Poll of the Day > What happens if they build a school near a sex offender's house?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Do they have to move? Would the state buy their house / pay for moving costs?

Maybe they have to check place before they build the school

The sex offender probably has to move.

I've heard that people set up tiny "parks" just to force sex offenders to move away.

Yellow posted...

The sex offender probably has to move.

I've heard that people set up tiny "parks" just to force sex offenders to move away.

do you agree with people doing this?

DoubleOSnake posted...

do you agree with people doing this?

I think it's fucked up but I'm not sure who's fault it is

From everything I've read I think the sex offender registry doesn't actually help stop people from re-offending (and you know why would it help anyway), so as usual I'm pro-rehabilitate over punishment

Yellow posted...

I think it's fucked up but I'm not sure who's fault it is

From everything I've read I think the sex offender registry doesn't actually help stop people from re-offending (and you know why would it help anyway), so as usual I'm pro-rehabilitate over punishment

I don't think there is a way to rehabilitate them.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't think there is a way to rehabilitate them.

Not necessarily. Probably depends on why they are on the list. You can get added for a few indecent exposures, for example Which could happen from peeing on a tree outside As an example

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't think there is a way to rehabilitate them.

Yeah not really. Nature is a bitch.

Still, a 25% reduction is better than none.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.4073/csr.2017.8

LinkPizza posted...

Not necessarily. Probably depends on why they are on the list. You can get added for a few indecent exposures, for example Which could happen from peeing on a tree outside As an example

Ok yea, you are point out one of the flaws with the list. I was responding to a quote talking about reoffending and I took that comment to be the sort of person the list was actually intended for. My meaning was I do not think it is possible for someone who is sexually attracted to something they should not be to be "rehabilitated" to no longer be attracted to that thing.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Ok yea, you are point out one of the flaws with the list. I was responding to a quote talking about reoffending and I took that comment to be the sort of person the list was actually intended for. My meaning was I do not think it is possible for someone who is sexually attracted to something they should not be to be "rehabilitated" to no longer be attracted to that thing.

I cant say whether or not that can be changed. But they could be rehabilitated to not act on said attraction, at the very least Thats assuming they get the help they need Which I feel like many of them dont get

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't think there is a way to rehabilitate them.

I forgot which statistic it was but pretty sure I reading a category of sex offenders tend to never repeat offend. Sorry for vague uninformed post lol.

DoubleOSnake posted...

do you agree with people doing this?

Yes, fuck pedophiles and rapist.

Tora_Sami posted...

Yes, fuck pedophiles and rapist.

do you feel the same way about murderers? isn't their crime even worse? not saying the other ones' crime isn't bad

how about a sex defender? Ive never had sex and i never will

sike

why is a no sex guy called a sex defender?

DoubleOSnake posted...

do you feel the same way about murderers? isn't their crime even worse? not saying the other ones' crime isn't bad

Depends on the circumstances, like the dude who shot his son's rapist or if a woman is being abused by her husband and she feels she has no recourse, is understandable. Killing someone while robbing the place, being a serial killer, drunk driving, stuff like that, fuck em.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't think there is a way to rehabilitate them.

If that's the case - and, for the record, I don't think that's true in many cases - then why are they out of prison? The entire point of prison is to be the place we put people who have caused harm until they are no longer a danger to society. If they are still a danger when they get out, we have failed at our job to rehabilitate them and/or they need to be kept in there longer; if they aren't a danger, then why are we still treating them like they are?

This is one of the reasons I don't like sex offender registries. They don't work (I have seen zero evidence that such registries keep people safe or prevent recidivism; in fact, by most metrics, the opposite appears to be true); they prevent people from reintegrating into society and, therefore, maximize their chances that they will once again turn to crime; they are applied way too liberally (you can wind up on one for something as innocuous as public urination) and there is almost no way off of them once you're on them; and they're basically a continual punishment on someone after their sentence is supposed to be served.

If someone's debt to society is paid after a prison sentence, then that should be the end of their punishment and they should be equipped with the tools/support to maximize their chances at a successful reintegration into society; if we think someone's debt is not paid and/or they're still a danger, they need to stay locked up. These half-measures serve no one - they don't make society safer and they don't help felons become productive members of their communities.

darkknight109 posted...

If that's the case - and, for the record, I don't think that's true in many cases - then why are they out of prison? The entire point of prison is to be the place we put people who have caused harm until they are no longer a danger to society. If they are still a danger when they get out, we have failed at our job to rehabilitate them and/or they need to be kept in there longer; if they aren't a danger, then why are we still treating them like they are?

This is one of the reasons I don't like sex offender registries. They don't work (I have seen zero evidence that such registries keep people safe or prevent recidivism; in fact, by most metrics, the opposite appears to be true); they prevent people from reintegrating into society and, therefore, maximize their chances that they will once again turn to crime; they are applied way too liberally (you can wind up on one for something as innocuous as public urination) and there is almost no way off of them once you're on them; and they're basically a continual punishment on someone after their sentence is supposed to be served.

If someone's debt to society is paid after a prison sentence, then that should be the end of their punishment and they should be equipped with the tools/support to maximize their chances at a successful reintegration into society; if we think someone's debt is not paid and/or they're still a danger, they need to stay locked up. These half-measures serve no one - they don't make society safer and they don't help felons become productive members of their communities.

i couldn't agree more. Why aren't there registries for convicted murderers? where the public can look up that stuff?

darkknight109 posted...

This is one of the reasons I don't like sex offender registries. They don't work (I have seen zero evidence that such registries keep people safe or prevent recidivism; in fact, by most metrics, the opposite appears to be true); they prevent people from reintegrating into society and, therefore, maximize their chances that they will once again turn to crime; they are applied way too liberally (you can wind up on one for something as innocuous as public urination) and there is almost no way off of them once you're on them; and they're basically a continual punishment on someone after their sentence is supposed to be served.

That argument can be used for the prison system in general.

DoubleOSnake posted...

i couldn't agree more. Why aren't there registries for convicted murderers? where the public can look up that stuff?

Because most of them don't get out.

Revelation34 posted...

Because most of them don't get out.

That's really only true for first-degree murder, and even then not necessarily.

More "justifiable" versions of murder are still technically murder (without even getting into manslaughter), and those can easily involve shorter sentences. Sometimes much shorter (in some places in the US, second-degree is only about 10-15 years). And unless a sentence specifically refuses possibility of parole, that can dramatically shorten a sentence as well (general rule of thumb being one month served for each year of the original sentence).

And that's without even talking about more complicated discussions of "felony murder" or "fetal murder" or "murder by proxy".

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That's really only true for first-degree murder, and even then not necessarily.

More "justifiable" versions of murder are still technically murder (without even getting into manslaughter), and those can easily involve shorter sentences. Sometimes much shorter (in some places in the US, second-degree is only about 10-15 years). And unless a sentence specifically refuses possibility of parole, that can dramatically shorten a sentence as well (general rule of thumb being one month served for each year of the original sentence).

And that's without even talking about more complicated discussions of "felony murder" or "fetal murder" or "murder by proxy".

That only exists because of pro-lifers.

Revelation34 posted...

That argument can be used for the prison system in general.

Why yes. Yes it can.

Fundamentally, the US prison system is focused on punishment. Not rehabilitation, not protecting society, just the catharsis of making sure that somebody who did something bad has the bad time they "deserve." That... doesn't work. Emotional closure is fun and all, and there's some value in prison as a deterrent, but nothing about that approach actually seeks to solve the problem of crime, in many cases making recidivism rates (and therefore public safety) worse.

Revelation34 posted...

That only exists because of pro-lifers.

Not really. Even the staunchest pro-choicers will generally agree that somebody who stabs a pregnant woman in the uterus should be held liable for that fetus' death beyond what a simple assault charge would convey. Exactly how to do that without also making abortion illegal is a topic with plenty of room for discussion, but the core idea of "you can murder fetuses" is pretty widely accepted.

adjl posted...

Not really. Even the staunchest pro-choicers will generally agree that somebody who stabs a pregnant woman in the uterus should be held liable for that fetus' death beyond what a simple assault charge would convey.

This. I'm pretty much straight up pro-choice across the board (and "pro-death" in general), and I'm still 100% a supporter of fetal murder laws.

Hell, if anything, I'd argue they don't go far enough. I'd be perfectly happy if the sentence for killing a pregnant woman and her unborn child was to tie the killer up, set them on fire, and beat them with crowbars until they stop screaming.

And then we throw them into the crocodile pit.



adjl posted...

Exactly how to do that without also making abortion illegal is a topic with plenty of room for discussion

That's actually an easy answer. Parents have the right to make decisions for their potential offspring, but John Q Random Asshole doesn't. In the same way I can legally consent to a doctor cutting into me with scalpels but that doesn't give you the right to stab me in the gut.

Fetal murder is actually more anti-choice than being pro-life is.