Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
I think everyone can agree that sexual abuse, especially the abuse of children is a big problem in our society. Because of the hidden nature of the crime it is tough to get a grasp on the size of the problem. Research tells us that approximately 90% of the perpetrators of these crimes are known to the victim and are usually known quite well. Someone in the immediate family or extended family, family friends, teachers, clergy, coaches, etc.
The idea with a public registry is then twofold:
1) Make it so sex offenders can never again get close enough to have a bond with a child, like a coach, clergy etc by making it public knowledge so offenders cannot get placed in positions of power to potentially abuse again.
2) Inform parents so they can take necessary precautions to keep their children safe.
There are several major problems with this philosophy. The first should be rather obvious, our society is spending all of their resources, time and effort focused on just 10% of the crimes. What about the other 90%? Are we really spending money wisely to combat child sex abuse? No.
This lack of focus on the majority of the crimes speaks volumes. It tells parents they do not need to worry as much about people in the lives of their children if they are not registered sex offenders. It tells victims that if their perpetrator is not a sex offender it may not be sexual abuse.
We are spending an inordinate amount of money to try and keep the fox out of the hen house. Statistics show that no matter how many foxes we ban from the hen house, there are foxes still in the hen house. What's even worse is they are disguised as the farmer! We feel safer now and our guard is down because we have banished the foxes but the foxes are now hiding in plain sight.
It's easy to attack the fox but what are we really accomplishing? What about the other 90%?
The other societal problem with the registry is that it actually making us less safe. How can this be you might ask? If I know where sex offenders are I can keep my children safe.
As we just talked about, you are only looking at 10% of the actual problem and letting the guard down for the other 90%.
The next problem is bloat. The registry could potentially be a useful tool if it had a more limited scope. Right now we are casting an extra wide net on who we call a sex offender. The serial rapist and someone who looked at underage Internet porn are on the same list. Someone who committed their crime as an adult with 3 victims of the same sex is on the same list as someone who as an adolescent had one victim of the opposite gender. Research shows us that these cases are extraordinarily different as far as chance to be rehabilitated and chance to reoffend. Yet they are all on the same list. This is because the registry doesn't take time to look at who might actually be a threat. It doesn't take research into account when casting judgement, it treats all equally. This causes it to be very ineffective at showing on an individual level who on the registry is dangerous and who is not.
Why not just treat them all like they are dangerous? This statement ignores research that shows sex offenders as an overall class of criminals have a very low recidivism rate. It also ignores good fiscal sense (and cents). Right now there are over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the US. To adequately monitor all of them, would be a huge cost. And we do not adequately monitor all offenders right now because that would be impossible. The more crimes and more offenders we add to the registry the less we will know about who is truly dangerous. Did I mention that this is only 10% of the problem and we are spending all of the money to combat child sexual abuse on it? What about the other 90%?
The registry can also make us less safe because it does not allow ex- offenders to reintegrate back into society. Research shows that dynamic factors like housing, jobs, family and friends are positive indicators that help ex-offenders from reoffending. When society makes it impossible to find adequate housing or an adequate job you are taking stability away from an ex-offender which makes them more likely to reoffend. This whole crusade of not in my backyard and residency restrictions makes us less safe. In a lot of areas offenders cannot find housing anywhere and are homeless. Keeping track of all 700,000 offenders would be all but impossible if you know where they live, it becomes actually impossible when offenders are homeless. This all stems from the registry being public.
What if you knowing about an offender actually makes someone else's child less safe? For example, the state buys a property to place a registered offender in and the community comes together and blocks it. The state cannot find housing for this person so they release them onto the streets and say register every month with the police since you are homeless. Are we actually safer now? We would then have an ex offender the police do not know where to find that has no place to live and will an incredibly difficult time finding a job. That does not sounds like a great way to reduce child sex abuse.
The idea with a public registry is then twofold:
1) Make it so sex offenders can never again get close enough to have a bond with a child, like a coach, clergy etc by making it public knowledge so offenders cannot get placed in positions of power to potentially abuse again.
2) Inform parents so they can take necessary precautions to keep their children safe.
There are several major problems with this philosophy. The first should be rather obvious, our society is spending all of their resources, time and effort focused on just 10% of the crimes. What about the other 90%? Are we really spending money wisely to combat child sex abuse? No.
This lack of focus on the majority of the crimes speaks volumes. It tells parents they do not need to worry as much about people in the lives of their children if they are not registered sex offenders. It tells victims that if their perpetrator is not a sex offender it may not be sexual abuse.
We are spending an inordinate amount of money to try and keep the fox out of the hen house. Statistics show that no matter how many foxes we ban from the hen house, there are foxes still in the hen house. What's even worse is they are disguised as the farmer! We feel safer now and our guard is down because we have banished the foxes but the foxes are now hiding in plain sight.
It's easy to attack the fox but what are we really accomplishing? What about the other 90%?
The other societal problem with the registry is that it actually making us less safe. How can this be you might ask? If I know where sex offenders are I can keep my children safe.
As we just talked about, you are only looking at 10% of the actual problem and letting the guard down for the other 90%.
The next problem is bloat. The registry could potentially be a useful tool if it had a more limited scope. Right now we are casting an extra wide net on who we call a sex offender. The serial rapist and someone who looked at underage Internet porn are on the same list. Someone who committed their crime as an adult with 3 victims of the same sex is on the same list as someone who as an adolescent had one victim of the opposite gender. Research shows us that these cases are extraordinarily different as far as chance to be rehabilitated and chance to reoffend. Yet they are all on the same list. This is because the registry doesn't take time to look at who might actually be a threat. It doesn't take research into account when casting judgement, it treats all equally. This causes it to be very ineffective at showing on an individual level who on the registry is dangerous and who is not.
Why not just treat them all like they are dangerous? This statement ignores research that shows sex offenders as an overall class of criminals have a very low recidivism rate. It also ignores good fiscal sense (and cents). Right now there are over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the US. To adequately monitor all of them, would be a huge cost. And we do not adequately monitor all offenders right now because that would be impossible. The more crimes and more offenders we add to the registry the less we will know about who is truly dangerous. Did I mention that this is only 10% of the problem and we are spending all of the money to combat child sexual abuse on it? What about the other 90%?
The registry can also make us less safe because it does not allow ex- offenders to reintegrate back into society. Research shows that dynamic factors like housing, jobs, family and friends are positive indicators that help ex-offenders from reoffending. When society makes it impossible to find adequate housing or an adequate job you are taking stability away from an ex-offender which makes them more likely to reoffend. This whole crusade of not in my backyard and residency restrictions makes us less safe. In a lot of areas offenders cannot find housing anywhere and are homeless. Keeping track of all 700,000 offenders would be all but impossible if you know where they live, it becomes actually impossible when offenders are homeless. This all stems from the registry being public.
What if you knowing about an offender actually makes someone else's child less safe? For example, the state buys a property to place a registered offender in and the community comes together and blocks it. The state cannot find housing for this person so they release them onto the streets and say register every month with the police since you are homeless. Are we actually safer now? We would then have an ex offender the police do not know where to find that has no place to live and will an incredibly difficult time finding a job. That does not sounds like a great way to reduce child sex abuse.
So many parents lack the skills to be a parent it's pathetic! To think that they need a list to tell them who is a danger to their children is proof that they don't know when to raise the flag of suspicion.
One observation I learned from group therapy is that much of what they taught me should be taught in schools. Even community service should be mandatory for school children. Also public contact jobs like retail sales. Maybe then we would see good service at stores instead of rude people who feel it's beneath them to help their customers. I have worked in retail and have experienced rude customers who think they deserve special service and discounts just because they are rich.
The real world certainly has changed! We don't teach society anymore and our children are unprepared for the real world..
It should be put in the papers anywhere letters / opinions can be sent.
There will be a lot of arguments but for the majority of the sheeple once this becomes 'the truth' they will accept. To make it 'the truth' it needs to be repeated over and over.