What Is The Logic Behind Denying Sex Offenders Pornography?

I used to agree with the sex offender registry. But the more I learn about it, the more I wonder if I should.

One thing can't understand about the sex offender laws, is why some of the stranger restrictions. One universal restriction seems to be, they can't possess porn.

Mind you, not kiddie porn (which none of us can possess anyways). Just your run-of-the-mill, newsstand variety, consenting adult porn. Why?

Sex offenders surely still have a sexual component to their personality, as do we all. And it would seem to me, restrictions of any kind, esp. ones of a legitimate source like regular porn, would just make them more frustrated. So (the logic would go, I think), they would be MORE likely to re-offend. No?

There's also another practical aspect of this--or more correctly, a LEGAL one. Wouldn't denying anyone the right to possess or view any (legal) literature they want, be unconstitutional? The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again, we basically have a "right" to porn--in the privacy of our own homes, in any event.

What am I missing here? And what is the logic even, behind these "restrictions"?

:daisy: :bobby: :daisy:

 

IDK how they justify it legally, but our legal system is nothing but the oppression of our Puritan culture. The fear that someone somewhere may be enjoying themselves.

It is the same illogic that made many of our "sodomy" laws (That name itself an unconstitutional respecting an establishment of religion), which in many cases made sex offenders out of any of us. Oral sex with your wife? A man in Georgia spent two years in prison for that. Same gender sex? Go to jail sex offender.

Bit by bit these archaic religious based laws are being challenged and declared unconstitutional and eventually someone will get rid of the porn restriction for sex offenders.

 

i assume it's mostly a leftover rule from a long time ago that just never got changed.

well, we also have the right to bear arms, until convicted of a felony.

 

One could make the argument in the other direction, that by giving sex offenders access to pornography, your letting them chase the dragon. Many people who view porn, particularly those that do so addictively, need to increase the intensity to achieve the same level of satisfaction. By intensity I mean the level of departure from "normal" (in the mathematical sense) sexual behaviour. So by letting them up the intensity, you are bringing them to a place where they need to view kiddie porn in order to achieve satisfaction.

I'm not saying it's a correct argument, but I do think it holds some water. Also, when your convicted of a crime, you forgo some of your rights, the right to liberty for instance. The constitution does not apply in these case, at least not to those of us not convicted of a crime, otherwise we would have to let everyone out of prison on the basis of the constitution, or (charter of rights if your in Canada).

And I disagree in part: Registries for rapists and child molesters are a good idea. This is not about prudishness. People deserve to know if dangerous people are living in their neighbourhood. And people that have raped and molested are dangerous. While I agree that sodomy laws are bigoted and antiquated, there will never come a time where I don't think a child molester deserves the death penalty. Anybody that assaults/hits/molests a child deserves a choice between the death penalty and chemical castration in my opinion. I'm tired of the defence of adults who commit acts of violence against children. Children are the most marginalized group today.

 

I have also experience sexualized violence. I wouldn't be opposed to knowing about both murderers and rapist scum on my block.
It should be said that murder has a much lower rate of recidivism however. It should also be said that there are countless situations where murder, while illegal, is understandable: for example: a battered child that finally has enough, picks up the parents gun, and blows their head off. There is no reasonable justification for rape and child molestation.

 

Here is an alarming fact that to me holds more weight than sex offenders not being aloud porn.

Nearly 1/3 of the homeless population of San Francisco are registered sex offenders. The reason being that after being released the offender has to go back to where they were arrested to finish up their probation. Add to that irregardless of whether the offense involved a child sex offenders are not allowed to live within 100 feet of a school, park or any place where children congrigate. As a matter of fact other than to get services they aren't legally allowed to be within those parameters for more than 2 hours.

The problem is that the area of San Francisco is 7 miles by 7 miles. There are no areas of SF that are more than 100 feet of schools, parks, or any place where children congrigate.

It seems to me that a law that is supposed to make us safer is making people less safe. On top of that it seems like cruel and unusual punishment for people who have allegedly paid their debt to society.

C/S,
Rev J

 

We had that same draconian bullshit here in Miami Beach and the pigs were dropping ppl off at the Interstate bridge and that is where they had to live, under the fucking bridge. It became scandalous after it was discovered - how do you keep track of ppl who have no address. This overreaction by the legislators is always harmful and they (and the ignorant masses that elect them) cannot see the obvious consequences to stupid laws. No one is better protected, it is cruel and unusual punishment.

The sleazy guy with candy on the street corner is mostly myth. It is a relative or friend of the family that is usually the child molester.

 

Here they get an ankle bracelet. In the article I read that fact in there was a guy they interviewed who was busted for indecent exposure who was a fat guy who had to undo his pants to drive that forgot to do his pants back up while getting gas. Seems kind of steep don't you think.

C/S,
Rev J

 

Legislature prohibiting sex offenders from possessing even news stand style porn is a hold over from the 60s-80s when (with the rise of gay population nationally and the aids epidemic) sexual "deviance" was dealt with like psychiatric care at its inception.
"They must be sick with exposure to all this lewd material, lets put em on lock down from said material and force them to forget why they liked it so much!"
Legislature and judiciary measures for sexual misconduct are an intrinsic necessity of modern society, but are full of holes and flaws because of the potentially catastrophic room those agencies allow for their officials to impose personal bias on the law.

Not all offenders are sex addicts, as the porno prohibition ordinance seemingly propogates.
Not all sex addicts are offenders, many work dilligently through mainstream channels to control their urges before they breach the boundary of legality.

Neither stand to gain anything from effectively having their porn locked in a cabinet out of reach, as the simple stress increase that restriction creates can trigger an outburst.