4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - MikeCapone 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." That's the whole point of the article. Common sense wen't out the window because there's an arms race among politicians; everybody wants to look tougher than the others on sex crimes, and nobody dares criticize the system because "the attack ads write themselves". So we have tons of people who had consensual sex or urinated in public that can't live within "1000 yards of a school, park, library, bus stop, playground, etc" and can't find jobs. Not to mention that they become the victims of harassment and vigilantism.
    - thismat 17y ago
      I can see your point, and can't say I disagree with you, what worries me is that we'll swing too far back in the opposite direction the same way we went into a panic and went overboard with the law. I can see where I misunderstood the point being presented though.
      - MikeCapone 17y ago
        I think the risks of "going overboard in the other direction" are very very small. It will take a miracle (and tons of political courage) just to get something a bit saner, so I don't see how a total 180 degrees could be even possible. Have no fear, real violent sex offenders won't become popular any time soon.
jonknee 17y ago
So now your sister in law is suspicious of her neighbor and likely uncomfortable about her living situation. Her kids will likely lose freedom and probably be restricted to more inside play time. Running background checks on everyone you come in contact with doesn't make you safer, it just makes you more paranoid.
- thismat 17y ago
  Backyards are a great thing, no she doesn't spend her life living in fear, and neither do I, you take the information and make some adjustments to account for it. You don't have to let fear rule you to still be careful. You still should exercise responsibility when raising children though and not put them possibly in harms way, only slight adjustments are needed and they still interact with their neighbor just fine.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  "background checks .. [don't] make you safer, [...] more paranoid" That will be true in most cases, but not all. Some people revealed in a background check will pose a significant risk and indeed some criminals who would have appeared in a local register have reoffended (sex crimes and otherwise) and killed, raped, mutilated, etc.. If a check reveals no known risks, would that make you paranoid? I suspect not. If it reveals only one of your neighbours was convicted of a sexual offence, you check the court records and find that the offence was underage sex when they were a minor - wouldn't that assuage your fears somewhat? Knowledge is power but you do have to use it wisely.
pyre 17y ago
> but that's the judge's fault Not necessarily. In some states, you are mandated to be added to the registry for certain crimes. If you really believe that the sex offender list is too large, then what are you doing to rectify this? Are you calling/writing your local/state legislature? If not then you are willingly ostracizing a group of people based on a premise that you know is faulty (that everyone, or even most people on the sex offender list are dangerous) because you "don't have the time" to be bothered to help those people out. One of the evils that abounds in our society is the indifference of 'good men.'
- thismat 17y ago
  Good point about the mandated law, I forgot about that/didn't realize it, so I retract the statement about the judge's fault. I honestly have never looked in detail at the sex offenders list or the law surrounding it, I can say that when my brother told me about his neighbor I made the comment that I didn't feel we should judge him solely on that since it's easy to get convicted and put on that list wrongly, but that a little caution is in order to err on the side of safety. And you're right, complaining about it on HN instead of writing the state officials is definitely not the productive way to handle it, but this is also the first time I've had to really THINK about the law in detail. I can see why the law would need to be adjusted to actually better protect people instead of blacklisting whenever remotely possible.
  - eshi 17y ago
    I'm not personally attacking you, but that's the point of the articles. According the Georgia law (the blow job example), that woman is on the sex offender list and her offense is listed as "sodomy". Georgia's creative definition pretty much causes that woman to be on the receiving end of a lot of reactionary hatred and possibly puts her in danger, because people have no idea what her actual "crime" was. A lot of people don't think beyond hearing "sex offender" and "children". There's a constant climate of fear concerning sexual crimes, especially ones that involve children, that are making us do very irrational things to feel safer. Also, I appreciate your commentary on your personal feelings about this issue. It's a complex issue and I think some of the down-votes might've been a bit too hasty.

by thismat 17y ago

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.
- MikeCapone 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." That's the whole point of the article. Common sense wen't out the window because there's an arms race among politicians; everybody wants to look tougher than the others on sex crimes, and nobody dares criticize the system because "the attack ads write themselves". So we have tons of people who had consensual sex or urinated in public that can't live within "1000 yards of a school, park, library, bus stop, playground, etc" and can't find jobs. Not to mention that they become the victims of harassment and vigilantism.
  - thismat 17y ago
    I can see your point, and can't say I disagree with you, what worries me is that we'll swing too far back in the opposite direction the same way we went into a panic and went overboard with the law. I can see where I misunderstood the point being presented though.
    - MikeCapone 17y ago
      I think the risks of "going overboard in the other direction" are very very small. It will take a miracle (and tons of political courage) just to get something a bit saner, so I don't see how a total 180 degrees could be even possible. Have no fear, real violent sex offenders won't become popular any time soon.

jonknee 17y ago

So now your sister in law is suspicious of her neighbor and likely uncomfortable about her living situation. Her kids will likely lose freedom and probably be restricted to more inside play time. Running background checks on everyone you come in contact with doesn't make you safer, it just makes you more paranoid.

thismat 17y ago
Backyards are a great thing, no she doesn't spend her life living in fear, and neither do I, you take the information and make some adjustments to account for it. You don't have to let fear rule you to still be careful. You still should exercise responsibility when raising children though and not put them possibly in harms way, only slight adjustments are needed and they still interact with their neighbor just fine.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
"background checks .. [don't] make you safer, [...] more paranoid" That will be true in most cases, but not all. Some people revealed in a background check will pose a significant risk and indeed some criminals who would have appeared in a local register have reoffended (sex crimes and otherwise) and killed, raped, mutilated, etc.. If a check reveals no known risks, would that make you paranoid? I suspect not. If it reveals only one of your neighbours was convicted of a sexual offence, you check the court records and find that the offence was underage sex when they were a minor - wouldn't that assuage your fears somewhat? Knowledge is power but you do have to use it wisely.

pyre 17y ago

> but that's the judge's fault Not necessarily. In some states, you are mandated to be added to the registry for certain crimes. If you really believe that the sex offender list is too large, then what are you doing to rectify this? Are you calling/writing your local/state legislature? If not then you are willingly ostracizing a group of people based on a premise that you know is faulty (that everyone, or even most people on the sex offender list are dangerous) because you "don't have the time" to be bothered to help those people out. One of the evils that abounds in our society is the indifference of 'good men.'

thismat 17y ago
Good point about the mandated law, I forgot about that/didn't realize it, so I retract the statement about the judge's fault. I honestly have never looked in detail at the sex offenders list or the law surrounding it, I can say that when my brother told me about his neighbor I made the comment that I didn't feel we should judge him solely on that since it's easy to get convicted and put on that list wrongly, but that a little caution is in order to err on the side of safety. And you're right, complaining about it on HN instead of writing the state officials is definitely not the productive way to handle it, but this is also the first time I've had to really THINK about the law in detail. I can see why the law would need to be adjusted to actually better protect people instead of blacklisting whenever remotely possible.
- eshi 17y ago
  I'm not personally attacking you, but that's the point of the articles. According the Georgia law (the blow job example), that woman is on the sex offender list and her offense is listed as "sodomy". Georgia's creative definition pretty much causes that woman to be on the receiving end of a lot of reactionary hatred and possibly puts her in danger, because people have no idea what her actual "crime" was. A lot of people don't think beyond hearing "sex offender" and "children". There's a constant climate of fear concerning sexual crimes, especially ones that involve children, that are making us do very irrational things to feel safer. Also, I appreciate your commentary on your personal feelings about this issue. It's a complex issue and I think some of the down-votes might've been a bit too hasty.