Yes, they only publish the ID's of level 3 offenders, although I have no clue what level 3 actual means to tell the truth. The site also lists the number of level 2 offenders in each area- but not who they are or where they live.

The guy I mentioned in my first post crime was listed as 'abuse and rape of a child'...that doesnt sound like statutory rape to me.


I guess it could be worst, there were only 2 level three listed for my zip code here in Natick but more than 20 level two.


Oh and the site lists a big fat warning that use of the information provided to commit a crime or harrass an offender is a felony. A lot of good that will do if a person really does have vigilantism on the mind. :rolleyes:

I don't think it's very effective to list sex offenders on web sites. I'd be interested to know how many people are aware of their new neighbor. If the government truely wanted to inform everybody in the vicinity about a sex offender moving into their neigborhood, they should snail mail them a letter, not publish the information on the Web for the entire world to see. (The world has enough reasons to hate us without us telling them exactly how many sexual predators we have.)

Granted, but we're not the only country in the world with rapists or molesters.

Level 3 are the bad ones I seem to recall, you don't get that for being 19 dating a 17 year old. If I had one of them in my neighborhood you can bet I'd be finding out all I could about em.

'Wash your hands
brush your teeth
don't molest
or you'll be beat!'
by me
'call 911 and turn yourself in
because if I hear about it you'll
be dead'
by Molester Hunter
(not me i think it funny though)
seriously though they need harsher punishments for molesters and rapists

I like it in my place. 20 years in prison and 12 strokes of rotan for those kind of offences. Plus since here is small place. Everybody knows who is the person. There's no hidding what you have done.

Well argued, Bungleau. It is not a black-and-white issue, there are so many pros and cons with the concept of publicly available registers

My feeling is that once a felon has done their time, the slate is wiped clean and they should be free to continue with their lives. I absolutely do not believe that a person's criminal record (regardless of the offense) should be public available.

Several people have commented that to only serve 2 years for child rape is not enough - well sentencing is a totally separate issue. We should be debating the process for sentencing serious crimes, not what happens when prisoners are released.

Orbost it's a tough issue. I agree that having "done their time" a felon should be given a chance to start again, but at the same time I would want to know if the guy or girl next door is a risk to the welfare of my children.

It's fairly well established that the serious abusers have a high probability of repeating, so I'd rather those people be identified instead of letting them loose, hiding their past, and hoping they'll be good. While they may need protection, our children need it more.

I agree with those people who worry about the publishing of such lists because it can lead to vigilantes. A situation like that occurred recently in my state. A paedophile was released a couple of years ago after serving 15 years for child rape. He went back for 15 months after violating his parole but has now been released. Over the course of 2 weeks, he was run out of 4 different towns by angry citizens, who did things like attacking the car he was transported in, throwing rocks on the houses he was staying in, verbally abusing him and the people he was staying with, and picketing (with their children there as well!) the houses he was staying at. What made matters worse was that the state opposition leader and deputy condoned the vigilante behaviour and came out with such gems as 'well the police minister should try having him live in her street' when she mentioned that stoning people's houses was illegal.

We have a registry but it is not publicly available. He was recognised because he is extremely easy to spot - unfortunately for him, he looks exactly like what you imagine paedophiles to look - long stringy hair, funny walk and speech, tics and jumpiness. The registry was working - the police knew exactly where he was living, where he was working (which is why he went back to jail for the 15 months). He was probably the least able person in the country to engage in paedophilia. He had served his time and he has to live somewhere. Of course no one wants him to live on their street, but if he happens to, you suck it up and be extra careful. There is conflicting data on the recidivism rate of child molesters - during the time of this guy's ordeal I saw it put as low as 15% and as high as 85%. One problem is that what they are basing the statistics on is different in all cases. Whatever the case, though, he has NO chance of starting over and living as a non-criminal citizen if he cannot live anywhere for more than a few days at a time.

The problem also with the registers is that they give people a false sense of security. If people think 'okay, so Mr. Huber at number 14 is on the registry, and the man across the road from Billy's friend Max as well - I'll tell Max's mother to be extra careful... okay, that's it', then they are fooling themselves. A large number at least, perhaps the majority, of child molesters are unknown to police because they have never been caught and so are not on the registry. The very nature of the crime and of the victim lend themselves to secrecy and so often no one ever knows. It is also the case that the majority of offenders are not weird looking strangers, but known to their victims and the child's family - relatives, family friends, or people well-known in the community, like teachers. So if parents are not being vigilant about what their child is doing with everyone, then they are not protecting their child sufficiently. Thinking that they will be safe because they know where the paedophiles live from the registry is simply wrong.

Look, I don't have children, so it's hard for me to fully identify with your concerns. I'm sure my perspective might be different if I was a father.

Where though do you draw the line? If you want to be informed about sex offenders living on your street, what about murderers? terror suspects? kidnappers? armed robbers? petty thieves? fraudsters? drug users?

While sex offenders certainly draw a more emotional response from the public, I am not sure that you can have one rule for one type of offender and one rule for another. The principal of 'wiping the slate clean' must be applied to all criminals.