The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The failure of Megan's law(s)
Feral
ＭＥＭＥＴＩＣＨＡＲＩＺＡＲＤinterior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
ＭＥＭＥＴＩＣＨＡＲＩＺＡＲＤinterior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
A new report (summary article) by Human Rights Watch lambasts "Megan's Law" style sex offender laws in the US, declaring registration and residency restrictions to be both counterproductive and a violation of offenders' human rights.
Something I found particularly interesting from the article is the debunking of the myth that child molestors remain molestors for life and that pedophilia is refractory to treatment:
My primary objection to sex offender laws is based more on consequences than it is on principles. While I'm uncomfortable with any kind of knee-jerk legislation passed with the obvious intent to give the legislator(s) who authored it the reputation of being "tough on crime," if it works I can usually stomach it. But I don't think these laws work. I look at the success of drug courts, which work by keeping their offenders on a short leash: they're encouraged (or required) to get living arrangements and jobs as close as possible to the police department, they're required to undergo intense comprehensive treatment including cognitive-behavioral therapy and support groups, and they're required to check in to the court or the police department on a regular basis (in some cases on a daily basis). Unfortunately, residence restrictions force sex offenders to find housing and jobs well outside heavily populated areas. They can't leave near schools or bus stops, but that often means they can't live near courthouses or police departments either. This interferes with police supervision and it interferes with their ability to comply with intensive psychological treatment.
Also, in many jurisdictions, if a drug offender is undergoing a diversion program through a drug court, their legal records are sealed. Their current drug offense does not show up on pre-employment background checks (neither do any prior offenses assuming the offender successfully completed drug court treatment programs then, too). This is because ex-cons with jobs are less likely to reoffend than ex-cons without jobs. I don't necessarily think that sex offenders who comply with treatment should have their records completely sealed - any employment that involves direct frequent contact with children (school, daycare, etc.) should be able to perform a pre-employment background check that includes sex offenses; but neither do I think that sex offenders' names and faces should be placed on publically-accessible websites that any random civilian can query. Prior sex offenders deserve the same shot at getting a job as any other civilian (assuming that job does not involve kids) and they should be able to keep their prior criminal history sealed if they show continued compliance with a court-supervised treatment program.
TL;DR: Abolish Megan's laws and replace them with tightly supervised diversionary treatment programs for sex offenders a'la drug courts.
Something I found particularly interesting from the article is the debunking of the myth that child molestors remain molestors for life and that pedophilia is refractory to treatment:
I did some digging and found that this is reflected in scholarly literature. One widely-cited meta-analysis (abstract only) showed that recidivism rates among sex offenders are actually relatively low (16.8% among untreated offenders vs 12.3% of treated offenders in one study). There are also apparently moderately accurate ways of predicting recidivism, which is news to me.government statistics indicate that most sexual abuse of children is committed by family members or trusted authority figures, and by someone who has not previously been convicted of a sex offense.
In addition, the laws reflect the widely shared but erroneous belief that “once a sex offender, always a sex offender.†Authoritative studies indicate that three out of four adult offenders do not reoffend. Moreover, treatment can be effective even for people who have committed serious sex crimes.
My primary objection to sex offender laws is based more on consequences than it is on principles. While I'm uncomfortable with any kind of knee-jerk legislation passed with the obvious intent to give the legislator(s) who authored it the reputation of being "tough on crime," if it works I can usually stomach it. But I don't think these laws work. I look at the success of drug courts, which work by keeping their offenders on a short leash: they're encouraged (or required) to get living arrangements and jobs as close as possible to the police department, they're required to undergo intense comprehensive treatment including cognitive-behavioral therapy and support groups, and they're required to check in to the court or the police department on a regular basis (in some cases on a daily basis). Unfortunately, residence restrictions force sex offenders to find housing and jobs well outside heavily populated areas. They can't leave near schools or bus stops, but that often means they can't live near courthouses or police departments either. This interferes with police supervision and it interferes with their ability to comply with intensive psychological treatment.
Also, in many jurisdictions, if a drug offender is undergoing a diversion program through a drug court, their legal records are sealed. Their current drug offense does not show up on pre-employment background checks (neither do any prior offenses assuming the offender successfully completed drug court treatment programs then, too). This is because ex-cons with jobs are less likely to reoffend than ex-cons without jobs. I don't necessarily think that sex offenders who comply with treatment should have their records completely sealed - any employment that involves direct frequent contact with children (school, daycare, etc.) should be able to perform a pre-employment background check that includes sex offenses; but neither do I think that sex offenders' names and faces should be placed on publically-accessible websites that any random civilian can query. Prior sex offenders deserve the same shot at getting a job as any other civilian (assuming that job does not involve kids) and they should be able to keep their prior criminal history sealed if they show continued compliance with a court-supervised treatment program.
TL;DR: Abolish Megan's laws and replace them with tightly supervised diversionary treatment programs for sex offenders a'la drug courts.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Feral on
0
Posts
These things violate so many rights.
Also a good deterrent to never sexually offend as an adult, though.
"Eventually you're gonna need to make them their own town."
It's a poor argument, but harsh consequences sometimes deter people from committing certain crimes.
We all know retribution doesn't work, but apparently the taxpayers don't.
I.e.: They are like the emotional roller coaster of The Squid and the Whale.
I took a couple of classes in psych and law, and one of the principles we were taught is that (past a certain level) severity of punishment factors surprisingly little into the calculus of somebody choosing to commit a crime. Criminals simply don't expect to get caught, at least not major felons, so there's relatively little difference in deterring power between, say, 5 years in prison versus 10 years in prison plus residence restrictions.
But these were undergrad courses for liberal arts majors, so I'm willing to accept that that may have been an oversimplification.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
:^:
I
If you are a juvenile and commit a crime, you are entitled to rehabilitation until the age of 21.
It's a pretty good deterrent (for someone who has been taught these things, through competency development- part of Balanced and Restorative Justice) to know that if you fuck up again you don't get help but instead quality time with Bubba.
Ideally, employers should only be able to check for specific crimes directly relevant to the job. Shelf stocker? Check for shoplifting. Forklift driver? Check for DUIs. Pharmacy tech? Check for drug charges. And even then, they should only show up if they're newer than a given age, say 7 years.
But I don't even know if this would be possible.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If only. :P
By "possible," I meant politically, not technologically.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This generally applies to ex-convicts as well, though not quite to the same extent.
Now, I'm not disagreeing with this sentiment, or the stats in the OP, but I won't hold my breath that they'll be accepted anytime soon.
Dear god, imagine running for any political office on that platform.
"And I solemnly swear... to ease the restrictions and laws regarding this state's sex offenders! They're people, too!"
Well, that's why I prefer to focus on the pragmatic failures rather than the human rights concerns. I think it's much more politically palatable to say "Current sex offender restrictions aren't working! We need to restrict them in a different way!" than to say "Current sex offender restrictions are violating the rights of former child molesters!"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And prayer. Group prayer. Naked group prayer.
In any case, out of interest, what kind of child-sex offender laws do we have in Australia?
Well if he didn't touch the kids, that's just fine. It's just his right... right?
See now, I have no idea who's being sarcasic here. Foible of the internet.
' but if I have to... no, I'm still not going to.
Well, I was totally serious. Those socks could be hard to remove without the KY.
The hate behind these laws is disgusting, and as I believe anger always has a root in fear, I wonder if it's our fear of committing sexual crimes ourselves which leads our society to 'Megan's Law' etc.
Or is that circular?
How is anger always based on fear?
I get angry at people who twist science to fit their own stupid beliefs. That doesn't mean I fear them.
The US penal system has always struck me as being focused on humiliation and retribution, instead of something that could rehabilitate people. It's hilariously unmodern and Victorian.
You fear the fact that their idea might catch on. Otherwise it wouldn't matter, if you knew it wouldn't, you wouldn't care. You would probably just let the wallow in their own ignorance.
I've almost always been an opponent of sexual predator laws, but every time I disagree with someone on the subject they look at me like I have two heads. I blame the media.
That was in the news here in Borkistan recently. Apparently companies have started making employees sign a consent form for background checks -- and if they don't sign they get mysteriously put at the end of the line of applicants. I think that's illegal unless it's a line of business that's legally allowed to do so -- I had a background check when I worked at a bank depot.
No.
The anger comes from their abuse of some poor underpaid scientist's hard work. I wouldn't care if they were pulling it 100% from their butts.
I sure as fuck do
I guess it depends on what he means by fear.
I don't fear personal injury from science-hating loonies. I do have concern for how the science-twisters may affect the world if they gain any real power, but I wouldn't call that fear.
It's an unscientific belief of mine though - unfalsifiable, I reckon. But it's served me well in making my pit of bile a little shallower.
Well the general public is all that stops it from working politically. So the solution is clear, yes?
Charge the general public with sexual offences?
I was thinking "eliminate them" actually, but yours works too as long as we don't miss any.