« Notable new resource from USSC concerning federal sentencing of veterans | Main | Triple killer in North Carolina taunts he is "gentleman of leisure" of death row »

January 24, 2012

"Out of 747,408 Registered Sex Offenders, How Many Are Actually Dangerous?"

The question in the title of this post is from the heading of this recent posting by Jason Sollum over at Reason.  Here are excerpts (with links) that explain both clauses of the query:

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) reports that the number of registered sex offenders in the United States has increased by nearly a quarter in the last five years. The total in the most recent survey was 747,408, up from 606,816 in 2006, the first year NCMEC did a count....  NCMEC CEO Ernie Allen says registration "is a reasonable measure designed to provide important information to authorities and to help protect the public, particularly children." Yet his group does not say how many of the 747,408 people listed on sex offender registries are predatory criminals who actually pose a threat to public safety, probably because it does not know....

Allen avers that "these registries are especially important because of the high risk of re-offense by some of these offenders" (emphasis added).  As I note in [this July 2011] Reason piece, recidivism rates for sex offenders seem to have been greatly exaggerated. In any case, if protecting potential victims is the raison d'etre for the registries, shouldn't they be limited to people who are likely to commit crimes against others?

January 24, 2012 at 01:23 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2016761019799970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Out of 747,408 Registered Sex Offenders, How Many Are Actually Dangerous?":

Comments

We are not children. These registries would not have saved their namesakes, Megan, Adam, Jessica. They carry a warning, that they are not to be used to harass or bother the sex offender in any way. None has decreased the number of child abuse victims.

So what are they for? They generate government make work jobs for rent seeking lawyers.

Grow up.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 24, 2012 3:09:09 PM

almost all of them. its a myth that a significant number of people are getting on the sex offender registry for having consensual sex as teenagers or other minor crimes. most everyone on the sex offender registries have committed a violent felony offense against an adult or child or has engaged in predatory sexual activities with children below the age of consent or has possessed images of children being sexually assaulted including raped.

How many times does one have to commit a rape or sexually assault a child before it is fair to presume they are dangerous? I'd say once.

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 24, 2012 3:29:17 PM

What would have saved Megan, Adam and Jessica? 123D. Start the count at 14. No violent repeat sex predator makes it to 18.

Even a foam at the mouth feminist like Virginia does not support real incapacitation of repeat violent sex offenders? Why? They generate worthless government make work jobs for lawyers. All lawyers, whether defense or prosecutorial, need to disclose their financial conflicts of interest in immunizing and protecting even the worst of the worst violent offenders.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 24, 2012 4:31:07 PM

I have met many who are on the Registry. The Registry destroys lives of those on the Registry and their families.
Being on the Registry doesn't make you any more dangerous than dotting your "i"s with a happy face makes you stupid and immature.

Posted by: JS | Jan 24, 2012 5:11:45 PM

Virginia: 10 year old boy pees in an alley in Texas. Police see his wee-wee, now he is a registered sex offender. That was not even a sex act, it was an urinary act possibly covered by the ADAAA, revised edition. We are sick and tired of you feminist lawyers running a snitch state. Given the self-dealt immunities of the feminist lawyer in total control of the criminal law, pushback in public self-help has full moral, intellectual, and policy justification. It should begin with a registry of lawyers, and a boycott by all product and service providers. A cardiologist seeing a registered feminist lawyer having a heart attack should just watch, not even call 911, let alone try to help.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 24, 2012 6:08:14 PM

SC --

With all respect, Erika is right about this one. Almost all the people on the registry pose one degree or another of recidivist danger.

It is of course possible to find outlier cases, and you have done so. But outlier cases are just that. The truth is that the registry does not, to any significant degree, consist of little boys urinating, or locker room horseplay, or Romeo/Juliet romances. It basically consists of people, almost all of them men, who committed or attempted to commit rape.

There are places where feminism has gone way overboard. There are other places -- sex crimes among them -- where the problem is not feminism, however exaggerated, but male behavior.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 24, 2012 7:49:28 PM

Bill: They list the offenders. One may not even talk to them without risking arrest and civil litigation. One just lives in fear of the neighbor across the road. One may move, perhaps.

Find me another outlier, any victim that any registry has ever helped or prevented victimization. If the person is dangerous, they should be incapacitated, not listed.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 24, 2012 9:04:12 PM

"almost all of them. its a myth that a significant number of people are getting on the sex offender registry for having consensual sex as teenagers or other minor crimes. most everyone on the sex offender registries have committed a violent felony offense against an adult or child or has engaged in predatory sexual activities with children below the age of consent or has possessed images of children being sexually assaulted including raped." ????????????????????????

And where in the hell did you come up with this bit of in-authentic tripe?

Please site your authority.

Posted by: Book38 | Jan 24, 2012 10:16:47 PM

Book38:

Facts! We don't NEED NO STINKING FACTS!

Paraphrased from the Magnificent Seven for Wet Behind the EARS

Posted by: albeed | Jan 24, 2012 10:32:00 PM

"It basically consists of people, almost all of them men, who committed or attempted to commit rape."

Well, if you look at those fed into the registries from the federal system, it basically consists of people who have looked at pictures of the things you described.

Barkley.

Posted by: Barkely | Jan 24, 2012 10:39:42 PM

Sorry, but the idea that most or almost all of the people on the registry are dangerous is a product of a fevered imagination. Most sex offenders never reoffend, and upwards of 90% of sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders. I won't deny that there are some people on the registry who *are* threats, they are unfortunately obscured by the vast majority of people who are not persistent threats.

Posted by: Guy | Jan 24, 2012 10:59:00 PM

Barkley --

"Well, if you look at those fed into the registries from the federal system, it basically consists of people who have looked at pictures of the things you described."

You are correct that, if you look at a small fraction, you will see the contents of a small fraction.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 24, 2012 11:09:34 PM

Bill: Thanks for th erespect. Are there any controlled studies showing any benefit to victims from registration?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 25, 2012 12:35:32 AM

SC --

You're welcome. You are the rare poster who doesn't take personal shots, calls them as you see them (sometimes my way and sometimes not), knows about an amazing variety of stuff, and will say politically vastly incorrect things.

Not that I share your worldview, but that's neither here nor there for present purposes.

To answer your question, I am not aware of any studies of the kind you're asking about. Such studies would be hard to come by in any event, since they essentially would ask for a measure of things that DON'T happen. That's a toughie.

I'll also concede that I have little direct experience with the topic. When I was in the USAO, it was mostly drugs, guns and fraud.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 25, 2012 2:52:31 AM

book38: "And where in the hell did you come up with this bit of in-authentic tripe?"

me: I've actually looked at the sex offender registry in several locations and across the board, almost everyone is there for forcible sex offenses. There are some people there for prohibited consensual offenses - adults (including senior citizens - very icky!) who had sex with teenagers generally at least a decade younger than themselves or inscest. Any adult who is trolling middle schools for dates is engaging in sexually predatory behavior. And any adult over the age of about 20 who is trolling high schools for dates is engaging in sexually predatory behavior. Then there are the child porn offenders. That still equals danger. There are people busted for taking upskirt shots - and maybe they aren't dangerous per se - yet, but they are still violating women and are seriously creepy and why take the risk that they might escalate their behavior to actual rape. Then there are the flashers - contrary to what people think, they tend to be people who repeatedly and intentionally flash at children. That equals danger. Or they flash at women - which like upskirt photographers maybe are not dangerous per se yet, but they are still seriously creepy and society should not have to take the risk of escalation.

Pretty much the answer to the false claims that the sex offender registries are not filled with dangerous people and sexual predators is shown merely by actually looking at the sex offender registry where you live. Then look at the registries in every place where you've lived in the past or places where you often visit. That will provide a sufficient sample to show that yes, the sex offender registries are filled with dangerous people. Unless you somehow want to argue that someone who rapes a 6 year old girl is not dangerous? How many rapes of 6 year olds does it take before you admit that someone is a dangerous icky perv who should be locked up for life?

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 25, 2012 5:57:55 AM

js: "Being on the Registry doesn't make you any more dangerous than dotting your "i"s with a happy face makes you stupid and immature."

me: cute implied insult, but i actually dot my i with a little heart and put a little smile after the signature - its especially effective for letters threatening to sue someone :P

no, "being on the register" does not make one dangerous - what makes one dangerous is the conduct the icky perv or rapists did to get on the register. raping a child makes one dangerous. sexually molesting a child makes one dangerous. looking at child pron makes one dangerous. exposing your wee wee to children makes one dangerous. having sex with teenagers who are often young enough to be your children or grandchildren makes one dangerous. setting up a secret camera to film inside the women's restroom makes one dangerous. taking upskirt shots of women makes one dangerous. raping an adult makes one dangerous.

yes, you have a point about the sexting teenagers and 18 year old boys who have consensual sex with a 15 year old girl are not likely to be dangerous - I would remove those people from the registry unless they commit additional offenses against teenagers while older. but that would be a mere handful of people.

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 25, 2012 6:14:10 AM

albeed: "Paraphrased from the Magnificent Seven for Wet Behind the EARS"

me: that was actually The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, gramps :P

I happen to love old movies :)

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 25, 2012 6:19:15 AM

In Texas, contrary to Bill and Erika's assertions, it's inaccurate that most registrants are "actually dangerous," at least according to those who oversee their supervision. Here's a relevant view from the cop in charge of monitoring registrants in Austin, via the Austin Chronicle:

"Through ignorance, they believe that is synonymous with 'sexual predator,'" says Austin Police Department Lt. Greg Moss. "Registered sex offenders are not only sexual predators."

"An expert on the enforcement of the state's sex offender laws, Moss is the former supervisor over the APD's Sex Offender Apprehension and Registration Unit, a three-detective squad tasked with keeping track of more than 1,500 sexual offenders registered as living in the city of Austin – including Henry. Of those on Austin's list, Moss estimates that just 10% are "your sexually violent predators," those folks who "we should be proactively monitoring, to ensure they're abiding by probation and parole." But APD is responsible for monitoring everyone on the list – a task that is expensive and time-consuming and has very little, if any, positive impact on public safety."

Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | Jan 25, 2012 9:16:42 AM

bill considering 80-95% of all SEX CRIMES ARE FIRST TIME OFFENSES! and REOFFENCE RATES for those on the registry run 10-15% just how can you possible make the stattment below with a STRAIGHT FACE?

"SC --

With all respect, Erika is right about this one. Almost all the people on the registry pose one degree or another of recidivist danger.

It is of course possible to find outlier cases, and you have done so. But outlier cases are just that. The truth is that the registry does not, to any significant degree, consist of little boys urinating, or locker room horseplay, or Romeo/Juliet romances. It basically consists of people, almost all of them men, who committed or attempted to commit rape.

There are places where feminism has gone way overboard. There are other places -- sex crimes among them -- where the problem is not feminism, however exaggerated, but male behavior.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 24, 2012 7:49:28 PM"


if that baloney you spouted was even close to the TRUTH we would not have enough news time to cover the sexual assaults by REGISTERED EX OFFENDERS!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 25, 2012 10:19:40 AM

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to determine there are more dangerous violent offenders on the registry than not. We have turnstiled these freaks so many times out to feed is it any wonder the registry is increasing? I am no doctor, but how much of a stretch is to determine that those abused can, and sometimes grow into abusers? The question is rediculous at its core. We have a failed judicial that spits these guys back out to feed more often than not. After the dismal Judicial deals with them, the next failed entity is the departments of Corrections/ Probation. Its a circle jerk that does nothing but make more victims and in many cases breeds more abusers.Liars can figure, figures do not. We have more bad guys trolling the streets than ever. Just read the morning papers.

Posted by: Valerie Parkhurst | Jan 25, 2012 10:26:55 AM

It may go state by state, but in a lot of states, the legislation covers prostitution offenses, etc. Or there are provisions like "any out of state offense containing the word sodomy" -- which brings in offenses like "solicitation of sodomy" -- which is merely how some states define offering a bj to an undercover cop in a prostitution sting. Since so many more folks are convicted of "minor" offenses like this than of major sex crimes, and since all of these statutes are retroactive and most have no sunset provision (i.e., a provision limiting coverage of minor offenses to a look-back period of, say, 5 or 10 years) even one dumb drafting mistake by a Legislature can have far-ranging consequences...

Posted by: Anon | Jan 25, 2012 10:37:26 AM

Oh and the How many children has the registry "Saved" question? The question and or the statement is ludicrous. The registry was never touted to "save" anyone. Its a tool that if utilized as intended enhances a communities knowledge of who may or may not have a pre-disposition to commit a sexually based crime due to their criminal history. There is no data ever extracted to determine if the registry has "prevented" a sexually based crime. But lets look at the facts. Knowledge is Power and the power to "KNOW" who may take the opportunity to tear your families world apart on any given open window of chance is priceless! If the guy down the street knocks on my door wanting to mow the grass and I have the knowledge he has been convicted of a sexually based crime, why would I allow him into my world? Use the registry, its a tool for information, the "saving" you will have to do yourselves.

Posted by: Valerie Parkhurst | Jan 25, 2012 10:46:54 AM

/In NY the sex offender registry has 3 levels; and I have seen convicted rapists only reach level 2, but it is a good tool.\

I reason that a major cause of our modern frustration is the vast degradation of penalties for violent sexual offences e.g.

"In 1786, fifteen-year-old Barbara Witmer suffered a horrific assault…The man who had raped Barbara received a death sentence.”

When the years 1955 and 1995 were compared for Rape 1 sentences, the average time served had gone from 15 to 6.
@ www.common-place.org; usatoday

Posted by: Adamakis | Jan 25, 2012 11:06:07 AM

It would be interesting to see how well the list correlates to re-offense rates of crimes that are sexual in nature. Given what the Austin police officer had to say, there may not be much of a correlation between the two. If that is the case, the list may not be doing much to prevent future crime and is just serving to destroy a lot of people's lives who have already done their time. On the other hand, its deterrent effect may be having an impact on future crime.

Posted by: Mountain Legal | Jan 25, 2012 12:12:31 PM

Grits, I read your article and it does not change a thing.

Henry admitted that he had sexual contact with a girl he knew was underaged. His claim that the girl was younger than he thought doesn't change the fact that he knew it was not legal for him to have sexual contact with him. Also, he was 19 - the girl was 14. 19 year olds are presumed to be old enough to know better than to troll middle schoolers for dates. And its not like there should not have been some evidence of what the girl's actual age was.

The other sex offenders all give what is simply an astoniousingly unbelieveable claim - that they somehow failed to know that it was illegal for them as adults to have sex with underaged girls. given how common references to age of consent laws appear in movies, television program, songs, books, magazines, billboards, television advertisements, newspapers, internet websites, etc. one would have to be pretty stupid to not be aware of age of consent laws are. Any "sex offender" who was unaware that it was ilelgal for them to be having sex wtih underaged children is likely either lying or very stupid. Anyone who knows about the age of consent laws but still proceeds without bothering to confirm actual age is reckless. Lying, stupid, or reckless all equal dangerous. Hence, everyone in that article is properly listed as dangerous sex offenders - all the more so because they are in denial about the criminal nature of their conduct and believe that they are the victims :P

sorry, but once you hit adulthood, you are properly presumed to be aware of what the laws are - especially one for whom there are so many references to on pop culture - and are also presumed to know better than to be trolling middle schoolers for dates - anyone who does so has no room to complain about being labeled a dangerous sex offender because they have already proven themselves that they are :)

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 25, 2012 12:21:26 PM

adamakis, beware of statistics relating to "average" sentences over time - in virginia, a 15 year prison sentence in 1990 (before the abolition of parole) would mean less actual time served than a 6 year prison sentence today after the "truth in sentencing law."

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 25, 2012 12:25:33 PM

nice erika!

"sorry, but once you hit adulthood, you are properly presumed to be aware of what the laws are - especially one for whom there are so many references to on pop culture - and are also presumed to know better than to be trolling middle schoolers for dates - anyone who does so has no room to complain about being labeled a dangerous sex offender because they have already proven themselves that they are :)"

How about the guys who were not in fact "tolling the middle schoolers" as you call it. but meet thier so-called VICTIM in a bar with a cigarette in one hand and a DRINK in the other!

under florida law. You could ask for and demand a copy of birth certificate, ID, social security card and 20 other forms of id. Guess what if it turns out she's in fact NOT of legal age! Not only can you NOT bring ANY of it up to defend yourself. but NOT A DAMN thing will happen to her!


right now we have a case here in florida i've read about where a so-called young virgin! has now put at least 3 men in prison with LIFETIME registration to follow so far! And i'm not talking about a group thing....i'm talking about 3 diff men in 3 diff cases at 3 diff times....

Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 25, 2012 4:20:41 PM

I really have a hard time understanding how some people posting here with supposed credible credentials and intelligence can believe the tripe they spew on here and expect others to take it seriously let alone buy into the blatant biases they possess. My goodness they sound as though they've lived either far too long, not long enough or maybe just need a drastic lifestyle change via a pharmeceutical drug therapy program... seriously.

Posted by: comment | Jan 25, 2012 8:29:22 PM

Sex Offender Registries: Fear Without Function?

Amanda Agan

University of Chicago - Department of Economics
December 1, 2008

Abstract:
I use three separate datasets and designs to determine whether sex offender registries are effective. First, state-level panel data is used to determine whether sex offender registries or public access to them decreases the rate of rape and other sexual abuse. Second, a dataset which contains information on the subsequent arrests of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 in 15 states is used to determine if registries reduce the recidivism rate of offenders required to register compared with those who do not. Finally, I combine data on locations of crimes in Washington, D.C. with data on locations of registered sex offenders to determine whether knowing the location of sex offenders in a region help predict the locations of sexual abuse. The results from all three datasets do not support the hypothesis that sex offender registries are effective tools for increasing public safety.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1437098

Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?

J. J. Prescott

University of Michigan Law School

Jonah E. Rockoff

Abstract:
In recent decades, sex offenders have been the targets of some of the most far-reaching and novel crime legislation in the U.S. Two key innovations have been registration and notification laws which, respectively, require that convicted sex offenders provide valid contact information to law enforcement authorities, and that information on sex offenders be made public. Using detailed information on the timing and scope of changes in state law, we study how registration and notification affect the frequency of sex offenses and the incidence of offenses across victims, and check for any change in police response to reported crimes. We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders. As we predict from a simple model of criminal behavior, this decrease in crime is concentrated among "local" victims (e.g., friends, acquaintances, neighbors), while there is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers. We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results correspond with a model in which community notification deters first-time sex offenses, but increases recidivism by registered offenders due to a change in the relative utility of legal and illegal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists suggesting that notification may increase recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is to reduce recidivism.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1100584

Posted by: Slowdown | Jan 26, 2012 3:40:06 AM

"erika :)": I've actually looked at the sex offender registry in several locations.... There are some people there for prohibited consensual offenses - adults ... who had sex with teenagers generally at least a decade younger than themselves or inscest. Any adult who is trolling middle schools for dates . . . . And any adult over the age of about 20 who is trolling high schools for dates . . . . Then there are the child porn offenders. .... There are people busted for taking upskirt shots - . Then there are the flashers ....

Therefore, and this is how these conclusions almost always go:

THEY ALL EQUAL THIS:

How many rapes of 6 year olds does it take before you admit that someone is a dangerous icky perv who should be locked up for life?

AND SHOULD BE LOCKED UP FOR LIFE.

Posted by: Slowdown | Jan 26, 2012 3:50:36 AM

Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?

J. J. Prescott
University of Michigan Law School

Jonah E. Rockoff
Columbia Business School - Finance and Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

February 2008
NBER Working Paper No. w13803

Abstract:
In recent decades, sex offenders have been the targets of some of the most far-reaching and novel crime legislation in the U.S. Two key innovations have been registration and notification laws which, respectively, require that convicted sex offenders provide valid contact information to law enforcement authorities, and that information on sex offenders be made public. Using detailed information on the timing and scope of changes in state law, we study how registration and notification affect the frequency of sex offenses and the incidence of offenses across victims, and check for any change in police response to reported crimes. We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders. As we predict from a simple model of criminal behavior, this decrease in crime is concentrated among "local" victims (e.g., friends, acquaintances, neighbors), while there is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers. We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results correspond with a model in which community notification deters first-time sex offenses, but increases recidivism by registered offenders due to a change in the relative utility of legal and illegal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists suggesting that notification may increase recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is to reduce recidivism.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1100584

Sex Offender Registries: Fear Without Function?

Amanda Agan
University of Chicago - Department of Economics

December 1, 2008

Abstract:
I use three separate datasets and designs to determine whether sex offender registries are effective. First, state-level panel data is used to determine whether sex offender registries or public access to them decreases the rate of rape and other sexual abuse. Second, a dataset which contains information on the subsequent arrests of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 in 15 states is used to determine if registries reduce the recidivism rate of offenders required to register compared with those who do not. Finally, I combine data on locations of crimes in Washington, D.C. with data on locations of registered sex offenders to determine whether knowing the location of sex offenders in a region help predict the locations of sexual abuse. The results from all three datasets do not support the hypothesis that sex offender registries are effective tools for increasing public safety.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1437098

Posted by: Slowdown | Jan 26, 2012 3:57:27 AM

Research and studies.

http://www.flareformsexoffenderlaws.org/researchstudies.html

Posted by: Slowdown | Jan 26, 2012 4:11:36 AM

yep got to love it!

" We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results correspond with a model in which community notification deters first-time sex offenses, but increases recidivism by registered offenders due to a change in the relative utility of legal and illegal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists suggesting that notification may increase recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is to reduce recidivism."

doing a bang up job here isn't it considering 80-95% of all sex crimes are FIRST TIME OFFENDERS! and you state they are causing the ones on the registry to reoffend because of the constant upheavel of thier lives and the related effect of they have no reaon to play nice with the aholes who are constantly harassing them!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 26, 2012 10:30:57 AM

rodsmith: "How about the guys who were not in fact "tolling the middle schoolers" as you call it. but meet thier so-called VICTIM in a bar with a cigarette in one hand and a DRINK in the other!"

me: "I was too drunk, horny, and stupid to care" is an extremely lame defense for jumping into bed with someone you barely know who turns out to be underaged. Considering that there is an extremely easy way to avoid that which is to avoid having sex with people you just meant, I have absolutely zero sympathy about such a person being branded a sex offender for life. Especially since the people who seem to think that some guy who jumps into bed with an underaged girl he just met deserves sympathy are the same people who tend to blame women and girls for engaging in irresponsible sex. Also add in that many of those people are caught when the underaged girl ends up pregnant or with veneral diseases which are both extremely severe sanctions. Why should it just be the woman's or girl's responsibility to engage in sexual activity responsible?

oh and you probably should realize that claiming that 85-90% of sex offenders were caught for the first time and that first time sex offenders are being deterred by the sex offender registry is actually an extremely powerful argument for why the sex offender registry is needed.

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 26, 2012 11:07:44 AM

I believe that rather than thinking there is nothing to lose for some it is necessary to regroup, meaning that cognitive dissonance is actually healthy and one must reinterpret motives and behaviors. For some, that is possibly the only way to avoid thinking prison looks more attractive.

In 1984, Julie was the better of the two revolutionaries and Winston Smith actually brought her down by being too reckless. He wanted an all out war when her mini revolutions were already effective. She understood Big Brother far better.

On the other hand, Winston Smith was not a fatalist when he suspected O’Brian and fell anyway. He knew his god Orwell was making him immortal. Few of us alive today will leave such a lasting legacy.

In more immediate terms, we have posters like "erika :)" promoting castration and rape while trying to claim moral authority when it is really a form of hypocrisy. His/her sadism is supposedly better that others. It took some time to pull him/her out of that sadism closet (and reveal the brutalization effect), but sometimes that casualty of war is war enough.

It also helps to keep in mind that every tyrant that ever slaughtered had a secret police. We can see how the secrete police is conceived by those today who secretly sabotage with undisclosed ad hominem attacks meant to discount any dissent (rational debate). In other words, a tyrant's secret police merely recruited an already existing underground social structure and any good revolution starts here by exposing this wannabe secret police. A tyrant without a secret police is a tyrant no more.

Our Constitution has safeguards against the formation of secret police. The right to confront witnesses and the right to know the charges and habeus corpus, for example. The tyrant's secret police hold these rights in contempt. So beware when people claim someone got off on a technicality. Beware when someone claims someone else should be castrated in thrown into GP. And know that this isn't necessarily personal to sex offenders. The war front is far wider than that.

Posted by: George | Jan 26, 2012 1:45:31 PM

well erika you might need some new glasses if that's what you get out of it!

what that 80-95% number tells anyone who is looking absent a bias...is that the registry is a JOKE since it is not stopping those FIRST OFFENSES it also proves that the bullshit the hate filled traitors who continue to harpe on sex offenders sopposed HIGH REOFFENCE rats are full of shit! otherwise a hell of a lot more than 10-15% of those on the registry would be COMITTING MORE CRIMES!

the FACT they are not tells me the ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION for the registry is LIE and a FRAUD comitted against the people of this country and the courts in any number of LEGAL CASES where UNDER OATH they stand by it!

as for this statement!

"me: "I was too drunk, horny, and stupid to care" is an extremely lame defense for jumping into bed with someone you barely know who turns out to be underaged."

HORSE SHIT!

if your in a location that is LEGALLY supposed to be ADULTS only! well guess what YOU DON'T hold someone legally responsible for SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS.....the person who was ILEGALLY somewhere they had NO LEGAL RIGHT TO BE!

if i build a 100 story building with an open window at the top...it's not MY FAULT your SO STUPID you jump though the window!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 26, 2012 1:48:23 PM

george: "In more immediate terms, we have posters like "erika :)" promoting castration and rape"

me: it saddens me that you would possibly think that I am promoting rape. Nobody - not even a serial rapist/murderer or icky perv should ever be raped. I strongly support efforts to eliminate prison rape and inmates or guards who sexually assault prison inmates should be prosecuted to the full extend of the law. Prisons and guards who fail to protect inmates from rape should also be subject to civil liability.

Yes, I do support castration for some sex offenders. In most cases, I believe that castration should be available for convicted sex offenders as an option to being listed on the sex offender registery. If a convicted sex offender chooses to have their sexual organs surgically removed, they will be removed from the public sex offender registry and freed from complying from some restrictions on convicted sex offenders. Because these castrations would be voluntary and accompanied by a benefit, I do not believe it qualifies as sadistic to offer sex offenders a choice.

In certain cases of violent rapes or other forcible sexual assaults, I do believe that forced castration should be available as a sentencing option. A serial rapist/murderer who has raped and murdered at least three women would appear to be a perfect candidate for forced castration. One could even argue that removing the sexual organs from known rapists who were convicted would help protect other inmates and guards from being raped by a known sexual predator. I am sorry that you feel that makes me barbaric or sadistic.

george: "while trying to claim moral authority when it is really a form of hypocrisy"

me: how is it hypocritcal to oppose rape and punish rape severely? Or are you saying that I am a hypocrite to support castration while opposing the death penalty?

george: "her sadism is supposedly better that others"

me: sorry, I'm actually more of a masochist ;)

I just do not believe that society should have any tolerance of nonconsensual sex imposed on adults or children. While castration may be a severe penalty, it is not disportionate for a violent rape against an adult or child which results in serious injury.

oh and I've never really pretended to not be cruel - I've frequently spoken out in favor of castration for rapists here and I support LWOP sentences for murderers and people who commit serious sex crimes - but feel free to think I'm a loca perra if it makes you feel better. And yes, I know its cruel and probably wrong for me to support the castration of icky pervs and rapists - but I really can't help thinking that such extraordinary cruel crimes deserve extraordinary cruel punishments. See, far from being sadistic, I'm actually a nice girl :)

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 26, 2012 5:45:51 PM

The vast majority of the people listed on the nanny Registries are not dangerous.

X% of the people listed on the Registries will not commit a sex crime in the future. Those people are obviously not dangerous. The only question is how large is X? Since the nanny Registries have been around for well over a decade, X must be well known. I have never heard what it is though. Maybe 80, 90, 95? Do only the nanny governments know?

It doesn’t even matter though because the Registries have never prevented a sex crime and never will. It doesn’t matter much if 0% of the people on there are dangerous, or 100%. The biggest effect that Registration has is to make the dangerous people more dangerous and more likely to really harm someone.

I have to go visit a criminal government fairly soon to tell them some useless information. Why in the world haven’t these criminal governments put most of this administrative BS online? Everything is online these days, even banking. Why can a person not update a license plate number online? The criminal governments are a joke. And of course that kind of stupidity is what the Registries are all about.

Oh well. Every time a criminal government costs me anything because of the Witch Hunt, I am obligated to retaliate. I already hang around random children all the time, so I don’t even count that any longer. I’m sure I will just impose a direct cost on them this time. I have many trusty standbys to cost them, but I’d like to do something new. I estimate that this trip will cost me ~$900. Therefore, I will bill the criminal government ~$10,800. It is a bit of a burden for me to collect that but it must be done. And I will get it done as always. For Registration, the criminal governments need to create an income source for themselves as they have done with their “War on Drugs” business. Then they could offset the real costs of it all.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Jan 26, 2012 7:58:43 PM

A recent study found

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

Posted by: Breaking News | Jan 26, 2012 8:32:12 PM

boy you sure it the old bullseye with this one FR

"X% of the people listed on the Registries will not commit a sex crime in the future. Those people are obviously not dangerous. The only question is how large is X? Since the nanny Registries have been around for well over a decade, X must be well known. I have never heard what it is though. Maybe 80, 90, 95? Do only the nanny governments know?"

they know. they HAVE to know! but will NEVER tell absent a court order since once that number is released thier 100 billion dollar house of fraud comes CRASHING DOWN!

the govt has been tracking sex crimes for decades and has been officialy keeping the names since 1994 shouldn't take one of the govt supercomputers at langley to run the numbers and see HOW MANY HAVE REOFFENDED out that that 200,000 offenders!


THERE'S YOUR REOFFENSE RATE!

but considering EVERY DOJ study done since the mid 1990's say 80-95% DON'T REOFFEND and that 80-95% of all SEX CRIMES ARE FIRST TIME OFFENCES....

they have already done everything but SCREAM IT TO THE WORLD! but the world refuses to ADMIT THE TRUTH!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 27, 2012 1:44:21 AM

if there was no death penalty and Erika's Law was passed allowing for rapists to be castrated before being tossed in the general population to serve their LWOP sentence, this serial rapist/murderer would not be enjoying a life of leisure.

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 25, 2012 9:18:41 AM

Gee, would Bubba be in that general population? Maybe the reliance on prison rises in proportion to the fall of the belief in Hell.

Posted by: George | Jan 27, 2012 4:34:06 AM

People:

Amerika's prejudices are well established and unchangeable by her own feminist words, "The mounth of the fool works its own ruin".

Bill: your most important comment on this board was, (What are we to make of the registries if we do not know who is on them?).

Soronel promised to get the Texas data but has not provided it. The truth of the registry is:

- It destroys Men, women,families and children who have done no
harm (in news and law, perception is more important than reality.

- It does not protect anyone

- it permits the truly dangerous to hide in the harmless crowd

- It makes many people feel superior to others (scapegoating).

Posted by: albeed | Jan 27, 2012 11:47:43 PM

George, are you trying to say that a serial rapist/murderer should not be sent to prison? Its almost impossible to think of a more deserving candidate for the lock them up and throw away the key treatment than a serial rapist/murderer.

Are you trying to claim that because prisons sometimes fail to properly protect their inmates that there should be no prisons at all?

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 28, 2012 8:22:51 AM

"erika :)" said: "George, are you trying to say that a serial rapist/murderer should not be sent to prison?"

Of course I am, silly. Can't you read? Oh, wait, you can't read because you can't get that even by trying to read between the lines of my posts.

I usually intentionally avoid trying to say what I think the punishment for an individual should be. * There are enough people with blood lust and there are very, very few, like TalkLeft and Grits, that take a stand for balance. Talk about fair and balanced in the "liberal media."

But once again you prove how skewed the debate is. If I question you in any degree I must want this and all serial/rapists and murders freed. That sad part is you probably really cannot comprehend how stupid that is. But don't feel alone. Many others, maybe the majority of people, fall for it too. It sells papers and boosts ratings.

* I also try to avoid the disclaimer that I am not in favor of kiddie rape and murder, as if that isn't a given. Really, how many people even on the sex offender registry are in favor of kiddie rape or murder and think they should be legal? Probably a fraction of a percent that is so small it couldn't be determined and yet the debate is so skewed it is necessary to insert that qualifier. So I also usually omit that disclaimer in protest of the lack of common sense.

Posted by: George | Jan 28, 2012 3:48:25 PM

this is certainly true!

"Really, how many people even on the sex offender registry are in favor of kiddie rape or murder and think they should be legal? Probably a fraction of a percent that is so small it couldn't be determined and yet the debate is so skewed it is necessary to insert that qualifier."

me i'd put that small percent at 5-15% the same 15% that reoffends and needs to either be tracked for life or LOCKED UP FOREVER!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 29, 2012 2:10:14 AM

george: "Oh, wait, you can't read because you can't get that even by trying to read between the lines of my posts."

me: really, how so? you accused me of "promoting castration and rape" - the castration part of it is obvious, but I've repeatedly admitted that I know its wrong for me to support castration as a punishment. You might also understand that I've admitted that I have "issues" with men because of past abuse and that my support for castration is not purely emotional. Maybe if you took time out from judging how cruel and sadistic I am, you'd understand that.

The rape part was something you simply made up - and yes, you pretty much did say that if you support sending anyone to prison you are "promoting rape." Therefore, it naturally follows from your own words that the only way to avoid promoting rape and being "sadistic" is to never send anybody to prison. Or, I suppose we can prevent prison rape through mandatory castration of all male inmates and guards if you insist on not being sadistic.

You just assumed that I wanted to see that rapist raped - I don't - nobody, not even an icky perv or a rapist should ever be raped. In fact, often icky pervs were victims of childhood sexual abuse and grow up to victimize others to continue to cycle of violence. The best way to protect children is to eliminate the cycle of violence. And yes, one way to do that is to remove any access to children by convicted icky pervs.

of course, you seem to make up plenty of things about me - I'm not an authotarian, I'm not even a conservative. I don't have "blood lust." But because I have an emotional hang up about sex offenders I must be just like federalist or Bill Otis or the rest of the small penis vengence brigade. Obviously, I'm not, and not just because of gender :)

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 29, 2012 9:10:03 AM

um, that should read "my support for castration is purely emotional."

so, I guess now george can think I'm not only a loca perra, but tonta as well :)

erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 29, 2012 9:13:10 AM

What we have here is pretzel logic and it is nationwide, from crack to pit bulls.

Posted by: George | Jan 30, 2012 1:50:44 PM

Concerned Citizen
Do we label someone who gets into a car and drives home after a few drinks, a lifetime threat? NO!
Do we label someone who smokes or sells marajuana, a lifelong threat? NO!
Do we label someone who steals something as a young adult, a lifelong threat? NO!
Ect Ect
The point is! People make mistakes of all sorts, throughout their lives. When someone gets caught or charged with a "sex crime", after they have completed their sentence for that crime, then they should have the same rights of any other person in our society.
If that person reoffends, then and only then, should that person be made to give up most if not all of their rights as a free citizen. No person that has ever been in trouble with the law, is anymore likely to break the law than someone who has never broken the law or who has never been caught breaking the law. People do it all the time in society and prob in many cases, don't even reaize it, until they are in the grasps of the law. If, and after that time, that person breaks that same law again, then they should be considered a threat to society. There should be innitial punishment for any crime. There should not be lifetime Civil committment for any first time offender, of any sort.
Whomever is free of SIN, let them Cast the first stone! And apparently, too many people today, seem to think they are free of any wrong doing or sin.

Posted by: Ray | Jan 30, 2012 9:26:37 PM

Ray (Jan 30, 2012 9:26:37 PM):

You are exactly right.

People who use the phrase "sex offender" to describe a person who is listed on the nanny government SEX OFFENDER Registries are unintelligent and foolish. And that is being kind. People who attach that label to a person and want to call them that forever are much worse. Those people are immoral scum.

You are also correct that past behavior does not predict future behavior. It is stupid to believe that.

You are also correct that it makes no sense to Register people who have committed sexual crimes and not Register millions of other people who have committed other types of crimes. The fact that the Registries have existed for far longer than a decade and we don't have more Registries is completely indefensible. There are no legitimate excuses and that is one of the main reasons that the Registries are immoral.

People who are listed on nanny government Registries: Understand that you are at war with the immoral people who support these Registries. They are your enemies. They are not Americans. They are not your countrymen. You must work every day to defeat them and stop their crimes.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Jan 31, 2012 4:50:29 PM

Somehow I underestimated the incompetence of a local criminal government. Apparently, it actually is SO difficult to keep a database of basic information.

My visit to the criminal government ended up costing them $14,700. And that is because I was being nice. Part of the cost was due to them stealing a nominal amount of money from me.

Now, if they had procedures like any person with a brain would have, it would have only cost them around $2,100.

So how are they going to pay their bills? They will borrow money of course. Maybe if they are lucky, the criminal federal government will give them some money that they have borrowed from China. They did all of that just so I would go out of my way to spend a lot of time around random children. That's big nanny governments doing a great job, as usual.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Jan 31, 2012 4:57:17 PM

All of this insanity stemming from a mother who, 31 years ago, decided that shopping for lamps was more important than keeping tabs on her son in a Sears department store, and another "victim" mom in Ohio that whined and moaned to lawmakers after her daughter was killed (while she was watching soaps no doubt) because she didn't know her neighbors.

Not all Sex offenders are deviants, perverts or pedophiles, just as everyone convicted of drunken driving in not an alcoholic. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Funny how paroled murderers, released violent felons, serial drunk drivers- all have some freedom to move about?

You can't CONTINUE to castigate, vilify and demonize a group of people for what you think they "MIGHT" do. That's illegal!

John Walsh is neither a victim or a hero. He's a shameless opportunist that continues to whore out his dead son using fear tactics and misinformation for profit and personal gain. He distorts reality to justify his existence and you sheep think he's a saint. Anyone that encourages vigilantism, hate and revenge is not a hero in my book. This man is a loose cannon that doesn't represent Christian values, morals and the principles on which America was founded. Your son is DEAD Mr. Walsh and you can lock up all the "bad guys" you want, but it won't bring him back, nor will it give you closure and keep you from being perpetually mad at the world. You should do the honorable thing and just slide into obscurity. It's glaringly obvious that you're an obstinate, rancorous and miserable old man that thinks the world owes you something. Let it go.

This is not about protecting or "safeguarding" children, it's about fear mongering and profiting from it. Registration and community notification laws are ineffectual when it comes to protecting society and enhancing public safety. Knowing where someone lives does NOT prevent crime; nor does it protect ANYONE, much less save lives. Millions wasted on laws that amount to little more than security theater and the illusion of safety and awareness.

Posted by: Error Theory | Feb 2, 2012 2:26:17 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB