Quote:
Originally posted by Seraph:
quote:
I am for a registry for a simple reason: sex offenders have a much higher rate of recidivism than other offenders do. From a 2003 Department of Justice study:
[Snip some facts]
|
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%.[/QUOTE]Okay. I'll take lumps on that study. Here's a
study of studies that looked at the issues between different studies on recidivism. Grouping by type of offender, they found...
- Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
- Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
- Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
- Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
- Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.
Yes, the definition of recidivism matters. The result, as I see it, is that as often happens, whoever's doing the study can "manipulate" things to the result that they want.
Bottom line for me: It's easy to address paying one's debts when you're not talking about your wife, daughter, girlfriend, mother, and so on. How much of their life are you willing to gamble that someone has been rehabilitated? How much of your daughter's innocence are you willing to sacrifice if someone falls off the wagon?
Take the burden off and put it on your own shoulders. If you're the target demographic of an offender, how much of your innocence, future, and perhaps life are you willing to sacrifice if they haven't rehabilitated?
For me, the answer is none.