Sex Offenders made homeless

I think this article brings up an interesting problem. That is how we keep making it harder for sexual predators to find residences. We're essentially making them homless as part of their punishment. Anyways:
http://miaminewtimes.com/2007-03-08/news/swept-under-the-bridge/

I mean, yeah, they did some bad shit. But that dosen't mean we should treat them like rabid animals. We just gotta help them figure out how to love in a positive way. We shouldn't make them outcasts.

 

No we shouldn't. If their sexual crimes were against children or if they are repeat violent sexual offenders they should still be locked up or executed.

 

Considering that they have been released and that there are children's establishments just about everywhere, what do you suggest should be done? There is almost nowhere that they can go without breaking some kind of zoning law sooner or later. People are overreacting. A lot of these guys didn't even touch a child and yet they are still required to not be anywhere near children's organizations.

 

Cruel and unusual punishment.

 

I have trouble understanding why we do this to sex offenders but not to murderers. For example, a murderer who's served their time and it released can live wherever they want. Using the same logic we apply to sex offenders, shouldn't murderers not be allowed to live near anyone? It all seems rather suspicious to me, especially, since murder is arguably a worse crime.

 

So perhaps we should just have their particular crime tattooed on their foreheads, the way God marked Cain. I think it's important to know who and what everyone is, right? We can pick Blacks and Asians out of a crowd, right?

Sheesh.

 

Do somthing to kill off thier sex drives

 

sex offenders are shit.
I really don't care what happens to them...

 

oh yeah having a bunch of homeless rage filled ex-offenders roaming the street is a good idea

 

tru dat junkhead

 

I think they shouldn't be totally remi=oved from children unless they show a presistant aggresion toward children. There are so many guys who slept with a lady saying she was like 20 to find out she was 15 and calling it rape because she made an unwise choice. Most of these guys are dudes who make a mistake, once in their lives, the media just blows it up to be this whole big thing.

 

+1

 

I agree that the registry system doesn't work. As you said the rules are forcing registered sex offenders to leave their residences because there are very limited, if any, places they can stay in a city that is not close to a daycare or school. This has lead to many of them becoming homeless and dropping off the radar of the officials. I think Ohio has lost track of around 50% of their registered sex offenders.

As far as overreacting, sure many are registered because they were 19 and boffed a 15 y/o and the parents had them arrested and convicted of statatory rape. In my original post I did qualify my statement by saying that those I thought should be executed or left in prison were those who committed crimes against children or were repeat violent sexual offenders.

The bottom line is that the sex offender registry system does not work and there are plenty of convicted pedophiles running loose.

 

"Jessica's Law is the informal name given to a 2005 Florida law designed to punish child sex predators and reduce their ability to re-offend. A version of Jessica's Law has been introduced on the federal level, it is referred to as the Jessica Lunsford Act. The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl raped and murdered by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender, in February 2005. Public outrage over this case spurred Florida officials to introduce this legislation. Among the key provisions of the law are a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and lifetime electronic monitoring of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than twelve years of age. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years of age is a capital felony, punishable only by death or life imprisonment with no chance of parole."

Personally, I don't see how this approach fixes anything. America has a bad habit of making criminal sentences too long and too harsh. It is unlikely that an individual would be willing to risk their relative or friend spending that much time in prison or being executed over child molestation, and therefore cause the individual to go without reporting any child molestation that occurs. Considering that most child molestation is incurred by a relative or a friend of the family, one can see how this is detrimental to the law's purpose. Not to mention, it increases the need to silence the subject with threats, violence, and death.

I don't understand why a sexual offense would be considered as punishable as murder. An individual can receive less time for killing someone than they can for sexually molesting a child under this law. The prisons and jails are overcrowded enough as it is. Instead of re-enforcing the brutal "revenge" mentality of America, the government should be working at altering such attitudes. Unreasonably harsh sentences tend to make people act desperately rather than rationally.

 

oh riight so one person signs in as 3 other people and starts a conversation off like tis, either someone is just testing the water on what people think or its a way to boost the ratings, yeah talk about sex offenders always garaunteed to pull a crowd isnt it, you know why??? because stupid people believe what they read in the newspapers, because its a far less serious crime than murder but if governments admit murder is out of contreol then they have failed in their prime contractual obligation to people which is - protection of life - !!! murder is more evil than sex crime we shouldnt forget that

IF GOVERNMENT ADMITS THE MURDER RATE IS OUT OF CONTROL IT HAS FAILED IN ITS PRIMARY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT LIFE.
thats why theres so much fuss to keep your mind off the fact that the police have no control on the streets anymore

 

America has handed out long and harsh sentences for drugs, but do you really think we have been giving violent child sex offenders too harsh sentences?

So after an average of 11 years violent offenders with child victims are realeased back on society.

So after release from prison these offenders get caught again. We should have not let them out.

Misterfox, so if you feel harsher sentences will furthur the underreporting of sex crimes against children, what should we do?

 

I think eleven years is a long time for any crime. If you went into prison at age twenty and came out at age thirty-one, you would have essentially lost the best part of your life. When you take away that much from a person, they tend to take on a jaded and hopeless attitude. The reason that a lot of people re-offend is not because they don't spend enough time in jail, but because they spend too much. After spending that much time incarcerated, released criminals can find it difficult to readjust into a more normal life, and the stress can lead them to re-offend. Others, well, they just lack the morals.

If an individual only spent, say, two years in prison, I think that they would do better after they were released than if they were to spend ten times that much. The government is just kicking offenders in the head over and over again when they place criminals in correctional facilities for absurdly long periods of time. It’s not the offenders that need long sentences - It’s the public’s need for vengeance. That and many people simply do not feel safe around someone that they know has broken the law.

Perhaps the only suggestion that I can make is for the government to try a more rationally lenient approach geared to “shock” the offender rather than “beat” the offender. Kind of like when a parent grounds a child for breaking a rule. The parent doesn’t ground the child for ten years or for the rest of their life, as the child would simply become jaded and defiant if this was the case. All I’m saying is that shorter sentences can be more effective compared to “Your life is essentially over” punishments. No one is going to be very motivated to do anything once they have spent half of their life behind bars.

 

I'm certainly not going to disagree with you about the rehabilitation effectiveness of our prison systems, but I still think a violent sexual offender with child victims should be kept locked up or given the death sentence. I could care less about them losing the best part of their lives.

 

Their personal happiness is and isn't my point. Basically, my point is that people are more likely to re-offend if they're thrown into an over-bearing criminal system, and less likely to re-offend if they still have a reason to live. It's the mentality of "You've made me suffer, so now I want you to suffer ten times worse" that has plunged America into the poor state that it is in. Hate meets with hate meets with hate and so on. It's just a vicious cycle that people invite upon themselves by refusing to let go of their anger and think rationally.

From a somewhat different perspective, I don't really want to pay taxes to keep a criminal behind bars for the rest of their life. It's a waste of money and has no purpose other than to satisfy the sadistic urges of the general public. This goes for death row as well. Death row inmates spend years locked up before they are ever executed. It's absurd, and I don't want to pay to keep a person alive that is damned to die, anyway.

 

Given the success that those long harsh sentences have had on drug use, why should sex offenders be treated harshly. What evidence is there that it works?