Amazon.com Widgets

Are released sex offenders subject to too many restrictions?

  • Wake up people!

    DUI registry? No
    Domestic Violence registry? No
    Murder registry? No
    Bad Parenting registry? No
    Crooked Politician registry? No
    Crooked Police registry? No
    By all means ANY crime deserves justice however why is there a need to punish people twice for the same crime?Ok America lets even the planfield, put my ancestors slave masters family on the registry so I can find them. This is PURE slavery to me!

  • These laws are becoming draconic

    Zach anderson was a completely innocent 17 year old kid who had his entire life completely ruined without cause. The purpose of the sex offender registry is to protect children from harm, but the sentences are so unjust, unfair, and uninhibitedly ordered that many of the list’s registrants were forced to sign on for harmless offenses and are actually no threat to anyone at all. Furthermore, those registered men and women who actually are dangerous and at risk of harming others are forced to endure such harsh rules and damaging repercussions that it becomes impossible for them to seek help for their condition or hold a steady job. This leaves them in a state of helplessness that makes them more liable to commit offenses. Thus, the sex offender registry exacerbates the very crimes it is purported to prevent. Serious reforms must be made to make the sex offender registry even remotely just and defensible, and anyone who disagrees with me will change their mind upon reading the story of Zach Anderson.

  • Not all cases are the same

    The term 'sex offender' only creates images of high profile cases of serial child molesters who kidnap and kill their victims. This is not what most sex offenders are. In reality, they are the least likely group to reoffend and many are not even dangerous.

    But even so, many restrictions seem to serve no practical purpose. While residency restrictions make sense in theory, do all sex offenders really need to be nearly a mile away from schools and parks? Do they really need to be on a public registry?

    A huge problem with this is that many can't find stable homes or jobs because of this, leading them to homelessness. So, assuming the registry does work (which there is little evidence to suggest that it does), aren't some of the excessive restrictions counter productive if the people end up being homeless? You can't track them if they have no way of being tracked.

    If you ask me, the sex offender registry, if it must exist, should only be accessibly to law enforcement. If genuinely necessary reason is present, the police may share with need to know groups, like schools, but not accessibly to the general public. It prohibits reintegration, which makes them more likely to reoffend.

  • Should be upper limit, end to punishment

    Punishment should not be unending. "sec crime" covers many things, and varies by state. But just like any other crime, there should be an end to punishment. Is the object to reform and prevent future crime, or is the object to vilify and ruin lives forever? Sexting can put a young person on sex offender registry for 10 years to life. That's just one example. It's easy to be accused of a sex crime, but not always easy to prove innocence. There are some innocent people paying for the rest of their lives - because you are presumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

  • How can you readapt, or relearn if you are further alienated?

    Sex offenders are regarded as the lowest of the criminal element because they are seen to attack something pure and defenseless. For a child sex offender that is somewhat true. Children are innocent and pure. I do believe the punishment should be devastating for these crimes. But don't release someone back into the world we live in and expect him/her to accomplish anything if you are going to further alienate them for their past mistakes. Sex offenders have the second lowest re offending rate of all crimes commuted. Most child sex offenders commuted their crime and once caught never re offended. Yes you can throw the world of examples of those who have reoffended as soon as they were released. There will always be those that are unreachable. That no law nor punishment could stop them from doing it again. But the MAJORITY, by the count done in 2012, 95%, never reoffend. And the registration and residency laws had nothing to do with it. To be honest, when asked during therapy why the few who reoffended did what they did after fully knowing the consequences from first hand experience, there answers were almost always the same: Because I could not find any other outlet for my needs. I feel alienated from society, I can't find work, friends, a home, because everyone knows what I've done. And those who don't simply look me up and then tell everyone else. So I felt i had no other choice..

    It's not an excuse people. I do not condone what this person for what he has done. But if I had the chance to help someone who has made a mistake from making another, simply by leaving them to their own business, then I'm going to do it.

  • Offender laws are "cookie cutter."

    The government currently punishes all sex offenses the same after prison release. I know a guy who obtained child pornography while searching for adult pornography on the file sharing program Limewire. It was proved in court this is how he got it. It was proved that he did not watch it for more than a few seconds to see what it was and then tried to delete it using the governments forensic report. The federal judge said he is "not a criminal" and "the court finds Mr. *** a danger to nobody." The prosecutor made the comment that "Mr. *** is not a pedophile" for God's sake. Unfortunately the guy had to still plead guilty to possession. Now the guy is out and is being treated exactly the same as someone who has molested a child. It is not fair and should be considered a violation his constitutional rights. Sex offender registries should be specific and have levels for the severity of the crime.

  • Yes, sex offenders need to be punished but not for their entire lives.

    Released sex offenders are subjected to too many restrictions because they are continuously humiliated and punished after they pay their debt to society. If a man or woman sexually molests or rapes a child then, yes, I believe they should face the harshest and worst punishment. Some sex offenders, however, act alone in the privacy of their own homes and still get punished. I believe there needs to be a separation of the type of sex offender and the restrictions that can follow.

  • No, Sex offenders are not subject to too many restrictions.

    Sex offenders are not subject to too many restrictions.

    I believe that all of the necessary procedures and restrictions are put in place when it comes to the aspect of sex offenders. I think that if the proper amount of time and effort are given to each individual case, then the task of creating the right agenda towards each individual becomes easier to predict.

  • Most Sex Offenders Should Be Punished More

    The punishment for sex offenders in this country is far too lenient. There is also a dramatic disparity in the punishment issued to men versus women. The severity of the punishment for sex crimes needs to be increased. Women need to receive the same punishments that men do for their acts.
    There are of course exceptions. Some of the laws dealing with “statutory rape” can be used in a less than correct manner when dealing with consensual young couples of like age, that are nearing the age of consent.

  • NO, sex offenders are not subject to too many restrictions

    I believe released sex offenders are NOT subject to too many restrictions. Laws and restrictions concerning this subject are put in place in an effort to protect the community. Innocent people should be protected at all costs, including the privacy of a convicted sex offender. Numerous violent crimes are committed each year by this population due to non-rehabilitated sex offenders. Sex offenders chose to commit the crime and were convicted and I believe they should be held to much higher restrictions to protect the community.

  • NO, sex offenders are not subject to too many restrictions

    I believe released sex offenders are NOT subject to too many restrictions. Laws and restrictions concerning this subject are put in place in an effort to protect the community. Innocent people should be protected at all costs, including the privacy of a convicted sex offender. Numerous violent crimes are committed each year by this population due to non-rehabilitated sex offenders. Sex offenders chose to commit the crime and were convicted and I believe they should be held to much higher restrictions to protect the community.

  • No, Sex offenders are not subject to too many restrictions

    Sex offenders are more expensive to house, feed and or bury in the correctional systems, therefore they are released earlier than other types of criminals. Restrictions placed on their presence in a free society is mandated due to their tendencies to reoffend. Any restrictions that are imposed by a healthy society should be considered a Christmas Present considering the alternative of incarceration.

  • No, sex offenders are never going to have natural urges.

    There are many pedophiles and sick people among us that we are unaware of because they have not gotten caught. Many pedophiles have admitted to not being able to control those urges, some don't feel guilty. Whether or not they re-offend, the urge is present and will attack if allowed.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.