[US] Post the Sex Criminal nearest YOU!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Wezil


I understand your point but it seems if the child is protected with general knowledge/tactics the specific threat has been dealt with.

If you want to inform them of the monster next door you will have other issues to deal with (ie fear).

There are some things that children are not mentally and physically equipped to deal with i.e. they are children! I would no more allow a pedophile to live near my children any more than I would a vicious dog, or reckless driver. Those are dangers that parents must actively deal with. One can see a vicious dog or reckless driver that lives in your neighborhood. The information provided by websites such as this provides parents with a 'heads-up' as to dangers that may be living next door.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Winston
Then you must have overlooked my question as to the rational argument for a practice that has no measurable effect on the prevention of sexual offenses.

You are setting an impossible criteria. How do you propose the preventative effect be measured?

That it must have some preventative effect is just common sense. In a country of almost 300 million there must have been at least a few bad situations which were avoided thanks to this sort of information being available. If only 1 child was prevented from being molested then it is worth it.

And why do you keep insisting on the "child protection" aspect of it? I thought we agreed that sexual offenses are equally severe whether the victim is an adult or not?

Not just child protection, but family protection. If I lived in a rough area then I would want my wife to know about as many of the surrounding potential rapists as possible.

[Q Classic]

Apparently, there are over 500 people in my area on this list.

Even more amusing, I'm on it 437 times!

[Q Classic]

More seriously, I'm not quite certain that lists such as these are always grand--largely because in certain aspects, I'm still weighing the relative values of privacy versus free information.

However, and though I'm not sure about this particular list, I am aware that many people have appeared on these "sex offender" lists for crimes as soliciting a prostitute. Morality judgements on prostitution aside, it's hard to argue that someone whose only stain on a record is "got his balls busted trying to hire a consenting adult with whom to have sex" is deserving to be lumped in with someone who gets his willie into little children.

[chequita guevara]

Statisitically speaking, your children are in much greater anger from you than they are from strangers. Thus the only logical conclusion is to take your kids away and give them to strangers.

[Q Classic]

Child Services does that a lot, to mixed results. I've lost six of my kids that way.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If only 1 child was prevented from being molested then it is worth it.

Which is where we disagree. I posed the question earlier how large a percentage of sexual offenses this scheme has prevented, and further asked how that would compare to the negative impact on people's right to privacy. I could have added "right to not be subjected to witch hunts for no good reason", but the privacy concern will do, because that is what affects not a few, not most, but ALL of the people on this list.

I don't know how many children (always with the children. Apparently you have exclusive information that adults have suddenly stopped being victims of sexual offenses) would have to be spared by this list for it to balance the negative consequences for the people on it, but I do know that until someone is able to come up with some sort of documentation that the "sex offender" list actually prevents sexual offenses (and if so, to what extent), there is absolutely no rational argument that can be made for its existence. And until then, you have nothing to back up your support of it, except the pretention of being a concerned parent, totally unconcerned with whether it actually does more good than harm.

[chequita guevara]

I am facing the dubious prospect of agreeing with everything Winston has written here.

[Winston]

There, there. Again, I that avatar!

[Q Classic]

Honestly? Sex Offender lists strike me as a sort of Scarlet Letter.

I think I might be against them, just by the simple virtue of Hawthorne's book being such utter crap.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Winston


Which is where we disagree. I posed the question earlier how large a percentage of sexual offenses this scheme has prevented, and further asked how that would compare to the negative impact on people's right to privacy. I could have added "right to not be subjected to witch hunts for no good reason", but the privacy concern will do, because that is what affects not a few, not most, but ALL of the people on this list.

I don't know how many children (always with the children. Apparently you have exclusive information that adults have suddenly stopped being victims of sexual offenses) would have to be spared by this list for it to balance the negative consequences for the people on it, but I do know that until someone is able to come up with some sort of documentation that the "sex offender" list actually prevents sexual offenses (and if so, to what extent), there is absolutely no rational argument that can be made for its existence. And until then, you have nothing to back up your support of it, except the pretention of being a concerned parent, totally unconcerned with whether it actually does more good than harm.

If you are so convinced that it does more harm than good, then why can't you supply any evidence of that? If the only harm you can point to is that sex offenders lose some privacy, then I'm sorry but that is not good enough for me. I'll cry no tears over their "right to privacy" - they showed no concern for the privacy of their victims. I'm far more concerned about the safety of those who have not committed sexual violence against others.

It should be rather self-evident that making a community aware of those who have committed sexual violence in the past will have some kind of positive preventative effect. No, I don't have anything concrete to 'prove' this, but neither do you have anything to prove abuse of the information on these sites. That leaves me defending the rights of innocents, and you defending the rights of convicted sex offenders.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
they showed no concern for the privacy of their victims. I'm far more concerned about the safety of those who have not committed sexual violence against others.

They've already paid for their crimes. Unless other violent and dangerous criminals are treated the same way, I see no reason to single these people out.

[Q Classic]

I miss the good ol' days when sex offenders were castrated and branded, theives had their hands chopped off, and murderers were executed.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Caligastia


If you are so convinced that it does more harm than good, then why can't you supply any evidence of that? If the only harm you can point to is that sex offenders lose some privacy, then I'm sorry but that is not good enough for me. I'll cry no tears over their "right to privacy" - they showed no concern for the privacy of their victims. I'm far more concerned about the safety of those who have not committed sexual violence against others.

It should be rather self-evident that making a community aware of those who have committed sexual violence in the past will have some kind of positive preventative effect. No, I don't have anything concrete to 'prove' this, but neither do you have anything to prove abuse of the information on these sites. That leaves me defending the rights of innocents, and you defending the rights of convicted sex offenders.

Which brings us back to my initial point, made in my first post back on page one. The inexplicable state of exasperation that the mere words "sex offender" cause in some people - who at the same time keep humming happily along when words like "murderer", "kleptomaniac", "arsonist" or genocidist" are brought up.

It's like some people (like you?) have an intrinsic irrational hatred of people convicted (or as the case might be, accused) of one particular, broad, type of offense, while other, even worse, types of offenders seem to cause no special reaction in them. Not one that even comes close to the SEX OFFENDER-hysteria anyway.

Why do you think that is?

[chequita guevara]

Cuz we take sex wayyyyyy to seriously.