Mapping Sex Offenders

February 11, 2006 8:24 PM

A map of sex offenders in YOUR neighborhood.People can change, and mistakes can be redeemed, but then again, looking at map of colored dots in my own neighborhood kind of gives me the creeps.
posted by JWright (68 comments total)

Basically a double.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:31 PM on February 11, 2006

Family Watchdog shows a lot more information. That other site never showed squat for me.
posted by JWright at 8:37 PM on February 11, 2006

posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:41 PM on February 11, 2006

Oregon
Unfortunately, Oregon does not currently publicize the registered sex offenders living within the state. Consequently, we are unable to provide any information about Oregon's sex offender population.

In discussions with Oregon state officials, we learned that Oregon does plan to provide a web-based registry of its sex offenders. Their planned implementation date is July 1, 2006.

We will eagerly await the introduction of Oregon's online sex offender registry. As soon as Oregon data is available, we will provide it to Family Watchdog visitors.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 9:01 PM on February 11, 2006

What constitutes child a sex offender on the state's databases?

Is actual hideous child-molestation differentiated from (consensua - but not in the law's eyes) statutory rape of a 17-year old?
posted by lalochezia at 9:10 PM on February 11, 2006

It's really odd how, when you click on a dot it opens an in-page popup, thats designed to look like it actualy was an windows XP popup window. Regardless of your actual browser, or OS.

What a bizzare design.
posted by delmoi at 9:10 PM on February 11, 2006

Last time this site was posted I found an offender living right on my block! I took action. I alerted the neighbors, organized a vigilance committee, and led a midnight mob that burned the guy's house down. Afterwards I found out that his "sex offense" was public urination. Man was my face red. I bought him a beer but he still seems a little pissed.
posted by LarryC at 9:14 PM on February 11, 2006

Do the colors mean anything? I clicked on one green and it was indecent exposure, and another green was rape. Huh?

looking at map of colored dots in my own neighborhood kind of gives me the creeps

Ya gotta remember that all sorts of nonsense can be a "sex offense" if the prosecutor wants to be nasty. Peeing outside is indecent exposure, briefly grabbing the arm of a kid you're chastising is some manner of assault-on-a-minor, etc.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:19 PM on February 11, 2006

Such a flagrant violation of cruel and unusual punishment.
posted by flarbuse at 9:37 PM on February 11, 2006

'Ya gotta remember that all sorts of nonsense can be a "sex offense" if the prosecutor wants to be nasty...'

Actually we don't gotta remember that. Both this site and this one list exactly what offense the scumbag is guilty of.

Close to 80 percent of sex offenders are listed as High-Risk or Serious offenders, which means they're guilty of one of the following:

· Assault with intent to commit rape, oral copulation, or sodomy
· Rape
· Sodomy with a minor or by force
· Lewd or lascivious conduct with a child or a dependent adult
· Oral copulation with a minor by force
· Continuous sexual abuse of a child
· Child molestation
· Penetration with a foreign object by force
· Kidnapping with intent to commit specified sex offenses
· Felony sexual battery
· Felony enticement of a child for purpose of prostitution

So, while I'm sure a few people have crept onto the list who don't belong there,

a) The fact that their specific crime is listed means we don't need to get out the pitchforks for those folks, and

b) In the vast majority of these cases, we can be damn happy we are warned they're living in our neighborhood.
posted by tkolar at 9:52 PM on February 11, 2006

I'm deeply disturbed by sites that are this irresponsible with private information. The New York sex offender registry requires (your) identifying information and states that

Anyone who uses this information to injure, harass, or commit a criminal act against any person may be subject to criminal prosecution.

These offenders already have to register with local police, schools, record working schedules, etc. It's not as if they're being set loose on a playground. And, as a woman on the subway pointed out, anyone who has commited serious crimes against children doesn't survive in prison.

This is just begging for an overreactive panic that's going to get someone killed.
posted by arialblack at 9:54 PM on February 11, 2006

When I was a teen, if this had been around, I'm pretty sure I'd have loved it. I'd have been calling on some of these guys, hoping to get molested.
posted by Goofyy at 10:00 PM on February 11, 2006

Local law enforcement has a very detailed website, with pictures and addresses. This site was one of the only tools I had to show my kid that there were real dangers, nearby, and she had to watch out for herself to a reasonable extent, that my parental fears were reality based.
posted by Oyéah at 10:07 PM on February 11, 2006

Such a flagrant violation of cruel and unusual punishment.

Wouldn't such registries solidify one's identity as a sex offender? It seems as though with these registries society is just asking for the sex offenders to offend again. I fail to see what good such registries do other than panicking the neighborhood and making a convicted sex offender never anything more than a sex offender. Isn't it the case that most sex offenses occur between acquaintances? I think its time we started coming up with some new ideas on this issue...
posted by j-urb at 10:15 PM on February 11, 2006

There's a guy two blocks from me who fucked a six year old. While this whole thing creeps me out, I can't find too much pity in my heart for him.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:35 PM on February 11, 2006

Oh great. A convicted sex offender lives within walking distance of the local middle school.

His conviction was Sodomy II, which according to Alabama law is as follows:
_{(a) A person commits the crime of sodomy in the second degree if:
(1) He, being 16 years old or older, engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person less than 16 and more than 12 years old.
(2) He engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective.
(b) Sodomy in the second degree is a Class B felony .}

A bit of Googling shows that, according the Alabama Department of Public Safety, "the victim was a 12-year-old male". The offender is 46.

No date of conviction is noted.

Thank goodness the Powers That Be had the forethought to make sure our suburban neighborhood is free of sidewalks, so all the kids who go to school there have to take the bus, even if they live just a few blocks away. That is unironic--it's the first time I've ever been happy that we lack sidewalks (I walk to and from work on a semi-frequent basis, and it sucks.)

But now that I have this information, what to do with it? Surely the school administrators know this already, right? And as a convicted drug and alcohol offender (2nd degree possession of marijuana, DUI), who am I to cast stones? Of course, my crimes were (fortunately) victimless.

_{(And I wouldn't have gotten the DUI if we'd had sidewalks, but that's neither here nor there.)}

This information has further complicated my life. Hooray.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:46 PM on February 11, 2006

BitterOldPunk, do you even realize what you're saying? A dense neighborhood with sidewalks is always going to be safer than one without. The isolationist ethic of your suburban planning conglomerate will result in more children getting molested, not fewer.

You might benefit from reading Suburban Nation and Geography of Nowhere.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 11:05 PM on February 11, 2006

That is unironic--it's the first time I've ever been happy that we lack sidewalks (I walk to and from work on a semi-frequent basis, and it sucks.)

Well you're an idiot then. Do you know how many more children are killed by cars then by pedophiles? How many times more likely do you think it is that a child would be molested by a stranger then hit by a car? Are you even capable of figuring that out? I'm honestly curious.
posted by delmoi at 11:14 PM on February 11, 2006

Isn't it usually a family member? Rather than someone abducting random children off the street? I think you have better things to worry about.
posted by knave at 11:18 PM on February 11, 2006

Astonishingly enough, there seem to be very few perverts in my neighborhood. I wonder why?! There are certainly disreputables around...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:20 PM on February 11, 2006

This site was one of the only tools I had to show my kid that there were real dangers, nearby, and she had to watch out for herself to a reasonable extent, that my parental fears were reality based.

Your parental fears are still not really reality based. Your daughter is much, much more likely to be molested by someone she knows then by some random person in your neighborhood. I mean, it's one thing to say "stay away from X, don't talk to him". but to say something like "there's danger all around you" is paints a rather inaccurate picture, and more then that could (I would imagine) mess kids up and make them paranoid, fearful people.

Oh well.
posted by delmoi at 11:22 PM on February 11, 2006

Saucy, thank you for the lack of invective. Perhaps what I failed to convey is that I would really like to have sidewalks, have pestered the city council for sidewalks, and have written the neighborhood assocation many times over the past few years complaining that we lack sidewalks. I look forward to reading your links. And it's not a dense neighborhood, BTW.

And delmoi -- fuck you.

I've had beer bottles hurled at my head while walking home from work. I've had to leap out of the path of drunk drivers while walking along a steep embankment. I'm regularly doused by filth thrown up from oncoming traffic as I walk home along an unlit, curvy, soft-shouldered road.

I like sidewalks. Which has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

My problem with your comments is the "are you even capable of figuring that out?" Perhaps I failed to provide the necessary background info, in which case I apologize. But I think you're jumping the gun here.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:29 PM on February 11, 2006

Definitely just found my piano tuner registered on some serious counts. I guess I won't be the only one home when he's scheduled to come.
posted by booksandlibretti at 11:47 PM on February 11, 2006

knave writes...
Isn't it usually a family member? Rather than someone abducting random children off the street? I think you have better things to worry about.

Abducting random children off the street is extremely rare. Gaining a position of trust and power in children's lives and then abusing them -- regardless of whether they are relatives or not -- is relatively common.

I agree that there are a lot more pressing things to worry about in raising children, but this one ought not to get lost in the crush.
posted by tkolar at 11:53 PM on February 11, 2006

Four convicted rapists on my block -- and there is only one apartment building on my block, the one myself and my girlfriend live in. Fucking great.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:28 AM on February 12, 2006

I'm regularly doused by filth thrown up from oncoming traffic as I walk home along an unlit, curvy, soft-shouldered road.

Umm, this really happens regularly?
posted by xmutex at 12:34 AM on February 12, 2006

Yes, xmutex, it happens every time I walk home during or after a rainfall.

Again, not a thing to do with the post topic.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 12:45 AM on February 12, 2006

Is anyone else more worried about the unmapped sex offenders?
posted by tweak at 1:11 AM on February 12, 2006

Okay... after finding some offenders in my neck of the woods... and then googling some names... I came across the Miss ALABAMA SEX OFFENDER PAGEANT 2005.

With god as my witness, I have no idea how I should feel about this.
posted by Clay201 at 1:47 AM on February 12, 2006

Clay201, I am ashamed to admit how long it took me to realize that was a joke. A sick, sick joke.
posted by piratebowling at 2:30 AM on February 12, 2006

Every elementary school in my neighborhood has a red square like across the street. I'm sure I've seen some of these people. They should be dog food.
posted by evil holiday magic at 2:46 AM on February 12, 2006

135 guys live within 1.5 miles of my apartment which is near downtown Seattle... but still, that's a lot. It feels more like a demographic than a list of individuals. Are there any studies out there about re-offense rates?
posted by rainman84 at 2:52 AM on February 12, 2006

These sort of web applications completly misrepresent the danger that sex offenders pose to children. The vast majority of offenses committed by people who are already in some way known to or connected to the victims. Friends, immediate family and relatives.

In the last 5 years or so I have both prosecuted and defended about 20 sex cases. In all but one of them, the victim and perpetrator were related. In all of the cases involving offences against children, other members of the family were aware of the abuse and did nothing to stop it. Admittedly, 20 is a small sample but I would be very surprised if a broader correlation couldn't be found.

Applications like this rely on the lowest-common-denominator response of 'well, would you like one living next to you?'. Which completely ignores the fact that offenders exist and unless you plan to gaol them forever, you will have to house them somewhere, some time.
posted by tim_in_oz at 3:21 AM on February 12, 2006

Guilty of a gut reaction here. On a related note...

I caught a little of The People's Court today, and the judge launched into a rant stating that parents should view any adult as a potential abuser until specifically believed otherwise.
posted by evil holiday magic at 3:45 AM on February 12, 2006

You're supposed to get the creeps, and vote accordingly. Fear, any fear, is a socially conservative politician's best and dearest friend. Especially fear for your children. Oh, your precious children, how easily they might come to harm if you fail to vote to have their school and health money redirected into tax cuts, prisons, and military spending. Parental fear is the ideal manipulation switch, when that fear can be induced by the prospect of living near a man who urinated against the wall of a bus shelter ten years ago. Or by a woman who got drunk, removed her shirt and danced along a street. Or by a nineteen-year-old boy whose seventeen-year-old girlfriend's parents objected to their liaison. The horror, the horror. And so forth, and so on.

There are two reasons the USA has the highest rate of child-related sex offences in the world. (1) The USA defines the widest variety of activities as offences; (2) The USA defines the widest age group of people as children.

Actually there's a third: extensive manipulation of sex into a source of shame and terror and social opprobium, marring the sexual development of children, making them more likely to become sex offenders. Every sex offender was once a child. Chances are, that was where their sexual deviation was formed. I wasn't able to find anything with a quick use of Google, but I suspect there is a correlation between socially conservative upbringings, being a victim of sex offence as a child, and sex offending in adulthood.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:01 AM on February 12, 2006

Like father, like son...



[sad]
posted by moonbird at 5:13 AM on February 12, 2006

"Every elementary school in my neighborhood has a red square like across the street. I'm sure I've seen some of these people. They should be dog food."

But what if the information at that website is incorrect or out-of-date? What if the former owner/renter of your home was in the database, the information was not updated properly, and your neighbors (who only know you by sight) found a red square at your address?

I've seen many poorly maintained and corrupted databases, especially in situations where information was being transfered between or collected from multiple parties.

I fear that someday we'll hear about some poor innocent guy murdered by someone who was using a website like this one.
posted by D.C. at 5:27 AM on February 12, 2006

I think if I were a single registered sex offender, I would move to some small place in the middle of nowhere and get other registered sex offenders to move there with me. Start mail-order and electronic businesses, build an economy that requires little direct contact with the outside world, build a (strongly) gated community. Eventually, have a sex-offender sheriff, sex-offender mail deliverer, sex-offender mechanic, sex-offender plumber, etc.

If you're leper, you may as well move to a leper colony with all the other lepers and avoid the trouble that other folk (including all the unregistered sex offenders among us) want to cause them.
posted by pracowity at 6:21 AM on February 12, 2006

Jesus Christ. here we go. Think of the children! Think of the children!

Let's just kill all of them. If you touch a child for ANY reason that doesn't belong to you, you should be put to death.

Any questions?
posted by Slap Incognito at 6:23 AM on February 12, 2006

Er, the "child" doesn't belong to you, you should die, that's what I meant.
posted by Slap Incognito at 6:23 AM on February 12, 2006

Or is unreasoned, knee jerk panic without any thought process a condition for parenthood?
posted by Slap Incognito at 6:24 AM on February 12, 2006

I live in suburbia. A while back I saw a flyer that a neighbor had posted on the bulletin board at our neighborhood mailbox kiosk. The flyer outed a convicted sex offender living in our neighborhood. Despite the fact that I have small children myself, I tore down the flyer. No sense is spreading senseless fear and hatred.

Many good points made above. One that I haven't seen yet is the following: you get convicted of a crime, you do the time. You've been punished || rehabilitated || served your penance to society (depending on your view).

We don't seem to honor this belief when it comes to sex offenders. Requiring them to register and spreading the info of their whereabouts seems like an acknowledgment that our legal system is failing us (not that I think all these folks should be locked up forever).
posted by tippiedog at 6:25 AM on February 12, 2006

Looking at the details of several squares there's an amazing lack of detail, both on convictions & photographs (which sort of contradicts earlier posts about how one would have information to judge the serious offenders).

Also, my first reaction was how few offenders lived immediately near me, but then upon looking at a bigger map, how my area was one of two localizations of offenders in the town. Not sure what to make of this, except that I might be further frustrated by close friends or family telling me they couldn't ever move to a place like where I live because of the crime/neighbors, when in reality it's a very safe and friendly place.

And one more thought: mefi always surprises/annoys me by the snap judgements about parents. We ARE capable of logical, reasoned evaluations of the ramifications of different situations, thanks anyway though.
posted by artifarce at 6:49 AM on February 12, 2006

... what annoys ME about mefi are the snap judgments of people that, without thinking, start to freak out if there is a red dot near a school and post said emotion here on the blue without reasoning it out. My three-line post was just highlighting that thought process.

And there is a reason there's a lack of detail. It's called privacy laws. And if you want to repeal them for sex offenders, well, that's the slippery slope towards repealing them for everyone, right?
posted by Slap Incognito at 6:59 AM on February 12, 2006

Every time I read about these public databases, all I can see is a digital version of the Stocks or the Pillory. You'd think society had moved beyond those.

Except in the dark ages you could be sure the guy you spat on would actually be the guy in the stocks, and not the one that was in there last week.
posted by uncle harold at 7:04 AM on February 12, 2006

Lack of detail on convictions: Doesn't list the convictions (where it does for other offenders).

Lack of detail on photos: Doesn't have a photo (where it does for other offenders).

So you're presented with a name and an address, which would lend itself well to "misidentifying" one of your neighbors as a serious offender, when really the guy who lived there before peed on the street (as alluded to in previous comments).

There was only one comment that I thought your 3 comments were an appropriate reaction to.
posted by artifarce at 7:08 AM on February 12, 2006

I think if I were a single registered sex offender, I would move to some small place in the middle of nowhere and get other registered sex offenders to move there with me

Actually, I saw a news story on TV not too long ago. They explained that sex offenders (or possibly only child sex offenders; can't remember) were not allowed to reside within a certain distance of schools, day care centers, etc. Add to this the fact that most of them were not financially well off. The result was that the vast majority of them had very few options when it came to choosing a residence. Joe Bob the kiddy pornographer often ended up living down just down the street from Frank the child rapist. And, of course, viewers were lead to believe that they should be terrified of the alliances that might form between these two men.
posted by Clay201 at 7:22 AM on February 12, 2006

There is one sex offender in my (well-to-do) town of 75,000 people. And he lives in the only shitty part of town (the section of town that's between the river and the Mass Pike and on the border with Boston). So I guess I want to know, does poverty cause you to be a sex offender? Or do you become poor because you have bad morals?
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:27 AM on February 12, 2006

It is possible to end up listed in a sex offender registry without having been convicted of any crime. A defendant looking at a trial with a conservative "tough on crime" judge and a zealous prosecution threatening to put him away for decades, often based solely on one alleged victim's videotaped statement to police, will often accept a plea bargain with probation and a lifetime membership in this sad club.

Furthermore, those who are quick to demonize should hope that their mental faculties don't some day slip away (stroke, schizophrenia, dementia), leaving them with poor judgement or impulse control and a spot on one of these lists (or a bunk in prison). People get sick -- some in the heart, some in the lungs, some in the kidneys, and some in the head. Zum Wohl...
posted by syzygy at 7:51 AM on February 12, 2006

These things just make me unremittingly sad that there are so fucking *many* of them, everywhere. :(

Yeah, there are some on my daughter's street, too. I find it sad that as a society we do such a shitty job of keeping children safe from this stuff.
posted by beth at 7:55 AM on February 12, 2006

I would like to add to this discussion:

Thank GOD we also have a "physical/mental child abuse" database and a "harmful neglect" database, because we are all aware of the greater harm caused by these criminal acts against kids.

Oh wait. Wha? We can't lynch people for that kinda stuff? I see. Because the sex-offenders aren't really punished based on the level of harm they cause to children - but rather - based on the level of repulsion they generate in our delicate value systems.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:28 AM on February 12, 2006

BitterOldPunk writes "Oh great. A convicted sex offender lives within walking distance of the local middle school."

News flash: Most residential areas are within walking distance of a school.
posted by Mitheral at 8:57 AM on February 12, 2006

Mayor Curley writes...

There is one sex offender in my (well-to-do) town of 75,000 people. And he lives in the only shitty part of town (the section of town that's between the river and the Mass Pike and on the border with Boston). So I guess I want to know, does poverty cause you to be a sex offender? Or do you become poor because you have bad morals?

There's a similar pattern in my town. My guess is that the distribution of molesters is a lot more even, but when you're poor you can't afford a lawyer.
posted by tkolar at 9:09 AM on February 12, 2006

So I guess I want to know, does poverty cause you to be a sex offender? Or do you become poor because you have bad morals?

Or does being poor make a sexual criminal more likely to be caught or turned in? Does being well-to-do lead to covering up?
posted by melt away at 9:12 AM on February 12, 2006

delmoi wrote: Your daughter is much, much more likely to be molested by someone she knows then by some random person in your neighborhood.

Amen. A little perspective never hurts. As a parent, it's difficult sometimes to not give in to the fear (I checked, and there's a nasty one .4 miles from us), but the greater danger is from people that know your child and have already gained some trust. What does this mean? It means being an aware parent and trusting your instincts (on who to leave your child alone with). Personally, we don't leave our child alone with anyone except a select list of family members (it's a large family, and many don't even come close to qualifying, not on the basis of "molesting potential", but on other grounds) and a few parents of friends of my chlid. It amazes me sometimes the willingness parents have to trust someone just because they will give that parent the needed break or help. Good parenting is exhausting, no question there.
posted by e40 at 9:20 AM on February 12, 2006

There's a similar pattern in my town. My guess is that the distribution of molesters is a lot more even, but when you're poor you can't afford a lawyer.

Another possibility: Losing / not getting a job because of being on this list will eventually make you poor and move to a poorer area.
posted by uncle harold at 9:22 AM on February 12, 2006

Holy cow, Los Angeles. Lotsa' little candy colored molestin' squares you got there.

New York - 341

Chicago - 886

Los Angeles - 1769
posted by dgaicun at 9:26 AM on February 12, 2006

There seem to be a lot here for a town of roughly 65,000 people, but then our affluence level varies wildly. Just a crazy guess, but I bet there are more convictions of poor individuals than there are of wealthy ones.

Maybe it's a NC thing, but the ones I clicked all say "indecent liberty minor" which I guess could be anything? Freakily enough the map includes a house down the street from me, past which I regularly walk my dog & where I have often said hello to the guy I didn't know was a pervert, who lives there with several generations, including children.
posted by mygothlaundry at 9:27 AM on February 12, 2006

Woo Hoo!
This is the kind of spontaneous publicity that makes people!
posted by iconjack at 9:32 AM on February 12, 2006

rainman84 wrote...
135 guys live within 1.5 miles of my apartment which is near downtown Seattle... but still, that's a lot. It feels more like a demographic than a list of individuals. Are there any studies out there about re-offense rates?

Slightly out of date, but here is what the DOJ has to say on the topic.

Summary:

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

On the sex offender front:

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

(Good news! Less than half of the rapists in your neighborhood will try again!)

News is better on the child molester front:

Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

posted by tkolar at 9:35 AM on February 12, 2006

I wrote:
(Good news! Less than half of the rapists in your neighborhood will try again!)

In retrospect, this bit of flippancy doesn't contain real information.

From the report above:

Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

posted by tkolar at 9:46 AM on February 12, 2006

Ah, and once people stop focusing so much on sex we'll see such fun stuff as registries of:

Convicted murderers.
Convicted thieves/burglars.
People convicted of domestic abuse.
People convicted of assault.
etc.

Fun stuff!
posted by enamon at 11:50 AM on February 12, 2006

Sites like this always make me uncomfortable. It feels too much like rounding up people into a cage so everyone can throw rocks at them. You can't make something right again by compounding it with another wrong.
posted by FunkyHelix at 2:20 PM on February 12, 2006

If a serious sex offender is exposed by someone who has searched a site like this, and ends up being harrassed out of town, and the next town, and so on, what are they going to do? They're going to disappear, cease contact with their probation officer, stop attending their counselling or psychiatric treatment, maybe start going by a different name - all of which puts them in a position that makes it much, much easier for them to offend again, and a position which makes it harder for them to be caught should they offend again.

I can't find a link to prove it, but I'm pretty certain this happened in the UK when the paedogeddon panic was at it's height a few years ago - a tabloid newspaper, the News of the World, took to 'naming and shaming' paedophiles on the front page (in a grotesque bid to increase their circulation) some of whom promptly went underground. (Perfectly innocent people were also attacked for looking a bit like the paedo in that days paper, and one woman was attacked because she was... a paediatrician.)
posted by jack_mo at 2:33 PM on February 12, 2006

jack_mo: You're right, it did happen in the UK - from memory about 5yrs ago. It was shameful and ignorant: by people who, if they had a single brain cell that wasn't in constant use, might have wondered if there's a difference between a child molester and a childrens doctor.

Perhaps instead of consulting these maps people should lobby their representatives to have proper life-means-life sentence for sex offenders? Seems they're unsafe once released, so presumably that means they shouldn't have been released in the first place.
posted by selton at 5:10 PM on February 12, 2006

You're right, it did happen in the UK

Yeah, the paediatrician thing definitely happened in 2000 (see link at the end of my last comment) - what I was trying to find was definite proof of a paedophile going underground and subsequently reoffending. There's lots of folk at the time saying that would be the likely outcome, but no case of it actually happening that I could find, even though I'm sure I remember at least one instance of that...
posted by jack_mo at 4:11 AM on February 13, 2006

"There are two reasons the USA has the highest rate of child-related sex offences in the world. (1) The USA defines the widest variety of activities as offences; (2) The USA defines the widest age group of people as children.

Actually there's a third...."

Aeschenkarnos: couldn't agree more. There is, however, a a fourth: high funding and legal kudos for vigorously prosecuting ANY sex-offence involving children.

Whether the offense is real or imaginary matters not: it looks good on a DA's (and hence cities and hence politicians) record to have kicked some paedophile ass. In the dragnet, innocents get caught too, but so do more guilty people. Make of this what you will.
posted by lalochezia at 2:41 PM on February 15, 2006

It tells me that an "other offender" lives somewhere in the middle of Hiawatha Golf Course in south Minneapolis. I think they may have some data problems.
posted by COBRA! at 2:50 PM on February 15, 2006