Anyone ever checked the sexual predators site to see who lives closeby?

[Digit]

I showed a home to a friend today, and just found out a registered offender lives across the street. As a Realtor, I give out the offender website address for people to look up on their own.
Tomorrow will be interesting.

http://www.sexualpredators.com/

[AwakeAtLast]

1. Yes, I have, and I found

my former band teacher, two people across the road, and my ex-husband's cousin! (The last one explains a lot to me about that family)

This is a great tool, but it does have flaws. It is only as good as the state agencies that keep those databases current.

[ShinerTX]

5. I'm willing to let people try to get on with their lives

And it doesn't really bother me that some live near me. Maybe it'd be different if I had small kids.

[prodigal_green]

10. I have mixed feelings about it

a relative of mine was sexually molested by a neighbor when he was younger than ten years old while his father was in the military. I doubt his dad would have done anything harmful to the guy had he known, but he certainly wouldn't have let his son go camping with him. Several lives were destroyed by this.

[AwakeAtLast]

12. Well, I have an almost 3-year-old

and I have to say that I was a little uneasy knowing about the people across the road. Am I putting my residence up for sale? No. Am I very careful about where we go in our area? Yes. My school administrators have found a few people living very close to school grounds, too.

I understand your point, but I still think this is good to have.

[jdj]

61. you would.

this is a compulsion.

some would call it an addiction, and many if not most are repeat offenders.

when you think about how many times a person has to offend to get caught, it's scary. Very few people get caught their first time doing anything.

This is one of the most damaging and expensive crimes in human culture, so in this case an ounce of prevention is definitely worth a pound of cure.

[CottonBear]

2. I found a neighbor on the website.

He seems harmless enough. I don't have small children living here, I think it was a sodomy arrest. I don't know exactly what that charge meant in GA 8 years ago.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. In Georgia

If that charge was from 8 years ago, it probably was an arrest in a park or something along those lines. Or, it could even be he was arrested for having consensual gay sex.

This is one of the problems I have with sites like this. You could be a streaker and then you are labeled a "sex offender." I really wouldn't have as big an objection if the people listed were convicted rapists or child molesters. There are too many categories that can get someone put in the "sex offender" category! That is too scary.

[CottonBear]

32. I get the feeling that he's gay. He's an old guy. n/t

[Dorian Gray]

35. True...

IN NY, though, they only include Category 3 sex offenders (ones that have repeated offenses or very serious offenses) on the list. I assumed it was that way across the country, but I'm probably wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

54. You should be able....

to go down to the courthouse and find out what he was charged with and convicted of. That's all a matter of public record.

[yardwork]

71. The problem is that pedophiles usually end up with reduced charges

It's difficult to get a conviction for a sexual assault in which a child is a victim, because it is traumatic to the victims to testify. As a result, a lot of really horrible violent sexual assaults get downgraded to "indecent liberties."

I don't believe in vigilantism of any kind, but I do believe in being vigilant. Anyone convicted of any sexual crime against children bears close watching. Not abuse, not attacks - just close watching.

[DoNotRefill]

80. this guy got convicted of "indecent liberties"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2925599&mesg_id=2933324&page=

and went away virtually forever. He didn't have actual intercourse with the kids in question, either.

The Criminal Justice system doesn't always fail. Sometimes they get it right, and this is one of hte cases.

[GRLMGC]

3. That's so creepy nt

[Taxloss]

4. Doesn't this just encourage vigilantism?

This is illegal in the UK.

[Digit]

7. We know that is not allowed.

Nobody called for torches and pitchforks.

[Taxloss]

15. I meant, the release of the details of offenders like this is not allowed.

nt

[DrWeird]

43. I think that's the point. Vigilantiism.

I've heard people say, "hey, lets go beat the shit out of that new sex offender in the neighborhood."

[DoNotRefill]

56. Criminal convictions are a matter of public record....

unless the criminal was under 18 at the time of the offense.

The WORST case scenario I've ever heard of actually happening involving one of these databases was a guy made up fliers and posted them around the neighborhood to alert the rest of the people to his presence, so that they could keep their kids away from him.

These laws were passed after police failed to inform people of a sex offender moving into the area, and the sex offender killed a kid.

Sex offenders have a right to not be attacked. But our children have the right to not be attacked too, and letting people know who has posed a danger in the past is a GOOD thing.

[DoNotRefill]

55. No, it just guarantees....

that a person can find out which of their neighbors shouldn't be babysitting their kids.

Does it guarantee that somebody will not molest your kids? nope. But it lets you know who is predisposed towards that kind of thing. Knowledge is power. We've lived next to our sex offender for three years, and we've never spoken to him, and he's never spoken to us. We're good with that.

[Liberal In Texas]

6. Have done, nobody around here.

But you know, you can be labeled a sex offender if you get arrested for streaking or if you're a kid and park with your girlfriend and the local police bust you for having your clothing half off.

I think they need to be a bit more definitive about why someone has that designation.

[Bouncy Ball]

8. Yeah I used to live near a 22 yr old guy

who was convicted for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 20.

I wasn't just TOO worried about him.

[BiggJawn]

39. On Indiana's sites they list the offense.

It worries me that the guy in the next block was convicted of Child Molesting more than if he had been busted for "Lewd Conduct".

There's 2 households with kids in that block. Bet they don't know...

[Cats Against Frist]

9. Yes, I have

I have a three-year-old boy, and not that I'd let him out of my sight, I just want to know who lives around me. I live in a large apartment complex.

The problem is that most of the charges are for statuatory rape, and some states don't bother to differentiate whether or not the perp is like a sadistic, child-murdering molester, or a 19 year old who slept with a 16 year old.

Illinois has pictures, though.

[OneBlueSky]

13. this is just wrong, imo . . .

these people have paid their debt to society, and they're monitored by their parole officers . . . plastering their names and photos all over the place makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to find places to live, employment, even just friends and acquaintances . . . if this is the course we're going to take, they'd probably be better off if they stayed locked up . . . at least they'd have a roof over their heads, three squares a day, and a new pair of sneakers every six months . . . this might not be double jeopardy in the strictest sense, but it's damn close to it . . .

[Occulus]

20. See, they created these horrible things...

called sex offender registries because of recidivism rates among sex offender. The problem is, the fact of being on the registry prevents any sort of personal behavior/social reform from taking place. Its purpose is self-defeating.

Does any state- any one, single state, JUST one- have an internet registry for repeat drunk drivers? Armed robbers?

Does any registry of any kind exist for any other crime at all??

Please, someone tell me. I quite honestly would like to know if anyone else here knows of any such thing.

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. Registries are harmful to some.

Old neighbor was on the registry for what was listed as 'sexual assault with a minor'. Problem is, it was his wife! He was 17 she was sixteen. Her parents filed when she got preggers, then tried to change their mind the next day. The DAs hands were tied at that point. There is also a local man on the registry for urinating in public.

[Undercover Owl]

51. what?!

Where do you (and these people) live?
That's terrible.

[Liberty Belle]

23. I disagree. Child molesters rarely stop.

We need to protect the children from these serial predators.

[Bucky]

57. It breaks my heart, but I agree

They need to be quaranteened like any other disease. Sexual predators have somethink like a 95% recidivism rate. If they molest or otherwise sexually abuse children once, there's an overwhelming likelihood that they'll attack again, almost regardless of treatment or punishment.

My former minister, a pacifist Buddhist-Unitarian with almost predictably liberal inclinations, studied this problem and came out in favor of chemical or surgical castration of sexual offenders of minors. The problem is simply that irreversible.

I strongly disagree with anything that encourages vigilantism. We're a nation of laws and we need to stand by our values. But as a believer in the rule of law, I think the law needs to realistically respond to the crimes it seeks to curtail and punish. In this case the harshest traditional sentences, temporary incarceration for a very long time, is entirely ineffectual. Treatment for these poor souls is desireable, but the physical isolation of them is absolutely necessary if we're serious about protecting children from their crimes.

[roguevalley]

29. we have a bunch including four women in my town. one of them

is on the lam. Odd stuff.

[yardwork]

72. I disagree. Parole officers are notoriously overbooked.

Sexual predators shouldn't be let out of prison period imo. If we are going to parole them, then we have a right to know who they are.

The point of locking them up isn't revenge or punishment - its to protect the children who would otherwise be raped.

Normally I'm very libertarian in my views but sexual assaults against children is the exceptional area imo.

[Guns Aximbo]

14. Anyone ever checked the sexual predators site to see who a fascist?

Beleive it or not but an overwhelming large proprtion of them are....... REPUBLICANS! and thats the TRUTH!

[Liberty Belle]

24. I'd just posted, wondering about this!

should've read all the posts here first. What's your source on that?

Why don't you start an "interesting facts about Republicans" thread?

If we get enough really bad stuff, we could forward it everywhere and start shaming some of the better Repubs to stop associating with such scumbags.

[Guns Aximbo]

27. my source has vanished.

But I'll try to find it again...

[Lenape85]

16. I just found one within blocks of me

*gulp*

Looks like a freeper too

[Liberal In Texas]

19. That made me laugh.

[pinniped]

17. Got a few living in my zip code and they are close to some schools.

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/

[Must_B_Free]

18. How Many in your zipcode? 24 in mine

[pinniped]

21. 21, and I have noticed many are for crimes involving a child.

My zip code encompasses a rather large area. In my immediate area there are nine blue squares. The closest one is four blocks away and I live in a fairly good neighborhood so the only crime around here is usually a bunch of punks snatching purses and some residential burglaries.

[RebelOne]

42. There are 5 in my zip code which only covers a small area

But three of them were convicted of statuatory rape, which could mean that they had sex with a person under 18. They could even have been a teenager themselves and had sex with a person younger then them.

[barackmyworld]

45. 72 in my zip code!

yeesh!

[MrMonk]

47. One

Two blocks from me, and I've seen the guy walking around.
According to the website, he's 85 now, was 70 when the incident occured. One offence: "endangering the welfare of a child". M.O.: befriending a child and inviting her into his garage.

What does "endangering the welfare of a child" cover?

[yardwork]

73. It's very likely that he actually raped at least one child

and the most they could prove was the "endangering the welfare of a child" charge. It's a big problem.

[Liberty Belle]

22. It would be fun to cross-check it against party registration.

Wonder if they're mostly Rethugs?

[Lenape85]

26. Can any town refuse to allow a sex offender to move in

I've heard that there are towns in the U.S. where people who have been convicted of sex offenses can NEVER move in and live.

[arwalden]

31. So Their Punishment Continues Even After Their Punishment Ends?

I suppose that technically, people who are on parole are still being punished... but if someone's punishment has ended... and if they've "paid-their-debt", then isn't this list the same thing as forcing them to wear a scarlet letter.

I've heard of instances (I forget the details) where someone was forced to have a big sign in their front lawn that says "SEX OFFENDER LIVES HERE". -- On the face of it, that's outrageous! If that person is a danger to others, then they ought not be released in the first place... correct?

[txaslftist]

37. I like knowing...

I've got two little girls, we keep pretty close tabs on their whereabouts, but it's still nice knowing.

Good to see you again, by the way, Arwalden.

[DoNotRefill]

59. Ummm...in that case....

wasn't the guy a serial child molestor with multiple convictions, who was befriending neighborhood kids and inviting them into his house, and who put up one of those big "Kid-safe zone" signs out front?


Pedophiles pose a huge risk to society. They're one of the most likely groups of people to recidivate. If they can't be held forever, then notifying their neighbors is the next best thing.

[LadyRaivan]

33. I don't know about that

but a repeat rapist was released to a town that I used to live in, and everybody was watching him for the slightest indication that he was even THINKING about violating his parole. He bought alcohol (a parole violation) and someone immediately called the police. He went right back to prison. Can't say I was sad to see him go.

[DoNotRefill]

58. No.

They can't do that. There are towns where sex offenders are not welcome, but actually barring them from town? No way...

[Blue Diadem]

68. They have their ways of doing that, depending on the situation

I lived in Mi. for a few years and read about it happening. A sexual predator was released, said he was moving from Mi. to Ohio. He was promptly met by the police in the town in Ohio and was given a bus ticket to leave the state. Our paper followed the story for a while. He went to another state and was encouraged to move on, then he ended up out west.

In that case, the prison officials said he was an extremely dangerous person, failed his evaluations etc. He had been released once before and was immediately caught trying to abduct a small girl. He had received maximum time and served every minute, so even though they wanted to keep him, they couldn't.

[shanti]

28. i checked this

for someone i know is one, and the photo that is up is NOT HIM! all the other descriptors fit, but i don't know where they got that photo. it makes me wonder about the validity...hmmm....

[elehhhhna]

30. Don't think that list is comprehensive, folks:

Our Cop neighbor says for every one on the web there are 2 or 3 who've plead their charges down, and even more who haven't been caught.

[Dorian Gray]

34. Yes...

When I lived in Manhattan, I lived close to Bellevue Men's Shelter, which had a number of sexual offenders living there. I've always updated myself on the pictures, so that I would be safe when walking the streets.

In my new neighborhood (in Brooklyn), there are a handful of sexual offenders, but most of them have been convicted of same-sex sexual offenses with minors. (Most at around 15/16 years old.) I don't think that's a good thing, but it makes me feel safer. There is one man who has been convicted a few times for First Degree Rape, and his multiple victims have been adult females. For myself, that's the person I must keep my eye out for.

[txaslftist]

36. In Lubbock they show it on TV.

No kidding. A name, address and picture of the offender, as well as a description of the charge, such as "first degree sexual assault of a female child, age 9".

On Halloween they issued an "order" for "Lights Out", whereby registered sex offenders under criminal justice supervision were prohibited from answering the door to trick or treaters.

[Eugene]

38. My city shows "high risk" offenders on its public access cable channel

Their photograph, their offense, where they live,
and where they work.

[LifeDuringWartime]

40. the website is blocked at school

imagine that?

good ol freaking symantec web security :argh:

[noonwitch]

41. I did before I bought my house-found someone I once knew, too

One of my college friends' brother showed up on it.

It's a good thing for parents, so that they know what houses to keep their kids away from.

Some jurisdictions abuse it, however, and put prostitutes on it, when it is supposed to be for predators. The person I knew who was listed was convicted of 4th degree CSC. Under Michigan Law, that can be anything from plea arrangement for someone originally charged with a more serious offense to violating the rules at Hooters or a strip club and touching the girls.

[Seabiscuit]

44. Personally, I think Megan's law is too broad - it should be limited

to child molesters and rapists, IMHO. That is, if it should exist at all. Difficult issues.

I do know, as a father, that I feel better knowing exactly where the only child molester in our zip code lives.

Wait... wouldn't we all be better off if we just had a Megan's law for freepers? Wouldn't we all feel safer if we could put faces on the freepers in our area? We could at least avoid wasting our time with them.

[Ms. Toad]

50. " I feel better knowing exactly where the only

child molester in our zip code lives"

This is the biggest danger with Megan's law - the illusion that "the only child molester in our zip code" has been identified and (by implication) everyone else is safe.

It has been quite a while since I reviewed the stats, but if my memory is anything close to accurate child molesters (on the average) commit between 100 and 200 offenses before they are caught. So what you really know is the one child molester in your zip code lives who topped (on the average) 100+ molestations. Those less dangerous folks living in your zip code who have only committed 75+ molestations but haven't yet been caught are not molesters according to your reasoning.

And then there's the issue of never letting anyone move past the worst mistake(s) of his or her life. Without major counseling and 24/7 support most habitual child molesters never move past their conditioning/illness. Add the finger pointing, snickers behind hands, children grabbed away, job losses associated with being plastered on a sex offender web site it is virtually impossible to do anything other than satisfy the self-fulfilling prophecy.

- a rape survivor and peer counselor to other survivors for 10 years and mother who thinks Megan's Laws do a lot more harm than good

[Seabiscuit]

52. Hmmm...

"Those less dangerous folks living in your zip code who have only committed 75+ molestations but haven't yet been caught are not molesters according to your reasoning."

I don't know where you get or invent your statistics, but the above is NOT *my* "reasoning" - you're arguing with a strawman of your own creation.

Where exactly did I say something I could not possibly believe - that a molester who hasn't been caught is not a molester. A molester is a molester, caught or not.

Sure, there may well be one or more other active child molesters in my zip code which haven't been caught. But it's reassuring to know that there's only one that's already been convicted in my zip code - a search of other zip codes in my city shows there are zip codes with dozens and even hundreds of convicted molesters. That was my only point.

If you're a "peer counselor" to other "rape survivors" I suggest you take a course in logic before doing any more counseling. You could end up doing a lot more harm than good. You display a tendency to sound off emotionally and irrationally when you see anything that doesn't perfectly fit your cherished beliefs.

If you read my post carefully enough, you might see that I'm not necessarily endorsing Megan's law - I questioned the rationale for its existence in several ways - even referencing all the difficult issues it presents, and even jokingly saying perhaps the only "Megan" type law we should have is one concerning "freepers", and not sex offenders.

Please, for your sake, lighten up a bit.

[Ms. Toad]

74. I responded to the literal language of your post.

(which I quoted) "as a father, that I feel better knowing exactly where the only child molester in our zip code lives."

Only = no others. The logical conclusion of the statement I quoted is that you believe there are no other child molesters in your zip code. Unless you live in a zip code with a minuscule population it is highly unlikely that the only molester living in your zip code was caught. That is the danger I was trying to point out - the belief that the only molesters around are the ones that have been caught (and adjudicated).

You may not have meant it literally, but there are plenty of others who unfortunately do believe it literally. In addition, the fact that you said it - and apparently still do not recognize the implications of what you said - illustrates how insidious the problem is.

With respect to statistics - I said it had been a long time since I had looked at them, and I can't quickly find my sources from around 15 years ago, but I found enough on line to support the point I was making:

A 2000 study found it was 16 years from first offense to detection: http://www.nicic.org/downloads/pdf/2001/sexoff-files/FacSec1Offenders-Programs.pdf

Abel (1986) "studied 240 child molesters (pedophiles). They averaged 30 (homosexual or same-sex) to 60 (heterosexual) victims before being caught." http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm, http://ambercenter.org/bills_statistics.htm

That's victims, not offenses. In my previous post I deliberately said offenses, not victims. Most pedophiles molest their victims more than once. Given an average of 1.6 offenses per victim found in one study (http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm - 533 offenses with 336 victims), that makes 48-95 offenses before being caught. My recollection (and the example I threw out of someone committing 75+ molestations who had not yet been caught) appears not to have been too far off, particularly given that heterosexual molestation is much more prevalent than same sex molestation.

My response had nothing to do with "cherished beliefs," nor was it emotional or illogical. My statement of the risks was based on your statement quoted above (and other less precise expressions of the same sentiment elsewhere in the thread) and on more than a decade of personal experience and research. It comes from spending far too many hours holding 2-10 year olds who were spread eagled on hospital emergency rooms beds while doctors attempted to get a semen sample without having to resort to a full pelvic exam under general anesthesia. It also comes from comforting guilt-racked parents who warned their children about the identified molesters, but ignored their children's complaints about how icky it felt when (insert your favorite parent/friend/neighbor/teacher/priest here) kissed their child or held their child on his/her lap - and those experiences were later revealed as the beginning of an extended period of abuse.

You may be savvy enough to realize you have to teach your children ways to be aware and to protect themselves from any touch their gut tells them is harmful, rather than focusing on avoiding specific people. Unfortunately, my experience tells me that there are far too many parents who exclusively take the latter approach - and Megan's Law encourages it by allowing people to believe they know "exactly where the only child molester in our zip code lives."

Megan's Law increases the risk that there will be more children like the ones I spent so many hours with. Because of this I make it a habit to point out the dangers associated with Megan's Law - particularly when I find the danger articulated as well as you (apparently inadvertently) articulated it.

I don't really think that it is appropriate to "lighten up" on this particular matter. The long terms effects are devastating, including a substantial risk that the 1/4 girls and 1 in 5-7 boys who are molested before reaching adulthood, particularly those who are repeatedly molested, will learn from this experience to be lifelong victims or molesters. If my comments help refocus one parent from person centered child safety education to comprehensive child safety education, which focuses on helping children recognize and trust their gut feelings and giving them permission and skill-sets to act on their feelings, it will have been worth whatever annoyance your slip of the fingers on the keyboard (and my response to it) appear to have caused you.

[Seabiscuit]

78. Oh, pulleeeze...

Now you're just playing games. This thread is about the published lists of *convicted* child molesters who have served their terms and who have been released into the community, and whose whereabouts are made available through Megan's Law.

That was the context of my exact words, which you quote: "as a father, that I feel better knowing exactly where the only child molester in our zip code lives." As noted in my prior post, the reference to "only" was intended, though not explicitly stated (as I felt it unnecessary in context) a reflection of my relief that my zip code search in my city/county of the Megan's Law website only revealed one offender, whereas other zip codes in this city/county list dozens to hundreds.

Your comment about being literal is facetious, because my words were stated in the context of the Megan's Law discussion and searching the website someone provided a link to. No one was discussing unknown child molesters who had not yet been caught and who were not on that list until you came along. So your following words are absurd:

"Only = no others. The logical conclusion of the statement I quoted is that you believe there are no other child molesters in your zip code."

That "logical conclusion" isn't possible even if you lift my literal words out of the context of the post and the thread. In order to pretend that it's a "logical conclusion" is to pretend that I am presuming to be psychic and to know that there are "no other" (unconvicted) child molesters living in my zip code (which is also to accuse me of monumental stupidity). You surely know now and surely knew when you put up your original post that I was referring to the on-line list of convicted and released child molesters made available on the site linked in the thread. I had obviously done a zip code search using that link, and my words, which you quote, were a direct reference to the result of that search, whether I included or omitted the word "convicted".

If you believe the following words you just posted, no amount of rationality will help you realize the absurdity of your stated position: "You may not have meant it literally, but there are plenty of others who unfortunately do believe it literally. In addition, the fact that you said it - and apparently still do not recognize the implications of what you said - illustrates how insidious the problem is."

How could anyone literally believe that they can know no child molester lives in their zip except those listed through the Megan's Law listing? And how could you possibly know that "there are plenty of others who unfortunately do believe it literally." Are you now presuming to be psychic? This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen on DU.

I don't care how passionately you may feel about the issue, it does not excuse your insulting other posters' intelligence about this.

As a result of the absurdities in your reasoning as pointed out above, your conclusion that: "my experience tells me that there are far too many parents who exclusively take the latter approach - and Megan's Law encourages it by allowing people to believe they know 'exactly where the only child molester in our zip code lives.'" is utterly preposterous.

I personally am ambivalent about Megan's Law. I'm not sure what I think about it, because it does raise serious issues about carving out a legal exception to the rule of "time served" for a crime committed, and continuing to stigmatize convicted sex offenders after they've served their time, and that does present its own dangers. OTOH, anyone convicted of a felony must report that fact in any job application or risk being fired for failure to do so, and thus all former convicted felons continue to be stigmatized in some way after their release into the community. Megan's Law also fails to adequately distinguish rapists, child molesters, and other really serious offenders from others, such as, as one poster noted, "streakers" merely partying or having fun with a silly fad, and who were unfortunate enough to have been arrested for it. And by posting actual names and addresses it raises the dangerous possibility of harassment/ignorant vigilantism in the communites to which convicted sexual offenders are released. As for potential benefits of Megan's Law, I'll leave that discussion to others who feel passionately in favor of it, unlike myself.

As for child molestation, you needn't try to lecture me about the seriousness of it. I'm quite familiar with the nature of the offense and its effect on victims, having been a victim myself, and having known other victims. I know perfectly well that a small fraction of actual offenders are prosecuted and convicted. But I don't go around crusading about it and insulting others' intelligence about it based on a lot of false and facetious assumptions about what they mean by their words or about what they may or may not think, based purely on speculation. That's what I meant when I said you should "lighten up" for your own sake. You appear to want to pick fights about it. And people only tend to do that when they're being very emotional, and, as both of your posts disclose, clearly irrational about it.

[Ms. Toad]

81. Just responding to accusations you made

You suggested that I invented up the statistics (which is a little silly accusation, since my original post indicated I was working from an old memory). I didn't find my stats from years ago, but I found some that support my assertions and provided you with references.

You suggested that nothing you said had any connection to any conclusion I had drawn, and asked "Where exactly did I say something I could not possibly believe - that a molester who hasn't been caught is not a molester. A molester is a molester, caught or not." I responded by pointing out that I was quoting you. No you didn't literally say that a molester who is not caught is not a molester - but (since you are so fond of logic) you said you know where the only one in your zip code lives, thus you believe no one else in your zip is a child molester. The probability of that, as I suggested, is virtually zero. This continues to be the danger I was using your assertion to point out - the false belief that there are no molesters other than those identified, creates a false sense of security that if only the known molester can be avoided we can keep our children safe.

You also suggested I needed a lesson in logic. The logic above is taught in elementary school (if you have a subset of "the only" molester in a zip code this implies that there are no molesters in the set (your zip code) that are not included in the subset (molesters), therefore all others in the set must not be molesters, therefore anyone in the set who is not also in the subset (only molesters) is not a molester). This reasoning is an essential basis for advanced studies in logic. I do not have a degree in logic, per se, but I do have degrees in closely related fields (and no, I was not at the bottom of my class by any stretch of the imagination).

Sorry you said something you didn't literally mean - but that doesn't change that you said it, or the logical conclusions that can be drawn from it.

Nor does it minimize the usefulness of your literal comment as an illustration of the dangers of Means' Law

[Seabiscuit]

83. You continue to make the same mistakes...

You say: "you said you know where the only one in your zip code lives, thus you believe no one else in your zip is a child molester."

The second clause does *not* logically follow from the first clause. You jump to a false conclusion in a manner that suggests you can read my mind. It's particularly absurd in view of the fact that my post explicitly made reference to Megan's Law, which lists *convicted* sex offenders by zip code, and that you deliberately chose one sentence out of context to attack, and distort its meaning, completely ignoring the obvious context.

I see no point in repeating these things any further... you've decided obviously to stick to your guns, and ignore the fact that your position makes absolutely no sense at all. End of discussion.

You not only need a course in logic, you also need a course in reading comprehension.

[Seabiscuit]

84. Rest assured

that if your purpose is to get under my skin or make me angry or get my blood pressure up, you should be disappointed.

I learned long ago on DU that one assumes the risk of attack every time one posts here, even completely innocuous posts, such as the one you pounced on (to irrationally further your own agenda and misguided belief system by attempting to give false meaning to one sentence whose meaning on its face was perfectly clear in the context of my post and in the thread my post was addressed, by means of distortion, presumption and speculation by yanking it out of context, a further logical fallacy).

I learned long ago to take the approach Socrates took: when kicked by an ass (a donkey) there's no point in getting angry at the ass. It is an ass's nature to kick. Either stay away or be prepared to be kicked from time to time.

[politicat]

70. Huge statistical and data gathering flaws in those averages, though.

(on the average) commit between 100 and 200 offenses before they are caught.

One thing about sexual offenders: they are usually liars. Compulsive lying goes with sociopathies and psychopathies, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, grandiose personality disorder... and sexual offenders usually have something other than philiae going on in their mental states. Compulsive lying and exaggeration becomes a way of life for them. (Usually neurosis, not psychosis. The 4% number only applies to severe mental illness of the schizoid, bi-polar and similar, not to personality disorders and conduct disorders.)

So the only way we know about those average 100 incidents is that they self-confess. A colleague of mine in grad school was working with sexual offenders at Florence in AZ (State prison) doing data collection and verification. His final report basically said that for every 4 confessions he was given (and usually quite freely, they like to talk and tell their tales and hope to shock the shrink) 1 could be traced to a verifiable person, and only 2 of 5 of those that could be traced turned up anything even remotely related to the story given by the offender. My colleague was of the opinion that most sexual offenders make shit up to entertain themselves, rather than using false names and details to obfuscate and prevent further sentencing. (He worked with several Life No Possibilities; they had no incentive to protect themselves.) Some states use polygraphs to weed these jokers out, but polygraphs are EASY to corrupt, and thus, about as reliable as a Yugo.

Second: There are a lot of things that get classified as sex offenses, and that people have to go to counseling for. If you haven't seen "The Cucumber Incident" on Sundance, try to find it. It's a documentary about several women who took it upon themselves to punish a guy for molesting. All of them are now registered sex offenders, required to go to counseling, and write down their sexual fantasies and acts. In several cases, the women have made up their journal entries because the therapists refuse to believe that they don't have deviant sexual fantasies. (Considering that I'm quite normal, and have almost no time to have anything like a fantasy, because I'm BUSY, I'd drive a sex offender therapist crazy. Fantasy requires leisure time... :eyes: ) Since I know that other states use these fantasy and journal books as data collection to "prove" that sex offenders are more prevalent and capable of staying out of the law's reach.... It's just not reliable evidence. Self-reporting nearly never is.

I'm not in favor of the laws. For one, I don't think the laws are about notification, but about vigilantism. It may be social and economic vigilantism rather than physical (depriving someone of the right to get on with zer life after having fulfilled zer sentence) but it's still mean-spirited and unforgiving. It's Old Testament, early state morality rather than an evolved morality.

Second, They encourage complacency. As Ms. Toad said, it's not the ones you know about, it's the ones you don't that are the danger. And since something like 70% of all sexual crimes against children (and 95% of all abuse) comes from WITHIN the family, looking outside for sexual predators is stupid. If your daughter's going to be molested, it is far more likely to be your nephew or your brother than the weird guy three blocks over. A girl is most at risk from her step-father, her father, her uncles, her brothers and her male cousins. No sex offender law is going to protect her from them.

Third, (and this is the point where I get hammered, flamed and beaten bloody, though I am a molestation survivor and technically a victim of statutory rape), there's some serious work going into the thought that we treat victims of sexual assault and offenses in a fashion that undermines their ability to recover effectively, and that in SOME cases, (by no means all) the prosecution and therapeutic settings that both perpetrator and victim go through are more damaging than the acts themselves. This is especially true in cases of stat. rape and adolescent homosexuality. For many gay kids, (and I was one) there is no one out or comfortable out within one's own age group to date and have experiences similar to what the other, straight kids are having. In my tiny high school town of 6,000, the only even marginally out lesbian was a woman at least twice my age. Had we been caught, she would have done prison time, but *I* was the aggressor. And at 16 and 17, I did know enough to pursue and neither of us feel guilty about it. (We're still pen friends, though she was bright enough to move out of that hole.)

When it comes to treating a five year old, I'm pretty cautious: take care of the physical damage, if any, work on any abuse-related issues that are based in pain and/or secrecy/trust, but take a watchful waiting stance on the sexual activity. Sometimes the therapist can cause more damage to a child when the sexual and social aspects of sexual abuse are presented to a child than the actual abuse did... and I'm not sure I'm entirely behind this yet, but there are researchers who are studying to find out IF sexual abuse must necessarily cause damage to every child. I can see situations where it wouldn't, and if it doesn't cause damage, then don't bloody prosecute. (No, I'm not advocating pedophilia and if that's what you read, then you're not getting it. What I'm saying is that the legal and therapeutic systems should do no more harm to the victim/survivor than did the perpetrator/offender.)

My several cents....

Pcat



(Stats from: Kilpatrick, D., Edmonds, C., & Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. Charleston: National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina, 1.; Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3.)

[Ms. Toad]

76. Interesting thoughts on your third point

Although it is the sexual touching that sets of societal flags, the abusive of trust/secrecy aspects can be far more damaging.

Somehow we need to help these children learn healthy ways of relating. When we focus (as we tend to do) on the sexual aspects of the damage without helping the child go through and learn the lessons of the emotional growth stages which were likely skipped or compressed in the presence of abuse we leave them incredibly vulnerable to continuing the cycle of abuse. We also leave them with the impression that the worst of what happened to them was physical, when their gut tells them otherwise. Prosecuting may add to this difficulty because it necessarily focuses on the physical aspects of the abuse.

I haven't done this work in years, but the general concept matches my experience - for at least the younger (0-8, or so) and older (adult) end of the spectrum when the abuse is perpetrated by a trusted individual. I am more skeptical when the victim is in the sexually charged tween/teen/early adult years, particularly when the abuse is longstanding.

The difficulty with not prosecuting, however, is that many times prosecution is the only way to protect this particular survivor from more abuse - or to protect others from abuse, given the high repeat offense rate. For this concept to work there needs to be some mechanism, short of prosecution, to address the needs of offenders (who are, many times grown up victims who were unable to make the transition to healthy survivor) and to address the needs of society to be safe from individuals who are unable to exercise restraint over their compulsions.

[politicat]

87. Sure, prosecution is the #1 way to get an issue resolved.

And I'm all for prosecution if we can keep the kid out of the courtroom. There is no reason why my client has to be questioned by the defense attorney 9 times; why she has to be on the stand or in chambers (dependent on age) with the perp and his lawyers when a single, videotaped testimony will cover the legal needs.

The other thing I'm coming across with SA surviving children is that if they don't have the physical, sexual aspect harped upon in treatment, we have fewer lingering sexual issues (i.e. obsessive avoidance, unsafe excessive promiscuity) in late teens and adults, and if we take care of the trust issues, those don't crop up as badly, either.

Pcat

[politicat]

88. Sure, prosecution is the #1 way to get an issue resolved.

And I'm all for prosecution if we can keep the kid out of the courtroom. There is no reason why my client has to be questioned by the defense attorney 9 times; why she has to be on the stand or in chambers (dependent on age) with the perp and his lawyers when a single, videotaped testimony will cover the legal needs.

The other thing I'm coming across with SA surviving children is that if they don't have the physical, sexual aspect harped upon in treatment, we have fewer lingering sexual issues (i.e. obsessive avoidance, unsafe excessive promiscuity) in late teens and adults, and if we take care of the trust issues, those don't crop up as badly, either.

[Ms. Toad]

92. As a peer counselor and survivor,

I heartily agree with you on your first point.

But - I also have some experience with individuals who have been falsely accused of committing crimes - so I also have to disagree with at the same time. In order to protect those falsely accused of sexual abuse from being convicted for crimes they did not actually commit the process must include something to ensure the child's recitation is accurate. A video tape, particularly one which runs the risk of being tainted by prior questioning by well intentioned counselors, or by mom or dad (who have subtly - and at times probably not even consciously - encouraged their child to exaggerate or sexualize what the child's other parent did), or by a variety of other innocent or not so innocent influences doesn't necessarily work for this purpose.

I don't like that it happens, and I think it is pretty rare, but I would certainly be screaming if I were the individual falsely convicted of molesting a child - especially if I not only ended up being raped while in serving time (fairly common for sex offenders) but was then forced to wear a scarlet letter for the rest of my life as well.

Aside from tossing the entire criminal justice system and creating something different that addresses the needs of each individual rather than focusing on punishing their behavior, I'm not sure how to resolve the conflicting needs. It certainly is a system that chews up everyone involved.

As to the second point, I absolutely agree. At least when I was heavily involved in this work too much of professional counseling focused on the issues the counselors deemed were necessary to address - and our normal tendency when confronted with an abused child is to focus on what is most horrific to us as adults - the image we have of the physical act of a child being sexually abused. In contrast, our peer counseling training focused on listening and helping survivors sort out what they were feeling and helping them work through what they needed to address. A lot of times it didn't end up having much to do with the physical and sexual aspects of the abuse. For non-stranger abuse, the biggest two were probably trust issues and reassurance that what they were feeling was normal (i.e. they were not crazy to feel that way - whatever "that way" happened to be).

[Southpaw Bookworm]

46. False sense of security

Is one thing to guard against as you look at these sites: In the majority of cases, it's not the molester across the street you need to worry about, it's the one down the hall in your own house, or a close friend of the family, or the softball coach, or the youth group leader.

[idiosyncratic]

48. In my zip code . . . a rural area . . . there are five. Look at this guy:

He has three separate offenses:

288           CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN/LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS
288(a)      LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS
f243.4      SEXUAL BATTERY


Looks like his crimes are accelerating in violence. Why is he NOT in jail forever under the Three Strikes law?

[Bucky]

60. Maybe he's a Bush Ranger

I think they get six strikes under the proposed Ashcroft Amendment to the Constitution.

[Bonobo]

49. In MA, sensibly, they don't reveal the names, just the number of offenders

If you want more info, it says to call the police.

[Seabiscuit]

85. That's the way it used to be in California until recently.

For years now I've been able to locate the points on the map where various listed offenders were located, but no further useful information was given about them.

Now not only are many addresses listed, but also specific convictions and even photographs.

I don't care to know that much detail. Information about the type of illegal conduct is helpful, but showing pictures and exact addresses may be going a bit too far. I don't really know what to think.

[DoNotRefill]

53. Yes.

And there's one living next door to me. We found out about him before we bought the house, and asked the realtor about him. It was priceless, I thought she was going to blow a gasket. She got all red in the face when we handed her the State Police printout with picture.

We don't worry too much about him. He knows if he tries something bad, my wife will simply shoot him, and there's no way the courts here would ever convict her for it.

The second Amendment ain't about hunting....it's about protecting yourself and your family against all comers....be they sex offenders or the Klan (or both at the same time).

[Undercover Owl]

62. anybody check Oregon?

I couldn't get through the link.
Is there an updated link? (I'm so curious!)

[DoNotRefill]

63. One positive note:

I just ran through my zip code's list again. One guy came up for multiple counts of indecent liberties with a minor. Having read the news and remembering the guy's name, he's listed as being in my neighborhood, but I know he was sentenced to three hundred and sixty five years in prison, so he's not going anyplace. He'll be released from prison on his 400th birthday (it's a no parole state). I know what he did, and I'm glad he's where he is.

[Bucky]

64. There are fourteen in my zip code

Looks like two of them live right across the street from each other on one block. Guess I won't go househunting there.

This dude propositioned a 12 year old girl (according to the rap sheet) and did three years for it.

This guy has five aliases, did 5 years for "Indecency w/child Sexual Contact," and may have given out a bogus address. Sure the Bill of Rights applies to these losers. I still like knowing that the cops are keeping track of them.

[Bucky]

66. And this one may be the worst of the lot

Looks like this guy did five years on a concurrent term for an "Indecency w/child Sexual Contact" on two girls, aged 5 and 7. Now he lives just down the block from the same Junior High School that Walter Cronkite went to. He's rated as a "high risk" case. I really hope something's being done to control this man's tendencies besides a weekly "check in" with a counselor or parole officer.

I'm gonna guess that with two charges on girls aged 5 and 7, he was probably molesting his own daughters or step daughters. I saw a few cases like this when I worked in a homeless shelter. Peope who pick on the helpless and the dependent are angry, dangerous, and always always potentially violent.

[WMliberal]

65. wow, 249 people in my city.

That's just over 1 per thousand. :scared:

[lectrobyte]

67. Yes, looked up my old hometown zipcode, and saw that a high

school bully I knew (you know, the one guy who you knew if he saw you would do something to make your high school day a bit more hellish) had done time for sexual assault. Almost felt like gloating but realized that there was some person out there who didn't get away from this asshole with just getting shook down for their lunch money.

[politicat]

69. Went to site for my state once, but it's useless.

It can't push information without at least a partial name so it's not like I can put in a zip code and have something come up.

The state also relies on polygraph tests to get additional "information on unreported offenses". Ugh. Polygraphs are absolutely bogus. They don't work, which is why the state has pretty disgusting, dumb data that looks about as accurate as Rumsfeld's assessment of Iraq.

All I can say is I'm glad polygraphs aren't admissible as evidence in this state.

Since I don't have kids, and do know how to defend myself, I'm not much worried, and since I am a shrink, I have a good idea about the rate of offenders in the general population. I'm far more worried about the idiot down the road who roars through the 20 MPH streets at 45, chatting on his cell phone and paying more attention to his reflection in the rearview than I am about a sexual offender.


Pcat

[Shadowen]

75. No.

I trust the local media will sensationalize it enough that I'll hear who's a prevert (misspelling intended) in my neighbourhood at one time or another.

[bling bling]

77. It may not be the best thing for the offenders but it could save a child.

And if life isn't going to be fair, and if things aren't going to be ideal, then let it be unfair and unideal towards sexual predators and anyone who hurts children. Of all the people on earth I choose to spend my time being concerned about, this group of scum is last on my list.

[WildEyedLiberal]

79. If everyone on these registers were rapists or child molesters

I would have no problem with it at all.

But someone I consider a friend is on the Illinois state registry. He was a very young teacher at my high school (24 at the time) who had an affair with a 17 year old student. (By the way, 17 is the legal age of sexual consent in Illinois. This was ONLY illegal because it was a teacher/student relationship. And this girl was no innocent virgin, either.)

Stupid? Yes. Immoral? Arguably (especially since he was married, so yes, in my book). A DANGER TO OTHERS? No. Never. He's the sweetest man ever.

He's NOT a PREDATOR. I resent the state of Illinois for demonizing him and making people think he's a disgusting person, because he isn't. If that registry showed only child molesters, rapists, and pedophiles, that would be great - the public has a right to know if those monsters are living in their neighborhood. But people like my former teacher are harmless, and it is cruel to parade them out publicly like this and call them predators.


Edit: NO, I wasn't the student in question, before anyone asks.

[American Tragedy]

82. I was shocked to come up with literally hundreds

until I remembered that I live by the state reformatory, state penitentiary, and several associated correctional complexes, which is the listed address for almost all of them.

[theboss]

86. Wow...someone lives right down the street

I'm still not sure if this is right or wrong. But it is a public record.

[Merrick]

89. 90 within my zip code (Long Beach, CA), one in the building next door

Good thing I'm all grown up!

[Ladyhawk]

90. I found the guy my mother hid from the law.

She wouldn't tell me if he'd been released from prison. Thank God he's still incarcerated.

Is my mother fucking nuts????? I had nowhere to go and she let this guy live with us. Unbelievable. I should have told my brother years ago...sigh.

Digit, thank you for this information. I've been trying to find out where this guy is for awhile now.

[Piperay]

91. Luckily no one

within my vicinity.