Homeless sex offenders directed to woods

[Strix]

I think Raz may be on to something in the other thread about me coming from a civil law tradition, but this kind of reasoning/situation you present here (where so many depends on factors that are not expressly written into law), is quite disturbing and unacceptable to me.

This kind of Dworkinesque "living law" approach is quite the opposite to what we, Europeans, consider to be a proper legal system. I'm more of a Kelsenesque "grunt norm" kind of lawyer.

It's disturbing to me and I work in the system. 

[Martinus]

Such people shouldn't be convicted for sex offences in the first place.

Marty, what is it that you do for a living, anyway?

I argue on the internet with fat retards who are cheated by their wives.

I don't even have a wife to cheat me!

What about your date? Any follow up?

[Zanza]

Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.

[Caliga]

Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.

Didn't Garrido drive over 100 miles to abduct that girl?

[Strix]

Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.

You need to think of it as a tool. Sex offenders are very 'visible' criminals. Local law enforcement and various neighborhood watch groups tend to be very informed as to who the sex offenders are in their communities and what they look like i.e. the sex offender registry. So, if a sex offender is found hanging around areas such as schools, playgrounds, daycares, etc, and so on, they are arrested or their location is reported to the appropriate authorities.

Try to think of a sex offenders actions along the lines of your own experience in dating. You get dressed up, go to the bar, have some drinks, talk with some women, than you pick out the woman you want to sleep with that night. Sex offenders aren't that much different, they get dressed up, go to the local kiddie hang out, talk with some children, bring along toys or other enticements, than they pick out the kid they want to have sex with. And just like the nights you go to a bar just to have fun, the sex offenders do the same, they go to places where kids hang out until they get in the "mood" than they take the next step. It might not be that day or that week but once the need starts to build...

[Berkut]

Regarding the sex offenders may not live close to a school thing: if someone has the criminal energy to sexually assault a minor, I suspect they are willing to go the extra mile it may take.

Didn't Garrido drive over 100 miles to abduct that girl?

This is a fallacious argument - just because some offenders will go to great lengths to commit a crime doesn't mean that there is no point in not making it easy for them.

I could certainly imagine someone who would NOT drive 100 miles to abduct a kid decide he WILL, however, try to talk that little kid in his front yard into coming inside for some candy or whatever.

[ulmont]

This is a fallacious argument - just because some offenders will go to great lengths to commit a crime doesn't mean that there is no point in not making it easy for them.

There's a big difference between "not making it easy" and "making it impossible to find somewhere to live." 

Either sex offenders are uniquely dangerous by comparison to other convicts, in which case they should be civilly committed or not released from prison, or they are not, in which case they should have no more restrictions than your average parolee.  My impression of the science is that it is tilted towards "not," but I am open to other evidence.

Putting someone in a situation where it can become illegal for them to live in a house based on the whims of the local school board is bullshit.

[Berkut]

This is a fallacious argument - just because some offenders will go to great lengths to commit a crime doesn't mean that there is no point in not making it easy for them.

There's a big difference between "not making it easy" and "making it impossible to find somewhere to live." 

Oh, I am not at all trying to argue that - far from it. Overall, I generally come down on the "we over-react to the sex offender thing..." side of the debate.

Either sex offenders are uniquely dangerous by comparison to other convicts, in which case they should be civilly committed or not released from prison, or they are not, in which case they should have no more restrictions than your average parolee.

I do not agree that the distinction needs to be so binary.

Putting someone in a situation where it can become illegal for them to live in a house based on the whims of the local school board is bullshit.

It is a rather difficult situation.

I think the problem is that we get mixed up in the debate. Is the debate that the sex offender registeries are too broad, and people who are no real threat end up getting excessively punished? Or is it that people who actually ARE a threat should still not be subject to this kind of exposure?

Those are very different issues.

I do not agree that if someone is enough of a threat to be a continuing danger of which society ought to be aware they should simply be institutionalized forever.

[Barrister]

By the way, Canada has a provision where sex offenders can be ordered to stay away from parks, schools, playgrounds, etc.  It's outlined in s. 161 of our Criminal Code.

However our system is discretionary.  The judge must order it at the time of sentencing.

What it should mean is that only people who are appropriate get put on such restrictions.  People who pray on children, yes.  Someone convicted of sex assault because they grab someone's boob inappropriately, no.

[Syt]

Some sex offenders do not fit the profile of the sexual predator that geographic limitations are focused towards. It is unfortunate. However, it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow sexual predators free reign.

Yes! Better 10 innocent people in jail than one guily person to run free!

[Syt]

People who pray on children, yes.

Why does the Canadian state hate the pious?

[Martinus]

People who pray on children, yes.

Why does the Canadian state hate the pious?

Using a child as a kneeling implement can be quite abusive.

[Martinus]

Some sex offenders do not fit the profile of the sexual predator that geographic limitations are focused towards. It is unfortunate. However, it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow sexual predators free reign.

Yes! Better 10 innocent people in jail than one guily person to run free!

I thought about making the same argument but thought against it because of a simple retort that we are not talking about innocent people here, but about convicted offenders and the question is whether they are punished too severely, and not whether they are guilty in the first place.

[Barrister]

Some sex offenders do not fit the profile of the sexual predator that geographic limitations are focused towards. It is unfortunate. However, it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow sexual predators free reign.

Yes! Better 10 innocent people in jail than one guily person to run free!

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[ulmont]

Let me preface this post with a "mea culpa," before I engage in a debate as to what the law should be.   

I think the problem is that we get mixed up in the debate. Is the debate that the sex offender registeries are too broad, and people who are no real threat end up getting excessively punished?

This certainly happens, and in some cases people whose actions are no longer criminal (sodomy or fornication) are nonetheless on the registries for life.

Or is it that people who actually ARE a threat should still not be subject to this kind of exposure?

Those are very different issues.

I'm unsure how you prove someone is a threat.  I will concede that if a perfect threat rating were devised, a sliding scale of restrictions based on the rating might be appropriate.

I do not agree that if someone is enough of a threat to be a continuing danger of which society ought to be aware they should simply be institutionalized forever.

Why not?  We do it to lots of murderers, plus the criminally insane?