"The Most Dangerous Sex Offenders"

Megan's Law Revisited

from JoeUser Forums
Link

So there's a bit of a panic in New York, because in a couple of months, many of the names on the state's sex offender list will vanish. This is because Megan's Law, which mandated that sex offenders register with police, only says that the "most dangerous" sex offenders sign on for life. All others only have to be on the list for ten years.

So. Let's just think.

Where exactly would you figure they draw the difference between "most dangerous" and "just dangerous." If you rape one woman, you're dangerous. If you rape ten, you're most dangerous. But what if someone rapes 20 after that? The one that raped 20 is obviously most dangerous. Does the one that raped 10 get demoted to kinda dangerous? What the hell were they thinking?

They're all dangerous!!! They've all attacked people!!! They all have the potential to attack again!!! There is no definite gradated rating system that we can use to specify danger. If you dismiss a sex offender as "dangerous" as opposed to "most dangerous," all you're doing is opening the door for that individual to add the "most" to his/her resume.

There's no debate about who's a more dangerous killer. They're all killers. There's no room for argument about which drunk driver poses more of a risk. They're drunk drivers. They pose risks. Why, then, have we differentiated sex offenders to the point that certain ones can fall off the face of the Earth in 10 years?

If we're gonna let them out prison, we have to know where they are.
2,222 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmm, I wonder if a person who molests 1 victim every 5 years (and is say 40) is as dangerous as a person who molested 20 victims, but hasn't done it in 10 years?

Or, if a person molested, 50 people, 40 years ago, does that make them completely harmless now?

I say, the penatly for a sex offense should be like "5 to life". That way, even if they are released eventually, they'll at least be on "parole" for the rest of their life, and can't whine about having "paid their debt".
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

You raise a good point....when, exactly does one become a 'dangerous' sex offender?  Where's the line drawn that a person has to cross over to be 'dangerous'?

Like you say, if they've done enough to warrant being on the registry, then we, the public, need to know about them. 

Besides, who's going to explain to some little kid that the man that molested/raped them wasn't on the registry because he wasn't considered dangerous...until now?

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only problem is the ignorant laws we have. An 18 year old senior who failed a year has sex with a 16 year old sophomore in some states and they are technically a sex offender. States with 'sodomy laws' could technically deem homosexuals sex offenders.

Of course no sex crime should be ranked less than others, but there are some eccentricities in the law that can brand someone a monster who was simply a victim of circumstance. The best thing to do is to look hard at the laws and differentiate between violent predators and laws that are simply there to impose a subjective moral standard.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Got to go with Baker on this one.  just lumping the Latourneaus with the Onstotts is not only unfair to the people, but unfair to society.

lets define first, and then castrate the bastards!

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Except Latourneau was a molestor. But if you are seperating "molestor" and "violent", you have a point. However most molestors aren't necessarily violent. There are many ways to get a kid or teen to not say "no", or even fight their molestor.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Except Latourneau was a molestor. But if you are seperating "molestor" and "violent", you have a point. However most molestors aren't necessarily violent. There are many ways to get a kid or teen to not say "no", or even fight their molestor.


Violence is in the eye of the beholder. Lets not split bugs bunny for now. Lets get the worst and then deal with the rest.

It is debatible on the former, and not on the latter. Before we crucify all, lets be sure we are not hanging an innocent dad that got railroaded by a vindictive ex.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
An 18 year old senior who failed a year has sex with a 16 year old sophomore in some states and they are technically a sex offender. States with 'sodomy laws' could technically deem homosexuals sex offenders.


The law has to be addressed and changed specifically as it applies to cases such as these. Certainly the aforementioned situations should not be counted among sexual offenders (at least not in my opinion), but the risks of allowing true offenders off the lists in ten years are not ones that we can take. It's a valid argument and a respectable position, but its analogous to the abolition the death penalty because of the innocent people that have been killed. There are certainly reforms necessary, but I don't think it would be prudent to shut down the machine in order to implement those reforms.

Lets get the worst and then deal with the rest.


Once again, though, how do you define the worst? Do you just deal with the ones who rape and kill first? The ones who rape and rape and kill? The ones who kidnap, rape, and rape and kill? Where do you draw the line between "worst" and just "bad"?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I gotta ride with baker and dr guy on this one too.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
the problem with the sex offender list is that sometimes people get registered onto it before they have even been convicted of the crime. I've noticed that when a suspected sex offender bonds out of jail, he is registered on the list before he even goes to trial. Now, that means that even if he is found innocent he has already been on that list and somebody is going to see it and in a way they will be ostrisized (forgive the spelling) just because they were accused. They don't even stay on the list for long unless someone screws up and they don't get taken off of the list. The convicted rapist and pedophiles should be require to stay on the list but the poor 18-19 year old who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend should not be listed for the rest of his life. So yeah, there is a point where some are not "dangerous" and some are. Take time to look at the individual cases before jumping to conclusions about all of them.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again, though, how do you define the worst? Do you just deal with the ones who rape and kill first? The ones who rape and rape and kill? The ones who kidnap, rape, and rape and kill? Where do you draw the line between "worst" and just "bad"?


That indeed is part of the problem. But yet, like Nebraska says, mistakes happen, and to be branded a sex offender for life when you have never done anything, much less convicted will destroy a person.

The initial problem lies in labeling all people the same, when one may be on the list for having consentual sex with an underage minor. That may be a crime, but I doubt that person is a threat to society.

So before you lock em up and throw away the key, lets make sure we are getting the right ones locked up, and not just some horny old men (and women) that are neither violent, or a threat to anyone.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The convicted rapist and pedophiles should be require to stay on the list but the poor 18-19 year old who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend should not be listed for the rest of his life. So yeah, there is a point where some are not "dangerous" and some are. Take time to look at the individual cases before jumping to conclusions about all of them.


I already recognized these cases and made my point about them, two responses before yours. Take the time to read my comments before deciding what conclusions I've jumped to.

But yet, like Nebraska says, mistakes happen, and to be branded a sex offender for life when you have never done anything, much less convicted will destroy a person.


So will killing an innocent person, but if I remember correctly, you are not against the death penalty. As I said before, reforms have to be established, and things have to be looked at on a case by case basis, but I don't think it's a good idea to suspend a safeguard entirely while we try to reform it.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I said before, reforms have to be established, and things have to be looked at on a case by case basis, but I don't think it's a good idea to suspend a safeguard entirely while we try to reform it.


Yes, "case by case" would be a good start. We pay our judges, law-makers and law enforcement to think, not just respond.

Unfortunately we may never be able to go back to "case by case" because some lawyer will childishly use it to play the system.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I for one would like all sex offenders and pedophiles locked away, and/or accounted for wherever they are in our society.

But you are right about making sure that the right person gets the book thrown at them. The ones who actually commit the crimes.

If the lawmakers and people in charge, the lawkeepers, don't take the time or make the time to differentiate and actually look at an individual's case to see if he is a rapist or pedophile and not an eighteen year old being charged with having consential sex with a sixteen year old, then there will always be a problem. Especially with cases where innocent people get "lost" in the system because the lawkeepers didn't do a thorough job of checking.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like I said somewhere else, they gotta let them out of prison to make room for the drug offenders. At least that's the case here in Texas. Draw your own conclusions...