Claude Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 On a very practical level: How does this list (and map) help you to protect your children? Are you telling your kids to avoid the street where the sex offender lives? Are you warning your kids by showing them the photo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 No, we're lighting torches and organizing lynch mobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Luckily, I don't live close to any. Great resource and a great thing to know if you have kids. I like the fact that you can look at the guy and see what the offense is. Some are young, college kids with some sort of distribuiton of pornography charges which is a far cry from some of those creepy old guys on there with charges of sexual contact wiht kids. As a parent I'm all for it. My left-leaning liberal ideals end at the point when Joe down the street wants to play pee-pee-peekaboo with my kid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 On a very practical level: How does this list (and map) help you to protect your children? Are you telling your kids to avoid the street where the sex offender lives? Are you warning your kids by showing them the photo? I think it's pretty good to know if you live next door to one of these guys and you have young kids. Or your kids walk by the dude's house on the way to school. Yeah, kids, don't go into that guy's house to "help him carry in his groceries" if he asks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Twizzle Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 I have a problem with the picture of me that they're using. I'm really not that creepy...really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hawkins Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Perhaps - a genuine perhaps (I'm not entirely clear on my thinking here) - those of us without children or other experiences with offenders are in a better, more clear-headed position to judge whether names and addresses etc. should be witheld or not? Strikes me, for example, to be obvious that we don't ask the victim of a crime what the punishment should be for the offender, for the very reason that they're too involved. Isn't this case analogous in some ways? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Williams Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 The only point I can see to a list like this is that it may give you a sense of security if you don't live near an offender; however 'The typical sexual predator will assault 30 - 60 times before being caught', so the list only tells you about a fraction, and anyway, some of them may even have learned to drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) Perhaps - a genuine perhaps (I'm not entirely clear on my thinking here) - those of us without children or other experiences with offenders are in a better, more clear-headed position to judge whether names and addresses etc. should be witheld or not? Are people who don't drive in a better position to design seat belts? Frankly, the kind of web site linked to gives me the creeps, since it's not "official" in any way. It's a privately operated site. If they screw up, who are they answerable to? What if a wrongful conviction is overturned, so they take care of that business? Or are they just putting people up there and leaving them there? This is not a matter for vigilantes, real or conceptual. But I do think that there is a place for such registries in some form or fashion. Our city police department maintains one, so such a site as Family Watchdog is at best reduntant to me. And yes, I periodically check it, not to start some shit, but just to know if there's anything I need to know. Pedophillia is as much or more of a "disease" as it is a crime, and there's no real cure. The recidivism rate is frighteningly high, and neither psycho- nor medical therapy seems to serve any lasting end in most cases. I'm certainly not looking to kill the carrier, but I'll be damned if I'm going to knowingly let my kids be exposed to the disease. We all want to protect our kids from diseases, don't we? So we need some kind of information. A complicated matter to be sure, but a sexual offense against a child is altogether different than a crime against property (or even against an adult). "Having paid your debt to society" is usually not the issue in these cases. Preventing the next debt from being incurred is. That's just the nature of this particular beast. If the kids know where not to go, then most of the time the game's more than half over. Edited February 17, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hawkins Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 The seatbelt instance is clearly distinguishable, though. For a start, there's little difference in the emotional stakes of the driver/non-driver as regards seatbelts. A complicated matter to be sure, but a sexual offense against a child is altogether different than a crime against property (or even against an adult). "Having paid your debt to society" is usually not the issue in these cases. Preventing the next debt from being incurred is. That's just the nature of this particular beast. If the kids know where not to go, then most of the time the game's more than half over. I do see your point, but I would say that it's dangerously similar to that made by conservative penologists in the US and UK for some time. Preventive criminology is notoriously inaccurate (hopelessly so, in fact, in all but a very few cases); and obviously that's an empirical critique quite apart from the moral ones. There's also the definitional problem. Perhaps a sexual offense against a child is altogether different than many other types of offence, but which (and therefore which we feel justified in using predictive criminologies against) is not at all an obvious issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny E Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Funny how a thread on 'Broke Back Mountain' that strayed into political territory got sucked into the hidden hole faster than Dick Cheney's trigger finger, yet a thread on sex offenders which strays into politics (by the board administrater himself no less) stays safe as a bug in a rug. No conclusion, just an observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) I do see your point, but I would say that it's dangerously similar to that made by conservative penologists in the US and UK for some time. Preventive criminology is notoriously inaccurate (hopelessly so, in fact, in all but a very few cases); and obviously that's an empirical critique quite apart from the moral ones. There's also the definitional problem. Perhaps a sexual offense against a child is altogether different than many other types of offence, but which (and therefore which we feel justified in using predictive criminologies against) is not at all an obvious issue. Well, we can take an all or nothing approach to the matter and assume that "protection" automatically and/or eventually leads to unpleasant extremes, or we can allow for the possibility that many people are actually able to use information responsibly w/o automatically and/or eventually turning into hardass cretins. Which approach do you think is more diginified as it pertains to one's core perception of "human nature"? Theory is nice but it's black and white. Life isn't, and that defintely applies to the part of it that concerns protection. Edited February 17, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Funny how a thread on 'Broke Back Mountain' that strayed into political territory got sucked into the hidden hole faster than Dick Cheney's trigger finger, yet a thread on sex offenders which strays into politics (by the board administrater himself no less) stays safe as a bug in a rug. No conclusion, just an observation. Why do you consider the political forum a "hidden hole?" It's the second most trafficked forum on this site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hawkins Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) Well, we can take an all or nothing approach to the matter and assume that "protection" automatically and/or eventually leads to unpleasant extremes, or we can allow for the possibility that many people are actually able to use information responsibly w/o automatically and/or eventually turning into hardasses. Which approach do you think is more diginified as it pertains to one's core perception of "human nature"? Theory is nice but it's black and white. Life isn't. The theory is indeed one thing. But the empirical research - consistently, and as far as we know - denies that we have the predictive capacity to know anything much at all about recidivism. I think your human nature point is pertinent, but seems to me to be logically a bit out of step. What of the human nature of the criminal who has done his/her time? Shouldn't we respect their capacity NOT to offend in the future? This, after all, is clearly a function of their autonomy/nature. Edit: Of course, I absolutely accept that there are a great number of people - almost certainly a vast majority - who would use such information about offenders sensibly. If men aren't all angels, they're certainly no more all devils. Edited February 17, 2006 by Red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny E Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Funny how a thread on 'Broke Back Mountain' that strayed into political territory got sucked into the hidden hole faster than Dick Cheney's trigger finger, yet a thread on sex offenders which strays into politics (by the board administrater himself no less) stays safe as a bug in a rug. No conclusion, just an observation. Why do you consider the political forum a "hidden hole?" It's the second most trafficked forum on this site. Because if you're not a member you can't see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 And while this thread may have arguably strayed into politics, Chris' original Brokeback thread was clearly politically-intentioned from the beginning. Even then i wouldn't have bothered to move it, but it was still very clearly political. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny E Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) There were others that started out non-political and got moved because of where the conversation led. But like I said, not a conclusion, just an observation is all. Edited February 17, 2006 by Johnny E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) The theory is indeed one thing. But the empirical research - consistently, and as far as we know - denies that we have the predictive capacity to know anything much at all about recidivism. I think your human nature point is pertinent, but seems to me to be logically a bit out of step. What of the human nature of the criminal who has done his/her time? Shouldn't we respect their capacity NOT to offend in the future? This, after all, is clearly a function of their autonomy/nature. The statistics regarding pedophillic recidivism are not ambiguous. I'm all for treating the perpetrators with civil dignity, but until a way is found to make "rehabilitaion" a plausible possibility instead of an abstract talking point, I'm also in favor of having information at my disposal that allows me, not to get in their faces, but simply to keep my kids away from theirs. I see no malevolence whatsoever in that. Edited February 18, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 I searched out the "files" of the "perps" in my area. At least two (possibly more) were horny teenagers and the girl's parents filed a complaint to end the "romance". How long will this follow these guys around. A couple of the other cases involve charges in divorces. The only other case I knew anything about involved a really sick "grandpa" who diddled with his grandkids and a couple of their playmates. Gotta believe ALL the neighbors know about this guy. Some of the others looked "really creepy". I see these websites as part of an atmosphere of fear peddled to us these days - it keeps our eye off the real ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hawkins Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) The theory is indeed one thing. But the empirical research - consistently, and as far as we know - denies that we have the predictive capacity to know anything much at all about recidivism. I think your human nature point is pertinent, but seems to me to be logically a bit out of step. What of the human nature of the criminal who has done his/her time? Shouldn't we respect their capacity NOT to offend in the future? This, after all, is clearly a function of their autonomy/nature. The statistics regarding pedophillic recidivism are not ambiguous. I'm all for treating the perpetrators with civil dignity, but until a way is found to make "rehabilitaion" a plausible possibility instead of an abstract talking point, I'm also in favor of having information at my disposal that allows me, not to get in their faces, but simply to keep my kids away from theirs. I see no malevolence whatsoever in that. But the moral point aside, the danger is not your malevolence - and I don't think anyone could/has put that charge - but that of a vigilante minority. As to recidivism - of course, we know that many paedophiles are recidivists. This does not prove, though, that paedophilia is a crime with a high rate of recidivism; and of course, it tells us nothing about the likely future offending of any given individual. FWIW, there are a few programmes which have shown some capacity to 'rehabilitate' in relation to certain types of crime (whatever the word might mean; I entirely concur with your inverted commas!); but very few, and in very few instances. Edited February 18, 2006 by Red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hawkins Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 I see these websites as part of an atmosphere of fear peddled to us these days - it keeps our eye off the real ball. Agreed. I'd also argue it's also part of a convenient privatisation of criminal/social justice (see also private security contractors; CCTV; privatised prisons; etc. etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 I searched out the "files" of the "perps" in my area. At least two (possibly more) were horny teenagers and the girl's parents filed a complaint to end the "romance". How long will this follow these guys around. A couple of the other cases involve charges in divorces. The only other case I knew anything about involved a really sick "grandpa" who diddled with his grandkids and a couple of their playmates. Gotta believe ALL the neighbors know about this guy. Some of the others looked "really creepy". I see these websites as part of an atmosphere of fear peddled to us these days - it keeps our eye off the real ball. I pretty much agree with Chuck on some of these things insofar as there's alot of harm in lumping all these sexual predator charges into one thing. I want to know about penis-playing-joe down the street, not the 19 year old boning the 17 year old who gets nailed because the folks didn't dig it. And it does play into our sense of fear and the sky is falling and everything else Primetime Live covers. That said, I think there is a place for this although there should be some parameters which include what the crime actually entailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) I searched out the "files" of the "perps" in my area. At least two (possibly more) were horny teenagers and the girl's parents filed a complaint to end the "romance". How long will this follow these guys around. A couple of the other cases involve charges in divorces. The only other case I knew anything about involved a really sick "grandpa" who diddled with his grandkids and a couple of their playmates. Gotta believe ALL the neighbors know about this guy. Some of the others looked "really creepy". I see these websites as part of an atmosphere of fear peddled to us these days - it keeps our eye off the real ball. Well now, that raises the issue of is this site screening their info in any form or fashion, and it doesn't seem to be. Which is why it gives me the creeps. It also raises the issue of whether or not the legal system is dealing in true justice or merely pandering to the current clime by taking a one-size-fits-all approach to any and all charges dealing with such matters. I think we know the answer to that one too. But... I live in a neighborhood where about a third of the people move in and out every few years, most often w/o getting too friendly with the "veterans". If "Gramps" was to move in, I'd like to know, not to bust his chops or ostracize him. Hell, I'd even smile and greet him as I passed him on the sidewalk. I just want to make sure that my kids didn't wander over there alone. Tell me that you wouldn't want the same. Edited February 18, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 That said, I think there is a place for this although there should be some parameters which include what the crime actually entailed. The "place for this" is in the hands of the authorities, not the friggin' internet. Details of the crime sounds really prurient to me. "The young man slowly.................". We got really bad boys out here? Pass a law and whack off the penis. We got at least one bad mom on my search. Now we have a physical problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMX Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Holy shitballs! There's only one within 10 miles of me and it's the guy that was best man at my parents' wedding (talk about a marriage that was doomed from the start).We lost track of this guy about 30 years ago, but it's the same first and last name, and the same address the guy was at 30 years ago - looks like him too, 'cept he ain't smiling in the photo I found on the county website. Sexual battery - of what, it doesn't say. Well, that drunken mob's not going to incite itself - guess I'd better get going... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 That said, I think there is a place for this although there should be some parameters which include what the crime actually entailed. The "place for this" is in the hands of the authorities, not the friggin' internet What happened to "power the the people?" Are we going to let "the man" control it all? Of course, who is Big Brother, in the end it just might be us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.