3 ms·

Careful, there's a slippery slope to drawing these conclusions about other classes of undesirables that start with your broad and unproven statement about sex o

Careful, there's a slippery slope to drawing these conclusions about other classes of undesirables that start with your broad and unproven statement about sex offenders. Show us some studies about recidivism that prove sex offenders recommit sex crimes at a greater recidivism rate than, say, drunk drivers or drug users.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
The slippery slope goes in two directions, mainly: First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Secondly, if we are going to do this to Sex Offenders, and it proves really useful and effective, let's start doing it to violent criminals. Then, say, bank robbers. Then, we should get rid of all the drug dealers. The repeat drug users gotta go now. While we're making society better, let's also clean up all the fraudsters and tax cheats. An example that springs to mind is the way Nazi Germany dealt with the Jewish people. I believe they were morally okay with it, too.
- thejohnconway 7y ago
  > First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Because locking someone up is reversible. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy in any case. Not all crimes have equal rates of damage or recidivism. There are many good reasons to differentiate between types of crimes and their motivations. Presumably you agree that we should probably lock up serial killers, right? According to your style of slippery-slope argument you have no way of distinguishing between that and executing children that won't go to bed on time, because it's all a continuum.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Yes, I pretty much agree with you. I was disagreeing with the blanket "lock'em all up forever" opinion expressed above. Emotional reactions I can understand to crimes like these but some sense needs to be exercised or we end up in another situation like Nazi Germany.
- thejohnconway 7y ago
  I've just clicked on your profile and see you have "ex-con" in your bio, and I wonder if that's where some of this disagreement is coming from. I just thought I'd make clear that am not in favour of generally harsher sentences (in many cases the opposite). I'm very skeptical of marking people for life for past mistakes. What I am actually talking about a specific subset of criminals, who's motivations are reasonably well understood, and who's crimes are extremely damaging.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    I kinda thought my story of Jeff gave away my status.
    - thejohnconway 7y ago
      Brain fart, sorry!
thejohnconway 7y ago
Sure, https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html "Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003), for example, found sexual recidivism rates that are four times higher for sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders" According to this source, The recidivism rates among those who molest boys is 35% after 15 years. Rates of recidivism are based on arrests and other recorded information, so actual rates will be higher (probably considerably higher if you take into account the low rate of reporting sexual assault). There are differential rates based on the situation of the crime - incestuous molesters are less likely to do it again, for example. But people who's motivation to offend is general attraction to children, and who's situational offence scenario is no more specific than living in a world with children, are way more dangerous. The psychological effects of being sexually assaulted as a kid are _really_ bad (want sources for this?), so yeah, I'm not just making this up, or making snap moral judgements. I genuinely consider the risk too high. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy by the way.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Actually, the slippery slope is real. DNA testing started with Sex Offenders, and is now close to becoming a requirement for any felon. Registry requirements and reach is expanding as well. > The recidivism rates among those who molest boys is 35% after 15 years. You cite a statistic that is drawn from a type of crime that is a very small percentage of the overall types of sexual offenses. Why not also cite the rate of incestuous molesters, who are a far larger number of offenders?
  - thejohnconway 7y ago
    Because I was replying in a thread about a man how had kidnapped a five year old to make pornography. My understanding from the literature is that such an offender is very likely to offend again, and likely to escalate (which would be murder in this case). I don't believe these things apply to so-called sex offenders in general, and I know some of the laws around sex offences are utterly ridiculous. The slippery slope argument is still a logical fallacy, you're saying because some push things to unreasonable levels, that the reasonable ones can't be supported. So, using the slippery slope argument the other way, should we be releasing prolific serial killers because they might not kill again? Where would you draw the line? (Of course, as you'll no doubt realise, the slippery slope argument will apply no matter where you draw that line, which is why it's a logical fallacy).

Fjolsvith 7y ago

The slippery slope goes in two directions, mainly: First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Secondly, if we are going to do this to Sex Offenders, and it proves really useful and effective, let's start doing it to violent criminals. Then, say, bank robbers. Then, we should get rid of all the drug dealers. The repeat drug users gotta go now. While we're making society better, let's also clean up all the fraudsters and tax cheats. An example that springs to mind is the way Nazi Germany dealt with the Jewish people. I believe they were morally okay with it, too.

thejohnconway 7y ago
> First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Because locking someone up is reversible. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy in any case. Not all crimes have equal rates of damage or recidivism. There are many good reasons to differentiate between types of crimes and their motivations. Presumably you agree that we should probably lock up serial killers, right? According to your style of slippery-slope argument you have no way of distinguishing between that and executing children that won't go to bed on time, because it's all a continuum.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Yes, I pretty much agree with you. I was disagreeing with the blanket "lock'em all up forever" opinion expressed above. Emotional reactions I can understand to crimes like these but some sense needs to be exercised or we end up in another situation like Nazi Germany.
thejohnconway 7y ago
I've just clicked on your profile and see you have "ex-con" in your bio, and I wonder if that's where some of this disagreement is coming from. I just thought I'd make clear that am not in favour of generally harsher sentences (in many cases the opposite). I'm very skeptical of marking people for life for past mistakes. What I am actually talking about a specific subset of criminals, who's motivations are reasonably well understood, and who's crimes are extremely damaging.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  I kinda thought my story of Jeff gave away my status.
  - thejohnconway 7y ago
    Brain fart, sorry!

thejohnconway 7y ago

Sure, https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html "Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003), for example, found sexual recidivism rates that are four times higher for sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders" According to this source, The recidivism rates among those who molest boys is 35% after 15 years. Rates of recidivism are based on arrests and other recorded information, so actual rates will be higher (probably considerably higher if you take into account the low rate of reporting sexual assault). There are differential rates based on the situation of the crime - incestuous molesters are less likely to do it again, for example. But people who's motivation to offend is general attraction to children, and who's situational offence scenario is no more specific than living in a world with children, are way more dangerous. The psychological effects of being sexually assaulted as a kid are _really_ bad (want sources for this?), so yeah, I'm not just making this up, or making snap moral judgements. I genuinely consider the risk too high. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy by the way.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Actually, the slippery slope is real. DNA testing started with Sex Offenders, and is now close to becoming a requirement for any felon. Registry requirements and reach is expanding as well. > The recidivism rates among those who molest boys is 35% after 15 years. You cite a statistic that is drawn from a type of crime that is a very small percentage of the overall types of sexual offenses. Why not also cite the rate of incestuous molesters, who are a far larger number of offenders?
- thejohnconway 7y ago
  Because I was replying in a thread about a man how had kidnapped a five year old to make pornography. My understanding from the literature is that such an offender is very likely to offend again, and likely to escalate (which would be murder in this case). I don't believe these things apply to so-called sex offenders in general, and I know some of the laws around sex offences are utterly ridiculous. The slippery slope argument is still a logical fallacy, you're saying because some push things to unreasonable levels, that the reasonable ones can't be supported. So, using the slippery slope argument the other way, should we be releasing prolific serial killers because they might not kill again? Where would you draw the line? (Of course, as you'll no doubt realise, the slippery slope argument will apply no matter where you draw that line, which is why it's a logical fallacy).