Activists Alarmed That Sex Offenders Are Living in the Only Areas They're Permitted

After years of zoning sex offenders out of just about every part of public life, activists are now alarmed that the offenders are "clustering" in the few areas they're still legally permitted to exist.

"It is not where they aren't living that is the problem, it is where they are," says Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "If you put these guys together it will lead to a higher incidence of sex abuse as they talk about this stuff. I see it as a dangerous trend."

Maybe we should just shoot them.

Look, I have no sympathy for child rapists. Or regular rapists, for that matter. But this is insane. If you don't want these people getting out of prison, change the sentencing laws. But don't let them out, then zone them out of civilization to the point where they're forced to live under bridges, then complain that they're congregating under bridges.

Comments

[Invisible Finger]

And the fact that 90% of these people are NOT child rapists.

[Pro Libertate]

As most of us hereabouts know, there are a few big issues with all of this. First, why the hell are we releasing people who've actually sexually assaulted children? I mean rape and molestation, for the most part. Seems horrible enough to be a capital/life offense.

Second, why do people who aren't "sexual predators" get classified as such? An 18-year old who had sex with his 16-year old girlfriend is likely not dangerous to your children. Ditto the guy who urinated on a wall at a concert.

Finally, if we're going to free these people then force them to live under bridges, isn't that the most likely action to ensure that they'll do more, not less, crime?

[Nipplemancer]

i'm lazy so i'm going to say the same thing i did as on Radley's site.
i still don't understand how any of these restrictions are constitutional. i do have sympathy for these people because they have served their sentences. they zone them out of housing and then arrest them for violating whatever the local version of megan's law is for not reporting their whereabouts.
is it not double jeopardy to punish them further after serving their time?

[Tulpa]

Never mind that a significant proportion of "sex offenders" are guilty of nothing more than public urination, indecent exposure, or having sex with their 16 year old girlfriend when they were 18.

This is just the outrage industry in action. NCMEC has to drum up donations somehow, and the legislative process has bent over backwards in favor of such orgs so much already that there's no more low-hanging legislative fruit to advocate. Look next for a bill forcing retina scanners to be installed at the 1,000-foot perimeter of any school, playground, or other place where children congregate.

[Tulpa]

ok, I got utterly scooped on all my points. I seriously take too long to write comments.

[Pro Libertate]

Nipplemancer,

There's precedent. For instance, if you're paroled, you usually have to jump through some hoops for a parole officer for some amount of time. The rationale is that you're being released, but we're still keeping an eye on you.

To be fair, we're (usually) talking about people who have been proven guilty of crimes, so acting like they're completely safe after a few years in prison doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We could, of course, just keep them locked up until we're sure they are safe, but I doubt that's a fairer approach. At least, not from the convict's point of view.

[John C. Randolph]

Maybe they're just trying to drive them all to suicide.

-jcr

[Puritan]

Can't we just set up special camps for these people to live in?

[Mr. Hilter]

Boncentration bamps?

[Hazel Meade]

And the fact that 90% of these people are NOT child rapists.

And the fact that the definition of "sex offender" is so broad that an actual child rapist can get away with keeping a child he's raping in his back yard for 18 years without attracting police attention.

[R C Dean]

ok, I got utterly scooped on all my points. I seriously take too long to write comments.

C'mon, Tulpa. This is the intertubes. Its type, then think.

[Nipplemancer]

parole conditions generally end after a period of time elapses. sex offender restrictions are forever and apply to all released persons. it's nothing like parole, at least to me.

[Episiarch]

The reason this shit happens is that "sex offenders" are the perfect cipher to hate. It's just assumed they are child molesters or rapists, which are heinous crimes; there is an assumption of very likely recidivism, so they have to be watched; and it's for the children.

People like to have someone to fear/hate/condemn/look down on. With the above factors, even if they aren't true (such as a "sex offender" being a public urinator), it's just too tempting for the average asshole to pass up.

[Death Penalty Advocate]

Maybe we should just shoot them.

Pity you Libertarians never thought of that in the first place.

You know, back before this sissy people-are-basically-good-and-we-can-solve-all-problems-by-talking era came along, our ancient ancestors used to execute all rapists, not just the child rapists.

The danger that any dangerous criminal will escape from our prisons--contrary to what prison-break movies would have you believe--is getting smaller all the time. The real danger is that bleeding hearts who've bought into this modern liberal nonsense will let them out. Leaving a lot else aside, we need a lot more application of the death penalty for that reason alone.

[jester]

Death Penalty Advocate,

You are unschooled, and uncool about Balko. No one here wants to let any menace out. We just want to keep those who aren't a menace out of the system.

No one here is arguing if you find some disturbed fuck involuntarily fucking your daughter that your natural impulse to slay the fucker is not founded.

We are arguing that you first need to make sure that one's daughter didn't consent to the sexual act. We think your age limits are in need of reform.

If old man plus young girl is offensive to you. Take it out in your private social circuit. Just don't expand it with ridiculous laws on the greater public. Your laws fuck up people's lives where consent was always the intent. Rape is another question. Statutory rape simply means that I didn't like my daughter's choice and my daughter is still to young.

[Thogek]

Yet another case of governments issuing a series of regulations that sound good to the immediately-agitated public (and make the issuers look good) without bothering to think through the long-term effects.

Government issues series of specific regulations concerning an aspect of our environment.
Over time, the environment equilibrates into a state that is in balance with those regulations.
Government complains about issues with the environment's current state, and vows to issue regulations to fix it.
Repeat.

Sigh.

[WereTaco]

Agreed jester,
People getting labeled as sexual offenders for consensual sex is pretty silly.

Also the age of consent laws need reworked. It's basically another govt imposed restriction on what you can and can't do with your own body.

[WereTaco]

Death Penalty Advocate,

The problem with the death penalty is that even if one person is killed wrongly the system ( using it's own logic ) should be forced to kill itself.

There has been more than one case where a man has been released from death row after new (DNA) evidence arose.

[GILMORE]

Why does Reason hate Children?

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

There's precedent. For instance, if you're paroled, you usually have to jump through some hoops for a parole officer for some amount of time. The rationale is that you're being released, but we're still keeping an eye on you.

No, Pro. When you are on parole, you are still in the system, are still a convict. They have just agreed to let you mingle with the citizens. These rules apply to people who have been released: they have formally paid their debt to society and are ex-cons.

Personally I think that this quote (please tell me it is in an official communication from NCMEC) is meat for attacking the "Oh, it's not punitive, we're just worried about the children." claim that is put forth to defend this rubbish.

[BakedPenguin]

WereTaco,

Shit like Death Penalty Advocate is the reason why innocent people get executed. Assholes like him demand "frying" more and more people. When someone gets released because the cops were too fucked up to do their jobs correctly, and simply went after the most convenient suspect, shit like DPA screams about being "soft on crime". The result is asshole prosecutors who will convict anyone, anytime, regardless of guilt status.

And its shit like DPA who makes it happen - who have helped execute hundreds of innocent people. Since he's just as guilty as anyone else, I say we apply his penalty and blow his worthless fucking brains out. We won't be losing anything of value.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why not relocate them to an internment camp somewhere in the Owens Valley?

Can't we just set up special camps for these people to live in?

Indeed.

How much would it cost to rebuild Manzanar?

parole conditions generally end after a period of time elapses. sex offender restrictions are forever and apply to all released persons. it's nothing like parole, at least to me.

Consider it lifetime parole.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

Consider it lifetime parole.

Parole only lasts until the full sentence has been served. If you want these folks subject to lifelong punishment you have to change the law to allow it and get the juries to agree.

And you don't get to apply it ex post facto.

These are the rules of the game.

[anarch, who\'ll believe almost]

our ancient ancestors used to execute all rapists

Which ancestors, please?/[citation needed]

[Michael Ejercito]

And you don't get to apply it ex post facto.

Why not?

It was perfectly okay to prohibit people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing handguns. The reason being that they already had due process and were found guilty . Their conviction subjects them to whatever punishment the government deems fit, within the boundaries of the Eight Amendment.

[Sviluppo]

our ancient ancestors used to execute all rapists

Um, this trait has survived for so long because, evolutionarily speaking, it's a very successful method for passing along genes. Plus concepts like 18 being the cutoff age and the idea of "female consent" are pretty recent developments. Even in this country it took until the middle of the 20th century before we established that it was even possible for a husband to rape his wife.

If anything, in the long history of human civilization the penalties have been worse for the woman who was raped than the man who committed the act. It's still like that in vast swaths of the world.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

And you don't get to apply it ex post facto.

Why not? [...] they already had due process and were found guilty. Their conviction subjects them to whatever punishment the government deems fit, within the boundaries of the Eight Amendment.

Like hell.

Their conviction subjects them to exactly the punishment prescribed as a result of due process (under the laws in effect at the time of the crime) at the time of their conviction.

The government doesn't get to come back later and say "We're changed our mind, grand larceny gets you 7 to 10, not 5 to 8.", and they don't get to say "Oh, by the way, we decided to also make you a untouchable, too." either.

The hand-gun ban (or often a complete ban on gun ownership), has been a part of the law that applies to all felony (and often some misdemeanor) convictions for a long time. There is no post facto application, it is part of their sentence from the moment they are found guilty.

The various restriction on the movements of discharged `sex offenders' are relativly new and are being applied to people who were convicted before they were put into effect. Which is exactly ex post facto punishment.

This has been sold under a "it is not punitive, it is precautionary" argument which the quote above makes it clear simply isn't the way that Mr. Allen actually feel, but is rather a disingenuous pose put on to make it all palatable to the courts.

[$]

Why does Reason hate Children?

They have bad grammar, no jobs, and poorly defined jawlines.

Unfuckable!

[vagina dentata]

People getting labeled as sexual offenders for consensual sex is pretty silly common if they can't do it right.

[Hazel Meade]

our ancient ancestors used to execute all rapists.

Our ancient ancestors WERE rapists.

But seriously speaking, nobody here is in favor of letting rapists run around the street. We're just against treating public urinators and kids who send eachother dirty pictures to the same treatment that rapists receive. If they would narrow the classification of "sex offender" down to just actual rapists and child molesters, I don't think this would be much of an issue.

[jtuf]

As most of us hereabouts know, there are a few big issues with all of this. First, why the hell are we releasing people who've actually sexually assaulted children? I mean rape and molestation, for the most part. Seems horrible enough to be a capital/life offense.

Because we need the jail cells for cancer patients who treat their glaucoma with marijuana.

[jtuf]

Second, why do people who aren't "sexual predators" get classified as such? An 18-year old who had sex with his 16-year old girlfriend is likely not dangerous to your children. Ditto the guy who urinated on a wall at a concert.

Because most voters don't bother to read the details of the incident. They just read the headline saying, "Sex Offender Arrested". So, politicians get the same high marks for being tough on both types of people.

[jtuf]

Finally, if we're going to free these people then force them to live under bridges, isn't that the most likely action to ensure that they'll do more, not less, crime?

Yes, but sex offender laws aren't designed to protect children. They are designed to elect politicians and to allow residents to feel smug about how much safer their neighborhoods are compared to those places.

[plutosdad]

Aw come on, there can be no possible downside to throwing men in prison on unsubstantiated suspicion, jailing single or gay men who dare want to volunteer to help poor kids get ahead. After all, what does due process and justice matter when our children are at stake>

[R C Dean]

our ancient ancestors used to execute all rapists

What utter nonsense. I will even post that not a single culture ever executed all rapists. Maybe the occasional rapist from outside the community or power structure, at most.

[Citizen Nothing]

I'm anti death-penalty, but I'm pro kicking Death Penalty Advocate in the nuts.

[Isaac Bartram]

If anything, in the long history of human civilization the penalties have been worse for the woman who was raped than the man who committed the act. It's still like that in vast swaths of the world.

Indeed, for much of history rape has not been a crime against the woman as much as it has been a crime against the man who owned her.

If it was against a single woman still living in her father's house the crime was essentially one of theft of an, albeit limited, economic asset; viz, the daughter's virginity and hence marriageability. Paying the demanded brideprice and marry the daughter was always enough to get the perp off the hook. The woman's consent, as Sviluppo notes, was irrelevant.

Obviously if it was against a married woman the issues are different. But it was the husband who was seen as the victim of the crime, not the wife.

[Pablo]

Re: the ex post facto issue, I agree that sex offender registries and residence restrictions are ex post facto punishment if the person is not aware of them, or they do not exist, at the time of the conviction. The whole point of not having ex post facto laws is that one should be aware of all penalites when deciding whether to plead guilty or go to trial.

Of course the SCOTUS does not agree. According to them, sex offender registries and residence restrictions are not ex post facto because the are "administrative" not "punitive." This is yet another play on words in order to ignore the Constitution.

[Michael Ejercito]

If anything, in the long history of human civilization the penalties have been worse for the woman who was raped than the man who committed the act.

I wonder why.

The hand-gun ban (or often a complete ban on gun ownership), has been a part of the law that applies to all felony (and often some misdemeanor) convictions for a long time. There is no post facto application, it is part of their sentence from the moment they are found guilty.

Explain the Lautenberg Amendment.

Why did it apply to misdemeanor domestic violence convictions dating before the passage of the law?

If it was against a single woman still living in her father's house the crime was essentially one of theft of an, albeit limited, economic asset; viz, the daughter's virginity and hence marriageability. Paying the demanded brideprice and marry the daughter was always enough to get the perp off the hook. The woman's consent, as Sviluppo notes, was irrelevant.

Obviously if it was against a married woman the issues are different. But it was the husband who was seen as the victim of the crime, not the wife.

Why was this changed?

According to them, sex offender registries and residence restrictions are not ex post facto because the are "administrative" not "punitive." This is yet another play on words in order to ignore the Constitution.

Again, the Lautenberg Amendment.

[Jennifer]

Which ancestors, please?/[citation needed]

Maybe he's talking about the ancestors who lived in the blissful matriarchal utopia that ruled the world before some asshole had to go invent The Patriarchy and fuck everything all to hell.

[Hazel Meade]

the blissful matriarchal utopia that ruled the world before some asshole had to go invent The Patriarchy

If I ran a matriarchal society, it wouldn't be at all utopian. it would be a clan of brainwashed warrior-ant minions.

[Jennifer]

My matriarchal society would kick ass. We'd execute all the rapists, give up liberty in exchange for safety, amend the Constitution to guarantee all citizens the right to go through life without ever being offended, and that fucknut "Death Penalty Advocate" would be the first one prosecuted under the new statute.

[Keith Richard Radford Jr]

Getting to maters that mater is something we seem to be able to get down to humbly; I would like to share this with you. This from my life experience is a true connection to the ties of races through our own sex laws which have been built on misconceptions and myth.

The Supreme Court just ruled on sex offender laws where some factions of our government think by some inert reasoning that sex offender should be quarantined like some virus steaming from draconian/Islamic law sex offenders should be executed. I have seen for myself, video taken in another country where a sex offender is placed on a pole much like the Catholics use to use a pyramid shaped object and have them sit on it and spin, the pole travels through the body looking for the throat but if not found its ok cause the sharpened end of the pole will come out somewhere. The heritage of the act is in its self a throwback to troglodyte's who are so obsessed with sex they can find that the way to deal with the issue is as revolutionary, as war, and two wrongs don't make a right but has in fact called up deep rooted issues of people who have had to put up with this kind of "hierarchy" of historic hysteria far to long. A word taken from hysterectomy, hysteria is tied to castration used to make animals less threatening right? Good old Monty Hall. Well no wonder it's wrong, right?

Anyway we are supposed to be the most advanced nation and we still have a death penalty when the rest of the world except for nations we are still warring with, {think!} While other nations went home our weapons dealers and torture lovers delighting in support for the death of people they don't know or want to simply because they don't know how to get money with out taking it from someone by force, is that supposed to includes mutilations? In my humble opinion that alone are terrorist activities as much as severed hands, ears, heads, or making a case with nothing more than an obsession justified by lies.

The truth about the sex offender registry will come out soon enough. When it does, People will see how the use of the registry was created, and by exactly who and why and the devastation it has created and the worthlessness of the use of it. It's origin in the Crow laws that brought disgrace to our nation allowing thieves and murderous societal bigots who have trashed any shot at making good of a program in its design to make money destroying our nation and its people. We can not play god and we can not survive using this behavior model because we are compounding the problem.

It's a ruse designed by people who are getting rich off the castration/hysterectomy/health care/physic care of people through sex laws that have gone wild. What about the people who are being used by the Medicare programs that requires these mutilations for both men and woman after they take their means of support? Can't you see? You have created the model and it is worthless! Why don't you just indiscriminately kill people you don't know that's statically the next sex offender because over 90% of all new offences are people not on the sex offender registry and the numbers are increasing not decreasing so as a behavior model the chumps put together is really screwed up and they were told before they tried it. So what is the use of such laws as the sex offender registry other than to terrorize people? With the murder of so many sex offenders and the continued disregard for life by the use of the registry it's just a mater of time before the federal government will be held liable for the deaths through federal court.

In a nation where a statement may have a double or triple meaning and our entire linage can be traced through mud, guts, and beer it's nice once in a while to get the picture of what is meant instead of what some thinks someone may have implied. So it is from the trenches to the hill. Remember the game where someone says something in someone's ear then passes it the same way to the next; the person advocating such destructive laws are the ones who need to be section 8 by simple brake down of the issue not sex offenders. Best regards