3 Sex offenders at the same address ???

* I think society's hysteria is often a form of re-victimization, amplifying the negative in the victim's experience.

In fact, since people with an offending record in such areas are generally subject to more scrutiny (and, if involved in a treatment program, generally this is not simply self-report) there's a prima facie case that they would be more likely to caught than those who have yet to be apprehended.

So what the recidivism rate does tell you is that the same people are continuing to offend. What it doesn't tell you is whether the same number, more or fewer people are being victimized by the same victimizers-before they are caught again- and it can't-only the offender can know that.
So I'm not saying that there are definitely people who were not abused who would have been - what I'm saying is there's really no way to know and/or measure that aspect of the effectiveness of this registry as a deterrent.
Only the offender can say whether or not this monitoring is curtailing his activities and making him more liable to be caught after fewer offences than s/he was before it was in place.

I think know what you mean, but I'd be interested for you to expand, in case I am wrong.

This is a silly claim. Measure it without the list, measure it with the list and measure the difference.

The obvious motivation for this to go unreported will exist in both scenarios. If there is no measurable difference the only way this can explain it away is if in one of the scenarios there is a different rate of undiscovered crime. You've established no reason this would be the case, and have only thrown doubt on the studies on the basis of not all crimes being discovered. This is a factor with or without such lists.

I'm sorry this list has gotten turned into such a joke apparently,
because I do think it could be useful. Sort of like cones around
a pothole or a sign that says, 'Live wire down ahead - slow down.'

It would be much better if people suspected everyone, did not have this delusion that they know who is safe and who is not.

The argument against public offender lists is that it makes the collective problem worse, because it make it impossible for offenders to fix their lives,

it often hurts victims because people they care about have their lives ruined, and it gives victims a good reason to not report because they don't the heavy hand of the collective smashing down on their world.

Rebecca: shoud we put robbers and murderers on the list?

[Note that I 'm putting the OM SIG into One If By Land, Two If By Sea
(the Beef Wellington place) on Monday, Dec. 14th. U may wish to join us, if u r then in America.]

Quote:

Or that the false sense of security caused others to be harmed as a result.

I think that is a very salient point.

A hell of a lot of public energy and angst goes into concern about known sex offenders....currently here in Oz we have a case of truly horriffic vigilantism against a repeat offender who has been released and whose whereabouts became known. People living nearby are obsessed.

Given that the overwhelming number of sexually abused children are abused by family members or trusted members of the family's circle of acquaintance, all this monsterisation of sex offenders is extremely counter productive in my view, as it reifies a sense of the threat as coming from a deviant outsider, and not from where it is most likely to come from.

This is not at all to deny the impact of multiple offenders on those they abuse, and I think there is good reason for such people to be closely observed by law enforcement, and for their status to be made known to relevant bodies when such people seek to be in situations where they have access to children.

I think these ARE genuinely difficult issues, but it seems manifest to me that many states in the US have gone way overboard in who they place on public registers, which seems to me to be a result of a kind of panic-ridden lack of consideration.

Quote:

Rebecca: shoud we put robbers and murderers on the list?

David - you're changing the subject again...

I think know what you mean, but I'd be interested for you to expand, in case I am wrong.

But you can't measure what DOESN'T happen- you can only measure what does happen.

I must disagree that it is changing the subject.
My question is whether criminals who have been MORE dangerous
shoud be added to that list; e.g.,
if someone is put on the list for stealing kisses
and pinching girls' behinds, then surely convicted murderers
are more dangerous than he is; so it seems to me.
Do u disagree ?

Aidan this argument, to debunk the data I have cited, just doesn't make any sense. And it's such a simple concept that I don't think more explanation and discussion is going to help here, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

I must disagree that it is changing the subject.
My question is whether criminals who have been MORE dangerous
shoud be added to that list; e.g.,
if someone is put on the list for stealing kisses
and pinching girls' behinds, then surely convicted murderers
are more dangerous than he is; so it seems to me.
Do u disagree ?

Um, okay....yes - a convicted murderer is more dangerous than
someone who steals kisses and pinches behinds. I don't disagree with that.

But unless the murder involves some sexual aspect -
the murderer doesn't fit the criteria of being added to this list -
so NO they should not be added to a sexual offender's registry.

On the one hand, "pinching girls' behinds" offensively trivializes
the severity of many of these crimes.

On the other hand, you have a point that sexual crimes are being singled out.
Why not an "Offenders List" instead of a "Sexual Offenders List"?

Not all of the offenses were rape.