toldailytopic: Registered Sex Offenders: should there even be such a registry?

[Dena]

Couldn't disagree more strongly. Too many cases of innocent men having convictions overturned as DNA testing improves. I say life without the possibility of parole is the just alternative to making an irreversible mistake.

I have to agree.

 

[Granite]

That doesn't leave much room for those who were actually innocent to fight against their conviction.

"Kill em all and let God sort it out" is generally the response you get...

 

[MaryContrary]

I have to agree.

If our current justice system is so bad that we can't even trust we're convicting the guilty and absolving the innocent then that rather presents a much larger problem to address, doesn't it?

In my opinion this is a more important consideration than the death penalty. But no one ever talks about that, so I'm forced to just make that point in passing as I go ahead with supporting the DP.

 

[Town Heretic]

If our current justice system is so bad that we can't even trust we're convicting the guilty and absolving the innocent then that rather presents a much larger problem to address, doesn't it?

I can see how it seems that way to many, Mary. It's a numbers game. Video tape of crimes is rarely available and DNA evidence is harder to come by as the criminal class most affected by it has been educated. So that means the means to determine guilt or innocence is mostly circumstantial most of the time. And that means it's a near slam dunk we'll get it wrong here and there. Mostly we get it right, but the only system that guarantees we don't goof would also let a lion's share of the guilty back onto the streets. So that's the trade and a good reason for handing down life in prison sentences without the possibility of parole instead of the DP.

Because it comes down to this: we don't have to kill a single innocent man, but if we indulge our thirst for vengeance we're going to end up doing a bit more than that. And if we knowingly go ahead with the practice knowing that, what is it that we're so outraged about in the first place?

 

[MaryContrary]

I can see how it seems that way to many, Mary. It's a numbers game. Video tape of crimes is rarely available and DNA evidence is harder to come by as the criminal class most affected by it has been educated. So that means the means to determine guilt or innocence is mostly circumstantial most of the time. And that means it's a near slam dunk we'll get it wrong here and there. Mostly we get it right, but the only system that guarantees we don't goof would also let a lion's share of the guilty back onto the streets. So that's the trade and a good reason for handing down life in prison sentences without the possibility of parole instead of the DP.

Because it comes down to this: we don't have to kill a single innocent man, but if we indulge our thirst for vengeance we're going to end up doing a bit more than that. And if we knowingly go ahead with the practice knowing that, what is it that we're so outraged about in the first place?

Well, three points. One, I'm persuaded that it's just as bad to let the guilty go free as to punish the innocent, rather than holding one above the other. Two, I don't subscribe to the idea that vengeance is what should motivate our justice system near so much as deterring crime. And I think these two go hand in hand with the third point, that society bears some responsible for the crimes it fails to deter.

So, we should avoid punishing the innocent up to the point where we let the guilty go unpunished, and any guilty that go unpunished we bear part of the responsibility for their crimes. Even those few innocent who are unknowingly punished in the process at least deter the crime, which I fully acknowledge seems harsh...but no less from where I stand than letting go the guilty to avoid that, as we then bear part of their guilt.

Put more simply, I think you would say it is better to let one guilty man go than punish one innocent one. I say we are guilty either way and it is better to deter the crime. And having done that, then strive with all our might to avoid punishing the innocent.

 

[Egbert]

I don't see any problem with the idea of having a registry, but the way the registry is currently handled is not right. Lighthouse posted an excellent example of how the list can misrepresent people and damage their lives. Another recent example comes to mind: the man who unknowingly downloaded child pornography and deleted it immediately upon discovering it, only to be charged for possession and labeled a sex offender when the authorities managed to extract the file from his hard drive. (And that was after they knew that the download was an accident, and that he could not have been viewing the files after deleting them.) People like that should not be lumped in with rapists.

A similar problem came up with my family in relation to a child abuser registry. Someone made false accusations (rather ridiculous ones at that), and the fact that we were investigated meant that my parents were placed on the list with convicted child abusers, and were prohibited from ever working with children. None of the allegations were substantiated (very much to the contrary, as it turned out) yet it took a lengthy appeal get their names cleared.

Presumption of guilt is encouraged by the current system.

 

[MaryContrary]

I don't see any problem with the idea of having a registry, but the way the registry is currently handled is not right. Lighthouse posted an excellent example of how the list can misrepresent people and damage their lives. Another recent example comes to mind: the man who unknowingly downloaded child pornography and deleted it immediately upon discovering it, only to be charged for possession and labeled a sex offender when the authorities managed to extract the file from his hard drive. (And that was after they knew that the download was an accident, and that he could not have been viewing the files after deleting them.) People like that should not be lumped in with rapists.

A similar problem came up with my family in relation to a child abuser registry. Someone made false accusations (rather ridiculous ones at that), and the fact that we were investigated meant that my parents were placed on the list with convicted child abusers, and were prohibited from ever working with children. None of the allegations were substantiated (very much to the contrary, as it turned out) yet it took a lengthy appeal get their names cleared.

Presumption of guilt is encouraged by the current system.

I don't think I've commented on this point yet. So...yes, absolutely agreed. That's not only unacceptable it's counter-productive! This harms the effort to protect society from sexual violence. :doh:

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, three points. One, I'm persuaded that it's just as bad to let the guilty go free as to punish the innocent, rather than holding one above the other.

Which wasn't what I did at all. I simply pointed out an inevitable and preventable injustice needn't occur. That some injustice which can't be prevented might is a separate matter.

Two, I don't subscribe to the idea that vengeance is what should motivate our justice system near so much as deterring crime.

I agree.

And I think these two go hand in hand with the third point, that society bears some responsible for the crimes it fails to deter.

I'm inclined to agree in part. If we set a table that encourages degenerates then we bear some moral responsibility for the conduct.

So, we should avoid punishing the innocent up to the point where we let the guilty go unpunished,

Which we can't know.

and any guilty that go unpunished we bear part of the responsibility for their crimes.

Not if we've done our best to establish guilt or innocence. And I'd say we should avoid punishing the innocent to the extent we can, else we work an evil in the name of some abstract greater good. That's a means/ends justification that I find morally repugnant.

Even those few innocent who are unknowingly punished in the process at least deter the crime,

Except that they won't be unknowingly punished. We won't know who, but we have ongoing evidence on a yearly basis that it happens. And no man on a firing squad knew if he was the one who actually killed the condemned man. They all knew the man was dead though and how. As to deterrence, that hasn't been factually established. And most homicides are crimes of passion, not premeditated.

which I fully acknowledge seems harsh...but no less from where I stand than letting go the guilty to avoid that, as we then bear part of their guilt.

Except that no one is arguing the guilty go free. We're talking about the difference between an execution and a lifetime in jail. And hanging in the balance is innocent life. No one is going free.

Put more simply, I think you would say it is better to let one guilty man go than punish one innocent one.

Then you'd be wrong. That isn't what we're talking about here. I'm saying it's better not to kill a potentially innocent man that we don't have to kill. I'm saying that if we continue to put people to death when we don't have to and understanding that the historical record amply demonstrates we'll be killing (however infrequently) innocent people, then we should all stand in line for that lottery, since we'll be doing with malice and forethought precisely what we condemn those we execute for doing. That we aren't happy about it would hardly mitigate our guilt.

I say we are guilty either way and it is better to deter the crime.

At worst I'd be guilty of what, exactly? I know what you'd be guilty of...

And having done that, then strive with all our might to avoid punishing the innocent.

Why? If you don't mind killing a few innocent people for a principle of deterrence (a notion as contradicted by study as supported) why should you care if we convict a few at all, provided we might be deterring crime by the act? That is to say, if you don't balk at premeditated and sanctioned murder, why balk at all?

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Couldn't disagree more strongly. Too many cases of innocent men having convictions overturned as DNA testing improves. I say life without the possibility of parole is the just alternative to making an irreversible mistake.

:e4e:

People are more likely to learn proper administration of justice when their mistakes cost lives. When their mistakes only put people on or off a list they just blithely go on as if nothing is wrong...

... meantime all the wrong people wind up dead.

 

[Egbert]

That's not only unacceptable it's counter-productive! This harms the effort to protect society from sexual violence. :doh:

True: on the one hand, it hurts the people wrongfully placed on the list, but on the other, it serves to trivialize the list itself.

 

[Stripe]

Well, three points. One, I'm persuaded that it's just as bad to let the guilty go free as to punish the innocent, rather than holding one above the other. Two, I don't subscribe to the idea that vengeance is what should motivate our justice system near so much as deterring crime. And I think these two go hand in hand with the third point, that society bears some responsible for the crimes it fails to deter.

So, we should avoid punishing the innocent up to the point where we let the guilty go unpunished, and any guilty that go unpunished we bear part of the responsibility for their crimes. Even those few innocent who are unknowingly punished in the process at least deter the crime, which I fully acknowledge seems harsh...but no less from where I stand than letting go the guilty to avoid that, as we then bear part of their guilt.

Put more simply, I think you would say it is better to let one guilty man go than punish one innocent one. I say we are guilty either way and it is better to deter the crime. And having done that, then strive with all our might to avoid punishing the innocent.

Well said, Ma'am! :BRAVO:

The problem of putting to death an innocent man boils down to one very simple question. Is it possible that good might come from the shedding of innocent blood?

Is it possible?

 

[Town Heretic]

People are more likely to learn proper administration of justice when their mistakes cost lives. When their mistakes only put people on or off a list they just blithely go on as if nothing is wrong...

... meantime all the wrong people wind up dead.

It's a neat rationalization, but it isn't how things work in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors do their best and defense attorney's do their best and juries are charged and do their duty. Still, infrequently, the guilty go free and the innocent are convicted. Mistakes are and have, historically cost lives.

And yet we kept getting it wrong. So much for your premise. :e4e:

...The problem of putting to death an innocent man boils down to one very simple question. Is it possible that good might come from the shedding of innocent blood?

Is it possible?

It did a few thousand years ago, but that base is covered. To suggest injustice should be tolerable if some unnamed good might come of it is to misapprehend both ideas.

 

[Stripe]

It's a neat rationalization, but it isn't how things work in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors do their best and defense attorney's do their best and juries are charged and do their duty. Still, infrequently, the guilty go free and the innocent are convicted. Mistakes are and have, historically cost lives.

And yet we kept getting it wrong. So much for your premise. :e4e:

Analysing the system in place that continuously fails is no evidence against the benefits of a completely different system that is not in place.

And my premise has nothing wrong with it. People generally take more care when lives are obviously at stake.

It did a few thousand years ago, but that base is covered.

So never again might something good come from the shedding of innocent blood?

To suggest injustice should be tolerable if some unnamed good might come of it is to misapprehend both ideas.

Injustice should never be tolerated. And the good has not gone unnamed.

Mary has clearly stated one possible good, "Even those few innocent who are unknowingly punished in the process at least deter the crime, which I fully acknowledge seems harsh...but no less from where I stand than letting go the guilty to avoid that, as we then bear part of their guilt."

 

[King cobra]

As to the OP:

I would feel much more comfortable with a system which would ensure proper response to such crimes than a system content with “registering” offenders.
I would know that the flasher next door is reminded every day by the scars on his back. I would know that he is aware of the next step for a similar infraction. I would know that he is aware that if a certain line were crossed, his execution would serve as a deterrent for others. I would then try to share with him the Gospel and constantly encourage him to live his life for the Lord.

Further, since we are fond of “registering”, why not require registration for drunk drivers? How about mothers who kill their unborn children? How about cops who commit perjury? The list goes on regarding neighbors I would want to protect my children from given the society in which we currently live.


*As for the ongoing debate over the death penalty, it would seem to me equally egregious for an innocent to languish in prison for life. And we know this happens on occasion.

 

[MaryContrary]

Ho, boy. Well, if there's anyone with whom arguing is an intimidating prospect for me it's been you, TH.

But what the heck. I'm in the mood to challenge my thinking today.

Which wasn't what I did at all. I simply pointed out an inevitable and preventable injustice needn't occur. That some injustice which can't be prevented might is a separate matter.

But it can be prevented. By not allowing for the guilty to go free.

I agree.

I'm inclined to agree in part. If we set a table that encourages degenerates then we bear some moral responsibility for the conduct.

Okie dokie.

Which we can't know.

Well, I'm just arguing against the concept that it's better to let the guilty go free than punish the innocent. So if we strive for a system that errs on the side of caution in that regard then we do know. We're actively allowing for it.

Not if we've done our best to establish guilt or innocence. And I'd say we should avoid punishing the innocent to the extent we can, else we work an evil in the name of some abstract greater good. That's a means/ends justification that I find morally repugnant.

I think doing our best to establish guilt or innocence is all we need do to avoid guilt in either case. Hobbling that to allow guilt to remain unestablished for fear of falsely establishing it does not serve that ideal and lets in guilt for the crimes we fail to acknowledge.

Except that they won't be unknowingly punished. We won't know who, but we have ongoing evidence on a yearly basis that it happens.

No human criminal justice system will ever be perfect. Easy enough to say that, I know. But if that's your argument that you can't accept any system by that standard.

And no man on a firing squad knew if he was the one who actually killed the condemned man. They all knew the man was dead though and how.

Was the man guilty? Then who cares? If not, he shouldn't have been in front of a firing squad. If you're going to argue we can't wield the death penalty for fear of such a thing happening then you must argue we cannot punish at all and for the same reason. Guilt and innocence should be established before punishment even comes into the picture. If we cannot establish it then we cannot punish at all. Ever. Period. And the whole system must be scrapped and anarchy embraced.

As to deterrence, that hasn't been factually established.

No less true, though, and easily demonstrated. People do not typically commit acts they know will result in their death unless they want it more than they want to live or doubt the risk in the first place. This is an argument against the effectiveness of the criminal justice system to offer a convincing threat, which is only in part the punishment it threatens with.

For example: I would be far more concerned about crossing the mafia when they threaten my life over a particular matter than with the government, even if they threatened the same thing over that same matter. The mafia can be counted on to act as promised, swiftly and mercilessly. Our criminal justice system...not so much. Not even in the same ballpark when it comes to deterrence.

And most homicides are crimes of passion, not premeditated.

And yet we still punish crimes of passion. Would you argue against that then? What's the point if they cannot be deterred?

I think they can be deterred, to a lesser degree. And hold that they still require justice in order to deter premeditated crime. Otherwise all one need to is, in the course of premeditation, allow for a plausible crime of passion defense.

Except that no one is arguing the guilty go free. We're talking about the difference between an execution and a lifetime in jail. And hanging in the balance is innocent life. No one is going free.

Okay.

"...which I fully acknowledge seems harsh...but no less from where I stand than [failing to deter crime], as we then bear part of [that] guilt [of every crime we thus fail to deter]."

Same thing. :idunno:

Then you'd be wrong. That isn't what we're talking about here. I'm saying it's better not to kill a potentially innocent man that we don't have to kill. I'm saying that if we continue to put people to death when we don't have to and understanding that the historical record amply demonstrates we'll be killing (however infrequently) innocent people, then we should all stand in line for that lottery, since we'll be doing with malice and forethought precisely what we condemn those we execute for doing. That we aren't happy about it would hardly mitigate our guilt.

This argument doesn't work. It doesn't accept any criminal justice system as no system will ever completely eliminate the possibility of the innocent being unjustly punished.

Further, realizing our system (or any system) will inevitably punish the innocent sooner or later does not constitute malice and forethought. You seem to think I'm suggesting we not bother establishing guilt or innocence at all. Of course I'm suggesting no such thing. Merely that we set our standard at letting the guilty go unpunished being equivalent to punishing the innocent.

At worst I'd be guilty of what, exactly? I know what you'd be guilty of...

Apparently you think I'd be guilty of murder. But if you understand my position then I would have to throw that charge right back at you for every innocent ever wrongly punished under any other system you accept.

Why? If you don't mind killing a few innocent people for a principle of deterrence (a notion as contradicted by study as supported) why should you care if we convict a few at all, provided we might be deterring crime by the act? That is to say, if you don't balk at premeditated and sanctioned murder, why balk at all?

Right back atcha then. How are you not in exactly the same manner guilty of premeditated and sanctioned murder, or imprisonment, or any and every other form of punishment administered against the innocent under our current system? This argument doesn't work. I'm not rejecting the principle of innocent until proven guilty here, for crying out loud. Merely that we shouldn't be afraid of recognizing when guilt has been established for fear that events have conspired to produce a false, but beyond our ability to recognize, image of guilt.

That's going to happen. No way around it. What's at question here is where we can reasonably establish guilt. Following that, what punishment and to what end. I don't accept that the punishment should in any way be based upon our confidence in our ability to establish guilt in the first place, else the whole system is broken beyond repair and the point itself is moot.

 

[Town Heretic]

Ho, boy. Well, if there's anyone with whom arguing is an intimidating prospect for me it's been you, TH.

Oh, foo. I won't bite, MC....hard.

But it can be prevented. By not allowing for the guilty to go free.

I'm all for not letting the guilty go free. I like life sentences that actually are life sentences. I'd expand that to include any sexual predator who harmed a child.

I think doing our best to establish guilt or innocence is all we need do to avoid guilt in either case. Hobbling that to allow guilt to remain unestablished for fear of falsely establishing it does not serve that ideal and lets in guilt for the crimes we fail to acknowledge.

I haven't suggested we abstain from finding guilt. I'm suggesting that in capital cases it would be swell if, on those infrequent times when we get it wrong, we could undo some of the damage.

No human criminal justice system will ever be perfect. Easy enough to say that, I know.

And completely true. We do the best we can...or we should. We can't escape some degree of injustice. We aren't infallible. That's no argument against escaping the worst imaginable end of our potential error though.

Was the man guilty? Then who cares?

The fellow who might have taken the life, I'd imagine. I could kill a man if I had to. I wouldn't want to and I wouldn't feel good about the necessity or want anyone firing that rifle who did.

If not, he shouldn't have been in front of a firing squad. If you're going to argue we can't wield the death penalty for fear of such a thing happening then you must argue we cannot punish at all and for the same reason.

No, because unlike any lesser penalty, where some measure of equity can be recouped, death takes every remedy with it. And, again, it's unnecessary.

Guilt and innocence should be established before punishment even comes into the picture.

They are, within the meaning of the law. Those of us who deal in that trade, on either side, do our best within the obligations of our profession, but mistakes happen. Juries let murderers go and convict the innocent. Not as a rule, but we categorically know it happens.

If we cannot establish it then we cannot punish at all. Ever. Period. And the whole system must be scrapped and anarchy embraced.

Not suggesting the like, but I've answered on degree and equity above.

Re: deterrence.

No less true, though, and easily demonstrated.

Most studies on point don't tend to support that. It's one reason why almost every Western nation has abandoned the practice. Their murder rates are actually lower than ours too.

People do not typically commit acts they know will result in their death unless they want it more than they want to live or doubt the risk in the first place.

Again, most murders are crimes of passion. They aren't premeditated. The exceptions, hit men, cold blooded sociopaths and psychopaths are the exception. And they aren't likely to be deterred by rules of any sort.

This is an argument against the effectiveness of the criminal justice system to offer a convincing threat, which is only in part the punishment it threatens with.

Nah, you're just looking at apples and blood dripping axes. Most theft and other crime is premeditated. It then becomes something of a cost/benefit analysis. Make the crime not worth the penalty and show a high degree of likelihood that the culprit will be caught and you should reduce crime.

And yet we still punish crimes of passion. Would you argue against that then? What's the point if they cannot be deterred?

We do, though unpremeditated murder tends to eliminate the death penalty. And while I agree the point of punishment is typically deterrent, I don't think it always is and in this case it's as much about punishing and keeping others from harms way as anything else.

Same thing. :idunno:

Just clarifying my position. You tell me. I'm not arguing against me.

This argument doesn't work. It doesn't accept any criminal justice system as no system will ever completely eliminate the possibility of the innocent being unjustly punished.

By now you realize that's not the case with me. I've set out why supra.

Further, realizing our system (or any system) will inevitably punish the innocent sooner or later does not constitute malice and forethought.

I'd say it should make us mindful of our duty to stand ready to mitigate damages, which we can do in every case but one.

You seem to think I'm suggesting we not bother establishing guilt or innocence at all.

Not at all. Look at my response to Stripe.

Apparently you think I'd be guilty of murder.

The willful taking of an innocent life? Sure, though more in the abstract since you wouldn't know which. It isn't necessary. It makes the system utterly unjust, as there is no chance to address, mitigate, work equity when the option is available to us.

But if you understand my position then I would have to throw that charge right back at you for every innocent ever wrongly punished under any other system you accept.

Which I'd accept, mitigate damages and compensate for...imperfect, certainly, but as just as man can be and have a system that is necessary for a safe, ordered and civil society.

Right back atcha then...

I omitted more since we're covering the same point again. You should see how I distinguish between an unintentionally flawed system that allows for some mitigation and the embracing of an intentionally flawed one that doesn't.

:e4e:

 

[MaryContrary]

Oh, foo. I won't bite, MC....hard.

Dude, I went over that, admittedly speed reading a bit, and counted five times when I didn't understand what the heck you were talking about.

Honestly, I may not get to this today. Or over the weekend. And so I'll have to jump in again Monday prolly. Even now I'm Alt+Tabbing between this and two other forums and I'd have to drop all of them to be able to focus enough to respond appropriately before the step-kid rolls in and requires attention. I'd spend five minutes of that half hour looking up the specific meaning in context of "supra". :chuckle:

I'll have to leave you with the last word here for now. But I don't mind, it's a pretty good word. (Not "supra". I mean the whole more general "word" there. Although, I'm sure "supra" is a fine word.)

EDIT: So, TH reps me with "Always a pleasure, MC. :e4e:". Which makes me not at all paranoid. :noid:

 

[nicholsmom]

I'm all for not letting the guilty go free. I like life sentences that actually are life sentences. I'd expand that to include any sexual predator who harmed a child.

I haven't suggested we abstain from finding guilt. I'm suggesting that in capital cases it would be swell if, on those infrequent times when we get it wrong, we could undo some of the damage.

I like the idea of a true life sentence, but I have yet to find a proposition to that end that would actually work. Have you? I sure would like to be able to get behind some plan that would make true life sentences a reality, for all the reasons that you set forth.

If such a thing were implemented, what sort of life would these prisoners live? I would think that it would need to be sufficiently punitive that, for the most part, surviving members of a victim's family would feel like justice was done. Would these prisoners be allowed visitors? To what extent would they be allowed to interact with one another? That's the sort of question people would want to have answered if a proper life sentence could be achieved without chance of repeal or parole.

Do you know why anyone opposes a true life-without-chance-of-parole sentence? Other than saving money, I can't think of a single reason for opposing it, and saving money is a lousy excuse for failing to properly enforce the law.

 

[Ktoyou]

I disagree. By castrating someone, you take away their ability to use their weapon of choice. However, it does not take away their aggression and hatred towards their victims.

To me, it wouldn't matter if a child molester was injured in an accident and paralyzed from the neck down. I would still want them to be put to death based on the fact that they are less worthy of live than a rabid dog.

Castration would not be a good course of action; male hormones are easy and cheap to procure. Putting them down like a dog would be a sure remedy.

 

[Ktoyou]

Well, three points. One, I'm persuaded that it's just as bad to let the guilty go free as to punish the innocent, rather than holding one above the other. Two, I don't subscribe to the idea that vengeance is what should motivate our justice system near so much as deterring crime. And I think these two go hand in hand with the third point, that society bears some responsible for the crimes it fails to deter.

So, we should avoid punishing the innocent up to the point where we let the guilty go unpunished, and any guilty that go unpunished we bear part of the responsibility for their crimes. Even those few innocent who are unknowingly punished in the process at least deter the crime, which I fully acknowledge seems harsh...but no less from where I stand than letting go the guilty to avoid that, as we then bear part of their guilt.

Put more simply, I think you would say it is better to let one guilty man go than punish one innocent one. I say we are guilty either way and it is better to deter the crime. And having done that, then strive with all our might to avoid punishing the innocent.

I know others in CJ who argue the same point, yet I feel that punishing the innocent is wrong. This usually results when evidence is circumstantial. This is a problem with 'reasonable doubt'. Some guilty go free, but no one has come up with a better system than an impartial jury.

Always put yourself in the situation. Let's say you are a teacher and a sixteen-year-old boy accousts you sexually. You report him, but he tell his parents you accosted him then got angry when you piched him away. You end up the defendant. Would you not wany to be tried by an impartial jury?

A bit here about deterrence; with many serial sex-offenders, no amount of deterrence works. I have seen cases where the offender did not want to be released, saying he would do it again, if released. This has been a CJ issue for a long time. Not many want to remain in prison, but many commit the crime again.

There is only two ways to protect society from predatory sex offenders, prison for life or death. I have no problem with the second when there is first had evidence, or a confession.