Proof Offender laws are not protecting children

[Guest]

A Massachusetts mayor admitted, "I am a politician saying that when we impose these measures, I and my colleagues across America are failing at keeping people safe on this issue"

An important peer-reviewed study concludes, "The data in these three data sets do no strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do no show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry or access to the registry via Internet... This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. "

Agan, Amanda Y. "Sex offender registries: Fear without function?." The Journal of Law and Economics 54.1 (2011): 207-239.

Sex offender laws aren't protecting American children. To borrow the words of Some Schmo "Nobody Cares". At least the liberals care about gun control, but literally nobody cares about sex offender laws that are doing more harm than good. No one here cares about child safety.

According to a New York Times Article

the registries have grown rapidly — to nearly three-quarters of a million registrants at latest count. Culpability and harm vary greatly in the offenses for which people are registered. Some states require exhibitionists and “peeping Toms” to register. By best estimates, a large majority is registered for conviction on first offenses involving neither violence nor coercionor even, in some cases, physical contact). Many registrants would not be classified as criminal under European laws, which set lower ages of consent than do American laws. Registrants even include minors who had consensual sex with their high school sweethearts, or who traded self-taken sexually explicit photos with their peers (“sexting”)...

Such provisions were promoted as applying to the “worst of the worst,” like child rapists and violent repeat offenders. In practice, they turn expansive classes of people into pariah outcasts who can never be reintegrated back into society: adults who supplied pornography to teenage minors; young schoolteachers who foolishly fell in love with one of their students; men who urinated in public, or were caught having sex in remote areas of public parks after dark.

But we could revisit the registries’ public notification clause — which, studies show, is costly, ineffective and may even encourage recidivism by shutting ex-offenders out of employment and housing and giving them “nothing to lose.”

[Moderator Note: Please don’t use red to highlight text. Red is for moderator use.]

And no wonder why sex offender laws are ineffective, with so many people (3/4 million) on the list it is very hard to keep track of the dangerous ones. The US laws aren't doing anything to protect children. It's just truly pathetic!!!!

[_DoubtingThomas]

"Nobody Cares" about child safety. I thought there were parents that would find it interesting to know how terrible sex offender laws really are.

[_Res Ipsa]

"Nobody Cares" about child safety. I thought there were parents that would find it interesting to know how terrible sex offender laws really are.

Maybe it's because those of us who are parents don't rely on laws to keep our children safe. All you do in these posts is tell us how terrible these laws are for people who molest children. Your posts are irrelevant to the topic of child safety.

[Guest]

Maybe it's because those of us who are parents don't rely on laws to keep our children safe. All you do in these posts is tell us how terrible these laws are for people who molest children. Your posts are irrelevant to the topic of child safety.

Not sure how conclusions like "The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry or access to the registry via the Internet" are irrelevant to the topic of child safety. Can you please explain.

I see it as the government's failure to protect children. I want a government that effectively protects children. Yes, parents shouldn't rely on laws, but the government is suppose to help.

and when did I say laws are terrible for child molesters? Please don't misrepresent my words, it is not nice.

[_Lemmie]

Not sure how conclusions like "The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry or access to the registry via the Internet" are irrelevant to the topic of child safety. Can you please explain.

Because as a parent, I was not determining, changing, or in any way basing my day to day decisions about my children's safety on whether there is or is not "a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry."

But Res Ipsa already told you that:

....All you do in these posts is tell us how terrible these laws are for people who molest children. Your posts are irrelevant to the topic of child safety.

[_DoubtingThomas]

"Sex Offender Registries Are Not Really Keeping Your Children Safe: Here’s Why" Paul Heroux https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-her ... 60908.html

"Laws aimed at people convicted of sex offenses may not protect children"
https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/09/11/us- ... -harm-good

How is it irrelevant to child safety?

[Guest]

Because as a parent, I was not determining, changing, or in any way basing my day to day decisions about my children's safety on whether there is or is not "a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry."

Okay Lemmie, so you don't care we have ineffective laws that are suppose to protect children? I made it clear parents shouldn't rely on US laws, but not all parents are as educated as you. There is a reason why a former judge said sex offender registry gives 'false sense' of security.

So oh well, maybe we shouldn't care about gun laws either. We aren't going to rely on gun laws, right? After all, the odds of being killed by a mass shooter are about one in ten million. The odds are so small, we really don't need to care about gun laws.

[_MeDotOrg]

Agreed, innocent people can be snared by the current system. So what do you think we should do?

[_Lemmie]

Because as a parent, I was not determining, changing, or in any way basing my day to day decisions about my children's safety on whether there is or is not "a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry."

Okay Lemmie, so you don't care we have ineffective laws...

I stated my opinion quite clearly, your post that starts with the above in no way summarizes what I care about.

Make your own points without misconstruing what other people say.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I stated my opinion quite clearly, your post that starts with the above in no way summarizes what I care about.

Make your own points without misconstruing what other people say.

I understand Lemmie, I also stated quite clearly that parents shouldn't rely on US laws, but US laws are suppose to help. Sorry if I misrepresented what you said, but I was asking you.

But Res Ipsa already told you that

A Massachusetts mayor wrote, "I am a politician saying that when we impose these measures, I and my colleagues across America are failing at keeping people safe on this issue. Doing something doesn’t necessarily mean we are doing something effective."

It has everything to do with child safety, even if it doesn't affect your own children. Just like gun control we should care, even if there is one in a ten million chance of getting killed by a mass shooter.