Anyways, I could see the system being partially a reaction to certain cases, but the thing is is that the old system didn't work and this one is better.


Do you have any evidence to support the idea that it might be working? The statistics don't seem to reflect that it might be.

Think about male baby sitters. Kids are left alone for the night with them, the parents pretty much put complete trust in the guy, he might even bath the kids, and he sees them off to bed. For a guy that has everything under control, those kids aren't in any danger. But for a sex offender, that is opening way to many options to reoffend.

That's why background checks exist. Background checks existed before Megan's law and have nothing to do with these scarlet letter laws. A background check will not only tell you if the babysitter has been convicted of sex offences before, it will tell you of everything they have ever been convicted of. This is far more useful than a check of the sex offender registry. Wouldn't you want to know if the guy babysitting your kids has been convicted of assault and battery, armed robbery, or murder, just as much as if they have been convicted of sex offences? I would. In fact, in most situations this would be far more helpful. I don't care as much about the fact the guy had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 19; I care more about the fact he has a history of domestic violence. The latter will not show up if you check the sex offender registry, it will show up if you conduct a background check.

f we followed the your safeguard route (treating all people as if they were sexoffenders, or having no difference in the treatment of sexoffenders and non-sexoffenders) then there would be no such thing as the male babysitter (and likely largly decrease the amount of female babysitters too). This extends to all activities where males are largely responsible for kids. Thus the current paranoia that we always rag about here would only be increased! Of course that would be the absolute safest route for the kids, but not the best one. Think of all the activities and what not that would have to be taken away for this to work?

That's not true. I haven't described an ideal system, so there is no way you can come to those conclusions based on the little I said. An ideal system includes things like levels of trust. Most people would be judged by the content of their character rather than their past. Sometimes, achieving a certain level of trust would require something like a background check, but more often than not, it wouldn't. There are convicted sex offenders I would trust far more than some people who have never been convicted of anything their whole lives.

I haven't described an ideal system and don't intend to because it is beyond the scope of this discussion. The only thing I have pointed out is that the false sense of security that a blacklist creates is more harmful than the negligible benefits it provides.




I actually decided to go into the sociological problems that community notification raises. So, here we go:

The convicted sex offenders who are at highest risk of reoffending are those who have been unable to integrate themselves into society since their release. This, of course, is not only true of sex offenders but of all criminals. Sex offenders are no different.

Those who have found employment, have made friends, are involved in social activities, attend a church, and have otherwise been able to integrate themselves into society are at the lowest of risk of reoffending. These people have been able to put their past behind them and now have a lot to live for. They are unwilling to risk it all by reoffending. The goal of the prison release system should be to create more of these types of people. These people are not only at the lowest risk of reoffending, but they are also being productive and contributing to society in a positive way.

Those who are unable to integrate themselves into society, unable to make friends, unable to find employment, and otherwise live miserable and meaningless lives are the most likely to sink into depression and reoffend. These people have less to lose. They hate their life anyway and see no hope for the future. Society has ostracized them, they feel like outsiders, and they are doing nothing productive. What motivation do they have not to do something that could ruin their lives? They don't have a life to ruin to begin with. These people are the most likely to reoffend. These are the types of people the current scarlet letter laws create.

The scarlet letter laws are creating more monsters. These laws not only promote unsafe policymaking on the part of parents, but they also ensure that the vast majority of sex offenders who are released will be unable to integrate themselves into society in a positive way and will be unable to put their past behind them and go on to lead meaningful, productive lives.

If you want to increase the chances that a criminal of any type will reoffend as much as possible, the recipe is simple. Make sure they can't get a job, can't make friends, feel hated by society, and are unable to put their past behind them. Keep telling them they are beyond redemption and are a bomb waiting to go off. Make them put up a sign telling everyone about their past and spread their picture and details around the neighborhood so that their past can haunt them for ever. Then, keep repeating how they are monsters and are to be avoided at all costs. You want to create a reoffender? There's the recipe. Sadly, this is exactly what is being done and exactly what you are supporting.