Donate Now
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Got Questions? Get Answers. » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » 'Danger! Registered Sex Offender Lives Here"

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: 'Danger! Registered Sex Offender Lives Here"
Lin
Activist
Member # 2050

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A Texas State District judge has ordered all convicted sex offenders to place signs and bumper stickers that recognises them as sex offenders to be placed on their property and cars.

quote:
CORPUS CHRISTI (Texas) - A judge has ordered 21 convicted sex offenders to place signs in their frontyards reading: 'Danger! Registered sex offender lives here'.

The signs were given to them on Friday, along with bumper stickers that read: 'Danger! Registered sex offender in vehicle'.

State district judge J. Manuel Banales ordered them posted immediately.

The authorities will conduct spot checks of offenders' homes and vehicles, said Ms Iris Davila, the supervisor of the probation department's specialised services for Nueces county.

But the president of the Corpus Christi Criminal Defence Lawyers' Organisation, Mr Gerald Rogen, said that the signs were unconstitutional.

'This is just madness. We will have vigilantes out destroying property,' he said.

He said that he was examining what could be done legally to block the action.

Mr Banales had called about 55 registered sex offenders to court to be given new conditions of their probation.

Only 40 came, and 21 were given the bumper stickers and the signs.

'The whole idea is that everybody is looking at you,' the judge told the 20 men and one woman.

Those not made to display signs were told to send letters to neighbours within three blocks of their homes.

Each offender had been given a long probation term instead of prison time for offences ranging from aggravated sexual assault to indecency with a child.

District Attorney Carlos Valdez said that it is a practical way of implementing the state's Act governing sexual offences.

Texas requires offenders to register with local law-enforcement agencies and have their names and photos on the Internet.

Authorities also alert the neighbours of high-risk offenders by post.

But defence lawyers and civil libertarians have called the new requirements 'unfair and dangerous', saying that they would lead to harassment.

A man on 10 years probation for aggravated sexual assault of a child in 1992 asked: 'What if someone attacks me or my wife? She is not on probation.' --AP



Posts: 2294 | From: Singapore | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lynne
Activist
Member # 713

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lynne     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First of all, what if somebody borrows one of the cars bearing a bumper sticker?

Second of all, this seems extreme. Why do only sex offenders have to go to such lengths to announce their presence? No other type of criminal has to go through such obstacles to get on with their life. I'd think that if you were going to require criminals to label themselves in the name of protecting the neighbors, you'd be better to start with murderers, not sex offenders. Really, what's worse: being molested or being killed? (Though there are people out there who think that rape is a worse crime than murder, which just seems utterly ridiculous to me.) If the people who made laws like this one really did want to protect the neighborhood (and had their heads screwed on properly), they'd start with labeling killers (not that I think that's necessarily a good idea in and of itself, either); this just seems to be another manifestation of America's fear of sex.

Posts: 266 | From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree 100%, Lynne. I've also always maintained that people's fears of sex offenders go way over the top.

And what if one of them is proven innocent, later on? Are they then given a sign that says "No Danger! A registered sex offender does NOT live here." or perhaps in front of the courthouse, "Danger! Angry mobs in vicinity!"

Seriously, when I hear about sentences like this, I can't help but think that it was the angry town mob on the Simpsons that came up with it.

------------------
When you get off work tonight, meet me at the construction site, and we'll write some notes to tape to the heavy machines, like "We hope they treat you well. Hope you don't work too hard. We hope you get to be happy sometimes."
-the Weakerthans

[This message has been edited by Dzuunmod (edited 05-21-2001).]


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree ... and I disagree. Sort of.

I agree that these signs really aren't fair. It reminds me of the mid 1600's when Hester in the Scarlet Letter had to wear a red A on her clothing. Geez ... This is 2001! Embarassing people isn't really gonna do anything. Not that i can see. Only build resent.

But i disagree b/c ... I don't know. These people should've been put in jail. Pay w/ their time. After that, maybe do some community service. While rape isn't right up there w/ murder, it's pretty bad, in my books anyway. Most victims of sexual assaults have to live w/ this in the back of their minds for the rest of their lives... why should person responsible get off w/ anything less than that?

------------------
"Did you know ... you can have intercourse on Saturday and get pregnant on Monday?? Don't know how? ASK!"


Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As a note, Smurf, most rapists are NOT registered sex offenders. Sex offender status is usually only applied to those who have committed (or been found guilty of) sexual crimes with minors.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson


Posts: 67973 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bobolink
Activist
Member # 1386

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bobolink         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Should we require other paroled criminals to put up signs "Caution, Registered Parking Offender (or other crime) Lives Here"?

I am one of the few people I know who has a suspended sentence for a parking ticket.

------------------
The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" ("I found it!") but rather "Hmmm... that's funny...."

- Isaac Asimov


Posts: 3442 | From: Stirling, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
x

[This message has been edited by BruinDan (edited 09-25-2002).]


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaffer
Activist
Member # 2105

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gaffer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't wait to see the spinoff bumper stickers.
Posts: 356 | From: Phoenix--name that plurally | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ThisGuy
Activist
Member # 968

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ThisGuy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dangerous. Very dangerous.

Has the judge even considered the potential for vigilantism?

I detest child molesters, but this isn't going to do anything more than ostracise people who should either be dealt with criminally, or rehabilitated.

How can you rehabilitate someone who is no longer part of society?

------------------
Sometimes spinach is the only answer


Posts: 915 | From: Australia | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Claire
Activist
Member # 1548

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Claire     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
if i saw that on a car id think it was a joke. there is absolutely no wya id take it seriously
Posts: 82 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
'rin
Activist
Member # 1950

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 'rin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i've got mixed feelings on the issue. it is a well know fact that certain kinds of sex offenders are more likely to be reapeat offenders than most other violent criminals. my cousin is a prision psychologist, and when a man who had raped 3 children was being released he asked her if it was ok for him to take a job as a janitor at an elementary school.......i don't think prision had "cured" him, and i think that the parents of children at whatever school he ends up as should be notified. but if a 19 year old boy sleeps with his 16 year old girlfriend and is convicted of statutory rape i think it would really suck to make him register, he's not dangerous, he just misjudged his girlfriends parents. but putting signs in their yards and stickers on their cars is absurd. people who would never possibly be effected by these men have no need to know about their criminal part. parents of small children in the neighborhoods of sex offenders who had repeat or particulary violent offences against children should definatly be told. there should be no way to accidentally let a sex offender babysit your child. also, if the former offender takes a job where he/she will be dealing with children there should be some way to notify the parents of those children. but outside of that there is no need, no reason, what so ever to notify the public at large. notification programs should be equally sensitive of a person's right to start a new life as they are to possible danger to children. and, i think if a person has been out of jail a set amount of time with no complaints filed about them they should be taken off the registry.
'rin

------------------
"-and i hope i'm not shooting my mouth off...again...and i pray i'm not tempting the fates....."
-james, off millionaires


Posts: 219 | From: lost in yonkers | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
morganlh85
Activist
Member # 785

Icon 1 posted      Profile for morganlh85     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If sex offenders have to do it, then why don't murderers, car thieves, wife-beaters, underage drinkers, drug users, etc have to do it too?

Anyone should be able to FIND OUT if there is a sex offender near them, like at the public offices or something, but I don't think this is really necessary.


Posts: 304 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daisyluv
Activist
Member # 446

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Daisyluv     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't like that idea cause what are we supposed to do when those sex offenders and their families get attacked by those that feel threatened somehow or don't want those ppl living ner by?
Give them signs and bumper stickers too?
"I attacked a sex offender"
I agree with most people here, if someone wants to know if theres a sex offender nearby they should be the ones to go look for the information.

Posts: 123 | From: My House, Canada | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Doe
Activist
Member # 3836

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John Doe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The whole Megans law bit and this decentet of it are just blatent attacks on basic civil rights. Mostly these laws are aimed at pedophiles. pedophilia is a condition very simalar to sexual orientation, probably with a strong genetic or in utero factor plus perhaps some things dating from very early childhood. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. If you belive that then you would have to belive that they were all absolutely bonkers. After all who would choose to be a memeber of the most vilified minority group on the face of the earth today. Would you choose to convert to Judiasm in 1942 Germany? Would have you decided to be black in 1968 South Africa? Now, that is not to say that these people are not responsible for their actions. They are, but not for their attractions.
Lets then consider what sort of crimes fall under this labeling umbrella. if we are talking about violent or coerced sex with a youngster, then these signs should not be needed, since the person should be locked up for a good long time. But more often we are talking about cases where very real love and affection towards a child is expressed inappropriately. Full penitration (anal in the case of boy love, anal or vagianal in the case of girl love) is exceptionally rare. Most often it is a case where the hand lingers a bit to long when patting the kid on the butt or something like that. yes sexual abuse, and by abuse I really mean anything that is coersive or comes about through deception, can have serious negative affects on the child. But it is not the only form of abuse out there. If a man were to take a baseball bat and beat little 10 yo billy with it and break his legs, he would probably go to jail, but when he came out he would not have to register with the police or place a sign on his lawn. But if the same man became a good friend of Billy's and hugged and cuddled him and at some point touched his penis, then that man is judged to be the worst monster on the face of the earth. Even worse, if he ends up giving the kid a blow job. He is stripped of all his civil liberties and the presumption of innocence. Now I ask you guys, which would you rather have, your legs broken with a baseball bat, or a blow job. i'm not saying that it is alright to give the 10 yo boy a blow job, but lets keep this stuff in proportion.

------------------
"and these three, faith hope and love abide, and the greatest of these is love"


Posts: 475 | From: ohio | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Milke
Activist
Member # 961

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Milke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John, why are so defensive?
Posts: 5122 | From: I *came* from the land of ice and snow | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Doe
Activist
Member # 3836

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John Doe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very simple, and I will be 100% honest with you. I am a celibate boy lover. I am sexually attracted to pubescent boys. I have however, never, and I will never act on these thoughts. They are just part of my masterbatory life. I am convinced that I was born this way since it has been with me all of my life. I am somewhat religious, and I think that god made me. If so, why did he do this? Does he have a sick sense of humor? Is he a sadist? Or is there a purpose to this. I think there is a purpose. I know I have the ability to relate to kids far better than most 42 yo's. I can teach and mentor them. I can help them and have an emotional relationship with them. I just can't have a sexual relationship with them. I am not convinced that all sexual relationships between adults and kids must end in disaster. Good or nutral outcomes are only likely however where the relationship is 100% consentual, and it is even better if it is initiated by the kid. However, I understand that it is a significant risk, particularly if it is discovered and I am not willing to take that risk. The risk is not only to the adult, where there are obvious legal problems, but also to the kid who will be forced into an abusive therapy system and probably be ostrisized by his peers. there are so many kids out there that are literally dying for attention and understanding. Now the discovery of my attraction (through some stuff I was looking at on the net, role play stuff with other adults) has distroyed my life. I am in the middle of getting a divorce and it has been a fight to be able to see my kids, who I love with all my heart and would never ever do anything to harm.
I know that I am not alone. Most other true pedophiles feel the same way that I do. There is a very serious difference between a pedophile and a molester. To equate the two is the same as saying that all straight males who are attracted to the same age group are rapists or at least Casanovas who's only desire is to screw them and dump them. Am I just a molester waiting to offend. i don't think so, since I have not done anything of this nature for 30 years (yes when I was about 13 or so I did stuff but at that point it was with peers). Of course, you could not prove that you are not a murderer who just hasn't gotten around to pulling the trigger yet.
There my cards are on the table. Now i may have damaged any credibilty i have here by being so open, but I hope not. I think I have something to offer here. I think that I can educate people to this issue. As I said before this is not a choice, I am not that crazy. Actually I am quite sane and very successful. I am not responsible for my attractions, anymore than gays are responsible for theirs. I am responsible for my actions, and I have always endevored to live my life in as ethical and moral a way possible. Dispite this I am a member of the most hated minority in the US today. Because of this I can only speak up when I use a nom de plume.

------------------
"and these three, faith hope and love abide, and the greatest of these is love"


Posts: 475 | From: ohio | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have not dipped your credibility too much there. I have some rather strange fantasies of my own (forunately legal for me) and I know that they develope quite naturally and I did not "decide" to have them. I would point out that though that I do not believe children should ever enter into a relationship with an adult at all. I know that the adult and child might both believe the child has given "consent." But I feel it is simply too dangerous and could damage the child badly. Now I have occasionally considered what it would be like to have a relationship with an older person and I realise that there might be kids that think about that alot. It still should not be allowed. I admire your self control.
Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daniel
Activist
Member # 2870

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Daniel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's agood idea. The thing about most vigilantes, is that they are so, soooooooo stupid!

In England a few months ago, a pediatrician was violently harrassed because idiots who thought it is their moral duty to take care of sexual offenders decided that she was actually a pedophile.

When one of our major tabloids decided to print details of many sex offenders, they made msitakes, and surprise surpirse, I hear dabout more innocent people who got harassed then I did about the actual targets of the vigilantes.

Note to vigilantes: there's a reason we have law enforcement officers; it's because they're better at it than you.


Posts: 105 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Doe
Activist
Member # 3836

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John Doe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Confused boy,
I basically agree with you, it is very risky and it is not a risk that I would take. My point was however, that I don't think that people like me, but who slip up, are monsters, particularly if it is consentual. It is a mistake, but more damage is likely to be done by the revalation of the relationship than the relationship itself. That goes for both the child and the adult. Not the least of the negative effects for the child is that he or she will never get to see an adult who cares deeply about him, and who he cares deeply about, again. Now if we are talking about something that is non consentual or coerced, then yes the adult in that situation is very much of a monster. Rape is rape, and rape of a child is particularly abhorent. But rape is not about love or even about sex, it is about violence, hatred and control.
What we are talking about in this situation is love which ends up being expressed inappropriately. It is risky and the benifits that a "good relationship" might have are pretty much all there is the non sexual part of the relationship, so why take that last step. But to brand people like me with a scarlett letter and open them up for mob violence is just plain wrong. To strip us of all of our civil liberties is wrong. Even to shun us if a rumor about what we are gets out is wrong. This is particularly true of pedophiles who do not act out sexually.
Most 42 yo men have very little interest in kids, especially if they are not their own. Do kids like it when there is a man who is interest in them, who is willing to throw a ball around with them, who is willing to toss them around in the pool, who is willing to talk to them and take their conserns seriously. Of course they do. I think this goes double for all those boys out there who are growing up without dads around. you know that growing up without a dad is the number one statistical indicator that a child will be a screw up (ie trouble with the law, trouble with school, a boy getting a girl pregnant or a girl getting pregnant, drug or alchahol abuse, suicide). Just maybe that is why god made me this way, because by being interested in kids, maybe I can head some of those problems off at the pass. But if I get into a sexual relationship with that kid, it is very unlikely that I would be able to do him any good at all.

------------------
"and these three, faith hope and love abide, and the greatest of these is love"


Posts: 475 | From: ohio | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alaska
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1896

Icon 1 posted      Profile for alaska     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi John,

Thanks for your openness and honesty. I think you’re giving an insight here that is totally new for many, and you have by no way lost your credibility here. Quite the contrary. I personally appreciate it, John.

The majority of people can not understand that some people are emotionally and sexually attracted to children (and with that I mean pre-pubescent and early-pubescent boys and girls) -simply because it is so far removed from their own sexuality- and that people with that sort of attraction are not necessarily those who end up as “child molesters”.

In many people’s heads a paedophile is automatically a child molester, a generalisation that I see as dangerous, simply because many people molest children without being paedophiles and many pedos completely live out their attractions alone (just through fantasies during masturbation) without ever touching a child. You said it very well, most of the time, abuse is about power and control and hatred and not about sex or sexual attraction.
I am against “thought control” and against the fact that so many –out of the non-understanding of the difference between paedophilia and child molestation- are willing to act against the constitution of your country (and other countries, too) and make entrapment schemes to get people who have not done anything against the law, but just have a sexual attraction that they do not live out in the real world, isn’t the norm. By concentrating on getting rid of/brand marking paedophiles to “protect children”, Child Advocates fail to protect children from those who statistically hurt them the most –their own family member who don’t identify as paedophiles but as “normal”. In my opinion, a paedophile who lives out his desires alone at home, with porn of his liking, does no one harm. Whatever happens in someone else’s head (as long as it only happens there) is no one else’s business and shouldn’t be regulated by law. We don’t live in George Orwell’s “1984”, after all.

So I guess we agree on a few things here.

There are a few things I disagree with, though. Disagree with strongly.

First of all, I absolutely hate the terms “boy/girl love” and the implication of a physical sexual relationship between an adult and a pre-pubescent child. The term is cute-sy. And it just disgusts me.

In my opinion, sexual contact between adults and children is wrong because IMO, it can’t be consensual. In order for effective consent to happen, the relationship between the two parties involved needs to be equal. And a relationship between an adult and a child can’t be “equal”. It can’t. No matter what you say.

Secondly, in my opinion, even though I have NO DOUBT at all that children have their own sexuality and live it (on their own or with other children) from a very young age on, I just don’t believe that children (in my above definition) can consent to sexual interactions with an adult. For several reasons. They CAN NOT.
They might say “Yes” to a sexual game their older “friend” suggests or even curiously initiate things that the (paedophile) friend experiences as sexual, but they can’t consent in the true sense of the word because they can’t completely judge and understand the implications of sexuality. Children want hugs, and physical contact, and they understand that their bodies give pleasure, but they don’t understand something as complex as human sexuality as a whole. The necessary understanding of sexuality to be able to consent to sex can only be gained throughout puberty (and even then, with the restrictive sex ed teens get these days, many people still can’t *really* consent when puberty is completed), not earlier.

I’d imagine that a child would say yes to erotic play either out of curiousity or because it can “please” the adult friend with it, and considering that there are some pedophiles who are child molestors, too, do prey on (note: some, not all) or keep “friendships” with children from distorted families and would do a lot not to loose their older/father-like friend, this is probably often a big reason why children say “yes” to “sexual” contact with an adult. You mentioned those kids “dying for attention” yourself.
Children are sexual beings; - but they are not sexual beings that should be a source of sexual pleasure for adults. The fact that many pedos sexualise kids so much that they think children can consent just shows IMHO, how little actual contact many pedos must have with kids who are NOT in dire need of a parent.


In any way, I need to sort my thoughts on this before we can discuss this further, so this is really just a start. I am looking forward to more discussions on this.

Regards,
Alaska

------------------
"We must become the change we want to see."
Mahatma Gandhi


Posts: 4526 | From: germany | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aria51
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 653

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aria51     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Doe:
I think this goes double for all those boys out there who are growing up without dads around. you know that growing up without a dad is the number one statistical indicator that a child will be a screw up (ie trouble with the law, trouble with school, a boy getting a girl pregnant or a girl getting pregnant, drug or alchahol abuse, suicide).



I'd like to see a source for this statistic, please. It's a popular one to quote, but I have never seen hard evidence of it. Do you have a link to an article, study, something?

------

I agree with you completely, Alaska.

As the mother of a very small boy (10 months old) who is just beginning to discover his body, I agree that children are very much sexual beings, just like teenagers, middle-aged adults, elderly adults, cats, dogs, birds, insects -- every living thing, in my opinion, is a sexual being.
I understand all about children experimenting with themselves and with other children -- I did it myself throughout childhood; through self-exploration and various experimentation with other children. And that's OK. However -- regardless of the degree of my son's sexual curiosity this age, and throughout childhood, it will never be OK in my mind for an adult to have a sexual relationship with him.
As for the original topic, I think posting signs is a little drastic, but I would most definately want to be notified if a sex offender lived in my neighborhood. I would not want to live down the street from a man or woman who had in the past raped women like me, and likewise, I would not want to raise my son in similar conditions.

Finally, we all know the mind is a large part of human sexuality. The best part, I feel. In my mind, I can have sex with anyone I want, any way I want, and it will never result in an STD or another pregnancy. And in my mind, I must say, I'm quite the 'tramp'. But for my own safety and the safety of others, I control myself. I don't sleep with just anybody. It's a matter of self-control.
The same goes, I believe, for those who are sexually attracted to children. It's fine to think about it, imagine it, run it through your mind. But, again, for the safety of the person and the people around them, it is important not to act upon those fantasies. That is, IMHO, when one stops being a pedophile and becomes a child molester.

I suppose none of this is making much sense, because there's a huge struggle going on in my mind. Part of me is interested in all lifestyles, and that part is curious and wants to accept everyone, no matter what. But then in steps my maternal instincts -- protect the boy from everything. So if this sounds a little harsh, that's why.

------------------
And there's nothing I can do, as I realize with fright, the spider-man is having me for dinner tonight!

Yet Another Online Diary


Posts: 1287 | From: Missouri | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Doe
Activist
Member # 3836

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John Doe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aria and Alsaka,
I am not a big fan of absolute words like always and never. i will agree with you that it is highly unlikely for a child to be ablr to really give consent, and thus I have always refrained from doing anything with a child. For me to even consider doing it, it would have to be entirely initated by the child, and i really don't see that as very likely to happen.
As for Aria's question about the effects of having no dad around I don't have a link, but I do have some books i would suggest.

The Wonder of Boys by Michael Gurian (also A Fine Young Man, and The Good Son also by Gurian)

Fatherless America by David Blankehorn

Fathers Rights by Jeffery M. Leving

All are still in print and should be available at Amazon or your local B&N


Posts: 475 | From: ohio | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa D
Activist
Member # 389

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lisa D     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi John Doe,

Kudos to you for being so open and honest. What an incredibly thought-provoking and honest post. I personally feel quite fortunate to have you at our boards.

anyhoo, As far as the "registered sex offender lives here" signs. I can't help but feel they are completely unconstitutional. when one has been released from prison, punishment is over. By living as a "marked person" after you've served your time, a line of "cruel and unusual punishment" is crossed.


Posts: 442 | From: Dublin, OH USA | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
emsily0
Activist
Member # 2059

Icon 1 posted      Profile for emsily0     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wait - i was under the impression that the signs would be required only for the duration of probation? maybe i'm wrong about that. i think the sign/bumper sticker thing is stupid and outlandish; i think a more reasonable thing to do would be to publish the names on a website or something; that way people could find out, but it wouldn't be entirely obvious.

MA is, i believe, the only state in the US that doesn't have a sex-offender registry. however right now there is a similar movement for drunk drivers who have been convicted twice to be forced to put license plates on their cars which would identify them to police as convicted drunk drivers. the idea is that as with other license plates there would be 3 letters and 4 numbers, only the 3 letters would be "OUI" for all of these people. i think that it is probably a bad thing, and the police computer could certainly do that in a much more subtle way.

however, the people who want a sex-offender registry and the people who want these license plates have one point in common, which is that the recividity rate in both cases (meaning how often someone who does it once will do it again) is extremely high - like 98% for convicted sex offenders.

my main problem with the measure is that it seems a bit inconsistent; why not have a murderer or rapist registry, too? but apparently people who murder once are less likely to repeat it.

i don't really know how i stand on that whole thing. clearly, something should be done. but it seems like a very sad scenario, either way.

em

------------------
if you want to kiss the sky, you better learn how to kneel (on your knees, boy) -U2


Posts: 786 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Doe
Activist
Member # 3836

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John Doe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually Nightline did a show on this topic the other night (tuesday or wednesday night) and they pointed out that 85% of all convicted sex offenders are never again charged with any sexual offense, seeing how that covers a pretty broad range of possible offenses, it is hard to argue that the recidivism rate is particularly high for these offenses. How many burglars break into houses after they have been caught before? And that is a spicific crime, as opposed to saying how many burglars steal again after having been caught for burglary (ie it would encompass burglary, mugging, armed robbery, shoplifting and embezzelment). I am willing to bet that it is higher than 15%. if you doubt me on this, go to abc.com and look at the transcript of the nightline broadcst.

------------------
"and these three, faith hope and love abide, and the greatest of these is love"


Posts: 475 | From: ohio | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John, I am unable to download a transcript of that conversation, but I would be very interested to know the following.

Who came up with this study? Was this a statewide study or a nationwide one? What years did this study cover?

The reason I ask is that your figure of a 15% recidivism seems extremely low given all the classes I recently took on sex offenses. Per the US Department of Justice and FBI Sex Crimes Stats (February 2000), that figure is more like 85%.

Are you sure the Nightline topic wasn't specifically talking about sexual battery suspects and their rate of recidivism? Because for some reason, that small group of offenders do have only a 17% rate of being charged with another sex offense.

------------------

[This message has been edited by BruinDan (edited 09-26-2002).]


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bobolink
Activist
Member # 1386

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bobolink         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did any of our Canadian members happen to catch "Grace with a Stranger on CBC Radio One Sunday morning? It deals withe a Mennonote project to reintegrate sex offenders into society. It seems to be more sucessful than other programs. Here is the Mennonite web site on the project: http://198.103.98.138/text/pblct/interactive/ia1296e.shtml

------------------
The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" ("I found it!") but rather "Hmmm... that's funny...."

- Isaac Asimov


Posts: 3442 | From: Stirling, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Doe
Activist
Member # 3836

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John Doe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bruin,
The figure was just mentioned in passing and they did not go into the details of how the number was arrived at. I would note that it refered to being charged criminally with another sex offense, so there may be some who do commit subsequent sex offenses but are never caught or charged. That was actually sort of the point they were trying to make, ie if there were signs in front of these peoples houses and they did commit aanother sexual offense it would be much more likely that they would be caught.

------------------
"and these three, faith hope and love abide, and the greatest of these is love"


Posts: 475 | From: ohio | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you John for your clarification.

Part of the reason I no longer watch Nightline is that the facts they tend to spout off during heated debates tend to be either fairly arbitrary or do not jive with printed reports. This comment made "in passing" seems diametrically opposed to those I received from the US Department of Justice last year. Which is certainly rather confusing...

------------------

[This message has been edited by BruinDan (edited 09-26-2002).]


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
'rin
Activist
Member # 1950

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 'rin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
john, this is not a personal attack, ok? i'm not saying you have ever or will ever hurt a child, or that you want to. i'm not saying that you choose to be how you are, or that you are responsible for your attraction. that said.....i recently ended up cutting almost all contact with a guy who i had been VERY close friends with, he was who i called when work sucked etc, we probably saw each other 4 days a week. why? because he couldn't stop mentioning, staring at, etc my breasts. it drove me nuts that this person who i thought of as a brother was looking at me sexually, and it really started to creep me out. what if i were youger? what if this had been some older man on my block who i had thought of as an uncle or father figure? what if i had noticed that this man i trusted was looking at me the way most 12 year old boys look at brittney spears? i'd be freaked out, that's what. i'd feel violated, betrayed, and i would have a hard time trusting grown men for a very long time. maybe even into my twenties. what i'm saying is please be careful john, from what i've read of your posts you seem to be the kind of stand up guy who would never knowingly harm a child. so was my "uncle hal" whose hungry eyes i'll never forget, i'm still uncomfortable when men look at me sexually because of someone who i trusted when i was nine. so be careful, ok? kids are better at picking up non verbal hints than most people give them credit for.
'rin
ps-sorry if i rambled, but this is an emotional issue for me.

------------------
"-and i hope i'm not shooting my mouth off...again...and i pray i'm not tempting the fates....."
-james, off millionaires


Posts: 219 | From: lost in yonkers | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3