E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, March 14, 2016

Watering down the sex offender registry

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

If the point of sex offender registries is to protect the community from dangerous predators, is it wise to water down those registries by including people who are not dangerous alongside people who are? In some states, people have been put on sex offender registries for urinating in public, next to people who have violently raped children. That's the height of the absurdity scale, but not the only problem with the lists.

We should establish right away that we are also taking our eye off the ball to a much more imminent threat. While "stranger danger" does exist, A large majority of sex crimes (especially crimes against children) are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. Children growing up in homes where their mother is married to or shacking up with a man who is not her children's biological father are in significantly more danger of being physically or sexually abused than children living with both biological parents.

The New Yorker's report on the consequences of putting underage teenagers and children on sex offender registries is sobering. And while there are some who do belong on those registries, others do not. For example, a 19 year old man who has "consensual" sex with a 14 year old girl he mistakenly believes to be older should not be treated the same as a serial child molester. (Consensual is in quotes because a teenager that young cannot legally give consent.) A little girl who has "pantsed" a classmate may have committed a cruel prank, but she is not a child molester. It is absurd to prosecute a teenager for child pornography for taking a picture of himself and sending it to his girlfriend - especially when he is simultaneously the predator and his own victim.

The idea behind sex offender registries is a good one: In its original form, to let law enforcement track people who have committed sex crimes. There can be value in letting the community know who sex offenders are, because precautions can be taken to protect children and prevent future crimes. But we have so greatly expanded the registries that they are ruining the lives of people (men and women) who are not a danger to the community. In doing so, we are spending a lot more money than necessary and we are making it nearly impossible for "sex offenders" to become productive members of society. In the long run, we run the risk of making sex offender registries useless as people cannot know whether someone on the list is legitimately dangerous or not.

Clearly, reform is needed in two directions. First, people who are not dangerous sexual predators should not be on sex offender registries. This is complicated, but can be done. Second, we need to recapture a Biblical worldview toward those who are violent predators: Meaning we need to re-establish the death penalty for crimes such as rape and child molestation. Since the Supreme Court is standing in the way of justice, this will require a constitutional amendment to bypass the judicial oligarchy and re-establish the rule of law.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.