Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Megan's Laws - Out of Control?

124

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Wait, can you even be removed from the sex offender list? People in this thread say you're branded for life.

    It's a state by state thing. Some are more lenient or capable of striking things from the record.

    tea-1.jpg
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited August 2009
    Amusingly, the last time I heard about this in the news was when a few states were calculating the costs of implementing the federal database crapola vs the penalty of noncompliance and realizing that ignoring the feds would cost them under half as much as implementing the extra database and its infrastructure.

    It's also funny to me (in a sad way) that at the federal level, Megan's law sort of took over Wetterling despite the intrinsic ideas behind the proponents of the two being exactly opposite.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    What value? We don't need a murderer's registry, or a robber's registry, to help society deal with those people being reintroduced to society. It doesn't provide any information that you can't get from a standard background check. Sex offender registries aren't accomplishing anything other than ostracizing the offenders and providing a convenient political bogeyman.

    If we are so concerned that these people are going to imminently re-offend that we need a specific public list of their names, they should still be in prison (or mental institution, w/e.) There's no policy goal being accomplished here.

    Sex offenders in many states have to report where they live and update it every time they move. That's more than a background check or a public list of names does. I guess the policy behind it is that the public (and law enforcement) want to know where these offenders are living.

    Right, and we need that information why, exactly? I've never felt the need to know if every guy who moved into my building had a conviction for any other offense, but apparently with sex offenders that's important information. How else are we to ostracize them properly?

    Private lists are a slightly better idea, but I would still argue that it's dumb to keep a list of "probable" criminals around, because that can only pollute an investigation. If someone's a suspect fine, check them out, and you'll find out pretty quickly what their record is.

    edit: there is also a pretty big difference between supervised parole of possible recidivists (reasonable) and a sex offender registry.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    'we got hella people, they got helicopters'
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    What value? We don't need a murderer's registry, or a robber's registry, to help society deal with those people being reintroduced to society. It doesn't provide any information that you can't get from a standard background check. Sex offender registries aren't accomplishing anything other than ostracizing the offenders and providing a convenient political bogeyman.

    If we are so concerned that these people are going to imminently re-offend that we need a specific public list of their names, they should still be in prison (or mental institution, w/e.) There's no policy goal being accomplished here.

    Background checks are great for big things, like permanent employment. If you're dealing with some one on a shorter basis, or especially as more and more things become outsourced and you may not be the one directly hiring the folks who work for you, background checks become costly and unwieldy.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Evander specifically said a private list.

    Honestly, I'm not sure.

    I think that there is value to having it be public, but there are also huge risks that NEED to be mitigated if it is going to be public.

    One solution is to make it less public, I'm not sure exactly how to go about that, while still making it useful, but no one has hired me to figure that out, so I'm okay with not having an answer.

    Another solution could be done with a "Marl of Cain" style enforcement deterrent, where you create harsher penalties for vigilantes who go after sex offenders. Unfortunately, I think the emotional angle would end up seeing folks ignore this in sentencing (or even arrest), but I think it's an interesting angle to consider academically.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    One solution is to make it less public, I'm not sure exactly how to go about that, while still making it useful, but no one has hired me to figure that out, so I'm okay with not having an answer.

    Unless you can somehow make it invisible to all but the most pure of heart, the only thing I can think of is notifying people of the presence of sex offenders in a certain radius without giving away any names. Provided people are too lazy to go on a witchhunt, it would let people know that they should be careful without violating privacy.

    Really though, people should be careful by default.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    One solution is to make it less public, I'm not sure exactly how to go about that, while still making it useful, but no one has hired me to figure that out, so I'm okay with not having an answer.

    Unless you can somehow make it invisible to all but the most pure of heart, the only thing I can think of is notifying people of the presence of sex offenders in a certain radius without giving away any names. Provided people are too lazy to go on a witchhunt, it would let people know that they should be careful without violating privacy.

    Really though, people should be careful by default.

    Well, you could set in up in a way where you would have to query a name, instead of having it a complete open list. That would make it more difficult for vigilantes to just pick names off a list to hunt down, but I'm not sure it is really all that protective in the end, and it also would make it a bit more difficult to use.

    I dunno

    georgersig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    One solution is to make it less public, I'm not sure exactly how to go about that, while still making it useful, but no one has hired me to figure that out, so I'm okay with not having an answer.

    Unless you can somehow make it invisible to all but the most pure of heart, the only thing I can think of is notifying people of the presence of sex offenders in a certain radius without giving away any names. Provided people are too lazy to go on a witchhunt, it would let people know that they should be careful without violating privacy.

    Really though, people should be careful by default.

    How would that work? One day you would receive a letter in the mail reading, "A sex offender is living within 1000 yards of your residence." Why, then you would just look for anyone who has recently moved into the neighborhood and there's your sex offender. That's a boring witch hunt!

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I still have yet to understand what the value of having a sex offender registry is. Even if you could come up with a way to have on that was unobtrusive and didn't lead to bad outcomes (vigilantism, ostracizing, and so on), why would you want it?

    Doesn't any argument you can make in favor just lead to keeping a registry of all criminals, ever (or at least, most of them?)

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    'we got hella people, they got helicopters'
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I still have yet to understand what the value of having a sex offender registry is.

    We didn't learn our lesson after blacklisting the communists and the homosexuals a couple decades ago, maybe? It's tradition to make up lists of undesirables?

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    One solution is to make it less public, I'm not sure exactly how to go about that, while still making it useful, but no one has hired me to figure that out, so I'm okay with not having an answer.

    Unless you can somehow make it invisible to all but the most pure of heart, the only thing I can think of is notifying people of the presence of sex offenders in a certain radius without giving away any names. Provided people are too lazy to go on a witchhunt, it would let people know that they should be careful without violating privacy.

    Really though, people should be careful by default.

    How would that work? One day you would receive a letter in the mail reading, "A sex offender is living within 1000 yards of your residence." Why, then you would just look for anyone who has recently moved into the neighborhood and there's your sex offender. That's a boring witch hunt!

    No, I imagined that you'd check the website and that would tell you if there was a sex offender nearby. If you checked the site everyday, I guess you could catch someone moving in, but that'd only work if the site updated immediately.

    But like I said, all the site does is promote caution, and you should be cautious with your children by default.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I still have yet to understand what the value of having a sex offender registry is. Even if you could come up with a way to have on that was unobtrusive and didn't lead to bad outcomes (vigilantism, ostracizing, and so on), why would you want it?

    Doesn't any argument you can make in favor just lead to keeping a registry of all criminals, ever (or at least, most of them?)

    The value of a sex offender registry is that it allows common folks the ability to know who they should be wary of. It is meant to be a tool for prevention.

    I'm not saying that value is worth the risks, nor am I saying that I agree that they should be wary of everyone on the lists. I am merely answering your question directly, so please do not try to turn this to make me defend something I don't 100% agree with.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    One solution is to make it less public, I'm not sure exactly how to go about that, while still making it useful, but no one has hired me to figure that out, so I'm okay with not having an answer.

    Unless you can somehow make it invisible to all but the most pure of heart, the only thing I can think of is notifying people of the presence of sex offenders in a certain radius without giving away any names. Provided people are too lazy to go on a witchhunt, it would let people know that they should be careful without violating privacy.

    Really though, people should be careful by default.

    How would that work? One day you would receive a letter in the mail reading, "A sex offender is living within 1000 yards of your residence." Why, then you would just look for anyone who has recently moved into the neighborhood and there's your sex offender. That's a boring witch hunt!

    No, I imagined that you'd check the website and that would tell you if there was a sex offender nearby. If you checked the site everyday, I guess you could catch someone moving in, but that'd only work if the site updated immediately.

    But like I said, all the site does is promote caution, and you should be cautious with your children by default.

    I think telling you "there's a sex offender nearby but we won't say who it is" would really just promote panic.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Educating kids about what to do when confronted with unhealthy behavior from adults, especially family members, would go a lot further towards preventing things than pointing out sex offenders.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Educating kids about what to do when confronted with unhealthy behavior from adults, especially family members, would go a lot further towards preventing things than pointing out sex offenders.

    Sure.

    Weren't you educated about that stuff as a kid? I know I was.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I think telling you "there's a sex offender nearby but we won't say who it is" would really just promote panic.

    To me, that's preferable to outing sex offenders.

    But anyway, I was just trying to think of ways to keep the registry around while minimizing the potential for violence. I don't actually support the registry.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Educating kids about what to do when confronted with unhealthy behavior from adults, especially family members, would go a lot further towards preventing things than pointing out sex offenders.

    Sure.

    Weren't you educated about that stuff as a kid? I know I was.

    I saw some commercials on tv, but I never learned about it directly, possibly because my school opted out of some kind of program.

    Also, threats were always presented in the form of some guy in a car asking for directions or pretending to have been sent by your mom to pick you up. Nobody ever said that your relatives, or even your parents, were more likely to touch you like that.

    More recently, didn't the right wing paint Obama's support of a program designed to teach kids about what to do about sexual abuse as a bad thing?

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Right, so we should have a registry of all criminals? I know I personally would be more worried thieves moving into my building than I am about sex offenders, but I'm not pressing to be notified any time one does.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    'we got hella people, they got helicopters'
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So why are parents more worried about some stranger abducting and raping their child than they are about their kid being paralyzed in a car accident or dying young from heart disease because all their food has twice the cholesterol that it should, when those are thousands of times more likely to be a real issue?

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    So why are parents more worried about some stranger abducting and raping their child than they are about their kid being paralyzed in a car accident or dying young from heart disease because all their food has twice the cholesterol that it should, when those are thousands of times more likely to be a real issue?

    Because rapists are easier to identify than bad traffic.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Well obviously it's the media but what I'm trying to get across is that in the scheme of things, sex offenders really aren't a special kind of danger that deserve to be locatable on a map. Most of them aren't even dangerous.

    Some overweight guy that got arrested for child porn but never leaves his apartment probably won't go out and start raping children. He's a perv, sure, but we're going a bit overboard in oh so many cases, and that's a rather extreme example of the average sex offender. Most of them didn't do anything involving children, they're just on a list with people who did.

    I mean we start getting into crazytown arresting people for lolicon and peeing in bushes.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I think telling you "there's a sex offender nearby but we won't say who it is" would really just promote panic.

    To me, that's preferable to outing sex offenders.

    But anyway, I was just trying to think of ways to keep the registry around while minimizing the potential for violence. I don't actually support the registry.

    I'll believe that to you personally it is preferable, and I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt in how rationally you'd handle it.

    For the general public, though, it is a BAD idea to give out nebulous, non-specific warnings. It promotes unrest and paranoia, and ultimately creates new dangers.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Educating kids about what to do when confronted with unhealthy behavior from adults, especially family members, would go a lot further towards preventing things than pointing out sex offenders.

    Sure.

    Weren't you educated about that stuff as a kid? I know I was.

    I saw some commercials on tv, but I never learned about it directly, possibly because my school opted out of some kind of program.

    Also, threats were always presented in the form of some guy in a car asking for directions or pretending to have been sent by your mom to pick you up. Nobody ever said that your relatives, or even your parents, were more likely to touch you like that.

    More recently, didn't the right wing paint Obama's support of a program designed to teach kids about what to do about sexual abuse as a bad thing?

    So you're saying your parents never bothered to tell you this stuff? Sounds like the failing there is your parents, not society.

    We shouldn't be relying on schools to do the parenting, man. They should be doing the educating.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yes, well, most parents are reticent to tell their kids that their uncle or grandparents or whomever might molest them.

    And what if the parents themselves are pedophiles?

    You need the schools to step up, frankly.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I still have yet to understand what the value of having a sex offender registry is. Even if you could come up with a way to have on that was unobtrusive and didn't lead to bad outcomes (vigilantism, ostracizing, and so on), why would you want it?

    Doesn't any argument you can make in favor just lead to keeping a registry of all criminals, ever (or at least, most of them?)

    The value of a sex offender registry is that it allows common folks the ability to know who they should be wary of. It is meant to be a tool for prevention.

    I'm not saying that value is worth the risks, nor am I saying that I agree that they should be wary of everyone on the lists. I am merely answering your question directly, so please do not try to turn this to make me defend something I don't 100% agree with.

    So why are we only registering Sex Offenders then?

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Right, so we should have a registry of all criminals? I know I personally would be more worried thieves moving into my building than I am about sex offenders, but I'm not pressing to be notified any time one does.

    well, this is where the "for the kids" point is valid. The idea being that you don't know how your kids will react if a pedo offers them candy, so you want to remove the pedo from the equation up front.

    Honestly, though, I don't know that other registries (for MAJOR offenses) are such a bad idea, as long as they are handled safely (like the sex offender registry is NOT being handled.)

    georgersig.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Right, so we should have a registry of all criminals? I know I personally would be more worried thieves moving into my building than I am about sex offenders, but I'm not pressing to be notified any time one does.

    well, this is where the "for the kids" point is valid. The idea being that you don't know how your kids will react if a pedo offers them candy, so you want to remove the pedo from the equation up front.

    Honestly, though, I don't know that other registries (for MAJOR offenses) are such a bad idea, as long as they are handled safely (like the sex offender registry is NOT being handled.)

    How would you "handle them safely"?

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    shryke wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Right, so we should have a registry of all criminals? I know I personally would be more worried thieves moving into my building than I am about sex offenders, but I'm not pressing to be notified any time one does.

    well, this is where the "for the kids" point is valid. The idea being that you don't know how your kids will react if a pedo offers them candy, so you want to remove the pedo from the equation up front.

    Honestly, though, I don't know that other registries (for MAJOR offenses) are such a bad idea, as long as they are handled safely (like the sex offender registry is NOT being handled.)

    How would you "handle them safely"?

    If you had bothered to read my other posts you wouldn't be asking that question.

    georgersig.jpg
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Justice.Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    You mean like this one?
    Evander wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Evander specifically said a private list.

    Honestly, I'm not sure.

    I think that there is value to having it be public, but there are also huge risks that NEED to be mitigated if it is going to be public.

    One solution is to make it less public, I'm not sure exactly how to go about that, while still making it useful, but no one has hired me to figure that out, so I'm okay with not having an answer.

    Another solution could be done with a "Marl of Cain" style enforcement deterrent, where you create harsher penalties for vigilantes who go after sex offenders. Unfortunately, I think the emotional angle would end up seeing folks ignore this in sentencing (or even arrest), but I think it's an interesting angle to consider academically.

    So you're not sure, or what?

    NOPE.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yes, well, most parents are reticent to tell their kids that their uncle or grandparents or whomever might molest them.

    On what are you basing this. My parents always told e that if ANYONE touched my "private parts", no matter who they were, I should tell them. I can't speak for society as a whole, but I'm not sure where you are drawing this reticence from.
    And what if the parents themselves are pedophiles?

    You need the schools to step up, frankly.


    And what if the teachers are the pedophiles?

    What if the police are?

    What if the judge is?

    Ultimately, responsibility needs to rest SOMEWHERE, and our society has placed it with parents.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    You mean like this one?
    Evander wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Evander specifically said a private list.

    Honestly, I'm not sure.

    I think that there is value to having it be public, but there are also huge risks that NEED to be mitigated if it is going to be public.

    One solution is to make it less public, I'm not sure exactly how to go about that, while still making it useful, but no one has hired me to figure that out, so I'm okay with not having an answer.

    Another solution could be done with a "Marl of Cain" style enforcement deterrent, where you create harsher penalties for vigilantes who go after sex offenders. Unfortunately, I think the emotional angle would end up seeing folks ignore this in sentencing (or even arrest), but I think it's an interesting angle to consider academically.

    So you're not sure, or what?

    georgersig.jpg
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Yes, well, most parents are reticent to tell their kids that their uncle or grandparents or whomever might molest them.

    On what are you basing this. My parents always told e that if ANYONE touched my "private parts", no matter who they were, I should tell them. I can't speak for society as a whole, but I'm not sure where you are drawing this reticence from.
    And what if the parents themselves are pedophiles?

    You need the schools to step up, frankly.


    And what if the teachers are the pedophiles?

    What if the police are?

    What if the judge is?

    Ultimately, responsibility needs to rest SOMEWHERE, and our society has placed it with parents.

    Okay, but relatives and close family friends are by far the most statistically likely people to molest a child, and when an adult in the family who isn't molesting them finds out about it the most common solution is to cover it up instead of stop it. We're talking molestation here, not teaching them to look both ways when crossing the street.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Yes, well, most parents are reticent to tell their kids that their uncle or grandparents or whomever might molest them.

    On what are you basing this. My parents always told e that if ANYONE touched my "private parts", no matter who they were, I should tell them. I can't speak for society as a whole, but I'm not sure where you are drawing this reticence from.
    And what if the parents themselves are pedophiles?

    You need the schools to step up, frankly.


    And what if the teachers are the pedophiles?

    What if the police are?

    What if the judge is?

    Ultimately, responsibility needs to rest SOMEWHERE, and our society has placed it with parents.
    You realize that parents molest kids more often than anyone else, right? You're essentially saying that the task of telling kids how to report a crime ought to lie solely in the hands of the people who are most likely to commit that very crime.

    In any case, you address the possibility that the parents and the teachers might be engaging in wrongdoings by having both teach the kids about what to do rather than leaving things to one party, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Yes, well, most parents are reticent to tell their kids that their uncle or grandparents or whomever might molest them.

    On what are you basing this. My parents always told e that if ANYONE touched my "private parts", no matter who they were, I should tell them. I can't speak for society as a whole, but I'm not sure where you are drawing this reticence from.
    And what if the parents themselves are pedophiles?

    You need the schools to step up, frankly.


    And what if the teachers are the pedophiles?

    What if the police are?

    What if the judge is?

    Ultimately, responsibility needs to rest SOMEWHERE, and our society has placed it with parents.

    Okay, but relatives and close family friends are by far the most statistically likely people to molest a child, and when an adult in the family who isn't molesting them finds out about it the most common solution is to cover it up instead of stop it. We're talking molestation here, not teaching them to look both ways when crossing the street.

    Do you have statistics showing that the most common response is to cover it up, rather than stopping it?

    The chance of that occurring, by the way, is the reason why teachers and doctors, etc., are required to report signs of abuse seen in children. Mistreatment of "sex-offense" cases after they've been reported aside, I think we can all agre that is a good idea.

    georgersig.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Right, so we should have a registry of all criminals? I know I personally would be more worried thieves moving into my building than I am about sex offenders, but I'm not pressing to be notified any time one does.

    well, this is where the "for the kids" point is valid. The idea being that you don't know how your kids will react if a pedo offers them candy, so you want to remove the pedo from the equation up front.

    Honestly, though, I don't know that other registries (for MAJOR offenses) are such a bad idea, as long as they are handled safely (like the sex offender registry is NOT being handled.)

    How would you "handle them safely"?

    If you had bothered to read my other posts you wouldn't be asking that question.

    Your "ideas" are all over the place.

    If the point is public safety, then it's no good unless it's easily available.

    If you've got to go searching with the person's name, it's no different then a background check and it's completely redundant.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Yes, well, most parents are reticent to tell their kids that their uncle or grandparents or whomever might molest them.

    On what are you basing this. My parents always told e that if ANYONE touched my "private parts", no matter who they were, I should tell them. I can't speak for society as a whole, but I'm not sure where you are drawing this reticence from.
    And what if the parents themselves are pedophiles?

    You need the schools to step up, frankly.


    And what if the teachers are the pedophiles?

    What if the police are?

    What if the judge is?

    Ultimately, responsibility needs to rest SOMEWHERE, and our society has placed it with parents.
    You realize that parents molest kids more often than anyone else, right? You're essentially saying that the task of telling kids how to report a crime ought to lie solely in the hands of the people who are most likely to commit that very crime.

    In any case, you address the possibility that the parents and the teachers might be engaging in wrongdoings by having both teach the kids about what to do rather than leaving things to one party, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

    I'm not even sure what your point is, at this point.

    I have NOTHING against schools telling kids to be wary. I'm not arguing AGAINST that.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    shryke wrote: »
    Your "ideas" are all over the place.

    Exactly.

    As I said, explicitly, I'm NOT here to defend the registry. I was ONLY defending the fact that there ARE benefits to it, which are CURRENTLY being outweighed by the costs, and possibly might ALWAYS be outweighed by the costs, but since this is a message board on the internet, and not anything that actually affects anyone's life, why not academically discuss possible ways to derive the benefits while reducing the societal costs?

    Not a SINGLE person in this thread has said that things are good the way they are.

    georgersig.jpg
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Yes, well, most parents are reticent to tell their kids that their uncle or grandparents or whomever might molest them.

    On what are you basing this. My parents always told e that if ANYONE touched my "private parts", no matter who they were, I should tell them. I can't speak for society as a whole, but I'm not sure where you are drawing this reticence from.
    And what if the parents themselves are pedophiles?

    You need the schools to step up, frankly.


    And what if the teachers are the pedophiles?

    What if the police are?

    What if the judge is?

    Ultimately, responsibility needs to rest SOMEWHERE, and our society has placed it with parents.

    Okay, but relatives and close family friends are by far the most statistically likely people to molest a child, and when an adult in the family who isn't molesting them finds out about it the most common solution is to cover it up instead of stop it. We're talking molestation here, not teaching them to look both ways when crossing the street.

    Do you have statistics showing that the most common response is to cover it up, rather than stopping it?

    The chance of that occurring, by the way, is the reason why teachers and doctors, etc., are required to report signs of abuse seen in children. Mistreatment of "sex-offense" cases after they've been reported aside, I think we can all agre that is a good idea.

    "2% of [adult sexual contact with child] cases are reported to authorities when child discloses to or contact is discovered by an adult."
    "Detection, acknowledgment of abuse is somewhat more common when not an actual family member; 23% of cases are reported to authorities when child discloses to or contact is discovered by an adult." Human Sexuality Seventh Edition Lois J. McDermott

    Even though the statement was only tangential, but there you go.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm not even sure what your point is, at this point.

    I have NOTHING against schools telling kids to be wary. I'm not arguing AGAINST that.

    You stated that informing kids about molestation was a parental responsibility and then said that the schools shouldn't be expected to parent. Hopefully you can see how that gave me the wrong impression.

    By the way, apparently only 29% of child molesters are relatives. That's a high enough number, but far from the majority I made it out to be. That said, the number is likely skewed by the smaller odds of a crime by a parent or relative being reported.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Yes, well, most parents are reticent to tell their kids that their uncle or grandparents or whomever might molest them.

    On what are you basing this. My parents always told e that if ANYONE touched my "private parts", no matter who they were, I should tell them. I can't speak for society as a whole, but I'm not sure where you are drawing this reticence from.
    And what if the parents themselves are pedophiles?

    You need the schools to step up, frankly.


    And what if the teachers are the pedophiles?

    What if the police are?

    What if the judge is?

    Ultimately, responsibility needs to rest SOMEWHERE, and our society has placed it with parents.

    Okay, but relatives and close family friends are by far the most statistically likely people to molest a child, and when an adult in the family who isn't molesting them finds out about it the most common solution is to cover it up instead of stop it. We're talking molestation here, not teaching them to look both ways when crossing the street.

    Do you have statistics showing that the most common response is to cover it up, rather than stopping it?

    The chance of that occurring, by the way, is the reason why teachers and doctors, etc., are required to report signs of abuse seen in children. Mistreatment of "sex-offense" cases after they've been reported aside, I think we can all agre that is a good idea.

    "2% of [adult sexual contact with child] cases are reported to authorities when child discloses to or contact is discovered by an adult."
    "Detection, acknowledgment of abuse is somewhat more common when not an actual family member; 23% of cases are reported to authorities when child discloses to or contact is discovered by an adult." Human Sexuality Seventh Edition Lois J. McDermott

    Even though the statement was only tangential, but there you go.

    I'm curious to know how they could have gathered those numbers, but if that is the case then we really need to place a higher emphasis on encouraging adults to report these incidents.

    georgersig.jpg
This discussion has been closed.