Reply #22: A response.

[varkam]

...because we can't just kick-out our problems for someone else to deal with. Which is what often happens. Many known sex offenders can't be found because they've left their jurisdictions. Which is what happens sometimes when they can't find a place to live that complies with the terms of their releases. So when that happens, where do they go? Who are they violating then? In some other towns in rural areas where depopulation has been going on for years, the sex offenders are beginning to out number the existing residents. Should country folk now have to pay, and risk the safety of their children for what is primarily a big city problem? This is nothing more than a modern form of shunning. Why is it that we can develop such grand technologies and come to understand the inner workings of the basic elements of nature, but behaviorally we continue to reach back into the Dark Ages for solutions to our problems? Solutions that we already know don't work?

It seems that this is premised on the notion that there is a high recidivism rate among sex offenders. This is an unfortunately widely-held belief, erroneous as it is. The Department of Justice reports a 11-17% recidivism rate among sex offenders over a five-year follow-up period for any new sex crime depending on which study you look at. That's much lower than a general recidivism rate around 70% for a three year follow-up period. There are, however, certain sub-groups of offender that post a much higher risk (such as offenders whose victims are of the same sex and were strangers to them), but even they fall short of general recidivism rates.

I agree that sex offenders of children should not be around kids. And it doesn't help that many who are, (e.g. - the clergy) get away with it for years without anyone's knowledge except the victims. And their stories hardly ever get told in time to do anything while its going on. If it is true that most sex offenders of children were abused themselves, then we are only continuing the cycle when we try to push it away rather than deal with it head-on. If the states want to keep predators off the streets, then they need to increase the amount of time they must serve as their punishment. Otherwise a person could be "restricted" as to where they can live in perpetuity. Which means there is no such thing as ever being able to serve one's sentence and get on with their lives.

Some should not, as some sex offenders are predators - though there is an important distinction here. Most sex offenders are not predators, and most predators are not sex offenders. The vast majority of sex crimes in this country are committed by people who are not on the sex offender registry. Similarly, the vast majority of sex crimes against children are not perpetrated by people who are strangers to the victim. They are, by and large, the victim's family members, friends of the family, teachers, clergy, etcetera. To your average child, the sex offender down the street probably poses the least amount of threat to the child. That's due in part to the ever-increasing list of crimes that get one placed on the sex offender registry. The term sex offender has become an umbrella term, encompassing everyone from the predator who kidnapped and raped several children to the 18 year old who, when he was 16, had sex with his underage girlfriend.

Moreover, several states are enacting civil commitment procedures with sex offenders. In some states, when a sex offender is up for parole, the state can choose to pursue a civil commitment hearing to determine whether or not this individual is so dangerous that they must then be indefinitely incarcerated in a mental health institution rather than be let out. There are several problems with this procedure, though, that call into question the constitutionality and rationality of these procedures.

What this is really saying is that when the state releases a sex offender, they believe that they will offend again. Its not an open admission, but true nonetheless. But bank robbers are released from prison all the time. And they rob banks again too. But at no time are they not permitted to live within 1000 yards of a bank. Physical abusers, particularly men who beat up women are also released among us again. Where do they go? Are they to be restricted 1000 yards from all women? At the base of this is the fact that America is still suffering from its Puritanical roots. And that has translated into bizarre legal consequences, such as a teenager being given an harsh sentence for a BJ -- which has already happened in the great state of Georgia. Maybe if we stopped demonizing the Satanic gateway drug of marijuana, we might have some room in prisons to keep these bastards locked up. But no, we won't do that. Because that would make to much damned sense....

Again, the available data disagrees with you here. The vast majority of sex offenders do not re-offend. Furthermore, there's no empirical basis for residency restriction laws. In other words, there is no evidence that proximity is in any way related to recidivism (at least not in an affirmative way - there is evidence to show that residency restrictions actually increase recidivism). Indeed, almost all sex offenders who do re offend made initial contact with their victims through social relationships - not proximity.