Helping Sex Offenders Re-integrate Into Society

[steveh_131]

And that's your opinion, but it has nothing to do with the facts at hand. If sex offenders are being released from prison, that is the situation we have NOW. It may be that you advocate for never releasing them, and that's fine for you to advocate, but until your advocacy turns into something more than just your hot air, the situation continues as it IS, not as you wish it to be. So given that they are being released from prison, is it more reasonable to do everything we can to help them be in the 5/6ths that do not re-offend, or would you just prefer that they re-offend so you can have your excuse to put them back in prison?

I'm with Fletch and Rambone on this one.

Once they're released, they become a part of our society again, like it or not. I admire the man for taking it upon himself to try to turn these people into moral and law-abiding citizens instead of letting them sink right back into depravity and crime.

 

[JetGirl]

Most people hear "sex offender" and auto-assume that it means violent child molestor.

Is every sex offender a sadistic child rapist? No.

So please, when you hear 'sex offender', try not to start foaming at thew mouth and getting bile on your shirt.

Good post. But apparently, I've been a little too free with my rep lurve in the last 24 hours (must've been that Warsaw Roads thread. :P )

 

[antsi]

If being a true 'Christian' in your book involves the supposed re-habilitation of sex offenders, count me out.

Because Jesus can redeem any kind of sin through His atonement and the true repentance of the sinner, except for sex offenders. His atonement just isn't strong enough to cover that.

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm with Fletch and Rambone on this one.

Once they're released, they become a part of our society again, like it or not. I admire the man for taking it upon himself to try to turn these people into moral and law-abiding citizens instead of letting them sink right back into depravity and crime.

And that's the problem. If they're too dangerous to let out, they should be kept in. If society has decided to release them then what are they supposed to do? Have to live somewhere. Should they not receive any help thus ensuring they return to crime and kill all the witnesses next time?

 

[thompal]

They're not powerless. They can move.

With the exception of HOA's (another subject hashed to death on this board), people don't generally have the moral right to control the property of others, zoning laws notwithstanding. I wasn't happy when a neighbor turned his yard into a grave site for old clunkers, but it was his property and his right to do as he wished with it. I eventually moved.

The difference being, of course, that you could move at your leisure. The odds were very low that any of his old clunkers would come over to your yard and diddle your car.

 

[Eddie]

The trouble with child molesters and rapists is that the crime they commit is tied to their sex drive. Recidivism rates are very high. They are comparable to drug addicts in terms of the lengths that they will go to in order to commit their crimes. While I can to an extent sympathize with the man for wanting to keep released sex offenders from being homeless and perhaps justify his actions by telling myself that a homeless sex offender would be harder to monitor or maybe more likely to offend again, at the end of the day I have to be honest with myself. I wouldn't want a bunch of sex offenders living next door to me and I would do anything I could do to prevent it.

 

[JetGirl]

The trouble with child molesters and rapists is that the crime they commit is tied to their sex drive. Recidivism rates are very high. They are comparable to drug addicts in terms of the lengths that they will go to in order to commit their crimes. While I can to an extent sympathize with the man for wanting to keep released sex offenders from being homeless and perhaps justify his actions by telling myself that a homeless sex offender would be harder to monitor or maybe more likely to offend again, at the end of the day I have to be honest with myself. I wouldn't want a bunch of sex offenders living next door to me and I would do anything I could do to prevent it.

The problem with part of this is society's double standard.
A male teacher and a female 16/17 year old student=OMG, hang him NOW! SEX OFFENDER!
A female teacher and a male 16/17 year old student= High fives and hawtness critique.
Which one is OK to live next to?

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

The problem with part of this is society's double standard.
A male teacher and a female 16/17 year old student=OMG, hang him NOW! SEX OFFENDER!
A female teacher and a male 16/17 year old student= High fives and hawtness critique.
Which one is OK to live next to?

Both - the age of consent in Indiana is 16.

Any more red herrings you feel like feeding me, Annie?

 

[steveh_131]

The problem with part of this is society's double standard.
A male teacher and a female 16/17 year old student=OMG, hang him NOW! SEX OFFENDER!
A female teacher and a male 16/17 year old student= High fives and hawtness critique.
Which one is OK to live next to?

the female teacher.

wait, is this a trick question?

 

[Eddie]

The problem with part of this is society's double standard.
A male teacher and a female 16/17 year old student=OMG, hang him NOW! SEX OFFENDER!
A female teacher and a male 16/17 year old student= High fives and hawtness critique.
Which one is OK to live next to?

I see where you are going, but what about the 45 year old man who abducted and raped a 5 year old boy; and your five year old son lives with you? I'm just being honest, right or wrong I would not want that guy in my neighborhood.

 

[thompal]

The problem with part of this is society's double standard.
A male teacher and a female 16/17 year old student=OMG, hang him NOW! SEX OFFENDER!
A female teacher and a male 16/17 year old student= High fives and hawtness critique.
Which one is OK to live next to?

I see them both equally. That's the biggest problem with the designation of "sex offender." It covers a teacher and a 17 year old student. It covers a 16 year old teenager and his 14 year old girlfriend. It covers a teenager whose girlfriend sends him a nude photo on his phone. And lately, it can cover a parent who takes what used to be called a cute picture of their kid in the bath tub.

But, it also covers the child molester who drags the neighbor 5 year old behind the shed and abuses him. It covers the pervert across the street who takes a neighbor child in his house and sodomizes him or her. It covers the guy who hides in the bushes at the school bus stop and rapes the teenage girl waiting in the dark for the bus.

Can you say that, if you have some kids of your own, you would welcome a house full of "sex offenders" next door?

 

[lashicoN]

lol. I think she meant which one is morally OK to live next to? Which one are you going to get into an uproar about? Of course the male teacher will always be thought of as a pervert in this case, which is odd, seeing as how the female will not.

I left out my main point in my previous post. I don't want to live next to a child molester either. But, as Fletch pointed out, this is where we are. Child molesters do serve their time and get out of jail. Be good parents, keep your guns loaded and keep a tight watch over your children. Just don't go out on a witch hunt. That's really all I'm saying. Thank you for everyone who repped me. I tried to get as many of you as I could, but I ran out...again.

 

[CarmelHP]

Can you say that, if you have some kids of your own, you would welcome a house full of "sex offenders" next door?

No, but that's a legislative problem, isn't it. Why are the unrepentant and violent murderers and rapists being let go at all. Why are men who pee in the alley outside a bar lumped in with them in some jurisdictions? NIMBY then whose? Out in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma is as good a place as any to place them.

 

[Fletch]

No, but that's a legislative problem, isn't it. Why are the unrepentant and violent murderers and rapists being let go at all. Why are men who pee in the alley outside a bar lumped in with them in some jurisdictions? NIMBY then whose? Out in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma is as good a place as any to place them.

Exactly. They have to go somewhere. There will always be a neighbor. There will always be kids. Better to put them in a situation that gives them productive work to do and a sense of belonging, than to make them live under an overpass with nothing but time on their hands. As anyone who's ever tried to break an addiction can tell you, boredom is one of the quickest ways to fall off the wagon.

 

[bigg cheese]

We could send them all to a far away island and... oh wait, that's how we got Crocodile Dundee...

 

[dross]

If we as a society decide that being a sex offender is so heinous as to not ever warrant rejoining society, we should put that in the law. If the law says they have served their time, they have as much right to buy a home as the next person, as long as someone is willing to sell to them.

That said, there are different types of sex offenders that deserve different kinds of treatment. I personally know a young man who did three years in prison for statutory rape, because a girl he arranged a meeting with in a bar, who had a fake ID, turned out to be under age. The law didn't care a bit that he had every reason to believe her age.

When I was 19, I met a girl at a party who was drinking and otherwise embibing substances, and was the girlfriend of a friend. I met her another time and nature took it's course. Years later I found out that our age difference at the time (I never asked, it never even occurred to me to do so at that age) would have caused a problem.

I also know of a case where a guy ended up on the list because the cops caught him urinating in the back of a bar by a dumpster.

Are these the people who should no longer be allowed to live with decent people?

Sentence the hardcore offenders, the ones who prey on pre-pubescent children, and the ones who use violence to life in prison. Base statutory rape laws in common sense. Remove accidental exposure and public urination from the criminal code. Make a few common sense changes and then you don't have to figure out some bizarre way to threaten liberty in order to get the results you desire.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Guys and gals... this one hits close to home, and I am compelled to speak...

My cousin was just released recently from the California State Penitentiary system for molesting a child. There was NO question as to his guilt. He has served 15 years for the crime. By all accounts he has met everything asked of him in terms of treatment/rehabilitation. He was released into an area of California where he had no friends, no chance of housing, employment, or anything. Fortunately for him, a church group took him under their wing. They did NOT let him anywhere near kids. They gave him a place to stay. In return he helped out people in the church with whatever service he could do to help them. His mother lives out in the middle of nowhere near Cedar City UT, but until he could get parole permission, he spent six months in Stockton, CA. She had made arrangements with people there to help him get reintegrated into society - AGAIN - WAY THE HELL AWAY FROM KIDS... From all I can tell, he's making progress and coming back around. He finally got permission to move to a more permanent location with her.

I bring this up for a few reasons.

1) I am not proud of what he did. In fact I am as upset as many of you are/would be. In fact, when I found out about it (I lived a long ways away) I would gladly have beaten the living hell out of him.
2) He has done what society asked of him. I have told him that as I am his cousin - I will encourage him however I can on his journey - even if it may be a brutally tough one.
3) As I am my kid's protector, he is not to get anywhere near them. I could never forgive myself if something happened to one of them. My role as protector trumps my role as cousin. And were he to violate my wishes in that matter, I would shoot him without a shred of remorse. He knows this - and I don't get the impression that it will be a problem.
3.5) UNTIL THEN he's my cousin, and I will help him rejoin society however I can.
4) It HAS made me wonder a lot about what he's supposed to do from here. I'm a pretty law and order kind of guy - much like the rest of you all... Before he committed the crime, and I had a chance to ponder this - I would likely have said to , "Hang 'em". And as BoR said, if that's to be the punishment, fair enough - make it part of the law! I would submit that having such folks in one area, and KNOWING WHERE THEY ARE greatly limits the danger that they can pose.
5) These crimes cause lifetimes worth of harm FOR ALL CONCERNED - I've known victims of this as well, and I'm not immune to their cries. I understand and could be persuaded to join those who clamor for even tougher punishment.
6) In this case - there was no doubt of the seriousness of the crime nor of the guilt of the offender. I CAN'T imagine an innocent person convicted of such a thing - and I know of one such case where a person was falsely accused and convicted - until later evidence finally cleared him.
7) I'm grateful as all get out to the folks at that church in Stockton CA - who cared enough to help someone (and still took precautions as anyone would... it's not like he WANTED to be around kids....) I don't know how or if he would have lived, if it weren't for them. This dude in OK seems like a similar sort. I would be slow to discourage his work. It has to take place somewhere.

Make of it what you will. But PLEASE stop and think. And walk a little bit in the other guy's shoes too...

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Sorry, just realized it was Dross, above me, who said to make it part of the law that they never rejoin society. Sorry for the misquote - I was going too fast...

 

[antsi]

who said to make it part of the law that they never rejoin society

I think what they are saying is that the law needs to be clear and above board.

If the crime justifies shutting someone up for life, then write the law so they get sentenced to life w/o parole.

If the crime justifies 10 years, then write the law so they get 10 years.

Either one of these is fine.

What doesn't make any sense is saying that the crime justifies being shut away for life, but we will have a law that says they get 10 years, and then when they're out there are more laws that basically make it illegal for them to exist anywhere.

 

[Joe Williams]

If being a true 'Christian' in your book involves the supposed re-habilitation of sex offenders, count me out.

But, really, he doesn't need to worry about the State getting involved - I'm sure the neighbors will solve that problem in SHORT order.

Are you advocating the murder of Christians, on their own property, for breaking no law, merely doing something you don't like?