Proof Offender laws are not protecting children

[_Res Ipsa]

I would like to see that controlled against someone knocking door to door reminding them sex offenders might live in their neighborhood.

Well, yes. There are lots of studies not being done that I'd like to see.

I'm simply pushing back against the notion that there is no evidence that public notice of sex offenders provides protection to children and if you dispute that you don't care about the safety of your children.

[_Res Ipsa]

Why are you quoting studies out of context? Your study also says

The present research project did not discover any significant relationship between notification and self-protective behaviors, nor did the research of Anderson and Sample (2008), Beck et al. (2004), or Caputo and Brodsky (2004). Although Beck et al. and the present study both found that notified residents undertake more protective behaviors on behalf of their children than do non-notified residents, these results must be interpreted with caution

I didn't quote it out of context. I gave you the entire paper and quoted from the relevant section of the paper's conclusion. Interpreting the results with caution is exactly what I did -- I pointed out that not much research was done and that the results were mixed. I claimed that there was some evidence in the literature. That's about as "cautious" as you can get.

What I didn't do was display your level of "caution," which is to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you with not caring about the safety of children.

[_Res Ipsa]

You use quotes from authority figures the same way that LDS folks used quotes from the Book of Mormon -- you treat them as some kind of absolute truth. Why should I care what some mayor somewhere say? Mayors have no special expertise in sex offender laws. There are hundreds of thousands of Mayors, and they all say stuff.

Lol. I think you might be overestimating the number of mayors.

You’re right. I should have said tens of thousands.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sex offender laws capture a hell of a lot more people than those who molest children. And the negative effects of punishments on the convicted are relevant to determining the net benefit of a legal penalty. This is why we don't execute litterers.

If sex offender registeries, or rather the restrictions associated with them, do little to deter sex offenses, but cause substantial damage to people on those registries disproportionate to their crime, that is a reason to question them.

Yeah, that’s the cost side of the equation. As I said, I think it’s reasonable to argue that whatever benefits the registries may have, they don’t justify the costs. Maybe that’s because I agree with that. But that’s not what was argued in the OP.

[_EAllusion]

Why are you quoting studies out of context? Your study also says

The present research project did not discover any significant relationship between notification and self-protective behaviors, nor did the research of Anderson and Sample (2008), Beck et al. (2004), or Caputo and Brodsky (2004). Although Beck et al. and the present study both found that notified residents undertake more protective behaviors on behalf of their children than do non-notified residents, these results must be interpreted with caution

I read the full paper. As the paper itself says, its findings do not support the hypothesis that sex offender notification leads to reduced risk of victimization. Its findings are more narrow and complicated. While it notes some studies do not find any correlation between protective behavior and sex offender notification, it finds a modest correlation between high-risk sex offender notification specifically and protective behaviors for children, but not for adults. The protective behaviors are things like, "locked doors at night," "bought a gun," etc. It is very careful to argue that this finding is narrow and doesn't tell you if this reduces the incidence of sex crimes. It even offers a speculative hypothesis for how this could increase risk of victimization by causing people to misplace focus on source of crime as carrying mace doesn't stop family members from raping children.

[_EAllusion]

Yeah, that’s the cost side of the equation. As I said, I think it’s reasonable to argue that whatever benefits the registries may have, they don’t justify the costs. Maybe that’s because I agree with that. But that’s not what was argued in the OP.

There is a body of evidence referred to in the very paper you link that sex offender registries don't help reduce the incidence of sex crimes. The paper argues that causing people to feel a sufficient amount of fear can produce modest changes in behavior, while remaining agnostic on the quality and relevance of that change. This goes back to my earlier point of using controls that make people feel fear of sex offenders without specifically naming sex offenders who have moved to their neighborhood. I would caution that making the public more fearful so they are a little more likely to make their children carry mace around with them might not actually be a good thing, but I'd be curious to know just how crucial it is for the notification to be about a specific sex offender in the area.

[Guest]

Yeah, that’s the cost side of the equation. As I said, I think it’s reasonable to argue that whatever benefits the registries may have, they don’t justify the costs. Maybe that’s because I agree with that. But that’s not what was argued in the OP.

To summarize why the sex offender registry is not effective

1. With 3 million offenders on the list (the vast majority are non-violent) it means law enforcement officers aren't focusing on the dangerous predators. .

2. False sense of security. The vast majority of child abuse is committed by family members, friends, and other kids.

3. Sex Offender laws make many go homeless and without nothing to lose. The offender laws force them to become more dangerous.

I will cite more research studies when I have the time, I really don't have much time at this moment.

By the way Res Ipsa, you should probably be aware that sexting counts as child pornography. If your teenage sons or daughters are sending nude pictures of themselves to other teenagers, they can get arrested for child pornography distribution. It's true. I first read it in the war on sex book. Sex offender laws aren't making children safer, and must be reformed.

[_DoubtingThomas]

It even offers a speculative hypothesis for how this could increase risk of victimization by causing people to misplace focus on source of crime as carrying mace doesn't stop family members from raping children.

Exactly! Thank you EAllusion

[_Res Ipsa]

It even offers a speculative hypothesis for how this could increase risk of victimization by causing people to misplace focus on source of crime as carrying mace doesn't stop family members from raping children.

Exactly! Thank you EAllusion

Oh, so speculative hypothesis does it for you when it supports your conclusion?

[_Res Ipsa]

Yeah, that’s the cost side of the equation. As I said, I think it’s reasonable to argue that whatever benefits the registries may have, they don’t justify the costs. Maybe that’s because I agree with that. But that’s not what was argued in the OP.

To summarize why the sex offender registry is not effective

1. With 3 million offenders on the list (the vast majority are non-violent) it means law enforcement officers aren't focusing on the dangerous predators. .

2. False sense of security. The vast majority of child abuse is committed by family members, friends, and other kids.

3. Sex Offender laws make many go homeless and without nothing to lose. The offender laws force them to become more dangerous.

I will cite more research studies when I have the time, I really don't have much time at this moment.

By the way Res Ipsa, you should probably be aware that sexting counts as child pornography. If your teenage sons or daughters are sending nude pictures of themselves to other teenagers, they can get arrested for child pornography distribution. It's true. I first read it in the war on sex book. Sex offender laws aren't making children safer, and must be reformed.

With respect to number one, what is your evidence that we can predict which offenders will repeat the crime after serving their sentences with an acceptable rate of accuracy?

With respect to number 2, where is your evidence that says that sex offender registries cause parents to be less careful about child abuse caused by folks not on the registry? Is there a study that says that there is a higher rate of child abuse by family members, etc. in families whose parents consulted a sex offender registry?

With respect to number 3, do you have any data supporting the notion that people on sex offender registries reoffend at higher rates than those that are not?

You don't have to bird dog any general research for me. I can (and did) use Google Scholar to take a look and read some papers. If you have any specific papers on the above three questions, I'd appreciate a citation.

And, yes, I do my best to stay informed and educate my kids about things that can land them in jail. Or on the front page of the National Enquirer.