Because that violates air pollution laws.

Oh damn.... It can't be good that im on page two of that list...

Oh dear, this database is just wrong.

Firstly, if people have done their time they deserve the chance to make a fresh start in life - they'll never get this if every nosy neighbour is digging up dirt.

Secondly, after a criminal has served their sentence, they are entitled to all the rights to privacy that we are.

And finally, given that people generally aren't abused by random strangers but by relatives/close friends (the link given in the OP quotes 90% fall into this category) it's all a bit pointless anyway.

I'll second JrKASperov and suggest that this is a return to mob rule and witch burnings. Too much information is dangerous in the hands of the wrong sort of people.

Besides, what are you going to do? There'll always be some offenders in every neighbourhod. Would you move away yourself? Hound the person out of town? Presumably, if that picture is repeated across the States then there'll be an endless chain of migrating offenders being chased from one town to the next.

Utterly pointless.

[ 09-23-2006, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I disagree with the whole notion.

I guess this is more of a large community type thing, since in my hometown you can't sneeze without twenty people knowing about it within ten minutes. And that's if you're alone in the wilderness!

I don't think too highly of this kind of thing anyway. I mean, sometimes you *just don't want to know* things about people. Let's say I have a new neighbor, really nice guy, been hanging out for a couple months, then I use this thing and find out he was previously convicted of murder or theft. I can honestly say I'd not want to keep associating with a known thief. I mean, who knows, a sudden change in attitude or behavior could be the thing that sets him off. People can sense latent hostility and mistrust.

<font color=skyblue>Why do you think the sex offender registry was created?

Because a small girl was attacked by a man who had been released from prison after doing his time. The family had no idea that their neighbor was such a monster and had no problem letting their daughter play outside. After that, it spread across the country.

I do not know any of you in real life, but do any of you that speak against this registry have children of your own? I do, and for that I am glad for the national registry of offenders.

Since most of you are not even from the US, I see that I'll get nowhere with this because you have different laws of society where you're from and so you think differently due to the social structure of your enviroment. </font>

[ 09-23-2006, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

I'll support you, Larry.

I am for a registry for a simple reason: sex offenders have a much higher rate of recidivism than other offenders do. From a <a hred="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm">2003 Department of Justice study</a>:

</font>

• Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.</font>
• On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence.</font>
• Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.</font>
• The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting.</font>

Sure.... most people are attacked by people they know. But when you're out, and you move away from the people you know... who do you go after next? The neighborhood kids...

All the kids in my neighborhood "know" me... I'm my kids' dad. I know their parents, they know me...

If I find that one of the other adults in the neighborhood has a prior, that person is going to be either off-limits or on a tight leash.

I wouldn't let my kids play around with a loaded gun. I wouldn't let them play around a convicted pedophile or molester, either. The results can be just as dangerous... and just as deadly.

And it doesn't matter the size of your community, either. In a small community, everyone may know, or the person may be very good at hiding things.

My issue is that the idea of a registry is great... the follow-through and execution are not. If an offender moves, they're supposed to report that. Whoever receives that report is supposed to process it. Eventually, someone has to update the offender registry records with the person's new address, and remove the old address.

All those require people to do their jobs in a timely manner, starting with the offender. What if they don't bother reporting the move until a next parole visit?

Hmmm... couple of weeks delay... and does the parole officer get all paperwork processed that very same day?

Perhaps... and how many officers generate how much paperwork?

Pity the poor data entry people... and heaven help that they should fat-finger something and key in an address wrong.

What if they accidentally key in my address and someone sees it? Then decides to vandalize my house, since a predator lives there? The house is just as damaged as if there were one.

Noble idea and concept. Useful in practice. Execution, though, is where the trouble lies.

While safety for others may be the issue, they have paid their dues to society. If they really like kids that much, move to Sweden.

[ 09-24-2006, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Amphetamine Machine ]

it's really scary looking up my area and seeing many registered sex offenders living within 1/2 mile of the all the local elementary schools. :(

V***V

Your facts seem to be designed to muddy the issue, rather then prove your point. The use of arrests rather then convictions is a common tactic in studies to drive up recidivism rates. If you look at convictions rather then arrests that 5.3% turns into a 3.5%.

Digging thru that DoJ study you mention actually was pretty interesting. Ome more fact:
Only about 13.9% of the sex offenders had a previous conviction for any sexual offence. For child molesters specifically that number was 11.9%.

In other words, the vast majoirty of the people in the study wouldn't have shown up on a sex offender list. I think that there are too many people think that the abscence of regestered sex offenders makes their kids safe. Personally I think the whole registry idea is stupid, because if you're going to classify someone as having a high risk of recidivism then they should still be in jail, and I worry that people who should be in jail are going to be let out because some list is supposed to keep them in line.

On a seperate note: Going way back to Larry's first post. Where exactly did you see that google was sponcering this? I can't find anything suggesting that.