Misplaced sympathy?
A landslide of 70% of Californians approved of Jessica’s Law, but there is apparently a lot of misplaced sympathy for these low criminals among the community of those who “care” more than the rest of us, and apparently do so for a living. AP:
Jessica’s Law, approved by 70 percent of California voters a year ago, bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather. That leaves few places where offenders can live legally. Some who have had trouble finding a place to live are avoiding re-arrest by reporting — falsely, in some cases — that they are homeless.
Experts say it is hard to monitor sex offenders when they lie about their address or are living day-to-day in cheap hotels, homeless shelters or on the street. It also means they may not be getting the treatment they need. “We could potentially be making the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous,” said therapist Gerry Blasingame, past chairman of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending. Similar laws in Iowa and Florida have driven offenders underground or onto the streets. “They drop off the registry because they don’t want to admit living in a prohibited zone”…
We are apparently missing the point, but there’s so much foolishness abroad in the land that it is hard to keep up. This new scofflaw behavior seems like a good development. These often incorrigible offenders are placing themselves in a situation where, once they’re nabbed for this or that, they are obviously to be seen as parole violators. Seems like a good way to help keep them incarcerated for much of their lives, which is what should happen to many of these fine specimens of humanity.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good
http://www.hrw.org/
The Adam Walsh Act
The federal Adam Walsh Act, passed in 2006, will exacerbate the problems with state sex offender laws. It forces states to either dramatically increase the scope and duration of registration and community notification restrictions – including requiring states to register youths as young as 14 – or lose some federal law enforcement grant money. Compliance with the Adam Walsh Act will preclude states from adopting more carefully calibrated and cost-effective registration and community notification policies. At least some states are debating whether the costs of complying with the law outweigh the benefits. Human Rights Watch urges reform of the Adam Walsh Act.
Listen to Patty Wetterling:
http://hrw.org/audio/2007/english/us09/usdom16819.htm
November 1st, 2007 at 9:21 am
News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex Offender Issues: Charts Library
2006 News & Noteworthy
Who will commit more new sex offenses within 3-years of being paroled, sex offenders -OR- non-sex offenders? Non sex offenders commit more new sex offenses when paroled!
Released (Paroled) Offender Type Paroled ReArrested for
New Sex Offense %/# of New Sex
Offenses by Parolees Convicted of
New Sex Offense
9,691 Sex Offenders 5.3% (517) 13% (1 every 2 days) 3.5% (339)
262,420 Non-Sex Offenders 1.3% (3,328) 87% (3 per day) 83% (2,179)
272,111 All Offenders 1.4% (3,845) 100%
Based upon (Pub 2003): Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994. (NCJ 198281).
November 1st, 2007 at 10:23 am
I find myself wondering if you stop to think before you speak. “Incorrigable offenders”, you say. Would that be public urinators or Romeo & Juliet cases? Or perhaps the streakers or skinny-dippers from the 70’s? How about the people who don’t have any repeat offenses for 30, 40 and 50 years? Or maybe you mean the kids who are below the age of consent and JUST BARELY above it.
Do you seriously think these are all violent rapists? Do you really think that these are all people who will steal our children away in the dead of night? If you do, then you’ve bought into a lie. Our children are more likely to be molested by Uncle Andrew than some faceless stranger from the sex offender registry. Ask me, I know! My son was molested by my ex-husband, and I MADE myself familiar with the statistics so I would KNOW where the danger is. Only to find out that the public urination and Romeo and Juliet types of crimes sit there looking like REAL sex offenders, and have all the same restrictions placed on them!
November 1st, 2007 at 11:28 am
Is there a reason my comments are NOT allowed in as others are??
I like facts not myths, lies or bias reporting. Please allow my posts.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
SMART ON CRIME
The backlash to these Residency Laws for sexual offenders are hurting the entire country. Passing laws based on media hype and fear has done little or nothing to protect even one child.
Getting ‘tough or crime’ sounds good and may get votes. However that approach has snowballed until every law maker has to ‘out tough’ the next law maker until we have draconian laws that have just the opposite effect than what is desired.
Law makers need to change their position to get “SMART ON CRIME,” as opposed to out toughing one another.
Society is catching on to the fact that it has been duped with false statistics on recidivism and basically every aspect concerning a sexual offense. The John Coueys of the world are a very small fraction of the equation. 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by individuals who are not on any type of registry. They have yet to commit a crime or not yet been caught. I believe, for those on the registries, there needs to be a ‘SMART’ answer. The registries themselves need to be in the hands of police only with the exception of that minority who is known as a true predator and pedophile. Who are they.? Well, the law makers need REAL experts to assist in making these decisions. John Walsh and his organization are not even close to qualify.
“SMART ON CRIME” v “TOUGH ON CRIME.” I’ll go with SMART every time. Then we can get back to being a nation and a state that grants an opportunity to every individual to rehabilitation. This entire nation that I am so proud of has gone down a very slippery slope.
Linda
November 4th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Please define, at least a little bit, what, as you put it, SMART means. There is nothing in the comment that even gives us a hint. In the real world justice must be swift, sure, and as decades long crime trends clearly show, proportional. As a one time resident of NYC during the reign of the late and unlamented John Lindsey mayorality, the result of a passive approach to crime was chaos leading to more, and more brazen, crime. The presence of a strict approach to convicted sex offenders will contribute to a decision of those not yet involved in such a despicable activity to stifle their impulses. Look at the peer reviewed studies on capital punishment and murder rates - the existence and implementation of capital punishment lowers the murder rate, and thus saves lives. You have my approval to step into the wayback machine and revisit the seventies to see the effectiveness of the Ramsey Clark-inspired “SMART ON CRIME” policy.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
i got put on the registry for peeing outside on a bush in college at my buddies party cause the bathroom was full with a line, and i was recovering from a urinary tract infection. Now i have basically no freedom and rights in terms of employment, residency, and reputation. but at one time i was a happy college kid. This has truly ruined my entire life eating its own path inside my body and mind from the inside out.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The Adam Walsh law is not only a smack in the face to those sex offenders who are trying to make the best of their lives, but to ALL the United States. The states have two choice either abide to the laws and enforce them or take a 10% cut in their crime fighting funds. When you look back at how much more it will cost us to put GPS tracking on these persons and how much more we will pay to change all the systems. The 10% is a joke. These men or woman who are having their lives turned upside down for what. Those who are sex offenders and continuously re offending then yes they do deserve to have stricter laws. But those who made a mistake and who have cleaned up done their time in jail, finished their consulting, and have become working members of society, what are we thinking. We are going to see more people going back to the already overcrowded prisons, because it will be easier to live in prison than try and overcome the ridiculous new laws and regulations. What are we trying to prove? The national suicide rate is going to increase. Giving up will be easier, this law is nothing for than a joke. when we hear the word sex offender instantly we think the worse. not all cases are what they seem. This act violates these peoples rights by changing their teir levels without allowing them a trial by jury.