Slashdot Mirror

I give up.

You won't read the applicable statues, or do any research yourself; you just blindly repeat your incorrect mantra. So, I'll hand it to you on a silver platter.
http://www.mceachin.com/index.php/cdn_pub_rec/criminal Consult a lawyer
http://www.canadianlegal.org/canadian_pardons.php#8 Refer to an organization that is in the business of securing pardons
http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/A5.htm Ask the John Howard Society

The Criminal Records Act, which you refuse to either check or cannot comprehend; lately it seems more likely the latter.
" ...
Criminal Records Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-47) ...
Discharges

6.1 (1) No record of a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code that is in the custody of the Commissioner or of any department or agency of the Government of Canada shall be disclosed to any person, nor shall the existence of the record or the fact of the discharge be disclosed to any person, without the prior approval of the Minister, if
(a) more than one year has elapsed since the offender was discharged absolutely; or
(b) more than three years have elapsed since the offender was discharged on the conditions prescribed in a probation order.
Purging C.P.I.C.

(2) The Commissioner shall remove all references to a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code from the automated criminal conviction records retrieval system maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the expiration of the relevant period referred to in subsection (1).
1992, c. 22, s. 6; 1995, c. 22, s. 17(E). ..."

" ... Either a person has a criminal record, or they don't. ..." You are absolutely correct.

" ... An absolute discharge granted at the time of trial means they do NOT have a criminal record ..." You are absolutely wrong.

What does the phrase "the existence of a record" found within "The Criminal Records Act" mean to you? Apparently not the same as what it means to people who work in the administration of Justice.

Tell it to the judge, indeed. Know any? Ask him. Sounds like you do know a few lawyers. Ask one.

" ... So stop with the bullshit. ..." Well said. Can't take your own advice?

Well, I knew you'd show up... The sex offenders I am speaking of (thus the term skinner) are the bad ones that like your children. I'm not taliking about Mr. Habitual Park Flasher or young Mr. Peeper. As for recidivism, here ya go: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C24.htm & http://ww2.ps-sp.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/200403-2_e.pdf Basically, make what you want of it. Studies show that the longer they are out and don't offend, the less likely they are to offend again. That means that they might not do it again. I'm not talking thought crime here. I don't like the idea that I am required to trust the system (that cannot enforce the laws until after they are broken) to protect my completely innocent children from someone that has clearly demonstrated that they are inclined to prey on them.(They did it at least once, remember) I truly understand the conundrum here. But where my children are concerned, I'll choose NOT to give them(I'll just call them the bad people)the benefit of the doubt. I'd do it to save your kids from that guy as well. So for the true sex offenders, as a father, I stand by my point. My best defense against theses people is to keep them as far away as possible from my family. I know(and appreciate) what you're saying, but nope, not buyin it.

Eespecially since sex offenders are generally less likely to reoffend than other criminals (see here and here)

Studies summarized in Canada shows that:
Over the 10-15 years, ~60% of sexual molesters reoffend with sexual crimes.
~77% of the boy rapists reoffend.

I think this is a strong rational for some sort of a watch-dog system, wouldn't you agree? GPS may or may not be the best answer, but people with 60 to 77% of chances of reoffending the same crime must be watched carefully for society's sake and for their own sake as well.

Consider what the vicitimized children would go through for their _lives_. We need a system to prevent such tregedies, and this is a step in the right direction, although it may perhaps be a bit crude.

Recidivism Rates ...

In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction).

Likelihood of Recidivism

The long term follow-up study referred to above included a control group of non-sexual criminals. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected boy victims outside the family and who were never married.3

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page1.ht m

I found :

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page1.ht m

Long term study in Canda showed a recidivism rate of 42%. Interestingly the recidivism rates appear to actually be LOWER than for many other crimes.

I guess the parent is officially.. well..wrong.

This is about the 5th person that have stated that the rates of sex offender recividism is staggering, however, I can not find one study to back this up? One previously responder said it is near 100%! Where are you getting your 'statistics'? This site shows around 14% recividism

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C24.htm

this site shows similair but breaks it down into categories of sex offenders:

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e034/e03 4c_e.shtml

All the statistics you get show that various offense have various recividism rates. You can just say sex offenders have the highest recividism rates of any crime, in actuality, they have some of the lowest depending on the crime, and those that complete treatment go down to below 5% recividism.