How many sex offenders live near you?

[oilgun]

I sometimes feel that these sites do more harm than good by creating an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.  Expecially when people who commit relatively benign 'sexual offences' are lumped in with those who commit serious sex crimes.

[Brown Eyes]

I agree that they create an atmosphere of fear.  But, that the same time, I also think it's a good idea to have those lists available for folks who what them.  I think that in some ways they may create a false sense of security if one doesn't see a lot of offenders listed on one's own neighborhood or near a school, etc. (as K mentions).  Any unregistered sex offender could be living anywhere.

[Monika]

I sometimes feel that these sites do more harm than good by creating an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.  Expecially when people who commit relatively benign 'sexual offences' are lumped in with those who commit serious sex crimes.

I very much agree.

What´s next? How many arabs live near you? or How many gay people live near you?

[serious crayons]

What´s next? How many arabs live near you? or How many gay people live near you?

I agree with oilgun's point that the label "sex offender" can be very unfair. I can even understand arguments against registering and mapping offenders in general. But I have real problems with this analogy.

Convicted rapists and child molesters have committed serious violent crimes, have a psychological problem that often resist attempts at treatment, and may be a danger to others. As groups, Arabs and gay people have not committed crimes and aren't dangerous. The sex-offender registry may be highly flawed, but it's not about some baseless prejudice and it's not a slippery slope to other kinds of discrimination.

[Brown Eyes]

I agree K.  As far as I understand... folks on the sex offender registry (and I'm sure the nature of the list varies a bit from state to state) are all convicted of something whether it's the worst-case scenario rapist or child molester or someone arrested for something more "trivial."

I agree also that things like public urination may indeed be trivial (and fall way below the level of the serious criminals), but I also think that folks having sex with underage "girlfriends" have serious problems (again maybe of a different variety from violent rapists)... but statutory rape is still a super serious offense IMO.

 

[serious crayons]

I also think that folks having sex with underage "girlfriends" have serious problems (again maybe of a different variety from violent rapists)... but statutory rape is still a super serious offense IMO.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about older men with underage "girlfriends." I'm talking about, say, an 18-year-old guy with a 16-year-old girlfriend -- a couple who might have even been legal when they first started dating. Many high schoolers have friends and boy/girlfriends a couple of years younger/older. And in many states, the age of consent (the age below which it's illegal for someone to have sex with you) is 17 or even 18. Though in some cases, I think, there are exceptions if the couple is close in age.

[Mandy21]

I think so far we pretty much have a consensus -- these sites are somewhat good, especially if you have children you're trying to protect, but they're also slightly flawed in terms of how they designate who's an offender and who's not.  I was taught as a child to distrust everyone until I knew them well.  I watched a whole lot of slasher/killer-type movies as a child, so that was also helpful in teaching me a fair amount of caution and distrust towards strangers.  I never forgot that lesson.  Anyone you meet, ANYONE, could be an offender of some kind.  Until you get to know them enough to feel the trust between you, reciprocated, it's best to be cautious of everyone.

[oilgun]

This maybe somewhat off-topic but I think it's related.   There's a case right now in Ottawa where a man has been charged with several counts of aggravated sexual assault for not disclosing his HIV status to his sex partners.

I don't know the circumstances but I think it's pretty disturbing.  These guys had casual consensual unsafe sex with people they met on line.  And they get all freaked out when they find out that some of them were HIV positive and didn't tell them?!    It's the responsibility of all individuals involved to practice safer sex and one should always assume that the person(s) they are having sex with is HIV  positive.   I'm appalled with the men who are pressing charges.

There's another kind of sex offender for you.

[Monika]

I agree with oilgun's point that the label "sex offender" can be very unfair. I can even understand arguments against registering and mapping offenders in general. But I have real problems with this analogy.

Convicted rapists and child molesters have committed serious violent crimes, have a psychological problem that often resist attempts at treatment, and may be a danger to others. As groups, Arabs and gay people have not committed crimes and aren't dangerous. The sex-offender registry may be highly flawed, but it's not about some baseless prejudice and it's not a slippery slope to other kinds of discrimination.

I think it is a slippery slope because if we are gonna start registering and mapping sex offenders, why wouldn´t some people want to register and map other groups? You might not think that Arabs and gays are dangerous, but there are people that do think that.

And besides, ísn´t the point of a prison sentence, that once you get out, you have paid for your crime?

[Marina]

Hmmm ... not sure how I feel about this one.

I realize that rape and child molestation are among the most serious and reprehensible crimes we have, can be resistant to treatment, and I realize that society needs protection from these special crimes, especially for children.   But a national registry is dangerously close to civil rights violations IMO.   I guess the benefit to society outweighs the harm.