What a mess.
– A category, "sexual offenders," that can include anything from hardcore child molesters, to a flasher, to an someone who, a few decades ago, was 18 and was caught sleeping with what turned out to be a 17-year-old.
– They've all done their time. They've all been released. They've paid their debt to society.
– And now there's an increasing number of laws restricting where they can be, including any number of public places — parks, beaches, piers, fair grounds, schools. Doesn't make any difference what the crime was — in many cases, even whether the original crime was against children.
– The laws aren't really enforced, so they aren't really keeping people safe … except from former offenders who are actually law-abiding. Who end up having to maneuver a sea of laws from city to city, which can interfere with where they live, how they can make a living, how they raise their own children, etc.
– But it makes City Councils feel like they're doing something, and it makes parents feel "safe." So I guess it's okay.
Embedded Link
Sex Offenders Face Growing Restrictions on Public Places
Communities around the country have gone beyond regulating where sex offenders can live and begun banning them outright from a growing list of public places.
Google+: View post on Google+
Yea…I used to stress this. There is a website that will tell you were the offenders live…but it is difficult to find out what kind of offense they committed. I want to protect my kids from molesters…but the 18yr old who sleeps with his underage girlfriend I really don't care. :-/
Well, I would care when my daughter's a few years older … but a decade or two or three after the fact? Yeesh.
Unfortunately, because (a) there are sex offenses that are truly horrible, and (b) reporting on sex offenses as a Major Ongoing Epidemic is always guaranteed to sell issues / get high ratings, and (c) nobody was ever thrown out of office for doing too little against "pervs and molesters," this sort of creeping overreach and lack of actual justice only continues to grow.
I agree with you ***Dave, and this is one of the issues that really truly pisses me off. If they aren’t rehabilitated after SERVING THEIR TIME then keep them locked up. It’s bullshit to keep piling restrictions on them. I also think there needs to be a “redesign” of the sex-offender label. It’s way to broad and crazy ass restrictions are not helping.
@Amanda – Yes.
If they are incapable of functioning in society, then keep them locked up.
If they have undergone the societal reprogramming of disincentive/punishment and (as if) rehabilitation, then let them be free.
@Amanda – Agreed on both counts. Unfortunately, nobody want to be “soft on sex offenders” and apply some rationality to the process.
I think the problem is the broad brush approach. As you say, there are horrible acts that people are capable of. These people have shown tremendous resistance to rehabilitation (for whatever reason) and therefore do need to be monitored. But just as there are varying degrees of murder, assault, and theft, there should be varying degrees of sex offender.
The whole situation is a mess. They really like to lump these many disparate offenses together as a single group, treat them harshly, and then use them to justify things that are completely unrelated.
So while I don't think anyone set out to disproportionately punish the ones who did something technically but not morally wrong, the system not only makes it tough to defend them but actually advantageous to increase their suffering. Kinda nasty, really.
Agreed, +Travis Cobb — the broad brush (aided by our national sqeamishness about sex and the politics of being tough on crime) is a core issue here.