Sex Offenders

While the acts that earn the stigma of sex offender are wide and varied, there should be a way to reintroduce people into society rather than just isolate them from the whole and create an in-group in which their tendencies or prior acts may fester and reoccur. It should be more reformatory rather than punishment (though simultaneous), unless the acts are proveably heinous or they show no form of improvement.

It is sickening how poorly sex offenders are treated in the United States. Oh sure, it is easy to view them as the evil ones, especially those who go after children, but it is just as evil to completely ostracize them. They have to live in certain areas, the have to forever be on the public registration, often they can't get jobs... I love how anyone expects someone to "reform" when you take their life away.

At least in some places it is lenient. There is a person registered on the sex offender's list on my street. Who lives only about three blocks away from me, their are children in the neighborhood, and he lives across the street from the elementary school. Of course the only reason he is allowed to is the grandfather clause, he was already there before the rules became more strict and they aren't allowed to force him out.

How is sexual perversion related to employment?

Also, on another note, the wiki article says that lesser offenses have an expiration date in the registry.

I say how a sex offender should be treated depends on what they did to get legally classified as a sex offender in the first place. If it involves rape or child molestation,then i would be all for harsh punishment. However, if its for something like public nudity, then they shouldn't get the same punishment.

There are several of these types of camps such as the one created in Miami

Link.

The main problem with banning these people from schools and what have you. Is that it isn't a solution. These people get uprooted from permanent homes, lose jobs and generally become MORE of a threat to society. They have lost all their possessions, relationships, etc which will more than likely drive them to commit further sex crimes.

There isn't an effective way to track them as they have no permanent address so they can move about freely despite having the ban. It won't physically stop them from committing another act. Throwing them out of society and taking everything from them isn't a positive way to solve the problem. It just creates more problems instead of solving any of the existing ones.

In my opinion, they got what they deserved. I can only picture being the child/ victim who had to suffer until they got done and i cannot spare sympathy for any of them. If they do get allowed out of jail then can learn from it and that's good, i certainly don't think death is always the answer.

Quoted (and rep'd) for truth.

First of all, I excuse myself in the first place for not being too familiar with the laws and the legal system in the states. However in my opinion, public nudity is often more of a bad joke in my opinion than it is really something offending. Let's face it: Children see their parents naked and it is hardly anything shocking to them at that point (depending on how they are raised) and it isn't like he is harming anyone. Just let them work in a public institution or the like as punishment with a low wage and the matter is settled.
However when it comes to dealing with sexual violence (rape etc) I think that jail + a psychiatry are the best options available, because honestly, I doubt that having them run free without a home, way to reach them or contact them and telling them "don't go near Xyz in a Z yard radius" is really useful in any way.

I feel the need to start with the obvious, since I saw a little bit of confussion on that part in some posts.

Worry not, not every sex crime is treated the same way. They all have different penalties and the social depravity is, mostly ,different as well. I don't have the american criminal law at hand but I willingly bet my life on it.

Another issue of great importance that ought to be mentioned: The judges make their decisions always according to the specific case in front of them. I'll roughly translate a little bit of the greek law for you "If the court judging by the type of the offence or his personality and other circumstances reckons that his staying in certain places is dangerous for social order and if the penalty is between blah-blah-numbers-blah it can decide on locations s/he's prohibited to be for a maximum of five years".
Now, obviously, there's gonna be some difference from country to country, but the gist of it is that not everyone's treated the same.

Now, about the stigma given by the society. I believe that's unavoidable but contradicting to both the justice system and certain religious beliefs of many. Two general rules are "innocent till proved otherwise" and "one penalty per crime". Prison's main role should be to reform the criminals, make them rethink about what lead them there and prepare them for an unhindered comeback in the outside world.

"There is of course the possibility of one of them committing the same or a relevant crime again. How can people trust them in this case?" you may wonder. Well, if you think it like that, you'll agree that everyone is equally capable of committing a crime. The only way laws work in a proactive way is by being there and scaring us, there's no "You're punished because you may do this or that". And in any case, you should already know that people repeatively caught are receiving bigger punishments. After the second or third time at most, one should expect to be sentenced for life.

Not being allowed to live in certain places is not a penalty per se, it's additional measures a judge can order apart from the fine or the imprisonment. I distinctly remember discussions about changing certain laws when it comes to pedophiles or extreme sex crimes. They were arguing about allowing the media to show their faces and mention their names even before the final judgment when there was a strong case. And I bet that after that case in Germany (I think) with the father that kept his own daughter captive for years and had a few children with her, some people talked about neutering (not sure if that's the correct word, I mean to say make them impotent) such criminals. It's up to each one of us to decide for himself when retribution is taken too far.

Criminals don't cease to be humans after their crimes. After their punishment they should be allowed to the same rights everyone else enjoys. That's my personal opinion on the matter, that society has to be more flexible and the people more open minded.

Or should I remind you how Jean Valjean ("Les Miserables")changed after the priest treated him as a human being and not an ex convict? And at those times people were more difficult to trust each other.


EDIT: Because I forgot the pic

Hmmm, what I'm thinking of is.... If the person is registered as a sex offender, depending on how severe their crime was and how many offends they have....I think they should have their "pleasure area" "Disabled" somehow, seeing how they cannot control or use the thing down there properly. This might even reduce sex offend rate by scaring people away from offending.

These guys have no money, right? That is why they are so fucked. If they had money they would at least be in jail with three meals a day and a real roof over their heads. But no money, government does not care about you.

You can remove their ability to actually have intercourse through things like chemical castration but, you can't remove that urge that is ingrained into their minds. In some cases you'd actually push the repeat offenders to commit a more brutal crime as they have frustration over the loss of ejaculation.

Most sex crimes are not about sex itself but, more about power over someone else. Do some research on the mind of sex offenders and you'll learn that little tidbit.

Mmmm.... I heard that a man no longer feels the urge to have sex if their no longer have their manhood. Or is that wrong? (i recall seeing this on tv a time ago when i used to watch tv. And the man was getting a new(similar) manhood surgery because he lost his manhood and could no longer feel any urges.)

O__O
wow that sounds serious. Hmm i think it may be true? i mean look at old people...They can no longer use there Manhood(most of them), and you rarely hear them talking about sexual things!

but than again i could be wrong!

You are correct but, you missed the point I was making. To some offenders it wasn't about sexual gratification. It was about power over another being. Reasons they have used are:

1 For their own pleasure.
2 To get revenge.
3 Hate over an event that has/will happen.
4 To ease hate.
5 Due to the loss of hope.
6 Hormones.
7 To make the victim suffer.
8 Due to the rapest wanting sexual intercorse with their partner, but their partner breaks up with them before doing so.
9 And the most evilest, to cause pain to another being.
10 Control

You should do your own version of how to catch a predator!
I think you alone would make the world a safer place!
*hug*

Don't get ahead of yourself. That was just a list I grabbed off another site. I already knew that rape sometimes involved other "reasons" than just sexual ones but, I couldn't remember the exact list.

I'm just a humble FPoD

I appreciate the virtual hug though.