RoR: Forum

This is one enormously complicated issue. My "gut instinct" is to say yes, however I must ask who precisely are to be categorised as "sex offenders"? I'm fed up of hearing about so called statutory rape cases where the supposed victim turns out to be only a few months below the age of consent and the supposed sex offender is only marginally older (assuming of course that the sex was consensual in the eyes of the partners, if not the eyes of the law). I would strongly question whether individuals involved in such cases ought to be prosecuted at all, let alone be lumped in with genuine rapists and child molestors under the category of "sex offenders"

I'm also reminded of events here in the UK a few years ago when a tabloid newspaper began publishing names and locations of pedophiles (not, as I recall, sex offenders generally). This resulted in mobs basically witch hunting pedophiles, and in a number of instances going after the wrong person due to a similar name or address. One related incident might have been funny in a different context, when some idiot failed to understand the rather crucial difference between a "pedophile" and a "pediatrician".

My vote: reluctantly a "Don't know".
MH

Post 1

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:42pm

I have to go farther than Matthew Humphreys and vote "No." As MH points out, we now have "statutory rape" cases based on absurd legal fictions. If the "we had to learn it from each other" scene from Atlas Shrugged were to take place today in just about any state in the US, and some busybody noticed it and reported it to the police, Francisco D'Anconia would be a convicted sex offender. And there is more. We have feminist prosecutors who believe that there is enough "power imbalance" between women and men to make every act of heterosexual sex into rape - and so a woman is entitled to withdraw consent retroactively, even after intercourse has already begun, and in some cases days or months after it has ended. We have Christian prosecutors who believe that all sex outside a Christian heterosexual marriage is rape. Now that our Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual relationships among adults are protected under the Ninth Amendment, Christian prosecutors have taken to convicting BOTH seveteen-year-old partners in a consensual relationship of "raping" each other. And some, just to avert the charge of selectively prosecuting homosexuals, have secured convictions for "sex crimes" against BOTH nominal minors, even in heterosexual relationships between 17-year-olds. In one state, somewhere in the Bible Belt, the "age of consent" has been raised to 21.

Now if some pervert comits a real crime - something like forcible rape, or molesting a pre-pubescent child - then he should be locked up for life without parole, and never released, with or without community notification. But we all knew that already.

Post 2

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:53pm

I agree with the previous posts. I would prefer that law enforcement keep a close eye on serial child molesters and multiple rapists, rather than their location be made public. Objective justice is not compatible with vigilante groups. Of course, this monitoring should only be used in cases with a high probability of reoffending. Sometimes these cases are a one-off, or are exaggerated. The punishment needs to be proportional and - very importantly in these cases - to keep into account the possibility of wrongful conviction.

Post 3

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 5:49am

Definite "No" here, as well. Why just sex crimes? Shouldn't I be notified if a convicted armed robber has moved in next door? Or a person convicted of several DUI's? I certainly don't want my kids playing near his driveway, do I? And let's not forget, in some states--in the U.S.-- soliciting or promoting prostitution is a sex crime and offenders are put on "the lists" as well. That's no joke, I've seen it on Cops. I don't think my freedom requires knowing Joe Blow next door got his jollies off in Bumfuck, Alabama one night with Sally Syphyllis and got caught.

Though I don't relish the idea of subsidizing their entire filthy, subhuman lives, convicted sexual predators should definitely be locked away for as long as they draw breath. Or better yet, thrown onto an island in the Pacific so they can molest each other and the native wildlife to their hearts' content.

Post 4

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:29pm

Hell no! If an offender has been convicted, and has served his time, then by what right is he forced to live under continued scrutiny after his release from prison? What's next, a return of the yellow passport?

Post 5

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:59pm

Okay,

There are just a "few" *L* points that I want to bring up, in response to this "sex offender" topic... Because my answer is that - because under present societal, cultural, and philosophical conditions - it will not be applied fairly, and so my answer is that the names of "sex offenders" should not be made resoundingly public.

Now, here is where I may get rather hated, because I'm a notorious anti-feminist. But I do want to clarify that what I do love is rationality and fairness first and foremost, and I love mainly those females who embrace and strive to live by those qualities... and yes, they do exist; I was birthed and raised by one.

And before I really begin, I want to clarify that my verbal attacks against feminism are not attacks against the female, but attacks against illogic and unfairness.

Now, with that said, here's my commentary about so-called "sex offender" laws:

These "sex offender" laws will only ever be truly applied in actual practice to males, not females, because our society has become dominated by too many males and females both who subscribe to the philosophy that females can really do no wrong, and that only male sexual cruelties, not female sexual cruelties, represent real cruelty. You can call this philosophy "female supremacy", "female worship", but the name most popularly given to it, is "feminism". At its most benign, it is perhaps well-intentioned but misguided. At its most malignant, it is deliberate and deliberately sadistic.

I say that feminism - regardless of whatever is said it is - is a philosophical belief that female mannerisms and mindsets are what are needed in the world, over other attributes.

Now, there might be times where society is judged to be too far over to the masculine end of spectrum, which I think can be a fair assessment in certain instances (like the Arab world) - after all, the essential "male" qualities are different from the essential "female" qualities - and what is needed is a shift towards a more female way of thinking and doing things.

This I'm inclined to agree with, as I firmly believe - and believe I have truly seen evidence for - all of us having both male and female sides to our personalities, be we male or female.

With that said, here is what I'm going to say about the "male" and "female" qualities, which I've heard said before, but I just wanna either recap or impress myself by my ability to put into words *L* :

The typical male quality (where I come from) is basically directly aggressive, swaggering, overconfident, reckless, pushy, invasive, hasty, impulsive (yes, I know... synonyms), mindless (picture various male insects that must have their heads actually chewed off by the female, before they can properly lose their inhibitions and begin thrusting *L*), and with a certain inexplicable and sadistic compulsion to penetrate, that has obvious natural advantages.

Okay, you may begin hating me now.. *L*

The typical female quality (also where I come from), on the other hand, to be fully fair, is basically passive aggressive, calculating, orchestrating, overcautious, compulsively controlling, and given over to a certain inexplicable and sadistic compulsion to entice and then deny, channel and control, those "certain others", in order to better harness their sadistic compulsion to penetrate. Again, those last female tendencies have obvious natural advantages.

And oh, you're REALLY hatin' me now... *L*

What I'd now like to say, if you aren't totally mentally blinded by sheer rage, is that societies can become dominated by one gender supremacy philosophy or the other, and typically that means dominated by members of that sex.

I submit to you that this society has become dominated by what I described in paragraph four... the illogical mindset of female supremacy/female worship/feminism.   I also submit that the grand mistake through all of this, is focusing on "which sex" should be in control, rather than "which philosophy".

It should not be a question of which sex should hold power and be regarded as "the good" or "superior", or which sex should hold power and be regarded as "the evil" or "inferior"... Because this is, as Rand says, an "anti-concept". Because the evil that men do, or women do, is not actually a feature of their sex, but rather the result of the indoctrination of some corrupt philosophy OTHER than Objectivism.

And very often, the incorporation of corrupt philosophy becomes entrenched as some "culture". In Arab cultures, males are believed superior, and are free to run roughshod over all females... if they so choose. In most extremely Western cultures, females are believed superior, and are free to run roughshod over all males... if they so choose.

So, in any culture, what determines the minority individual who does not choose to just go with the cultural flow? Well, either "knownst" or unbeknownst to them, they actually carry within them the philosophy of Objectivism. And it is the embracing of objectivity which determines the worth of an individual, not their gender. And that is a choice that can be made at any time, by any person of either sex.

My bottom line is this: Under present conditions, if you put this "sex offender" thing into real practice, which has happened in many places, only the sexual cruelties that males are prone to will be criminalized, and as a result, only the names of males will be posted. Thus, it is not objective, and should not be done.

The only way to have a fair concept of "sex offense" is to also equally criminalize the sort of sexual cruelties that females are also prone to... and we all definitely know what those can be.  Because just as male sexual cruelties can be both physical OR psychological, so can those of the female, and just as equally devastating.

I strongly suspect that in this feminist society, for all the reasons I've said, once you start talking on this level, I suspect you'll start to see the "extreme urgency" of all this "sex offender" talk, start to evaporate rather quickly... Suddenly, it will just not be mentioned as much, and vanish altogether.

But in the event that the opposite happens, and the sex offender issue becomes hotter than ever, stick to the guns of objectivity, and hold both sexes accountable by it.

O.

Post 6

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 1:19pm

Orion,

Sorry if I've missed something but what's with the *L* every few sentences?

MH

Post 7

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 1:21pm

To the "No" voters:

The criminal conviction of an adult in the United States is a public matter, and thank goodness it is. Shall we have secret trials in the alternative?

Therefore, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate about anyone, including the government, publishing what is already public information. The rationale behind the effort to publish the convictions of sex offenders is not without reason: They tend to be serial offenders, protection against whom is not simply a matter of taking general precautions, like locking the door.

Even if it weren't reasonable, what measures do the opponents of publication propose to censor this PUBLIC information?

Regards,
Bill

Post 8

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 1:42pm

Bill: The criminal conviction of an adult in the United States is a public matter, and thank goodness it is. Shall we have secret trials in the alternative?

MH: Irrelevant and you damn well know it.

Bill: Therefore, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate about anyone, including the government, publishing what is already public information.

MH: Read the previous posts on this thread for a number of reasons why it shouldn't be done.

Bill: Even if it weren't reasonable,

MH: It isn't.

Bill: what measures do the opponents of publication propose to censor this PUBLIC information?

MH: Nothing. Just don't deliberately publish a list of names and locations.

Sheesh!!

Post 9

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 1:43pm

To Citizen Rat:

While convictions are public information, and no censorship is called for, the issue is not publication of conviction records, but rather the requirements imposed on previously convicted persons to register their current address for publication. Given that the overwhelming majority of "convicted sex offenders" have never comitted any crime in the objective sense of the term - see my posting above - there is no objective justification for such measures. Their ultimate purpose, once we get past the rationalizations that are used by the state to interfere in the consensual sex lives of individuals, is to enforce the Christians' arbitrary pseudo-morality and rape the rest of us with that pseudo-morality, using the force of the state to promote enforced obedience to the arbitrary and anti-human demands of Christian (or their anti-sex copy-cat, "gender Feminist") anti-sex bigots.

Post 10

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 1:52pm

Adam we posted at around the same time. Your effort is somewhat more eloquent than mine :-)

I wonder if I can change my vote to a firm No. You've all just about convinced me!

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 5/25, 1:53pm)

Post 11

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 2:28pm

Hi, Matthew.

First, let's set aside the issue of johns and teenaged lovers. Most people think rapist or molester when they hear the term "sexual offender". These are the sort of violent criminals that are of concern. To the extent that the law overreaches to register people guilty of offenses involving consensual sex, we can agree that is unnecessary and even counterproductive.

So, when it comes to violent offenders, I see some contradictions in what you and Adam have to say about this matter. Because Adam has a bug up his ass about Christians, I can understand his irrationality. But I do not understand a point you made, and perhaps you can clarify.

I said: >>What measures do the opponents of publication propose to censor this PUBLIC information?<<

You replied: >>Nothing. Just don't deliberately publish a list of names and locations.<<

But those "names and locations" ARE public information. You may protest that the addresses of convicted sex offenders should not be registered with local law enforcement, but that sounds like a light burden compared to Adam's alternative of locking them up for life (which would then have the perverse result of giving rapists and molesters the incentive to murder their victims).

Even if the cops didn't keep a list, an address is still a public piece of information. If a newspaper or an activist wants to compile such public information and publish it, what should be done to stop this if you think it is wrong to do so? Why can't I publish what is public knowledge?

Regards,
Bill

Post 12

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 3:11pm

Bill,

Sure it will be public information that Mr XYZ has been convicted of rape or child abuse or whatever, but what I object to is the idea of the police continuing to keep track of these individuals after their release. Presumably they would have to inform the police every time they moved house etc so that the public can be informed that this person was convicted however many years ago.

MH

Post 13

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 3:50pm

Bill,

But those "names and locations" ARE public information...

Names and places involved in the conviction are public, not where the released offender now lives. It is the "sex offender laws" themselves that provide for the latter, not the original letter of our laws. Further, the nature of the new publication and its intent--to paint a bright red "M" on the backs of men released by the written laws of our land--is so far removed from the obscurity of some clerk-of-the-court's filing cabinet that you should feel foolish for comparing the two with a slimy shrug and raised eyebrows--"Hey, it's public already!" Certainly, it seems correct and consistent with your stance to require those living in my general vicinity to prove they aren't convicted sex offenders, or convicted pot-dealers, or convicted bank-robbers. Care to draw the line?

For the sake of consistency, take it upon yourself to publish the conviction records of any habitual armed robbers...they re-offend more than aynone, and having no ready-made victims at hand--being childless and unmarried with few female relatives--the nature of their crimes applies more to me personally as a law-abiding citizen than those of sex offenders. I have property to be stolen, but no women and children to be victimized. Will you please advocate notifying me if any armed robbers move into my neighborhood?

You may protest that the addresses of convicted sex offenders should not be registered with local law enforcement, but that sounds like a light burden compared to Adam's alternative of locking them up for life

If you lock them up for life, the question of publishing their address becomes simple: c/o (enter State here) Penitentiary.

(which would then have the perverse result of giving rapists and molesters the incentive to murder their victims).

I see...don't punish offenders too harshly, for fear they might commit a worse offense. Brilliant plan. You sure you don't work for France, Bill?

Even if the cops didn't keep a list, an address is still a public piece of information. If a newspaper or an activist wants to compile such public information and publish it, what should be done to stop this if you think it is wrong to do so? Why can't I publish what is public knowledge?

You can do whatever you like, Bill. Your morals should guide you.

(This is being sent out at roughly the same time MH's was.)

Post 14

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 4:21pm

My very dear Bill, or whoever you are, "Citizen Rat:"

To write that "Adam has a bug up his ass about Christians" is a public confession of flaccid mental impotence. It is also false. I am on good terms with many Christians, and as long as they don't initiate force to enforce their pseudo-morality upon people who act on their own objective judgement of the moral facts - such as the Objectivists here - and as long as they don't promote the enforcement of their absurd pseudo-morality, we get along just fine. That the Christian pseudo-morality is false is a fact of reality. I attack all promoters of false moralities with equal zeal, and in this thread I've written more about gender-feminists than about Christians.

The problem with Christian-inspired legislation on sexuality is not just the targeting of johns and teenage lovers. Here in California, one can be classified as a "sex offender" for being naked on one's own property, for appreciation of art that gender-feminists and Christians consider immoral, or for having had consensual sex with a woman who later changes her mind about it. Put that together with a subjectivist psudo-justice system in which prosecutors defend the "finality" of subjective convictions against objective evidence of reality - and in which every single government forensic laboratory is subordinate to a prosecutor, and government "forensic scientists" must lie on the witness stand, if the prosecution's case depends on it and if they wish to keep their jobs - and you have a recipe for state terror against anyone who dissents from whatever pseudo-morality that system enforces.

If one lived in a society in which sex crimes are defined by objective, secular morality, and in which investigations of crime are carried out under the supervision of impartial, independent investigating magistrates - as in Switzerland, Spain, Netherlands etc. - then the option of community notification about convicted sex offenders would make sense. I agree with your point that laws should not be so punitive as to give rapists an incentive to murder their victims. But there is too much that must be changed first, before such measures could be justified in the (American, British etc) legal and social context.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 5/26, 6:58pm)

Post 15

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 9:00pm

Matthew,

*L* is the chat expression for "laughing". It's used in chat rooms to signify that the poster is laughing... or, as is the case when I was posting, nervous laughter due to my discussing a touchy subject.

Post 16

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 9:16pm

Since some people are focusing on what Christianity has to do with all this business of publicizing sex offenders' identities, I wanna chime in:

To the extent that Christianity is a religion that significantly centers around the idea that Christ's torture and execution was A-okay, because he actually welcomed it, why are we shocked that it's Christians who are so gung-ho about lynching?

This whole religion was a mess from the start, clearly. From the start, it has justified the argument that the Romans and other sadists were "okay" for getting off on torturing and executing Christ in the most horrible way.

This is what Christianity has always said: That sadism is okay, because Christ the masochist actually wanted it.

Is it any surprise that Christians actually are - and attract to their fold - people who really are sadists, and crave an institution that provides a flimsy sanction of "forgiveness" for their lusts... in other words, Christianity? Wake up and realize something here, people: Christianity is a religion for the Romans, not Christ. And what "Christians" have always really craved is the "forgiveness" sanction that Christ gave the Romans, for their sadistic addictions.

Is it really any surprise, then, that Christians would naturally talk "forgiveness" of sex offenders, while at the same time, having no real problem with turning the whole thing into a circus?

Mind you, if these sex offenders are truly violent or going after children, then I'll be honest in a righteously and ethically sadistic way: I say, go get 'em!... that's what I say, with full enthusiasm. But my point is you don't see me holding up this dishonest banner of "unconditional forgiveness" like Christians do, when all they really are is cloak-and-dagger sadists.

No offense, Citizen Rat.

Post 17

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:39am

Hi, Matthew.

Thanks for the clarification. You oppose burdening a convicted sex offender with a lifelong obligation to report his address to local law enforcement for the purpose of making that information available to the public. Fair enough.

Do you oppose all restrictions we impose upon felons after their release from prison? For example, in many jurisdictions in the United States a felon cannot vote or own a gun. Crimes of dishonesty, like fraud or embezzlement, will prevent a felon from holding certain types of jobs. Certainly a convicted pedophile will not be permitted to adopt a child.

Whether each example of how we continue to punish felons after they serve their sentences is sound public policy, there is a long history of doing so. I don't find post-sentence restrictions upon a felon obnoxious in principle. A prison sentence is not rehabilitation. It does not purify the criminal. Post-sentence restrictions are not a matter of being mean to a man whose "served his time". They are rational public policy to deal with reality of recidivism.

Therefore, if a felon's crime is serious enough to merit more than a prison sentence in order to increase public safety, why not?

As for the particular issue here, the idea behind the registry is to give the public notice of rapists and molesters, a particular type of violent criminal notorious for recidivism. They are akin to serial murderers in the threat they pose to us. Of course we don't maintain a registry of serial murderers, because once we convict them we either execute them or lock them up for life. But we do release convicted violent sex offenders into the public. Giving people the information they need to take private measures to protect themselves so that they are not completely dependent upon the effectiveness of law enforcement does not strike me as unreasonable.

The objection you and Adam raise to publicizing the addresses of non-violent sex offenders is reasonable. Setting aside whether or not some of their offenses should even be criminal in the first place (I am mostly in agreement with you two that they shouldn't), to flood a registry of violent criminals with those who pose no threat eviscerates the very purpose of public notification. It's like the boy crying wolf one too many times. However, the abuse of such a policy does not make the policy, corrected implemented, wrong.

Regards,
Bill

Post 18

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:47am

Orion,

Thanks for the explanation. I am familiar with abbreviations such as LOL, ROFL etc, but had never come across that usage before.

MH

Post 19

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:49am