Slashdot Mirror
Online Sex Offender Database Leads To Murder?
nem75 writes "The LA Times reports on the story of Michael A. Dodele, a convicted rapist, found murdered in a Lakeport trailer park. He moved there after having been released from prison just 35 days before. A 29-year-old construction worker has been arrested in the attack, and explained that he killed Dodele to protect his son from child molestation. He found out on the internet about Dodele being a sex offender, via the 'Megan's Law' database. The public entry for Dodele in the database was wrong — though he was found guilty of committing crimes against adult women he was not a child molester. Dodele's entry in Megan's Law DB has been removed." Update: 12/11 15:51 GMT by Z : Moved link to non-reg article.
The whole point of these laws is to make you miserable for the rest of your life. If some whack-job kills you, all the better.
This is the purpose of creating a society of hate.
I'm sorry, I still believe in our fading Republic.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand I'm against these databases; once you've served your time you should be a free man in every way.
On the other hand, the responsiblity for the murder is solely on th eman who committed the murder. Ironically one of the victims of this murder is the very child the murderer was trying to protect, who will grow up without a father.
On the third hand*, maybe the kid's better off without a violent dumshit like that around.
-mcgrew
*The Mote in God's Eye, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
This guy was going to kill someone, somewhere, somehow. The fact that he a rapist living near him means nothing. If he didn't have the database, he'd grab the yellowpages.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Another victory for hysterical knee-jerk legislation.
The media and the government have worked for the past few decades to make sure that everyone lives in fear of everything all the time. These sex offender databases are part of that. There have been sexual predators for as long as there have been people. Attacks have always been relatively rare, and most people will never be victimized. However, you put these lists and databases out there, people see that a sex offender lives near them, and they freak out.
We are constantly bombarded with reports of what we should be afraid of this week ("find out about the new threat that could kill your children, tonight on 9 news at 10!"). We have also been conditioned through the use of these databases and sensationalist segments like "To Catch a Predator" to believe that everyone ever convicted (or even accused) of a sex crime of any kind is out to get our children. Given all this, it's not at all surprising that someone would snap and do something like this.
Nobody deserves rape. You should be thankful that most of society does not share your sense of justice.
[
Imagine the outrage and press if the database hadn't gotten the offender's entry wrong.
Oh, right. There wouldn't be any.
In my opinion, that's sick. Because of a government agency's screwup, it's suddenly not A-OK to murder a released convict? If the man actually HAD been a child molester, you would never have heard of this story. Everyone would have shrugged it off. Eh, the murderer was twisted, but at least he was protecting his kid. The murdered guy was a sick child molester, so he deserved it anyway, right?
The sex offender list isn't any more wrong because of this. The murder isn't any more wrong because of the list's screwup (and the victim isn't any less of a sick person because of it). All this is is just another example why a sex offender list is stupid and unconstitutional -- it's just that it wouldn't be noticed if somebody hadn't screwed up.
Its the old justice vs vengence conflict all over again. Theoretically after their time in the penal system a convict has paid their debt to society, and has been their slate wiped clean. The public tracking websites appeal to a mob-mentality, fear based culture that suggests criminals can't reform, that you're at risk at all times, and that someone is out to get you and your family. Yes a number of child molesters (and other criminals) re-offend upon being released from prison. The question should be whether public tracking databases reduce this likelihood.
My personal opinion is 'no', in fact they exacerbate the problem by limiting convicts' abilities to reintegrate into society. Once branded with the scarlet letter, they live out their Les Miserables' existence being pursued by law enforcement and vigilantes for the rest of their days.
Child molesters are the boogeymen of the 2000s, just like drug lords were of the 1980s and 90s, gangs of the 60s and 70s, and communists of the 1950s. They pose a societal threat, but not somuch that you need to legislate around their existence and vastly expand policing powers beyond what already exists.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
So the guy "protected" his son from molestation (even though the risk was pretty damned small), and in return gave his son an absentee father, visits to the penitentiary, almost certain divorce (assuming he was married), and a long span of whispers and looks.
Oh yeah, he made a GREAT choice - a real bargain.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Well the article is for registered users only so I can't read it, but I feel like there's something missing from this story. Some key detail like Dodele hanging around the contrustion worker's trailer constantly or something. Otherwise this killer is just using his son as an excuse for being batshit psycho. What did this guy do, log in to the sex offender registry on occasion to see if any molesters lived near him so he could kill them with a clear conscience or with some feeling of vigilante style justice? With only the summary to go on it sounds like this construction worker was being more than just a proactive father. A proactive person complains to the park management, speak with the police, confronts the guy, talks to his own kids about steering clear, etc. Not up and decides "well there's a molester in the neighborhood, guess I'll have to be the one to *kill* him."
This of course is completely separate from the discussion of the usefulness, constitutionality, and accuracy of sex offender DBs.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Some jurisdictions have a Community Notification, a letter is sent to people living in the community. This is usually handled by the police or parole board.
Having the offender in question go door to door would be a death sentence. Also it would be hard to explain, "Hello little boy is your mommy or daddy home? I need to talk to them."
Not to defend anyone, but just to pose a question.
If you are 18 and are going out with a 17 year old and you're a monster, what are you if you are 17 and going out with a 16 year old? What are you if you are 18 1/2 and dating someone who is 17 3/4? In three months, you'll both be "18". I guess we could ask if you are 18, just about to turn 19 and you are going out with someone who just turned 18, what are you then. And then why is it okay for a 45 year old man to marry a 35 year old woman? What is this thing that happens to a person's mind during that day just before his/her 18th birthday through the day of his/her birthday? And what if you're just going out for ice-cream?
I'm just trying to figure out what "The Right Way" is. It is my understanding that 18 is a rather arbitrary age since voting, consuming alcohol (legally), and driving (legally) all have different ages associated with be able to perform said actions.
The "sex offender" registry hasn't prevented one crime against children, and has in fact caused more problems than it has solved.
From the US Department of Justice: 96% of female rape victims younger than 12 years old, knew their attackers. 20% were victimized by their fathers or step-fathers. 60% were victimized by another family member.
Sex crimes are the only crimes we continue to punish people after they've "paid their debt to society". We restrict their movement, restrict where they can live, and in many cases ensure through force of law that they never lead a normal life again.
If we, as a society, are convinced that child molesters are incurable, let's just keep them locked up. This idiotic list serves no purpose: if they are, indeed, almost certain to commit the crime again, why are we releasing them from institutionalization? If these people are "sick", let's transfer them from the penal system to the mental health system where they probably belong.
Well, why don't you tell me what is the benefit (to the public) of having a PUBLIC registry of convicted sex offenders (statutory rape anyone)?
The only reason for such registries, is to enact continuing lifelong punishment on the convicted criminal, even after the release, by virtue of harrassment by the members of the public who somehow have the free time to go browsing these databases (instead of taking care of their children).
What are you going to do if a sex offender moves next door to you? Have him evicted on a technicality? Torch his house? Stab him? Don't you think that whatever little chance there is of having this man re-integrate into society, will likely be ruined by this behavior? If you don't want to re-integrate this man into the society, then go ahead and lobby for life-sentences for any sex offense (18 sleeping with 17?)... or better yet - the death penalty. But if you take up the view that people can change, and can pay their debt to society, you have to accept your own conclusions.
But back to the main question - how is publicly-viewable registration going to increase public safety? Is it going to prevent a habitual rapist from raping? If not registering is a little crime, do you think that matters to someone who is pathologically going to commit far more severe offenses?
People may well be prejudiced. However stupid, that is their right except where limited by law. A bigger problem is differential privacy, where some people can hide things and others cannot. A boss might be less inclined to go after a gay employee if his own divorces and DUIs were equally public. Likewise for the cop.
Nobody told anybody to go and kill the person. FACT. The database might have facilitated that function (fact, indeed), but you can use your argument on literally anything. Nailguns might facilitate killing, hammers, forks, things with sharp edges, and so on. I still think that the person who went to kill is at fault. If there were no database, he would have looked for other ways to obtain the information and kill the person.
Paraphrased: You're just not arguing from emotion enough.
I'm not crazy about a "choose one or the other" attitude in the justice system as we assume all offenders are the same. That also lead to the "three strikes you're out" mess. Some people who offend three times need to be put away for good, others may have committed all three crimes in a static situation that now has changed. Back to the point, I think we need people who do understand the psychology of rapists to assist in deciding who has served their term and who is still a risk.
Just to pose another question: is it possible you have given a straight reply to a sarcastic post?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
If the guy who murdered him gets released in ten, twenty years he can move anywhere without ending up on a list or being forced to tell his neighbors of his past.
Barely escaped being labelled a sex offender because he pissed in a park near a school. He was really drunk and it was 2 am but he was going to be charged with (I forget exactly) "Exposing himself within fifty feet of a school." He got a good lawyer and got a lesser charge but his life was nearly ruined for a mistake he didn't even remember making.
It's hard to have sympathy for molesters and rapists but when you hear of people released from prison whose only option is to live under an overpass because that's the only place not near a child I do feel some sympathy. I mean, shouldn't the government designate an area childfree in each state that these guys can live? If not, just put them back in prison for the rest of their lives. It's more humane than under an overpass.
Seems to me a minor party hack published that it was okay to exterminate folks with a particular ancestry in Europe about 70 years ago, and that Milosovic basically published that it was okay to kill bad folks in Croatia and Bosnia about ten years ago. For those US folks that think "it can't happen here", a governor of a US Midwestern state published in the 1830's that it was ok to exterminate an entire group of people just for what they believed. That order wasn't officially rescinded until 1976.
Now then, I won't argue whether the convicted man was good or bad -- because most child molestors do not reform -- nor will I argue that folks don't have the right to protect their kids from unreformed molestors. What I will argue is that publishing a list in a manner as easily accessible as the Internet may be the wrong way to go about protecting the neighborhood. Because otherwise mob and/or vigilant justice takes control and can very easily get out of hand. Leading to murder and/or genocide.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Please cite a source for high recidivism in sexual crimes. This is frequently stated, but only common knowledge is used as a source. If you can't cite a source for this, we have to throw that argument out.
Furthermore, my point of view is that the lists are not making children safer. Rather, they seem to be aimed to exact punishment far after the criminal has paid his or her dues.
Finally, if there is a risk of recidivism, then we need to keep the person in jail and therapy. Releasing them and placing them on a "harass this person" list just encourages criminal behavior. After all, we are releasing people who are still dangerous (after all, high recidivism, right?) and then promptly removing any chance for them to integrate with normal society and develop a support network.
We're letting out dangerous people and encouraging them to recommit!
I'll just add to your comment instead.
... but at the very least, I find it very odd that the U.S. has such things as "PG-13" movie ratings (indicating the content, often including sexual innuendo, is "safe" for 13 year olds and up), and by 15, we're issuing driver's permits. (We're trusting them with a very expensive machine that they can easily kill or be killed with.) Yet, we still don't think a 14 or 15 year old can possibly be capable of "consenting to sex" with someone older?
Even IF we, as a society, decide that keeping these "sex offender" lists available for public searching is a "good thing", we certainly need to modify the laws themselves first.
Right now, the law doesn't differentiate at all between the man who has sex with 4 year olds in a childcare facility while working there, and the man who has sex with a 15 year old who lies about her age, and possibly even produces a fake ID showing her age as older than she really is.
In my mind, it's clear that it's really the former person that most people get concerned enough about to want to know if they live near them. The other case amounts to an act that's considered perfectly LEGAL in many countries of the world. It revolves around the fact that the 15 year old had enough of at least a PHYSICAL appearance of an adult to be considered sexually attractive to the guy in question.
There's always going to be a problem when you're forced to draw lines at specific ages for what's "legal" and what's "illegal"
One is terminal, the other is not. While someone may commit suicide after a violent attack, isn't it worse if you take away their right to choose to live?
Do you have a figure? What percentage of women that live through a rape commit suicide. That'd be an interesting figure to look at. Did you know the vast majority of rapes are commited by - tadzoum - the husband ! Certainly unacceptable and punishable, but maybe not something worth killing yourself for.
The feminist myth that rape is worst than death and can never be overcome is actually hurting rape victim by making them feel odd when they eventually heal from the psychological wound.
\u262D = \u5350
I'm not saying rape is a good thing, or that it's not horrible to endure, but claiming that "It's worse than death because some women will kill themselves because of it." leads to a terrible precedent. The bottom line is that some people WILL kill themselves if they get depressed. Putting anything that causes that depression on the same level as murder is just idiotic.
And no, I've never been raped. By your logic, I guess that makes me unqualified to speak on the subject. Of course, given that we can't ask ANYBODY whose been murdered, we're going to have to start accepting testimony from people who didn't experience all these things.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
This is one of those assertions that always has me scratching my head. According to the statistic I find online, approximately 1 in 4 women is raped before graduating college. This means a quarter of the population is incapable of forming relationships? I know people are lonely and alone out there, but from my own personal experience it's hard to believe that a full quarter of the developed world's women are spinsters.
On the other hand "meaningful relationship" is a pretty vague term. I'm not entirely sure how you would measure that.
I read the internet for the articles.
This alleged murderer may be a low-functioning individual, or he just may be crazy, but nevertheless our society has reinforced his paranoia and justified it. The real tragedy about all of this is that we have allowed our "modern" society to behave like some medieval village.
It may be convenient to think that this guy is somehow mentally handicaped, but that's a dangerous assumption because it implies that this kind of behavior is only possible from other low-functioning individuals. The quotes you have of him talking about the guy molesting children even after being told that the victim was not a child molester make no rational sense -- but that's because it's the alleged perp's emotional justification for his actions. It's not (necessarily) that he was stupid so he couldn't think straight, it's that he was overwhelmed with emotions (fear for his son, hate for sex offenders), and that continues even after he committed his crime. Everyone, regardless of their intellect, can find their reason overwhelmed by emotion.
So the societal pressure you're talking about is spot on, and even more threatening. The discussion about sex offenders going on in the news, television, in politics, and everywhere else is completely dominated by the emotions of fear and hate. Reason is rarely even welcome in the debate. It's an environment where things like this will happen, and happen often, much more than simply crazy people going off the handle, because crazy isn't a requirement.
The enemies of Democracy are
The way it works here in Illinois, as far as I know, is that you have to register with the police. Residents can go to the police station and ask them who the registered sex offenders are in their area.
Which is where my problem with this law comes in. Being able to sidle into my den with a cup of coffee, turn on the computer, and find out who in my neighborhood is registered is a very different level of commitment than going to the police station. And it makes it possible for a whack job like this guy to find out that information without alerting police. No leads, then, when he kills the guy.
But that's not the full extent of my issue with it. My main problem is that you can't add things to someone's sentence after the fact. If you want to tell every sex offender from now on that they'll be on this list, that's fine. But to add someone who was convicted in, say, 1975 and spent ten years in prison is ethically wrong and quite possibly unconstitutional (under the 5th and/or the 14th amendments, perhaps). From a practical standpoint, it adds punishment after time served and could be argued to deny the convict of life (in this case), liberty, and even property (given that it's probably pretty much impossible to get a job if you're on the website).
There are a lot of dirtbags out there who are listed on the websites, and I do worry about them not only in general for society but for the safety of my own daughter. But dirtbags or not, you can't just tack more on to a sentence after they get out (sometimes years after they get out) because their crime is more repellent than most.
And I know, there is a higher chance of recidivism among sex offenders. So again, make it part of the sentence now. Eventually, all sex offenders will be on the website. Not a perfect solution if you're scared that you live near an offender, but if we start making exceptions to the law for hot-button issues, the entire concept of liberty is sunk anyway (for all of us, not just the sex offenders).
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Because if you've ever been the victim of a violent act, it's considered appropriate for you to demand vengeance upon the people who attacked you.
Unless, of course, you are an Iraqi, 'cause then it would just be stupid.
If we refine "doing it again" as "getting convicted of doing it again", then some studies go as low as 3%. Others... Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied:
* Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
* Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
* Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
* Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
* Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent. ...go as high as 40%. A quick average for child molesters looks to be 15-20%.
Now add the following fact: "A three-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities." In other words, the real rate of rape is about 6 times what is reported by adults. Unreported by children we could expect to be similar. Does this raise the real rate of recidivism? Almost certainly. How much? That takes a better statistician than I to calculate.
Then add the fact that some of the reported rapes ( both of adults and children ) are not prosecuted for lack of evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt", and the real recidivism rates can only get higher.
In summary, if we define 'doing it again' as simply 'doing it again', then it is way more than 5%. Where's my pitchfork?
In some states, public indecency will get you on the sex offender list (I think West Virginia is one)*. So, for merely getting caught peeing behind a tree at a bar after drinking a lot, you can get labeled a sex offender for life. The only victim of that crime is the person convicted, as they will have problems getting jobs, homes, even credit for the rest of their lives, and get put on wonderful lists like these. These sites are an invasion of privacy, frequently contain bad/wrong information, and rely on the offenders themselves to keep their addresses current. There are so many problems with this idea I can't even count them.
* I know this information because for a few weeks I worked as a developer for a major national sex offender search website until my morals caught up to me and I realized what a colossally bad idea the sites are.
today is spelling optional day.
I haven't read the white paper but I'm going to ask you anyway:
How can they be sure that only 5% reoffended?
IMO the correct sentence would be that only 5% was caught reoffending. Maybe the total reoffend rate is way higher, but since these guys now have more experience in the business, they are doing better: escaping from the police/leaving no evidences/killing the victim.
PS.: definr.com does not show the word reoffend so I'm not sure it is correct, but you sure know what I mean by reoffend/reoffended/reoffending.
Yeah, I'm totally leery about letting my kids near anyone who ever got wasted and then took a leak in a public park. Because that makes them Evil(tm). If they're dangerous, keep them locked up. If they're not, don't. If we let people know who all the sexual predators are, I think we should be fair and let them know who all has a burglary conviction, assault, and any other crime that involves any sort of violence or invasion of someone else's property. I'd be more scared to have someone convicted of beating his last neighbor with a rake living next to me than some guy who pissed on a tree in front of a cop.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The same statues for Megan's Law that mandate registration into a sex offender database also prohibit the use of the database for harrassment, violence, and murder against individuals in the database.
Human nature precludes the 'here's the information about that bad bad man but don't try to take the law into your own hands' intent. In this day and age of five-nights-a-week "To Catch a Predator", there are wannabes out there who want to be part Chris Hansen and part Chuck Norris.
This is our real life Two Minute Hate.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
This list haunts me. I think it should be demolished as it further destroys the lives of men and women, many of which are not guilty of rape or pedophilia.
First, let me say I am on this list for having sex with a 16 year old girl, when I was 28. Did I plot this? Did I fantasize after jailbait? Do I think about teenage girls all the time?
NO
I was in a bar. She was in the bar. She was drinking beer. I bought her a drink. The bartender checked her ID (again) and gave he the drink. We got along. I got her to bed. Next week I was arrested for statutory rape when she told her mother about this great older guy she was seeing.
Should my life be ruined (which it has, I cannot get above a minimum wage job now to save my life) because I had sex with a mature looking 16 year old with a damn good fake ID?