Your neighbor is on a sexual offenders list, how would you deal with this situation?

[nakedfrog]

"Your" state of Maryland is one of the "friendliest" and most protective of SO's rights in the US. Something I would bet good money you were completely unaware of. (maybe it's your dentists fault?)

LOL, harsh, but fair.

 

[Muse]

It's often covered up by existing power structures (local government, church, military) and wouldn't you know it, the victims are often made to feel shame for it and isn't information they readily share with just anyone.
"Johnny/Grampa/Uncle just had a moment of indiscretion, we don't need to ruin their whole life over it, besides, think what it would do to the family's reputation"

I'm well aware that scandalous behavior is often masked, hidden, not mentioned. Anyway, I haven't gotten a whiff. Uh, that I recall. Maybe I conveniently forgot something.

 

[Torn Mind]

Recidivism rates for violent crimes like armed robbery for example are in the area of 70%!! (again vs 2-3% maximum) Compare that REALITY with all the bull$hit you see/hear in media about sex-offenders.

Sex-offender registries are ineffective at preventing crime and consist largely of "feel-good" laws which do FAR more harm than good costing taxpayers a LOT of money, trashing families and worst of all MOST of them treat people peeing in public about the same as serial rapists.

Maybe the WORST part of this though is the HARD FACT (I have a buddy who is a PO for SO's specifically... he's responsible for 26 people!) That along with the sheer number of "evil sex offenders" in Connecticut alone @ almost 6000 (the vast majority of whom will never re-offend!) there's no way the few that really do need to be monitored can even have it done properly.

If said laws were really about protecting children or preventing crime there would be "registries" for people who commit crimes where nearly THREE QUARTERS of offenders did the same thing again. But they're not.

Sex-offender registries are a stupid waste of time and money as constituted and will be harshly judged by history.

I am not moved by the low income. They destroy because they think it's to their advantage. Both sex offender tenants were able to obtain employment.

The benefit of the registry is to provide families with the warning to precisely avoid befriending or trusting a potential molester or rapist. That a few minor cases get swept up because lay people are bad judges when it comes to nuance doesn't negate the material benefit of avoiding even one more heinous case.

Random strangers don't get a chance these days because prior trauma shifted attitudes so strangers are trusted less. The Lyon sisters grew up in a more trusting community such that they were allowed out as minors and smooth talking male kidnapped them by presenting a front of trust. Avoiding tortious damage will always be justified for an individual judging another.

 

[Brainonska511]

The sex offender registry always seems like a stupid idea: if someone is a severe danger to society of re-offending, then maybe we should be re-evaluating how we are doling out sentences, what happens in prison, and release. The current list seems like 1) a way to leave people with a scarlet letter that pushes them more towards the margins of society (and all the associated aspects of living on the margins of society, such as new crimes, poverty, and difficulty of securing housing), and 2) a feel-good measure that politicians push to make it look like their tough on crime with a politically easy group to serve as a punching bag. Never mind the other issue that has been covered in this thread that most instances of offense are not the 'stranger-danger' variety, but one of person knowing the victim.

 

[sdifox]

Op is asking for a friend.