off the trail....in Texas, a person can be charged with a sexual offense for purchasing or owning certain, commonplace "adult toys"

The other thing no one wants to look at is this:more than ninety percent of all child molesters are well known to their victims. Fathers (20%), stepfathers (29%), acquaintances (30%) and other relatives (11%) are the offenders for whom these existing and proposed laws have no effect.
Everyone wants to believe that it is the odd guy who lives around the corner that is a danger to their child, not Uncle Jim or their college roommate. It is too disquieting to think that harm could come from someone you know and trust, so people stick their head in the sand and assume that "lists" will protect them.
This false sense of security and justice actually diverts our attention away from the actual goal: to reduce sexual offenses. It is a sad state of affairs when celebrities such as John Walsh and Oprah Winfrey are given greater credence than experts in the field of psychology and criminology are. A lawmaker is duty-bound to pass legislation that is right, not merely popular, but the sad fact is that knee jerk legislation gets votes from a hysterical and underinformed consituency. The excellent work of scientists such as Karl Hanson, of the Solicitor General’s Office in Canada, and Robert Prentsky, former director of the Joseph J. Peters Institute in Philadelphia and original member of Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offender Assessment Board gets ignored because there is no comfort or glory in their findings. Their conclusion is unavoidable: these laws do not prevent crime.
Mandatory minimums in sentencing do not help society... Determining appropriate punishment and duration of prison terms is something for Judges to do, not for the District Attorney's office to decide at the time of filing charges by choosing charges that carry specific, mandated sentences.
Minimum sentencing requirements can backfire and lead to juries finding "Not Guilty" in cases where a "Guilty " verdict would be right just because the accused is young, or likeable or the jury for some reason does not want to see that person sentenced to life.
Let the DA file charges
Let the Jury determine Guilt or Innocence
and
Let Judges decide sentencing.
Please take our criminal justice system out of the hands of politicians.

The only effective means of protecting children is the same as it's ALWAYS been- Know where your kids are, know who they hang out with, teach them what to do in emergencies and how to deal with bad situations.Make sure they know when it is RIGHT to tell an adult, even a teacher or relative, to go to hell. Be available to them.
The people who are a danger to your children, for the most part, are not on any list.... they are in your own family and circle of close friends. No registry, no background check, no website can do a damn thing to protect your children. It is up to you to teach them how to protect themselves, what is and is not an okay way for ANY adult to act with them and make sure they know who to go to if someone does something inappropriate.

And before anyone says "Oh, you just don't know the damage these people do" Actually, yes, I do... I was the victim of a rape at the hands of a "friend of the family" at age 11... trust me, I do know how much harm such an assault causes.... and I find it interesting that it is rarely victims who agitate for these Draconian and useless measures.

Answer 2

You're leaving out many important points:

1) The GPS ankle bracelets are only used when a sex offender is caught for the 3rd time not registering as an offender. Also, GPS was not available in the 70s, so you're talking apples and oranges there.

2) As for 90% of child sex offenses occuring within the family's home or friends is a wild statistic. You should list your source before anyone will believe that crap. Don't just name the source, link it. Child rape and molestation occurs often at the hands of individuals who don't know their victim, to reduce the chances of getting caught. 90%? Bah...

3) Deterrence is a higher priority than educating. What are you going to teach an offender anyway? That just doesn't make sense. You should properly fund both educating children of the danger and severely punishing those that violate them. No exceptions...


Personally, I think the Jessica's Law is an "about time" slap in the face to many state governments that have been ignoring the problem. Thanks to many in Congress and Bill O'Reilly, the word is definitely on the street.

The bill is not perfect in any state, for as you mentioned, it doesn't do much to distinguish between child sex offenders and ALL sex offenders. While I think that both should be properly punished, the concept should be in two separate bills and pieces of legislation.

Answer 3

Wish this were a yes no question but it isn't. the law will reduce the number of victims because the repeat offender will be caught before he rapes as many people as used to be necessary befroe he could be caught but the law won't stop the majority of cases or perhaps even a measurable number. Another problem arises because there are a lot of people required to register because they fall into catch all provisions of sex crimes laws but they aren't and never were dangerous. That, by itself wouldn't be a problem except the use of gps is still in its infancy. Once the use of the tech begins there will be an expansion ( if history repeats) and that expansion will interfere with the rights of those incorrectly caught in the system. My concern stems from one over riding issue. We have the largest portion of our population in prison and jail of any industrialized nation. We have more incorrectly convicted people than any other common law nation. We have a disproportionate number of minorities in prison. And now Holland has stated that we cannot be trusted to provide our accused with substantive Due Process. Their courts refused to honor extradition based on a treaty because our system failed to meet the due process standards of the agreement. Once gps is combined with our error rate innocent people don't stand a chance.

Answer 4

Humorous factor how invoice O'Reilly a staunch republican needs the government to go legislation to be careful for kids, I notion that used to be the job of mother and father? Just like guns, no quantity of legal guidelines will discontinue any individual with an intent to harm others. I'm utterly in contrast on a federal degree. Eliminate the judges in your state in the event you don't just like the sentences they are handing out as an alternative of seeking to go a federal regulation. Might be if we took more individual accountability for being father and mother and watching out for our own children alternatively of letting them talk on the phone, play video video games, play on the web and in actual fact do what they need as long as we don't ought to be mothers and fathers. Make an effort to be part of your kids life and don't ask the federal government to clear up your whole issues.

Answer 5

No it will NOT prevent victims, it will only help catch offenders.

So basically we are closing the barn door after the horse is out. So much for the children.

You want to protect the children, KILL the offenders after ONE OFFENSE.

Answer 6

We can only hope .

Answer 7

YES, it can only help.