RoR: Forum

Orion, your post seemed geared towards making sure laws remain objectively applied regardless of the sex of the offenders. That's a good stance to take--if that was the point of post #5--but while it's a related issue I don't think it pertains to the discussion at hand. As for what I think of your analysis...well, I'd have to look at a lot more data before I agreed we live in a feminist society bent on vilifying men. There are big, sneering, screeching femi-nazis that do that, but I wouldn't say they run the game at all...they run Lifetime and Oxygen, but not our cultural...milieu, is it? People sometimes ignore the horrible things that some women have done, but that doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of crimes are committed by men. That's the way it is. You had a good point that it shouldn't be a question of "which sex should run the world", though.

Post 41

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 10:47am

Jeremy,

To some degree, I see your point... But I think you're underestimating just how pervasive the influence of these "femi-nazis" and other pressure groups (such as multiculturalists and so on) really is. You describe them as fringe, not central... and you may be right for all I know, but you may be wrong. (apologies to Billy Joel)

Rand herself had quite a lot to say about this influence group, and where they have strategically placed themselves in certain key locations such as universities, where they are able to easily indoctrinate and/or bully "moldable" young minds; further, they have no qualms over crushing all dissent and only allowing through those who adhere to their dogma without thought or question. Those who do not "naturally" agree with their philosophy, they "have ways" of politely sabotaging academically...

Post 42

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 8:22am

And hello to you, Bill

"Sure, he is capable of change, Joe, but on what basis do you presume that he has? The transformation of his character from a criminal to a decent human being is a profound change. So the most likely outcome is that he has not changed. Indeed, violent sexual offenders are notorious recidivists, but instead of locking them up forever, we release them back into the community with notice to the public that they are amongst us."

I'm working on the notion of innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty for a past event...that is no reason to assume he will be guilty of a future event. On what basis do I presume he's changed? I might ask you, on what basis do you assume he must commit the crime again? As I said, you're going to assume that every person who commits a sex offense is liable to do it again, there is no reason why you shouldn't advocate tatooing him on his forehead, just to warn everybody nearby when he isn't at home.

With this in hand, no, a person is not to be assumed to be "a criminal who REMAINS a threat to public order (emphasis added)."

"Why shouldn't a public menace be labeled for what he is?"

Until you can convict him of a repeat offense, the correct word is "was."

"Your only argument is that this criminal has served his term, but there is nothing intrinsically purgative about completing a prison sentence. Nothing in serving time is inherently transformative of a man's character. It is only his choice to change than can accomplish that, and mere confinement provides no reasonable expectation that he will make such a choice. Because cannot know his heart, we cannot truly know he has changed."

Sure, but you can argue that for any crime. If a prison is not intrinsically purgative, you may as well advocate whole-sale slaughering everybody in prison. Do you really think prisons have no value for changing a person?

"But if he has changed then, I would expect, he'll be the first to admit that the burden of being listed in a public registry bears no comparison to the evil of the crime he has committed."

It's true that the registry is not, by itself, something worse than the sex offense. However, that's not related to notion of whether or not a registry should exist in the first place. Somebody's guilt should not be connected to what the state may impose upon a person.

Post 43

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:38am

Jeremy,

And in addition, the topic of this string is whether sex offenders' names should be made public. There were no stipulations on what could or could not be brought up in relation to this, and my comments arose out of that original topic.

The fact that the majority of people in this string decided to later focus on how the modern Christian agenda relates to this issue, after I posted #5, does not necessarily mean that I had to automatically go with the flow; a flow which did not even begin to exist until after I made my comment in post #5.

So, to say that I was talking about "unrelated" things, is to lose sight of what this string was originally about, before the Christianity branch grew, and when I actually made my comment, in relation to what was being talked about at the time I did.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 5/29, 1:41am)

Post 44

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 6:46am

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

This is what I said: Orion, your post seemed geared towards making sure laws remain objectively applied regardless of the sex of the offenders. That's a good stance to take--if that was the point of post #5--but while it's a related issue I don't think it pertains to the discussion at hand

I hope this wasn't keeping you up at night or something....I wasn't telling you to toe-the-line. I said your post didn't pertain to the current topic. Same thing you just said: There were no stipulations on what could or could not be brought up in relation to this, and my comments arose out of that original topic.

The original topic which is still under discussion, which this little side-bar has nothing to do with.

Toodles!

Post 45

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 7:04am

Hi, Joe.

You wrote: >>I'm working on the notion of innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty for a past event...that is no reason to assume he will be guilty of a future event. On what basis do I presume he's changed? I might ask you, on what basis do you assume he must commit the crime again? As I said, you're going to assume that every person who commits a sex offense is liable to do it again, there is no reason why you shouldn't advocate tatooing him on his forehead, just to warn everybody nearby when he isn't at home.<<

You needn't worry about his innocence. Having to register with local law enforcement is part of a sex offender's punishment for a crime he has ALREADY been convicted of. Incarceration is not the only legitimate form of punishment of a convicted felon, of course. As noted above, most jurisdictions burden convicted felons with all sorts of restrictions after they have served their prison terms. So post-sentence registration is not a novel thing.

Because registration is part of the punishment, isn't the real question whether or not it is a punishment that fits the crime?

Regards,
Bill

Post 46

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 8:03am

Bill,

You said: "You have concisely expressed an excellent point."

Thanks Bill. It's good to see positive feedback from my first post here on SOLO.

Regards,
Gordon

Adam,

I fail to see how I can be guilty of context dropping when no context has been presented. The poll question simply states: "Should names and current locations of convicted sex offenders be made public?" I don't see any context suggested by this question. It does not say where this would take place, under what justice system, or how it would be implemented. It does not suggest the rules, procedures, exemptions, sunset clauses, etc.

Where I live, I don't think the "overwhelming majority" of sex criminals have done nothing wrong. And I certainly don't believe I live in a society "in which anti-sex ideologies drive a completely crazy body of anti-sex legislation, and also drive the empowerment of a non-objective, sociopathic law-enforcement political class". In Canada, there are statutory rape laws, but there are exemptions for partners within a few years of age to prevent the case where, for example, an 18-year could be charged for having consensual sex with a 17-year old.

For the record, when I said I shared your concern for the unjust classifications of some sex "crimes", this was not simply a polite dismissal. I was absolutely sincere. This is, in fact, a much, much more serious issue than the publication of the names and addresses of sex offenders. However, I still don't think it is overly significant to the topic at hand. You say that "an objectively innocent person imprisoned under our [check your premises, please] current system would probably prefer anything to being set up for castration or murder by a lynch mob." Well, how much more do you think they would prefer to never have been imprisoned at all, or to receive full pardons because they never did anything wrong in the first place? By your logic, you should also oppose even convicting or imprisoning any and all sex offenders (real, legitimate rapists included) because some "sex offenders" are only guilty of violating unjust legal constructs.

All that being said, I understand your position and could possibly even be swayed towards it. It seems like a simple cost benefit analysis. You think the cost of endangering the rights of objectively innocent "criminals" outweighs the benefits of protecting the security of innocent citizens from known predators. Fair enough. However, I think your analysis is based on a couple of dubious premises. The first is the the majority of sex offenders are objectively innocent. Perhaps this is true where you live, but from where I'm standing, it just seems like an unsupported, arbitrary assertion, so I can't accept it until you offer some backup. The second is that publishing the names and locations of the criminals will set them up for "castration and murder by a lynch mob." That's a bit of an extreme characterization. I can't really see that there would be some vast insurgence of vigilante justice. But perhaps I'm wrong. If such a program were implemented, and the lynchings started to happen, I suppose I'd have to withdraw my support.

Anyway, I support the publication of names and addresses, because it lets innocent people take certain precautions in the case of a real threat. I in no means support it as a way to further punish criminals or insure that their lives are forever ruined. If you know that a dangerous criminal is living in your community, it gives you options. You can move. You can install additional home security. You can warn your children to not go near "that house down the street", or not to talk to the criminal living there. At the very least, it will make you think twice before inviting the guy over and having him become friends with the wife and kids. And finally, should you choose to bear the risk of treating him like an average law-abiding citizen, at least you are doing so with your eyes open. It seems absurd that if law enforcement could inform you of the potential threat in your community, that it should just sit back and wait for the next victim to get raped/molested/murdered, etc.

So here's my proposal. The names and current locations of certain offenders should be made public after they are released from prison. This should be reserved only for violent felons, who are guilty of crimes for which there are high rates of recidivism. It should not be reserved for criminals on such a flimsy basis as being guilty of "a sex crime", whatever that definition might entail. The specific crimes should also be published, with as much detail as possible as to what actually happened, so people may appropriately judge risk levels. There could even be a clause where if the felon keeps his/her hands clean for a certain period of time, his/her name can be taken off the registry. While it is almost certain that the felon will receive varying degrees of social ostracization and humiliation, and will always have to bear some risk against vigilantism, this is part of the price that must be paid for comitting such a heinous act.

And finally, if the program doesn't work, or causes more problems than it solves - scrap it!

Sincerely,
Gordon

Post 47

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 2:14pm

Bill wrote:

"You needn't worry about his innocence. Having to register with local law enforcement is part of a sex offender's punishment for a crime he has ALREADY been convicted of. Incarceration is not the only legitimate form of punishment of a convicted felon, of course. As noted above, most jurisdictions burden convicted felons with all sorts of restrictions after they have served their prison terms. So post-sentence registration is not a novel thing."

No, this isn't a new idea. I wouldn't claim it was. However, people can change. The felon is already likely to be alienated from his community. However, there's no reason that he should be alienated from anybody who moves in, or should be alienated from the rest of world, for example, if he moves. Your choice is: assume he's guilty, or give him a chance to be innocent. Not everybody is a repeat offender; stop treating them as if they are.

A registration, even if it is part of the punishment, denies a person to rebuild their life. It prevents them from integrating into a community environment. It keeps others from trusting them. There was a time when the person shouldn't have been trusted; that does not mean, ipso facto, that that person can never be trusted again. As I said, the effects of registration are based on the assumption that the person will be repeat offender.

Unless you can demonstrate that all people who commit sex crimes are always repeat offenders, this has everything to do with his future innocence.

"Because registration is part of the punishment, isn't the real question whether or not it is a punishment that fits the crime?"

I think I answered this above, but a recap on this specific question, no, it isn't the real question.

Suppose there was an energy crisis. It's the difference between saying, "Should we allow people to fill their cars with gasoline on two days of the week, or on three?" as opposed to saying, "The government has no right to ration gasoline at all, no matter how bad the crisis becomes."

Now, economics and criminal justice are vastly different areas, but the point of my analogy is that the principal underlying the difference is whether or not the registration is a legitimate measure in the first place. It has nothing to do with being part of the punishment.

Post 48

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 7:31pm

Gordon,

In the context in which you are writing, your position is much more reasonable than it would be south of the US-Canadian border. Canada does not have the American tradition of lynching. The Canadian law on sex offenses seems much less bent by gender-feminist and Christianist ideologies than elsewhere in the English-speaking world. Perhaps it's the French-Canadian influence - even the typical feminist is less anti-sex in Francophone cultures than here. There could well be merit in community notification, but the starting point for that should be the severity of the offense. I would be much more concerned about a murderer living in my neighborhood than just about any "sex" criminal - although forcible rape, or molesting a pre-pubescent child, come close. A proposal for community notification about all major crimes (rather than just "sex crimes") might well make sense in the Canadian context in which you live.

Post 49

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 9:27pm

Adam,

At least YOU have brought up the gender-feminist push on this sex offender business.

I don't know why, but I keep noticing Canadian females who come to America to live and study and work, and all of whom vociferously bang tables with their fists and declare how rabidly feminist they are. I guess Canada wasn't the sort of place for them to comfortably run wild with that philosophy, so they came here.

Post 50

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 10:12am

Hi, Joe.

You wrote: >>A registration, even if it is part of the punishment, denies a person to rebuild their life. It prevents them from integrating into a community environment. It keeps others from trusting them. There was a time when the person shouldn't have been trusted; that does not mean, ipso facto, that that person can never be trusted again. As I said, the effects of registration are based on the assumption that the person will be repeat offender.<<

Yes, of course, the whole idea of registration of sex offenders is predicated upon the fact that they are not to be trusted. No one is entitled to my trust, and a convicted felon has positively acted to deny himself that trust. How does his completion of a prison sentence mean he is entitled to something which no one is entitled to?

Indeed, what does cold hard reason tell YOU is the most salient fact when it comes to trusting a felon: His conviction or his completion of a his prison sentence? His conviction tells me he was found guilty of a heinous crime. His completion of a prison sentence tells me just that, he served his time. It does not tell me that he is any different from the man who was convicted. If he truly wants to be trusted, he will earn my trust WITH that albatross around his neck -- not by concealing it, as would be possible without registration.

Perhaps, because of my experience with the rehabilitation of ex-cons, I am dubious of their claims of reform. Even so, I don't see how logic supports your argument that we should trust those who have acted against that trust and have done NOTHING to restore it.

Regards,
Bill

Post 51

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 3:38pm

I am not saying that they should automatically have somebody's trust. I'm saying that there should be no legal barriers in the way of them never having anybody's trust again.

Post 52

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 7:52pm

Adam,

I think we are mostly in agreement. It is not inherently unjust to publish the names of dangerous felons, but certain cultural/legal issues must be taken into consideration to determine the value or costs of such a program. Having never lived in the U.S., I suppose I am not in the position to view the issue within your contextual framework.
This discussion has been informative and helpful. Thank you.

Now I must go on the offensive against others, such as Mr. Trusnik, who think it is inherently wrong to publish the names/addresses of violent criminals. But that will have to wait for another day as I am off to sleep.

Post 53

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:40pm