How much is too much...Follow

I've talked to rape victims, victims of child molestation, victims of domestic abuse, etc. While I'm reluctant to ever say one thing is "worse" than another since the variety of abuse that a victim suffers regardless of how it is "classified" is so diverse, my research has always shown that those who have suffered domestic abuse demonstrate more lifelong issues than the person who was raped at a party in college or flashed by a neighbor as a child or whatever. Obviously, sexual abuse can be a component of domestic abuse, and vise versa, but anyway...

None of that matters though, it's irrelevant. The purported purpose of all these retroactively applied laws affecting sex offenders is to protect victims/potential victims and have been deemed non-punitive, which is absolute ********* I talk to literally dozens of folks every day who have been convicted of a variety of crimes from minor misdemeanors to violent assaults and none are so overwhelmed with the changing landscape of laws as those designated with the stamp of "sex offender". The hoops they jump through, the stress they are under every day is the exact opposite of what is needed to lower rates of recidivism...WHICH SHOULD BE THE GOAL, NOT REVENGE OR HATRED FOR A CLASS OF PEOPLE. The only reason these laws keep getting passed is because it's a no-brainer for politicians...it makes them look good, and who would ever vote against *hand to forehead* protecting the children!

I'm sorry if it appears to anyone that I'm unsympathetic to victims of ANY kind of abuse, but I've worked with both victim and perpetrator and I am in favor of policy and legislation that actually has a positive effect on recidivism rates, not laws that do EXACTLY the opposite, trashing the constitution in the meantime.

Nexa

And it's not just the politicians taking the easy path. How many citizens are going to organize or participate in protests, petitions, etc to repeal sex offender laws? I'd send a (measly) check for $5 like I do for other organizations. But who would take up this cause?

I would go one step further and say that it's to appeal to the public, not just appease. The reason there is a fervor over sex offender laws and restrictions is almost exclusively because of political positioning and media coverage which has resulted in a population of people who have developed a very disproportionate risk assessment.

As an aside, I am horrified at the amount of money being poured into a "cause" that has adverse consequences instead of into funding that would actually have a net positive outcome for the population by funding those measures and treatments that have been shown through volumes of research to lower recidivism and counsel victims.

Nexa

"BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN'T BLOG ITSELF"

I hope this is intentionally hilarious.

No, I don't think it is. Their excruciating earnestness doesn't gain them any fans, either.

Just for the record...PDF of legislation

Since the Networking Site bit is being discussed enough, I'll just note that the second bit of legislation regarding electronic communication and visitation doesn't seem to be as BD implies. Rather, it seems that it provides protections in that the custodial parent couldn't tell a non-custodial parent (who has visitation rights) "You can't contact your child via phone/text message/internet -- you can only visit them in person because visitation is only in person." If you have weekend visitation of a child and live a significant distance away, at least the custodial parent can't deny you electronic contact with the child on the weekend (phone, Skype, etc) saying that they only owe you physical contact.

I'm sure someone will say "Hey, I called her so that counts" but since visitation is rarely compulsory anyway the other option is for the slacker parent to just do nothing. If a kid has a parent who doesn't visit because they just don't care to do so, at least they might get a phone call.

Well. Looks like Smash owes you a grand. ;)

Um... He's still right though. Once someone has served his time and suffered his punishment for his crime, he should not be subjected to additional lingering penalties beyond those we apply to *all* felons. Making a special case for sex offenders is basically pandering to the mob, does not actually fix anything, and in fact is more likely to make things worse.


I'm not of the whole "we just need to socialize them more" crowd. For me the bigger issue is the slippery slope aspect of this. Justice is supposed to be blind. Scapegoating a particular group in order to earn yourself points with your constituents is pretty much always going to result in negative consequences. In this case, we're undermining the very nature of "justice" in our society. If we truly believe that sex offenders can't ever be released within society without them committing more sex crimes (which is the assumption behind this sort of law), then the response is simple: Execute them. Or, for the anti-death-penalty crowd, mandatory life in prison with no hope of parole.

Ultimately, this sort of law assumes that certain people can *never* be trusted not to commit more of their crimes if released. Thus, we should never release them. Kinda obvious really. But then we'd have to address the real issue and it's much easier to do the sorts of things this law represents.

Well. Looks like Smash owes you a grand.

I what now? Did you actually read the words there? This site easily meets those criteria, as does virtually every web site in existence. Did you read the "or" and "may"s in the text as "and" and "must"s perhaps?