Grapevine Has Effectively Banned Child Molesters

Categories: Crime, News

childmolesterflickr.jpg
mercurialn
Welcome to your new home, Grapevine sex offenders.
For a portrait of the Kafkaesque nightmare criminal residency restrictions can create, go read about the permanent sex offender camp that took root several years ago beneath Miami's Julia Tuttle Causeway. Thanks to a local ordinance barring them from living within 2,500 feet of any place that children congregate, there was quite literally nowhere else for them to go.

It stands as an object lesson in how not to do public policy. It's a lesson that Grapevine has yet to learn.

Last week the Grapevine City Council, citing a "frightening and high" risk of recidivism, unanimously passed an ordinance barring those convicted of sexually assaulting a child from living within 2,000 feet of places where kids "commonly gather." This includes, but is not limited to, schools, parks, day cares, public swimming pools, hiking and biking trails and "video arcade facilities."

Look at a map of Grapevine, take note of all the parks and schools and kid-centric businesses, add in about 20 licensed child care centers, several of them operating out of people's homes, and a registered sex offender's housing options more or less disappear.

Maybe that's what the City Council was after. It's an understandable impulse, keeping the most thoroughly despised class of criminal out of one's city. But a 2,000-foot buffer is excessive and, research suggests, will do nothing to make the children of Grapevine any safer.

In a study posted on the website of Texas Office of Violent Sex Offender Management, Louisville justice administration professor Richard Tewksbury and Lynn University human services professor Jill Levenson pick apart the rationale for sex offender residency restrictions.

Sex offenders, the researchers write, pose a relatively small danger of re-offending compared with other criminals. Molested children are typically preyed upon by relatives or trusted caretakers, not strangers. Offenders who can't find a legal place to live have a tendency to "disappear," failing to register with local law enforcement agencies who must then expend resources attempting to track them down.

More than anything, though, such restrictions don't work. Here's Tewksbury and Levenson reviewing some of the research:

A 2004 Colorado study found that sex offense re-offenders were randomly located and did not live closer to schools and parks than those who did not re-offend. In Minnesota, a 2003 study failed to find a relationship between proximity to schools and re-offending. A subsequent Minnesota study concluded that "there is very little support for the notion that residency restriction laws would lower the incidence of sexual recidivism, particularly among child molesters," and that "rather than lowering sexual recidivism, housing restrictions may work against this goal by fostering conditions that exacerbate [problems with] sex offenders' reintegration."

But dry academic reasoning tends to be ignored in the face of the kind of visceral fear and anger that comes with the thought of child molesters.

Send your story tips to the author, Eric Nicholson.

My Voice Nation Help
133 comments
vespasian
vespasian

In the above article, the columnist refers to the writings of Drs Richard Tewksbury and Jill Levenson; both of whom I have read their position papers on the issue of sex offender laws for several years. Both have put forth rational, logical and mature insight on this subject; however, what I have not read, but have sought out to find but without succes, are the position papers of the proponents of sex offender laws. Where are the counter arguments to researchers likeTewksbury and Levenson? If anyone has this information, please, by all means post them here so that I may read and understand why proponents of sex offender laws fight to deny a certain class of citizen (people who have committed sex crimes in the past) their basic Human Rights. Think the Hebrews of Isreal, the African American Slave, the American Indian of the 19th Century and the Jews of Germany/Poland in the 1930s. With the enactment of sex offender laws, America began a race to the bottom.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

Ironically, murderers are still welcome to live anywhere they want in Grapevine - and are welcomed with open-arms.

WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA
WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA

You are truly off the deep end of pot headed faggotry when your need to be so progressive progresses to defending child rapists. 

trekatch
trekatch

What so many people do not realize is the term "sex offender" includes teenagers who have been convicted of having CONSENSUAL sex with their girlfriends/boyfriends, people who have been convicted of "public indecency" i.e. peeing in public, streaking at football game, etc. These people are not a "danger to children".  "Sex offender" has become a catch all for any type of sexual contact, exposure, etc.  I'm more worried about the neighbors selling drugs, beating their children and the home invaders...where is the list for them.   Sex offenders have the second lowest recidivism rate, right under murders (which is usually a one time thing...not many serial kllers out there).  And as study after study has shown, most kids are abducted/molested by family members or close friends of the family.  

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

Now that's how you do it.  Get them the hell out.


RodTemple
RodTemple

@bvckvs  So are career criminals. And people who have merely shot people. Or murdered them while DUI.


The Sex Offender Registries are not for "public safety" or "protecting children". Those are lies.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA  This has nothing to do with NAMBLA and everything to do with being an American. Americans don't support this type of idiotic, useless, worse-than-worthless BS. They just don't. They don't support harassing people just for their jollies.

bigdgal
bigdgal

@trekatch Exactly. Recidivism for sex offenders is low. Meanwhile - DUI is an offense with a high rate of recidivism. If there must be a registry - why aren't the offenders causing injuries and deaths because of their drinking and driving -of concern to this City Council. After all they could be driving drunk by a school, park, etc. where children might be.

bigdgal
bigdgal

@whateveryousay  Yet again....This is the kind of comment I keep hearing on the topic of sex offender issues.... No logic. No facts. No enlightening viewpoint. And politicians who are just like this.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay All Americans are at war with un-Americans like whateveryousay. Families that are listed on these Registries should individually identify people like this harasser and do anything that is legal to lower the quality of his/her/its life.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@RodTemple @bvckvs

Ok, you don't believe that identifying these criminals is for public safety.  So what do you think the purpose of the registries really is?

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@bigdgal @trekatch

Low and high are relative terms - relative to an acceptable level.  So the question here is - what do you consider an acceptable level of sex offenses?

That said, assuming for a moment that there is not a high rate of recidivism, do you really think that letting pedophiles live next to elementary schools is a good way to keep it low?


whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@bigdgal The logic is to keep the people around the offenders safer. The offenders have committed some pretty sick crimes against adults and children.  People have a right to know if they or their children are at risk from one of the sickos.  

They should all get life in prison. Period.  Then this wouldn't be up for debate.


RodTemple
RodTemple

@bigdgal You are exactly right and that is why we have the Registries which literally lead to more sex (and other) crimes being committed than would be if they did not exist at all. It is truly idiotic social policy. But the average U.S. citizen eats it up. Doesn't matter what it does in reality.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@RodTemple @whateveryousay I am an American. A proud non-raping non-molesting American.  


The registry is part of the punishment. Not being allowed near parks and schools is part of the punishment. Don't rape and don't molest. How hard is that to understand.


bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@RodTemple @bvckvs

It's funny how you so venomously refer to the government and the people as if they were two different things.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@bvckvs @RodTemple  Please. Are you lazy?


You think the fact that I took the time to think about something and write something coherent about it tells you that I'm "not rational about the issue"? Perhaps you are not rational.


It was not a simple question and the answer is certainly not simple. But I'll make it easy for you. Just read the second paragraph. Or maybe the first two.


Or, just keep ignoring facts and believe that your nanny governments are protecting people. It takes little effort to look at the Registries and see that they are not quite the wonderful thing that their supporters make it out to be.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@RodTemple @bvckvs

I didn't bother to read that manifesto.

It was a simple question, warranting a simple answer.  The fact that you felt compelled to write a manifesto tells me that you're not rational about the issue - so I didn't bother to read it.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@bvckvs @RodTemple  The list of the harm caused by the Registries is very, very long. I will keep it pretty brief though and just try to provide a few examples. I will have to say that the Registries could potentially not be such a huge negative drain on the U.S. IF they were ONLY used to "inform" people and all people who have harmed other people were Registered. But what we have seen is that people in the U.S. cannot come nearly close to using Registries responsibly. They are idiots. The Grapevine ordinance is a great example.


Anyway, why don't we start with the fact that the Registries have directly caused children to be murdered? Start with the two cases that I cited above. Edenfield was forced to move from a home that he had lived in for a very long time because the moronic legislators in his state suddenly decided on a whim that it was "too close" to a park. He was arrested literally for not moving quickly enough. Just a few days after he was sentenced for that, he retaliated by murdering a 6 year old boy. It was for certain in retaliation. I am 100% sure there are many, many more cases like that of which we know nothing about. Not to mention all the retaliation that is occurring on a much smaller scale.


What else? The Registries are responsible for further decaying civility. Many people hate families that are Registered and that hate is being returned. Have you lived in a neighborhood that is "up in arms" about a pedophile family living among their goodness? Those people aren't neighbors. They are at war with each other. And they often enough end up really harming each other.


How about the fact that Registered families typically stop caring much about other people? I am very capable of donating large amounts of resources to charities but I'm not going to do it. Because you see, way, way back in like 2001 or so, I heard about a charity that was repairing homes for elderly people and the "community" found out that one of the people they helped was listed on a Registry. It was quite a scandal. The charity vowed that they would take steps so "that would not happen again". After seeing many, many things like that I vowed that I would never help a charity again. After all, it could go to helping a person who supports the Registries. And just as a minor aside, I stopped donating blood and cancelled my organ donation.


How about children of Registered families being beaten? Or their school bus driver hands each child getting off the bus a letter and are told that it is supposed to go to their parents. The letter talks about the "Registered Sex Offender" in their area and how sorry they are about that terrible condition, but that they can't move their bus stops. They tell the children not to read the letter and of course they don't. They don't tell the children that after they read it not to bully the children of the Registered family.


How about how Registered families stop trusting law enforcement and government completely? I know many Registered families who will never interact with law enforcement for any reason. I will never allow them to speak to me or my family even. They aren't ever allowed around us. I have a lot of children. They are all professionals, half of them are doctors or nurses. They don't trust law enforcement. They know never to speak to them. They will raise their children like that. Do you think it matters if their are millions of people in the U.S. who know that they should never speak with law enforcement for any reason? No big deal, right?


The Registries have directly caused people to be homeless and unemployed. No harm there, I guess.


The Registries sap a huge amount of resources away from actually preventing crimes and administering justice. All this screwing around with the Registries and the idiotic laws that they have promoted does not come for free. I especially like to hear about it in areas where they are closing schools and other useful resources.


So there's a small list of just some of the harm. And what do the helpless people who "need" the Registries get in return? Not enough to ever do them any good.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@bvckvs @RodTemple  I don't think it's accurate to assess what I said as a "tantrum", but whatever. I am a libertarian (to some degree) but I'm nowhere close to being a pedophile or even someone who would harm a child.


I can't say I've studied it much but I don't personally buy into that "if I molest a children, the laws are so harsh that I might as well kill them" argument. There are around 750,000 people listed on Sex Offender Registries in the U.S. and I think only a very tiny, tiny percentage of those people would ever be a danger of killing a child. I find it hard to believe that those people are focused on laws and their consequences much. Over 90% of the people who molest children do it to children they have known for a while and do it for a while. I don't think any significant percentage of those people would consider murdering anyone.


What I'm really talking about is the vast majority of people who are listed on the Registries, not the crazy murderers. You may or may not know this, but the Registries do nothing to hinder them from committing any crime that he/she would like. Don't be fooled that the people who are listed on the Registries are being monitored in any significant way. That is what big government would like you to believe, of course. And they put on little media shows every once in a while to try to convince people like you.


But the fact is, as all experts have constantly and continually testified, the Registries exacerbate sex and other crimes. They are truly idiotic social policy. And I know for a fact that most people who are listed on the Registries behave in less socially acceptable ways than they would if the Registries did not exist. In the very extreme, I know for a fact that children have been murdered precisely and only because of the Registries and the additional idiotic laws that have been piled on top of them. A couple of perpetrators that come to mind immediately are George Edenfield and Matthew Caylor. In their cases, children are dead because of the Sex Offender Registries.


I'm sure the majority of U.S. citizens will continue to love the Registries but I guarantee you that they are a panacea, at best. They are harming the U.S. and will continue to do so.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@RodTemple @bvckvs

That's quite a tantrum,  I've heard it before from libertarian pedophiles.  They say that child-protection laws put children in more danger because it gives their rapists an incentive to kill them so there won't be any witnesses.


RodTemple
RodTemple

@bvckvs @RodTemple  Yeah, I will be brief with this. I will just address your question generally. But it would not take anyone much effort to take a simple look around at what the Sex Offender Registries (SORs) have actually not accomplished to understand reality.


First off, we are not identifying criminals. We are identifying former criminals (and in some cases, people who were never criminals).


IF the SORs were actually useful and "protected" anyone, there are no excuses that we didn't create many, many other types of Registries well over a decade ago. The fact that we did not exposed the fact that the primary motive of the SORs is not public safety. Further, even without other Registries, it is very, very easy for criminal regimes like the City of Grapevine to simply include murders, people who have shot people, career criminals, etc., etc., etc. into their banishment laws. It is trivial. But again, they don't do that because the laws is worse than worthless and it is really meant just to harass people.


We've seen that these criminal regimes and the people who support them cannot use the SORs responsibly. IF the SORs were for public safety, we would not have laws that are clearly in direct opposition to all known facts. We would not have laws that exist only to make people feel good.


Lastly, there are all kinds of people for whom the primary reason for the SORs is not public safety. Of course they will never admit that however. In fact, they constantly lie to the contrary. We can start with politicians. They have clearly exploited the SORs. So have law enforcement. So have most people who benefit from big government. Then there's OffenderWatch and all those other vulture companies. The list goes on and on. Plenty of motives for the SORs besides public safety.


The original intent might have been public safety and a good intent, but the SORs have clearly proven to be not just negligibly beneficial, but much, much worse. They have dramatically harmed public safety.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@RodTemple @bvckvs

It's not about me.  It's about the people of Grapevine.  I don't live there and I don't make the rules for them.  They make their own choices.

Beyond that, if you HONESTLY wish you could be naïve, it goes a long way toward explaining why you are so passionate about thinking that pedophiles should be allowed around children.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@bvckvs  Well, I guess as long as you believe the Registries work that is good enough reality for people like you. I wish I could be so naive.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@RodTemple @bvckvs@bigdgal@trekatch

I accept that you believe pedophiles should be allowed to roam freely, while children are kept locked away.

Unfortunately for the pedophile community, serious people don't share that belief... so we continue to put restrictions on where pedophiles can go.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@bvckvs @bigdgal @trekatch  You said, "That's why we have to keep pedophiles away from children." You are confused. What we have to do is keep our children from being molested by anyone and once we have done that, they can be around pedophiles all day long and it will never matter. You will also have no need for any Registry.


Further, these types of ordinances do less than nothing to keep Registered people from being near children. I know Registered people who are purposely around children because ordinances like this and the Registries exist. They go out of their way to be around children and it is trivial and COMPLETLEY un-monitored.


You said, "It's not big mystery why they didn't include murderers and thieves ...". Are you insane? You do realize that people murder children, right? This is not an issue about crimes against children versus not, it's about crimes that involve sex or not. People who murder people are far more dangerous to other people, including freaking children, than any pedophile you know. Same goes for people who have shot people, push drugs, or drive drunk, for just a few examples. The list is very long.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@bigdgal @bvckvs@trekatch

You're somewhat right - many pedophiles get caught when they molest someone close to them.  That's why we have to keep pedophiles away from children.

However, as with most other types of criminals - the time they get caught is rarely ever the only time they offend.


bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@RodTemple @bvckvs@bigdgal@trekatch

It's not big mystery why they didn't include murderers or thieves - it's because the people of Grapevine are far more tolerant of those crimes than they are of crimes against children.

As far as doing research myself, I've done that - and I've worked first-hand with pedophiles.  What I learned is that they can't be rehabilitated because they don't see anything wrong with what they do.

You said that they usually express remorse - and that's true... when they're standing in front of a judge.  But what they say to their shrinks is something else entirely.

Pedophiles don't believe they're hurting anyone - they just say that they LOVE children more than society allows.  Then they cite ancient Greece and Amazon tribes as proof that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia.

bigdgal
bigdgal

@RodTemple @bvckvs@bigdgal@trekatch I totally agree. At best it is hypocritical. At worst it is reminding me of a civil rights issue.


Is there anyone left who does not know that if you Drink, Don't Drive? But it's easier sentencing and no registry -  for a teenager who  kills someone while driving drunk, than be a teen having consensual sex with someone younger.

Just picked one quick example. A book could be written on how absurd our laws and ordinances have become.

bigdgal
bigdgal

@bvckvs @bigdgal@trekatch There are so many on the registry that are not a danger. The ones who are a danger - police departments say they are overwhelmed and cannot keep up. That benefits the rare dangerous offender.... And the WORST problem with people wanting this ban on sex offenders by elementary schools?.. It takes the eye of the parent off the real danger for molestation/ rape of their child... the uncle, aunt, grandparent, cousin, coach, teacher, preacher, scout master, babysitter, neighbor kid, friend, etc.


My own molestation  - someone in my family. Out of the 22 friends/family who I am aware of being raped/molested.. ONE was by a stranger. She was an adult jogging at night, and grabbed.


Please know that in that group who are not dangerous- some wrongly accused (for a variety of reasons) without anymore money to clear themselves - teens having consensual sex, but the ages make the Romeo/Juliet scenario, and wow is one of their parent angry about it - children "playing doctor" with each other - streaking, peeing in public, etc. - child pornography downloaders, most of whom surprisingly are not pedophiles, and would never touch a child. I could go on and on.


So, until the sex offender registry makes sense to show who is really a danger to children -then I see no reason for towns like this one to make ordinances like this one. If I were on the list? - I would initiate a lawsuit over an ordinance like this.

bigdgal
bigdgal

@bvckvs @bigdgal@trekatch Fair question. Who wants a pedophile, murderer, etc. living next door or by an elementary school? I'd answer -. Statistics show most rapes/molestations of children are people within the family, or trusted circle of the family. So, this isn't the kind of person likely to look for the random child from the next door elementary school. Almost all of these - when caught, are remorseful - needed a wake up call, some therapy - if they were once molested as kids. But this set of sex offenders is only part of the registry.


RodTemple
RodTemple

@bvckvs @bigdgal @trekatch  Um, facts have shown that it doesn't matter where they live. Facts.


Many studies have extensively studied past crimes to try to determine if where a person lived had anything to do with the crime or would have changed the crime in any way. Not even the tiniest, slightest correlation has ever been found. It's not even debatable. Just read some research. Or do what this city council did and don't worry about facts.


A better question you should ask yourself is why did this city council not include all kinds of former criminals in their bans? Why don't you try to answer that?

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple  I don't care much to debate if or how much you exaggerated, so I will try to be very brief about that part. Your post started with "Sex offenders never seem to value how terrible their crimes are." That means "all sex offenders never". Do you suppose that is a sweeping generalization/exaggeration? You could have started that sentence with "some" and you would have been fine.


Your "Victims of sex crimes ..." sentence was similar but not as bad. You did say "often" but it implied far more. Whatever. You could have started the sentence with "Some". A very common argument people who support the Registries like to use is "the victims suffer for a lifetime, so the Registered person should suffer as well". I can't tell you how often I have seen that and it is clearly beyond an exaggeration, it is a lie.


But on to a more important point - I do appreciate that you tried to rationalize why we only have Sex Offender Registries. You are quite wrong however. You picked the worst of sex crimes and compared them to somewhat minor crimes. And it all kind of reads like that applies to all "sex offenders".


So let me do that for you - do you think when a person looks at a child porn picture, the victim is in worse shape than the victim of someone who has been shot and is now permanently in a wheelchair? And who is more dangerous? I'm sorry but there are many, many sex crimes that are not nearly as serious many, many other types of crimes. I don't know how you could think for a second that "sex offenders" as a group are more dangerous than say "people who use guns to commit crimes". Do you really think that someone who exposes his privates to someone is more dangerous than a person who robs a store at gunpoint? Surely not. Yet one is Registered for decades, the other not at all.


Or how about a child is molested but a few weeks later is hit by a drunk driver and put in the hospital for a few weeks. Which is worse? I know which I would prefer happened to my own children.


Anyway, I was severely sexually abused as a child. I was not a victim by the time I was in high school. And I certainly was not by college. Only a very small percentage of people who have been sexually victimized are "scarred for life". But there are a ton of people who really would like to keep a lot of people thinking that they are victims for life.


I don't mean to minimize sexual offenses. But let me say that if one of my children was sexually abused, I would surely not be telling him/her that he/she is a victim for life.


The Registries are a Witch Hunt. You won't find many informed, intelligent people who think they protect much. But no one really cares.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@RodTemple @whateveryousay  Victims of sex crimes often spend the rest of their lives trying to overcome them in therapy. How is that exaggeration?  The difference between a sexual crime like rape and other crimes like theft is monumental in terms of victim impact.  The highly personally invasive nature of sex crimes is what sets them apart from most crimes.  If a man molests a 7 year old or steals the 7 year olds bike, which do you think will have a greater impact on that child as an adult?  If someone rapes a high school girl or vandalizes her car, which is more invasive and will be carried on emotionally?  When I was in high school someone broke into my car and stole my stereo. To this day I make sure my car is locked and things aren't visible. There was an impact from that crime that I have carried to this very day.  Rape and molestation has the same effect but to a massively greater degree.  I can lock my car, victims of sex abuse  can't just lock a door,  They deal with it differently, emotionally and for the rest of their lives.


RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple  Your first two sentences are very common exaggerations (often lies) that are used by big government to justify their BS Registries. Yet they can never be bothered to explain why it doesn't apply to all people who have committed any crime that harmed someone. And neither can you.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@RodTemple @whateveryousay  Sex offenders never seem to value how terrible their crimes are.  Victims of sex crimes often spend the rest of their lives trying to overcome them in therapy.  The suicide rates for victims is astronomical. 

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple  In the United States, we do not believe that if/when a person has committed a crime, that we are free to harass that person for the rest of his/her life. We do not believe that we can put that person on a list and then create new laws 20 years later that apply new harassment/punishment to the person. And by some crazy miracle, we only seem to think that is acceptable for people who have committed a sex crime, even for a person who has committed one sex crime. We don't have any problem with people who spend their entire lives committing crime after crime after crime.


So no, the "sex offender" did not "take away everything when they committed the crime". One WONDERFUL effect of the Registries is that it pretty quickly makes the people who are listed on them not care so much for what happens to many other people and they start to strike back. I have seen that far and wide. So, the thieving of the criminal regimes is being stopped and legally retaliated for. That is something you should remember. Every day. People simply will not put up with your thieving.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@RodTemple @whateveryousay  Well, I still pity you.  Remember this:  The registries didn't take anything from the sex offender or the family of a sex offender. The sex offender took away everything when they committed the crime.  When they were raping their victim they were raping their family's future as well.


RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple  You said, "The registry in California was enacted by the people of California through the Initiative process.  It was not put in place by the legislature." That is 100% incorrect. Do you really think California had no Registry until Prop 83?


There is no need to feel sorry for me. I am not going to let the Sex Offender Registries steal from me, my family, or my friends. I will CONTINUE to negate anything useful the Registries could possibly do and I will CONTINUE to ensure that it COSTS the criminal regimes that support it many multiples of ANY use at all that they could possibly gain from it. I have kept many law enforcement agencies broke because of the Registries and that will continue.


I do agree with you that the Registries are here to stay. The majority of U.S. citizens are very uninformed idiots and cluelessly support the Registries. The only problem with that is that you liars will CONTINUE to have no credibility until you get the rest of your Registries created. YOU people who need nanny big government to help you raise your children need to get to work. And please pay some taxes to support your big governments for a change.


YOU people need the Sex Offender Registries. And I GUARANTEE that as long as they exist, they will be worthless but there will be HUGE problems. I will continue to be at war with you.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@RodTemple @whateveryousay It was proposed through the Initiative process by an Assemblywoman and a State Senator (husband and wife I think). As an Initiative it was voted on by the public, not the legislature.  

I feel sorry for you Rod, I really do.  However, the support for the sex offender registries is overwhelming.  That tide is not going to change.  The courts have upheld most aspects of registries and they are here to stay both on the federal and state level.  Until you can get enough anti registry legislators elected you will have to live with it.  

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay  Good Lord, you are unbelievably uninformed. I think you better check up on who actually created California's Registry.


Most U.S. citizens do support the Registries and that is probably a pretty good indication that they are a bad idea. Most U.S. citizens also have little of a clue about pretty much anything. Whatever, the fact remains that there are exactly zero Americans who support the Registries. The people who do belong in cesspool third-world countries.


And about voter initiatives - what a terrible, terrible idea! Allowing clueless, barely literate people to pass legislation. California is a GREAT example of why it is a terrible idea. Also, the people who voted in the idiotic Jessica's Law are a tyrannical majority. One thing that governments must do is protect all citizens from mobs. They must ALWAYS protect hated minorities from tyrannical majorities. They must be the voice of reason. Otherwise, we would have slavery and things like that (Oh, wait!!).


The U.S. Sex Offender Registries - Championed by the only country in the world that can't figure out the metric system.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@RodTemple @whateveryousay @bigdgal  No, we are Americans. We are Americans who have not raped, molested or committed sex crimes.  The registry in California was enacted by the people of California through the Initiative process.  It was not put in place by the legislature. It was put in place by a vote of the people. Prop 83 "Jessica's Law" passed with slightly more than 70% of the vote. Americans support the registries and vote for them overwhelmingly.

Proposition 83 Yes 5,926,80070.5% No 2,483,59729.5% Total votes 8,410,397

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple @bigdgal Uh, we can't focus on the root of the problem because we are busy harassing people. If only those resources were directed at reducing sex crimes instead of increasing them.


It is really sad that all these so-called "child protectors" and all these lying, weak politicians have decided that they can't do much to reduce sex crimes so they do what most powerless people do, they kick the dog, lash out at whatever their easiest target is. They are weak worse than ineffective. They aren't Americans.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@RodTemple @whateveryousay @bigdgal  There is no need for rapists and molesters to rape and molest and they still do. Lets focus on the root of the problem.  If rapists and molesters didn't commit the crimes there wouldn't be a list. 

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple @bigdgal  Then why is it that you government-dependent people need Sex Offender Registries? There are no legitimate excuses that those Registries exist and the others don't. Sorry.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple @bigdgal Then why is it that you government-dependent people need Sex Offender Registries? There are no legitimate excuses that those Registries exist and the other don't. Sorry.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @bigdgal People don't have a right to know. If they did, I would know about all the people around me who have shot people. But my governments have not grown big enough to report that to me yet. But they are getting bigger every day so maybe one day they will get there.

bigdgal
bigdgal

@whateveryousay.... I would respond that we all want everyone safe. .. Would it make a difference to you to know that there are a lot of people on the registry who did not rape or molest someone? ...That there are people on the registry who downloaded child porn, but never did, never will have sexual contact with a child.... Some people are on the registry who are innocent, without the money to fight it. ..Some teens who had consensual sex, but one was slightly too young, and a parent pushed the issue...That among offenders who really did  rape/ molest - there really are those who reform and are safe.. With that being said, do you think these people should be on the same sex offender registry as the dangerous ones that are sexual predators?


bigdgal
bigdgal

@whateveryousay@bigdgal  I appreciate it when people have a conversation. So, now that you have clarified where your opinion comes from, I can understand where your comment came from.


RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple I don't have any problem at all with intelligent, fair punishment. I really have a problem with thoroughly idiotic, useless, inconsistent, unfair, harassing punishment. The U.S. SHOULD be better than that.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@RodTemple Being a rapist or molester is being the problem, not supporting the punishment.  

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple @bigdgal  Ummmm, that would be "cite the studies", genius.


Do your own research. I have no obligation to educate you. And I have seen enough people like you where it doesn't matter how many facts are put in front of you, you are going to make your own reality. People who support the Registries don't care about facts and they don't care about children.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple @bigdgal


"Jail them  for life. Period, no parole."


What a brilliant and useful idea. Thanks for being part of the problem.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple  Again, you prove you know nothing about the Sex Offender Registries. Typical uninformed American. Supporting the Sex Offender Registries because they make you feel good. I'm sorry, but people who idiotically attack other people just for their jollies are not Americans and they are not my fellow U.S. citizens.


shellystow
shellystow

@whateveryousay, you are misinformed on that point. The only reason the registry was ever allowed to exist was that it was sold as a civil regulatory scheme, not additional punishment. Several courts have found that certain aspects crossed the line into punishment and declared those aspects, in those specific situations, unconstitutional and struck them down.


I wish to Heaven you could convince everyone that the public registry is punishment. Those on it know it is, but if you could convince every one else, it would be gone within a year.


If you read anything at all other than what you write, you know that not all on the registry are rapists or molesters.

RodTemple
RodTemple

@whateveryousay @RodTemple  The Registry is not part of punishment. That is how big government has gotten away with applying it retroactively. How is it possible that you have missed their biggest lie of all? Proves you know nothing about Registration.


And who is not "being allowed near parks and schools"? People who are Registered can go to those places all over the U.S. and do all the time. Your thieving bans against that are being ruled illegal all the time.


Lastly, some people are going to do things they shouldn't do. It's happening every day. Everyone is not as perfect as you are. The issue is that it is up to intelligent governments to intelligently handle it and not make the problem much, much worse by acting like clueless, thieving, un-American morons. It is up to government to be on the high road and be more moral than criminals. Otherwise they richly deserve the disrespect that they get.


If you support the Registries, you are not an American.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...