7 ms·

As a father, I can say that if someone moves in near me and they're a registered sex offender, I hope to know about it. I don't care how minuscule the crime is,

by thismat 17y ago

As a father, I can say that if someone moves in near me and they're a registered sex offender, I hope to know about it. I don't care how minuscule the crime is, the possibility of repeat offenses or misbehavior is too high to risk it. "Is the punishment too harsh" is purely subjective, sometimes yes, sometimes no, but any inappropriate behavior around children (impressionable, gullible, naive) should be punished. If a person shows that kind of poor judgment they should suffer the consequences of their actions. EDIT: A lot of this has to do with parenting practices and their responsibility in all of this as well. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but not trusting people until they've earned it has kept me out of more situations than the hassle it might have caused. It's depressing we don't value our youth more honestly. This is also not really related to HN, I expect to find this on digg/reddit/slash., but here? EDIT: To the reply about the 15 year old giving a blowjob to a classmate, read the subjective part again, sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime, especially when you consider two minors, I'm addressing the adult indecent behavior, not the minors with minors, that's a parenting problem in my eyes.

jdbeast00 17y ago
so the girl in the article who gave a blowjob when she was 15 to a guy in her class...you think its appropriate now that she is 30 that everywhere she moves she has to announce that she's a sex offender? come on, that's ridiculous. If we are putting sex offender registries online, lets put all criminal registries online as well. I should know if I live next to people with drug habits, right?
- nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
  "Hi, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I'm a registered drug offender." "No way! Me too!!" "Duuuude..."
MikeCapone 17y ago
There is a longer piece here that I encourage you to read: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 Major points: -A lot of the people on these registers are not considered dangerous (people who had consensual sex as teenagers) -There's no evidence that these public registers reduce the risk. -They ruin the lives of many people.
- thismat 17y ago
  How about evidence I can personally vouch for? My brother and his wife bought a new home and started making friends with their neighbors, a week or two pass and my sister-in-law finds out their next door neighbor is on a sex offender list, pretty good idea to keep an even closer eye on her two children wouldn't you think? I don't care what the crime is, fix the law to judge youth's interaction with each other, but if you even expose yourself to a minor, you have shown horrible judgment and deserve the hassle. Again, this is why it's subjective, you see it as ruining that persons life, I see it as scarring a child or possibly worse for life. EDIT: Just to clarify, I think the list is too big and has too much pointless things on it (like another poster's example of a drunk person relieving himself on a wall), but that's the judge's fault, not the lists fault, the list serves a very real purpose, though the ones passing judgment could use some common sense.
  - mquander 17y ago
    So you propose making a smaller list covering all the people who committed actually-serious sex crimes and who might pose a significant risk to the public? If they really have such a high chance of recidivism, then why would you offload that risk onto parents instead of the system? Why not keep them in prison forever, if they can't be successfully rehabilitated? I don't understand the place for a grey area of "person X is so dangerous he should be ostracized and branded so that people can steer clear of him, but person X is not dangerous enough to imprison him." (Also, we must have very different definitions of "evidence." When you cite a sex offender neighbor who hasn't apparently done you or your family any harm, but who you've put on a mental blacklist because of the registry, that does not sound like evidence that the registry is helping anyone.)
    - thismat 17y ago
      Too many lists and then everything is saturated, no I don't propose that. I propose common sense when a sentence is being dealt. On the real hardcore criminals, I didn't say I didn't want them in prison, rape and harming a child are horrible, horrible things, if they're going to be released from prison though, they should suffer consequences of their actions, I don't care if they choose to move in near me, but I will be packing my bags if I deem the threat too high. Notice I didn't say I would be knocking on their door asking them to move, I would take action to get out of the bad situation myself, this doesn't affect them. EDIT: Yes, I will mentally, and willingly blacklist someone if they're on a sex offenders list. If I know what the crime is, I can adjust this blacklisting accordingly, but there is no reason I should be care-free when I have children at home and know there is a possibility, no matter how small or "rehabilitated" the chances.
mahmud 17y ago
As a father, I can say that if someone moves in near me and they're a registered sex offender, I hope to know about it. Why stop at sex offenders? I want a table-driven foodar that detects individuals who meet my filtering criteria and alerts me of their proximity as soon as possible.
- thismat 17y ago
  Because if someone is for instance, a thief, and he steals something from me, I can handle that. If someone is indecent with my child, it's more than just a "thing". If someone's out on parole from a murder sentence (not man-slaughter based on hitting someone while drunk, et cetera) then yes, I would kind of want to know what kind of danger I'm living near so I can move.
pyre 17y ago
> EDIT: To the reply about the 15 year old giving a blowjob to a classmate, read the subjective part again, sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime, especially when you consider two minors, I'm addressing the adult indecent behavior, not the minors with minors, that's a parenting problem in my eyes. The problem is that you're not addressing 'adults with indecent behavior.' And even then, what is 'indecent behavior?' Pissing on a wall when you're drunk? Are you really and truly afraid of that person molesting your child? If so then you have serious issues... > I hope to know about it. I don't care how minuscule the crime is, the possibility of repeat offenses or misbehavior is too high to risk it. This right here says that you're not concerned with 'is the punishment too harsh.' "I don't care how minuscule the crime is," says that you don't give a shit about people that were too harshly punished. You would rather just brand people as 'good' or 'bad' and then avoid the 'bad' people. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. There are many shades of gray. > any inappropriate behavior around children (impressionable, gullible, naive) should be punished. The problem is that 'inappropriate' is subjective too. You're saying that the harshness of the punishment is subjective, so it can be ignored, but the 'inappropriateness' of the crime is paramount... only that's also a subjective measure. > If a person shows that kind of poor judgment they should suffer the consequences of their actions. So a person that pissed on a wall should have all of society treat him exactly the same as a person that spent a lifetime raping 7 year olds. Not only that, but someone that was 18 and had sex with someone that was 17 years old should be treated the same as someone that kidnaps 12 year olds and tortures them to death... You're a pretty vicious person. {edit} Just to add, that someone that was convicted of raping a woman isn't necessarily a 'danger' to your child either. Even the people that 'deserve' to be on the sex offender list aren't necessarily all there for the same reason. {/edit}
- thismat 17y ago
  I'd like evidence of someone pissing on a wall and getting on the list, first and foremost. I'm not sure but I thought sex offender registries displayed the cause of the crime, which will allow you to judge if it could really be a threat, it's implied to me that if they're on the list, that some sort of reason will be listed, if this is not the case, it definitely needs to be there if people are going to be put on it for "pissing on a wall". Also, I addressed the issue with minors earlier, don't rehash it out of context, obviously there are flaws when an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old and gets put on the list, but like I said in other replies and posts, I'm not addressing that because it IS obviously flawed. Just because I would like to know and believe I have a right to know, doesn't make me a vicious person, I've stated multiple times that I wouldn't keep my children in that situation, not that I would grab a pitchfork and be at their door screaming for blood and retribution, I wouldn't even have to confront them or make it known, I would just be leaving the situation, they can live their life. >The problem is that 'inappropriate' is subjective too. You're saying that the harshness of the punishment is subjective, so it can be ignored, but the 'inappropriateness' of the crime is paramount... only that's also a subjective measure. I'm pretty sure there is not a lot of gray area with the serious crimes. It's pretty easy to tell if someone acts inappropriately towards a minor, though I can see how even this can be abused, mainly by older looking teens lying about their age. The law obviously has flaws, but without public records clearly stating the case and cause of them being registered to that list, I think it's still better to err on the side of caution when children are involved. Maybe it's because I'm a parent now and it's my responsibility to see to their well being and I want to be extra careful that I don't put them in a bad situation out of ignorance. edit: Someone who was wholly convicted of rape, deserves to be on the list for the safety of single women who live alone, that is a fairly black and white situation depending on the ratio of false positives is now, with DNA testing it seems to be far less.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Respectfully, your post/edit pattern in this thread exemplifies the problem of people voting for things before thinking through the likely ramifications. When this happens, it tends to be pretty harsh on the people who have to live with the consequences of poor decision-making.
- thismat 17y ago
  Indeed, half the time I was editing was because I for a while I didn't get why the reply function wasn't offered to some posts, figured that out later on ;) But yes, definitely ill-thought out by myself, and largely misunderstood the topic at hand, it's good though, I learned from it, and pyre made some very good points.
- sho 17y ago
  Funny how you said "respectfully". I have no respect at all. These people are morons, and are the primary reason democracy is faltering.

by thismat 17y ago

jdbeast00 17y ago

so the girl in the article who gave a blowjob when she was 15 to a guy in her class...you think its appropriate now that she is 30 that everywhere she moves she has to announce that she's a sex offender? come on, that's ridiculous. If we are putting sex offender registries online, lets put all criminal registries online as well. I should know if I live next to people with drug habits, right?

nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
"Hi, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I'm a registered drug offender." "No way! Me too!!" "Duuuude..."

MikeCapone 17y ago

There is a longer piece here that I encourage you to read: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 Major points: -A lot of the people on these registers are not considered dangerous (people who had consensual sex as teenagers) -There's no evidence that these public registers reduce the risk. -They ruin the lives of many people.

thismat 17y ago
How about evidence I can personally vouch for? My brother and his wife bought a new home and started making friends with their neighbors, a week or two pass and my sister-in-law finds out their next door neighbor is on a sex offender list, pretty good idea to keep an even closer eye on her two children wouldn't you think? I don't care what the crime is, fix the law to judge youth's interaction with each other, but if you even expose yourself to a minor, you have shown horrible judgment and deserve the hassle. Again, this is why it's subjective, you see it as ruining that persons life, I see it as scarring a child or possibly worse for life. EDIT: Just to clarify, I think the list is too big and has too much pointless things on it (like another poster's example of a drunk person relieving himself on a wall), but that's the judge's fault, not the lists fault, the list serves a very real purpose, though the ones passing judgment could use some common sense.
- mquander 17y ago
  So you propose making a smaller list covering all the people who committed actually-serious sex crimes and who might pose a significant risk to the public? If they really have such a high chance of recidivism, then why would you offload that risk onto parents instead of the system? Why not keep them in prison forever, if they can't be successfully rehabilitated? I don't understand the place for a grey area of "person X is so dangerous he should be ostracized and branded so that people can steer clear of him, but person X is not dangerous enough to imprison him." (Also, we must have very different definitions of "evidence." When you cite a sex offender neighbor who hasn't apparently done you or your family any harm, but who you've put on a mental blacklist because of the registry, that does not sound like evidence that the registry is helping anyone.)
  - thismat 17y ago
    Too many lists and then everything is saturated, no I don't propose that. I propose common sense when a sentence is being dealt. On the real hardcore criminals, I didn't say I didn't want them in prison, rape and harming a child are horrible, horrible things, if they're going to be released from prison though, they should suffer consequences of their actions, I don't care if they choose to move in near me, but I will be packing my bags if I deem the threat too high. Notice I didn't say I would be knocking on their door asking them to move, I would take action to get out of the bad situation myself, this doesn't affect them. EDIT: Yes, I will mentally, and willingly blacklist someone if they're on a sex offenders list. If I know what the crime is, I can adjust this blacklisting accordingly, but there is no reason I should be care-free when I have children at home and know there is a possibility, no matter how small or "rehabilitated" the chances.

mahmud 17y ago

As a father, I can say that if someone moves in near me and they're a registered sex offender, I hope to know about it. Why stop at sex offenders? I want a table-driven foodar that detects individuals who meet my filtering criteria and alerts me of their proximity as soon as possible.

thismat 17y ago
Because if someone is for instance, a thief, and he steals something from me, I can handle that. If someone is indecent with my child, it's more than just a "thing". If someone's out on parole from a murder sentence (not man-slaughter based on hitting someone while drunk, et cetera) then yes, I would kind of want to know what kind of danger I'm living near so I can move.

pyre 17y ago

> EDIT: To the reply about the 15 year old giving a blowjob to a classmate, read the subjective part again, sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime, especially when you consider two minors, I'm addressing the adult indecent behavior, not the minors with minors, that's a parenting problem in my eyes. The problem is that you're not addressing 'adults with indecent behavior.' And even then, what is 'indecent behavior?' Pissing on a wall when you're drunk? Are you really and truly afraid of that person molesting your child? If so then you have serious issues... > I hope to know about it. I don't care how minuscule the crime is, the possibility of repeat offenses or misbehavior is too high to risk it. This right here says that you're not concerned with 'is the punishment too harsh.' "I don't care how minuscule the crime is," says that you don't give a shit about people that were too harshly punished. You would rather just brand people as 'good' or 'bad' and then avoid the 'bad' people. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. There are many shades of gray. > any inappropriate behavior around children (impressionable, gullible, naive) should be punished. The problem is that 'inappropriate' is subjective too. You're saying that the harshness of the punishment is subjective, so it can be ignored, but the 'inappropriateness' of the crime is paramount... only that's also a subjective measure. > If a person shows that kind of poor judgment they should suffer the consequences of their actions. So a person that pissed on a wall should have all of society treat him exactly the same as a person that spent a lifetime raping 7 year olds. Not only that, but someone that was 18 and had sex with someone that was 17 years old should be treated the same as someone that kidnaps 12 year olds and tortures them to death... You're a pretty vicious person. {edit} Just to add, that someone that was convicted of raping a woman isn't necessarily a 'danger' to your child either. Even the people that 'deserve' to be on the sex offender list aren't necessarily all there for the same reason. {/edit}

thismat 17y ago
I'd like evidence of someone pissing on a wall and getting on the list, first and foremost. I'm not sure but I thought sex offender registries displayed the cause of the crime, which will allow you to judge if it could really be a threat, it's implied to me that if they're on the list, that some sort of reason will be listed, if this is not the case, it definitely needs to be there if people are going to be put on it for "pissing on a wall". Also, I addressed the issue with minors earlier, don't rehash it out of context, obviously there are flaws when an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old and gets put on the list, but like I said in other replies and posts, I'm not addressing that because it IS obviously flawed. Just because I would like to know and believe I have a right to know, doesn't make me a vicious person, I've stated multiple times that I wouldn't keep my children in that situation, not that I would grab a pitchfork and be at their door screaming for blood and retribution, I wouldn't even have to confront them or make it known, I would just be leaving the situation, they can live their life. >The problem is that 'inappropriate' is subjective too. You're saying that the harshness of the punishment is subjective, so it can be ignored, but the 'inappropriateness' of the crime is paramount... only that's also a subjective measure. I'm pretty sure there is not a lot of gray area with the serious crimes. It's pretty easy to tell if someone acts inappropriately towards a minor, though I can see how even this can be abused, mainly by older looking teens lying about their age. The law obviously has flaws, but without public records clearly stating the case and cause of them being registered to that list, I think it's still better to err on the side of caution when children are involved. Maybe it's because I'm a parent now and it's my responsibility to see to their well being and I want to be extra careful that I don't put them in a bad situation out of ignorance. edit: Someone who was wholly convicted of rape, deserves to be on the list for the safety of single women who live alone, that is a fairly black and white situation depending on the ratio of false positives is now, with DNA testing it seems to be far less.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Respectfully, your post/edit pattern in this thread exemplifies the problem of people voting for things before thinking through the likely ramifications. When this happens, it tends to be pretty harsh on the people who have to live with the consequences of poor decision-making.

thismat 17y ago
Indeed, half the time I was editing was because I for a while I didn't get why the reply function wasn't offered to some posts, figured that out later on ;) But yes, definitely ill-thought out by myself, and largely misunderstood the topic at hand, it's good though, I learned from it, and pyre made some very good points.
sho 17y ago
Funny how you said "respectfully". I have no respect at all. These people are morons, and are the primary reason democracy is faltering.