Vermont asked to take down sex offender registry

[bakerprune64]

I could care less about a dead sex offender. I am so tired of hearing the aclu while about how cruel life is to a sex offender. Whoever killed them did everyone in Maine a favor if you ask me.

:clap: Thank you 2sisters! I couldn't have said this better myself.

 

[Details]

But if you're a convicted offender and your being on a list is making you a target, that's too bad? The State has no obligation to protect you?

And since legal/illegal matters, what if these criminals had only been convicted of driving too fast, would you feel the same?

The state has an obligation to protect you - but more of an obligation to protect the innocent, law abiding citizens - and for sex offenders, not knowing who and where you are is a risk to the law abiding citizens. It's a balancing act - the risk to convicted sex offenders balanced against the risk to law abiding citizens unknowingly living next door to a convicted sex offender. Putting them in some jepordy is acceptable only in order to protect the innocent.

I wouldn't have much trouble with it - convictions are public. Lots of places have done similar bits to embarass 'Johns' men caught soliciting prostitution. The big thing here is that sex offenders reoffend a lot, and that they do so with their neighbors, so their neighbors have a right to know that superceeds their right to privacy.

Of course legal/illegal matters! Should a criminal be more protected than someone who has always followed the law? Put a sex offender next to a possible target without letting them know, and that's exactly what's happening.

 

[Details]

My only objection to someone hunting down sex offenders is that the category is too broad - it needs to be the real dangerous ones, not the 20 year old with an 16 year old, or indecent exposure for peeing in the bushes types of 'sex offenders'. But given that you're going after the repeat, violent pedophiles - I'm not going to look to hard to see what happens to them.

PS: Know you weren't adressing me, but still an interesting question.

 

[czechmate7]

Actually, the yellow pages does remove the names, addresses and phone numbers of a number of sensitive people - police, abortion clinic workers, witness protection, etc. The abortion clinic is in the yellow pages. The home info about the doctors is removed if they so request.

That's at the least here, but I'd assume most everywhere. I know about it because there was a huge scandal - some versions of the white pages were accidentally printed with full info on all the private numbers. Big scandal, big, huge problem.

I don't think many doctors in this area have their home # in the phone book....most just have their business info..

 

[mysteriew]

People who get so concerned over the sex offender registry should check out their state dept. of corrections website. All felons in prison get their pictures put on the internet, no matter if they are in for theft or for murder. And what they were convicted of is usually listed also as well as the date of conviction and sometimes the date of expected release. Sometimes, those offenders even get special attention paid to them when the are released from prison, and newspaper articles get written about them. And yes, in many states (not all) people who are convicted of traffic offenses get their names entered in the public court sites.
If you are trying to convince me that it is wrong to put the names of sex offenders in a public sex offender registry, you are too late.....already considered the risks, both ways. I am part of the group that thinks that if they are going to be released out into society (and that should be a rare occurance), they should have a warning tattooed on their foreheads. As far as I am concerned, I would be okay with first conviction- life sentence. Then I guess we could do away with the sex offender registy. LOL, when I think about it too long, I could probably be convinced to vote for a death penalty for most of 'em.
The risk of a convicted sex offender being injured or killed is a whole lot less than that of a child being harmed by an offender who chooses to offend again. Like I said only 4 known sex offenders killed out of the thousands who are listed. Way too many more children than that were harmed by previously convicted sex offenders. Way too many more children than that are killed by previously convicted sex offenders. So don't ask me to be concerned for a couple of pervs who got targeted by a murderer. They are going to try the murderer for breaking the law. And his name and picture will go up on the dept. of corrections website.

 

[duke]

I wouldn't have much trouble with it - convictions are public. Lots of places have done similar bits to embarass 'Johns' men caught soliciting prostitution. The big thing here is that sex offenders reoffend a lot, and that they do so with their neighbors, so their neighbors have a right to know that superceeds their right to privacy.

So let me understand you. If the State was publishing a list of traffic violators and some whacko started picking names off of that list and killing them, you don't think that list should be removed?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

So let me understand you. If the State was publishing a list of traffic violators and some whacko started picking names off of that list and killing them, you don't think that list should be removed?

Can't we just remove the wacko killers?

 

[duke]

Are you just a troll or does someone hunting down sex offenders strike a chord with you?

Someone hunting down anyone strikes a chord with me, as it should you as well. What I am is someone who is interested in seeing everyone treated fairly by the justice system. If your position is that all serious sex offenders should be given life, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.

One principle of our system is that once someone has served their sentence and repaid their debt to society, it is wrong to continue to punish them. But that's exactly what we're doing. We sentence someone to ten years in prison but punish them the rest of their life by forcing them to register. If they're still a threat to their community, they shouldn't be released at all.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Someone hunting down anyone strikes a chord with me, as it should you as well. What I am is someone who is interested in seeing everyone treated fairly by the justice system. If your position is that all serious sex offenders should be given life, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.

One principle of our system is that once someone has served their sentence and repaid their debt to society, it is wrong to continue to punish them. But that's exactly what we're doing. We sentence someone to ten years in prison but punish them the rest of their life by forcing them to register. If they're still a threat to their community, they shouldn't be released at all.

Duke, I'm sorry I didn't see that post. Its been removed.

But to answer your question, the notification to the public about child molesters is a "part of the punishment." Prison time is just the other part of the punishment for them.

 

[duke]

Can't we just remove the wacko killers?

Of course, just like we can remove the whackos who kill abortionists.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Of course, just like we can remove the whackos who kill abortionists.

I think we should!

 

[duke]

Duke, I'm sorry I didn't see that post. Its been removed.

But to answer your question, the notification to the public about child molesters is a "part of the punishment." Prison time is just the other part of the punishment for them.

Right, but it isn't part of their sentence. If it were, I would have no problem with it.We're automatically punishing people for life for committing a certain type of offense. Bear in mind that a lot of the offenders on these registries are not pedophiles and rapists but have been convicted of relatively minor crimes.

 

[duke]

I think we should!

Fair enough. So you agree that those lists of doctors should be allowed to exist as well?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Right, but it isn't part of their sentence. If it were, I would have no problem with it.We're automatically punishing people for life for committing a certain type of offense. Bear in mind that a lot of the offenders on these registries are not pedophiles and rapists but have been convicted of relatively minor crimes.

I disagree. People who are convicted of "sexual" crimes are "sexual offenders" and, as part of their sentence, must register as sex offenders. Granted, there are different types of sex offenders and the registry usually specifies what the crime was, i.e., sexual assault of a minor, etc.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Fair enough. So you agree that those lists of doctors should be allowed to exist as well?

Yes, I do.

 

[Hammerized]

Sex offenders fearful after murders linked to registry

http://tinyurl.com/r5cca

..."I think they need to reconvene and look at who is on the sex offender site," said Blanchette, a Democrat from Bangor. Rep. Sean Faircloth, a leader of the sex offender study committee, agreed that registries are ripe for a new look. But next time around he would like to see more emphasis on prevention of sex crimes through policies such as increased penalties and additional jail time for certain offenses.

"That’s where you reduce sex crimes — not registries," said Faircloth, D-Bangor. "I have yet to see data that shows sex registries actually work" to either reduce crime or increase public safety.

But even with questions about the registries, they carry clear benefits such as allowing parents to check on people who come in contact with their children at schools, churches and other places, Efland said.

There’s a balancing act between public safety and offenders’ rights, but the registries can also serve as a deterrent for sex offenders, he said.

"There’s a sense that people are watching them," he said. "The person in line behind them at Hannaford may or may not have seen their picture on the Web site, and it keeps people honest in what they’re supposed to do, in terms of avoiding children and that sort of thing."

(emphasis mine)

I agree with Faircloth and Efland in these statements- registries, as they are now in states like Maine- are not a science. While they do provide the public with a valuable tool, and also may serve to rein some predators in, they do need to be re-vamped. But not withdrawn altogether.

And yes, I am for increased penalties and MUCH longer prison terms! Strike the root, toss the Band-Aids®.

 

[duke]

I disagree. People who are convicted of "sexual" crimes are "sexual offenders" and, as part of their sentence, must register as sex offenders. Granted, there are different types of sex offenders and the registry usually specifies what the crime was, i.e., sexual assault of a minor, etc.

You can't really disagree here. These are facts. Offenders are placed on these lists and required to update regularly strictly based on the fact that they were convicted of a certain type of crime. They are placed on the registry without process.

Most states do not list the crimes for which these offenders were convicted or offer any information on their recidivism risk. Most simply offer their personal information and photos.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

You can't really disagree here. These are facts. Offenders are placed on these lists and required to update regularly strictly based on the fact that they were convicted of a certain type of crime. They are placed on the registry without process.

Most states do not list the crimes for which these offenders were convicted or offer any information on their recidivism risk. Most simply offer their personal information and photos.

You kidding? I can disagree until the cows come home. I'm not a prosecutor nor a criminal defense attorney, but doesn't the sentencing part of a sexual offender's trial mention them having to register as such? To me, that would be included in the sentence of that crime. Now, the only state I've ever checked out was my own and it contained the age of the victim. I guess since you've checked them all out, you can tell us which states don't, ok?

 

[duke]

You kidding? I can disagree until the cows come home. I'm not a prosecutor nor a criminal defense attorney, but doesn't the sentencing part of a sexual offender's trial mention them having to register as such? To me, that would be included in the sentence of that crime. Now, the only state I've ever checked out was my own and it contained the age of the victim. I guess since you've checked them all out, you can tell us which states don't, ok?

No, I'm not kidding. No one can disagree with facts, Jeana, only opinions. And no, sentencing doesn't mention that, that's the point I'm making. It's done without process.

TOS reminder:
Your last sentence is dripping with sarcasm. This is frowned upon here on the Websleuths forum.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

No, I'm not kidding. No one can disagree with facts, Jeana, only opinions. And no, sentencing doesn't mention that, that's the point I'm making. It's done without process.

TOS reminder:
Your last sentence is dripping with sarcasm. This is frowned upon here on the Websleuths forum.

Duke darlin, you're already on thin ice. I suggest you refrain from your remarks to me.

EVERYONE knows that convicted sex offenders must register whenever they move. Everyone also knows that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. So, if someone wants to take the law into their own hands and kill one, why should we care?