'Sex Offender' an Empty Term

[varkam]

I've been doing some considerable research lately, and it strikes me that the terminology "sex offender" is essentially meaningless in the way it is applied in our criminal justice system, as well as in the media. It is applied to wide array of individuals who have committed a wide array of crimes that are related to (and, in some cases, only tangentially so) sexuality.

You can draw a useful analogy in any other area of criminal activity. Take drugs. People who commit drug offenses are similarly diverse and committed a wide variety of different crimes. A 'drug offender' moniker could be honestly applied from a person who grew marijuana for his or her own usage to a Columbian drug lord who smuggles cocaine into Florida. Obviously these two individuals have widely different intentions and motivations for their illicit activities. The person who is growing marijuana probably believes that it's not that big of a deal and simply wants to use the drugs for his or herself recreationally. The Columbian drug lord, on the other hand, is mercenary in both intention and motivation.

"So what?" you might be thinking. It seems to me that the lack of differentiation in terminology by necessarily grouping everyone who has committed a sex offense under the same umbrella term has several unintended consequences, largely due to a combination of a lack of public (and institutional) understanding regarding sex offenses as well as several high-profile sex offense cases in which the victim is murdered. That combination, taken together with the fact that the term "sex offender" encompasses a wide variety of illicit activity, has led to a public perception that all sex offenders are extremely dangerous and are likely to re-offend.

Perhaps the biggest unintended consequence of this usage, and public perception, is that it serves as a detriment to public safety. This is because the net is so widely cast, that attention and resources must be divided over a greater number of individuals when it can quite reasonably be asserted that certain individuals pose no threat to society. For example, cases in which two underage teenagers engage in consensual sex can result in convictions and the application of the sex offender label. It can reasonably be asserted that such individuals do not pose a threat to society, but yet still face monitoring, residency restrictions, and are at risk for vigilante activity. Resources devoted to such individuals necessarily detract from resources devoted to other individuals who, quite arguably, are more deserving of them (i.e. individuals who have shown a propensity for violence and/or committed contact offenses with adults or children). Being that there is less of an explicit focus on the individuals who are truly dangerous, they have a bit more breathing room. The end result is that law enforcement agencies, which manage things like the sex offender registry, must track offenders an order of magnitude greater than if there were greater specificity in the criminal justice system as well as in the media resulting in less attention and resources being devoted to individuals who actually pose the greatest risk for committing another crime - hence being a detriment to public safety.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not intending to assert that people convicted of "lesser" crimes have not done wrong or do not deserve some type of punishment and/or corrective action. What I am claiming is that the hysteria of public perception is actually creating a much more dangerous situation than if the subject were approached with a level-head.

Just my .02.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Yup.

I have seen the prosecutor's sex crime office ruin the lives of 3 innocent men needlessly, just because the prosecutor's sex crime unit is largely staffed by zealots. Two were found innocent at trial, one moved away with his family and changed his name, the third was charged, imprisoned for a while, his family harassed, his daughter gilled endlessly and, for a 9 year old, did a fine job of denying any abuse, in spite of the leading and clever ceaseless questioning. He has not gone to trial, but after almost three years, the charges are still pending. He was "ratted out" by some people who lived on the same block. They were very active drug dealers. They moved away. Please ponder that.

It is a system in need of more than a little moderation.

One sometimes gets the feeling that if they could make every crime a sex crime, they would, just for the sensationalism of it.

[varkam]

4. "It is a system in need of more than a little moderation."

Precisely the point. :hi:

[lvx35]

2. True. I like the term "sexual predator"

because it describes a specific action. But more than that I like the actual crime described: "Intoxicated public urinator" vs. "violent child rapist".

[varkam]

5. Even the term predator is kind of vague and doesn't really capture the crime well

I like your second recommendation much more. I think that goes a lot further in being able to differentiate between who is and who is not a risk.

[lvx35]

7. Really good point.

The potential victim factor is really important, and I didn't even think of that. I was thinking about triggers, the fact that alcohol can be identified as a trigger for the public urinator, (something society should help keep him from) while the child offender has deeper more dangerous triggers.
But yeah, potential victims, the triggers, society should be given all the information we need to get a clearer picture and keep ourselves safe.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Absolutely. This has bothered me...

for years that the proper attempts to deal with sexual predation and serious crime too often become a witchhunt or grandstand. Sex crimes units and prosecutorial teams may be necessary, but how many simply perpetuate themselves when things are slow? How many DAs running for election inflate a "sex crime" when there are no juicy murder convictions to run on?

Some of these "crimes" are not necessaarily crimes at all and trivialize the real problems while ruining otherwise useful lives. Not only is the "perp" marked with the scarlet letter, but the "victim" is often put through much more crap and the ensuing mess make it more difficult for him or her to get on with life.

Like all crime, sex crimes will never go away, but unlike much other crime sex crimes have extremely deep psychological roots that are not being studied as a pathology. No one actually understands the rapist or real pedophile and few are taking the time to find out. But, hey, if they'd rather just lock up murderers and robbers than try to stop murder and robbery, why should they act any differently with rapists?

[varkam]

6. I think the media also plays a part

because the idea that our sons or daughters could be become the victim of a sexual assault is truly a frightening thought, and so the media tends to play stories of repeat offenders up, giving the percetpion that all sex offenders are as such, and really doing nothing to address the underlying problem.

Like all crime, sex crimes will never go away, but unlike much other crime sex crimes have extremely deep psychological roots that are not being studied as a pathology. No one actually understands the rapist or real pedophile and few are taking the time to find out. But, hey, if they'd rather just lock up murderers and robbers than try to stop murder and robbery, why should they act any differently with rapists?

I think a part of that might have to do with the privatization of the prison system. I don't know a great deal about it, but I do know that - at the least - there is a vested interest in keeping larger numbers of people incarcerated as opposed to fewer. The solution to the problem would be to study the motivations of sex offenders as a pathology with the intent of developing more effective means of treatment or, hopefully, preventative education. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be many people behind that idea.

[alarimer]

9. and NBC's Dateline in particular is a problem

what they are doing is simply entrapment, in my opinion (not that I am a lawyer or anything like that, so take it with a grain of salt). Their 'investigations' are dangerous and irresponsible. And only contribute to the idea that there is a sex offender around every corner. There is not.

[varkam]

11. Entrapment

has been a thorny issue in such soliciation investigations. AFAIK, it's not entrapment if the suspect instigates the sexual advances - so officers need to be wary of doing anything that might look like entrapment to a jury.

I've never seen the show (To Catch a Predator) personally, but I am familiar with what goes on. Part of me is inclined to think that it might be a good thing being that people are less inclined to be hysterical about things that they are familiar with, but it might also be perpetuating the very problem that it's trying to solve.

[liberal renegade]

8. I know a young man

who was 19 and his girlfriend was 15, they were sexually active and legal to do so. 1 month into his 20th birthday and she 2 months from her 16th birthday, he was charged with statutory rape, thrown in jail and a $100,000 bond placed on him..


Unable to post 10% he sat in county jail for 9 months awaiting trial. The day his trial began his court appointed lawyer recommended taking a plea and getting it behind him. Plead no contest to attempted sexual assault and receive maybe 1 year in county. He'd already did 9 months, so that meant only 3 months to go and he would get work release as well. He took the deal and instead got 3 to 6years in the state pen.

He served 4 years. Upon his release he was required to register as a sex offender with the local police, picture and address published in the paper shortly after. 4 times every year this local paper
publishes all sex offenders photos along with a city map and a big red star locating their home.

Every time they do that, they crucify him and his family, the tuff guys attack him as well. This battle will go on for 10 years after he served his 4 years of very hard time, at a very young age.

Regardless of their sexual offense, they're all treated as if they were violent sexual predators.

Shouldn't murderers be required to register, Known thieves having their mugshot posted in every place of business, drug dealers mugshot at every high school, etc,etc,etc....


A word of advice to parents of young men. Remind them of the law. If he's 19 and his g/f is 15 and they're active, they're legal, they day he turns 20 and she's not yet 16, he's breaking the law and could serve very hard time...

[varkam]

10. Insofar as the registry goes

The primary argument against it is that it constitues additional punishment after someone has already served their time - which is unconstitutional. Also, there's the point that other criminals should be required to register given that they have higher recidivism rates.

The law is the law, however. Cases like the one you mention illustrate that the law doesn't always make sense, and isn't always fair.

[Madspirit]

12. Unconscionable

I agree. It is unconscionable that all sex crimes are lumped together.

That a 19 year old boy could end up having that stigma for life because the pissed off daddy of his 16 year old girlfriend, files charges, is immoral. In my state there has to be a number of years apart before charges can be filed precisely because of this. I think a lot of states are changing on this.

That someone could be stuck on a sex crimes list for going to a hooker, is immoral.

...but don't play down crimes like voyeurism. Most serial rapist/killers started as voyeurs. Anything intrusive and non-consensual, should get you on the list.

Lolitaphiles should definitely be on the list. A 40 year old who has sex with a 16 year old, that's statutory rape and should be considered as such. By definition the sex between a child and a 40 year old is non-consensual. They are preferential pedophiles but pedophiles none the less.

Lee

[varkam]

14. Indeed.

Not only does it create a more dangerous situation by providing camouflage for truly dangerous individuals, but it unfairly stigmatizes people who either made a simple mistake or in fact made no mistake at all, but simply broke the letter of the law but not the spirit of it.

...but don't play down crimes like voyeurism. Most serial rapist/killers started as voyeurs. Anything intrusive and non-consensual, should get you on the list.

I disagree on that count. The thing that I have been arguing is that there are already too many crimes on the list that lead to confusion regarding who is dangerous and who is not. Almost all rapists use pornography, but it does not follow from that almost all pornography users will rape. It's a logical fallacy.

They are preferential pedophiles but pedophiles none the less.

A preferential pedophile is terminology used to describe an individual who has a marked sexual preference for prepubescent boys or girls (as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Older men who have sex with underage teenagers, or even older men who molest pre-teen children may not actually be pedophiles. Of course, some are - and as it turns out they are among the highest risk for re-offense given that research suggests that pedophilia is akin to homosexuality in that both can be thought of as a sexual orientation (though I should take pains to point out that they are not similar whatsoever in a legal or moral sense).

[BlooInBloo]

13. Meaningless? I take it you haven't been tagged with the appellation. lol!

[varkam]

15. I don't mean to say that it doesn't have an effect.

I mean to say that it's applied so broadly that it ends up communicating so little useful information in it's current usage. In short, a sex offender can be anyone from someone who downloaded child pornography to someone who rapes and murders an adult or a child and everything in between.

[BlooInBloo]

16. There are 2 basic components to concept-meaning (so says the line of thought to which I subscribe):

(1) the concept's inferential antecedents (what allows you to attribute the concept), and
(2) the concept's inferential consequents (what follows from the attribution of the concept).

In a nutshell, the OP was that (1) is empty, therefore the entire concept is empty. That's just false.


Kernel of truth that you may have been aiming for: The more a concept applies to, the less meaning (per capita, as it were) the concept has. In the most extreme case where a concept applies to *everything* - one has a completely useless concept. For concepts' primary *job* is to distinguish.

[varkam]

17. I don't think I said that the entire concept is empty.

Just that it doesn't communicate any meaningful information given that it is so broadly applied. It still conveys information, just nothing really useful.

I think you're parsing semantics with me, and if it's kernel of truth that I was aiming for then I accept that - but you use big smart words and I was never very good at English or linguistics :D

[BlooInBloo]

18. OP title: "'Sex Offender' an Empty Term"

EDIT: My apologies for using big smart words - you'll make an excellent American, if you aren't already one.

[varkam]

19. I used "empty" as a figure of speech

Not as a literal description of the term - and I could do without the ad hominems.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. Yeah. It's like pointing at someone, foaming at the mouth, and screaming "BAD BAD BAD!"

It's an expression of anger, rather than a categorization.