Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester

[J’raxis 270145]

City considers sex offender restrictions like those adopted in other towns:—

Manchester could soon join the small but growing list of New Hampshire cities and towns banning sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds and other places where children gather. Several aldermen in the state's largest city have said they would vote for restrictions to keep known sex offenders from moving into certain neighborhoods. Mayor Frank Guinta also supports a ban, an aide said yesterday. A proposal is being drafted and is expected to go before the aldermanic committee on public safety and traffic next month.

Besides the obvious—calling and faxing these schmucks, and voting against them in the next elections—what can we do about this? There are an awful lot of freestaters in Manchester. If we could get some kind of organized campaign going to resist this insanity before it happens, it would probably be a lot more effective than just one or two people calling them up on their own.

Here is what happened to someone as a result of these restrictions in Georgia. And here's a very disturbing incident that happened in Manchester on Saturday.

[dalebert]

"I just try not to fight and let it go. Eventually, they are going to hopefully stop it, or I'm just going to have to move," Huot said.

It won't end if she moves. It will follow her wherever she goes. She's possibly worse off than in prison. She's been thrown to the wolves.

[Braddogg]

According to a 1994 DOJ report (the first I came across in my googling), 5.3% of male sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime.

[J’raxis 270145]

According to a 1994 DOJ report (the first I came across in my googling), 5.3% of male sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime.

From that page: "Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime."

• People put on sex offender registries include far more than "men who had committed rape or sexual assault," so the recidivism rate for those registered cannot be determined from this statistic. It could be higher or lower.
  
  
• It says "men." What about women?
  
  
• It does not state whether "another sex crime" means "rape or sexual assault" or a broader category of offenses.
  
  
• It implies that 5.3% of convicted sex offenders reoffend, but it states that 5.3% of sex offenders are merely rearrested. How many of these people were actually convicted? Since it can't be 100%, obviously the 5.3% statistic is higher than the real recidivism rate.
  
  

So, that statement is essentially meaningless in regards to the justification for sex offender registries or residence restrictions. Especially in light of my fourth point, I conclude this statement put out by the Department of Justice is intentionally misleading, nothing more than fearmongering propaganda to garner support for such registries.

Also, some of the comments attached to those Union Leader articles point out many more flaws in supposed recidivism-rate studies.

But even if the statement were entirely true and accurate, that 5.3% of people on sex offender registries reoffend, this to me still does not justify their existence. Nothing does. If someone has served their time and been released, they should be able to go about their life without further punishment, especially when such punishment takes the form of some Sclarlet Letter–like public humiliation scheme.

[d_goddard]

Time for an LTE barrage!
letters@unionleader.com
http://nhliberty.org/lte

[Braddogg]

I think it's great that the adjective form of "alderman" is "aldermanic," lol.

I think it's true that people are too irrational in this sort of thing, and that the reaction outweighs the risk.  The fact that sex crimes are undoubtedly the most devastating kinds of crimes (short of murder -- steal my computer, just don't bugger me) adds fuel to this fire.  Does the increased recidivism (I'd agree that there's an exaggeration of recidivism if you'll agree that a sex offender is more likely than a non-sex-offend to commit a sex crime) plus the devastating nature of the crime warrant SOME increased attention to convicted sex offenders?  I'd say yes.  I'd be hesitant to hire a convicted sex offender (depending, of course, on the crime -- peeing in public shouldn't be considered a sex crime, for example).  All this sort of stuff should occur on the free market, though, not through governments.

[dalebert]

Does the increased recidivism (I'd agree that there's an exaggeration of recidivism if you'll agree that a sex offender is more likely than a non-sex-offend to commit a sex crime) plus the devastating nature of the crime warrant SOME increased attention to convicted sex offenders?  I'd say yes.

Agreed, and I'd say that's what they should take into consideration in deciding sentences and deciding whether to release. I'd say we need to get off the fence and if they believe they're too dangerous to be around children, they should be pushing to keep them in prison. This registry approach provides a false sense of security (besides a sense of revenge). If you let them out, they need to be able to live their lives. I can't imagine how hard it would be to find a job after prison, not even considering trying to afford a place to live under extreme restrictions above and beyond the normal cost restrictions. There was a story recently discussed on the FTL boards about ex-offenders living under a bridge and that was where the state workers would come to meet them and make sure they were abiding by their curfew. And you'd be shocked at the sort of stupid offenses some of them were stuck with that left them on the registry. It's absolute insanity.

I have the same attitude about gun control. I don't believe in gun control for convicted felons. If you don't trust someone with a gun, don't let them out of prison. First of all, it's a false sense of security because just like anyone else, if they intend to use a gun to commit a crime, the gun control LAWS aren't going to stop them in the least. Secondly, I think it's completely unacceptable to expect anyone to render themselves helpless against a potential aggressor. Ex-cons can be victims of criminals too. If they're in jail, I expect the jailors to be completely responsible for protecting them. That doesn't happen either of course, but that's another topic altogether. If they're out on their own, they need to be able to protect themselves.

[J’raxis 270145]

I think it's great that the adjective form of "alderman" is "aldermanic," lol.

I think it's true that people are too irrational in this sort of thing, and that the reaction outweighs the risk.  The fact that sex crimes are undoubtedly the most devastating kinds of crimes (short of murder -- steal my computer, just don't bugger me) adds fuel to this fire.  Does the increased recidivism (I'd agree that there's an exaggeration of recidivism if you'll agree that a sex offender is more likely than a non-sex-offend to commit a sex crime) plus the devastating nature of the crime warrant SOME increased attention to convicted sex offenders?  I'd say yes.  I'd be hesitant to hire a convicted sex offender (depending, of course, on the crime -- peeing in public shouldn't be considered a sex crime, for example).  All this sort of stuff should occur on the free market, though, not through governments.

It's probably true that sex offenders are more likely to commit another sex crime than someone originally convicted of a different crime, although I have no reliable numbers on this. A certain subset of "sex crimes"—actual rape and sexual assault, especially directed against children—are probably the most traumatic crimes, too.

But I wouldn't have a problem with hiring, or otherwise associating with, a convicted sex offender, unless the job in question exposed the offender in some manner to new potential victims. That is, hiring a child molester to work in a factory or drive a truck or somesuch would be fine; hiring a child molester to work around children or perhaps even another customer-facing job that might involve children (e.g., store clerk) would probably not be safe.

[J’raxis 270145]

Does the increased recidivism (I'd agree that there's an exaggeration of recidivism if you'll agree that a sex offender is more likely than a non-sex-offend to commit a sex crime) plus the devastating nature of the crime warrant SOME increased attention to convicted sex offenders?  I'd say yes.

Agreed, and I'd say that's what they should take into consideration in deciding sentences and deciding whether to release. I'd say we need to get off the fence and if they believe they're too dangerous to be around children, they should be pushing to keep them in prison.

This is what's known as "civil commitment" and leads to its own abuses, people being locked up for life when their sentence was only a few years. The criteria used is often not based on the particular individual, but statistical recidivism rates for the offense in question.

[LaurieP]

OK.. I'm new to these forums... but I live in Manchester, and I will stand with others to fight this insanity and utter waste of our tax dollars and police efforts. 

Someone asked: Besides the obvious—calling and faxing these schmucks, and voting against them in the next elections—what can we do about this? There are an awful lot of freestaters in Manchester. If we could get some kind of organized campaign going to resist this insanity before it happens, it would probably be a lot more effective than just one or two people calling them up on their own.

We can show up, all of us that live in Manchester at least, to the town meeting scheduled for the 1st Tuesday in Sept on this issue.  Alderman Ed Osborne is the chair of that committee and the  man is on the fence about these issues.  HE feels something needs to be done, while recognizing this is a very sensitive issue (ie political hot potato, especially with elections coming this November, though he didnt add that to our conversation this afternoon as a factor). 

Those of us who want to get organized have a place to do so... it's at my house.  We can set up a time and date... so email or call me if you are interested. 

There has to be a strong community voice against these restrictions... and there have to be a significant and substantial number of us.  Significant means media worthy, substantial to me would mean 50 plus people, but I'll settle for less. 

We educate ourselves as to the facts that influence these policy decisions.  Recidivism is LOW as reported by the USDOJ.  Sex offenders as a group have the 2nd lowest reoffense rate out of all crimes.  The only thing less is repeat murder. 

Experts in treatment (NH's own David Finkelhor, who is nationally reknowned for this stuff), namely psychologists and registering officers, know who the real threats are likely to be once released to society and turned over for the 'civil regulations' of registration.  There are people that have definite red flags for those who are high risk.  There are diagnostic tools (Static 99, Minnesota sex offender screening tool to name a few, that have excellent success at predicting reoffense... so why arent we using these to guage dangerousness and targeting our resources toward the high risk offenders?)

The label sex offender encompasses a broad range of people (as most of us here know well).  It is the minority of sex offenders that are your repeat, predatory ongoing persistent threats to society.  If you know where they live already, you are already able to protect yourself against the ones in your neighborhood that are KNOWN.  This does not account for all the unknown sex offenders living amongst us. 

We WANT sex offenders in society to be SUCCESSFUL.  If they are successful, then society is safer.  It is imperative (much to the disgust of some of us) to see that these people are reintegrated.  If they were released, we MUST deal with them, not ostracize them and make them someone else's problem.  That only causes the ripple effect of "not in my backyard' which is no solution at all.

Which brings us to the few neighborhoods that may be left for an RSO to live in (assuming the town ordinance is very broad and there is little assurance that it wont be, given the overbroad reaches of other sex offender policy) how will the people in the remaining 'sex offender zones' feel about their once nice neighborhoods becoming a literal 'sex offender mecca'?  How is this isolation and ostracization fair to those neighborhoods that must know deal with the influx offenders that will likely move there to meet requirements?  If we dont give a damn what happens to the RSOS (and there is good reason for many not to) then we should at least give a damn about the innocent people livng in these newly created 'sex offender safe zones'.  And woe to their property values as well...

We need to lauch a public awareness campaign.  Let's get together a flier of some sort stating the facts (recidivism rate, who these crimes are perpetrated against, ie 90% of all crimes are committed within the family or by a close acquaintence, so how do residency restrictions prevent abuse, not to mention that if we dont chop of their legs, they can jsut walk 1000 feet) and distribute it at the town meeting enmass. 

Anyone with me?  I'll even foot the printing costs... if anyone can compile the data/facts. 

There are some great resources at missingkids.com that we might use, as well as at CSOM and the USDOJ.  And SOhopeful.org keeps a lot of facts at the ready too. 

laurie.peterson@getronics.com  or 603-641-0423

[KBCraig]

There are some sex offenders who should be banished to the hinterlands. Or put on a south-bound ice floe, Eskimo-style.

Here's a good example:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=BA80262D10AFA60A78EAFEF7A1587782?contentId=3966415&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

Rep. Allen says he feared black men in park
Last Edited: Friday, 03 Aug 2007, 11:25 PM EDT
Created: Friday, 03 Aug 2007, 3:31 PM EDT
Florida State Rep. Bob Allen
We've got you covered

Related Items
Videos

TAMPA - Police released taped statements from a state leader accused of trying to buy sex in a men's room. State Representative Bob Allen says he was feeling nervous and offered sex to get away from a man he didn't trust.

Allen chairs the House Energy Committee and co-chairs Senator John McCain's presidential campaign in Florida. He is the Police Union's 2007 Lawmaker of the Year, and he recently sponsored a bill to crack down on soliciting sex in public parks.

But he told police he did offer sex to an undercover officer in a public park men's room. 

"He goes, you want $20 if i give you (oral sex). I'm like I don't want (oral sex), but I'll tell ya... I can give you one. What if I give you one?" said Allen.

Allen also warned the man of undercover cops.

"I said they're around here, you ought to know about that."

Allen didn't know he was talking to a policeman until he pulled out a badge. He explained his behavior shortly after his arrest.

"This (undercover officer) is a pretty stocky black guy, and there's other black guys around in the park that—you know!"

Allen said he was also frightened of the weather. So he fled to the men's room.

"I said the building is safer than staying out here, so I went back in and I sat down."

He said he offered the man in the men's room what he thought he wanted, just so he could get out safely.

"I went ahhh -- I'm about to be a statistic. You catch all kinds of people, so a legislator is like whoa! You know, especially one that's the (police union) guy of the year...this is too ironic!"

Allen sponsored six different sex crime bills just this year -- three focus on indecent exposure and soliciting sex. He was arrested last month in Titusville. He said he will keep fighting in court.

[dalebert]

Laurie, excellent post. I'm with you and I'll be there the 1st.

KB, that's karma in action.

[Rosie the Riveter]

Welcome to nhfree.com, Laurie -- sounds like you'll "fit in" perfectly 

[LaurieP]

KBCraig, love the story/link... you know.. it has been said before that "he who accuses one of cheating is usually guilty of it himself"  and apparently it applies to sex offenders as well!  I guess all that can be said is that it takes one to know one...  That Rep has some problems.  And a thing for big black dudes in parks    lol

[Braddogg]

But I wouldn't have a problem with hiring, or otherwise associating with, a convicted sex offender, unless the job in question exposed the offender in some manner to new potential victims. That is, hiring a child molester to work in a factory or drive a truck or somesuch would be fine; hiring a child molester to work around children or perhaps even another customer-facing job that might involve children (e.g., store clerk) would probably not be safe.

Part of my concern is risk to women and children who may become potential victims.  But part of my desire to not hire sex offenders is just on principle.  It's what an-caps and free marketeers mean when they talk about "shunning" as a non-state-based solution to crime.  I DON'T want a child molester or violent rapist to thrive, or even to survive.  I want that person to live the most tormented, shortest existence possible.  And yet, I refuse to be violent.  Instead, I'm going to use my freedom of association and not associate with that person.