Online Sex Offender Database Leads To Murder? 1001
nem75 writes "The LA Times reports on the story of Michael A. Dodele, a convicted rapist, found murdered in a Lakeport trailer park. He moved there after having been released from prison just 35 days before. A 29-year-old construction worker has been arrested in the attack, and explained that he killed Dodele to protect his son from child molestation. He found out on the internet about Dodele being a sex offender, via the 'Megan's Law' database. The public entry for Dodele in the database was wrong — though he was found guilty of committing crimes against adult women he was not a child molester. Dodele's entry in Megan's Law DB has been removed." Update: 12/11 15:51 GMT by Z : Moved link to non-reg article.
Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the purpose of creating a society of hate.
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the responsiblity for the murder is solely on th eman who committed the murder. Ironically one of the victims of this murder is the very child the murderer was trying to protect, who will grow up without a father.
On the third hand*, maybe the kid's better off without a violent dumshit like that around.
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
*The Mote in God's Eye, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy was going to kill someone, somewhere, somehow. The fact that he a rapist living near him means nothing. If he didn't have the database, he'd grab the yellowpages.
Megan's Law FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
We are constantly bombarded with reports of what we should be afraid of this week ("find out about the new threat that could kill your children, tonight on 9 news at 10!"). We have also been conditioned through the use of these databases and sensationalist segments like "To Catch a Predator" to believe that everyone ever convicted (or even accused) of a sex crime of any kind is out to get our children. Given all this, it's not at all surprising that someone would snap and do something like this.
Re:This would make... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody deserves rape. You should be thankful that most of society does not share your sense of justice.
It's all about the screwup (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, right. There wouldn't be any.
In my opinion, that's sick. Because of a government agency's screwup, it's suddenly not A-OK to murder a released convict? If the man actually HAD been a child molester, you would never have heard of this story. Everyone would have shrugged it off. Eh, the murderer was twisted, but at least he was protecting his kid. The murdered guy was a sick child molester, so he deserved it anyway, right?
The sex offender list isn't any more wrong because of this. The murder isn't any more wrong because of the list's screwup (and the victim isn't any less of a sick person because of it). All this is is just another example why a sex offender list is stupid and unconstitutional -- it's just that it wouldn't be noticed if somebody hadn't screwed up.
justice vs vengence (Score:5, Insightful)
My personal opinion is 'no', in fact they exacerbate the problem by limiting convicts' abilities to reintegrate into society. Once branded with the scarlet letter, they live out their Les Miserables' existence being pursued by law enforcement and vigilantes for the rest of their days.
Child molesters are the boogeymen of the 2000s, just like drug lords were of the 1980s and 90s, gangs of the 60s and 70s, and communists of the 1950s. They pose a societal threat, but not somuch that you need to legislate around their existence and vastly expand policing powers beyond what already exists.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was gonna mod you up to save you from obtuse mods, but you're AC. Your point, nevertheless, is right on target.
Things like the police and civil society were formed to protect us from each other. When you stick something up like a db of criminals and their houses, you effectively remove this protection, and create a society of fear, which becomes a society of hate.
But to make time for RIAA-orchestrated police raids [google.com], I guess you need to relieve the police of some of their responsibilities.
Tradeoff... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, he made a GREAT choice - a real bargain.
Psychotically pro-active father (Score:3, Insightful)
This of course is completely separate from the discussion of the usefulness, constitutionality, and accuracy of sex offender DBs.
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
All valid points. What good is a system of state-sponsored punishment if after you've paid your debt, you're still considered guilty? Why would that make any prisoner want to reform, if he/she knew they would be treated the same no matter what? Yes, there is the problem of recidivism, but I think that is exacerbated by this kind of thing.
Re:Notification of neighbors (Score:1, Insightful)
Having the offender in question go door to door would be a death sentence. Also it would be hard to explain, "Hello little boy is your mommy or daddy home? I need to talk to them."
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is great. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are 18 and are going out with a 17 year old and you're a monster, what are you if you are 17 and going out with a 16 year old? What are you if you are 18 1/2 and dating someone who is 17 3/4? In three months, you'll both be "18". I guess we could ask if you are 18, just about to turn 19 and you are going out with someone who just turned 18, what are you then. And then why is it okay for a 45 year old man to marry a 35 year old woman? What is this thing that happens to a person's mind during that day just before his/her 18th birthday through the day of his/her birthday? And what if you're just going out for ice-cream?
I'm just trying to figure out what "The Right Way" is. It is my understanding that 18 is a rather arbitrary age since voting, consuming alcohol (legally), and driving (legally) all have different ages associated with be able to perform said actions.
Re:i'm going to get -1 troll into oblivion but (Score:5, Insightful)
From the US Department of Justice: 96% of female rape victims younger than 12 years old, knew their attackers. 20% were victimized by their fathers or step-fathers. 60% were victimized by another family member.
Sex crimes are the only crimes we continue to punish people after they've "paid their debt to society". We restrict their movement, restrict where they can live, and in many cases ensure through force of law that they never lead a normal life again.
If we, as a society, are convinced that child molesters are incurable, let's just keep them locked up. This idiotic list serves no purpose: if they are, indeed, almost certain to commit the crime again, why are we releasing them from institutionalization? If these people are "sick", let's transfer them from the penal system to the mental health system where they probably belong.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
The irrational fear of this is beyond anything I have ever seen. I hear otherwise normal, educated people say that anyone accused should get the death penalty, or "if they get raped in prison, they deserve it. I hope they die of AIDS" and the like. The total hatred and desire for the accused to suffer a horrible death is pretty frightening in itself.
Right now in America, if you tried to pass a law that says that everyone 'ACCUSED' of sex crimes against children gets lethal injection without a trial, and put it up to a general vote, it would pass. Thank god we aren't a true democracy.
Not troll, but total lack of Insight. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason for such registries, is to enact continuing lifelong punishment on the convicted criminal, even after the release, by virtue of harrassment by the members of the public who somehow have the free time to go browsing these databases (instead of taking care of their children).
What are you going to do if a sex offender moves next door to you? Have him evicted on a technicality? Torch his house? Stab him? Don't you think that whatever little chance there is of having this man re-integrate into society, will likely be ruined by this behavior? If you don't want to re-integrate this man into the society, then go ahead and lobby for life-sentences for any sex offense (18 sleeping with 17?)... or better yet - the death penalty. But if you take up the view that people can change, and can pay their debt to society, you have to accept your own conclusions.
But back to the main question - how is publicly-viewable registration going to increase public safety? Is it going to prevent a habitual rapist from raping? If not registering is a little crime, do you think that matters to someone who is pathologically going to commit far more severe offenses?
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Otherwise, why not just put rapists to the death too?
Your argument is one of emotion, not logic.
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Take terrorism, for example. More Americans died fighting in Iraq than died on 9-11. Fewer than 3,000 people have died this entire century on American soil from terrorism, while half a million Americans die from cancer every year, another half million from heart attacks. The terrorists I'm more scared of are the terrorists who run the fast food and tobacco companies!
Meanwhile 40,000 Americans die on the highways every year. I'd like to see some of that Homeland Security money go to some guardrails - it would actually save some lives rather than being a political circus.
But guardrails don't give government officials more power.
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
Convictions _are_ public info (Score:5, Insightful)
People may well be prejudiced. However stupid, that is their right except where limited by law. A bigger problem is differential privacy, where some people can hide things and others cannot. A boss might be less inclined to go after a gay employee if his own divorces and DUIs were equally public. Likewise for the cop.
Re:far fetched (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:3, Insightful)
Paraphrased: You're just not arguing from emotion enough.
Re:Bleeding hearts vs peasants with pitchforks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is great. (Score:1, Insightful)
Keep in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Megan's Law FTW (Score:1, Insightful)
I have a friend who'll be in prison for 10 years for having sex with a minor, and a registered sex criminal for life when he finally gets out. What he did was wrong, and he's the first to admit it. But so are the circumstances under which he was prosecuted. He met a 14 year old online, who claimed to be 18. They eventually met up, and my friend admits he knew the kid was lying (but insists he thought the kid was at least 16 or 17... which is entirely plausible to anyone who sees the kid's picture). The kid's parents found out and tried to have my friend prosecuted... but failed, because the alleged victim refused to cooperate. With no witness, the DA had no case. At least, not until the kid was arrested for possession of marijuana a few months later. The DA's office found the paperwork to the original case, and threatened to seek the maximum penalties for conviction (6 months in jail) unless the kid cooperated and testified against my friend. Obviously, the DA got his conviction, and another notch on his bedpost. In the process, the DA f**ked the kid worse than any adult ever could.
A friend of mine.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to have sympathy for molesters and rapists but when you hear of people released from prison whose only option is to live under an overpass because that's the only place not near a child I do feel some sympathy. I mean, shouldn't the government designate an area childfree in each state that these guys can live? If not, just put them back in prison for the rest of their lives. It's more humane than under an overpass.
Missing the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me a minor party hack published that it was okay to exterminate folks with a particular ancestry in Europe about 70 years ago, and that Milosovic basically published that it was okay to kill bad folks in Croatia and Bosnia about ten years ago. For those US folks that think "it can't happen here", a governor of a US Midwestern state published in the 1830's that it was ok to exterminate an entire group of people just for what they believed. That order wasn't officially rescinded until 1976.
Now then, I won't argue whether the convicted man was good or bad -- because most child molestors do not reform -- nor will I argue that folks don't have the right to protect their kids from unreformed molestors. What I will argue is that publishing a list in a manner as easily accessible as the Internet may be the wrong way to go about protecting the neighborhood. Because otherwise mob and/or vigilant justice takes control and can very easily get out of hand. Leading to murder and/or genocide.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
Gee, it sure seems like the guy convicted of assault with a deadly weapon had a much higher recidivism rate. Not to mention that the guy he killed never molested a child, or a male. Maybe we should just have an offender registry that lists everyone who has ever been convicted of any crime? After all, maybe you don't want to buy that house on the same block as the lady who has received 5 speeding tickets... your kids wouldn't be safe in the front yard. After all speeders are notoriously recidivist, and the cause of many highway fatalities.
Re:i'm going to get -1 troll into oblivion but (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, my point of view is that the lists are not making children safer. Rather, they seem to be aimed to exact punishment far after the criminal has paid his or her dues.
Finally, if there is a risk of recidivism, then we need to keep the person in jail and therapy. Releasing them and placing them on a "harass this person" list just encourages criminal behavior. After all, we are releasing people who are still dangerous (after all, high recidivism, right?) and then promptly removing any chance for them to integrate with normal society and develop a support network.
We're letting out dangerous people and encouraging them to recommit!
re: No, I'd mod you up if I had points... but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even IF we, as a society, decide that keeping these "sex offender" lists available for public searching is a "good thing", we certainly need to modify the laws themselves first.
Right now, the law doesn't differentiate at all between the man who has sex with 4 year olds in a childcare facility while working there, and the man who has sex with a 15 year old who lies about her age, and possibly even produces a fake ID showing her age as older than she really is.
In my mind, it's clear that it's really the former person that most people get concerned enough about to want to know if they live near them. The other case amounts to an act that's considered perfectly LEGAL in many countries of the world. It revolves around the fact that the 15 year old had enough of at least a PHYSICAL appearance of an adult to be considered sexually attractive to the guy in question.
There's always going to be a problem when you're forced to draw lines at specific ages for what's "legal" and what's "illegal"
Re:This would make... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This would make... (Score:2, Insightful)
The feminist myth that rape is worst than death and can never be overcome is actually hurting rape victim by making them feel odd when they eventually heal from the psychological wound.
Re:Society of Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen this logic posited many times in the past, and I don't get where you're coming from - perhaps you can explain. You seem to be saying that it's not harmful if the other person is also underage, but that it is harmful if the other person is overage. This doesn't make sense - if it's harmful, it's harmful, and that's that. Logically, it's actually more harmful if the other person is underage because the other person is less likely to be responsible about safety/birth control. Right?
Re:Duh. (Score:2, Insightful)
And with this guy, I think he needs to be punished to the furthest extent of the law. Sure, he's saying he just wanted to protect his kid... but doing so by breaking another law? by committing premeditated murder?
What ever happened to just moving out of the trailer park?
Re:This would make... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying rape is a good thing, or that it's not horrible to endure, but claiming that "It's worse than death because some women will kill themselves because of it." leads to a terrible precedent. The bottom line is that some people WILL kill themselves if they get depressed. Putting anything that causes that depression on the same level as murder is just idiotic.
And no, I've never been raped. By your logic, I guess that makes me unqualified to speak on the subject. Of course, given that we can't ask ANYBODY whose been murdered, we're going to have to start accepting testimony from people who didn't experience all these things.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This would make... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand "meaningful relationship" is a pretty vague term. I'm not entirely sure how you would measure that.
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Leviticus 25:44 allows you to own slaves, provided they are from neighboring nations.
You may also sell your daughter into slavery (exodus 21:7).
There are dozens more, its a fun read.
Overall, if you want to live by the laws in the bible, thats fine. But you are not allowed to pick and choose the ones that you like and ignore the rest.
Face it, you are more than likely guilty of dozens of its laws and thus subject to death by stoning.
Have a nice day.
Re:It's all about the screwup (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait -- when was it ever OK to murder a released convict?
Actually, you would. (Sibling posts have links.)
I hope I never get as cynical about other people as you are right now.
If we really believed these things, why would we be releasing child molesters anyway?
True, but a little publicity never hurt. I wonder how many people didn't even know about this list until they read about this murder in the news?
Stupid, yes. But unconstitutional?
I know my rights, and I'm fairly sure there isn't a right not to be on lists.
Now, it might be a good amendment -- making ex-cons officially done with the system. If you've served your time, the government should officially reinstate you as a citizen, end of story. Things like parole only work if it's either an alternate way of serving the same sentence, or punishment for how you served your sentence. (Bad behavior could get years added, good behavior could get you on parole instead.)
Re:Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
With repeat offenses so high among sex offenders, We should have the opportunity to have the information necessary to protect our families. I'd like to know before I send my kid to little Johnny's house to play whether Johnny's dad or older brother has a history of molesting kids. I lived in a neighborhood where a recently released child rapist/murderer had moved in with his parents right before we moved into our house. He'd done the crimes while a juvenile so he had a shorter sentence (10 years) and he wasn't in the online db. You can bet it would have affected our decision to buy a house in that neighborhood.
Police can't protect you. They can only clean up the mess afterwards and hope to be a deterrant. The only way we can protect ourselves and our families is if we have the information at our disposal to do so.
Doesn't information want to be free, anyways?
Re:What do we expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be convenient to think that this guy is somehow mentally handicaped, but that's a dangerous assumption because it implies that this kind of behavior is only possible from other low-functioning individuals. The quotes you have of him talking about the guy molesting children even after being told that the victim was not a child molester make no rational sense -- but that's because it's the alleged perp's emotional justification for his actions. It's not (necessarily) that he was stupid so he couldn't think straight, it's that he was overwhelmed with emotions (fear for his son, hate for sex offenders), and that continues even after he committed his crime. Everyone, regardless of their intellect, can find their reason overwhelmed by emotion.
So the societal pressure you're talking about is spot on, and even more threatening. The discussion about sex offenders going on in the news, television, in politics, and everywhere else is completely dominated by the emotions of fear and hate. Reason is rarely even welcome in the debate. It's an environment where things like this will happen, and happen often, much more than simply crazy people going off the handle, because crazy isn't a requirement.
Re:Notification of neighbors (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is where my problem with this law comes in. Being able to sidle into my den with a cup of coffee, turn on the computer, and find out who in my neighborhood is registered is a very different level of commitment than going to the police station. And it makes it possible for a whack job like this guy to find out that information without alerting police. No leads, then, when he kills the guy.
But that's not the full extent of my issue with it. My main problem is that you can't add things to someone's sentence after the fact. If you want to tell every sex offender from now on that they'll be on this list, that's fine. But to add someone who was convicted in, say, 1975 and spent ten years in prison is ethically wrong and quite possibly unconstitutional (under the 5th and/or the 14th amendments, perhaps). From a practical standpoint, it adds punishment after time served and could be argued to deny the convict of life (in this case), liberty, and even property (given that it's probably pretty much impossible to get a job if you're on the website).
There are a lot of dirtbags out there who are listed on the websites, and I do worry about them not only in general for society but for the safety of my own daughter. But dirtbags or not, you can't just tack more on to a sentence after they get out (sometimes years after they get out) because their crime is more repellent than most.
And I know, there is a higher chance of recidivism among sex offenders. So again, make it part of the sentence now. Eventually, all sex offenders will be on the website. Not a perfect solution if you're scared that you live near an offender, but if we start making exceptions to the law for hot-button issues, the entire concept of liberty is sunk anyway (for all of us, not just the sex offenders).
Re:Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a bad idea. I think all public records should be easily accessible and searchable.
and a list of who their neighbors were at the time, as well as their immediate family. Make it accessible to the public so everyone can see, we'd be so safe then that we wouldn't need the police anymore.
The rest of your post is just nonsense.
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because if you've ever been the victim of a violent act, it's considered appropriate for you to demand vengeance upon the people who attacked you.
Unless, of course, you are an Iraqi, 'cause then it would just be stupid.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why not kill all criminals? That would be the logical conclusion to that argument. We call them "correctional facilities" for a reason.
Re:Bleeding hearts vs peasants with pitchforks (Score:3, Insightful)
If we refine "doing it again" as "getting convicted of doing it again", then some studies go as low as 3%. Others...
* Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
* Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
* Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
* Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
* Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.
Now add the following fact:
Then add the fact that some of the reported rapes ( both of adults and children ) are not prosecuted for lack of evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt", and the real recidivism rates can only get higher.
In summary, if we define 'doing it again' as simply 'doing it again', then it is way more than 5%. Where's my pitchfork?
It is worse than you imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
* I know this information because for a few weeks I worked as a developer for a major national sex offender search website until my morals caught up to me and I realized what a colossally bad idea the sites are.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
It's kind of like the system is set up so that the deck is so stacked against someone who has been in prison, they want him or her to do something bad again so they can pass even harsher laws.
If Megan's Law really did lead to this murder, then the parents of Megan share a portion of the blame and deserve to be treated as co-conspirators. The law doesn't bring their child back, but apparently it did deprive a once-sick man who had paid his debt to society from life. There, does that sound enough like the guys who think homosexual prison rape is a desirable punishment?
(Make no mistake, I do not sympathize with rapists, but if we do not have the rule of just law, we have nothing).
Re:Bleeding hearts vs peasants with pitchforks (Score:1, Insightful)
I haven't read the white paper but I'm going to ask you anyway:
How can they be sure that only 5% reoffended?
IMO the correct sentence would be that only 5% was caught reoffending. Maybe the total reoffend rate is way higher, but since these guys now have more experience in the business, they are doing better: escaping from the police/leaving no evidences/killing the victim.
PS.: definr.com does not show the word reoffend so I'm not sure it is correct, but you sure know what I mean by reoffend/reoffended/reoffending.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at the DOJ statistics for recidivism and sex offenders (easy way to get a good analysis is via the Skeptics magazine from earlier this year, it'll be on their webpage). Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders re-offend at a much lower rate than most other felonies.
But popular society right now has a lot invested in the idea that there's a pedophile behind every rock, so no one pays attention to the real numbers (since we're out of commies now, and terrorism is all wrapped up by Jack Bauer, this must be the "new thing" to worry about when we're not making PSAs about the "autism epidemic").
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool! Do I have your permission then to go into your DMV file and obtain your social security number and address?
The point being of course that even public databases can have reasonable privacy protections in place. I fail to see why someones criminal record should be accessible to all after they have paid their debt to soceity. In the specific case of sex offenders, if they are so dangerous that we have to notify people when they move into the neighborhood, then why the fuck are they being released from prison?
Either they are that dangerous, in which case lock 'em up and throw away the key, or they aren't, in which case, WTF is up with being punished after you get out of prison?
I'd tend to be with the lock 'em up and throw away the key crowd as far as child molesters and rapists go.... but other sex "offenders" (teenagers having sex when one or both are under the age of consent) are also finding themselves on these lists. I don't see how any reasonable person can condone that.
Re:Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
So here we have an individual who is 86-94% likely not to reoffend. Do you think his chances to stay out of trouble and not cause harm to your child are improved by living under the bridge [cnn.com], not having a decent job, only having other sex offenders as friends and having reasons to hate potential victims (us)? Do you think Jonny's son is likely to grow up an upstanding citizen if his family is hated and he is shunned by everyone in school?
Police tries to protect society overall by reducing crime rate. By taking justice into your own hands, you are only thinking about yourself at the expense of the rest of your community. Even if your actions are technically legal, you may be actually hurting your and your family's safety due to your lack of experience. Showing hate to someone is sure likely to make you a preferred target of their potential future crimes.
Re:Innocents get hurt by vigilantes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not, because soceity recognizes that there are legitimate reasons for withholding it, even from public records. I filed bankruptcy a few years ago -- if you were so inclined you could go pull every single document and fling from my case off PACER -- but the SSN is redacted from all of them.
Likewise, I'd like to think that if you pay your debt to soceity (i.e: you aren't on parole or in prison) then soceity shouldn't judge you for your past actions. I'm also a member of the minority that thinks it's abhorrent to deny convicted felon's the right to vote -- after they have completed their sentences. Why the hell should you be disenfranchised from soceity for the rest of your life if the crime wasn't harsh enough to warrant a life sentence?
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
But then I read the rest of your post and realized that you were less interested in actual justice (the administering of deserved punishment or reward justice defined [reference.com]) and more interested in living in fear.
Re:A friend of mine.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, remember that we will also need a women-free area for the rapists, and a property-free area for the thieves. Also a brain-free area for the fuckwits to come up with these "protect the children by fucking up someone's life so he's sure to not re-integrate into society" ideas.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
And what gives you the right to say that they will make a "bad decision" at the ballot box? And in any case, I have a serious problem with removing someone's right to vote. Even ex-cons are entitled to political representation.
Re:The Importance of Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, you did what the killer did.. misunderstood the crime and lept to assumption that this person was much worse then they are.
I view this Oliver as a far worse human being.... based off guesses and the excuse 'but my child was abused once!' this person is justifying murdering someone. And the sad, sick thing is many will probably agree with him and call him a hero (or even justified) when in reality he was a dangerous idiot who needs to be kept behind bars for a LONG time.
A rape is a terrible thing, but the guy was not sentenced to death for it,.... some yokle in a tailer park does NOT have the right to second guess the justice system and kill the guy anyway.
Re:Duh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Because youve proven to society that you make bad descisions.
Hence, why we disenfranchise divorcees, people who've declared bankruptcy, owners of large SUVs, and fans of American Idol. And I'd recommend only selective voting registration for Slashdotters with enough negative moderation too.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You could argue that the effect is the same. The modified law represents the "new" debt to be paid to society by people convicted of these crimes. But that's not why the law was modified. Society didn't decide that the punishment should be harsher, they decided they wanted to track the evil child molesters that The System loosed upon society.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how many people speak up and say that the punishment fits the crime (such as the jury that convicted these people in the first place), there will always be someone saying it doesn't go far enough. And who wants to go on record and side with the convicted sex offender? So punishments will get harsher and harsher, and there will still be people saying it's not enough.
Punishment is only part of the solution. Punishment feeds our hunger for retribution and revenge, but it's the least effective at actually solving the problem. Please don't forget about things like the scientific method, deterrence, rehabilitation and proactive assistance for potential criminals. Yes, some people will convict crimes after being released from the criminal justice system. Most will not. Is it really appropriate to punish those people just because they might commit another crime in the future? I've never been convicted of a crime, but 100% of those that are convicted of a crime had never been convicted prior to their first conviction, right? Why not suspect everyone of being a potential offender?
Every so often, someone does need to step up and say, please think of the sex offenders! What kind of a society are we giving our precious children? A suspicious, fascist, paranoid police state? Look at the big picture here.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you aren't willing to personally lop off their heads you shouldn't be willing to permanently disenfranchise them either. Ensuring that there's little point to their possible redemption will simply remove any remaining motivation to be something other than an animal.
I have no emoticon for Megan's Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Human nature precludes the 'here's the information about that bad bad man but don't try to take the law into your own hands' intent. In this day and age of five-nights-a-week "To Catch a Predator", there are wannabes out there who want to be part Chris Hansen and part Chuck Norris.
This is our real life Two Minute Hate.
Re:Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
The recidivism rates for sex crimes are actually lower than that of other crimes. Now that is probably skewed quite a bit by the war on drugs (many drug-related offenses being victimless crimes), but it's still surprising. The only justification I can imagine for tracking sex offenders after release is because the crime is considered especially heinous, but given the statistics, I can't even manage to play Devil's Advocate on this one. It's just too absurd.
I think this list is unconstitutional at best.... (Score:1, Insightful)
First, let me say I am on this list for having sex with a 16 year old girl, when I was 28. Did I plot this? Did I fantasize after jailbait? Do I think about teenage girls all the time?
NO
I was in a bar. She was in the bar. She was drinking beer. I bought her a drink. The bartender checked her ID (again) and gave he the drink. We got along. I got her to bed. Next week I was arrested for statutory rape when she told her mother about this great older guy she was seeing.
Should my life be ruined (which it has, I cannot get above a minimum wage job now to save my life) because I had sex with a mature looking 16 year old with a damn good fake ID?
Re:Duh. (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea that a today convicted rapists and murders are turned loose in society after a stay in prison, even if they openly admit their intention to commit their crime again, is utterly insane. It certainly can't be called "justice." If we want to be lenient, and not simply execute all murderers and rapists, then we should at least make any release of such people from prison contingent on a thorough analysis that shows them to be rehabilitated and reformed. If such a system were in place, and worked, I would have no problem with wiping the slate clean for such people.
Re:Duh. (Score:1, Insightful)