3 ms·

Sure, https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html "Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003), for example, foun

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
    Jeff never had the benefit of treatment and was returned to society unchanged. That, imho, was a crime perpetrated by society.

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
  Jeff never had the benefit of treatment and was returned to society unchanged. That, imho, was a crime perpetrated by society.