Sex offender registries

December 17, 2004 4:52 PM

How well do you know your neighbors?With the California Megan's Law database, just breeze through the first few pages, and you'll get a map interface searchable by city, zip code, county, etc. Zoom in, and see little icons that tell you the location of registered sex offenders, and schools. Click on one of those little icons, and you'll see pictures, addresses, descriptions of their crimes, scars, and aliases. This strikes me as an internet app that is both cool and entirely creepy.
posted by jasper411 (125 comments total)

Holy mother of God, there are two sex offenders living within two blocks of my house right!

Jasper411, this is indeed creepy and cool at the same time. I'm impressed with the power of the site but it scares the bejezus out of me to know that there are two close by. But now I know what they look like.

Thanks very much for this. I'd heard about it on the news but they said the site had been hit by a million people on the day it opened and it got shut down.
posted by fenriq at 5:04 PM on December 17, 2004

Knowledge is half the battle, Fenriq!
posted by TwelveTwo at 5:06 PM on December 17, 2004

Wow, one lives just a few apartment houses away from me! Scary...

Thanks for posting this jasper411. I'd say [This is good] but I'm still kinda creeped out.
posted by starscream at 5:07 PM on December 17, 2004

If you're worried about the people in your neighborhood, it's important to look into their specific crimes. Part of me feels compassion for some of the unluckier ones with stupid charges like statutory or made a mistake in their early adulthood.
posted by Mach3avelli at 5:12 PM on December 17, 2004

Such an invasion of their privacy. Oh, but they're sex offenders and clearly a danger to the community, so fuck their rights. Oh, and hey, if they're felons, they likely can't vote and therefore can't change this invasion of privacy. Woohoo!
posted by Captaintripps at 5:14 PM on December 17, 2004

I'm uncomfortable with both sides of this argument.
posted by ColdChef at 5:16 PM on December 17, 2004

Holy cow, this is amazing/freaky. On the one hand, totally scary that folks' information is online, but on the more selfish hand, I could have avoided the freaks that lived near me if I had a child.

Pretty cool use of a java/flash/whatever map to reveal loads of information.
posted by mathowie at 5:19 PM on December 17, 2004

Server's maxed. No surprise there.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:20 PM on December 17, 2004

Texas has had something similar for years.
posted by dejah420 at 5:21 PM on December 17, 2004

Good grief, one of my neighbors apparently liked to use "foreign objects" with someone under the age of 16. Forced them into oral copulation and beat them, too, it would seem. How lovely.

Thanks for the link to the site, but it is indeed creepy to know that these people are around in your neck of the woods, so to speak. I'm also surprised at some of the things that females are registered for. Just not acts that you would associate with women (I guess I'm being sexist in this regard).

As for those concerned about civil rights, the right for parents to know that there's a sex offender living next door trumps their right to privacy. If you don't like it, don't give in to your impulse to sexually abuse helpless children. Or shoot yourself in the head. Either approach works for me.
posted by mstefan at 5:25 PM on December 17, 2004

Ah, the punishment that just keeps on giving.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:26 PM on December 17, 2004

Wonderful. There's a guy living less than a block away who was convicted of "Continuous sexual abuse of a child". That's great. Thanks for helping me sleep better at night, MeFi.
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on December 17, 2004

Ah, the punishment that just keeps on giving.

Nah. In a perfect world, the real punishment that would keep on giving would be an implant in their balls that would give them a 50,000V shock every time their victim has a nightmare or panic attack as a result of the abuse. They're getting off easy here.
posted by mstefan at 5:31 PM on December 17, 2004

its no surprise that this is remarkably cool--- the trains running on time under Stalin was also remarkably cool. Its good to know whats going on in your neighborhood regarding sex offenders: but I'm concerned about the precedent it sets; "hey-- put ALL felons into a searchable online registry"... one could argue it should be done... one could also see the potential for incredible misuse...
Is there any conclusive evidence that sex offenders are more likely to repeat their crimes habitually than other criminals? Or maybe people are just people?
posted by buddhanarchist at 5:33 PM on December 17, 2004

I wonder if any Muslims live near me?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:36 PM on December 17, 2004

As a matter of fact, buddhanarchist, yes there is conclusive evidence that sex offenders are more likely to repeat their crimes. Many sex offenders have sexual pathologies that do not lend themselves to rehabilitation.
posted by Justinian at 5:37 PM on December 17, 2004

My girlfriend creeped herself (and then later me) out thoroughly after seeing this on the news. We noticed that all the ones we clicked on "may have relocated" with the exception of some horrendous underage-oral-and-foreign-object-beating-and-raping character up in the Hollywood Hills. They don't know where he is anymore, that was just the last address before he lost the phone number and stopped calling in his whereabouts.
posted by mzurer at 5:37 PM on December 17, 2004

Is there any conclusive evidence that sex offenders are more likely to repeat their crimes habitually than other criminals?

All the literature I've seen seems to say yes to that question. Anyone got any links to studies that show reform is possible for sex offenses?
posted by mathowie at 5:38 PM on December 17, 2004

I also noticed that once you crossed a nearby street into a much nicer neighhborhood, the lawyers were better there were fewer sex offenders.
posted by mzurer at 5:39 PM on December 17, 2004

There needs to be a balance between the right to privacy of the offender, and the safety of the community he/she lives in. There also should be a consideration of just how these programs could actually contribute to reoffense, and are counterproductive to treatment programs.

That being said, like Coldchef alluded to, both sides of this issue have some really good arguments. Trials and convictions are, after all, public events. A lot of us claim that information is inherently valuable and should be "free," and it could be argued these programs operate under that ideal.

buddhanarchist: There is some data to suggest that sex offenders do have an unusually high rate of reoffense. The public also feels that sex crimes are especially damaging. Car thiefs may also have a high recidivism rate, but they only steal cars.
posted by Doug at 5:42 PM on December 17, 2004

The really scary part of all this is the whole "once a criminal always a criminal" philosophy. Did something bad once? Well, if it involved sex, it's on your PUBLIC PERMANANT RECORD.
posted by aubilenon at 5:42 PM on December 17, 2004

I like my car. I want to keep it. Make a registry of all known car theives.
Vandals.
Burglars.
Violent criminals.
Drug users.
Frauds.
We should get Ashcroft on this.
posted by buddhanarchist at 5:43 PM on December 17, 2004

My God, my sister's place in Marina Del Rey looks like it's under seige by sex offenders. They have the place surrounded!

I wonder if you can see what Michael Jackson's doing in Neverland with this thing.
posted by Neologian at 5:44 PM on December 17, 2004

Is there any conclusive evidence that sex offenders are more likely to repeat their crimes habitually than other criminals?

I recall a Dutch study that was done years ago that showed that both rapists and child molesters were more likely to be repeat offenders than other classes of criminal. In short, it basically said that rehabilitation was mostly wasted effort when it comes to sexual offenders. I'm sure some folks here can dig up stuff that's more recent.
posted by mstefan at 5:44 PM on December 17, 2004

I think lots of states have searchable registries like this. They're pretty easy to find on google. I've got a child molestor living two houses down from me and a rapist whose back yard is caddy-corner to mine. I'm a hypocrite for searching, though. I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of treating sex offenders differently than other violent criminals. Attaching a stigma to rape or molestation that isn't attached to plain old beating seems to contribute to the shame and humiliation that victims of sex crimes often feel.

Huh. One county over from me, there's a woman, five feet tall and 98 pounds, who was charged with third-degree rape. I'm thinking that must be rape of the statuatory kind.
posted by cilantro at 5:45 PM on December 17, 2004

And in somewhat related news:

"Lawrence Trant sees himself as a righteous crusader who put muscle behind his boiling outrage against pedophiles. The state of New Hampshire sees Trant differently. He is serving a 10- to 30-year sentence in New Hampshire State Prison after pleading guilty to attempting to murder two convicted sex offenders whose names and addresses he found on an Internet registry posted by the state.

posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:46 PM on December 17, 2004

Jusitinian/Matthowie: thanks-- it was my understanding that there is indeed a more habitual tendency with sex offenders-- but I was not sure. (Perhaps the habituiality is genetic and untreatable?) Again: it absolutely makes sense to do this kind of thing. Its very effective. I'm just concerned about how effective it can be-- and easily taken in very different directions...
posted by buddhanarchist at 5:49 PM on December 17, 2004

Matt: From everything I've read, treatment is most effective for the least "dangerous" of sex offenders. Incest offenders, for instance, have a very good success rate with treatment, but overall pose a low level of threat to the community. Rapists and child molesters (the "stranger danger" variety) have the worst chance at successful treatment.

Here's a list of some myths regarding sex offenders. It touches on recidivism rates and effectiveness of treatment. Csom.org is a good site for anyone interested in this topic.
posted by Doug at 5:51 PM on December 17, 2004

Here's a list of all the states with similar search engines.
posted by mathowie at 5:55 PM on December 17, 2004

Attaching a stigma to rape or molestation that isn't attached to plain old beating seems to contribute to the shame and humiliation that victims of sex crimes often feel.

That may be part of it, but I think just the nature of the attack is the more significant factor. If someone breaks my arm and cracks my jaw, that's one thing. That'll heal and I can shrug that off. If someone bends me over and anally rapes me... well, that's a whole other, significantly worse thing (at least from my perspective).
posted by mstefan at 5:59 PM on December 17, 2004

As much as the knee-jerk lefty wants to think this resource is a "bad thing" I am not sure I buy the argument about recidivism being a myth, I just don't think we can really know. On the page Doug links to, the myth directly preceding the re-offense myth states that some unknowable, yet large, amount of sex crimes are never reported... So if we don't know about them, how can we be sure they are not being committed by people who have already been convicted and released.
posted by mzurer at 6:04 PM on December 17, 2004

Attaching a stigma to rape or molestation that isn't attached to plain old beating seems to contribute to the shame and humiliation that victims of sex crimes often feel.

I don't think putting sex crimes in a separate category "contributes" to the shame and humiliation. I think, in a twisted way, it honors it. You know what I mean? (I know what you mean....)
posted by mudpuppie at 6:07 PM on December 17, 2004

The one problem I have with this is that huge numbers of sexual crimes are never reported - or if they are, don't end in convictions. So there are a huge number of sex offenders out there who aren't in any database and don't show up when you go looking for them.

So something like this is really a waste of time: wherever you live, there are sex offenders living near by.
posted by Infinite Jest at 6:17 PM on December 17, 2004

Ooh, interesting, Pennsylvania's sexually violent predator listing has this notice:

On September 25, 2003 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted this provision of Megan's Law to require that a specific request be made before this information can be provided via electronic means. To make a specific request for information on Sexually Violent Predators in Pennsylvania please click below.

Looks like they decided these free-for-all databases aren't good.
posted by thebabelfish at 6:20 PM on December 17, 2004

Another point to consider: akin to kidnappings, a large majority of rapes/molestations are committed by family and acquaintances (I believe it was around 10% committed by strangers, someone correct me here). So the perceived threat is not as large as you would imagine.
posted by Mach3avelli at 6:24 PM on December 17, 2004

You know, I was ready to be one of the "I'm not sure what to think" people here, and I'm not. I flat-out think this is a horrible thing.

I understand the necessity of the police having this, just as they should have a database of all released felons by crime, severity, etc. But to allow the public random access to this is dangerous and horrific. What's to stop some psychotic "security mom" from hitting the Kinko's and flyering the neighborhood because she feels it's time for a witch-hunt? In Texas, a judge forced a convicted offender to put a sticker on his car. Within a week his car and his house was vandalized and he recieved nightly death threats. The easiest way to prevent a felon from ever rehabilitating him into society is to isolate him or her from it. This isn't a tool for safety; it's an application to make Scarlet Letters in the comfort of your own home.

For those finding it unbelievable that I'd suggest parents shouldn't know if these people are living around them, answer me this: what does it matter? Outside of becomming a suburban terrorist against someone you've never met, how do you plan on forcing a felon out of your neighborhood? As far as "keeping your children away from them..." exactly what would you do differently in any circumstance? Do you really need a database to decide whether or not he should take that specific stranger's candy?

Finally, what happens when parents, lazy as most already are, decide that a website check is all that's necessary to think their kid is safe? "Well, I never met Timmy's new friends' uncle, but he doesn't show up on the pervert website, so everything's alright!" Don't even sit there and tell me there aren't parents who will think that way; we've already got enough who think a DVD is the babysitter.

Children are protected when parents, and the community, gives a shit about them, not by thinking they have advanced tools to purge the neighborhood and falsify a sense of security because danger isn't in the general vicinity. No matter where you are, there's a dangerous, unstable person dangerous to your kids. Odds are it's a member of your family far more than a random lunatic you found by inputting a ZIP code.

And as far as the repeat offender stuff goes, it's nonsensical: if the authorities think a molestor is going to molest again, don't let them out of jail. If you think they've served their time and aren't a threat to humanity, then this little thing called the Constitution means you don't get to stick a LoJack up their ass.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:31 PM on December 17, 2004

And as far as the repeat offender stuff goes, it's nonsensical: if the authorities think a molestor is going to molest again, don't let them out of jail.

I agree with you there, but that's hampered by weak-ass sentences and lenient paroles. Probably because they need the cells for drug offenders. I don't know about you but I'd rather have a pot dealer on the street than a baby-raper*. If the justice system had it's priorities straight stuff like this wouldn't be so enticing.

*also, every time a pedophilia related thread comes up, some pedant feels the need to let us know that molestors are often within the family. we know that. It dosen't make them any less dangerous or disgusting.
posted by jonmc at 6:58 PM on December 17, 2004

Well said, XQUZYPHYR. My sentiments exactly.
posted by nixxon at 6:58 PM on December 17, 2004

Attaching a stigma to rape or molestation that isn't attached to plain old beating seems to contribute to the shame and humiliation that victims of sex crimes often feel.

I think mudpuppie's got it right - the response doesn't create the shame and humiliation; it's directly in response to it. That is, the power of sex crimes is precisely in the way that they make the victims feel shamed and humiliated. mstefan would rather have his jaw broken than be raped - and apparently that's not an uncommon sentiment. I'm not sure I feel that way (I dunno, I like my jaw) but for many people sexual crimes are assaults on the psyche, not just the body.

I'm not really sure what good this does, though. Like coldchef, I don't much like either side of the argument, but in a way, I think I'm also not that torn by it. Neither side really seems worth supporting, somehow.
posted by mdn at 6:58 PM on December 17, 2004

And as far as the repeat offender stuff goes, it's nonsensical: if the authorities think a molestor is going to molest again, don't let them out of jail.

That would be, uh, what's the word ... unconstitutional. It's a little shocking that you, XQ, would suggest giving police the power to keep someone in jail (for how long?) based on nothing more than "thinking" that person is going to commit another crime. Very Guantanamo-esque.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:04 PM on December 17, 2004

I understand and largely agree with your positions, XQ. I'm not a parent, so it's hard for me to relate to their often selfish and hysterical behavior. Maybe it's one of those things, like the joy of parenthood, that remains completely obscured from the childfree until they decide to have some of their own. Just like 9-11 converted many fair-minded critical thinkers into torch waving zealots ready to nuke the Middle East, parenthood seems to push fear buttons that fundamentally change people's sense of balance.

That said, this isn't a world where authorities keep likely reoffenders in jail. That Constitution thing to which you refer makes sure of that. I agree that this tool is prime for abuse, but some form of this database should be available in places as social dislocated as America. In rural Vietnam, such a system would be unnecessary because the social fabric is so interwoven that everyone knows everything about each other. Not so in 94117.
posted by squirrel at 7:10 PM on December 17, 2004

XQUZYPHYR, I guess my question to you is this: you think it's better (more humane, moral, in keeping with ones rights...) to keep someone in prison than to have their name in an online database? I'm not particularly for notification (mainly because, as you said, I don't see how it can actually keep people safe, and because I think it's counterproductive) but I can't imagine that giving someone a life sentence because they may offend again is a better idea than registration/notification. These measures are a compromise between those who are for long term incarceration, and those who believe in treatment for sex offenders. There are plenty of people who would like widespread civil commitment of sex offenders, for instance, and that is a hell of a lot scarier than these databases.

Mach3avelli, you have a point. These notification schemes don't, in my opinion, make enough of a distinction between the different levels of sex offenders, and offer information as to what those levels denote. An incest offender is most likely not going to be labelled a level three sex offender, much less a violent sexual predator, but they are listed on these sites. Do people really know the difference? I don't know. I do think that if notification was only for violent sexual predators, or even simply level three sex offenders, a lot of people would have a much easier time with this.
posted by Doug at 7:10 PM on December 17, 2004

pardonyou?, I won't pretend to speak for XQ, but I'd venture that he's not suggesting holding people beyond their sentences, but like me, that they be given harsher sentences and more stringent parole requirements to begin with, thus sparing both the public and the constitution. This is a serious issue not a mind game contest.


That said, this isn't a world where authorities keep likely reoffenders in jail

No, but we can use what we know about the probabilities of a subset of defenders chances of re-offense when meting out sentences in the first place.

I guess my question to you is this: you think it's better (more humane, moral, in keeping with ones rights...) to keep someone in prison than to have their name in an online database?

Well, in prison at least they have some measure of sfety from vigilantes.
posted by jonmc at 7:13 PM on December 17, 2004

suggest giving police the power to keep someone in jail (for how long?) based on nothing more than "thinking" that person is going to commit another crime.

Isn't this how a parole board works?
posted by Tenuki at 7:13 PM on December 17, 2004

Tenuki, a parole board decides whether to let people out before they've completed their prescribed sentence. I think what pardonyou? was implying was that XQ was suggesting open-ended sentences (as opposed to life or life without parole, which is a different thing again).

Sadly parole has become almost a given rather than a privilige these days, resulting in guys like this ending up on the street, which is a whole other debate. But like I said before, if we got our priorities straight we could avoid a lot of this crap.
posted by jonmc at 7:18 PM on December 17, 2004

It seems as if a registry is a 'unique' solution to a 'unique' situation where the crime, unlike the others, is seen as inherently violent as well as habitual. ("A unique solution to a unique problem"). So the insight needed may well lie in more information regarding the innerworkings of this unique pattern of repetition that is so compelling that it requires a whole new approach (sex registries)/ My point: if certain people have a proclivity, despite any and all rehabilitative effort, are they suddenly a unique category of criminal-- one necessitating a second set of laws and guidelines? And if this is the case, what if the proclivity is inherently genetic-- we've created a class of genetic-based criminals.
posted by buddhanarchist at 7:22 PM on December 17, 2004

pardonyou?, I won't pretend to speak for XQ, but I'd venture that he's not suggesting holding people beyond their sentences, but like me, that they be given harsher sentences and more stringent parole requirements to begin with, thus sparing both the public and the constitution. This is a serious issue not a mind game contest

That's giving XQ more credit than his sentence deserved, and ignores entirely the "don't let them out of jail" part (which XQ specifically tied to the "repeat offender stuff" -- his words). But if that's what he meant, I have no quarrel with him or you.

Isn't this how a parole board works?

Not beyond the term of the sentence. Does XQ's suggestion still apply at the conclusion of the sentence, or only when parole is a possibility? If not, where's the logic that supports the distinction? Particularly in light of the high recidivism rate.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:23 PM on December 17, 2004

Isn't it evil that older white man almost always equals pedophile? The upper middle class neighborhood I'm from in San Diego is chock full of 'em. I'm guessing that plain old run-of-the-mill rape would probably make for too big a scene. It's nice to keep up appearances...
The "zip code lookup" tool rafter gave us might be interesting to use in conjunction with this one.
92120
posted by cindileper at 7:28 PM on December 17, 2004

Isn't it evil that older white man almost always equals pedophile?

You should look at the database for here in Queens, cindilpeper. It's as ethnically diverse as the county. It depends on the neighborhood. But don't let that spoil your cute little snark.
posted by jonmc at 7:30 PM on December 17, 2004

Children are protected when parents, and the community, gives a shit about them, not by thinking they have advanced tools to purge the neighborhood and falsify a sense of security because danger isn't in the general vicinity.

This is right, this is true and correct and I believe in it and practice it. But even with that said, I still want to know where the greatest obvious danger to my family lies. Does that mean I'd let my guard down around others? Hell no.

But if there happened to be some nuclear missile silos in your neighborhood, wouldn't you like to know about them?

No, not all sex offenders repeat, and its less likely when they are known to the community they live in. They have a tough time? Aww, that's too bad. Maybe they shouldn't have raped a kid.

jonmc, but on the outside they have some measure of safety from gangbanging lifers with absolutely nothing to lose. Vigilantes, by their nature, have things to lose.

I don't think sex offenders should be run out of town. There's nowhere they could go except by going to ground and becoming fugitives. I have no problem with a sex offender living in my neighborhood, so long as his crimes are behind him.

Is his house the first stop if something happens? Yep.
Is that "profiling"? No, its starting at the most likely place and moving down the list from there.

Yeah, I'm a father, a new one at that and it has changed how I view these issues. Its not me I need to protect now. Now I need to care for a 17 pound baby boy who care barely turn over. His safety and well being instantly became my top priority when he was born. There isn't anything that can explain what happens when you change from being a man or woman to being a mommy or daddy. You just have to experience it.

Another thought, isn't a contingency of their release to be part of this? If they refuse or break the rules then they go back to the pokey.
posted by fenriq at 7:32 PM on December 17, 2004

I have no problem with a sex offender living in my neighborhood, so long as his crimes are behind him.

Isn't it the duty of the criminal justice system to asses what the chances of that are and sentence them accordingly? They need to to a good job at it because if they're wrong the consequences can be dire.

jonmc, but on the outside they have some measure of safety from gangbanging lifers with absolutely nothing to lose.

most of the time they wind up in protective custody, which is fine by me. The safety of the public is first priority when it comes to sentencing.
posted by jonmc at 7:36 PM on December 17, 2004

As a matter of fact, buddhanarchist, yes there is conclusive evidence that sex offenders are more likely to repeat their crimes. Many sex offenders have sexual pathologies that do not lend themselves to rehabilitation.
posted by Justinian at 5:37 PM PST on December 17

1) Where is this conclusive evidence?

2) Whether they are more likely or less likely to offend again than a bank robber isn't really the question. Maybe it is a little more, maybe it's a little less. But so what? The question is whether they are likely enough to offend again that they should have a scarlett letter pinned on them forever.

Don't mind me. Resume the culture of child-worship.
posted by scarabic at 7:39 PM on December 17, 2004

Resume the culture of child-worship.

scarabic, it's not "child-worship," merely recognition of the simple fact that children are less able to protect themselves from more pwerful (physically, psychologically, and politically) adults. Thus they need special protection. And attacking those weaker than you is (correctly, I'd venture) considered especially reprehensible. Also, child abuse has far-ranging consequences for society when those abused children grow up.

So, condescending pseudo-Freudian, half-baked snark like what you just dished out is especially offensive.
posted by jonmc at 7:44 PM on December 17, 2004

I can believe that sex offenders are more likely to repeat their crimes-- if one follows the belief they are addicts-- addicted to a neurochemical stimulus that gets them high off of an act-- but I have not seen said studies. I think the question is: is this the right unique solution to these unique criminals?
posted by buddhanarchist at 7:47 PM on December 17, 2004

Fenriq, I wouldn't consider it a contingency of their release that they become a part of this. Even offenders who serve their entire sentence (no parole, for instance) are subject to the registration laws.

NYC has a newish initiative called STOP (Specially Targeted Offenders Project) which seeks to ensure that the "worst" offenders in NYC meet their registration obligations. Level three sex offenders, in NY, have to register with the state every 90 days, as well as any time they change their residence. Before STOP was instituted, there was very little repercussions to not registering. Nobody tried to find them, and if they were caught, prosecutors and judges didn't know what to do with them. Now, there is one judge in NYC specifically trained in sex offender registration violations. Communication has been orchestrated between various agencies as well. Consequently, many more people are prosecuted for registration violations, and our registries have become far more accurate.

buddhanarchist: I think I know what you're getting at, but there is very little evidence supporting a genetic etiology for sex offense. Believe it or not, having been offended as a child is also not a very reliable indicator either. What seems to be the most common thread among all sex offenders is poor maternal attachment as a child. Also, early use of masturbation as a coping technique.

I have some articles on the subject, but they're pdfs on my computer. I'll gladly email them to anyone interested.
posted by Doug at 7:53 PM on December 17, 2004

I have to say, I'm pretty effing shocked to find 16 sex offenders within 1 mile of my address. Shocked, but not necessarily worried or upset. If I had children, it would be a different story.
posted by crythecry at 8:02 PM on December 17, 2004

One problem with the database is that a good percentage of the persons on the list have out of date addresses. 18% of them to be exact according to Assemblyman Todd Spitzer. If putting it out in public makes it easier for the cops to update the database properly, I'm all for it.

The next step, according to Spitzer, is to expand registration to include employer addresses. The majority of sex offenders are employed, and some might be employed in a building with a day care center or near a school (if not actually in one). Legislation has been introduced to expand the database to include these addresses, which will make the database more useful as people are at work for more than a third out of the day.
posted by calwatch at 8:07 PM on December 17, 2004

I have such a hard time with this issue. On the one hand, the idea that I could be living a stone's throw from a convicted sex offender is frightening (although I would imagine that no matter where you are it's a good bet that you're relatively close to a sex offender of some sort). The nature of sex crimes and the emotional, gut-level response they elicit is hard to argue with. Of course parents want to protect their children. Of course law-abiding citizens want to protect themselves.

But where does this sort of thing end? I have a feeling that this sort of technology won't be limited to the most heinous offenders. I mean, if we can have a registry for sex offenders, why not thieves and drug dealers and people convicted of assault? Are these people free to try and rebuild their lives after they are released?

I think it comes down to whether you believe in the system or not. If you don't, wouldn't it be more effective in the long run to work to change the system itself rather than endorse a government machine that seems intent on destroying both our civil rights and our right to privacy? It's easy to support Big Brother when they're watching released sex offenders, but this sort of monitoring is not easily reined-in once it has been accepted by the general public.

There isn't anything that can explain what happens when you change from being a man or woman to being a mommy or daddy. You just have to experience it.

fenriq, you wrote persuasively about how protective you are of your young child. What if this sort of thing was to lead to a more general erosion of the right to privacy? The right to serve time, be released and rehabilitate oneself? Isn't that also worth protecting? I'm not trying to be cute here. I really believe this sort of thing could have a direct impact on just how much power we allow the government to have, which could directly affect the sort of world your child comes of age in.
posted by LeeJay at 8:15 PM on December 17, 2004

mudpuppie, mstefan, mdn- I do know what you mean, and I understand completely. I just think that, in a perfect world, sexual assault would cause no more serious psychological problems for the victim than any other kind of assault. The shame that victims feel is, I think, directly related to the idea that a sexual assault is the victim's fault. Rarely is it implied that the victim of, say, a mugging was asking for it by wearing an expensive watch.
I do realize that it's not a perfect world, and I don't for a moment want to minimize the suffering of sexual assault victims. I just think that these registration and notification laws are unfair and illogical. They don't work, and they don't make anything better.

Also, everything that XQUZYPHYR said.
posted by cilantro at 8:29 PM on December 17, 2004

jonmc: You mentioned child-abusers., using that term specifically. Makes me wonder if there should be such a registry for people previously convicted of plain-old child abuse.

Usually I guess they only hurt their own children so you might say that they don't present the danger to the community that sex offenders do, though then again most sex offenders are in-family ones as well. I haven't seen studies but my guess is that someone who abuses a kid once will do it agian (like in cases of spousal abuse).

Would neighbors take special care to watch out for the kids of previously convicted child abusers, and would that be good? I mean, it might undermine the parent's authority which could make the parent more prone to abuse, especially since abuse is often about establishing authority. Then again if the kid's suffering mentally, he might be considered less "weird" for it and neighborhood folks might take an interest in mentoring or providing emergency shelter.

This is probably an example of what so many people are worried about: an ever-expanding array of Things You Can Do That the Gov Won't Let You Forget Ever. See also LeeJay's comment, I guess. I suppose I just made the argument against any of these databases: if we don't think child-abusers and the like should be online, sexual offenders (at least those who assault within the family) shouldn't have their info spread around either.
posted by lorrer at 8:33 PM on December 17, 2004

Isn't a key assumption of this database that sex offenders are likely to attack people on their doorstep? How true is that? Do they not have cars?
posted by cillit bang at 8:42 PM on December 17, 2004

We could have databases for men who beat their girlfriends, because they'll probably keep on beating every girl they ever go out with.

And people with a kinship to my moniker could probably use a database as well.

I don't know what this Mapquest: Child Offender Edition does other than scare the fuck out of people.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 9:00 PM on December 17, 2004

I'm not sure if the database is really to empower parents, or scare the hell out of the sex offenders. If its more of the latter, then we should get a database of addresses on all corporate criminals and those convicted of crimes against the environment.
posted by buddhanarchist at 9:05 PM on December 17, 2004

These people have paid for their crimes. Enough is enough.
posted by xammerboy at 9:12 PM on December 17, 2004

There isn't anything that can explain what happens when you change from being a man or woman to being a mommy or daddy.

The effect on vocabulary is certainly disconcerting.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:22 PM on December 17, 2004

I just think that, in a perfect world, sexual assault would cause no more serious psychological problems for the victim than any other kind of assault. The shame that victims feel is, I think, directly related to the idea that a sexual assault is the victim's fault.

Without broadening or derailing the discussion too much, cilantro, I would assert that the psychological trauma of sexual assault is varied, complex, and extends far beyond shame. And, in any case, I don't agree with your argument that this database contributes to the social stigma of sexual victimization.

There isn't anything that can explain what happens when you change from being a man or woman to being a mommy or daddy. You just have to experience it.

No, I don't. [/humor] You supported well my argument about parenthood changing a person's sense of balance, though, fenriq. Bear in mind, though, that not all things that assuage fear actually diminish danger.

On preview: and revolting, Armitage.
posted by squirrel at 9:30 PM on December 17, 2004

I was going to post these links as a FPP, but I didn't think it was good enough, but they do address what Squirrel and Cilantro are saying.

Here's an article by Malcom Gladwell that addresses trauma in general, and child sexual abuse in particular. It makes reference to this study that found the long ranging effects of child sexual assault to not be particularly significant. The study was so controversial it became the first scientific article to be formally condemned by Congress.
posted by Doug at 9:38 PM on December 17, 2004

On sex offender recidivism: I'm not going to go searching for links now, but many years ago (before the Web!) when I had to write a psych term paper about sex offenders, I ran into the statistic that there are more 7th-time than 1st-time offenders picked up for indecent exposure. And typically, they go on to worse sex crimes.

I don't understand the posters here who discount the "many of them only abuse family members" argument. Yes, this is bad* of the offenders, and since such people are liable to do it again, the State should keep track of them in a database. But why should you be able to find out about them (if you're not a family member)?

*it's hard to discuss this subject, and make appropriately strong value judgments, without breaking the flow of an argument
posted by Aknaton at 9:44 PM on December 17, 2004

I am a parent, and the Oracle indicates two sex offenders living (in the same apartment complex it appears) within 3 blocks of my home. One looks particularly nasty with "RAPE BY FORCE" as his first of several offenses.

So, as a dedicated "child-worshipper," what do I do? Move to the centroid statistically furthest from the entire population of (registered) sex offenders, even if that turns out to be the middle of Death Valley? A vigilante-style flyer campaign (already tried by some other concerned parent in my area for a different offender)? Stay on the look-out for these two sinister characters and become blinded to other hazards my children may face?

No.

I will just take this data for what it's worth-- which is, practically speaking, not much. I will stay mindful of the world we live in, with both its joys and its horrors. I will protect my children as best I can without kidding myself that it is possible, necessary or even beneficial to protect them absolutely (especially as they reach their young adulthoods.) And I will strive to convey whatever wisdom my years have given me to my children, as they are ready to receive it.
posted by Ironwolf at 9:47 PM on December 17, 2004

Ironwolf wins. That made a lot of sense to me.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 10:17 PM on December 17, 2004

We discussed this at length in class the other day, about rapists and child molestation, and one of my friends started crying saying that she knew a rapist and several of her friends had also been raped. Then, in tears, she announced that she would like to think that her friend who raped someone could get better, and was upset that we would rather just wish them dead.
However, honestly, and while i know that this is obviously a very blatant and arguable statement, I
a)believe that anyone who is so screwed up that they would rape a child, or sexually abuse another person deserves to be locked up, indefinitely, forever, without parole. Sry to go back to the days when we stoned the wicked but i think some things deserve that kind of punishment...
b) I disagree that we are violating their rights, and as much as you can parallel this to minority groups that have been targeted in the past, this is different, and frankly, there is not reason to protect these people
posted by chatterbox at 10:37 PM on December 17, 2004

I don't know what this Mapquest: Child Offender Edition does other than scare the fuck out of people.

Well, Ironwolf posed a reasoned reaction. Unfortunately, not everyone is rational about this subject, and will use the information provided to kill child molestors. It's already starting in New Hampshire (read my link posted above for more details). This asshole tried to kill people, yet they ended up plea-bargaining because they figured a jury would be too prejudiced to convict him.

"But prosecutor John Weld says Trant is one of the most cold-blooded criminals he has encountered. If Trant had not been arrested, Weld said, the native of Cambridge, Mass., probably would have killed someone convicted of a sex crime against children."

posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:41 PM on December 17, 2004

jonmc: The value of knowing that most sex offense victims were assaulted by family members means that one ought to be more wary of family members than the strangers living on your block. Of course, developing paranoia that your uncle is a sex offender is difficult for many people -- but working up paranoia about neighbours is much, much easier.
posted by onshi at 10:54 PM on December 17, 2004

My kids brought home a notice from school that a sexual offender had registered at an address several streets away from me. As it turns out, I know the offender's parents and one night had a fairly lengthy chat with his mother about it.

The offender is a 19-yr-old kid who cybered with a girl, identified in Profile only as 15 years old. There was no girl. It was a 35-yr-old male Vice cop. That makes no difference legally as state law specifically excludes entrapment as a defense. The kid was convicted of something like "soliciting sexual performance from a minor" and sentenced to seven years in state prison. He got probation only because it was a first offense.

For one cyber chat with a cop, the kid is a convicted felon who must register as a sex offender everywhere he lives for the rest of his life. He has to forget about a future career as an engineer because no corporation will hire a convicted felon. He quit college and works somewhere as a warehouse laborer.

What I find disturbing about this is that we, as a society, want to label all sex offenders as potentially violent predators. Some, however, are just kids who do incredibly stupid things on a computer without thinking that their hormones are leading them into a heinous crime that is going to haunt them for the rest of their lives.

In punishing drug offenders, society now separates the possessor of minor amounts of marijuana for personal use from the statewide distributor of crack cocaine. No one has to register with the cops for a lifetime. In the punishment of sex offenders, a one-time cyber chatter with a 'pseudo-victim' is thrown into the same dung pile as the violent rapist. Mandatory registration is a life sentence.

No one rushes to defend a sex offender. I wouldn't either except that I know this offender's family. The fact is that in considered all types of sex offenders as a single class of criminal, we are condemning some of them to a life-long punishment that far exceeds the magnitude of the crime.
posted by PlanoTX at 10:57 PM on December 17, 2004

FWIW, the Illinois registry is here.

Having both a 27 year old wife, and a 16 year old sister in law that stays with us frequently, I prefer to be aware of any type of negative behavior that would possibly impact the two of them. This belief, of course, goes beyond just sexual offenses.

Keeping in mind that I am a 37 year old male with a criminal record consisting of exactly one speeding ticket (which could have well been dismissed with a warning, IMO), perhaps I am a little less forgiving of more serious offenders.

I am far from one with a strong ability to delay gratification, however, I have been able to successfully deny my baser instincts for a long time. As such, I suppose, I tend to wonder why some of the others either -

A] Do not seek counseling/treatment proactively
or
B] Don't commit the offenses.

Perhaps a rather simplistic viewpoint (well, should say simplified to avoid excessive typing), but it works for me.
posted by Samizdata at 11:18 PM on December 17, 2004

BTW - Don't plan on harassing or killing anyone.

Just so you all know...
posted by Samizdata at 11:21 PM on December 17, 2004

LeeJay, I understand how slippery it gets once the door's been opened. I know that there will be arguments to include murderers and other serious criminals. And I don't relish the thought of this sort of open-the-books thought process seeping into the rest of society. For sexual predators, I am willing to make an exception though. If that's hysteria, then it's hysteria. I am better for knowing that there are two historically dangerous ex-cons nearby. And dozens of uncaught crooks, rapists, thieves, abusers, whatever.

Armitage, ow, that was a low blow. You too, squirrel, hiding over there all furtive-like. Here, let me try again.

Bear in mind, though, that not all things that assuage fear actually diminish danger. This is true and its a very important point to remember. The inverse also holds true, not all things that assuage danger actually diminish fear.

PlanoTX, you're right, there are bound to be cases that are wrong. That should be re-examined and corrected. I would hope that his case would be looked at again. The only lesson he learned is that he only gets one chance and he already blew it. And that sucks.

The system isn't perfect but it could be a helluva lot better than it is now.
posted by fenriq at 11:29 PM on December 17, 2004

Oops, lost the paste. Oh well, it's funny, I'm a daddy now. It's taken some getting used to.
posted by fenriq at 11:31 PM on December 17, 2004

Note: I just got in from the bar, way inebriated.

Umm, finding it funny that a lot of the people concerned about privacy issues are a-okay with violation of same in this instance.

No one is really willing to defend or excuse a sex offender, which is understandable, but I would assume most of the same strictures apply.
posted by Captaintripps at 11:39 PM on December 17, 2004

Point the first: Ironwolf made an excellent point -- the best I think can be given, or has been given, to defend a database of this sort -- promoting vigilance in parents. Others have echoed that this is the principle value of the information.

Given that aim, why do we feel the need to have faces and exact addresses? Wouldn't a more anonymous awareness that a convicted sex offender was living somewhere on your block promote a heightened awareness? Then, it could be anyone, after all, couldn't it?

Doesn't giving the particulars of each individual sex offender's life, as well as a picture, merely promote a false sense of security (as long as we stay away from / harass that guy, we'll be all right)?

Point the second: Earlier in this thread, there was confusion as to the recidivism rate of sex offenders, which resulted in vague murmurs of agreement that sexual offenders are beyond hope. They are sick, alien people who cannot be restored to a state of human usefulness, and should be discarded and then quietly forgotten.

Let me introduce proponents of the above theory to a sad fact called the "vicious cycle." We join this cycle at the point where pedophilia comes to be perceived as a heinous state of mind, which, once reached, renders the wicked being depraved and beyond help. And so any discussion or study aiming to understand the cause or possible treatment of pedophilia is roundly condemned, unfunded and unchampioned. And so people suffering from pedophilic urges do so without recourse for treatment or help controlling themselves. And so they give in to those urges and molest a child or many children. And so these children make up the vast part of the new generation of pedophiles, who will suffer in silence because of the power of their stigma, because of the incapability of otherwise-rational people to discuss this matter with a rational bent.

When the hell are we going to break this chain?

To me, this database, in its sensationalistic and woefully inaccurate implementation, only serves to perpetuate a stigma that has gone far, far beyond healthy or rational. Child molestation should be reviled for the evil that it is. Pedophilia should be suffered like the tragedy that it is. Until we can bring ourselves to discover the root of the wickedness of these wicked men and women, we should not be allowed to know their faces.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 1:14 AM on December 18, 2004

^ That comment should read, "Pedophilia should be studied and prevented like the tragedy it is."

Thought exercise, by the way. Imagine you suffer from pedophilia, and you want help dealing with your urges. Try to find it.

I'll give you a Google headstart:

"if you suffer from pedophilia" result
"treatment for pedophilia" result
"help with pedophilia" result
"freedom from pedophilia" result
suffering from pedophilia resources result
posted by grrarrgh00 at 1:21 AM on December 18, 2004

I guess one point that could be argued in favor of such databases is simple - If you see a local convicted offender befriending your children, it would be an excellent opportunity to have an educational moment.

Keep in mind that I am friends with someone listed in our local registry. In his case, it was largely a case of "Honestly, Your Honor, I didn't know she was only 17."

So, I'm not completely down on these folks. I just want to be prepared for a possibility.
posted by Samizdata at 1:33 AM on December 18, 2004

I read that child molesters commit around 100 molestations before they are arrested and charged for the first time. I realize there are rapists/pedophiles [I'll use 'pedophile" instead of child molester, even though it's the biggest misnomer in the English language] living in the community that have never been caught or convicted, but the ones who have been convicted have usually committed dozens of offenses, so I have no problem with making this information available to the public. Yeah, there are some "vigilante moms" who make it their mission to notify the community that a pedophile lives there, and in extreme cases they may even harass or threaten the sex offender, but how many such people (meaning moms on a mission) do you know in your community? Most released sex offenders aren't routinely harassed, even though there are more unicorns than reformed pedophiles.

Some of these people have committed multiple sex crimes and shouldn't be out in the first place (but lord knows we need every cot in our prisons to house drug offenders). So please spare me your "slippery slope" arguments and pick your battles more carefully.
posted by Devils Slide at 1:34 AM on December 18, 2004

Most released sex offenders aren't routinely harassed, even though there are more unicorns than reformed pedophiles.

Spoken with the solid authority of someone pulling shit out their ass. How do you know "most" sexual offenders aren't harassed? Where do you get your information on reformed pedophiles? Would you consider an 18 year-old screwing a 16 year-old a pedophile? Because the law treats them as such.

All a registration does is give parents a false sense of security. "Don't walk down that street, Johnny, because that's where the sexual predator lives. All the other streets are just fine."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:46 AM on December 18, 2004

so these children make up the vast part of the new generation of pedophiles

Even according to the very article you linked to only 1/3 of all sex offenders report having been victimized themselves. I think, although your intentions are honorable, you're contributing to the stimatization of victims. The vast majority of them are going to be law abiding citizens, not sex offenders. A very small number of them will go on to become sex offenders, but this is, of course, true of any population.

And there are individuals capable of providing treatment for Pedophiles, grrarrgh00.
posted by Doug at 2:07 AM on December 18, 2004

Bear in mind, though, that not all things that assuage fear actually diminish danger.... The inverse also holds true, not all things that assuage danger actually diminish fear.

*suddenly hears the sound of one hand clapping*
*or is it one hand fapping?*
posted by squirrel at 2:12 AM on December 18, 2004

I cut my own post short somehow. Anyway, I was going to say that this country is teaming with therapists and psychiatrists capable of helping pedophile. Unfortunately, for many reasons (ranging from fear of incarceration or civil commitment to the fact that a large number honestly don't consider their desires wrong) most don't seek any kind of help until after they have offended.
posted by Doug at 2:13 AM on December 18, 2004

All a registration does is give parents a false sense of security. "Don't walk down that street, Johnny, because that's where the sexual predator lives. All the other streets are just fine."

I'm "pulling shit out of my ass"? Your little ignorant parent role playing act sounds like someone spewing shit out of their mouth. Like I said, there are plenty of sex offenders/pedophiles who've never been caught, and most sensible parents take precautions to safeguard their children anyway (should I provide data to support my assertion that most parents teach their kids not to talk to strangers etc?). But like others have mentioned, it helps if you know the person living two doors down is a thrice-convicted child molester.

I know most sex offenders aren't harassed because they usually aren't shy about whining about such harassment. A few years ago the local media covered the plight of a released pedophile who complained about being harassed by residents of the community he lived in. If that was the norm, there'd be plenty of civil liberties folks and media organizations who'd bring it to our attention (not necessarily because they cared, but because it guarantees ratings: "After the break,...local released sex offender...."). Anyway, you're the one insinuating they ARE routinely harassed. You're the one making the positive assertion, so it's up to you to prove that there's an epidemic of mobs carrying torches crying out for the blood of released sex offenders.

Would you consider an 18 year-old screwing a 16 year-old a pedophile? Because the law treats them as such.

No I wouldn't. Most states have provisions that prevent such screw ups. Meaning if you sleep with a minor, but you are only 3/4 years older, you haven't committed a crime. In any case, that's why this registry allows you to read what the offender in question was arrested for. There's a difference between reading that the 19 year old neighbor kid slept with his 16 year old girlfriend, and finding out the nice old man up the block continuously molested a 5 year old.
posted by Devils Slide at 2:20 AM on December 18, 2004

He has rights, you know.
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:11 AM on December 18, 2004

What happened to good ol' branding?
posted by spazzm at 4:15 AM on December 18, 2004

Who said I was being exaggerating?
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:19 AM on December 18, 2004

oops
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:20 AM on December 18, 2004

I think one question may be of interest regarding Mr. Mueller:
How old was he when he committed "lewd or ascivious acts with child under 14 years"?
I'm pretty sure looking like that is a lewd act in itself...
posted by spazzm at 4:23 AM on December 18, 2004

This girl will probably end up in the sex ofender registry.
posted by Tenuki at 5:07 AM on December 18, 2004

We, as regular old law abiding citizens, have rights too. We have a right to know when dangerous people are living in our community -- the same way you can search for hazardous waste sites in your area using an online databases. Arrest and prison release information is already public -- a database like this just puts it into a convenient format to search.

I would imagine that businesses included in a polluter database make the same arguments for privacy that are being made above: some are wrongly convicted, the laws are sometimes at odds with common sense, there could be potential consequences to the people who work at the businesses known to be polluting, etc...

I guess in general, I just think that we, as citizens, have a right to know what's going on in our communities, particularly if it involves the justice system. I don't think any of you would argue that all information related to a given person's criminal record should be secret by default, particularly when one keeps in mind that judges have the ability to seal records under certain circumstances.

Databases like these, then, seem like the natural extension of a philosophy of open access to government -- it's not like every citizen in a zipcode is getting emailed everytime a sex offender moves in... but the information is there if you want it.
posted by ph00dz at 6:19 AM on December 18, 2004

Children are protected when parents, and the community, gives a shit about them, not by thinking they have advanced tools to purge the neighborhood and falsify a sense of security because danger isn't in the general vicinity. No matter where you are, there's a dangerous, unstable person dangerous to your kids. Odds are it's a member of your family far more than a random lunatic you found by inputting a ZIP code.

XQUZYPHYR has it exactly right. Unfortunately, this is an issue that drives rationality right out of the heads of most people, especially parents of young children, and I completely understand that reaction, just as I understand that someone whose wife was brutally murdered might want to kill whoever did it. I would probably feel that urge myself in that situation, and if I had a young child I would probably freak out at the very idea of sex offenders living nearby and want every bit of information I could get. This is exactly why we have impersonal laws instead of private revenge. If I were in an emotionally intense situation, I would want certain things that, not being in that situation, I realize are objectively wrong; therefore, I don't want those things -- I don't want my hypothetical adrenaline-crazed self to be able to take advantage of them.

It seems to me this database is just one instance of the overall pattern of making the American populace as terrified as possible so we won't question the accelerating withdrawal of our privacy and constitutional rights. If you can't stand back from your parental (or other) fears enough to see that... well, that's your right. But it's too bad.

On preview: Tenuki, that's a scary story, and you're right, she probably will. Eek, another sex offender next door!
posted by languagehat at 6:42 AM on December 18, 2004

I know most sex offenders aren't harassed because they usually aren't shy about whining about such harassment.

You seem to have such a firm handle on the pedophile's mind. So tell me, O Master of All Things Pedophilic, what about the harassed pedophiles who are simply trying to avoid the negative publicity of "whining about such harassment?"

You're the one making the positive assertion, so it's up to you to prove that there's an epidemic of mobs carrying torches crying out for the blood of released sex offenders.

Please check the posting times. You made two statements that you have yet to back up with anything more than your own heightened sense of intuition. Swell job backing up your unicorn assertion, by the way.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:46 AM on December 18, 2004

I spent 15 years as a Parole Officer in Washington State. I work with computers now. They tend to be more compliant and predictable than felons. I know some of you may doubt that claim. I have supervised more sex offenders than I can recall. Some of them are the most vile humans that I have ever met. And you can imagine, in 15 years, I met some vile ones. I also supervised some who were not evil.

"Sex Offender" is a label. In my opinion, labels are ignorant and dangerous. Here is a list of the offenses that qualify as a sex offense in the State of Washington. There can be a vast difference between some one who has been convicted of Rape, 1st and someone convicted of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, 2nd.

It is not my intent to defend anyone convicted of a sex offense or rationalize their behavior. My point is that the label "Sex Offender" really does nothing to describe people convicted of these crimes. For example, were their offenses committed against adults or children? Are their offenses gender specific? Were they themselves adults or were they children when they committed the crime? Are they opportunistic or predatory, meaning are their victims people they know or don't know? Are there contributing factors such as alcohol or drugs (not a defense just a factor)? The label does not answer these questions. The crime of conviction really does not answer these questions.

I think these kinds of "registration/branding" websites do not really give people the information they need. They tend to just foment fear and misinformed behavior.

Sexual assault and sexual misconduct will always be with us. I believe that if you want to feel truly safer and protected, look to education and proactive prevention.
posted by Crackerbelly at 7:44 AM on December 18, 2004

Well said, Crackerbelly. Nice to hear from someone who actually has experience in this area; most of us are just spouting off (which is, of course, our inalienable right).
posted by languagehat at 7:52 AM on December 18, 2004

the right for parents to know that there's a sex offender living next door trumps their right to privacy.

Are you mad? No one's rights trump anyone else's rights. That's the whole point of the word. You have to be a parent to understand? My parents are parents and they don't believe in this crap. You're letting some Oracle* in the sky divine who your children should be worried about. As XQ... said, your kids should be wary of any stranger. That's all they know in this world and all they need to know.

Do you honestly think there are 6 zillion child molesters living near you because there are 6 zillion baby rapers?

Most states have provisions that prevent such screw ups. Meaning if you sleep with a minor, but you are only 3/4 years older, you haven't committed a crime.

They do? Point those laws out to me. Because, far as I know, anyone involved in said situation winds up in these databases. There are no "screw ups" here; you are what the system labels you and good luck finding some help removing that label. I appreciate the value placed on one's children and I understand the recidivism rate for pedophiles and rapists. That said, these aren't special crimes that separate themselves from the rest of the workings of the criminal justice system. If the system isn't properly punishing these criminals, fix that. Don't fuck up civil rights because you think it'll keep your kid from a free sphincter sizing. You know the only things that will keep your kids safe: you and a small bit of luck. All other solutions are empty promises.

* I stole the Oracle thing from someone upstream because it's worth repeating. How is blindly trusting this source of information any better than The Lady from Delphi?
posted by yerfatma at 8:07 AM on December 18, 2004

Tenuki, damn, that's messed up.

Crackerbelly, thanks for adding your insight, the law and the labels should change. The problem is that changing society is a much slower and less accurate process.

Yes, education and prevention are excellent (and alot more cost effective) programs to push.

But part of education is having the resources and the sex offender database and access to it is one form of education. I now know that there are two convicted sex offenders near me, I know what they did, I know what they look like, I know about them and knowing means that I can add them to my checklist of dangers to keep an eye on.

The site can be misused by people with ulterior motives or even well intentioned "protective" measures. But people will find a way to misuse just about anything you give them. At least some of them will. And those cases will be highly publicized but the vast majority of the use of the site and the information will be to make informed citizens. Not angry lynch mobs bent on some perverted sense of justice.

Changing the labels would be a good start so that less offensive crimes and stupid teenager fubars could be changed into something less permanently damning. That's fine.

But I think it is rather important to know what the guy two streets over went to jail for doing to a young boy. Because I have a baby boy of my own and I could never forgive myself for allowing something to happen to him.

On Preview: yerfatma, I don't really see anyone blindly trusting in the "Oracle" of the web site. Its another resource to use, that's all. Its a powerful one, yes, but its a tool.

Also, you aren't saying that every crime that's ever investigated ends up in a conviction and a new name, face, history and pic in the database, are you? I'd come to think you were far brighter than that, I'll just assume there was a little hyperbole there.
posted by fenriq at 8:31 AM on December 18, 2004

I think Crackerbelly has it exactly right about "labelling".

Devils Slide says, "Meaning if you sleep with a minor, but you are only 3/4 years older, you haven't committed a crime. In any case, that's why this registry allows you to read what the offender in question was arrested for. There's a difference between reading that the 19 year old neighbor kid slept with his 16 year old girlfriend, and finding out the nice old man up the block continuously molested a 5 year old."

Yes, there are significant differences in types of 'illegal' sexual behavior. Contrary to Devils Slide's quote, however, the registries don't show that distinction.

A Sex Offender Registry reports the name of the crime the offender was convicted of. That can be worse than useless. It not only doesn't say what really happened, but generally paints an image of heinousness that may be grossly exaggerated. You don't know "what the offender in question was arrested for".

In the case of that 19-year-old kid I reported on above, does "soliciting sexual performance from a minor" convey a picture of "cyber-chatting with an adult cop"?

I have no problems with maximum punishment for rapists and pedophiles. However, there is something wrong with a system that lumps a stupid cyberchat by a teenager together indistinguishably with those crimes.

When we dump ALL sex 'crimes' into the same pot, sometimes punishment can not fit the crime. I'm in favor of a law that takes away a driver's licence for a lifetime for anyone convicted of a third DUI offence. Should we apply the same lifetime ban for a third parking meter offense?
posted by PlanoTX at 8:57 AM on December 18, 2004

you aren't saying that every crime that's ever investigated ends up in a conviction and a new name, face, history and pic in the database, are you?

No, no. I was a bit slipshod in the middle there. What I meant was: it is my understanding these databases are huge because they include a whole range of "sex offenses". Which results in everyone's house appearing to be surrounded. The problem is no one sees 5 dots in their neighborhood and thinks, "These databases include people convicted of lots of things". They think, "Baby rapers!"
posted by yerfatma at 9:00 AM on December 18, 2004

Many in this thread have wondered why 'potential' sex offenders don't get psychiatric help rather than committing offenses.

Three thoughts: the cost of psychiatric care can be astronomical, and I would imagine that the fear that confessing pedophilic/rape/whatever-fantasies will result in massive stigmatization, destruction of self-image, and possibly being reported to the police. The same societal outrage that leads to public databases keeps potential offenders who might seek help 'in the closet'.

Also, many (thought not all) sex offenses are the product of psychological compulsion in one form or another, the sort of pathology that is vastly misrepresented by arguments that suggest these people ought to simply 'exercise some self control' or just get off some other way... which is equivalent to chiding a schizophrenic for not simply ignoring the voices in his head, or telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

None of this is to defend offenders' actions, but it is important to try to understand the fullness of their situations.
posted by onshi at 9:10 AM on December 18, 2004

The shame that victims feel is, I think, directly related to the idea that a sexual assault is the victim's fault. Rarely is it implied that the victim of, say, a mugging was asking for it by wearing an expensive watch.

Where do you see this idea that rape is the victim's fault? Isn't having a database like this further proof that the offenders are considered especially heinous themselves, rather than being somehow pulled into it by a victim?

Anyway I think the key misunderstanding here is the difference between guilt and humiliation, or between rational shame and visceral shame... Rape victims often feel shame; that is really what makes rape such a powerful crime for so many people. It is not physical injury, it is not material loss - it is a loss of one's agency, the psychological trauma of being forced into a position of intimate submission.

But when we feel shame, we usually think that means we did something wrong... the humiliation a rape victim feels seems to get confused with a sense of culpability, as if one 'ought to feel ashamed' as opposed to simply undergoing the feeling.

I don't think anyone actually thinks a rape victim 'ought to feel ashamed', but I will grant that people confuse these things, and through empathy may sort of 'feel ashamed for' the sexual victim - not morally ashamed, but viscerally humiliated.

Well, Ironwolf posed a reasoned reaction.

he said himself the database was of little practical value. There's nothing he can actually do that he wouldn't have done anyway as a good parent.
posted by mdn at 9:18 AM on December 18, 2004

I can add them to my checklist of dangers to keep an eye on.

"Frogs, frogs! Get them off of me! Oh my god, frogs! Get them off of me! Please, help! Get them off! Frogs! Frogs! Oh my god, they're everywhere! Frogs!"
posted by cillit bang at 9:51 AM on December 18, 2004

mdn- I think it's pretty well known that victims of sexual assault are often treated very differently than victims of non-sexual assault. In high school, I was called as a witness in a rape case. Photographs in which the fifteen year old victim was wearing a bikini and drinking a beer while sitting in a sixteen year old boys lap were used by the defense as evidence that the victim was sexually promiscuous. I've read about cases where children, small children, were accused of tempting or seducing their molesters.
That's where I get the idea that sexual assault is often considered the victim's fault. I think it's horrible, but it happens, and often.
posted by cilantro at 10:08 AM on December 18, 2004

In ten years time, we'll look back on Pedageddon like we did with other examples of mass hysteria. Maybe these people turned into sex offenders because of satanic ritual abuse back in the 80's.

Either the offender served their time and get a chance at rehabilitation or they don't. If recidivism is so rapant and the need to sexually abuse is so pathological, declare these people dangerously insane and lock them up. Saying "You're free, but we're going to publicly humilate you," is so backwards. What incentive does someone have to clean up his/her life if they don't get it back.

No wonder there's so much recidivism-- if you're not allowed a shot at getting back on track, why bother to go through the motions?

When a community has a database like this, they're just stopping short of supplying the pitchforks and the torches. Which is gross. If your child is that precious to you, teach him/her not to socialize with people you don't know unless you're present. Or have cables grafted on to its skeleton and lock it to your porch. Your right to cosmetic assurances of your child's safety absolutely does not trump anyone's right to privacy.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:08 AM on December 18, 2004

Anyone want to take a crack at this question?

In the country's schools, are there more teachers who are sexual predators or are there more groups of kids (girls, mainly) who get together and make up a story to 'punish' a teacher for an offense like a bad test grade?

Sexual crime accusations are practically a daily occurrence in schools across the country. A large percentage are merely 'he said she did' vs 'she said he did' types of things. Yet teachers can be arrested, tried, and convicted on the most circumstantial evidence.

There they go then... convicted felons, lifetime sex offender registration, ruined career, humiliation for something that may never have taken place.

The fear of unfounded accusation is one of those nightmares that is driving great teachers away from our schools and students.

I come to realize that my rant against the Sex Offender Registration systems is that every registrant is shown as 'black' [no racial inference intended]. There is no recognition of the grayness of the case or the evidence that is the reality of the event (or non-event).
posted by PlanoTX at 10:18 AM on December 18, 2004

Relevant new post
posted by yerfatma at 10:19 AM on December 18, 2004

Sweet Jesus. One of my old neighbors is on this list. I went to elementary school with his kid. Two counts of lascivious behavior with a 14-15 year old, one count of oral copulation with someone under 16.

And now I'm going to have the creeps all day long.
posted by RakDaddy at 10:47 AM on December 18, 2004

I know someone who is a registered sex offender, a title that will now follow him for the rest of his life and has left him posted in an on line data base where people can point, click and freak themselves out that some terrible criminal is living right down the street from their children. His crime? At the age of 18, leaving the UT stadium after a football game to walk back to his dorm and being a little inebriated, he pissed beside a tree. Instant "indecent exposure" and a lifetime of having to inform everyone where he is living. He's not a flasher, a rapist or a child molester. He was a drunk college student who needed to take a leak and was nowhere near a bathroom. Someone noticed and got offended by the sight of a young man peeing by a tree at night.

All the data bases tell you is that there are criminals of a certain classification living in your neighborhood. News flash: There are probably a lot of criminals of all sorts living in your neighborhood. When I started researching the area we were planning to buy a house in, I looked at all the crime statistics and criminal records. The nice guy down the street? He seems to beat his wife regularly. The older lady down the other way was found with a stolen vehicle. There were a high number of DUI's in our sleepy little residential area, so I can assume that some of my neighbors like to drive drunk. I bet some of them use drugs too. The horror!

These data bases don't tell you the whole story. In fact, they tell you very little of the story at all. For every heinous criminal listed, there are probably more than a few who aren't at all dangerous to you or your children ... and it doesn't even begin to tell you just how many actual criminals are living right next door. Face it, the world outside your front door isn't safe. It never has been, and knowing exactly who is living where doesn't make you any safer.
posted by Orb at 10:48 AM on December 18, 2004

In theaters this coming week - "The Woodsman" - starring Kevin Bacon, as a convicted pedophile, recently released from a 12-year prison term.

"A stunning, difficult film....[o]ften unnerving because of the filmmaker's intense evocation of the titular character's horrific condition, 'The Woodsman' received an enthusiastic reception ... at Sundance. Festival honors seem on the horizon. Admittedly, such a topic will be a tricky sell, but 'The Woodsman" should carve out a sophisticated, indie-savvy audience." (from The Hollywood Reporter)
posted by ericb at 11:22 AM on December 18, 2004

Of all the people in your neighborhood the person most likely to abuse your child is you.

These databases do not work, they simply make serious sex offenders go underground and stop notifying the local police of their movements. My brother-in-law is a policeman who has to check up on the people on the sex offenders list. Every time there is a scare story (to sell papers/get ratings) then a lot of the people on the list disappear and are no longer being watched.

Congratulations, your fear and stupidity just made your child more likely to be attacked.
posted by fullerine at 12:15 PM on December 18, 2004

Relevant new post

Sigh. Nobody listens.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:19 PM on December 18, 2004

I'm with languagehat

this is an issue that drives rationality right out of the heads of most people, especially parents of young children, and I completely understand that reaction, just as I understand that someone whose wife was brutally murdered might want to kill whoever did it.

A good comparison, except, in this case, it's more like: offender A kills wife B, and then every married male in the country feels that passionate bloodlust toward the offender, not just the husband who survived the victim. Being outraged once you've been a victim is understandable, but the pre-emptive outrage of the irrationally overprotective parent is without compare.

The irrationality with which parents approach issues like this won't make their kids any safer, sadly. How many people arguing vehemently in favor of this database, because it will make their kids safer, has had a thorough and complete talk with their kid about what sexual abuse is and how to avoid it? Oh wait, don't answer that. Yeah, I know: all of you have. Sure, right.

It's child-worship because the rights and defense of the children are elevated, even while any crime remains hypothetical, beyond the rights of other people. This database offers an immediate sensation of fear combined with the illusion of greater security. What a lose-lose offering.

That is, unless you've actually made serious use of the info, which, in my estimation, would require

a) the complete talk about sexual abuse
b) showing the pictures of the local offenders to your kid
c) walking them over to their houses and pointing them out
d) knocking on the offender's door and letting him know you're watching him

Once everyone in this thread has done *all* of that for the offenders in their neighborhood, please go through the offenders' case histories and find out how many of them assaulted kids living within a few blocks. My point being that your kids are still not protected. All this hooha won't protect them for one second from anyone with a car, or anyone local who hasn't been convicted yet. But the illusion that you can make them *more* protected is what drives you to irrational ends, like this cruel and unusal scarlett letter system.
posted by scarabic at 12:22 PM on December 18, 2004

Of all the people in your neighborhood the person most likely to abuse your child is you.

For any specific value of "you," this is probably untrue.
posted by kindall at 12:51 PM on December 18, 2004

For any specific value of "you," this is probably untrue.

Well yes, but for any specific molestation case, the "you" is often a relative.
posted by yerfatma at 1:57 PM on December 18, 2004

I still see both sides of the story.

Being a non-parent, I tend to think I shouldn't automatically be given the right to have public access to my nieghbors' mistakes.

Being a single female, I tend to want to know who might have a history of violence against people like me.

Very tough issue.

That said, here's an honest-to-god email I received from my neighborhood association today. It makes me feel bad for the "some" in our neighborhood.

>>From: ***@aol.com
>>Subject: [DMNC] Megan's Law
>>To: [e-mail]
>>Message-ID: < ***@aol.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>All those with children should take a look at this site, we have some in our
>>neighborhood area provided they have not moved since registering.
>>
>>Megan's Law info regarding sexual predators is now online. You can go to
>>http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/ and key in your zip code to see where and who lives
>>in your neighborhood. Many have photos available.

posted by mudpuppie at 3:04 PM on December 18, 2004

Schemes like this are, IMHO, fatally flawed from the assumption that sex crime is essentially randomly distributed through the population, or at least distributed an a fashion somehow randomly distributed within the locale of the offender.

As a number of people have already pointed out, the vast majority of sex offenders target members of their own families or at the very least people who are well known to them.

Ergo, if someone has been convicted of, and done time for a sex offence, the odds are that the people at the most risk of being victims already know what that person is like.

I can understand why people think they have a 'right to know' this information, and the argument can seem very persuasive in the light of the elevated levels of recidivism among sex offenders. But the nature of the relationship between the offender and victim is invariably such that initiative like this won't make the slightest practical difference.

I work as a criminal barrister in Australia. From time to time I have defended people accused of sex crimes, mainly crimes against children. In all the cases I have defended, and most of the ones I have prosecuted, the offender was well known to the victim, and at least one other person in the family knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it.

Worried about the kiddies? Look and act closer to home and don't get so fixated on stranger danger. You can take far more concrete steps to protect your families that don't involve infringing other people's rights.
posted by tim_in_oz at 4:33 PM on December 18, 2004

That's where I get the idea that sexual assault is often considered the victim's fault. I think it's horrible, but it happens, and often.

a) I meant in response to this database: your original position was that:

I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of treating sex offenders differently than other violent criminals. Attaching a stigma to rape or molestation that isn't attached to plain old beating seems to contribute to the shame and humiliation that victims of sex crimes often feel.

My point was that I think you are mixing up two different types of shame. I think the separation of sex crimes from other crimes is not anything to do with culpability on the part of the victim, but rather recognition of the psychological burden it places on its victims. THis has to be acknowledged because if it isn't, then rape is hardly a crime. As a physical act of violence, in terms of causing pain or harm to the body, it is minimal (obviously some forms of violent sexual assault cause greater tissue damage etc, but to qualify as a crime, rape does not need to cause bruising or tears). In any event, bruises heal more quickly than broken bones, but as expressed above, many people would prefer serious physical injury but no rape to minor physical injury + rape.

b) wrt trials attempting to show sexual patterns of behavior, while I can believe there is an element of subconscious 'she deserved it' being spread by those kinds of claims, it's important to remember that there are two sides to a story, and it is always possible that someone is being falsely accused. Since people do lie it is very difficult to establish what actually happened when there are no witnesses, and so relations or activities between the parties become relevant. If the victim of that case was sitting in the lap of her purported attacker at some point, then that might be relevant. If the defense was claiming that merely because she was flirting with one guy, she must have been willing to engage with the purported attacker, then I agree that that's completely ridiculous.
posted by mdn at 4:58 PM on December 18, 2004

No wonder there's so much recidivism-- if you're not allowed a shot at getting back on track, why bother to go through the motions?

Yeah, if your name's going to be on some internet database, you might as well keep fucking kids. "I would have stopped fucking kids, if only you hadn't put my name on the internet!"
posted by pardonyou? at 7:22 PM on December 18, 2004

Yeah, if your name's going to be on some internet database, you might as well keep fucking kids. "I would have stopped fucking kids, if only you hadn't put my name on the internet!"

I was thinking along the more rational. Like "You can't have a job in my [tire warehouse, convenience store, etc.] because I googled your name and you're a sex offender." If society is working to make sure you aren't allowed to participate, why would you feel compelled to work at playing by the rules? Seriously. A lot of crime (sexual or not) could be prevented if people were given a reason to give a fuck about the consequences.

I know, I know. I won't understand until one of my babies is raped in the coming Pedageddon.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:30 PM on December 18, 2004

"Felons Need Not Apply"
posted by PlanoTX at 8:52 PM on December 18, 2004

Time for a 'smile' break.

Legal Notice
posted by PlanoTX at 8:58 PM on December 18, 2004