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?
Posts
Although only 7% are strangers.
I would presume by asking the molested children once they grow up and are more open about it, assuming they don't kill themselves before that happens.
I made my statement in response to a statement of yours that seemed to want to place the primary responsibility on the schools.
Kids are getting molested and worse before they even reach school, in some cases. They are also only in school eight hours a day, nine months out of the year. We shouldn't leave important lessons ONLY to schools. I have no issue with schools reinforcing these messages, but parents need to be involved in their children's lives and safety, not just pawning the job off on to school or television.
is that pure presumption, or did they state methods?
I'm not questioning your numbers. I'm just stating, as an aside, that it seems to be a pretty difficult thing to get an accurate read on.
Pure presumption.
in theory, a sex offender registry wouldn't really do anything about that 7% anyway.
the theoretical purpose of it is to keep pedos away from places where they would be exposed to children. Neighbors and janitors at school and bus drivers and the like aren't strangers.
I never said that we should ONLY leave important lessons to schools. That's absurd, since you can't very well stop parents from giving lessons of their own.
Conversely, you can't force parents to give all the talks they're meant to give either. So, to me, saying parents should be primarily responsible isn't so much saying that parents should do more (parents are going to do whatever they want, regardless of expectations) and instead simply means that schools should do less, since that's the only change that can come from a "Parents First" policy.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Neighbors have to personally notify people that they're sex offenders when they move in and employees have to undergo background checks, so this theoretical purpose is already better served elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
we misunderstood each other. whatever. there's no need to fight about that
Neighbors have to personally notify people AS A PART of the sex offender registry. That is one of it's benefits.
As for employees, you might be surprised (and a little upset) to discover that background checks are not universal. I spent much of my teen years and early twenties working in various childcare fields, and while most of my employers put me through background checks and fingerprinting, there were a couple who did not. And I was directly responsible for watching the children, suggesting that folks who might interact with the kids once or twice per day (such as bus drivers and janitors) mights have background checks performed on them less often. Add in the idea of contracting and outsourcing, and you might even end up with schools/camps/daycares who background check all of their direct hires, but assume that their contractors are checking their own people, and who knows if the contractors really are?
There really is no denying that there is SOME level of benefit to the registry. The question is whether or not it is possible to somehow derive that benefit without incurring all of the societal costs that the registry currently has.
It may also depend on the offense. A first time or minor offense may get X years on the list, while violent or repeat offenders may be on it for life.
Anyway, it's easy to understand why we have such a scope creep on Mgan's Laws. They are laws, meaning a judge doesn't get to ignore it. A judge can't convict someone of X, where X is a registry offense, but then say that you don't go on the registry. And often a judge must convict you of X if A, B, and C are involved in the case.
So, public nudity: what if a guy flashes a playground of kids? What if a drunk teenager celebrating a sports victory goes streaking and happens run down a street that is within 300 yards of an elementary school? Can you legislate the difference? You will always either A) fail to register people who show commit crimes that indicate a dangerous mental condition and then later they kill someone, or B) catch some dolphins in your tuna-net registry.
Do you need to in a system with appropriate repercussions? Does either act deserve any life changing consequences? I realize it was only an example, but the gravity of the consequences is usually a good enough reason to raise complexity where necessary and if you're going to have something as crazy as Megan's law, you may need to go the extra mile to differentiate between pretty much everything.
The first is one huge ass hyperbole and the second is something that smart people through history have disagreed with as an argument behind legislative action.
Isnt there an issue where registered criminals have been caught committing crimes, because the registry is so huge the police cant properly track all of them anyways? So it brings us back to needing to pare it down to only those likely to re-offend, and people in that state, really shouldnt have been released in the first place if you can help it.