Is this working to prevent sex offenses?

Question

As a registered sex offender, I'm not against sex offender registration. 3-13% of offenders will re-offend, which deems him/her quite a bit more likely than a layperson, but I question some of the new legislation.

1. Registered sex offenders not being allowed to live within a half-mile of a school regardless of how populous the area.
2. Registered sex offenders registering their email address and having to report their Myspace profiles?
3. Putting signs in an offender's yard?


IF A SEX OFFENDER OVERCOMES INTERNAL BARRIERS AND DECIDES TO RE-OFFEND, OVERCOMING EXTERNAL BARRIERS IS THE EASY PART. Does making constitutionally questionable laws ex-post facto really work?

Note: All I'm asking for is opinions on the law's effectiveness in preventing future sex crimes. I am not asking for opinions on what you feel sex offenders deserve, how you think they should all die or be castrated. Thank you.
Source for statistics: http://66.165.94.98/stories/SexOffendersReport.pd

Forgive the broken link..

http://66.165.94.98/stories/SexOffendersReport.pdf

Hummer- It's hard to value your opinion when you can't evaluate information. I know that because you clearly did not read my entire post.

Kudos to those who read this far.

I'm simply asking if you think these laws are working, not asking for approval or sympathy in this post. Yes or no. Support your answer.

A few of these answers only show that society makes a knee-jerk reaction about sex offenders without considering the data. They see the word sex offender and create their own ideas based on fear and misunderstanding. Some of the posters saw the word "sex offender" and didn't read the rest of the post. They posted exactly what I asked them not to, and the thread became off-topic.

Lonewolf- RE: 90% of sex offenders re-offend. I'll be glad to look at any study or statistical data that shows that. RE: Where did I come up with 3-13%? The text in blue is a hyperlink, if you click on it it will take you to a website showing my source.

Sugar: You also state 90% of registered sex offenders re-offend. Please state your source.

mktk: Do you have a source for the contrasting study you cite. I would like to review that. Thanks.

Answer 1

the re offend rate is more like 90% , and no the laws do not always prevent the sickos from doing it again but somehow it gives us parents a peace of mind knowing where they are located so we can help protect our children from being their next victim , I would much rather see them all in prison for life without the chance of parole than have to check the sex offender registry once a week .

Answer 2

I will say this. Once an offender has served their jail time. That should be the end of the matter. They don't make murderers register, keep accountings of their activities or prohibit them from living within any distance of people that were in their victims demograhic. The entire concept of registration is unconstitutional. If someone is going to re-offend then they will find a way around any restrictions placed on them, whether they are a sex offender or not. IF legislation was the answer then they would not have offended in the first place. Since legislation doesn't prevent the original crime then extra legislation will not preven a recurrance of the crime.

You said 3-13% of sex offenders will re-ofend. The numbers are conciderably highter for almost every other crime: arson, murder, theft, vadalism. Yet no one is doing anything to them after they serve their sentence. How is it that a sex crime is worse than murder? Makes no sense to me.

I say that ALL post sentence restrictions are unconstitutinal and a violation of individual civil rights and civil liberties. That once a persons sentence has been served, all record of the crime should be destroyed and never brought up or used again in any future proceedings and that no one should ever know that the person ever committed any crime no matter what the nature of the crime. I say that releasing telling a non-involved party that another person commited a crime is a violation of civil rights and civil liberties and that forcing a person to reveal that they have commited a crime is also a violation of those rights and liberties. There are far better ways to deal with these things....ways that don't involve unwarrented interferance in a persons ability to live.

Answer 3

I think making sex offenders do all of the above will help somewhat. I too, also believe just like every law there is always away around it. Just because a sex offender can not live close to a school, doesn't mean they can't drive past one every day. So, does it work, I think maybe a little. I think mostly the law helps mothers relax a little when are children go outside to play.

What I don't understand, is where do you draw the line of a sex offender. Is a 22 year old man, who sleeps with a 16 year old girl really a sex offender? OK, yeah if he rapes her. But, willing she has sex with him. Her mom finds out, goes nuts...is he a sex offender? Should he have to for the rest of his life, register as a sex offender? The 16 year old girl knew what she was doing, she is old enough to know first not to mess with a man that much older. But, my question is where do you draw the line.

LOL, OK Sorry...I rambled!

Answer 4

Well its nice that you so gingerly state th recidivism rate is only around 3-13%.---Hanson and Bussière (1998) report that only a minority (13.4%) of their total sample of 23,393 subjects from their meta-analysis committed a new offense within the average 4- to 5-year follow-up period. Even with studies with thorough record searches and follow-up periods of 15 to 20 years, the recidivism rate never exceeded 40%---This was the conservative study. The contrasting report indicates 32%-59% will re-offend.
So the fact that we let sex offenders breathe should be something you are thankful for.
But we also need to pull on the reigns of what gets people on the registration lists in the first place. For example in Missouri lets say your drunk, in an alleyway and taking a piss, but you didn't realize you were standing across the street from the bus stop and people were watching....yep now your a sexual offender for life in Missouri...it tis some BS

Answer 5

I think they should be subject to every means of public identification possible. As a group, sex offenders are not capable of rehabilitation. The re-offense rates are more like 90% than the 3-13% you cite. They have a sick compulsion to prey upon the weak. They endanger society. They are master manipulators. They are monsters. As a woman, I have the right to know if I am endangered by the presence of a rabid-human in the form of a sex offender. As a mother, my children deserve to be protected from predators. With a sign on the front of your house, etc., I see the sign, and I am able to warn my children about the evil man who likes to hurt people who lives down the street. I can warn them that if you appear to be nice, you are not and should not ever be trusted. And if you come within 10 feet of my property, I can call the police. Sex offenders have no rights to access children. Allowing a sex offender to live near a school is like allowing a drug user to live next door to a crack house. For every victim of a sex offender who is identified, there are usually MANY who have been victimized and not identified. This is unacceptable. I am greatly in favor of every law imaginable that will limit your rights to access me or my children. So many sex crimes are being committed through the use of the computer. This is a sex criminal's new playground. No wonder you don't want to register your email address or be denied access to schools!

Thank GOD for Jessica's Law, but I don't think it goes far enough to protect society from sex monsters. One strike you're out is sufficient for this type of crime.

Answer 6

As far as "working" to prevent?, I am of the opinion that by being informed of the whereabouts of a Preditor, a family can take the appropriate steps to protect their child, and no I'm not alludeing to harming or bashing a preditor upon finding out his/her whereabouts, I won't go into the "appropriate" steps as this could and/or would give a preditor insite as to how to get around the steps required to protect a child. I am for all the mentioned requirements except for putting a sign in a Preditors front yard. Upon being paroled or discharged from prison, a person has paid his debt to society and IF the parole division and the watchdogs that are PAID to do their job, DO their job the children in our communities should be safe. It's like putting heroine on a recovering junkies doorstep and telling him not to open the door.
I further believe that due to the nature of the crime and what it entails, that a person convicted of having put a CHILD thru an ordeal such as that should loose a few privileges and/or rights as the childs rights should come FIRST!!! I shall pray that you heed your gods comandments and that He, whomever He may be, instills the fear of his mighty wrath within you.
GOD BLESS/GOOD LUCK!!

Answer 7

I don't know where in the hell you get that crappy 3-13% will re-offend, you might mean that -3-13% will not re-offend, your stats are wrong, and you know as well as I do, and you might not want to admit it, and one day YOU WILL STAND BEFORE GOD, and when he asked you why did you sexually offended that person, what are you going to say, that 3-13% re-offend????You know where your going, and yes, you deserve it, you are not going to get any sympathy here. I know your breed, and I know how you operate, you seek help from the weak and kind, and then you take advantage, I know your breed, and one day we will wipe you out. You have commited a crime that is unforgiveable, and you will carry that mark forever. Yes you do have rights (and so did the person you victimized), but one day, your day will come.

Answer 8

I think if it was rape or a child then yes, thats fair. On the other hand I have seen a lot of guys who have had sex with girls 15-17 who not only lied about their ages but also fooled me when I met them. I think those girls should get in whatever trouble the guy gets in. At that age they know what they are doing, and know that it is wrong and they could potentially get someone in trouble, that would be why they lie about their age in the first place. Not sure if I answered this correctly, but thats my response.

Answer 9

I don't think it's fair to treat all sex offenders like they are a serious threat to the community.
Child molesters should be watched a lot more closely than someone who may have been caught peeking in a window or groping someone when they're drunk.
I'm sure I'm in the minority on this. There's a lot of hate in the world.

Answer 10

it depends on the crime. child molesters yep they should have to wear the equivelent of the scarlet letter an register their emailand myspace and etc. i do remember a story in the news recently, about a boy who had sex with his girlfriend, and since she was underage he was sentenced to jail and marked the rest of his life. in this case i feel he was overcharged so to speak. so to me it depends on the crime