3 ms·
Eh, I'd say the bigger bit is compared to all ex-felons: > About 3% of felons with no known history of sex offenses commit one within 4.5 years of their releas
by fweespeech 11y ago
Eh, I'd say the bigger bit is compared to all ex-felons:
> About 3% of felons with no known history of sex offenses commit one within 4.5 years of their release.
Its pretty clear:
To justify having a subset of ex-felons [sex offenders] on the list, all ex-felons have to be on the list. Otherwise, the justification [they are sex offenders] falls flat when other types of ex-felons commit sex offenses more frequently.
Honestly, it sounds like a publicly auditable and widely accessible list of felons is likely what we need if we consider 1.8% reason to put people on a list.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lifeisstillgood 11y agoOk I get your point, and you seem to be arguing the same as the article - the value of a register of sex offenders is not as great as it might seem. it depends I suppose on whether the register has much of an effect. I mean if you reoffend even after going to jail, having your name on a list seems unlikely to help.
- fweespeech 11y agoIt isn't identical to the article. I think there needs to be a list of convicted felons somewhere that is widely accessible with their addresses so people are aware they are in the neighborhood. However, I don't think it should list them as "sex offenders" or the like. There is an unearned stigma in many of the cases. [e.g. urinating in public gets you on THE LIST]