Can we at least agree that public urination (in a country with almost no public restrooms!) should NEVER be classed as a "sex crime?"
108
Part of the problem, too, lies with what, in some jurisdictions, is classified as a "sex offense." That public urination should be so classified is beyond ludicrous. At worst, it is a misdemeanor. The same goes for laws that label teenagers as "sex offenders" for "sexting" nude photos of themselves to other teens. In either case, while there may be good reasons to want to discourage the underlying behavior. But legal efforts to curtail those behaviors should bear some relation to reality, and should be proportionate to the actual potential harm to society those behaviors pose.
57
One of the few pieces I've read in the Times when I've not really understood why the author wrote it. Poorly done.
4
SEX OFFENDERS belong to a class of persons convicted for violation of laws pertaining to sexual practices. PEDOPHILES are individuals who seek out underage children for sexual acts. For one example, two 17 year olds could be engaged in consensual sexual relations. If one turns 18 before the other, technically, the 18 year old may have perpetrated statutory rape. Two consenting adults, even married couples, can have sex in a car, in the park or on a beach and be convicted of a sexual offense. There are many other sex offenders who have no interest in children at all. Yet they are all treated as if they are sex offender who are also pedophiles, or adults who have sex with children. If a teen takes a nude selfie with another teen and e mails it to friends, both teens may be convicted as producing and owning child pornography. In fact, a fair number of adolescents, who are good kids, think that nude selfies are fun. If they're put in jail with pedophiles, then they're going to be exposed to precisely the people the laws were designed to protect them from. Laws pertaining to sexual offenses have been found to be unconstitutional. They must be revised and focused on sex offenders who present a threat to children. Otherwise our children will more vulnerable to pedophiles with current laws. If we mean to protect them, then we must find the group of individuals who represent a threat to their safety.
37
By "banishing" pedophilic offenders we keep them as strangers and, perhaps, children safer. As someone who has worked with a therapist in the treatment of offenders, I have see the danger of ignoring risk in favor of family reunification, of children pushed back into the company of criminals and predators. The distinction has to be made between those likely to re-offend and those merely feckless or reckless. The safety of the innocent is more valuable than any human potential possessed by the predator. This issue is not one for a feel-good, everyone is special, approach. If true rehabilitation is unlikely (based on evidence, not religion, politics, or philosophy) the chance is too great to take.
12
You have missed the basic point of the editorial, which is that these laws are applied not only to pedophiles, but to a variety of offenders, many of whom pose zero risk to children.
38
So let me see if I understand this fully... in the case of a criminal or mentally ill individual committing gun violence, the only rational solution is to drastically restrict or eliminate the rights of all legal gun owners for the sake of theoretically saving the life of an individual (despite the overwhelming evidence that aside from suicide, violent gun crimes are not committed by the registered owners of a weapon). However, in the case of a predatory sex offender, we need to evaluate the severity of the abhorrent behavior that mental health professionals will readily admit has no cure rather than making the blanket decision to cull these individuals from the society they prey on.
So which of you are willing to ante up your addresses as acceptable exceptions to residency restrictions for these people?
So which of you are willing to ante up your addresses as acceptable exceptions to residency restrictions for these people?
5
Actually, they re-offend in most cases, and never stop yearning.
7
We want the same justice for everyone. Shouldn't incarceration be the punishment. What about the punishment after the punishment. The choke hold Probation has on this group of people which practically guarantees their failure. Yes, sex offenders (a legal term) reoffend. However their re-offenses are mostly technicalities because it is impossible to be successful with the rules and restrictions placed on them. Rehabilitation----many people on the registry don't need sex offender treatment. And whether they do or not they need to meet their potential as human beings...education, employment, family and children. Nothing should be out of their reach.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
Now change do to "say"
Change is happening. Please become part of the positive reform that will truly protect all our children while not harming an entire group of people.
Who is the next group to be persecuted here in the United States?
No one is protected.
Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere --MLK.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
Now change do to "say"
Change is happening. Please become part of the positive reform that will truly protect all our children while not harming an entire group of people.
Who is the next group to be persecuted here in the United States?
No one is protected.
Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere --MLK.
15
Pedophiles are psychologically predisposed to want sex with children and experience has shown that it they simply do not get over it. That is the reason for the unusual constraints after they have served their time. It's not fair but risking the lives and psyches of children by exposure to people with a high expected rate of reoffending is not fair, either.
10
As this article explains (which you apparently did not bother to read), only a small fraction of the people banished under these laws are pedophiles.
25
The point of the article is that not all of those classified as "sex offenders" are pedophiles. Only those who pose a risk to children should be restricted around them.
16
But what about those who are "sex offenders" but not pedophiles?
6
Laws which lump flashers, pedophiles, rapists, and an 18 year-old who sleeps with her 17 year-old boyfriend after the senior prom all into the same category of sex offenders are absurd, not to mention counterproductive.
Unless and until we find a more realistic and sensible way to differentiate activities with a sexual component that, as a society, we deem illegal, we will be stuck in this type of legal and social morass. If we can differentiate many ways to legally consider murder -- e.g. First Degree, Second Degree, Manslaughter, Justifiable Homicide, etc -- one would think we could manage to do the same with sex-related offenses.
"Crime" makes for a great slogan for campaigning politicians, but if we want to solve problems of anti-social behavior, we must understand that not all crimes are created equal.
Unless and until we find a more realistic and sensible way to differentiate activities with a sexual component that, as a society, we deem illegal, we will be stuck in this type of legal and social morass. If we can differentiate many ways to legally consider murder -- e.g. First Degree, Second Degree, Manslaughter, Justifiable Homicide, etc -- one would think we could manage to do the same with sex-related offenses.
"Crime" makes for a great slogan for campaigning politicians, but if we want to solve problems of anti-social behavior, we must understand that not all crimes are created equal.
40
I agree some people being unfairly punished (and these are the exception, teenagers, urine, etc not the rule), but that shouldn't soften the laws against pedophilia in any way.
A big problem with this article is lumping ALL forms of sexual behavior into a single category and arguing that penalties against ALL sex offenders should be softer.
In fact, it would be useful if it argued for better classification (which starts doing) and then differentiation in punishment (which starts doing) - but then unfortunately it also calls for/includes lenience for heinous crimes and therefore sabotages any sense of morality or fairness or protection to children.
There should be in fact two separate articles - one arguing for better classification - another (upon the editor's choice) arguing for softer punishment of real sex crimes. I just think it is a form of journalistic corruption to bundle the two, and to ask for less monitoring to one of the worse forms of sexual crimes in the same message.
I think this is a form of journalistic manipulation and corruption and the NYT is engaging in it too often.
Please lift your standards.
A big problem with this article is lumping ALL forms of sexual behavior into a single category and arguing that penalties against ALL sex offenders should be softer.
In fact, it would be useful if it argued for better classification (which starts doing) and then differentiation in punishment (which starts doing) - but then unfortunately it also calls for/includes lenience for heinous crimes and therefore sabotages any sense of morality or fairness or protection to children.
There should be in fact two separate articles - one arguing for better classification - another (upon the editor's choice) arguing for softer punishment of real sex crimes. I just think it is a form of journalistic corruption to bundle the two, and to ask for less monitoring to one of the worse forms of sexual crimes in the same message.
I think this is a form of journalistic manipulation and corruption and the NYT is engaging in it too often.
Please lift your standards.
10
In Phoenix, we get a map showing where sex offenders reside and a notice when a new offender moves into the neighborhood. Many of those identified apparently were one-time offenders whose offense involved no sexual touching or any other assault. On the other hand, only a very few are homeless, so that the prospect of moving in next door to a violent offender is real. In my opinion, courts need to distinguish the offenses involved and impose residency rules that are appropriate for each category of offender.
7
Years from now I fear we will be have the same conversation about the new 'Affirmative Consent' laws sweeping the states in response to the arguably manufactured 'college rape crisis'.
These laws cast too wide a net, deny due process, the presumption of innocence and violate basic civil liberties based on hysteria for political gain. Let's see that editorial.
These laws cast too wide a net, deny due process, the presumption of innocence and violate basic civil liberties based on hysteria for political gain. Let's see that editorial.
12
After spending a career of 35 years dealing with sex offenders (among other offenders) I came to the conclusion the public is (1) basically ignorant of these offenders and (2) has little interest in educating themselves. The subject itself is so visceral, so "repulsive", they just turn away and ignore it. But all sex offenders are not alike. Many can't be trusted, ever, not to re-offend, and will always be a threat. Others will never re-offend. But rather than try and sort out who's who we paint them all with the same brush. It's much easier that way, not at all fair, but easier.
26
And thus, it eventually becomes way harder.
4
One size fits all residency laws for sexual offenses (which includes public urination!?) destroys lives and probably protects few. Most sex crimes are committed by someone who knows or is related to the victim. Some common sense discretion is called for depending on the specifics of the case.
This is part of a broader problem with sentencing laws in the US, which can be overly punitive for minor offenses. Judges can also be a big part of the problem and lack accountability.
My cousin had just gotten an advanced degree in mathematics and then landed a plum job with an international public services firm. He then underwent a painful separation and divorce. He looked at some of his wife's emails while they were estranged using a password she had given to him. Bad judgement on his part. However, she pressed charges, he had poor representation with the end result that he was convicted of several felony counts (since this involved a computer) and was given 77 YEARS of probation. He was fired from his job and his life has been irrevocably damaged.
This is part of a broader problem with sentencing laws in the US, which can be overly punitive for minor offenses. Judges can also be a big part of the problem and lack accountability.
My cousin had just gotten an advanced degree in mathematics and then landed a plum job with an international public services firm. He then underwent a painful separation and divorce. He looked at some of his wife's emails while they were estranged using a password she had given to him. Bad judgement on his part. However, she pressed charges, he had poor representation with the end result that he was convicted of several felony counts (since this involved a computer) and was given 77 YEARS of probation. He was fired from his job and his life has been irrevocably damaged.
9
Disagree only on your criticism of judges, who in some cases are hamstrung by mandatory sentencing limits. Blame can go to prosecutors who just want to WIN, not to see "justice" served.
8
What in the world has happened to common sense? The "sex offender" label does not fit all incidences regarding sex. It is blatantly obvious to me that the punishment should fit the crime or offense. When I really think about the people who are making our laws today, it honestly frightens me.
27
I forget if it was P.T. Barnum, H.L Mencken, or somebody else that said: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
In the case of American criminal justice policy, the quote could be: no one ever lost an election because they were too tough on crime.
The truth is fear and hysteria sell in this country, especially when it comes to getting TV ratings or winning elections--somebody elected the people who passed these draconian laws after all. It will only change when the voters demand policy based on good evidence, instead of fear-mongering.
In the case of American criminal justice policy, the quote could be: no one ever lost an election because they were too tough on crime.
The truth is fear and hysteria sell in this country, especially when it comes to getting TV ratings or winning elections--somebody elected the people who passed these draconian laws after all. It will only change when the voters demand policy based on good evidence, instead of fear-mongering.
9
I so agree with this article. I think that we need scientific research to determine what is the best method to deal with issues. Another effective method for cities and states is to see what other cities and states have done that is effective. I like what the one writer said about Homeland Security. Talk about overreacting! Since the intelligence agencies weren't cooperating, wouldn't it have been just as effective and a lot cheaper to set up a committee to oversee & coordinated the work of the intelligence agencies?
9
Why are registries still in existence? If someone presents a rape and/or child molestation threat then they should be locked up, and if not they shouldn't be on a registry. I thought the point of Megan's law was that through a defective system, her rapist/murderer was let loose notwithstanding the danger, but after decades why hasn't that been fixed? And it seems like the list of people who really are dangerous but for some reason cannot be imprisoned should be a short list.
14
Ann: As an occasional hitchhiker during the 1960s & 1970s, I would say that about 1/3 of men are potential rapists. (Other women have told me that my estimate is too conservative). So how many people do you plan to lock up?
3
Great article!
Ruining someone's life over public urination or any other minor offense is pointless.
Statutory rape is also a very shaky subject. Just imagine two young people-(one is a bit older than the other), being in love. And then imagine their parents ruining their lives and taking the guy to court. And then... he's done for the rest of his life (even after he served his sentence).
We should stop being afraid of everybody.
Ruining someone's life over public urination or any other minor offense is pointless.
Statutory rape is also a very shaky subject. Just imagine two young people-(one is a bit older than the other), being in love. And then imagine their parents ruining their lives and taking the guy to court. And then... he's done for the rest of his life (even after he served his sentence).
We should stop being afraid of everybody.
37
I'm reminded of the case of Benjamin Zander, the Boston conductor who was dismissed from his job leading the New England Conservatory's youth orchestra because the videographer he used to record the orchestra's concerts was a registered sex offender. Zander wasn't the person who originally hired him; he had been working for the NEC's opera program when Zander decided to use him as well. Nothing bad happened; no incidents were reported or alleged; there was no problem to solve; the young musicians were never in danger. It's likely that the school used the law to fire and ruin the reputation of a well-loved teacher because of long-simmering internal politics that had nothing to do with the actual safety of children.
Meanwhile, thousands of rape kits are gathering dust in police precincts across the country, several Republican lawmakers use the phrase "legitimate rape", and many colleges and universities refuse to dig too deeply into accusations of rape and assault against football players and fraternity members so as not to disrupt the flow of money from football fans and the rich parents of frat members.
And for some reason many of the same people who politically align with the people who make the situations in the second paragraph above possible have no problem with the laws that made the situation in the first paragraph possible. It seems that they're less interested in actually curbing rape than they are in using the idea of it to serve their political aims.
Meanwhile, thousands of rape kits are gathering dust in police precincts across the country, several Republican lawmakers use the phrase "legitimate rape", and many colleges and universities refuse to dig too deeply into accusations of rape and assault against football players and fraternity members so as not to disrupt the flow of money from football fans and the rich parents of frat members.
And for some reason many of the same people who politically align with the people who make the situations in the second paragraph above possible have no problem with the laws that made the situation in the first paragraph possible. It seems that they're less interested in actually curbing rape than they are in using the idea of it to serve their political aims.
21
This seems rather simple-- why can't the courts and the laws distinguish between child molesters and rapists on the one hand, and public urinators and 18 year olds who date 16 year olds on the other?
20
Commentary like Nancy Grace, last night, on CNN sounding the alarm about the dangers of children using bathroom included an example of a 15 year old child being bothered in some way in a bathroom. Her advice: always accompany your child to the bathroom and so on. You can imagine the shrill tone. But you will not be able to imagine always accompanying your 15 year old into the bathroom or, taking your 15 year old boy into the ladies room if you are a mother. How insane our environment has become, and as with politics, shrill commentators are part of the reason,
17
This screed fails to note how hard it can be to correct a sex offender's behavior.
7
I'm all for finetuning of "blanket" laws, so terms of release better fit the crime, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. There may be no proof that these restraining orders work, but I wonder if there is proof that they don't. On a purely common-sense basis, it seems prudent to avoid putting molesters in proximity to children in order to avoid crimes of opportunity. And are we willing to test that theory with the lives of the most vulnerable among us?
5
Peter Olafson, there is no proof that these laws work, and plenty of proof that they make problems work. Why should it be incumbent on the advocates of repeal to prove anything? If anything, those who advocate for more repressive laws should be the ones on the hook to provide "proof."
8
Its not pointless. What will the zealots, bigots and closet sex offenders do without having a demographic to revile?
5
I have lived very close to this issue for twenty years. What the NYTs and the rest of the country is learning is that it is time for change concerning the registry. The registry was created by zealots, then use by politicians to win elections. To say it got out of control is an understatement. As many here have stated, it is time for a "case by case" evaluation to be implemented as well as a program to re-assess the many thousands that have been on the registry for decades now without so much as a speeding ticket since.
Let's focus on the violent and repeat offenders and use all the money and time we waste watching those with an extremely low chance of re-offending and put it towards prevention. It's time to stop the never ending persecution. It doesn't help the offender or the victim.
Let's focus on the violent and repeat offenders and use all the money and time we waste watching those with an extremely low chance of re-offending and put it towards prevention. It's time to stop the never ending persecution. It doesn't help the offender or the victim.
42
Perhaps the editorial is focusing on the wrong thing here: the real problem is not so much that sexual predators are barred from living in certain areas but that the lists are overly broad and include many people who have no business being on such lists. For example, when people are listed as predators for consensual public sex, consensual underage sex or public urination, to name a few, then such lists are overly broad and do not serve the purpose they were designed to serve: to alert neighbors about high-risk individuals living nearby and/or to prevent such individuals from living near potential victims.
To restate what I said in response to another comment, if those sexual predator lists are to be meaningful and useful, they must be used judiciously and include only actual sexual predators: those who have engaged in violent sexual crimes or any sexual crimes against children.
To restate what I said in response to another comment, if those sexual predator lists are to be meaningful and useful, they must be used judiciously and include only actual sexual predators: those who have engaged in violent sexual crimes or any sexual crimes against children.
34
No, the article is making several points. One is breadth. One us that making people who do still belong on the registry homeless isn't the best solution. It keeps us from tracking them, and denies them the stabilizing influence of the family home we're banning them from. It's a great point, and I have no idea why you're ignoring or dismissing it.
Another point the article hints at is that abuse is nearly always from family members, not strangers. So we need to research how well keeping these dangerous strangers away from kids works. Does it work well enough to justify housing discrimination? Does it make us complacent to the true dangers?
Another point the article hints at is that abuse is nearly always from family members, not strangers. So we need to research how well keeping these dangerous strangers away from kids works. Does it work well enough to justify housing discrimination? Does it make us complacent to the true dangers?
2
There is no universal solution to sexual predators nor are there any black and white definitions. Imprisonment is just warehousing human beings. At some point the United States has to have a frank conversation and reach agreement on humane treatment and then stick with it. Molestation is often a end product of desperation, isolation and no real help or long term psychotherapy. Sexual violence is often a consequence of previous abuse or torment. Very few sex offenders are malevolent and can be rehabilitated. Much public discussion is just hysteria or calculated flimflam promoted by cynical politicians or religious hustlers. Banishment deepens rage and fuels eventual violence. A bit of mercy and a lot of intelligent understanding of cause and effect will be a better method for resolving sexual tragedies.
6
How about a public registry with residential restrictions on drivers who repeatedly speed and get DUI's, given that this is a far more common cause of harm and even death to children. Why are people who hurt others with cars allowed to start driving again? Without notifying their neighbors?
Why are people who threaten and attack others with guns allowed to live among us?
Why are financial sector firms and employees convicted of banking crimes allowed to continue working with other people's money?
Why are people like Cheney who speechified us into getting thousands killed in pointless, bungled wars allowed to continue speechifying on TV?
This country needs a lot more sanity and honesty. This editorial is a good example of that.
Why are people who threaten and attack others with guns allowed to live among us?
Why are financial sector firms and employees convicted of banking crimes allowed to continue working with other people's money?
Why are people like Cheney who speechified us into getting thousands killed in pointless, bungled wars allowed to continue speechifying on TV?
This country needs a lot more sanity and honesty. This editorial is a good example of that.
16
We are going crazy about so called sex offenders. It is not the residency requirements that are bad but the list itself. It should be restricted to pedophiles and rapists, the other crimes being punished in other ways--fines and jail time. Even statutory rapists are on the list, and shouldn't be for cases involving minors over 12 or 13.
20
Do you really think it is ok for adults to be having sex with 12 and 13 year-old minors?
2
This column points out that ludicrous things (public urination?) are classified as sex offenses posing a danger to children, and scores of commenters immediately respond with scenarios of child abuse and rape. Lawmaking in this country is not based on reason; it is driven by violence, fear and hatred. The transformation of the US into a secular theocracy is gathering momentum.
14
This is an important editorial and one that is long past its need. As others have noted here, the whole sex offender issue has been the new witch hunt. It is easy for politicians to enact legislation for these issues because everyone loves children, and everyone hates a predator. The issue is often kept in that black & white level of discourse. People have been labeled "sex offenders" for some victimless crimes. Why do we have levels of offenders in some states? Either an individual has committed a crime worthy of the label, as predators and child pornographers have, or they have not, as with people caught having sex in a car or bathroom, or some such.
The problem is getting legislation to back away from these overreaching and over-reactive courts to differentiate. As with the drug war. there is a world of difference between a predator and a person who has a lapse in judgment.
Moreover, creating these no-go zones for even the worst offender has not prevented any behavior. It has only exacerbated problems, as this editorial informs. We can hope that this is the beginning of understanding the mindset of true offenders and working with them to prevent the behavior.
The problem is getting legislation to back away from these overreaching and over-reactive courts to differentiate. As with the drug war. there is a world of difference between a predator and a person who has a lapse in judgment.
Moreover, creating these no-go zones for even the worst offender has not prevented any behavior. It has only exacerbated problems, as this editorial informs. We can hope that this is the beginning of understanding the mindset of true offenders and working with them to prevent the behavior.
38
I think the NYT Editorial Team, as well as many readers here, have gone bonkers. It has lost all sense of moral guidance or ethics.
I have read comments here defending child pornography! Why would anyone look at child pornography if they do not see children as sexual prey or if they are not sexually attracted to children??
There is simply no argument to defend this. The mere fact that they are looking this up contributes to an industry where children will get abused in order to produce these very pictures.
Another reader posted that his friend is being punished for life because of a ‘lapse in judgment’ with a stepdaughter. Is that we are calling child abuse and the rape of children now?? Just a case of ‘bad judgment’??
The most concerning and dishonest side of this article as it uses ‘romeo and juliet’ examples of teenage consensual love in order to cover up what the great majority of sex offender crimes are: The consequences of child abuse are dismal, destructive, dreadful and irreversible. And the NYT board editorial board believes that children should get less protection from predators??!!
Another disconcerting variable of this article, like many corrupt articles where the truth takes a very far second place to liberal opinion is data.
What’s the average number of victims a sex-offender destroy over his lifetime?
I have read comments here defending child pornography! Why would anyone look at child pornography if they do not see children as sexual prey or if they are not sexually attracted to children??
There is simply no argument to defend this. The mere fact that they are looking this up contributes to an industry where children will get abused in order to produce these very pictures.
Another reader posted that his friend is being punished for life because of a ‘lapse in judgment’ with a stepdaughter. Is that we are calling child abuse and the rape of children now?? Just a case of ‘bad judgment’??
The most concerning and dishonest side of this article as it uses ‘romeo and juliet’ examples of teenage consensual love in order to cover up what the great majority of sex offender crimes are: The consequences of child abuse are dismal, destructive, dreadful and irreversible. And the NYT board editorial board believes that children should get less protection from predators??!!
Another disconcerting variable of this article, like many corrupt articles where the truth takes a very far second place to liberal opinion is data.
What’s the average number of victims a sex-offender destroy over his lifetime?
28
If, as you say, " 'romeo and juliet' examples of teenage consensual love" is being used as a cover to protect real predators, then shouldn't we all work to remove those romeo and juliet examples from the lists - and keep them from being included on the lists in the first place - so that the lists are reserved solely for dangerous predators?
5
Thank you.
Some commenters here claim victim status for the offender and paint those who advocate for children as having some sort of extraordinary sway over public opinion and political decision-making. Their very comments show how untrue that is, and your observations about the Romeo and Juliet matter, "lapses" (?!), and the reality of pornography are very much appreciated.
I do wonder whether some tweaking might be in order, or helpful, or possible; however, the inaccuracy and denial in some of the comments, if representative, shows how much we do still need to be on guard to protect children.
Notice that the subject in the Romeo and Juliet scenario is always the slightly older male. Since it is his rights and privileges that take center stage.
Are we so far into virtual reality that when we look at photos we do not realize a that a real person is [usually] the model or subject?
Some commenters here claim victim status for the offender and paint those who advocate for children as having some sort of extraordinary sway over public opinion and political decision-making. Their very comments show how untrue that is, and your observations about the Romeo and Juliet matter, "lapses" (?!), and the reality of pornography are very much appreciated.
I do wonder whether some tweaking might be in order, or helpful, or possible; however, the inaccuracy and denial in some of the comments, if representative, shows how much we do still need to be on guard to protect children.
Notice that the subject in the Romeo and Juliet scenario is always the slightly older male. Since it is his rights and privileges that take center stage.
Are we so far into virtual reality that when we look at photos we do not realize a that a real person is [usually] the model or subject?
2
We just had a Romeo and Juliet case near me. The boy is now registered for life. Your willingness to just toss away his life like trash is pretty sorry.
9
There was a national panic about child abuse in the 1980s, not unlike the Salem Witch Trials or other epidemics of panic at other times and places. It came about because the news media, particularly local television stations, jumped on child abuse as a subject matter no one could ignore. It also came about because so many more women, more mothers, were in the workforce and probably feeling guilty about not being with the children during the day. The generation of young mothers at that time was among the first in American history to turn over the children at pre-school age to those who weren't relatives. So, one story about child abuse at school led to another and another.
There were also high profile cases that shocked the senses. In the DC area, a little girl was abducted and killed when she was snatched from a backyard plastic play pool. Her father had been gone for less than three minutes, perhaps only a few seconds. At the time, I was among the thousands shocked who changed the way I watched over our young daughter. (Later, it was determined the act had been committed by a mentally ill neighbor, something that almost nothing could have protected against.)
Overdoing, overreacting, is the American way. We spent one trillion dollars on "homeland security" after 9-11, 2001. Dat's a lotta bananas.
Better safe than sorry? How about safe and sorry. How about ruining people's lives, like the crime when an 18 yr. has sex with his 17 yr. girlfriend. Not all crimes are equal.
There were also high profile cases that shocked the senses. In the DC area, a little girl was abducted and killed when she was snatched from a backyard plastic play pool. Her father had been gone for less than three minutes, perhaps only a few seconds. At the time, I was among the thousands shocked who changed the way I watched over our young daughter. (Later, it was determined the act had been committed by a mentally ill neighbor, something that almost nothing could have protected against.)
Overdoing, overreacting, is the American way. We spent one trillion dollars on "homeland security" after 9-11, 2001. Dat's a lotta bananas.
Better safe than sorry? How about safe and sorry. How about ruining people's lives, like the crime when an 18 yr. has sex with his 17 yr. girlfriend. Not all crimes are equal.
21
If anything these laws need to be strengthened. Fine, if a man rapes his own wife are you saying is should not be registered as a sex offender? At what point to you draw the line.
Public Urination, as you mentioned, which we have all learned is not a crime in Times Square, might in some jurisdictions be part of a plea bargain. Perhaps the offender was peeing in front of a group of children, that is the guys fetish, should he really be able to live next to a school playground?
By weakening the Registry, it would force prosecutors to not offer plea bargains, as the lesser conviction might not carry the need to Register.
But you Editorial actually reads like an endorsement of the right of sexual perverts to do whatever they like, and this "lifelong" registration is just so unfair. It is not unfair. Historically societies have always ostracized sex offenders and abusers, for good reason.
Public Urination, as you mentioned, which we have all learned is not a crime in Times Square, might in some jurisdictions be part of a plea bargain. Perhaps the offender was peeing in front of a group of children, that is the guys fetish, should he really be able to live next to a school playground?
By weakening the Registry, it would force prosecutors to not offer plea bargains, as the lesser conviction might not carry the need to Register.
But you Editorial actually reads like an endorsement of the right of sexual perverts to do whatever they like, and this "lifelong" registration is just so unfair. It is not unfair. Historically societies have always ostracized sex offenders and abusers, for good reason.
6
I'm just shocked by the utter lack of knowledge displayed by those railing against this editorial. this one size fits all approach will be found unconstitutional--at which point you'll be forced to go back to watching To Catch a Predator reruns.
4
While the article barely mentions sex offender registration, my understanding is that the author is indicating that the residency restriction (and possibly the sex offender registration) should be applied on a case-by-case basis instead of through sweeping generalization based on the charge.
I'm sure there are cases as you described above where residency restrictions /registration should apply, but it would seem likely that there are also many public urination citations which have nothing to do with anything sexual at all.
Overall, it makes sense, to me at least, to give each person a ruling based on their individual case.
I'm sure there are cases as you described above where residency restrictions /registration should apply, but it would seem likely that there are also many public urination citations which have nothing to do with anything sexual at all.
Overall, it makes sense, to me at least, to give each person a ruling based on their individual case.
1
As I understand it, some of the sex offender laws require registering offenders for such crimes as consensual sex or sexting between minors. That's hardly reason enough to stamp someone with a scarlet letter for life and to bar them from common housing options, but perhaps states need to go even further: they may want to reconsider the criteria for inclusion on these lists and the reasons for using those criteria.
10
Megan's Law was always and is meant to be anti-male. It is a sick law out of a sick nation that frankly is getting sicker by each and every non-sense law that is passed by a government that is missing part of it's original checks-and-balance basis--that is an appointed upper house as opposed to the elected upper house that is a duplication of the lower house. The country needs reform sorely before the plug is pulled by somebody.
4
My cousin is affected by these laws for the rest of his life. Why? He simply was caught urinating behind a dumpster in an alleyway.
24
Jack, I agree your cousin is being unfairly punished, but that shouldn't soften the laws against pedophilia in any way.
A big problem with this article is lumping ALL forms of sexual behavior into a single category and arguing that penalties against ALL sex offenders should be softer.
In fact, it would be useful if it argued for better classification (which starts doing) and then differentiation in punishment (which starts doing) - but then unfortunately it also calls for/includes lenience for heinous crimes and therefore sabotages any sense of morality or fairness or protection to children.
A big problem with this article is lumping ALL forms of sexual behavior into a single category and arguing that penalties against ALL sex offenders should be softer.
In fact, it would be useful if it argued for better classification (which starts doing) and then differentiation in punishment (which starts doing) - but then unfortunately it also calls for/includes lenience for heinous crimes and therefore sabotages any sense of morality or fairness or protection to children.
3
I want to expand on my earlier comment some: "I agree with this and also that something needs to be done about criminal background checks. The best way to keep people from committing crimes is for them to be gainfully employed and happy. "
I would suggest that everyone who is released from jail should be offered a full time job automatically (either private sector or some government work program if nothing in the private sector is available or no one will hire them), but given how bad things are for almost everyone else even if the job paid minimum wage it would be hugely unfair. That's how bad things are in America right now.
I would suggest that everyone who is released from jail should be offered a full time job automatically (either private sector or some government work program if nothing in the private sector is available or no one will hire them), but given how bad things are for almost everyone else even if the job paid minimum wage it would be hugely unfair. That's how bad things are in America right now.
7
Sex offender status is too broad a catch-all legal classification.
The people who we need to lock up for the rest of their lives are those are have incontrovertibly raped a minor. Sorry, rapists who have pedophilia and act on those impulses cannot be rehabbed without a very high chance of relapse. The damage is far too great.
But to pin as a sex offender a guy who's 19 for having sex with is underage girlfriend is over board. There are, however, some cases, where even this should be prosecutable - think of a mentally challenged minor, for instance.
The people who we need to lock up for the rest of their lives are those are have incontrovertibly raped a minor. Sorry, rapists who have pedophilia and act on those impulses cannot be rehabbed without a very high chance of relapse. The damage is far too great.
But to pin as a sex offender a guy who's 19 for having sex with is underage girlfriend is over board. There are, however, some cases, where even this should be prosecutable - think of a mentally challenged minor, for instance.
5
If a person has been convicted of a crime, sentenced, and served the sentence, he or she should be able to rejoin society with no restrictions attached. If the sexual offences are such that the person is a danger, then the sentence should be such that said person remains behind bars.
The labeling of offenders, registries, restrictions on where they can go, live, etc. is not only unfair but would seem to constitute cruel and unusual punishment as no other category of criminals and their crimes are treated in the same manner.
The labeling of offenders, registries, restrictions on where they can go, live, etc. is not only unfair but would seem to constitute cruel and unusual punishment as no other category of criminals and their crimes are treated in the same manner.
8
Isn´t this in essebce a thinly disguished ¨Profiling ¨- which is illegal - common sense dictates each situation - Incidentally most all crimes against children involve the OPPOSITE SEX !
1
Even if you are found innocent after being accused of any sex offense, the accusation will follow you the rest of your life. Makes sense to also allow the accused, un named as well as the accuser.
2
Are blanket residency laws in the best interests of the state?
That will be the test that enacting governments will be hard-pressed to pass, but they will collectively spend tens of millions of dollars in legal fees in their futile attempts to do so.
Considering the lies that will surely be howled out by politicians and "Save the Children" groups during any modernization attempt, it's best that reformers position the process as "modifying" or "fine-tuning" the laws rather than doing away with them.
Is it un-Christian to falsely label a person as a threat to children when in truth he is not?
That will be the test that enacting governments will be hard-pressed to pass, but they will collectively spend tens of millions of dollars in legal fees in their futile attempts to do so.
Considering the lies that will surely be howled out by politicians and "Save the Children" groups during any modernization attempt, it's best that reformers position the process as "modifying" or "fine-tuning" the laws rather than doing away with them.
Is it un-Christian to falsely label a person as a threat to children when in truth he is not?
3
As a former child welfare social worker, the worst downside to this practice is the assumption made by parents that someone not registered is not an offender. If you are treated at a hospital they will handle your body fluids as if you are hiv infected. Ditto for how you mange who your children spend time with (ie no sleep overs).
4
Couple such pointless banishment with mandated excesses in sentencing and the failure to distinguish among types and levels of sex crimes (statutory rape involving an 18 year old boy and 17 year old girl serves as a prime example). And then read Russell Banks’ boldly and movingly instructive “Lost Memory of Skin” to experience the dehumanizing, futile damage which such “tough on crime” excesses all too frequently inflict.
4
Our small town's local karate instructor went to prison for sexually assaulting and raping a number of his young students. No one wants him to move back to the town where he lived and taught, least of all the children and families of those he assaulted. He lost his privilege to live where he wants when he chose to prey on those who trusted him.
5
Who would recommend this post? Laws made for individual cases are bad laws.
Great article. I think this is an example of our legal and legislative system moving down a pathway motivated by bringing sexual abuse of children out into the open. In previous generations (e.g. Catholic Church scandals) it was something not talked about. Similarly, many class A drugs were once legal in the US. Once we got a few publicized cases about sexual abuse, the obvious move was quarantine / segregation. And because people who make policy are lazy and because no one trusts the judgment of parole boards, etc., it's easy to label everyone with the quarantine / segregation bus. Now, we're seeing empirical evidence that this system does not work. It is not achieving what we want as a society and its costs are multi-dimensional. We're maturing about this issue from the reflexive reaction of quarantine to a more nuanced approach. The question is how to incorporate the empirical evidence into policy. California and other states are showing the way.
4
Both this editorial and the commentators who strongly disagree have very valid points. Teenagers sleeping with their girlfriends don't deserve to be punished for life, on the other hand, predatory pedophiles should be closely monitored to ensure the safety of our children.
There obviously needs to be a major overhaul of how we deal with both, instead of this practice of what is essentially an "out of sight out of mind" policy which is ineffective at best.
For starters, it's ridiculous to be punishing teenagers in this manner.
And keeping pedophiles away from schools is not a real solution, since as we know, child abusers prey on children they know more than random children.
The draconian measures are no better than sweeping the problem under the carpet.
There obviously needs to be a major overhaul of how we deal with both, instead of this practice of what is essentially an "out of sight out of mind" policy which is ineffective at best.
For starters, it's ridiculous to be punishing teenagers in this manner.
And keeping pedophiles away from schools is not a real solution, since as we know, child abusers prey on children they know more than random children.
The draconian measures are no better than sweeping the problem under the carpet.
10
Once we started down the path of a national registry of sex offenders, we were going to see the occasional example of excessive public reaction to someone on it, because we created a target, an individual with a name; and, as the editors write, not all of those names offer threats to children. Those who resist gun regulation make the argument that the kind of national registration of guns that some favor would have the same outcome -- permit legislation that specifically targets individuals for punitive and restrictive actions. Whether you buy it or not, it's a tenable argument to make.
But I'd be willing to wager that we're not going to see much action beyond judicial compromise with communities on limits placed on convicted sex offenders. Given all the reasons cited for moderating the draconian restrictions some of those communities have placed on people in that registry, it remains that nobody is going to want to take the chance of narrowing restrictions to benefit a few and suffer the consequences of being wrong.
However, we might attack the problem from another direction. The registry might become a two-level one, where limited injunctions can be placed on those in it who have served their time and are free again IF their crime was not violent and DID NOT result in the physical injury of a child; while leaving a second level for those who committed crimes that were violent and predatory against children. We might sell that.
But I'd be willing to wager that we're not going to see much action beyond judicial compromise with communities on limits placed on convicted sex offenders. Given all the reasons cited for moderating the draconian restrictions some of those communities have placed on people in that registry, it remains that nobody is going to want to take the chance of narrowing restrictions to benefit a few and suffer the consequences of being wrong.
However, we might attack the problem from another direction. The registry might become a two-level one, where limited injunctions can be placed on those in it who have served their time and are free again IF their crime was not violent and DID NOT result in the physical injury of a child; while leaving a second level for those who committed crimes that were violent and predatory against children. We might sell that.
7
Maybe if the offenders agree to chemical castration and no longer pose a risk to children, we can reconsider the restrictions. But sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates among criminals, so removing all restrictions will only guarantee that some other victims' lives are ruined for the sake of a pervert's "liberty".
2
You could not be more wrong. Sex offenders have an extremely low recidivism rate. It's a fact. Do your homework before spouting off.
5
Probably the most uninformed comment ever
Where do you get the info that "sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates among criminals"? Controlled studies have shown their rate is no higher than that of others. The highest recidivism is among drug offenders.
1
Misguided legislators, trying to act tough and concerned, and guilty perhaps because of their own weaknesses have branded such "violators" as an 18 year old having consensual sex which turns at to be "statutory" misbehavior, to a lifetime of censure and punishment. Outlandish and stupid.
3
The government should not try to regulate sex or marriage. Let free will reign.
"The laws apply to many and sometimes all sex offenders, regardless of whether they were convicted for molesting a child or for public urination."
Only in the prudish US of A would public urination fall under a 'sex crime'.
Only in the prudish US of A would public urination fall under a 'sex crime'.
15
I said this very same thing when Megan's Law was passed - that it would actually make things worse by making it impossible to monitor or provide treatment for released offenders. And that's exactly what happened.
11
This issue isn't about the bleeding-heart, dangerously glib liberal hand wringing over the consequences of sex crimes in America and those designated (by law, not accident) as sex offenders.
This is about Mens Rea.
Arguing about men who allegedly get caught in internet dating schemes, luring and wooing girls whose age is "unbeknownst" to them, men who expose themselves in public, and near schools and playgrounds being mistaken for deviants misses the relevant point, and the purpose of sex offender laws.
It's the intent. Whatever possesses someone to place themselves in a set of circumstances that could result in being charged and labeled a sex offender, with no sense of right, wrong or conscience is the actual point.
Look at Subway spokesman Jared Fogle. Do we really want to go granular here? Do we want to evaluate him subjectively to "really" determine whether he did anything wrong? No. There's a reason a crime called "statutory rape" exists. There's a reason why adult crimes against children require factual proof and are rarely mitigated--because as a society we condemn them. They are supposed to be wrong, and the individual as a citizen and a human being should know violating a child, even accidentally, is wrong.
I find this op-ed curious, nonsensical and disgusting.
This is about Mens Rea.
Arguing about men who allegedly get caught in internet dating schemes, luring and wooing girls whose age is "unbeknownst" to them, men who expose themselves in public, and near schools and playgrounds being mistaken for deviants misses the relevant point, and the purpose of sex offender laws.
It's the intent. Whatever possesses someone to place themselves in a set of circumstances that could result in being charged and labeled a sex offender, with no sense of right, wrong or conscience is the actual point.
Look at Subway spokesman Jared Fogle. Do we really want to go granular here? Do we want to evaluate him subjectively to "really" determine whether he did anything wrong? No. There's a reason a crime called "statutory rape" exists. There's a reason why adult crimes against children require factual proof and are rarely mitigated--because as a society we condemn them. They are supposed to be wrong, and the individual as a citizen and a human being should know violating a child, even accidentally, is wrong.
I find this op-ed curious, nonsensical and disgusting.
12
Can you be specific about exactly which points the editorial makes that you find disgusting? Is it that blanket residency-restriction laws disregard that not all people who have been convicted of sex offenses pose a risk to children? Is it that there is no evidence that sex offender residency regulations actually work?
Please be specific and try to back up your specific arguments with some facts or a scientific study. I’m curious about what makes you tick.
Please be specific and try to back up your specific arguments with some facts or a scientific study. I’m curious about what makes you tick.
Sex offender lists aren't just for pedophiles, how do you feel about a 19 year old woman who has sex with her 17 year old boyfriend? You might find this column curious but you are decidedly not curious about how a law that brands someone for a lifetime might have a lot collateral damage.
I find your rant curious, nonsensical, and disgusting.
The best way to prevent child sexual abuse is to be an informed, educated adult and to expect that all adults tending to children are also educated. Knowing how it happens (more than 80% in a 1 adult/1 child situation), who commits it (over 90% of abuse is at the hands of someone a child knows and trusts) and the best practices for keeping it at bay are essential. I encourage everyone to visit Darkness To Light's website (www.D2L.org) for more information and take the 2 hour training, live or online. Many communities are able to offer the training for free.
6
As a sex offender they've not only ruined the life of their victim and their family, but their own life as well. They're extremely lucky that they have the luxury of being placed back into society, albeit with restrictions. They're also lucky that I wasn't one the jurors because I would have tried to convince the entire jury to lock them up for the rest of their life. Sexual predators are predators for life. Therefore, they have to be strictly monitored. Oh, and I do not want them living near me...ever.
11
You completely missed the point of the article. Did you read it?
So you would have sent the 15 year olds that played with each others' private parts to jail for the rest of their lives? I think the point of this article is not that we should let confirmed pedophiles live wherever, but that it's silly to lump sexual predators in with stupid teenagers or old guys who got drunk and peed in public one night.
AG, please read the entire editorial. You will see that sexual predators include such monsters as those who have been caught urinating in public, which - if everyone ever doing that was caught - would plausibly include anyone, male or female, who has ever hiked in the back country, and probably quite a few high school and college students who have had a bit too much to drink.
If sexual predator bans are to have any meaning, they must be used judiciously and applied only to those who actually pose a threat. Yes, there are many who fit that bill, but that's why - as the California court suggested - we need case-by-case determinations.
If sexual predator bans are to have any meaning, they must be used judiciously and applied only to those who actually pose a threat. Yes, there are many who fit that bill, but that's why - as the California court suggested - we need case-by-case determinations.
2
Does anybody remember the repressed memory witch hunt of the 1990s when many innocent people were thrown in jail on the "spectral evidence" of unscrupulous therapists and self-deluded "victims"? Sex crimes are particularly prone to miscarriage of justice because of their very nature. Adding to the uncertainty of the legal process the extra punishment of residence restrictions is unconstitutional. And where is the scientific evidence that such a thing as the "sexual predator" even exists? Sexual abuse of children is mostly a crime of opportunity perpetrated by their fathers and other close male relatives.
14
The sex offender registry marks you for life, even if you did something stupid thirty years ago. Background checks do NOT predict the future.
14
These laws, like the Drug War, are driven more by hysteria than empirical evidence which results in good soundbites for politicians wanting to be seen as “tough on crime. However, these policies have not made the situation better.
If anything these laws have made the situation worse by making it extremely difficult for sex offenders—including those convicted of minor offenses like public urination—to hold a job, find a place to live, and reintegrate into society.
If anything these laws have made the situation worse by making it extremely difficult for sex offenders—including those convicted of minor offenses like public urination—to hold a job, find a place to live, and reintegrate into society.
22
Why only sex offenders? Why stop there? In May, Barclays, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Roayl Bank of Scotland and UBS AG pled guilty to criminal charges and paid $5.6 billion in fines and their executives are still allowed around other people's money. Let's be consistent, if sex offenders are not allowed around kids, crooked bankers should not be allowed around money.
28
Joe for President!
As a criminal lawyer, I have seen firsthand how these statutes can wreak havoc with an offender's life. Often times the residency restrictions and registration requirements do not "fit the crime" at all. Where the underlying crime had nothing whatsoever to do with contact with children and where it had nothing whatsoever to do with creating a risk of future offending conduct. These offenders are often merely tarred and feathered with insufficient justification. And this is not an issue that should be susceptible of a "better safe than sorry" approach. Apart from raising serious constitutional concerns--which some states have already addressed--these laws do not protect the community. They simply raise fears and isolate the offenders. And they don't accomplish what they were meant to accomplish
9
Murder statutes are meant to abolish murder from the public sphere.
Drunk driving laws are meant to end drunk driving.
Neither have accomplished the ultimate goal. Are you advocating those laws be stricken from the books as well?
Drunk driving laws are meant to end drunk driving.
Neither have accomplished the ultimate goal. Are you advocating those laws be stricken from the books as well?
Legislators overreact time and time again. As it was war on drugs, they want to drown the house to put out a kitchen fire. We support this by putting on entertainment shows that set up pedophiles and then arrest them. We support them by showing "a very special episode" about some teenager doing drugs. Lawmakers look at their own kids and watch the same hysteria and it rings the same bell (quite understandably) in their collective brains. There was a couple arrested for having sex on the beach (not the drink) here in Florida and the consequences for those people were unspeakably draconian. We are in 2015 but our representatives are partying like its 1985. We have to stop and reassess crime and punishment in the current age. Its way overdue. We are one step away from Gulags. If you don't think thats true, look at the tent jails in Arizona.
7
Russell Banks' A Forgotten Memory of Skin mines the many problems with this current system, making a persuasive case against residency restriction laws. I highly recommend reading it if you are interested in this issue. I went into it believing I would have no compassion for the perpetrators and be unmoved by the difficulties of their lives, but the truth is, as with all sweeping solutions, many people who had nothing to do with harming children are affected by this law and it prevents them from ever belonging to society in a meaningful, productive way again.
4
I agree. The current sex offender laws in many states, along with the post-release residency restrictions, disregard both the constitutional rights of people, and the empirical realities of research.
Residency restrictions are based in ignorant hysteria. They are promulgated by vote-seeking politicians who ignore the consequences, and backed by well-meaning people who don't think through the consequences, and outraged people who are actually delighted by the consequences.
Many of those outraged people are commenting here to say no punishment can be too harsh for a sex offender. I think they should just be more honest and seek public laws either imprisoning all sex offenders for life, or putting them to death. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to be deeply angered by pedophiles and rapists, but committed to what this editorial points out: punishments and restrictions that actually work, and that don't cause worse problems than they address.
P.S. Why don't we also have public registries of all others who break laws, including speeding? Nobody wants them in their neighborhood either. Any law that highlights hypocrisy is demanding reexamination.
Residency restrictions are based in ignorant hysteria. They are promulgated by vote-seeking politicians who ignore the consequences, and backed by well-meaning people who don't think through the consequences, and outraged people who are actually delighted by the consequences.
Many of those outraged people are commenting here to say no punishment can be too harsh for a sex offender. I think they should just be more honest and seek public laws either imprisoning all sex offenders for life, or putting them to death. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to be deeply angered by pedophiles and rapists, but committed to what this editorial points out: punishments and restrictions that actually work, and that don't cause worse problems than they address.
P.S. Why don't we also have public registries of all others who break laws, including speeding? Nobody wants them in their neighborhood either. Any law that highlights hypocrisy is demanding reexamination.
7
I can only believe that the Editorial Board of the New York Times has lost its collective mind. The recidivism rate among sex offenders is off the charts and the Board wants to eliminate residency restrictions and notification policies? You've got to be kidding me. This may be the most irresponsible editorial I've ever read in any major national newspaper. The Board should be ashamed of itself and issue an apology to every single victim of childhood sexual abuse that has read and been upset by this piece of ill-considered trash commentary. It's disgusting, uncalled for, and reprehensible.
6
Before expressing an opinion I suggest that you check your facts, as sex offenders are about the least likely to re-offend. One study of rearrests, not even convictions, found the following:
13.4% of released robbers
22.0% of released assaulters
23.4% of released burglars
33.9% of released larcenists
19.0% of released defrauders
41.2% of released drug offenders
2.5% of released rapists
If anyone should be followed up for life, it would seem to be the drug offenders, despite the recent moves to decriminalize their behavior. Next, we should have a thief's registry and not let them live near any stores.
13.4% of released robbers
22.0% of released assaulters
23.4% of released burglars
33.9% of released larcenists
19.0% of released defrauders
41.2% of released drug offenders
2.5% of released rapists
If anyone should be followed up for life, it would seem to be the drug offenders, despite the recent moves to decriminalize their behavior. Next, we should have a thief's registry and not let them live near any stores.
2
Have you heard of this thing called the Constitution? The Eighth Amendment, specifically protects people from cruel and unusual punishments. I would agree that someone who actually committed rape should be on a sexual predator list for life, but these laws that put everyone convicted of even the most minor of "sex crimes", on these lists for life, is cruel and unusual.
it's a life sentence served outside. that is dangerous and insures a person
never is free from the past to pursue a future, and so, lives a life behind the
bars every new person builds while they are caught in a web of intolerance
that does them harm as creatures of light to whom forgiveness is impossible.
never is free from the past to pursue a future, and so, lives a life behind the
bars every new person builds while they are caught in a web of intolerance
that does them harm as creatures of light to whom forgiveness is impossible.
6
The NY Times is right on-target regarding this issue. It is unbelievable that most sex offenders irrespective of the offense are given what amounts to "life imprisonment without chance of parole" irrespective of the circumstances of the original offense (and how likely, if at all, others are in jeopardy. Once one has fulfilled their sentence for even murder they are free to live where they can afford.
In the recent widely publicized case of alleged rape at an elite prep school in New Hampshire the defendant was acquitted on the rape charge.. The prosecutor stated with satisfaction, at least he will have to register as a sex offender Why? For being found guilty of the felony of "illegal use of a computer" to arrange for sex with a (15 year old) minor. This statute was designed to punish trolling child porn deviates and not communication between two teenage adolescent high school classmates of different ages.
The sex offender registration requirement must be either amended to differentiate the risk to society of individual cases or better still declared unconstitutional,
In the recent widely publicized case of alleged rape at an elite prep school in New Hampshire the defendant was acquitted on the rape charge.. The prosecutor stated with satisfaction, at least he will have to register as a sex offender Why? For being found guilty of the felony of "illegal use of a computer" to arrange for sex with a (15 year old) minor. This statute was designed to punish trolling child porn deviates and not communication between two teenage adolescent high school classmates of different ages.
The sex offender registration requirement must be either amended to differentiate the risk to society of individual cases or better still declared unconstitutional,
8
Oh, yes, the New York Times editorial board, never met a child molester they didn't fall in love with.....
1
It's no coincidence that NJ was the first state to create such a law, called Megan's law. 40 years ago, NJ had a similar law for drug offenders. Anyone convicted of a drug offense was considered a lifetime addict and therefore a lifetime danger to the community. My best friend in high school was convicted of drug possession and afterwards could not stay overnight in another town without reporting to the police in that town and receiving their permission or risk going to prison. That law was later repealed and then reinstated with sex offender substituted for drug offender.
9
The penalty for sexual assault should be life in prison. Then the residency issues become a non-issue.
2
The problem with that is that getting conviction would then become exponentially harder.
How about a law with some jail time for those who get off on punishing others.
2
Retribution shouldn't be the only option for our justice system, and judges should be given leeway to protect society from violent sexual offenders but offer means of restitution (financial settlements, alcohol rehab,confession/forgiveness to name a few) for nonviolent offenders. They shouldn't all end up on the same list with the same restrictions.
7
Nuance in American punishment? Don't hold your breath.
10
Amazing isn't it? We go to such lengths to protect our kids from molestation or worse - we isolate molesters (and even more non-molesters), we make them unemployable, we make many of them homeless, and yet more and more states are allowing gun owners to carry loaded semi-automatics in parks, schools, stores, malls, churches and airports.
Do we really care about our kids? I follow gun control organizations on Facebook and rarely does a day go by that they don't post another article of a child shot to death by a parent's unsecured gun, or a relative or friend's gun, or some other tragic accident...and yet we do nothing. We go bonkers when people don't vaccinate their kids for measles and an epidemic occurs even though deaths are extremely rare, and yet guns...
Do we really care about our kids? I follow gun control organizations on Facebook and rarely does a day go by that they don't post another article of a child shot to death by a parent's unsecured gun, or a relative or friend's gun, or some other tragic accident...and yet we do nothing. We go bonkers when people don't vaccinate their kids for measles and an epidemic occurs even though deaths are extremely rare, and yet guns...
14
Laws which lump flashers, pedophiles, and rapists into the same category are absurd, not to mention counterproductive. Unless and until we find a more realistic and sensible way to differentiate activities with a sexual component which, as a society, we deem illegal, we will be stuck in this type of legal and social morass.
"Crime" makes for a great slogan for campaigning politicians, but if we want to solve problems of anti-social behavior, we must understand that not all crimes are created equal.
"Crime" makes for a great slogan for campaigning politicians, but if we want to solve problems of anti-social behavior, we must understand that not all crimes are created equal.
8
Child sex predators, as far as research has determined, NEVER are rehabilitated. Incarceration, if caught, then release for time served or good behavior, only returns these individuals to society to offend again. They should get life imprisonment, along with rapists and murderers. To make room, release petty criminals and drug users.
3
Another part of this sex offender problem is the so called vigilantes who follow them around. These vigilante groups are just another variety of perverts and ought to be investigated and monitored.
4
Justice has nothing to do with how we treat sex offenders or even people who have committed felonies of a non-sexual nature.
We prefer punishment both legally and once the legal punishment is finished, we continue to punish as much as we possibly can with ostracism, making sure that every opportunity they might have to change is thwarted, by refusing them jobs and the ability to live in nice housing, to vote in elections that will affect their futures.
And not every person accused of being a sexual predator is actually anywhere near that. But we have gone overboard in classifying so many situations with a one size fits all law that too many are caught up in something that is cruel and they cannot extricate themselves from and that they should never have been placed in.
We prefer punishment both legally and once the legal punishment is finished, we continue to punish as much as we possibly can with ostracism, making sure that every opportunity they might have to change is thwarted, by refusing them jobs and the ability to live in nice housing, to vote in elections that will affect their futures.
And not every person accused of being a sexual predator is actually anywhere near that. But we have gone overboard in classifying so many situations with a one size fits all law that too many are caught up in something that is cruel and they cannot extricate themselves from and that they should never have been placed in.
3
Another example of the very bad practice followed today when laws are created. Our congress and local representatives for county, city, and state seem to believe that their job is to constantly create new laws. Something bad happens to someone and a group demands a new law. Utter nonsense.
However, it is not pointless to restrict where sex offenders can live. Perhaps the question is 'what is a sex offender' and is there a difference between sex offenders and their threat to society. However, that would leave a lot up to judges, and our judges are not always the cream of the crop.
If a 16 year old boy and girl have consensual sex, is the 16 year old boy a sex offender? Under the law, yes. But not in reality. I don't believe that he would have to register and be restricted for the rest of his life. True?
But we have serious sex offenders. Those that any psychologist would tell you is a risk to the public. The public should be protected. However, I'm always at odds with the sex offender laws that restrict and register those released from prison, but no law that says a murderer has to be registered.
Most of those in jail or waiting for trials are repeat offenders. If they continue to break laws and threaten society, should they perhaps not be released in the first place? I know that the PC here believe that everyone in jail is just a victim, but I don't buy it. And I don't buy that a poor childhood absolves one of accountability for actions. Ever.
However, it is not pointless to restrict where sex offenders can live. Perhaps the question is 'what is a sex offender' and is there a difference between sex offenders and their threat to society. However, that would leave a lot up to judges, and our judges are not always the cream of the crop.
If a 16 year old boy and girl have consensual sex, is the 16 year old boy a sex offender? Under the law, yes. But not in reality. I don't believe that he would have to register and be restricted for the rest of his life. True?
But we have serious sex offenders. Those that any psychologist would tell you is a risk to the public. The public should be protected. However, I'm always at odds with the sex offender laws that restrict and register those released from prison, but no law that says a murderer has to be registered.
Most of those in jail or waiting for trials are repeat offenders. If they continue to break laws and threaten society, should they perhaps not be released in the first place? I know that the PC here believe that everyone in jail is just a victim, but I don't buy it. And I don't buy that a poor childhood absolves one of accountability for actions. Ever.
1
Thank you for dealing with sex offenders without the hysteria that almost universally accompanies the subject. You are right about the residency restrictions that apply to all sex offenders, including those who have no interest in children. Internet restrictions, publication of identities online, unnecessarily cumbersome registration requirements, and the threat of extensions of sentenced terms, reflect the overreach that panic brings. Like the drug laws that still haunt us from the era of anti-drug hysteria, 'regulation' of convicted sex offenders needs to be re-examined with a more rational mind set. The perpetrators are people too.
3
This is not the extent of fear policies that keep the convicted sex offender imprisoned after his/her release. In Florida, and many other states, laws like the Jimmy Ryce Act allow the state to "hospitalize" offenders for years after serving the full sentence imposed by the court. Toward the end of the prison term, the offender will be visited by a pair of social workers who will decide whether or not the offender should be "detained" in a hospital-like environment for rehabilitation. Unfortunately, because of understaffing, there will usually be no doctors available for the rehab. It is a simple case of double jeopardy and re-imprisonment as a "prevention" against further crimes. I know of no other crime, (murder, theft, assault,) for which that prevention is mandatory. These are laws based simply on fear which do not allow for the assimilation of the offenders back into society, but rather ensures their pariah status possibly leading to further offense.
3
I wish that the NYT would show some empathy toward parents, for a change. It seems like you are determined to challenge all laws and sexual mores that were established with children in mind. Because of this, I don't think that I am not a liberal any more. Liberals don't seem to care less about white, suburban families. They take us for granted and promote the rights of everyone else.
2
Who is writing these comments and picking the Readers’ Picks here? It seems like sex-offenders are fully united and wholly behind the NYT editorial team.
You would have to be an idiot to believe the majority of legally termed ‘sex-offenders’ are teenagers who consensually engaged in sex.
As usual, the liberals are using a tiny minority to give a free-pass to a very, very dangerous and damaging majority.
The consequences of child abuse are dismal, destructive, dreadful and irreversible. And the NYT board editorial board believes that children should get less protection from predators??!!
A fellow reader mentions here:’ the punishment should be proportionate to the crime’ – What is the proportionate punishment for a person who destroys a child’s life and any possibility of healthy development from an age where she/he is completely defenseless? Especially considering the majority of predators are repeat offenders?
Finally, I would like to request the addresses of the Editorial Board members – and invite your sex-offenders (according to you, unfair victims of a tough legal system) into your neighborhoods. How many children do you have?
You would have to be an idiot to believe the majority of legally termed ‘sex-offenders’ are teenagers who consensually engaged in sex.
As usual, the liberals are using a tiny minority to give a free-pass to a very, very dangerous and damaging majority.
The consequences of child abuse are dismal, destructive, dreadful and irreversible. And the NYT board editorial board believes that children should get less protection from predators??!!
A fellow reader mentions here:’ the punishment should be proportionate to the crime’ – What is the proportionate punishment for a person who destroys a child’s life and any possibility of healthy development from an age where she/he is completely defenseless? Especially considering the majority of predators are repeat offenders?
Finally, I would like to request the addresses of the Editorial Board members – and invite your sex-offenders (according to you, unfair victims of a tough legal system) into your neighborhoods. How many children do you have?
5
Blanket condemnation of all sex offenders shows ignorance. Not all sex offenders are predators.
The New York Times is always on the side of criminals. Sure, Mrs. Editorial Board Chief, let's open a released sex offenders home right next to your upper east side townhouse.
2
In some states you can be convicted as a sex offender as a minor, simply for peeing on the street. The point of this article, I guess, is that "sex offender" is (unfortunately) an incredibly broad category that doesn't necessarily imply pedophile predators.
The Catholic Priest who assaulted me as a eight year old lives comfortably in his own home, presumably with a pension from the church. This is a man who setup orphanages in Guatemala and Haiti (where he was arrested but the church paid off the local authorities to have him released) so he could groom boys and bring them back to the US for his own gratification. I have been to the State police and to five different attorneys in attempts to prosecute him or the church in a criminal or civil manor. The laws have been crafted to protect this "institution" and deflect the majority of criminal cases from it. The church also paid Jon jay college for a highly skewed "study" in order to portray the church as no more "child rapey" than the general population.
In Rhode Island the former state supreme court chief justice spoke about the importance of his Catholic faith from the bench and when he was caught in an "inappropriate relationship" with his driver's underage daughter he was quietly retired and like the Priest lives comfortably.
That we let rich people get away with these types of crimes is despicable and likewise classifying teenage sex and outdoor urination in the same breath as a forty year old who rapes a ten year old is ridiculous.
In Rhode Island the former state supreme court chief justice spoke about the importance of his Catholic faith from the bench and when he was caught in an "inappropriate relationship" with his driver's underage daughter he was quietly retired and like the Priest lives comfortably.
That we let rich people get away with these types of crimes is despicable and likewise classifying teenage sex and outdoor urination in the same breath as a forty year old who rapes a ten year old is ridiculous.
12
Are you registered?
I agree with this and also that something needs to be done about criminal background checks. The best way to keep people from committing crimes is for them to be gainfully employed and happy.
6
Most of those who prey on children are never punished, due to children's or parents' fear of a legal ordeal. When they are caught, as with Catholic priests, they rarely see much jail time.
Inconveniencing these monsters by requiring them to not live close to where they can ogle schoolchildren is something we should accept. Claiming that some of them were busted for public urination or something similar is a specious opinion.
Inconveniencing these monsters by requiring them to not live close to where they can ogle schoolchildren is something we should accept. Claiming that some of them were busted for public urination or something similar is a specious opinion.
4
'Inconveniencing these monsters by requiring them to not live close to where they can ogle schoolchildren is something we should accept.'
The offense is not in 'ogling', however obnoxious that may be. A cat may look at a king. (In my town, parents think nothing of undressing their children on the shore of the public pool and bathing them.) You cannot punish thoughtcrime.
With regard to the rest of your premise, re-read the editorial. It is not advocating being soft on molesters; it points out that in fact the laws not only fail to accomplish their proclaimed ends of protecting children, but are counterproductive, in that they make it harder to monitor offenders and create an underclass of permanent transients.
They are, basically, stupid laws that pander to a knee-jerk.
The offense is not in 'ogling', however obnoxious that may be. A cat may look at a king. (In my town, parents think nothing of undressing their children on the shore of the public pool and bathing them.) You cannot punish thoughtcrime.
With regard to the rest of your premise, re-read the editorial. It is not advocating being soft on molesters; it points out that in fact the laws not only fail to accomplish their proclaimed ends of protecting children, but are counterproductive, in that they make it harder to monitor offenders and create an underclass of permanent transients.
They are, basically, stupid laws that pander to a knee-jerk.
3
I was willing to get on board with the concept of this piece or at least give it fair hearing but once again the "board" proves that life on the other side of the looking glass is just too wierd for society.
The argument has (had) merit in that statutory rape convicts are in many cases not more than a couple years different in age than their victim and they may have had a valid relationship. In any event a young man who is being punished for having an illicit relationship with a teen is not at all necessarily a pedophile predator. You could for example marry a girl in West Virginia and be brought up on charges for it in PA (in theory).
The argument employed here is grotesque because while most pedophiles abuse family members this proves only that it is a crime of opportunity. The Times seems to suggest close proximity to school yards is not an alternate opportunity. Perhaps they are to be commended for taking up a taboo it really is an ugly thing that no one wants to look at but fact is the penal system is discharging these people with and without supervision. No one wants them and they have to go somewhere. My own idea is a supervised village or community exclusive to them with limited access to the wider society- in perpetuity. It's not really that far "out there" whey you have a dytopiam problem only an Orwellian remedy is appropriate
The argument has (had) merit in that statutory rape convicts are in many cases not more than a couple years different in age than their victim and they may have had a valid relationship. In any event a young man who is being punished for having an illicit relationship with a teen is not at all necessarily a pedophile predator. You could for example marry a girl in West Virginia and be brought up on charges for it in PA (in theory).
The argument employed here is grotesque because while most pedophiles abuse family members this proves only that it is a crime of opportunity. The Times seems to suggest close proximity to school yards is not an alternate opportunity. Perhaps they are to be commended for taking up a taboo it really is an ugly thing that no one wants to look at but fact is the penal system is discharging these people with and without supervision. No one wants them and they have to go somewhere. My own idea is a supervised village or community exclusive to them with limited access to the wider society- in perpetuity. It's not really that far "out there" whey you have a dytopiam problem only an Orwellian remedy is appropriate
2
It is not simply housing. People with sex offender registration requirements also are barred from most substance abuse housing programs.
Furthermore at least in California if you have a 290 registration requirement and are homeless, then you have to register every month and can receive a warrant if you do not do so. For an individual who is homeless and lacks transportation this may be difficult.
The problem is the trope of the evil man luring children into his car in order to violate them. I do not know the statistics but I would be astonished if the overwhelming majority of those with registration requirements fit that profile. Furthermore, penalties are imposed far after the act.
In one case that I know of from my research on dual diagnosis homeless individuals had an incident 40 years ago where he was 22 and the girlfriend under 18. At least according to him, she cried rape to avoid getting into trouble with her father when he found out. The individual was advised to plead guilty to avoid further jail time and he did so. At the time of course, there was no registration requirement. There had been no incidents since that time, but he went in and out of jail because he was too disorganized to keep up with the registration requirements.
Furthermore at least in California if you have a 290 registration requirement and are homeless, then you have to register every month and can receive a warrant if you do not do so. For an individual who is homeless and lacks transportation this may be difficult.
The problem is the trope of the evil man luring children into his car in order to violate them. I do not know the statistics but I would be astonished if the overwhelming majority of those with registration requirements fit that profile. Furthermore, penalties are imposed far after the act.
In one case that I know of from my research on dual diagnosis homeless individuals had an incident 40 years ago where he was 22 and the girlfriend under 18. At least according to him, she cried rape to avoid getting into trouble with her father when he found out. The individual was advised to plead guilty to avoid further jail time and he did so. At the time of course, there was no registration requirement. There had been no incidents since that time, but he went in and out of jail because he was too disorganized to keep up with the registration requirements.
5
Pointless banishment? Wait until someone you know is sexually assaulted by a criminal? But, yes, couldn't there be some sort of "graduated" accounting and monitoring system for all criminals? Isn't that among the objectives of the parole system? I have presumed released-from-prison criminals have their whereabouts monitored by parole officers and the local and state police departments.
I presume when a person degenerates to criminal behavior, their Constitutional "rights" may be restricted for a period of time...whether they be incarcerated or permitted to a parole-type existence outside a jail.
While sexual offenses are particularly loathsome, why aren't all felony criminals monitored? Aren't drug offenders and former distributers monitored? Including DUI vehicle offenders. Just as there are drug tests in the workplace, aren't rehabilitated criminals periodically checked for repeat violations.
Perhaps, too, we, public citizens, require education; so we understand the risks of criminals repeating their bad behavior and we understand the safeguards made on our behalf. It's tempting to lump all criminals into the same category; but inappropriate, I realize. Based on the content of this article, it appears there may be different levels of potential re-offense by different criminals.
Would long-term parole be costly? I presume so, but I suspect it would cost less than an offender repeating another criminal violation.
I presume when a person degenerates to criminal behavior, their Constitutional "rights" may be restricted for a period of time...whether they be incarcerated or permitted to a parole-type existence outside a jail.
While sexual offenses are particularly loathsome, why aren't all felony criminals monitored? Aren't drug offenders and former distributers monitored? Including DUI vehicle offenders. Just as there are drug tests in the workplace, aren't rehabilitated criminals periodically checked for repeat violations.
Perhaps, too, we, public citizens, require education; so we understand the risks of criminals repeating their bad behavior and we understand the safeguards made on our behalf. It's tempting to lump all criminals into the same category; but inappropriate, I realize. Based on the content of this article, it appears there may be different levels of potential re-offense by different criminals.
Would long-term parole be costly? I presume so, but I suspect it would cost less than an offender repeating another criminal violation.
2
I'm quite sure that your co-op board'll have no objection to your suggestion.
NIMBY [or building].
NIMBY [or building].
Now you can spend a minimum of three years in a federal prison for having images on your screen, images you did not buy or sell or produce, images of child porn. I saw a client years back shortly after this law went into effect. There was no evidence he had any inappropriate contact with a child or had any intent to do so. It appeared that he drew no line between porn and kiddie porn. He grew up looking at porn online from pre-teen years. He was like 20 when apprehended because someone turned him in. He was looking at porn including child porn when he was a child --and then he crossed the arbitrary line into legal adulthood. Porn was like normal. He bought none, sold none, produced none. He just looked. And it cost him, three years and being listed as a sex offender when there was no evidence he had offended anyone. No evidence was required.
4
Why would anyone look at child pornography if they do not see children as sexual prey or if they are not sexually attracted to children??
There is simply no argument to defend this.
The mere fact that they are looking this up contributes to an industry where children will get abused in order to produce these very pictures.
There is simply no argument to defend this.
The mere fact that they are looking this up contributes to an industry where children will get abused in order to produce these very pictures.
Why would anyone look at child pornography if they do not see children as sexual prey or if they are not sexually attracted to children??
There is simply no argument to defend this. The mere fact that they are looking this up contributes to an industry where children will get abused in order to produce these very pictures.
There is simply no argument to defend this. The mere fact that they are looking this up contributes to an industry where children will get abused in order to produce these very pictures.
I guess an alternative would be to make crimes against children capital crimes. We could execute these people and be certain they can't harm any children ever again. Lastly a question to the members of the Editorial Board who have small children or small grand children, do you want these Sex Offenders in your neighborhood? Please reply if you do.
3
I find it fascinating the the NY Times Editorial Board is suggesting that the sexual predator statutes don't do much to protect people from sexual abuse given that their go-to solution to any problem, real or imagined, is to pass a law.
Perhaps if both legislators and the Editorial Board had given some serious thought to the issue at the time that legislation was being proposed and considered instead of allowing their knees rapidly to move towards their chins, they wouldn't be in the hypocritical position in which they now finds themselves.
Perhaps if both legislators and the Editorial Board had given some serious thought to the issue at the time that legislation was being proposed and considered instead of allowing their knees rapidly to move towards their chins, they wouldn't be in the hypocritical position in which they now finds themselves.
1
The NYT's concern for sex offenders is off base and downright dangerous. The focus needs to be on the children. Experts in treatment of sex offenders know that this behavioral perversion is highly resistant to reform. Short of keeping these individuals behind bars, restricting their access to our most vulnerable citizens - our children - is the only reasonable option we have to protect them.
3
The average pedophile molests 260 defenseless children during his lifetime, and also in his wake leaves countless of these victims to so warped that they possibly become pedophiles and predators themselves. See: Catholic Church. There is no cure. The fact that they are convicted child molesters means that they have not controlled themselves. No, the problem is that what we are doing is not enough to protect children. Felony child molestation should result in capital punishment.
6
260? really? Where did you get this wild statistic? Who performed the study? How did they select pedophiles for the study? If the average one manages to molest that many, surely we're talking about a very restricted group, a group quite different from the giant number of people on the Sex Offender Registry, a group that includes public urinators, 18 year olds who had 16 year old girlfriends, etc.
3
I've worked both sides here, as Prosecutor and Defender. People who have sex with young children CANNOT be fixed. Florida is careful to only affix the "sexual predator" label to people who very well deserve it. Once they have that label they do have all the hardships cited in the article, but the bottom line is it is needed to TRY and protect little kids (I say try because its tough to defend against someone who is wholly driven in their lives to do one thing and one thing only, have sex with kids). Better to have very onerous rules for kid sex predators then to leave kids at risk. And the conclusion I've drawn from being around these people in a legal setting? The ONLY way to fix someone who wants to have sex with little kids is to take them behind the woodshed and introduce them to Mr. Glock.
7
Jeez, you're a lawyer??!! God help us.
2
Until the mental health profession can identify sex offenders who are likely to re-offend, society must defer to public safety.
4
It shouldn't be that difficult to do.
How is a public urinator a 'sexual threat to children', especially if the person was clearly trying to be discreet and not facing a group of kids in a schoolyard?
How is a 19 year-old boy having sex with an underage girl (...a girl who admitted to the courts that she told the boy she was older)....how is he a 'threat to society'?
Let's use some common sense here, shall we?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/05/us/ap-us-sex-offender-registr...
How is a public urinator a 'sexual threat to children', especially if the person was clearly trying to be discreet and not facing a group of kids in a schoolyard?
How is a 19 year-old boy having sex with an underage girl (...a girl who admitted to the courts that she told the boy she was older)....how is he a 'threat to society'?
Let's use some common sense here, shall we?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/05/us/ap-us-sex-offender-registr...
The point of the editorial was to paint a straw man with a broad brush.
Half of the comments here are about teenage lovers and unfortunate online daters who would never, ever, ever do something if only they had known she was 14!
Yes, the registry criteria needs changing. But before we do that, somebody call Jeff Rossan or better yet, your local DA's Office. Let them explain to you how public urination gets someone on the registry - there just might be a little more to the story than going to see a man about a horse.
Half of the comments here are about teenage lovers and unfortunate online daters who would never, ever, ever do something if only they had known she was 14!
Yes, the registry criteria needs changing. But before we do that, somebody call Jeff Rossan or better yet, your local DA's Office. Let them explain to you how public urination gets someone on the registry - there just might be a little more to the story than going to see a man about a horse.
2
My concern and empathy goes to the victims of sex offenders. They may have an incurable problem. Since they cannot help themselves they should have an option to be free, provided they agree to be castrated. It provides a solution to their problem and allows them to join the rest of society with all the privileges that citizens have. They knew the consequences of their choices and still continued to abuse people. They lost the privilege that citizenry enjoys. I cannot say that I am moved by their plight.
3
So ... your solution is to castrate all the "sex offenders"? The public urinators? Those accused of date rape? What about day care workers whose charges recover memories of molestation under hypnosis? Black men convicted for rape after a white woman's poorly recollected eyewitness testimony? You want to apply this blanket penalty to any and all, one that cannot be undone, despite the many cases where rape convictions have been overturned years later on DNA evidence?
Nor is it clear that castration "fixes" the urge in someone actually plagued with paedophilic desire. My understanding is that therapy and strong family ties have a better track record. But, sure, get out your garden shears and take your revenge.
Nor is it clear that castration "fixes" the urge in someone actually plagued with paedophilic desire. My understanding is that therapy and strong family ties have a better track record. But, sure, get out your garden shears and take your revenge.
2
I can't help but think about the poor family with children that can only afford to live in the 3% of housing available to sex offenders, probably next door to the coal-fired power plant that gives their children asthma while they wait for the bus to take them to the worst school in the district.
4
This is what happens when a bunch of non-lawyers write laws about criminal and civil procedure. They run for office saying they'll be tough on crime and they pass laws with mandatory sentencing and mandatory reporting for those involved in sex crimes, as if a one-size-fits-all mentality is all that's required in the disposition of criminal and civil matters involving any kind of sex abuse. In so doing, they take away the discretion of the trial judge, who is best equipped to hear from both sides about the involved individual. The trial judge can separate the truly dangerous from those who made a mistake that they will never likely repeat. The trial judge can enter reporting requirements that fit the individual, rather than being handcuffed by laws that treat everybody like the worst possible offender.
5
Lawyers have done a great job haven't they? No incompetence, corruption or scandals there.
Agree with the editorial, the exception being the person actually convicted of molesting a child. The further from society that person's removed, the better. Jail would be the best place, IMO.
5
Am I understanding you to say that you are okay with the guy who raped your mother living down the street from her with his family? Really?
2
I am curious: Does NYC have such laws? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no, although sex offenders must be registered and are searchable?
1
Have you not been confronted, As I was yesterday, without my daughters accompanying me,that on attempting to enter a small enclosed playground on the Brooklyn Promenade area, I am confronted with a sign attached to the entrance gate on attempting Brooklyn Promenade?: "Adults must be accompanied by a child to enter". no one checking ID's, but constitutional? What is the legal rationale at work here?: "Pe-emptive potential predator intervention?" Are there "vigilant Predator police roaming the playgrounds of the city, questioning lone citizens sitting on benches reading books, sketching, or perhaps reading the NYT, apparently without "their" children nearby?
1
Important article! I want to mention one thing that many who have never known a registered sex offender don't realize:
Many are barred from using the internet outright. In the case of someone I was close to, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and then a lifetime of supervised release including no internet on ANY device. This means for the rest of his life he is not allowed to use the internet? When he was sentenced in 2007 this seemed unreasonable. Now that he's been released in 2015, it seems impossible.
What hope can anyone have for gainful employment with this sort of prohibition? This desperately needs to be addressed.
Many are barred from using the internet outright. In the case of someone I was close to, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and then a lifetime of supervised release including no internet on ANY device. This means for the rest of his life he is not allowed to use the internet? When he was sentenced in 2007 this seemed unreasonable. Now that he's been released in 2015, it seems impossible.
What hope can anyone have for gainful employment with this sort of prohibition? This desperately needs to be addressed.
86
To prevent crimes against the the most at-risk individuals in our society- our children- the punishment must be severe and unflinching.
If a single child molester, stops and reads this article and understands that his/her life may be irretrievably broken if he/she molests a child, perhaps that pause is well worth the onerous punishment and stigmatization.
The victims of child abuse do not magically forget in 5, 10 or 50 years. 40-50 years of solitude or homelessness seems like adequate punishment.
If a single child molester, stops and reads this article and understands that his/her life may be irretrievably broken if he/she molests a child, perhaps that pause is well worth the onerous punishment and stigmatization.
The victims of child abuse do not magically forget in 5, 10 or 50 years. 40-50 years of solitude or homelessness seems like adequate punishment.
5
Here's the thing, not everyone on the list is a pedohile. You could be on that list because you had sex at 19 with your 17 year old girlfriend and because that girlfriend was a different race or a same one and parents got involved you were charged with rape. It would be something as small as exposure. The laws are all over the place and are not automatically dealing with pedophiles.
Personally, I think that if we feel that someone is still a danger to children they should therefore not be released from prison. Releasing them but with these complicated laws which often don't leave them less in contact with children, just less in official contact seem designed to make us feel safe not to create actual safety.
Personally, I think that if we feel that someone is still a danger to children they should therefore not be released from prison. Releasing them but with these complicated laws which often don't leave them less in contact with children, just less in official contact seem designed to make us feel safe not to create actual safety.
10
The article makes it clear that not every sex offender has been a child molester. That's why a case by case decision is necessary.
1
For public urination? If the laws only pertained to those who molested a child and were deemed likely to do it again, yes, they should be registered and isolated, but many of the present laws are far too broad and the punishment doesn't come close to fitting the crime or future danger.
2
I refuse to follow any sex offender registry laws until I get DUE PROCESS under accepted standards of proof. The registry is used to systematically isolate a person from the community, done ex-post facto, outside of a court, and without any meaningful due process. The outcome of a registry is isolation from the community, harassment from the community and alienation from the community. Until I get my due process, I will not give ANY information to the State and will ignore ALL registry laws. This puts an end to your debate about what to do with sex offenders! What needs to be done is the realm of a COURT OF LAW ruling outside of politics, for the safety of the community balanced with the RIGHTS of the individual. If you can't do that basic, and fundemental process that is REQUIRED under the U.S. Constitution, then you can't get me on a registry.
25
Not really helping your case here. The court of law and due process was done at the time of the court case. Ypu were judged guilty. Your unwillingness to follow the law does not make people feel confident that you understand that the law applies to you, and thus that you will respect the rights of children and others.
Deciding that the certain parts of the law need not apply to you is what got most sex offenders where they were in the first place.
If you want to argue your case, argue it from the perspective of one who respects the law, understands the severity of their crime and why society wishes to control the actions of those who committed it. If you can not understand that, you will never get it changed.
Deciding that the certain parts of the law need not apply to you is what got most sex offenders where they were in the first place.
If you want to argue your case, argue it from the perspective of one who respects the law, understands the severity of their crime and why society wishes to control the actions of those who committed it. If you can not understand that, you will never get it changed.
8
I, in no way, condone the acts that you suggest that your have committed.
That being said, your due process rights are guaranteed by our Constitution, and for you not to be afforded those rights is as much a travesty at the actions of which you have been found guilty.
Without due process, we allow the fiat of the majority to rule our society without regard or challenge.
That being said, your due process rights are guaranteed by our Constitution, and for you not to be afforded those rights is as much a travesty at the actions of which you have been found guilty.
Without due process, we allow the fiat of the majority to rule our society without regard or challenge.
Angry about something you haven't shared with the audience? Hmmm?
I would only add that the registration requirements are equally draconian. There was a time here in Louisiana when sex offenders had to register for ten years following their release from prison. Those who failed to register were arrested, charged with a felony, and sentenced for up to ten years. Offenders are cut very little slack. They can show up five minutes late to register, find no one present, and return the next day when they are arrested and charged.
The registration period was recently extended from ten to now fifteen years. What about the people who entered a guilty plea when the law said ten years? Fifteen years was not the deal. That issue was litigated up to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Court's response was "Tough."
The registration period was recently extended from ten to now fifteen years. What about the people who entered a guilty plea when the law said ten years? Fifteen years was not the deal. That issue was litigated up to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Court's response was "Tough."
14
"Comforting mirage of safety"? This statement does not follow the article's line of reasoning. Does the writer mean that current restrictive steps, which they disagree with, do not actually provide safety....and that no steps can ever keep us safe from sexual predators?
Of course, current guidelines should be reviewed to ensure they are properly aligned with risk and common sense.
What I learned about sex offenders working as both a psychologist and as a rehabilitation counselor, was that most professionals actualy under estimate the danger from offenders and are too quick to allow them back in the community.
Yes, go ahead and fine tune the restrictive guidelines, but always err on the side of caution and never be lax in the close monitoring of all sex offenders, including those that molest children.
Of course, current guidelines should be reviewed to ensure they are properly aligned with risk and common sense.
What I learned about sex offenders working as both a psychologist and as a rehabilitation counselor, was that most professionals actualy under estimate the danger from offenders and are too quick to allow them back in the community.
Yes, go ahead and fine tune the restrictive guidelines, but always err on the side of caution and never be lax in the close monitoring of all sex offenders, including those that molest children.
5
But you are using the term as if all sex offenders are child molesters, and this is the problem, it isn't. We use the justified need to protect children to permit draconian laws against a people, many of whom we would never think need to register let alone need to be regulated.
5
The "mirage" refers to the fact that an overwhelming number of predators are friends or family of the victim, making restrictive residency laws moot.
The American justice system was not designed to "err on the side of caution." That's a good thing.
The American justice system was not designed to "err on the side of caution." That's a good thing.
3
This is a complex issue - I treat child victims of sexual abuse. Treatment often involves the use of anatomically correct dolls - to say this is something I lose sleep over is putting it mildly. To describe what I've seen 3 and 4 year olds do with these dolls would not be allowable in this newspaper. To categorize teen romances as not really nonconsensual due to age is painting with a broad brush - I have been called in to counsel 7th grade girls who were being targeted by 18 year old High School seniors who deliberately chose that age group because the boys knew these girls would be less likely to have the wherewithall to say "no"...and the young men were blunt. They knew 7th grade girls weren't strong enough to resist. The culture adults have around teen sex is also cause for dismay - a local newspaper printed the name of one 14 year old who was gang raped at a party here - the editor thought she "deserved" it. When they printed her name they insured that she had to move because she had come forward with charges - the families of the boys involved knew who she was. Lives are destroyed - the occasional 18 year old and 17 year old are exceptions to this. It is horrible, beyond horrible, what happens to the victims, to their minds and even to their bodies. Yes, the laws are a problem but the real problem is the offenders, all of them. A few teenage romances do not offset the horror of the rest.
68
Thanks for coming to the defense of the victimized.
1
Thank you.
"7th grade girls who were being targeted by 18 year old High School seniors who deliberately chose that age group because the boys knew these girls would be less likely to have the wherewithall to say "no"..."
And the St. Paul's case: a 15-y-o said no several times and the judge claimed she had not resisted "actively enough."
Let's not turn our focus to the poor maligned offenders whose crimes were vanilla without keeping up and improving efforts to address unambiguous and unmitigated sexualized violence.
"7th grade girls who were being targeted by 18 year old High School seniors who deliberately chose that age group because the boys knew these girls would be less likely to have the wherewithall to say "no"..."
And the St. Paul's case: a 15-y-o said no several times and the judge claimed she had not resisted "actively enough."
Let's not turn our focus to the poor maligned offenders whose crimes were vanilla without keeping up and improving efforts to address unambiguous and unmitigated sexualized violence.
1
This is exactly right; the issues with public urination etc., are peripheral and can be addressed by updating the law. The central problem remains: that children, mostly girls, are being targeted exactly as the comment by nn points out.
1
Typical weak minded legislation that panders to narrow minded pseudo moralist while offering those genuinely aggrieved an ineffective sop. Like so many of our laws those doing the writing are simply not up to the job. And rather than go back and fix their sloppy work they pile on more slop. Ruin innocent lives? Our legislative bodies couldn't care less until a bright enough light is directed at them revealing them for the incompetents they are. And even then rather than acknowledge the truth they weasel and whine their way out of responsible action. Where are the adults in this room, missing in action as usual. A large segment of the adults hopefully are the voters and we are too lazy to engage the officials we elect. As long as we keep tossing about to and fro like a drunken hanging posse we are going to be stuck with stupid laws that we could care less about until it is us or our child whose life is ruined over nothing.
45
Excellent! And we keep re-electing the same idiots over and over.
1
Interesting, isn't it, that so often the incompetents in the state legislatures that are responsible for statutes that do so little keep getting re-elected time-after-time even after their incompetence is exposed?
I recall that the Editorial Board of the Times opined during the bi-elections a few years ago that "anyone but an incumbent" was the wisest choice for endorsement for service. Their argument was distinctly persuasive.
Since then, the Editorial Board has managed to endorse incumbent after incumbent for election.
Is not the Editorial Board somewhat inconsistent in their position?
I recall that the Editorial Board of the Times opined during the bi-elections a few years ago that "anyone but an incumbent" was the wisest choice for endorsement for service. Their argument was distinctly persuasive.
Since then, the Editorial Board has managed to endorse incumbent after incumbent for election.
Is not the Editorial Board somewhat inconsistent in their position?
One problem with residency restrictions the way they are structured is that sex offenders are not a one size fits all category. For instance men who rape adult women are not likely to molest children. It makes no sense to ban them from places where children May gather. Any restrictions on where sex offenders, or any criminal for that matter, may you live must take into account the individual circumstances of the person. Parole officers on the overwork or particularly suited to do that because they are in frequent contact with the offender.
6
What makes you believe that it's okay to rape women and not children? The pain and the suffering is probably the same. it's only a question of degrees.
"It is understandable to want to do everything possible to protect children from being abused. But not all people who have been convicted of sex offenses pose a risk to children, if they pose any risk at all."
Ah, the harmless sex offender argument.
What would you like local lawmakers to do about residents' concerns about convicted and state-registered sex offenders Editorial Board?
If Courts and States want to raise the bar for who qualifies for Sex Offender status so that exhibitionists and public urinators aren't so labeled, fine. That's a good step.
But I suspect more than a few victims and advocacy organizations will quarrel with the sense that most sex offenders aren't dangerous or that schools in urban centers are just places for school-age children during school hours.
Like so very many criminal just policies, there's no shortage of brilliant criticism to be levied, and yet so very few feasible constructive ideas to address the gamut of concerns. If the answer is spending local money to support sex offenders, you're kidding yourself or you've never been to Lynn (which is a city by the way; an important legal distinction in Massachusetts in terms of how its laws are made).
Ah, the harmless sex offender argument.
What would you like local lawmakers to do about residents' concerns about convicted and state-registered sex offenders Editorial Board?
If Courts and States want to raise the bar for who qualifies for Sex Offender status so that exhibitionists and public urinators aren't so labeled, fine. That's a good step.
But I suspect more than a few victims and advocacy organizations will quarrel with the sense that most sex offenders aren't dangerous or that schools in urban centers are just places for school-age children during school hours.
Like so very many criminal just policies, there's no shortage of brilliant criticism to be levied, and yet so very few feasible constructive ideas to address the gamut of concerns. If the answer is spending local money to support sex offenders, you're kidding yourself or you've never been to Lynn (which is a city by the way; an important legal distinction in Massachusetts in terms of how its laws are made).
2
It really isn't that complicated. First, registration and public disclosure should be limited to serious offenses and exclude lewd conduct, exhibitionism, public urination, possession of pornography, prostitution. The crimes themselves need to be fully detailed. Then, localities have no business creating a hodgepodge of restrictions. States should have exclusive jurisdiction here. In part that is to prevent cities and counties from forcing registrants into becoming vagabonds.
After that all we need is some evidence that restricting an offender's location will have any effect on recidivism.
After that all we need is some evidence that restricting an offender's location will have any effect on recidivism.
1
I think there is an easy solution
instead of just posting sex offenders crimes on the internet for everyone to see
simply post EVERYONES legal history on the internet for everyone to see
corporate criminals, tax evaders, anything you can think of
I mean the guy who steals your life savings might be considered at least as dangerous as someone who grabbed someones breast when they were drunk
instead of just posting sex offenders crimes on the internet for everyone to see
simply post EVERYONES legal history on the internet for everyone to see
corporate criminals, tax evaders, anything you can think of
I mean the guy who steals your life savings might be considered at least as dangerous as someone who grabbed someones breast when they were drunk
40
I think it's a good idea if someone has nothing to fear I don't see why shaming All the people you listed should be a problem, provided it's based on truth and facts.
Aren't we already doing that?
You, sir, are an idiot. Records of offense are held at each an d every particular courthouse for the public to review, on demand. The idea of posting all histories from all cities, is to cater to the lazy. It really is none of your business in the first place, but if you must know---get off your a$$ and go look.
Typical American. Lazy and entitled.
Typical American. Lazy and entitled.
The editorial seems to have a basic contradiction. It complains about keeping offenders apart from the stabilizing effects of family, but at the same time saying that "vast majority" of victims of child sexual abuse are victimized by family members or others they know. Which is the primary concern?
4
The vast majority of child abusers from inside the family are not convicted sex offenders, Daniel. There's no contradiction there.
I saw that as well. I would hypothesize that the vast majority are molested by relatives who have never been caught before. Family members are unlikely to entrust a convicted family member with a child.
Never overlook the potential abuse of these laws -- not for prevention of sexual abuse, but by ever-present opponents of freer sexual mores. If we were truly concerned about sexual abuse and offense, we'd be watching the churches as closely as the playgrounds.
27
No one wants to have a sex offender living next door.
But the reality is that even we lock up all sex offenders at great expense, or we find a place for them to live and work and have some level of supervision.
The first isn't possible. The second may not be possible.
But I prefer that we try the second option.
The lesson of "Les Misérables" seems to be that we haven't changed a bit since Hugo penned his novel in the 19th century.
But the reality is that even we lock up all sex offenders at great expense, or we find a place for them to live and work and have some level of supervision.
The first isn't possible. The second may not be possible.
But I prefer that we try the second option.
The lesson of "Les Misérables" seems to be that we haven't changed a bit since Hugo penned his novel in the 19th century.
14
According to the Department of Justice statistics, sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate (13%) for any crime other than murder, whereas most crimes (robbery, etc) have recidivism rates of well over 50%. Additionally, a recent state sponsored study in CA found their sex offender recidivism rate to be far lower and additionally that 97% of the people who were sent back to jail went because it was literally impossible for them to follow the sex offender terms of their parole (for example, you cannot so much as be on a bus that drives within so many blocks of a school).
Further, all studies show that, as the article points out, these sorts of extreme restrictions actually increase the risk of a re-offense by depriving the person of all stabilizing factors such as a home, job, and living with their family, and instead puts them in a nothing left to lose situation where they are additionally untrackable due to being homeless. These restrictions only do harm to offenders (many of whom have not committed what most people would recognize as an actual1 a sex offense), to their families, to the communities that they are meant to protect.
Further, all studies show that, as the article points out, these sorts of extreme restrictions actually increase the risk of a re-offense by depriving the person of all stabilizing factors such as a home, job, and living with their family, and instead puts them in a nothing left to lose situation where they are additionally untrackable due to being homeless. These restrictions only do harm to offenders (many of whom have not committed what most people would recognize as an actual1 a sex offense), to their families, to the communities that they are meant to protect.
64
Thank you Debbie...someone who actually knows what they are talking about. The registry is simply an unconstitutional tool "created" by zealots, then used by politicians to get elected. I have been very close to this issue for twenty years now and it amazes me the ignorance and stigma that still surrounds it.
3
Would you want your child to live next door to them?
Society has rules, written & unwritten.
Sex predators break all these rules.
I have no empathy for them.
Like alcohol & drug addicts, they will never be cured.
Their "banishment" is part of the price they pay for their crimes.
Sex predators break all these rules.
I have no empathy for them.
Like alcohol & drug addicts, they will never be cured.
Their "banishment" is part of the price they pay for their crimes.
6
You just broke a cardinal rule of society - being judgemental. Are you ready for banishment?
1
This is a hot button issue that people will argue to no end. Why not depend on the best of available science to find out who is truly an out of control offender and put controls on them... not the kids with raging hormones or the party drunk.
1
Lack of empathy is not something to be proud of. Just sayin'...
1
It's not the form of restrictions that are at issue here; it's the labeling of underage people having consensual sex and people arrested for public urination as sex offenders and other cases of hysterical overreaching that must be stopped. We need to reserve the special status of sex offender to adults who molest children.
17
Exactly!!! These laws have too wide a sweep and make no distinctions.
I was always skeptical of them. My feeling is that if you feel that someone is still a danger, keep them locked up. I don't really understand why child molesters are out and about frankly.
That said, I'd want to know if a convicted child molester lived next door to my child, so I sympathize. But do I need to worry that my neighbor urinated in public? Or had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or any number of other situations? No. I do not. I certainly am not told when a murderer lives next door which might also be salient information. Or a thief.
I was always skeptical of them. My feeling is that if you feel that someone is still a danger, keep them locked up. I don't really understand why child molesters are out and about frankly.
That said, I'd want to know if a convicted child molester lived next door to my child, so I sympathize. But do I need to worry that my neighbor urinated in public? Or had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or any number of other situations? No. I do not. I certainly am not told when a murderer lives next door which might also be salient information. Or a thief.
1
Public urination, consensual underage sex and prostitution are sex crimes which in certain states are included in the sexual offenders registry. That seems dumb.
43
So tell me this. When the Editors of the Times retire at night to their leafy suburbs, do they stop on the way to exchange greetings with any of their sex-offender-neighbors?
15
I agree completely with the NYT Editorial Board. There is a huge difference between a "predator" and a "sex offender," and that difference should be weighed accordingly.
33
Tell that to their victims.
13
With many sex offenders who are not predators, there are not victims.
1
Other forms of crime have victims too. I'd love to hear your suggestions.
Laws involving sex (also including adultery, prostitution, statutory rape) are often arbitrary, over-broad and draconic. Legislators are generally too cowed by criticism to make changes. And, it is scary for people to talk about as a result of fear of being branded a pervert. Only an independent judiciary stopping unfair or unconstitutional prosecutions can make it necessary for them to do so.
17
Sure, but you aren't going to end up on a registry because you cheated on your wife or "partied" with a prostitute. At worst, you'll get a desk appearance ticket and some tea and cookies while a nice person tells you about the importance of using prophylactics.
And when did statutory rape get lumped in the same class as adultery and prostitution? This just in, most cases of statutory rape that result in a criminal prosecution aren't between two teenagers. As another commenter put it, 18 year olds seeking out 12 year olds because they think they won't say no. Oh those moralising legislators!
And when did statutory rape get lumped in the same class as adultery and prostitution? This just in, most cases of statutory rape that result in a criminal prosecution aren't between two teenagers. As another commenter put it, 18 year olds seeking out 12 year olds because they think they won't say no. Oh those moralising legislators!
The notion that an individual continues to be "imprisoned" after serving jail time is unnerving. That being what it is, why aren't people who shoot and wound or kill others on a permanent public list? I'd say the gun toting shooters do much greater damage.
44
Who is writing these comments and picking the Readers’ Picks here? It seems like sex-offenders are fully united and wholly behind the NYT editorial team.
You would have to be an idiot to believe the majority of legally termed ‘sex-offenders’ are teenagers who consensually engaged in sex.
As usual, the liberals are using a tiny minority to give a free-pass to a very, very dangerous and damaging majority.
The consequences of child abuse are dismal, destructive, dreadful and irreversible. And the NYT board editorial board believes that children should get less protection from predators??!!
A fellow reader mentions here:’ the punishment should be proportionate to the crime’ – What is the proportionate punishment for a person who destroys a child’s life and any possibility of healthy development from an age where she/he is completely defenseless? Especially considering the majority of predators are repeat offenders?
Finally, I would like to request the addresses of the Editorial Board members – and invite your sex-offenders (according to you, unfair victims of a tough legal system) into your neighborhoods. How many children do you have?
You would have to be an idiot to believe the majority of legally termed ‘sex-offenders’ are teenagers who consensually engaged in sex.
As usual, the liberals are using a tiny minority to give a free-pass to a very, very dangerous and damaging majority.
The consequences of child abuse are dismal, destructive, dreadful and irreversible. And the NYT board editorial board believes that children should get less protection from predators??!!
A fellow reader mentions here:’ the punishment should be proportionate to the crime’ – What is the proportionate punishment for a person who destroys a child’s life and any possibility of healthy development from an age where she/he is completely defenseless? Especially considering the majority of predators are repeat offenders?
Finally, I would like to request the addresses of the Editorial Board members – and invite your sex-offenders (according to you, unfair victims of a tough legal system) into your neighborhoods. How many children do you have?
20
Whether "the majority of legally termed ‘sex-offenders’ are teenagers who consensually engaged in sex" or dangerous pedophiles is not the point of the editorial. The point is that each case should be judged individually. "If the state wants to block someone from living in certain areas ... it must make that decision on a case-by-case basis." In other words, it's wrong to wreck someone's life because you're too lazy to figure out what the appropriate treatment is.
94
Nobody here on the comments board, nor the editors are minimizing the destruction of child abuse. Since many of us have children, we are as concerned about these dangers as any one else.
We are saying there these laws threaten the constitution and include in their sweep people whose crimes, even misdemeanors, do not rise to this level or punishment. Furthermore, we are saying that many of these regulations are counter-productive or unworkable. In any justice system, one should always be aware when a method of dealing with a problem caused unforseen problems. This one did.
But rather than fixing it, everyone is running afraid of being accused of not caring about child abuse. Well, I care. But I also care that our justice system is just. Only those who have actually molested children should be treated and punished as if they are child molesters. Period.
That is not going easy on child molesters, that is basic common sense.
We are saying there these laws threaten the constitution and include in their sweep people whose crimes, even misdemeanors, do not rise to this level or punishment. Furthermore, we are saying that many of these regulations are counter-productive or unworkable. In any justice system, one should always be aware when a method of dealing with a problem caused unforseen problems. This one did.
But rather than fixing it, everyone is running afraid of being accused of not caring about child abuse. Well, I care. But I also care that our justice system is just. Only those who have actually molested children should be treated and punished as if they are child molesters. Period.
That is not going easy on child molesters, that is basic common sense.
3
Send the juvenile offenders and others inadvertently caught in the dragnet to my neighborhood. I have three children.
1
I can't help but note that liberal Democrats always seem to be more concerned about villains and offenders then their victims. President Obama is deeply concerned that we are being too mean to convicted drug dealers. Drug dealing being a "victim less crime" according to Democrats. The NYT is concerned that convicted sex offenders are being treated too harshly. Democrats in general are so very concerned about illegals and their "rights".
In the first case no mention is made of the effect on the drug dealers customers, their health, family destruction, mental illness, the destruction of communities or associated crime. "Victim less"? Residency rules for sex offenders have been seen by victims and communities as a common sense measure to prevent frequent re-offenses of the same kind by the villains or having rapists living down the street from their victims. That is too harsh for the Times. Finally Democrats refuse to recognize the drag on wages, the amazing amount of crime and the strain placed on local resources like hospitals and schools by illegals. They simply refuse to see what is right before them.
Why the deep concern for offenders and little or no concern for the victims or mention of them? Will that be in the Democrat's 2016 Party Platform?
In the first case no mention is made of the effect on the drug dealers customers, their health, family destruction, mental illness, the destruction of communities or associated crime. "Victim less"? Residency rules for sex offenders have been seen by victims and communities as a common sense measure to prevent frequent re-offenses of the same kind by the villains or having rapists living down the street from their victims. That is too harsh for the Times. Finally Democrats refuse to recognize the drag on wages, the amazing amount of crime and the strain placed on local resources like hospitals and schools by illegals. They simply refuse to see what is right before them.
Why the deep concern for offenders and little or no concern for the victims or mention of them? Will that be in the Democrat's 2016 Party Platform?
8
You make the same mistake in logic as most liberal bashers. Any objection to punishment straight out of the 12th-century is declared to be caring more about criminals than victims, an immense logical non-sequitor. The US has more people in prison pre capita than any other country not because our criminal justice laws are effective, or even logical, but because draconian punishments make conservatives feel righteous.
1
I think your perception is illogical. The problem is that offenders usually are or have been victims, often frequent victims. What your perception does is to make a mental distinction that doesn't exist in the real world: a division of human beings into villains and victims. But for example take the adult child abuser who was the victim of abuse as a child—which category do they fall into? The same logic applies to a broad range of crimes, from sexual abuse to robbery to drug crimes to gang activity. For non-Democrats, does a victim lose their victimhood when they commit a crime?
If anything, I believe our end goal as Democrats isn't so much about distinguishing between Villains and Victims, but rather about trying to improve the situation of society's unfortunates, a class that encompasses both Vs. Our aim is to produce a net improvement of society as a whole, not only because of improved lives for all the Vs, but also because of the contributions that both Vs can make if given a chance.
If anything, I believe our end goal as Democrats isn't so much about distinguishing between Villains and Victims, but rather about trying to improve the situation of society's unfortunates, a class that encompasses both Vs. Our aim is to produce a net improvement of society as a whole, not only because of improved lives for all the Vs, but also because of the contributions that both Vs can make if given a chance.
1
Yes, let's talk common sense. Common sense is about revisiting your decisions periodically and tweaking how you handle it once you've seen how it turned out. Sometimes, what seemed like a good idea, didn't work out. Or sometimes things get added to a good idea that wasn't in the initial plan that turns it bad. A person of common sense revises once facts reveal this.
That's all the editorial board is suggesting. That's all Mr. Obama is suggesting with our drug laws.
The drug laws are not solving the drug problem or easing the problems of community or family. The sex offedner laws have gotten bloated in their sweep. (They were only ever intended for a limited range of child molesters) and have proven not as easily workable as initially thought.
You are not helping anyone by sticking to a broken solution.
That's all the editorial board is suggesting. That's all Mr. Obama is suggesting with our drug laws.
The drug laws are not solving the drug problem or easing the problems of community or family. The sex offedner laws have gotten bloated in their sweep. (They were only ever intended for a limited range of child molesters) and have proven not as easily workable as initially thought.
You are not helping anyone by sticking to a broken solution.
3
It's the time of uplifting all criminal behavior, the perpetrators of illegal activities are now being given a pass. It's easy to forget that if yoiu ignore the small criminal activities and enforce only the more serious crimes like murders and armed robbery it serves to increase the serious crimes. This is simple human behaviro 101. Only the intellectually dishonest promote decriminalization of criminal activity. Are the laws all perfect? No. Do the laws sometimes punish where punishment is unfair? Yes. The purpose is to serve the greater good, not to nit pick.
3
There is little as important to our societal stability than habeas corpus and due process.
This editorial says nothing about decriminalizing criminal activity. It does have a great deal to do about illegal, and irrational, prior restraint.
This editorial says nothing about decriminalizing criminal activity. It does have a great deal to do about illegal, and irrational, prior restraint.
So where was the board ten and 20 years ago? I remember when these awful laws were passed and certain members of the Times who wrote on the op ed page( "On My Mind"-anyone remember? Or just me, again. . . )
I helped a few friends to watch and raise their children and recall there was a door of an apartment in their luxury apartment house they were forbidden to go near.
A "sex offender" lived there, the kids were told. I asked "How do you know? How do you know it is man, or what this offender did? The children never found out and finally, after20 years, the unknown "sex offender" died . He or it lived a nameless, friendless existence. No one in the building would go near. No one knew why or what he had done. The word Sex Offender had replaced the once all defining "Jew" or "fag" or "nigger" as the ultimate condemnation to end all reasoned discussion. I was disgusted by the behavior of ignorant adults around this "door", which may have hidden a person but who, we never knew; the children never saw. The door was an excuse for all the fears of former children now parents.
These laws were passed in times of panic exactly like the Salem Witch trials-except the trigger was the "McMartin" trial, which began these mass vast violations of constitutional law which continue today. I suppose it is better late than never, but the Times and it's publishers and writers have a lot to answer for, Having such a powerful collective voice which , yet, for so long, it has said so little.
I helped a few friends to watch and raise their children and recall there was a door of an apartment in their luxury apartment house they were forbidden to go near.
A "sex offender" lived there, the kids were told. I asked "How do you know? How do you know it is man, or what this offender did? The children never found out and finally, after20 years, the unknown "sex offender" died . He or it lived a nameless, friendless existence. No one in the building would go near. No one knew why or what he had done. The word Sex Offender had replaced the once all defining "Jew" or "fag" or "nigger" as the ultimate condemnation to end all reasoned discussion. I was disgusted by the behavior of ignorant adults around this "door", which may have hidden a person but who, we never knew; the children never saw. The door was an excuse for all the fears of former children now parents.
These laws were passed in times of panic exactly like the Salem Witch trials-except the trigger was the "McMartin" trial, which began these mass vast violations of constitutional law which continue today. I suppose it is better late than never, but the Times and it's publishers and writers have a lot to answer for, Having such a powerful collective voice which , yet, for so long, it has said so little.
40
FYI, "On My Mind," an op-ed column written by Abe Rosenthal, a former Times executive editor, was referred to in many circles -- including, I heard from a friend, by some at the NYT -- as "Out Of My Mind."
I agree with you. The laws were the product of hysteria, do not reduce sex crimes, and in fact create a criminal class of former so-called offenders who are deprived of jobs, homes and family support. Many are kids who had sex with underage boy/girlfriends, or adults who were so foolish as to have consensual sex in a City park or public restroom.
I also well recall the McMartin trial, as well as the trial in NJ of a pre-school teacher, who was convicted and jailed after 3 year-olds, prodded by a social worker, testified that the teacher had flown around the classroom on a broomstick and, some instances, raped them. The teacher was later released, but only after the Village Voice and other publications exposed the fraudulent and hysterical nature of the accusations and shoddy trial that resulted in her conviction.
I agree with you. The laws were the product of hysteria, do not reduce sex crimes, and in fact create a criminal class of former so-called offenders who are deprived of jobs, homes and family support. Many are kids who had sex with underage boy/girlfriends, or adults who were so foolish as to have consensual sex in a City park or public restroom.
I also well recall the McMartin trial, as well as the trial in NJ of a pre-school teacher, who was convicted and jailed after 3 year-olds, prodded by a social worker, testified that the teacher had flown around the classroom on a broomstick and, some instances, raped them. The teacher was later released, but only after the Village Voice and other publications exposed the fraudulent and hysterical nature of the accusations and shoddy trial that resulted in her conviction.
A friend of mine spent a year in prison for agreeing to meet with a girl he'd been speaking to online. She was 14, he was in his early 20s. We'll never know if he would've had sex with her, or just chatted as a friend, but he was arrested and prosecuted as a violent sex offender when her parents read the messages their daughter had been writing and receiving. Fast forward years, and he is unable to live anywhere in the Midwest, except near far riskier and more violent individuals. He has the stigma of sexual predator attached to him for life in some states, for a decade in others. He never gets considered for any of the jobs to which he applies, and he of course lost his good, stable job as a truck driver. He now spends his days mostly online playing games, deeply uncomfortable with going outside, meeting new people, and his confidence is crushed.
Yeah, these laws are indiscriminate, unfair, and useless.
Yeah, these laws are indiscriminate, unfair, and useless.
93
DUH - a guy in his 20s going after a 14 yr old?? Really? He's not a sexual predator?? All of these men should have remedial surgery. That would fix the problem permanently.
I could not even begin to judge the situation you mention without knowing the content of those messages.
From your description it is not at all clear whether the situation was innocent, or not at all innocent.
But I am generally opposed to arresting, no less convicting, someone who hasn't really done anything yet.
From your description it is not at all clear whether the situation was innocent, or not at all innocent.
But I am generally opposed to arresting, no less convicting, someone who hasn't really done anything yet.
LG, I suggest you put yourself in the shoes of the girl's parents & reevaluate your stance.
As the father of a 12 year old girl, I'll unapologetically say I'd MUCH prefer the 20-something year old man that talked her into meeting him spend the rest of his life a pariah.
As the father of a 12 year old girl, I'll unapologetically say I'd MUCH prefer the 20-something year old man that talked her into meeting him spend the rest of his life a pariah.
It is astounding how this topic can be discussed without reference to unfortunate cultural realities that under pin our response.Relative to other developed countries,Americans over-react to all potential threats.It is this "infectious hysteria"that leads to Three Strike laws,mandatory minimum sentencing and the pointless banishment addressed in this Editorial.Lets recognize this cultural characteristic when we legislate.
29
Not to mention the zero tolerance rules in school. The problem is that we hire and pay people, judges, principals etc, for their discretion and then we pass laws that don't allow them to use it. That is foolish and wasteful.
1
Seems like it would be better to commit suicide than be bound to being a sex offender for life. An 18 year old has sex with 17 year old and he's done? It's pretty crazy how our legal system thinks one size fits all.
28
I cannot even imagine how residency restrictions could theoretically work to prevent recidivism. It is not surprising to me that they are completely ineffective. How can any rational person believe creating an imaginary circle of 1,000 feet or 2,500 feet (or create your own magic distance) around a school or a playground will offer any protection to children? This is preposterous on its face, and yet it is law in so many jurisdictions.
A rational observer will realize that a homeless, unemployed offender is a desperate offender with very little to lose and a danger to your children. Creating virtually insurmountable barriers to reintegration is an excellent way to increase recidivism, not reduce it.
These laws do not fit with our system of government and our shared notion of a free society. Moreover they work against the effect that we all want, protecting our children. If a person is so dangerous that he or she must be tracked, monitored, and forced to live at the fringes of society, then that person should be imprisoned. Otherwise, the person should be free to return to society.
Registration laws make the weak-minded feel protected when they actually do nothing of the sort.
A rational observer will realize that a homeless, unemployed offender is a desperate offender with very little to lose and a danger to your children. Creating virtually insurmountable barriers to reintegration is an excellent way to increase recidivism, not reduce it.
These laws do not fit with our system of government and our shared notion of a free society. Moreover they work against the effect that we all want, protecting our children. If a person is so dangerous that he or she must be tracked, monitored, and forced to live at the fringes of society, then that person should be imprisoned. Otherwise, the person should be free to return to society.
Registration laws make the weak-minded feel protected when they actually do nothing of the sort.
78
Agree wholeheartedly with most of the top comments so far. Since the War on Drugs, the Reagan Revolution, the new Jim Crow, etc, the U.S. has become a legalistic and intolerant society. Add post 9/11 irrational fear of terrorism, and we have a militarized police state. Enough is enough. Somebody here said it very well: America was founded upon fundamental Enlightened principles of respect for individuals and strong checks on the power of the state. A tyranny of irrational mass opinion is just as damaging as the tyranny of a monarch, if the masses are not educated, thoughtful, and compassionate.
52
I so agree. I believe we have reached the edges of a tyrannical state. Our forefathers would not be please. Yet we have created this situation ourselves. The masses a numb and dumb and it will have to get way past the point of tolerability for the 99% to react. WE have accepted tyranny and we call it "freedom."
Have you forgotten that many of these draconian statutes were passed during William Jefferson Clinton's terms of office and that President Clinton, himself, was highly supportive of the tools of incarceration and condemnation as solution to the perception of rampant crime?
...And have you forgotten that the NY Times and its Editorial Board were distinctly in favor or his policy?
...And you want us to believe that Hillary Clinton is the solution to the problems that our nation now faces?
Really?
...And have you forgotten that the NY Times and its Editorial Board were distinctly in favor or his policy?
...And you want us to believe that Hillary Clinton is the solution to the problems that our nation now faces?
Really?
There’s no question but that we need to protect children from sex offenders, and that recidivism, the problem these laws are designed to address, is a real and worrisome concern. We should not abolish these laws. But the Editorial makes a strong case that we are overdoing it, politicians in particular. It is time to revisit some of these laws, and, as the editorial suggests, make the punishment fit the crime. Some of the laws are excessive.
That said, the Editorial Board and Editors often seem a bit soft on sex offenders for my taste. Was Anthony Weiner really a good choice to appear as a political pundit on your op-ed pages? How about Bill Clinton? Should Woody Allen have been given almost a full page to explain his alleged transgressions in your Sunday Review? Does the paper really need to review Roman Polanski’s movies, which surely helps enhance this unpunished predator’s income stream?
That said, the Editorial Board and Editors often seem a bit soft on sex offenders for my taste. Was Anthony Weiner really a good choice to appear as a political pundit on your op-ed pages? How about Bill Clinton? Should Woody Allen have been given almost a full page to explain his alleged transgressions in your Sunday Review? Does the paper really need to review Roman Polanski’s movies, which surely helps enhance this unpunished predator’s income stream?
2
"sex offender?" That's a term for someone charged and found guilty of a sexual crime, NOT for someone whose sexual expression you happen to find offensive. Big difference! Neither Weiner nor Clinton come close, except in the minds of the most rabid conspiracy hucksters. Of those whom you cite, Polanski is the only one ever charged, and he did cop a plea bargain to one of his six original charges. But that was a single incident 38 years ago, and his legal proceedings were afflicted by a cloud of misinformation and questionable conduct by judge and DA, so he's hardly your poster boy for a "predator." The article deals with the laws' real consequences for real people; the exceptional circumstances of celebrities may be better known, but they shed little light on the impact of laws which were conceived, passed and enforced based on outrage and "common sense," with little statistical evidence amassed for their effectiveness.
Geez seriously. Nothing like circular reasoning from the professionally-liberal set.
You've acknowledged that most sex offenses against children are committed by family members--but you grieve that residency laws force offenders to live apart from their families? Way to go...
We need smarter laws about what actually constitutes a criminal sexual act and which criminal sexual acts should subject the offender to residency laws. The recent St. Paul's rape case is a good example. Mr. Labrie may be a slimeball at this stage of his evolution--but does not deserve to be placed on a sex offender registry. Nor do many others convicted of statutory rape, but each case is different and must be evaluated separately from every other. Unfortunately judicial discretion often lies in the hands of people incapable of wise decision-making.
"Doesn't allow them to get the services....they need"? They're not getting those services. And our legal system needs to evolve to deal with the reality that many sex offenders can never be "rehabilitated." They are miswired in a way that can't be fixed--as are many other criminal offenders. "Punishment" is a useless concept. Only permanent separation from society can protect the innocent from them, but we don't have the legal mechanism to enable that.
Please stop giving us this kind of mush and accurately describe the problem in the first place.
You've acknowledged that most sex offenses against children are committed by family members--but you grieve that residency laws force offenders to live apart from their families? Way to go...
We need smarter laws about what actually constitutes a criminal sexual act and which criminal sexual acts should subject the offender to residency laws. The recent St. Paul's rape case is a good example. Mr. Labrie may be a slimeball at this stage of his evolution--but does not deserve to be placed on a sex offender registry. Nor do many others convicted of statutory rape, but each case is different and must be evaluated separately from every other. Unfortunately judicial discretion often lies in the hands of people incapable of wise decision-making.
"Doesn't allow them to get the services....they need"? They're not getting those services. And our legal system needs to evolve to deal with the reality that many sex offenders can never be "rehabilitated." They are miswired in a way that can't be fixed--as are many other criminal offenders. "Punishment" is a useless concept. Only permanent separation from society can protect the innocent from them, but we don't have the legal mechanism to enable that.
Please stop giving us this kind of mush and accurately describe the problem in the first place.
11
The problem is that these laws have gone overboard--it's not just people who molest and rape children that are being punished under these laws--and the punishment doesn't always fit the crime.
I doubt many people oppose harsh sentences for those who harm children but does it really make sense to make someone convicted of public urination suffer the same consequences as someone who sexually assaulted a child?
I doubt many people oppose harsh sentences for those who harm children but does it really make sense to make someone convicted of public urination suffer the same consequences as someone who sexually assaulted a child?
There is an easy solution to this "problem". Some crimes are so egregious (sex crimes against children), that the offender deserves to spend the rest of his days behind bars.
I will gladly pay a tax increase to ensure these monsters always have "adequate housing".
I will gladly pay a tax increase to ensure these monsters always have "adequate housing".
6
A neighbor's son got a girl pregnant. They were both teens but he was a certain number of years older and was arrested.
He is now in his 40's and lives with his parents. The child was raided by them.
He shows up on a list of sex offenders and this has limited his ability to get a decent job. It also makes it difficult for neighbors to sell their homes.
This is nonsense.
He is now in his 40's and lives with his parents. The child was raided by them.
He shows up on a list of sex offenders and this has limited his ability to get a decent job. It also makes it difficult for neighbors to sell their homes.
This is nonsense.
12
Much of the studies in sexual abuse start with the presumption that males are presumed to be predators. Studies of limited groups are translated into
larger groups as showing that a large percentage of a general population are male predators. (The Gellibrand sturdy of college students, as an example.)
This presumption favors the prosecution in sexual abuse trials. This occurs even where the defendant has no prior incidents of sexual abuse. So what to do with the convict? The public wants him locked up for life. The stats does not want to pay the costs, so we have the "Banishment of Sex Offenders." This is a serious problem, but there appears to be no studies on the subject except by the state. The Innocence Project suggests that there are major flaws in the prosecution and sentencing of offenders. Yet nothing has been done. A retrial of a recent conviction resulting in a jail sentence of 35 years showed that the abuse could not have occurred at the time alleged and was probably fabricated. Further studies by people with political aspirations will not change any thing. i
There should be an examination of individual cases to see if the circumstances warrant a lifetime banishment. If not, the individual should not be classifieds as a sexual predator. Other probationary monitoring could be imposed
larger groups as showing that a large percentage of a general population are male predators. (The Gellibrand sturdy of college students, as an example.)
This presumption favors the prosecution in sexual abuse trials. This occurs even where the defendant has no prior incidents of sexual abuse. So what to do with the convict? The public wants him locked up for life. The stats does not want to pay the costs, so we have the "Banishment of Sex Offenders." This is a serious problem, but there appears to be no studies on the subject except by the state. The Innocence Project suggests that there are major flaws in the prosecution and sentencing of offenders. Yet nothing has been done. A retrial of a recent conviction resulting in a jail sentence of 35 years showed that the abuse could not have occurred at the time alleged and was probably fabricated. Further studies by people with political aspirations will not change any thing. i
There should be an examination of individual cases to see if the circumstances warrant a lifetime banishment. If not, the individual should not be classifieds as a sexual predator. Other probationary monitoring could be imposed
3
I wish your editorial has focused on the real problem with these restrictions which is that they do not distinguish between actual child molesters-- adults who molest young children, and other crimes that get tagged "sex offenses" e.g. "Romeo and Juliet" situations where an 18 year old high school student is arrested for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, public urination, and other acts which clearly pose no threat to anyone.
It seems like step 1 should be to redefine what a sexual offense is for purposes of restricted housing laws.
It seems like step 1 should be to redefine what a sexual offense is for purposes of restricted housing laws.
27
We have been living in an era of witch hunts regarding sexual offenders. In a community I lived in there pictures and addresses have been shown on a city run television station. Some of the offenses include paying adults for sex and cases where minors sext each other. No one can criticize including them in a sex registrary or the scope of the the registraries without fear. T
13
Pointless? If these laws prevent even a single instance of child sexual abuse, they've served their purpose. I'm baffled by the need to see this differently.
5
Well its also somebody's kid who, coming home from the bar, pees in the bushes and ends up a convicted sex offender who can't hold down a job or live a normal life. And then there's sexting. Both the benefits and consequences of a law must be considered carefully.
There are many "sex offenders" who have never touched a child, contacted a child, or been involved in any way with a child. "Sex offenders" include people who, for one reason or another, look at child porn in the privacy of their homes, and that's it. While child porn is a horrific business and should be dealt with, child porn "sex offenders" are caught within the web of mandatory sentences that may be more severe than for a person who has actually molested or killed a child. These "sex offenders" may have psychological reasons for viewing child porn but many are not dangers to their communities. And, child porn includes viewing digital images, not images of real children. Yet, these "sex offenders" are lumped together with actual sex offenders and must register on sex offender registries. As a result, they and their families are ruined forever. It is obvious that the laws regarding "sex offenders" must be reviewed, made more nuanced, and take into consideration the latest science. I congratulate The New York Times for writing on such a taboo subject. What politician, however, is going to be brave enough to take up this issue?
14
Liberals love "nuances" regarding their often bizaar take on things like being to mean to sex offenders or drug dealers. Yet, they reject any nuances regarding other issues like clerks in Kentucky, Planned Parenthood, illegal immigration and many others. Then they are absolutist authoritarians. It's their way or the highway.
Sexual predation is a disease of the mind. There doesn't seem to be any cure or treatment for it. It is only fair to warn the public of any danger that may be nearby.
7
Just to clarify, if an eight year old is raped by an uncle or neighbor, because this is not a lurking stranger event, you would advise not forcing the perpetrator "to live apart from their families, obliterating what is for many the most stabilizing part of their lives." New York Times op ed writers should perhaps revisit Sociology 101. You're correct, these perpetrators are socially estranged and it's regrettable, but perhaps they should have learned to live by the adage 'pick on someone your own size.' Sexual predation of minor relatives and acquaintances is bullying on steroids.
5
Perhaps you did not read the article.
If only we knew how to scientifically assess the potential risk of any convicted paroled sex offender repeating their crimes against any adult or child we would be in a much better place. But instead we are stuck with the pseudo-scientific nonsense of criminology, psychology, sociology, history, politics and economics.
Our criminal justice system is supposed to be based upon punishing people for intentionally committing crimes. Mental illness throws a quirk into that edifice. Punishing people for their status is a cruel and unusual denial of equal protection and due process. If sex offenders are mentally ill then they should be treated. If sex offenders are individual persons who have paid their price to society then they deserve to be treated that way.
No "Scarlet Letter" SO! No "Minority Report Pre- Crime"! No " psychohistory"! " Just Mercy"!
Our criminal justice system is supposed to be based upon punishing people for intentionally committing crimes. Mental illness throws a quirk into that edifice. Punishing people for their status is a cruel and unusual denial of equal protection and due process. If sex offenders are mentally ill then they should be treated. If sex offenders are individual persons who have paid their price to society then they deserve to be treated that way.
No "Scarlet Letter" SO! No "Minority Report Pre- Crime"! No " psychohistory"! " Just Mercy"!
8
Some of the posters to this article really need to educate themselves. Many people are caught up in sex offender registries who have done nothing at all abnormal, yet their lives are destroyed. Their families suffer. And people who actually have committed offenses that would benefit from monitoring or therapy don't get the assistance they need.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/28/the-collater...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/28/the-collater...
15
I absolutely agree that the paranoia and fear that are thrown out by certain segments of society on this issue are major stumbling blocks to the healthy integration of all members of society. And over the years I have seen the bizarre use of triggering and stigmatizing language like "pervert" and misapplied words such as "criminal" when no felonies have been committed. We all become poorer with these unfortunate trends that Europe long ago rejected as unworkable.
14
Good editorial and it sheds light on the "zero tolerance" movement that has gained currency the last few decades.
15
This is nothing but an idea that will put more children at risk for sexual violence. This crazy idea is from the school of 'restorative justice', which has been totally discredited. Furthermore, the idea you can have an individualized approach to risk assessment without spending huge amounts of money is crazy. So, what to do? Well, crazy as it may sound, we need the equivalent of a modern day leper colony, one for sex offenders. They will be safe, we will be safe.
1
Yes we might all be safer if people with this type of thinking end up there.
If public urination is a sex crime, then the police need to patrol the highways and turnpikes better. As there are no longer " rest stops" on many highways, children and adults are urinating behind cars or trees.
We need to get these sex offenders off the highways and into jail as soon as possible.
We need to get these sex offenders off the highways and into jail as soon as possible.
24
How about the persons who arrest them? By observing the act of public urination don't they become sex offenders?
4
People are actually arrested for public urination!!!!
I never heard of anything so stupid - everyone knows that when you have to go you have to go. Of course, common courtesy suggests that one pees unobtrusively and in as much privacy as circumstances permit. How can this possible be considered a sexual offense. Tacky, perhaps, but sexually offensive?
Get real.
I never heard of anything so stupid - everyone knows that when you have to go you have to go. Of course, common courtesy suggests that one pees unobtrusively and in as much privacy as circumstances permit. How can this possible be considered a sexual offense. Tacky, perhaps, but sexually offensive?
Get real.
23
So much of child sexual assault is committed by relatives and friends of the family that this web of laws for sexual offenders does not help anyone, it just makes it all worse. Stranger assault does happen but it is very much less common than a dad or an uncle or a dad's friend....
8
My understanding is that many people on these lists are there for crimes other than sexual abuse of children, such as solicitation of prostitutiton, or statutory rape in a case like an 18 year old dating a 16 year old. This editorial makes good points. I also agree with Amnesty International's recent arguments that prostitutiton should be decriminalized.
8
Thankyou for publishing this article! As a clinical social worker I am compelled legally to report suspicions of sexual abuse, sometimes resulting in life-long censure of older adolescents who are now virtually unemployable because their names are easily found on a sexual offenders database. I often deal with sexual abuse and in my practice is has occurred almost exclusively within the context of close, usually family, relationships. A talented businessman cousin has been unemployed for 15 years because of his lapsed judgment with a stepdaughter; having undergone significant treatment and fully able to acknowledge his brokenness and wrongness at that time he still finds himself a pariah in most circles, thanks in no small part to his state's very public registry and sexual offenders data base--- from which he can never be removed. As a clinician I am very painfully aware of the long-term damage wrought by these offenders, but to permanently deny them livelihood and a chance of social acceptance is wrong.
62
Because of a 'lapsed judgment' with a stepdaughter??
Is that what liberals call sexual abuse against a child now?
You people are simply macabre! And you are a definite part of the problem!
Is that what liberals call sexual abuse against a child now?
You people are simply macabre! And you are a definite part of the problem!
1
"...because of his lapsed judgment with a stepdaughter...he still finds himself a pariah in most circles."
Yup, that'll generally happen with or without a registry.
Without knowing the rest of the facts of that case, it seems unlikely that she was an adult when the "lapse of judgment" occurred or alternatively that this "lapse of judgment" was mutual. Because you know, in most states having consensual sexual contact with an adult step-daughter is creepy, but not likely to invite prosecution. Non-consensual sex or sex with a minor is typically called "rape," which is pretty awful to begin with, but particularly so when it's a member of your family.
So maybe part of the reason many people support a registry is that there's something in your cousin (maybe or maybe not his fault), that allowed such "lapse in judgment," that they cannot comprehend. And maybe it should be up to them whether or or not they trust that such a lapse will never happen again instead of the man who made such a terrible "lapse."
Yup, that'll generally happen with or without a registry.
Without knowing the rest of the facts of that case, it seems unlikely that she was an adult when the "lapse of judgment" occurred or alternatively that this "lapse of judgment" was mutual. Because you know, in most states having consensual sexual contact with an adult step-daughter is creepy, but not likely to invite prosecution. Non-consensual sex or sex with a minor is typically called "rape," which is pretty awful to begin with, but particularly so when it's a member of your family.
So maybe part of the reason many people support a registry is that there's something in your cousin (maybe or maybe not his fault), that allowed such "lapse in judgment," that they cannot comprehend. And maybe it should be up to them whether or or not they trust that such a lapse will never happen again instead of the man who made such a terrible "lapse."
3
An ADULT with "lapsed judgement with a stepddaughter" is an ADULT who sexually assaulted a CHILD -- that, alone, is an excellent reason to keep him on a sex offender registry.
That businessman sexually assaulted a KID, HIS kid, and, well, actions have consequences.
So what if he's a pariah? He deserves it. Whether he's a talented businessman is irrelevant.
That businessman sexually assaulted a KID, HIS kid, and, well, actions have consequences.
So what if he's a pariah? He deserves it. Whether he's a talented businessman is irrelevant.
4
Let it be noted that sex offenders are not all predatory abusers of children. I have a friend who was sleeping with his girlfriend, both seventeen; when he turned eighteen, her parents filed charges and his life is severely damaged forever. What we need are not-one-size-fits-all laws.
63
Draconian and unjust laws have been vote winners for years, especially when they harness the instinct to protect children's innocence. This kind of law advances political careers by creating scapegoats. Certainly, we want to protect children, but how are children protected when we destroy the life of a 17 year old who had one consensual encounter with a 15 year old? Apparently, in some states, public urination is also considered a sexual offense. In that case, on some long wilderness hikes, I myself have been a sexual offender. Making people outcasts with a blanket label of "sexual offender", even when nobody was victimized, is unworthy of a just society.
21
Agree with GT, some of these laws are ridiculous. The story in the Times of a teenage boy who now faces these restrictions because he had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl who by her own admission lied to him about her age is a good example of how the law is destroying lives. And certainly, while an argument can be made for placing post-sentence restrictions on the sex offenders who molest children or rape, there can be no such argument for "Romeo and Juliet" cases or other less serious sex offenses like indecent exposure.
We are right to be concerned about sexual assault and molestation, but the solution to these problems likes in focusing on the serious offenders rather than hysterical overreaction.
We are right to be concerned about sexual assault and molestation, but the solution to these problems likes in focusing on the serious offenders rather than hysterical overreaction.
103
Josh--That's very good point.
1
The point is to deter would-be sex offenders from committing crimes in the first place. They are less likely to sexually abuse people if they know that the result will be social estrangement. Although there is no way to prove such "counter factual" theories, I hypothesize that this policy is a good thing as it probably reduces the number of sexual assaults that happen to begin with.
4
The sentences for these offenses are long and sex offenders ignore them. It's highly doubtful that post-probation restrictions would discourage someone who isn't deterred by the prospect of years in prison.
27
Yeah, like the death penalty, right?
5
Rahul, I do not think sex offenders would be deterred from at least their first assault by thinking about 'oh, I will be estranged from my community'. No, they really don't. They take all kinds of risks without thinking about deterrence.
8
The op-ed is accurate insofar as it goes - but not far enough. In my community the restrictions related to schools, parks, playgrounds, day care (many church sponsored) drives the registered offenders into the neighborhoods without these features (e.g. my neighborhood). The affluent and influential neighborhoods can aways get a new park or playground to further confound any form of housing for the "offenders".
Then, because the probationary conditions require addresses and constant updates, the re-arrest rate continues to soar - leading to the public "Aha! - see what happens, they just can't be stopped!", even though the arrest is totally unrelated to the original criminal conviction.
Finally, the local elected law enforcer is "tough on crime" and so sends out phone messages when a sexual predator (a largely bogus descriptor) has moved "into your neighborhood at the following address with the following description.. Now, courtesy of our hugely expensive (and largely ineffectual) database you can go to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement web page for a map and mug shot library showing which neighborhoods are inundated with sex offenders."
Then, because the probationary conditions require addresses and constant updates, the re-arrest rate continues to soar - leading to the public "Aha! - see what happens, they just can't be stopped!", even though the arrest is totally unrelated to the original criminal conviction.
Finally, the local elected law enforcer is "tough on crime" and so sends out phone messages when a sexual predator (a largely bogus descriptor) has moved "into your neighborhood at the following address with the following description.. Now, courtesy of our hugely expensive (and largely ineffectual) database you can go to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement web page for a map and mug shot library showing which neighborhoods are inundated with sex offenders."
51
Why is the word "offenders" in quotes? There's nothing ironic or tongue-in-cheek about it. The article takes a generally narrow set of circumstances (i.e., public urination) and uses them to get their foot in the door for the much wider proposition that society is too hard on sex offenders generally. Sex offenders aren't unfairly driven to the fringes of society, they have driven themselves there. Even in a prison housing murderers, a sex offender is a pariah amongst other criminals. I'm sure there are some costs to law abiding citizens due to the current policy, but the article doesn't touch on those. Rather the entire focus is on the plight of the offender. I must admit, my sympathy for a sex offender forced to live out of their car is limited. Whatever stigma they face after being released is well-earned.
2
I'm expecting a raft of comments that any risk is too much risk, no matter the degree of offense.
If this is true of sex offenders, so then should be of any crime. So we can treat a rolling stop the same as vehicular homicide, and immediately revoke any driving privileges with the threat of jail time if they drive without a license afterwards.
Would that be unfair? Not at all. Once someone has caught for a single offense, the likelihood that they will offend again is very high, and that's borne out by the data which shows multiple driving infractions on most offender's records.
Since the invention of the automobile, there have been 3.6M deaths in the United States. Clearly we are not doing enough to keep these serial offenders off the roads.
We must think of the all potential risks when setting policy, and clearly we've been far too soft on lawless drivers. While it's true that most don't cause harm, we can't take that chance.
If this is true of sex offenders, so then should be of any crime. So we can treat a rolling stop the same as vehicular homicide, and immediately revoke any driving privileges with the threat of jail time if they drive without a license afterwards.
Would that be unfair? Not at all. Once someone has caught for a single offense, the likelihood that they will offend again is very high, and that's borne out by the data which shows multiple driving infractions on most offender's records.
Since the invention of the automobile, there have been 3.6M deaths in the United States. Clearly we are not doing enough to keep these serial offenders off the roads.
We must think of the all potential risks when setting policy, and clearly we've been far too soft on lawless drivers. While it's true that most don't cause harm, we can't take that chance.
112
Your vehicular homicide example proves the opposite. If someone repeatedly kills others by recklessly driving their vehicle, they are not allowed to operate their vehicle even AFTER they are released from prison. It doesn't matter to society that they have served their sentence because they have demonstrated an inability to control themselves. If not being allowed to drive makes their life very difficult, no one cares. We're not willing to take the risk that they hurt someone. Take another example. People convicted of massive financial fraud are routinely barred from working in the financial/securities industry. Again, this is even AFTER they have served whatever sentence they are given. If they don't have any other marketable skills that's just too bad because we don't trust them. Career black hat hackers are routinely barred from using computers (think THAT'S not a problem?). And yes, sexual offenders are barred from setting up shop near more potential victims. If that makes their life less than ideal, well, too bad. There are plenty of injustices in this world without trying to twist reality to make sexual offenders into victims. They have earned society's contempt through their own actions.
2
I'm writing as the first "Matt". Matt in NYC, you missed the point of my satirical diatribe, as well as the editorial.
The current laws relating to sex offenders do not discriminate by type of severity of the offense, and therein lies the problems. So the minor one-time offender is treated the same as the repeated sexual predator.
My point, better understood by others, is if we were to apply the same approach to other crime categories, we'd see how ridiculous they are.
The current laws relating to sex offenders do not discriminate by type of severity of the offense, and therein lies the problems. So the minor one-time offender is treated the same as the repeated sexual predator.
My point, better understood by others, is if we were to apply the same approach to other crime categories, we'd see how ridiculous they are.
3
I find it both disconcerting and one sided to write an entire article defending sexual offenders while failing to mention the word "recidivist." A quick glance at the Bureau of Justice Statistics from the Department of Justice reveals that in just three years, 5 percent of sex offenders will commit another crime and will be four times more likely to be repeat offenders than non sex offenders. As time goes on, offenders are significantly more likely to repeat past offenses, especially those originally convicted for offenses against children. Bearing this in mind coupled with the severe psychological and emotional trauma inflicted on victims, do we really want our nations worst living among our most vulnerable? The editorial board posits that residency restrictions are some type of constitutional anomaly yet we already restrict felons access to guns, the political process, and most government jobs. Some people are not meant to live amongst others: the risk is too great and the rewards too few (especially when viewing the maladies as a form of disease).
46
Sooo.... Having access to a gun and having a place to live are the same thing??
4
So if 5% of offenders re-offend, how does that justify the continued punishment of the other 95%? Similar statistics can be stated about people who commit any crime from shoplifting to murder. Most people who commit sex offenses will never re-offend, especially if they are given treatment as part of their sentence.
21
The emotion-based argument you make here is well and good, but how do you respond to this: “Protecting children from sexual abuse is, of course, a paramount concern. But there is not a single piece of evidence that these laws actually do that.”
So, given that there is no evidence that the laws under discussion protect children from sexual abuse, we are supposed to maintain these laws because of people's counterfactual emotional states of mind? I don't think so.
On the other hand, if you could point to actual evidence—the existence of which was explicitly denied in the column—that these residency laws do protect children from sexual abuse, then that would be a different story.
So, given that there is no evidence that the laws under discussion protect children from sexual abuse, we are supposed to maintain these laws because of people's counterfactual emotional states of mind? I don't think so.
On the other hand, if you could point to actual evidence—the existence of which was explicitly denied in the column—that these residency laws do protect children from sexual abuse, then that would be a different story.
22
Excellent points, but so long as politicians can triumph by shamelessly exploiting fears and stereotypes, they will enact laws that defy logic and the facts.
Witness how Trump has capitalized on a handful of heinous crimes by undocumented immigrants, while turning millions of innocent people into boogie men.
Witness how Trump has capitalized on a handful of heinous crimes by undocumented immigrants, while turning millions of innocent people into boogie men.
100
Has the NYT Editorial Board gone soft in its collective head? Instead of being "pointless," sexual predators need to be identified, separated and monitored for the safety of children. Why is it difficult to accept there are adults -- family members, friends, teachers, et.al. -- who are mentally and emotionally sick and do, unwittingly or calculatedly, harm, abuse and molest children to permanently traumatize many of them into adulthood? The judges are not omniscient, and, because in certain instances, they are pushing back, may make their decisions legally valid, but not socially or morally acceptable.
A simple quiz for the editorialist: What'd you propose if your son or daughter is sexually abused, you come to know of it, the culprit is found guilty and imprisoned, then paroled and released, and -- this is the crux -- allowed to return and reside in your own neighborhood? Will your catholicity of spirit and eleemosynary attitude of mind prevail? A curious mind would want to know, but is willing to bet it's most unlikely.
A simple quiz for the editorialist: What'd you propose if your son or daughter is sexually abused, you come to know of it, the culprit is found guilty and imprisoned, then paroled and released, and -- this is the crux -- allowed to return and reside in your own neighborhood? Will your catholicity of spirit and eleemosynary attitude of mind prevail? A curious mind would want to know, but is willing to bet it's most unlikely.
20
What would you do if your child was labeled a sex offender and forced to move from your home because he engaged in normal teenage behavior?
9
The editorial goes out of its way to distiguish between sex crimes involving children and those involving adults. The problem is that the "sex offender" designation doesn't differentiate between a child molester and a guy in a bar who put his hand in inappropriate places. But thanks for teaching me a new word today - "eleemosynary"
6
Most sexual offenders are not "sexual predators". Only a very small percentage of them fit into that category. Most of the rest are people who made one mistake, and who, once they are punished, will never repeat it.
12
Blanket ownership restrictions on firearms, on the other hand, are fully justified because every gun owner is a potential mass-murderer.
31
Say anything, whenever possible. You are off-topic. Nice try.
4
it has always baffled me,that there is so much scrutiny
and public disclosure when a sex offender moves into
an area,and NONE when a convicted murderer does!!!
and public disclosure when a sex offender moves into
an area,and NONE when a convicted murderer does!!!
189
OK, let's have a convicted murdered disclosure law too! We have a right to know if some on parole was convicted of a violent crime be it sexual or not!
2
Or even why convicted murderers are set loose, rather than kept in controlled penal colonies.
1
That's an interesting juxtaposition, but perhaps a bit complicated.
We treat sex crimes very differently than homicides, but it must be acknowledged that both encompass a wide spectrum of motivations, underlying causes, and potentials for recidivism.
It doesn't take much imagination to think of some kinds of murder that would be far less likely to be repeated than some kinds of sex crimes.
Further, though this undoubtedly imprecise given the range of factors and state and federal sentencing guidelines, I suspect that most murderers serve far longer sentences than most sex offenders. After all, part of the point of registries was that an alternative to lengthy incarceration.
Further, if you want to compare crimes, the debate on registration shouldn't center reckless texting drivers or the ubiquitous stories of 18 year old kids having sex with 16 year old kids, because both (albeit for different reasons) are highly preventable in the future.
We treat sex crimes very differently than homicides, but it must be acknowledged that both encompass a wide spectrum of motivations, underlying causes, and potentials for recidivism.
It doesn't take much imagination to think of some kinds of murder that would be far less likely to be repeated than some kinds of sex crimes.
Further, though this undoubtedly imprecise given the range of factors and state and federal sentencing guidelines, I suspect that most murderers serve far longer sentences than most sex offenders. After all, part of the point of registries was that an alternative to lengthy incarceration.
Further, if you want to compare crimes, the debate on registration shouldn't center reckless texting drivers or the ubiquitous stories of 18 year old kids having sex with 16 year old kids, because both (albeit for different reasons) are highly preventable in the future.
What bunk. In today's politically correct America even convicted sex offenders are given a pass. The Times' editorial board needs to man up and to give these predators jobs in the newsroom and invite them to live next door to their own homes. 99.9% of Americans don't want them in their neighborhoods.
17
Did you really conduct that survey?
3
I was wondering when the push would come to reduce the strength of sex related laws. Ever since same-sex marriage was approved it was just a matter of time until inroads would be pushed into other areas. When is the age of consent going to be lowered?
Sex offender as victims? Well, it was bound to happen.
Sex offender as victims? Well, it was bound to happen.
6
Jimmy, most sex offenders are heterosexual males who live with their victims. Equating this in any way with same-sex marriage laws is wrong and has nothing to do with this story.
14
Way to go off topic!
3
I wish this were intended as a joke, but I gather it's serious and very sad and predictable that gays would be blamed for this slippery slope.
2
Hey Editorial Board, how about we let sex offenders, especially child sex offenders, live next door to you? I agree not all sex offenders are pedophiles, but the ones that are should be segregated from children as much as possible. I have a relative who has spent much of is adult life in prison and he says that these kinds of people are not rehabilitatable. Child predators should by law, be required to be chemically castrated. That's if we are really serious about protecting children.
11
That is the point of the editorial. There are a huge swath of crimes labeled as sex offenses requiring permanent listing on sex offender registries and restrictions on where the offender can live. It may be the case that pedophiles should never be permitted to live near children, but why should there be that restriction for others?
7
And what should we do with your felonious relative?
I'm sure impressed by the expert you chose to cite, the relative who's spent most of his life behind bars. Who needs data and Ph.D.s or evidence when Cousin Ex-Con knows the truth?
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
1
I support the abolishment of blanket laws which do not make distinctions and which also don't give people a second chance to live a life of dignity and respect. At the very least the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, and blanket residency laws steamroll this sense of proportionality. A country which respects freedom and dignity of the individual has no place for heavy-handed punishment that not only punishes people unevenly but which makes matters worse by leaving them hurt, resentful and unable to even try to integrate into society in a respectful manner. CA, MA and NY have paved the way toward a more just society and other states should follow their example.
130
Perhaps the purpose of criminal law should be not to punish offenders, but rather to protect non-offenders from repeat attacks. There is little proof, of which I am aware, that locking up dangerous sociopaths or psychopaths for a number of months or years alters their propensities, so that they become safe to have running about loose after release. Many are horrified at the idea of lifelong, and secured penal colonies for such types, but perhaps we need to give that a second thought. Some people simply are incapable of handling freedom. They might be better suited to lives in closely regulated forced labor penal colonies. For those who obey, adequate food, shelter, clothing and recreational activities could be provided.
1
Sex Offender Laws themselves are the root of the problem because they do nor distinguish the level of sexual "Offense." and the accompanying danger. Therefore, they are not in any way "Preventive". The law offers little distinction between common, potentially "Illegal" sexual events such as: the age difference between teen-age sweethearts, the ordinary innocent sexual exploration within childhood development, the shame and embarrassment imposed on teens by religion and families during their entry into sexual activity which results in sexual accusation against one of the consenting participants. Further, the categorization of "danger" in the Sexual Predator Registry is more of set by sophomoric psychological "tests", not approved by the APA, and hardly instruments which measure potential risk for repeat offenders. If we are to have Preventive Laws for Sex Offenders, we must embrace the Intellect of the behavioral sciences to be in the forefront of writing those laws, and the consequences for violating them, regardless of religious morality and ignorant public hysteria. For to continue the status quo, many components of current laws will be struck down as unconstitutional (rightfully so); and politicians will receive credit for passing laws which the general public will believe, incorrectly, are actually addressing the problem, when in fact, they are not, at all!
Scott E. Torquato, MS, LCSW
Scott E. Torquato, MS, LCSW
96
If we are to have Preventive Laws for Sex Offenders, we must embrace the Intellect of the behavioral sciences to be in the forefront of writing those laws, and the consequences for violating them, regardless of religious morality and ignorant public hysteria
------------------------------
Before we do that you are going to have to clean your own house first. The accuracy rate for what you call a science is very poor.
------------------------------
Before we do that you are going to have to clean your own house first. The accuracy rate for what you call a science is very poor.
1
In NJ the predominance of sex offenders are corralled into the poorest areas like Paterson. Per square mile we have more registered sex offenders here than anywhere else in the state. Granted, from this article these folks are entitled to reenter society after paying their debt but yet It's really disturbing - wealthy White communities do not have to worry about it. They will continue to force them to live here, putting my students as risk for the sake of their own kids.
Meanwhile, I have one living across the street from the school I teach in. He watches the kids from his window at recess. Legally, I can't even tell the parents but who wouldn't be appalled with over 200 sex offenders in one community?
This is just an extension of discrimination against minority groups because we all know there is no way in hell this would be allowed in Ridgewood.
Meanwhile, I have one living across the street from the school I teach in. He watches the kids from his window at recess. Legally, I can't even tell the parents but who wouldn't be appalled with over 200 sex offenders in one community?
This is just an extension of discrimination against minority groups because we all know there is no way in hell this would be allowed in Ridgewood.
19
"Legally, I can't even tell the parents." I have never heard of a sex offender registry law that restricts the dissemination of the information on the registry. After all, what would be the point of the registry if it isn't public?
2
Sex offenders don't always target children, but they tend to reoffend. They are probably never arrested after their first offense, and so have the habit or illness or proclivity or whatever to abuse and harm others by forcing them into non-consensual sexual behavior. The law has determined, correctly, that children can never consent, and many adults are raped. Sorry, there is no safe place for sex offenders in the community. The problem is that the jail sentence for these people is wrong, and it should be life in prison. Not in an inhumane way, but in a way that acknowledges that people with uncontrollable sexual urges that involve others can not be counted on not to act on them. Once we release these people, they remain dangerous forever. Some have said that sexual paraphilias can be treated, but I'm not convinced. The inadequate prison or other isolative response to sexual offenses leaves society in a quandary, which it has solved in an imperfect way, but what other recourse is there? I am NOT referring to Romeo-and-Juliet situations, but to pederasty and rape, not consent between underage teenagers who are in love. Those young people should never be labeled sex offenders at all.
3
"Sex offenders don't always target children, but they tend to reoffend. "
Commonly believed but factually false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism
Commonly believed but factually false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism
39
I agree, Ellen. R&J "offenders" aside, I'm not sure why one convicted of molesting a child would ever be eligible for parole in the first place.
As to treatments for this particular paraphilia, I share your doubts here as well. At its core, we're talking about a person's sexual attraction to something. How can that be 'turned off'?
This might be an unpopular stance, but I actually empathize with the admitted say, pedophile, that doesn't act on his/her urges. Seems like it'd be its own kind of prison.
As to treatments for this particular paraphilia, I share your doubts here as well. At its core, we're talking about a person's sexual attraction to something. How can that be 'turned off'?
This might be an unpopular stance, but I actually empathize with the admitted say, pedophile, that doesn't act on his/her urges. Seems like it'd be its own kind of prison.
2
the belief that just because you have sexual attraction that you must act out on it appears to me to come from words that are attributed to Christ, as well as the philosophies of St. Augustine (a sex addict), and Paul – who in point of fact, never met Christ, and there is some indication that he may have had a falling out when he did meet Peter and James 10 years after Christ's death. It's called dualism, and I see a disproportionate amount of these folks in treatment for sexual offending and/or addiction.
At any rate, I would submit to you that almost all heterosexual men are sexually attracted to the opposite sex – even when in monogamous relationships. Explain those that don't cheat, and you will have your answer.
At any rate, I would submit to you that almost all heterosexual men are sexually attracted to the opposite sex – even when in monogamous relationships. Explain those that don't cheat, and you will have your answer.
Agree. These laws are motivated by sentimental hysteria that sweeps a child!ess culture.
23
The residency restrictions are just one part of the problem -- It starts with he laws.
These laws will go down as some of the most punitive in our history. Why should we destroy some 18 year old kid's life for 25 years -- Because we think it may stop them from having sex with another 16 year old.
We had one in our area -- 18 and 16 ... consensual. The parents pressed charges.
They are not a danger to anyone.
These laws will go down as some of the most punitive in our history. Why should we destroy some 18 year old kid's life for 25 years -- Because we think it may stop them from having sex with another 16 year old.
We had one in our area -- 18 and 16 ... consensual. The parents pressed charges.
They are not a danger to anyone.
205
How despicable that the parents decided to destroy some kids life. What horrible people.
1
Sad to see rape apologists like you out in full force. Children need our support, even if the age gap is two years.
2
How about a teenage girl getting on the list for sending a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend?
1