|
June 14, 2005
Future backgrounds
Dean Esmay has a piece called "The Modern Scarlet Letter," in which he argues against punishing people for life (long after their debt to society has been repaid): What on Earth ever happened to the mentality in this country that once you'd worked off your sentence and paid your debt to society, you were a free man (or woman) and no longer persecuted?Yeesh is right. But it's only going to get worse, because one of technology's downsides is that once a record has been made of anything anyone says or did, it will not only be there forever, but it will become easier and easier for the entire world to access. Add to this the growing In the old days, a felon who'd decided to go straight could freely move to a new place where no one knew him, find a job, settle down, and perhaps have a decent new life. Today, that's next to impossible. Dean's piece reminded me of a development in Texas, the developer of which is requiring homebuilders to run background checks on all buyers to keep out sex offenders: LUBBOCK, Texas -- A Texas subdivision is promising safety checks will be done on homebuyers to assure no convicted sex offender lives next door.The idea is to create a "Sex Offender-Free Neighborhood," and I don't think too many people would object to that. After all, who wants a sex offender living nearby? Would you sell your house to a sex offender? What people forget is that the word "sex offender" is not a synonym for pedophile. There's a big difference between a predator who stalks children and someone arrested for masturbating in a sleazy movie theater (or, say, indecent exposure). Or, for that matter, soliciting an adult vice squad officer for sex. Yet all of these are sex offenders. But let's assume that you wouldn't want to live next door to any sex offender, including people who couldn't stay away from suggestively clad vice squad officers. Wouldn't it be just as reasonable not to want to live next door to a burglar? A con artist? A murderer? Someone convicted of torturing his last neighbor's cats? Why not full background checks on all neighbors, everywhere? Why should anyone have to live next door to anyone who has ever done a bad thing? This process has started, and I don't think there's any stopping it. But where does it end? Dean has raised good questions. Wish I had better answers. For my own part, I have friends convicted of felonies, and I judge people on an individual basis. I live my life and I take my chances. I distrust leaving decisions about my friends and associates to "the authorities," as it evokes Big Brotherism and gives me the creeps. But lots of people want Someone Else to officially assure them that life is officially safe, and such illusions as running "background checks" on people make them feel safer than they really are. (I may be wrong, but I think they're in more danger than people who take care of their own safety.)
posted by Eric on 06.14.05 at 08:01 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2446 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Future backgrounds:
» More On The Modern Scarlet Letter from Dean's World
Eric Scheie (who is absolutely always worth reading) has a further thoughts on The Modern Scarlet Letter. [Read More] Tracked on June 16, 2005 01:17 AM
Comments
That is a good topic for discussion by Dean -or anyone for that matter. I seem to remember that urinating on the side of the road in North Dakota was considered a sex crime (presuming that you were caught) even if it was at 3 am on a cold December night. I agree, to a point, that once you have paid a debt, you should be free of that debt. As is stands now even a conviction of a minor offense -controlled substance, underage alcohol, etc- is sufficient to keep you out of the military. A 18 year old kid gets caught with a beer and the Army doesn't want him? He can pick up a weapon and die defending his country. Go figure. Maybe it should be two strikes for sex offenders? Is there a way that you can assure that they have not only paid their debt a prescribed by law but are rehabilitated? Isn't a sex offender free neighborhood a presumption of a crime that hasn't yet occured? On the other hand you have to weigh the necessity of protecting the innocent. Tough questions. yatalli · June 14, 2005 05:49 PM Good points, Eric. I am of the firm and oft-stated belief that once the penalty imposed by society has been paid, there should remain no further burden on the person convicted. This includes the loss of voting rights, firearm ownership bans, and even, dare I say it, registration of sex offenders. Protecting society be damned! Greg · June 15, 2005 10:18 AM ... and how many people have been arrested for peeing on a barn? This is simultaneously pathetic and disingenuous. There is mounting evidence that pedophilia and other sexual compulsions - the ones that actually lead to victimization of innocents - are basically incurable in most cases. The recidivism rates for adult molesters of children is very high. So we aren't dealing with the innocent foibles of youth, but with a continuing menace to the most innocent members of society. Duh. Ben-David · June 15, 2005 03:18 PM If everyone in the registry was a "sexual compulsive," you might have a point. The registry varies greatly from state to state and some of them probably are full of people who are guilty of things like statutory rape where the offender was 18 and had sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, or that one time the offender got too drunk and streaked across the quad on a dare. The State of Washington (where I live) does limit its sex offender list to "Level II and III offenses" (Level I is for non-predatory offenders, many of whom are first-timers) and does not include full addresses of offenders, just the block. It does list the crime, but not when it was committed, the offender's sentence, or when the offender was released, which would be useful to know. The site does provide a helpful, zoomable, color-coded map that indicates where each offender lives in relation to schools, which I find a bit sensationalist, but overall, the site isn't the disaster I expected. A surprising number of the offenders are apparently homeless, which I find interesting. Jerry Kindall · June 16, 2005 03:44 AM If the registry basically restricted to child molesters few would be objecting. In point of fact the way the registries are constructed it's quite difficult to find the child molestors, which is one of many reasons why they are useless. Jerry: Well, that wouldn't surprise me. A lot of then are basically hounded day and night. They commit suicide fairly often (one did down in Florida recently) and have a hellish time finding anyone who'll let them live anywhere. Dean Esmay · June 16, 2005 07:43 AM We used to have institutes for the criminally insane, and they were precisely intended for folks such as pedophiles who cannot safely be let loose into society once their sentence is complete. If we reinstituted that policy for the dangerous sex predators we could stop having all the registries and other outrages against liberty. It's incredible to me how we insist on keeping our heads in the sand over mental illness and what to do with folks who are screwed up and need help or are a danger to themselves or others. This is supposed to be "liberal"? DSmith · June 16, 2005 08:27 AM One of the outrages about the lists is that in some states you go in when accused and don't come out if acquitted. Mind you, I'm going on memory which is flaky, but I remember reading in the paper about some poor guy whose very prudish neighbor accused him of inappropriately touching his toddler daughter (something to do with yanking off her bathing suit -- in his own backyard -- to clean sand off her behind. All observed by neighbor over fence. Said neighbor apparently believing that kids' butts are self-wiping.) The case was thrown out, but poor guy was on sex-offender registry and couldn't get it removed. Which caused him to lose his teaching job. Which caused... You get the picture. No power given to the government is too little. No compiled list is innocuous. This is one of the reasons to oppose a national identity card or a national health list. Errors and deliberate hyperbole will creep into any list. It's also a good reason not to trust the government to run our health care, police our corporations or, for that matter, deliver mail or pave roads. Yes, I know they're doing the latter, but anyone with half a mind will keep a close eye on them. P. Portia · June 16, 2005 11:17 AM in short, I think I was also trying to say : if you suspect a neighbor of crime, you find out quickly there are very rare resources available to the citizen/resident as to how this neighbor can be made aware that the neighbors will not tolerate bad behavior. There is something to be said for involved neighbors, but if there is no watch in place and your only means of defense is an overloaded sherriff's department, sometimes the criminal lists are very appealing as a leverage against a neighbor that you are very worried about. The thing I am most interested in is how to deal with this problem with the least amount of infringement. But the bottom line is : when someone commits a crime, their rate of exclusion becomes heavier in weight than someone who has never had a record. I think perhaps the lawyers for the genuine deviants/pedophilees have become adept at so muddying the defining line that it paralyzes those who woudl be able to make a true distinction and judgement against one who is a true danger and one who experienced bad luck. sharon ferguson · June 16, 2005 03:17 PM It was said that child sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. This is actually a fallacy. The justice department did a study of sex offender recidivism and found that sex offenders as a group have the lowest recidivism rates of ANY criminals. In fact, less than 20% of convicted sex offenders will reoffend sexually in their lifetimes. In addition, the NJ Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, the prison in my state that houses and treats repetitive and compulsive sex offenders, did their own study which yielded a recidivism rate of 6% over a three-year follow-up period. Sex offender registries are simply a means for politicians to show their constituents that they can be tough on crime. Statistics be damned. derek josephs · June 25, 2005 11:14 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Big Brother is watching you. That term "sex offender" always puts me in mind of George Orwell's definition of "sexcrime" in his 1984. By that definition (which is also Santorum's definition), you and I are "sex criminals". I'm a "mastur criminal".