Should there be a Sex Offender Registry?

[Zoice]

Yes, there should be a registry for ALL condemned sex offenders, it MUST be public and offenders should be barred from certain places and jobs.
Women's safeness is a major issue compared to the issue of reintegration of condemned men, so I don't think that a "secret" sex offenders registry woul be a good idea.
There should be even a registry for men charged with sex crimes, before the condemnation I mean, without punishments because people shouldn't be punished as long as they aren't condemned, but such registry would be very useful in order to avoid such suspected (and very likely to be) sex criminals.

Poe?

Poe, right?

... right?

... Guys.....?

Please... please... please.... it must be Poe...

[Wallenburg]

Yes, there should be a registry for ALL condemned sex offenders, it MUST be public and offenders should be barred from certain places and jobs.
Women's safeness is a major issue compared to the issue of reintegration of condemned men, so I don't think that a "secret" sex offenders registry woul be a good idea.
There should be even a registry for men charged with sex crimes, before the condemnation I mean, without punishments because people shouldn't be punished as long as they aren't condemned, but such registry would be very useful in order to avoid such suspected (and very likely to be) sex criminals.

Poe?

Poe, right?

... right?

... Guys.....?

Please... please... please.... it must be Poe...

Nope. Chessmistress never kids.

[Gauthier]

Poe?

Poe, right?

... right?

... Guys.....?

Please... please... please.... it must be Poe...

Nope. Chessmistress never kids.

And when the world looks an awful lot like Gor novels, Mission Accomplished.

[New Grestin]

It should be available to businesses and organizations doing background checks, particularly if a person is going into government positions.

Otherwise, it shouldn't be publicly available. Only for law-enforcement agencies and the aforementioned background checks.

Frankly, if a person is a sex offender and is released from prison, the law should keep tabs on them. The general public just can't be trusted not to abuse that kind of sensitive information.

[Zaldakki]

Yes, there should be a registry for ALL condemned sex offenders, it MUST be public and offenders should be barred from certain places and jobs.
Women's safeness is a major issue compared to the issue of reintegration of condemned men, so I don't think that a "secret" sex offenders registry woul be a good idea.
There should be even a registry for men charged with sex crimes, before the condemnation I mean, without punishments because people shouldn't be punished as long as they aren't condemned, but such registry would be very useful in order to avoid such suspected (and very likely to be) sex criminals.

Women commit sex crimes too...

[Zaldakki]

I don't think public urination should put people on the registry. Pretty much every guy has peed on trees.

[New Grestin]

Yes, there should be a registry for ALL condemned sex offenders, it MUST be public and offenders should be barred from certain places and jobs.
Women's safeness is a major issue compared to the issue of reintegration of condemned men, so I don't think that a "secret" sex offenders registry woul be a good idea.
There should be even a registry for men charged with sex crimes, before the condemnation I mean, without punishments because people shouldn't be punished as long as they aren't condemned, but such registry would be very useful in order to avoid such suspected (and very likely to be) sex criminals.

:eyebrow:
Women commit sex crimes too...

You can always bet on Chessmistress to comically miss the point.

[Wallenburg]

Yes, there should be a registry for ALL condemned sex offenders, it MUST be public and offenders should be barred from certain places and jobs.
Women's safeness is a major issue compared to the issue of reintegration of condemned men, so I don't think that a "secret" sex offenders registry woul be a good idea.
There should be even a registry for men charged with sex crimes, before the condemnation I mean, without punishments because people shouldn't be punished as long as they aren't condemned, but such registry would be very useful in order to avoid such suspected (and very likely to be) sex criminals.

Women commit sex crimes too...

HERESY! You are clearly a misogynist!

[Risottia]

It should be available to businesses and organizations doing background checks, particularly if a person is going into government positions.

Otherwise, it shouldn't be publicly available. Only for law-enforcement agencies and the aforementioned background checks.

Frankly, if a person is a sex offender and is released from prison, the law should keep tabs on them. The general public just can't be trusted not to abuse that kind of sensitive information.

I don't understand why one should trust businesses with sensible data that can't be entrusted to the general public.

Also, why a registry for sex crimes and not for murder, manslaughter, robbery, theft, fraud, kidnapping, tax evasion, bribery, organised crime, bad parenting...

[New Grestin]

It should be available to businesses and organizations doing background checks, particularly if a person is going into government positions.

Otherwise, it shouldn't be publicly available. Only for law-enforcement agencies and the aforementioned background checks.

Frankly, if a person is a sex offender and is released from prison, the law should keep tabs on them. The general public just can't be trusted not to abuse that kind of sensitive information.

I don't understand why one should trust businesses with sensible data that can't be entrusted to the general public.

Also, why a registry for sex crimes and not for murder, manslaughter, robbery, theft, fraud, kidnapping, tax evasion, bribery, organised crime, bad parenting...

Honestly, I'm far more willing to let a business do a background check then let a bunch of jimmy-rustled mothers turn into an angry mob because someone moved into the neighborhood that's on the registry.

Not being sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure law-enforcement agencies already keep track of that kind of thing, and most states have sites where you can search people's criminal records.

Hell, a registry just for sex-offenders is kind of redundant in that way.

[Risottia]

I don't understand why one should trust businesses with sensible data that can't be entrusted to the general public.

Also, why a registry for sex crimes and not for murder, manslaughter, robbery, theft, fraud, kidnapping, tax evasion, bribery, organised crime, bad parenting...

Honestly, I'm far more willing to let a business do a background check then let a bunch of jimmy-rustled mothers turn into an angry mob because someone moved into the neighborhood that's on the registry.

Honestly, I'm far more willing to prevent both of them. If they want and they can prove they have a legitimate need to know, they can ask the judiciary.

[New Grestin]

Honestly, I'm far more willing to let a business do a background check then let a bunch of jimmy-rustled mothers turn into an angry mob because someone moved into the neighborhood that's on the registry.

Honestly, I'm far more willing to prevent both of them. If they want and they can prove they have a legitimate need to know, they can ask the judiciary.

I suppose can see that. It would certainly keep both issues under control.

My god, I just agreed with someone on NSG. The world might actually be ending.

[Shazbotdom]

Ummm.....There is already a National Sex Offender Registry Database for the United States and is operated by the United States Department of Justice.

[Cenetra]

Good to see rad fems cater to the destruction of innocent lives who end up in the registry falsely.

Innocents are less than 2%.
What about the lives of the women that would be unaware about the threat posed by the other 98%?

I know I got here late, but holy shit Chess, you've outdone yourself in the lying department.

So, there's a widely circulated number, I can't remember where from, that 2-8% of accusations that make it to the police are demonstrably false (as in, the accuser's story was obviously inconsistent, there was exonerating evidence that made it obvious the defendant couldn't have done it, accuser recanted, etc). I can't remember the exact number that are demonstrably true, but it's also pretty small. Now, feminists love to act like ALL rape accusations not proven false are true (e.g. saying "90% of rapists walk free" when 10% of rape accusations lead to a conviction), and commonly throw around the 2-8% when really it's a lowball estimate of the rate of false accusations since the MAJORITY of accusations are simply inconclusive - there's no real evidence either way.

Now, I've occasionally seen particularly dishonest radfems cite the extreme lower bound of 2% as the number of false accusations. But ChessMistress has gone a step beyond this, and claimed that 2% is the UPPER BOUND. This is not merely dishonest, it is an outright lie.

Yes, there should be a registry for ALL condemned sex offenders, it MUST be public and offenders should be barred from certain places and jobs.
Women's safeness is a major issue compared to the issue of reintegration of condemned men, so I don't think that a "secret" sex offenders registry woul be a good idea.
There should be even a registry for men charged with sex crimes, before the condemnation I mean, without punishments because people shouldn't be punished as long as they aren't condemned, but such registry would be very useful in order to avoid such suspected (and very likely to be) sex criminals.

Women commit sex crimes too...

Not in Radfem-Land, which is where Chess lives.

Anyway, to my actual opinion. No, there shouldn't be a sex offender registry. Far too many people end up on it for minor crimes or crimes committed as minors, for one thing. For another thing, registered sex offenders essentially have no ability to get a job, and may have literally nowhere they can legally live because everywhere in a city is within the illegal distance of a prohibited location like a school or library. Of course, they're also barred from homeless shelters IIRC. AND because anyone can look up sex offenders and where they live IIRC, the government is basically feeding their personal info to wannabe vigilantes. I'd call this cruel and unusual punishment. Third, it's not actually very good at discouraging recidivism. When you've given people nothing to lose, and in some cases they'd be better off in prison with free meals and a roof over their heads, you're going to get more re-offenders.

If someone is actually a sufficient threat to public safety that it's necessary to inform everyone they interact with and prohibit them living near any facility where kids might be, then they shouldn't be let out of prison/a mental institution in the first place. The easy fix is for crimes of a sufficient magnitude and/or where the defendant is ruled mentally incapable of NOT re-offending given an opportunity to typically result in life sentences, with the possibility of parole if the offender is actually believed to have reformed.

[The Peoples of Xaer]

I don't think public urination should put people on the registry. Pretty much every guy has peed on trees.

I'm not even a guy and I've peed "in public" on the side of a highway. Not because I wanted to or anything, but when you're stranded in the middle of fucking nowhere Arizona waiting for a tow truck and you gotta take a piss, well, then you squat behind a bush and take care of business. Pretty sure at least a few people driving past got a glimpse of that pale ass in the breeze, that make me an offender?

[Saiwania]

I'm not even a guy and I've peed "in public" on the side of a highway. Not because I wanted to or anything, but when you're stranded in the middle of fucking nowhere Arizona waiting for a tow truck and you gotta take a piss, well, then you squat behind a bush and take care of business. Pretty sure at least a few people driving past got a glimpse of that pale ass in the breeze, that make me an offender?

It can if you live in a state like Florida and you actually manage to get caught and be put onto the list. Normally though, if you're in the woods or nobody is around, no one will care.

[Shamastan]

Once a person has served their time in jail and done their punishment then there shouldn't be some public accessible list. The person has a police file and that's fine enough.

[San Marlindo]

We have lots of children where I live, and the registry is how we learned a convicted child rapist lived in one of the adjacent apartments. Absolutely. It's the right of every parent and homeowner to know about potential troublemakers in the neighborhood without having to bother the police or hire somebody with a private investigator's license to check the registry when they can do it themselves.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Only for the most legitimate cases where you're dealing with actual rapists and pedophiles who act on their urges. People convicted of lesser crimes shouldn't be on it since I question the likelihood of someone charged with, for example, public urination being a child molester or rapist.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Yes, there should be a registry for ALL condemned sex offenders, it MUST be public and offenders should be barred from certain places and jobs.
Women's safeness is a major issue compared to the issue of reintegration of condemned men, so I don't think that a "secret" sex offenders registry woul be a good idea.
There should be even a registry for men charged with sex crimes, before the condemnation I mean, without punishments because people shouldn't be punished as long as they aren't condemned, but such registry would be very useful in order to avoid such suspected (and very likely to be) sex criminals.

Because who needs due process right?

CM has always shown disdain towards due process because of that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing.

[Gauthier]

Because who needs due process right?

CM has always shown disdain towards due process because of that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing.

But only as long as it's only men who get strung up without due process. The moment a woman gets strung up... RAEG.

[The balkens]

Yes, i want to be alerted when some asshat is around in my neighborhood.

[Gauthier]

Yes, i want to be alerted when some asshat is around in my neighborhood.

Of course when the registry doesn't bother to say if the guy has to tell everyone like he's a baby rapist for getting caught pissing in public...

[Tahar Joblis]

You're goddamn right there ought to be one. For some things, I have absolutely no problem pulling the name and shame bit. HOWEVER ... our current system is fucked, and it needs serious sorting.

Kids who got slammed with 'offender' status for sexting one another or some shit needs to go. The only people I have any concern about are pedophiles who've acted on their urges and been convicted (they'd automatically go on if they even started to think about acting them out if I had my way, but given that's impossible, lets stick with as much of a justice system as we can get in our flawed setup), convicted rapists, violent offenders, and people who present a real and present potential danger to others.

Why, you might ask?

First - seriously? I'd think anyone who has a history of these types of actions ought to be tagged, and innocent folk have a right to know who may pose a threat in their area. Our system is set up with a heavy bent towards worrying about the 'rights' of the convict, and to hell with the victim's or potential victim's rights as is. A bit of a heads up would be appreciated.

Caveat - if people take it into their own hands to pull any sort of illegal activity, harassment, or otherwise untoward action against someone on the list, they ought to be prosecuted for it. Ain't no call for creating trouble if there is none. By all means, be aware - but people do have a right to live. Even the ones who've done fucked up, like it or not. Not to mention that if someone who's already had problems is monitored, yet left well enough alone otherwise, they may actually have a fair shot at not repeating the action. But push too far, work them into a corner with no options, and I figure even the strongest end up with a 'what do I have to lose' mindset.

Bear with me. It's late, and I'm rambling a bit, but I am trying to get the points across in an understandable enough way.

Bottom line is we need to keep a watch on those who need extra watching without doing so in a way that can create a worse situation, while doing our best to keep more bad things from happening, and enabling the general public to be aware without enabling them to do harm in return.

No, it will never be a perfect system, given how flawed we, as humans are, but hey. You do the crime, you get to live with the consequences, I figure. That may mean time served, and released to attempt to do better. That shouldn't also mean 'completely clean slate' or 'all is forgotten' along with any potential 'forgiven' inference. Hope that made some sort of sense somewhere in there. If not, gimme a shout, and I'll try to elaborate more coherently.

Why do we really need anything more than criminal background checks for the purpose of making sure that the information is out there?

What's really all that different between sex offender registries and access to public records that include criminal backgrounds? We have both in place in the US, and in the information age, it's really easy to pull together and correlate things if you need to know.

There are basically three features.

(1) Extra police tracking.
(2) Public notification.
(3) Assortment of patchwork restrictions on, for example, where sex offenders are permitted to live.

At the average registry size, in fact, we find that a
notification regime (not including the distinct effects of a registration system) increases the
number of sex offenses by more than 0.3 offenses per 10,000 people, or 3 percent. These results
suggest that notification may serve as a deterrent to unregistered individuals, but registered
offenders subject to notification may commit more crime, perhaps because of social and financial
costs associated with the public release of their personal information.

The deleterious effects of the patchwork restrictions are well-documented (leading to sex offenders dropping off the grid, living under bridges, et cetera). Extra police tracking doesn't necessarily have a deleterious effect (although it can get expensive) and looks to be helpful - just as you would expect from any investment by police into keeping track of potential criminals.

Can public notification serve as a deterrent? Yes. Does it help prevent recidivism - its supposed purpose? No. The only visible result of trying to mandate crowd-sourcing recidivism prevention is the persecution of offenders, leading ultimately to more, rather than less, recidivism.

Can offender registries be made sane and successfully restricted to only the most dangerous offenders, while excluding those with a low baseline risk of reoffense? I seriously doubt it. Can a public notification process that goes above and beyond normal public access to public records ever be anything but cruel and unusual punishment? I seriously doubt that as well.

The same forces that lead to teenagers sexting (or for that matter having sex with each other) being treated as a serious criminal offense also push them towards being put on sex offender registries. Sex offender registries will not become sane unless the treatment of all minor criminal offenses remotely related to sex becomes sane.

[Luziyca]

For government and certain licensed organizations purposes yes, otherwise no. It should not be publically available. If an org deals with children or vulnerable adults it can have access to the registry, for instance.

Basically, this. But at the same time, the public needs to know the potential threats in the neighborhood.

Maybe a public list could be for those convicted of serious offenses.