Program Uses GPS To Track Sex Offenders

43 sex offenders in Pennsylvania's Allegheny County are wearing GPS monitoring devices as part of a pilot program designed to keep track of their movements. If the offender moves into an "exclusion zone," police are called. “Exclusion zones for example [are] schools, daycares, playgrounds, facilities where children congregate for those sex offenders,” John Hudson, a security consultant, said. “We’ve identified in their red zones. If an offender with a device goes into one of the red zones, an exclusion zone, we’ll be notified immediately.”

Comments

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the need to protect the kids. But what about you pay for your previous mistakes and then you can continue with your life if you learned ? So not only this person goes to jail, but he has to pay for the same mistake all of his life ? Where is the justice in that ?

Re:WTF

[spun]

Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is. People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. They paid their debt, so why can't they live their lives? However, it's extremely difficult to argue for justice when the opposing side is using an emotional appeal.

Where's the registry (with Google Map) of murderers, shoplifters and con-artists?

Re:WTF

[clang_jangle]

FTFA:

More than 1,100 registered sex offenders live and work in Allegheny County and 43 of them are now wearing monitoring devices as a condition of their parole.

Really, I don't understand the whole "it's uncool to RTFA" thing. Reminds me of the redneck middle school I attended, where it was "uncool" to be intelligent.

Re:WTF

[rotide]

If you're a danger to society, go to prison. If you're no longer a danger, go free. This gray area of "you're free... but..." is just insulting on so many levels.

Re:WTF

[MozeeToby]

But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.

Which should kind of make you think that maybe we're not responding to their actions in the correct way. Imagine you have a dog that pisses in the house, and every time it does you lock it in it's crate for an hour but the dog's behavior doesn't change. Are you just going to keep locking the dog up every time it pisses inside or are you going to try something else to change the behavior?

Re:WTF

[phantomfive]

I do agree with your general sentiment, but these guys are on parole. They haven't served out their time completely yet.

Re:WTF

[Omnifarious]

That is a common misconception. In fact, the recidivism rate among people convicted of child molestation is lower than for any other kind of criminal. It is true that there is a core population of child molesters who are incurable recidivists, but that represents less than 10% of the total, and I think less than 5%. Look up real statistics from actual research on criminal behavior and don't rely on the stories fed to you by the media.

Re:WTF

[spun]

So, what do you suggest we do, keep dangerous sex offenders in prison forever? How is that any less cruel than letting them go free, but keeping them away from situations likely to trigger their disease? It's more expensive, as well.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is.

You are wrong again. I don't know what causes you to lie, but unlike you I will give references to my statements of fact:

In Vermont, for instance, correctional officials tracked 195 adult male sex offenders over a six-year period. The sexual re-offense rate for those who completed treatment was 5.4 percent, versus a 30 percent rate for those who refused treatment or did not complete it.

- Reference: http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/recidivism.htm

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense

- Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates

Re:WTF

[rotide]

Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society. Don't put people that you've removed from society because they were a danger back into it if you think they still pose a threat. It's just illogical. Plus, if it's a mental disease, prison wasn't the answer in the first place. A mental institution/facility would be more appropriate, don't you think? Only release when rehabilitated enough to no longer pose a threat and/or are "cured".

Re:WTF

[RollingThunder]

Essentially, yes, keep them in prison until they're not a danger.

Of course, it only works to keep them in there if the prison industry is completely thrown on it's ear, and turned from a penal system into a treatment system, trying to rehabilitate instead of just incarcerate.

Remember though that there are different types of "incarceration", and some include home stay or open prisons. In essence, yes, these released people ARE still incarcerated, just in their own homes, and under constant monitoring. That may be the only balance that works.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an important difference between "sex offender" and "child molestor."

As I understand, that distinction is lost on the law.

Someone who shows his ass in public is labeled a "sex offender" even though he never did anything wrong to a child.

So, do such petty offences warrant such extreme punishments? Or are such petty offenders treated differently? I was given to understand that people get added to sex offender registeries reguardless of their actual offence, leaving vigilantees to punish them all as if they had all raped children.

And that is not just.

Re:WTF

[jellomizer]

I agree. However there are the stupid mistakes + a hard ass judge.
General Rule of thumb if you are older (Age/2)+7 is the minimum age you should date for the US Culture.
So if you are 22 and younger mistakes of a healthy mind can be made, causing criminal time and branding for life.

Re:WTF

[stewbacca]

The idea of parole has never been insulting. That's all this is...parole. Screw up and back you go....

Re:WTF

[rotide]

No, it's not the same as parole. Parole ends.... The scarlet letter never comes off....

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "society".

Say I'm only dangerous on the dance floor, but I'm so dangerous I crush anyone that tries to tango with me (misdemeanor battery).

Should I be locked away forever? Or should they just call the fire Marshall to shut me down any time I go to town?

Pop culture references aside, I'd rather spend tax money on a device to auto-call the cops rather than spending tax money locking someone up.

Re:WTF

[alta]

Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society.

Finally someone that agrees that we should greatly expand the death penalty!

Re:WTF

[Wyatt Earp]

So we can go the 1960s-2000 US route and life imprisonment, or the Soviet route and medicate and isolate?

I like this third route, track and monitor while letting them have some sort of freedom. It costs less to the tax payer, allows more freedom for the convicted. This program is a condition of their parole, so they've volunteered for this tracking rather than stay in prison.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

And who gets to decide what is a danger to society? It would never work while the ones who shout the most or have the most money get to decide.
Also, any test that assesses your mental state based on any kind of criteria will fail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Re:WTF

[mldi]

Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is. People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.

I agree, but this "solution" is just a bit over the top. I didn't RTFA, but is there some kind of time limit to this (red zone for 5 mins = police)? Can it detect intentions (did the pedo try to travel near that playground or did it just happen to be along a route he was taking)?

Re:WTF

[icebike]

Don't put people that you've removed from society because they were a danger back into it if you think they still pose a threat.

Define "You" in the sentence above.

Define "think" in the sentence above.

Then ask yourself if you personally would like to live in a society where you could be imprisoned forever because someone "thought" you might commit a crime sometime in the future.

This is exactly what is happening at Guantanamo Bay. People being held because someone "Thinks" they might return to terrorism. Many, if not most who were released (freed, not simply transported to another prison) have returned to jihad. So they get held forever. The world is up in arms about this. Even those countries where you disappear into jail on a dictator's whim condemn this.

Now you seemingly propose this as the norm?

Re:WTF

[Monkeedude1212]

How do you gauge something like that though?

It's never black and white, there's a reason for the grey area. I do a crime, I do some time. Am I safe for society? Who knows. I'll spout whatever your lawyer says to get you on parole.

How do I know you aren't a danger to society right now? How do I know you won't commit murder tomorrow? Should I lock you up as a danger to society? Or how about being Jailed for a decade - can I assume you've learned your lesson? The whole idea of the grey area is to be both fair and perceptive. Either you are suggesting that those who are safe for society spend longer in prison than necessary and over compensating for the crime they've comitted, or you are being naive that people won't act out again.

I don't agree with the GPS tracking or anything like that, I think it violates a part of your freedom you should have, after all, you aren't wearing a GPS in prison, are you?
But to put everything in black and white like that is just silly.

Re:WTF

[mldi]

Sorry for responding to my own post, but I'd also like to add that most people would be surprised what constitutes a "sex offender". There are also varying degrees and different crimes that make up these people. Does everyone get GPS tracked or is it just the pedos (that's the only one I can think of that would have "red zones")? Shouldn't we reserve this for more serious sex crimes or multiple offenders? What happens to the 19yr old that had sex with a 17yr old (depending on the state the 19yr old lives in)?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sex offender" is a very vague term. It encompasses people who raped children and people who had consensual sex with underage teens. I would suspect the recidivism is only a problem for the former category, yet they seem to be treated the same by the "system".

Re:WTF

[catmistake]

People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO.

food for thought: That means, Mr. Allender wrote, based on studies of teenage sexual activity, that “nearly half of the teenagers in North Carolina and Virginia are felons.”

This tracking system appears to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Re:WTF

[icebraining]

If anyone who poses a danger to society must be removed from it, I'd say that about 30% of the society would be removed.
DUIs, sloppy gun keeping, establishments with poor hygiene conditions, there are millions of ways where people are endangering others in a serious way, and yet "removing them from society" is not only unjust, as completely impracticable.

Re:WTF

[Moryath]

The larger problem is, the recidivism rate is drastically increased by the treatment of those who serve their sentences when they get out. This applies not just to "sex offenders" but just about all of the population.

Can't find a job, can't get a home? Increased recidivism rate. Yet how many jobs ask for a background check and whether you've served jail time in the past X years when you apply, and won't hire anyone with any record at all?

Sex offenders get it really bad because of problems like this. Imagine you're a "sex offender" whose only option, thanks to the "exclusion zones" getting bigger and bigger and overlapping all over, is to live in a shack under a fucking bridge. Now imagine you can't find work because any commute takes you through an "exclusion zone" even if you could find a job. Fuck, even "low income" or manual-labor jobs like construction are out of the question; you are actually under more restrictions than the illegal aliens even if you're desperate enough to work for illegal-alien, under-the-table slave wages.

Step one is reforming the prison system to work more towards rehabilitation and less to "throw them all in a dang pit and forget about it." In this, the Republicans really can be called Retardicans, because they're the ones calling for ever-increasingly-tough "punishments" constantly until the punishments massively outstrip the crimes and tend to serve not to rehabiitate, but forever debilitate the incarcerated so that they'll never be able to reform and rejoin society, ever. Retardicans are responsible for the fact that today's prisons are places where violent gang criminals are taught to be even nastier.

Step two is making sure that, once people get out and reenter society, they're given a chance to actually reintegrate and become productive members. Our current system of "exclusion zones" may help somewhat, but it's far too onerous and makes it impossible for those caught in its web to survive. "Instant GPS phones the cops" is going to mean "fuck, he clipped the edge of it trying to get food in a grocery store" for these amazingly huge zones - a 2500 radius exclusion zone is 5 city blocks' radius.

Re:WTF

[toriver]

... or institute Muslim Sharia criminal law. Same thing.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO.

You mean like this guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11bar.html
A Place on the Sex-Offender Registry for a Crime That May Be Off the Books
By ADAM LIPTAK
January 10, 2011

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's a common misconception because that's part of the lie used to turn them into politically useful bogeymen.

You probably only have the current "zomg sex offender" pulpit because politicians started figuring out that the "zomg marijuana users!" pulpit was getting a bit worn out.

If you really want to carry the one, things like the drug war only became an issue because it stopped being PC to scare people with "zomg other races look different." Politicians often want something to scare you with as a means to obtain power, however stupid and baseless it is. They'll keep beating the horse until the public loses interest or decides it's "not cool" to beat the horse anymore.

Re:WTF

[jklovanc]

In Canada we do keep dangerous offenders in prison.

Re:WTF

[vlm]

Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society.

Finally someone that agrees that we should greatly expand the death penalty!

Its funny to look at how ingrained some cultural beliefs are. "There is either picket fence suburbia with a school or daycare every 500 feet and a law preventing being within 500 feet of said building, or .. death".

Somebody with that illness might make an excellent farmhand at a non-family industrial farm, or as part of an all male all adult crew on a ship, or all male all adult construction worker or civil engineering project worker, or some weird child free "colony" type ideas come to mind in certain semi-industrial areas. Probably they couldn't be trusted with working/living at a senior care facility, probably.

I just always laugh a bit at the whole "either the american dream or die trying" attitude.

Re:WTF

[Cwix]

DNA evidence should be mandatory and the results should be checked by at least three labs. Putting someone to death without failsafe, bullet proof evidence is wrong.

If you can make a case that ensures, absolutely positively ensures, that the defendant did the crime then I would not be closed minded to expanding the death penalty.

Re:WTF

[shutdown -p now]

How is that any less cruel than letting them go free, but keeping them away from situations likely to trigger their disease?

The problem is that this "well it's not jail, right?" attitude is precisely what made it so easy to put people on sex offender lists. If categorization really did mean an open-ended jail term (until, say, a qualified medical panel decides that the risk is low enough), do you think many people would still be in favor of treating indecent exposure and such as sex offense?

Re:WTF

[HangingChad]

There you go, clouding the issue with facts.

Re:WTF

[bolthole]

Cool. So you can kill someone, and never be convicted of it, just so long as you dont leave DNA around the scene.
Gotcha.

Any other great legal ideas?

Re:WTF

[Sponge Bath]

I prefer the Battle Royale approach. Televised for your viewing pleasure.

Re:WTF

[paiute]

If anyone who poses a danger to society must be removed from it, I'd say that about 30% of the society would be removed.

We're getting there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Re:WTF

[paintballer1087]

Yes, because:
Poor Hygiene = Rapist

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

We're talking a crime here that contains the word "sex". Don't expect a rational, level headed consideration from people when it comes to something like this.

I'm torn, to be honest. On one hand, I know that there is nothing more powerful than the sex drive and suppressing it hardly, if ever, works. It's not like most other crimes where someone can pick himself up and fly right after stumbling. You can't "cure" it either, since it's no "disease" in the ordinary sense. Take your sexual preference. Now imagine it's illegal. How easy would it be for you to "change"?

On the other hand, the whole topic is surrounded by such a level of hysteria that I can't support a "lock them up forever" stance with a straight face either. We're at the point that you should NOT run to a child when you see her crying on the street and ask what's wrong, your chances that you'll suddenly be a child molester is high. Just walk by and pretend you don't see her.

The solution would be less hysteria, less thinkofthechildren, and more sanity and a level headed approach. But I guess I expect too much from society.

Re:WTF

[netsharc]

"We can't release you, because if we do, your anger about your illegal mistreatment will probably lead you to seek revenge on us. Sorry!"

Re:WTF

[poetmatt]

it's also impossible to travel through or live in any town if you're prohibited from coming near things that are about as common as a gas station.

so recidisivism or not, there is a question of if this is a overreaching, and the answer is easily yes. This punishment does not fit the crime, as rotide has indicated.

Re:WTF

[CitizenCain]

True, but most "sex offenders" (even "real" sex offenders) aren't attracted to children, so it seems to me like this might be a case of solving a non-existent problem. Great if you can keep the convicted pedophiles away from playgrounds, but what does that have to do with the majority of sex offenders who rape other adults?

Re:WTF

[cforciea]

That's funny, I didn't see GP say that you shouldn't be convicted of murder without DNA evidence, just that you shouldn't be put to death. But hey, strawmen are cool, too.

Re:WTF

[sorak]

Mr show had a sketch on that sort of thing. It has gotten out of hand.

Re:WTF

[Cwix]

I know its conceited but I will quote myself.

Putting someone to death without failsafe, bullet proof evidence is wrong.

That is the essence of my post. What exactly gives you the idea that I would not convict without DNA evidence. I would not allow the death penalty without the evidence though.

Without absolute evidence you always have the chance of killing an innocent person. Anyone who would risk killing an innocent person just to get vengeance is just as bad/evil as the person who committed the crime.

Re:WTF

[Fulcrum of Evil]

. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.

What disease is that? And what do you mean by 'real'? I'd dispute your crack about the recidivism rate, but first you gotta tell me what you think a real SO is.

Re:WTF

[Fulcrum of Evil]

This is exactly what is happening at Guantanamo Bay. People being held because someone "Thinks" they might return to terrorism. Many, if not most who were released (freed, not simply transported to another prison) have returned to jihad. So they get held forever.

It makes sense, really - the great majority of the people in gitmo don't belong in any sort of jail in the first place - what would you do if you were minding your own business when some soldiers grabbed you and chucked you in a hole for 5 years?

Re:WTF

[Lashat]

Please stop acting like these sex offenders are ALL good eggs that are getting a raw deal. Everyone's criminal record follows them for life! Even simple arrests without a conviction. http://www.clumsycrooks.com/mugshots
Unless you are or become a celebrity, only sex crimes are made available on an easy to access internet list.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but maybe if we fed SEX OFFENDERS puppy chow, we'd at least have read the analogy before trolling with it.

Also, I'd shoot the damn dog; YMMV...

Re:WTF

[morari]

No. We execute them. Jail is a drain on society. If they're so dangerous that they have to be monitored 24/7 for the res tof their lives, then we should simply execute them.

Re:WTF

[morari]

Gladiatorial bouts would certainly make a lot of people think twice before committing crimes.

Re:WTF

[morari]

What really would be the difference between killing someone and imprisoning them for life? If you can be sure enough to convict someone to life imprisonment, does it really make any difference if they're dead instead? It would certainly be a lot less drain on society that way.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, it's not a fair comparison. The restaurant that isn't keeping it's kitchen clean and following food safety can violate a lot more people than any rapist is likely to.

Re:WTF

[anyGould]

In Canada we do keep dangerous offenders in prison.

And we make it suitably difficult for someone to get that designation, as well. (Which leads to somewhat predictable whinging by the families involved whenever someone doesn't get that designation, but we seem to do a good job ignoring them).

Re:WTF

[jythie]

Actually, this is a common myth. Sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism then the general criminal population... though this depends highly on which groups you want to count. For instance, often the papers that claim a high rate include groups like exhibitionists (which have a very high rate of recidivism) while studies that claim low rates tend to leave out the non-violent cases. Across all factors though, the recidivism rate of sex offenders is lower then the general criminal rates, and even lower if you only count re-offense for another sex crime (as opposed to arrest for any crime period).

Re:WTF

[qbast]

Biggest difference is that you can let them ago several years later if your 'sure enough to convict' turned out to be false. Look up The Innocence Project and see for yourself how many lifers and death row inmates has been found to be innocent later.

Re:WTF

[Jane Q. Public]

It's a lot easier to leave fake DNA evidence behind than fake fingerprints...

Re:WTF

[Jane Q. Public]

So, we as a society pay 4 people in order to manage and constantly monitor 1 miscreant, in case he should enter an area where he is "not allowed".

I vote NO. Prison is a better solution.

Re:WTF

[Cwix]

Release the nonviolent/drug offenders from prison, that should help pay for it.

Re:WTF

[Cwix]

Frankly its not hard to do either. There needs to be some failsafe evidence that the accused is guilty of a capitol offense. If there is no way to do this, well then there should be no capitol punishment.

Re:WTF

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Additionally it feeds rampant baseless public paranoia.

"Oh look, there's one of those homeless people. I bet they're probably a sex offender."

Then the idiots start coming around to test me, talk at my ear, see if I'm nervous or if they are able to intimidate or startle me--who wouldn't be easily aggravated if the only reason people interact with you is to test to determine if they are able to bother you?

Call the police before bothering homeless people. Better yet, call the attorneys and ask them if there is a right to bother people in public. "Oh, we were just having our own conversation." Right next to my ear. The attorneys should, if they are at all professional, tell you that, when in public, you should exercise better judgement. There is no law against "harassment", especially if you made your excuse up in advance, but it is a very fine legal line.

Re:WTF

[Wansu]

  Putting someone to death without failsafe, bullet proof evidence is wrong.

Convicting people of ANY crime without failsafe, bullet proof evidence is wrong. If wrongfully convicted people are being exonerated from death row, there's bound to be lots more wrongfully convicted persons languishing in prison for lesser offenses.

Most end up there due to prosecutorial abuses. Our justice system is rigged to produce convictions.

Re:WTF

[StikyPad]

There's always the fourth route: banishment, or the fifth route: extermination. There's also the sixth route: the stockades, or the seventh route: conscription, which to say nothing of the eighth route: caning, and the ninth route: castration. Personally though, I'm an unabashed proponent of the tenth route, which involves a pair of declawed and defanged lionesses, a zebra suit, a skating rink, and twelve hundred banana peels.

Re:WTF

[Wyatt Earp]

No where in the article does it state that four people are employed to track one parolee. If its like other tracking systems, I'd suspect that a small staff are tasked with this in addition to other duties.

Something happens then they contact local police.

Re:WTF

[Jane Q. Public]

And more power to you for it. That is a simple solution THAT WORKS. As opposed to all this high-tech horseshit that demonstrably doesn't work... or at the very least is not worth the cost.

Re:WTF

[Qzukk]

So, what do you suggest we do, keep dangerous sex offenders in prison forever?

The government calls this "Civil Commitment". It's in the constitution, it's just in the part that nobody read until last year, so there's all sorts of pedos that nobody realized they could just leave locked up forever, even after their jail term ends.

Re:WTF

[Cwix]

I know this and agree.

My point is killing people w/o the evidence is especially heinous.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

But the whole crux of the argument is, "are they a danger?"

The "common knowledge" is that sex offenders are drooling perverts with no self-control.

Statistics and data don't back that up. In fact, they indicate exactly the opposite is true. Sex offenders are the least likely to have committed other crimes, to have damaged property, or caused physical injuries to others outside of of their obvious sex crimes. Being "black" is a much better indicator (statistically speaking only) of future criminal behavior than being a sex offender.

So are they REALLY a danger?

And if so, what does that indicate about other groups which have a higher than usual proclivity to crime, like males in their 40s who have never been married, or people who are on antidepressants?

Did you know, starting about 5 years ago, the greatest danger to kids aged 8-16 today other than accidents is actually suicide? Not abduction or murder, but suicide. Kids are treated like property, are locked up and kept "safe" their whole life and now they're killing themselves in numbers that far outstrip the number of murders and abductions that these wacky behaviors are intended to prevent.

Score one for the good guys, right?

They are locked away

Re:WTF

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

I'd rather my neighbour be a convicted and released rapist than someone convicted and released for gang-related crime.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think for one moment that anyone who is *sane* could do things like that to a child, then you're insane.

Insanity is not a defense. End them.

Re:WTF

[Jane Q. Public]

Mod parent up. That is, in fact, what this is about. It's the Les Miserable solution: persecute someone for life for something they did once.

If they have served their time, then they should be free. Otherwise you are effectively reserving the right to pass "indeterminate" sentences, to be served at the discretion of Law Enforcement. That's an EXTREMELY bad idea. Ask yourself: what could go wrong? Answer: A lot. Everything.

If they are a genuine danger to others, then they should be in a mental institution, or other such care facility for people who present a danger to others. I don't see that it takes a genius to come to that conclusion.

And don't forget the COST! How much does it cost to pay people to administer this "surveillance", and man the monitors, and such? Far more than its worth to society, I guarantee you.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, first, parole is about being let out EARLY. A judge sentences you to 6 years and you get out after 4 and serve the rest on parole. Cool.

In this case, a judge and jury give someone 6 years, he serves 6, but then 15 years later, congress passes a law that they have to register, even though they had lived free for 10 years. Then 10 years later, the city council passes a law that they can't live near a school, so they are forced to move out of the home that has been in their family for 100 years. Then, a few years later, a law is passed prohibiting them from being within 500 yards of a playground, so they lose their job at a mechanic which happens to be behind a playground.

Do you see the difference? Beyond the retroactivity of the law, which itself is simply unconsitutional, there is also the issue that a parole board simply would not do something like force someone to move from their house, or to make sure they are fired from a job due to completely unrelated geographic coordinates.

It's absolutely asinine.

Re:WTF

[anyGould]

General Rule of thumb if you are older (Age/2)+7 is the minimum age you should date for the US Culture.

Pretty sure xkcd doesn't (yet) qualify as a "general rule of thumb"

As a rule of thumb, it doesn't work too badly though: no-one can date until 13 (because the min-age you can date isn't allowed to date *you*). Has the usual boundary problems around 18/21, though (where we get all our sex offenders from)

Re:WTF

[Jane Q. Public]

Why do you assume it should be a linear function? This seems rather arbitrary. I am not sure I agree.

For example, if a 30-year-old wants to marry a 60-year-old, the 30-year-old is definitely more than old enough to be making that decision.

YOU might consider it to be distasteful, but your taste in the matter is not, and should not be, relevant.

Re:WTF

[anyGould]

I agree, but this "solution" is just a bit over the top. I didn't RTFA, but is there some kind of time limit to this (red zone for 5 mins = police)? Can it detect intentions (did the pedo try to travel near that playground or did it just happen to be along a route he was taking)?

And more importantly, do they stop and see what's going on before they go nuts? (Yes, he's crossing a playground. It's also 1am, for instance).

The idea of "we're going to be alerted if you go certain places" isn't *necessarily* a bad idea, but I can easily see this becoming a "my bus got two feet too close to the school and now I'm arrested" thing.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

no no no

must remain a penal system. you're there to be penalized - you fucked up, you hurt someone, somehow.

you think they should get job training? health-benefits? 3 squares a day and a roof over their head for that? at my expense?

I'm willing to spend the 50 cents for a bullet, that's my contribution, period.

otherwise - make them work their asses off - slave labor? indentured servitude? hell yes - you did the crime, you serve (emphasis on serve) the time.

wanna learn a trade-skill? work your ass off for it, where all proceeds go to the person who was injured after paying for your room and board.

television perks? nope - never
workout perks? nope - you get to become a wimp
free meals? you pay for what you eat
free clothing? if you don't earn, you go naked
free boarding? hell no, you rent that space

if you can't afford it, you get a squatters corner outside, surrounded by razor wire.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

disease

By disease do you mean they have a different mindset than you? The fact that you think that what they do is wrong doesn't mean that they have a disease or that it is factually bad.

Re:WTF

[anyGould]

I'm torn, to be honest. On one hand, I know that there is nothing more powerful than the sex drive and suppressing it hardly, if ever, works.

According to any red state that promotes abstinence-only education, sure it works. Just tell the felons that it's Very Naughty and God Won't Love Them, and ta-da! Problem solved.

(/sarcasm)

Re:WTF

[Jane Q. Public]

But "parole" itself is a warped parody of justice, in many cases.

I don't mean the concept is bad: letting people out who have served their time admirably, on a trial basis to see how they do. Okay. I'll buy that. BUT...

Too often, parole is used as nothing more than a way to keep people "in the system" essentially forever. Parolees are usually given heavy lists of restrictions that have absolutely nothing to do with their crime. (For example, random blood tests, and no sign of alcohol or pot, at any time, for someone who was convicted of theft. This generally has little or nothing to do with their offense, and is ridiculously easy to violate. False positives are not uncommon.)

Violations of the ridiculous terms of parole get the parolee a ticket straight back to jail, and sometimes even an extended sentence.

So the idea of parole is not bad, but today it has been put to improper use far too often. I prefer going back to a simpler system: put them in jail, for a fixed sentence. Barring new evidence, keep them there for the full sentence. Then let them go.

What a concept.

Re:WTF

[Score Whore]

This whole business of magical thinking about DNA evidence is becoming absurd. Consider Lee Malvo and John Muhammad, how much DNA evidence do you think there was tying them to their crimes? How many crimes do you think will involve, as a key element of the events of the crime, DNA being left behind?

Re:WTF

[Jane Q. Public]

You need a parole officer, with an assistant to do paperwork. You need people to install and maintain the devices. You need people to monitor the devices. And while one person may monitor more than one device, there are 3 8-hour shifts in a day.

So while some of the cost may be shared between monitorees, it still takes more than one person to do this. Maybe not 4, but probably 3.

Re:WTF

[icebraining]

Between '96 and '98 and only in the US, 325000 people were hospitalized and 5000 died because of foodborne illness (norovirus, salmonella and others).

Re:WTF

[EastCoastSurfer]

Exactly. And treating every offense as something that puts people on the sex offender list only belittles the list. I've known people who have been threatened to be put on the list because they were caught peeing in corner of an alley way. Oh no, indecent exposure, oh no think of the children at 2am. Other oddity is how many women do you think would be threatened with the same thing if they were caught peeing in the same place? Um, zero.

While I'm on the topic, what other crime can you have the word of a single person be enough to ruin someones life? I certainly can't walk into a police station and say 'this guy hit me 8 weeks ago, and oh yeah I have no visible sign of it' and expect anything except to be told to go home. Rape and sexual assault is a horrible thing, but we need to balance that with a girl simply getting mad and trying to inflict revenge on someone. If we don't filter out non-offenses it waters down the very horrible severity of real assaults.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

So either we manage to 'cure' them.

Or they wise up and stop getting caught.

Which seems to be the more likely option given our prison system?

Re:WTF

[jgtg32a]

Well we could let the general population know whose is a pedophile and the problem will take care of itself rather quickly

Re:WTF

[gknoy]

Indeed. Consider also that many 'sex offenders' are people who got drunk and peed in public. Some are even people who, while teens, sent pictures of themselves to their girlfriend or boyfriend. That doesn't really seem like a threat to me. Some (perhaps many) are rapists or pedophiles, but not all. I'd be surprised if most were, even.

That, and I also believe that we should be compassionate to others. Condemning someone to a life of homelessness, by way of exclusionary zones that overlap to prevent just about any meaningful way to become a part of society again, sounds both cruel and counterproductive. I'd even go so far as to call it unethical.

Re:WTF

[Wyatt Earp]

You have a PO, who handles multiple felons. A google search finds that in 2010 average case load in Pennsylvania was 66 to 73 felons per Parole Officer.

So one PO could handle all 43 people in this pilot program and if it's rolled out to all 1,100 in the area, 16 POs could handle all of them. Same for the assistant, likely 1 assistant per PO, perhaps .5 assistants per PO.

So say a total staff of 12 monitors for full time coverage (this is a high number, I suspect the monitoring staff is also tasked with other accounts), 1 PO, 1 PO assistant, 12 tech/monitoring staff and you have 14 people for 43 tracked individuals or .32 staff per tracked parolee.

Re:WTF

[cheekyjohnson]

Of course. You certainly shouldn't even be locked up if there's not an adequate amount of evidence against you.

Re:WTF

[Moryath]

I can't tell if you are serious or intending parody. Given that you posted as Anonymous Retard, I'll guess serious.

they had their chance and they blew it

If that's the case, you're arguing for the death penalty? For all "sex offenders"?

Remember that in some jurisdictions, a 19-year-old who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend is a "sex offender." "Sex Crimes" laws are enforced just as often because the parents don't like their daughter's boyfriend as because there is actually something involved.

You could be a "sex offender" if as a teenager you sent a cell phone picture of your naughty bits to another teenager.

Or you could become a "sex criminal" if you have consensual sex with someone else, and they decide in a moment of regret afterwards that you really "raped" them. And in cases where you were both drunk out of your minds, technically you both raped each other because neither was "fit" to consent, but guess who the cops are going to charge and who the prosecutor's going to try to convict?

If we had a system where only serious offenders - those who are clearly high age molesting kids, serial rapists, rapists who use serious force like gun or knife or beat someone up - were put under "sex offender" registration and stigma, that'd be one thing. I'd even be ok with changing their status so that they had to go through medical diagnosis to assess the likelihood of recidivism in order to reach parole status, or be transferred to psychiatric care once they were released from prison.

The fact remains, the system we have right now is overbroad and simply does not work. I'd personally argue that Florida's crazy statutes, that force someone to live under a bridge under their "cannot leave the county, cannot live within 2500 feet of the following places", also fall afoul of the US Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately a large number of sex offenders aren't truly sex offenders. My father-in-law and his GF at the time got into some kinky stuff while using hard drugs. One of the things they tried was cutting. She ended up dieing from them taking things to far. Now he's a sex offender and murderer. When in reality all he really was is an addict who has cleaned his shit up. He's going to have a hell of a time getting a job. Topping things off is when he plead guilty (out of feeling so much remorse) and was labelled as a sex offender they didn't have all of these restrictions. IMO the restrictions should only apply to sex offenders who were convicted AFTER the restrictions were made and each sex offender should receive the most lenient restrictions during the time after they were convicted. Also, the school stuff should be limited to people whose offences are related to children and other restrictions should be made that are applicable to the type of offence.

Re:WTF

[Jane Q. Public]

My figure of 3 was a minimum to do it at all, it was not intended to be per. That would be ridiculous.

However, if the parolees are supposed to be free to roam except for "restricted areas", I do not believe that one person could do an adequate job of monitoring 3.5 or more of them, in a city of any size. There would be far too many restricted zones. I think the only way to do a good job with that many people would be to have it highly automated, using a GIS system or some such, which itself would be expensive and costly. Further, the more complex such a system gets, the more it is prone to failures and vulnerable to tampering.

I wouldn't trust my family's safety to it.

Re:WTF

[Renraku]

Pretty much the only reason they come up with programs like this is to get votes and perhaps more funding. This piece of evidence is a good indicator of it.

If we're so concerned with this, why don't we make everyone who has ever had a DUI get arrested for stepping into a bar? Or all thieves being arrested for being near possessions? Or murderers get arrested for picking up something pointy or blunt and heavy?

Point is, they're ALL more likely to do the same crimes again.

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

Hey great! May I be there when one of those advocating this finds out his 13 year old daughter got pregnant after being raped?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a danger to society, go to prison. If you're no longer a danger, go free. This gray area of "you're free... but..." is just insulting on so many levels.

How do you propose to determine if someone is a danger or not? Unfortunately, there is no test that can accurately the question, "Is John Doe a danger to society?" So, we end up with a class of people for whom we're not sure if they're safe or not. These people are in your "gray area." If a simple binary test existed, your simple binary solution would work.

Also, there is likely a group of sex offenders who left unsupervised are not safe; however, if they're monitored 24/7 by GPS they are safe. Knowing that you can be scooped up by police within a few minutes if you wonder onto a play ground to watch the kiddies play is likely a powerful motivation to avoid temptation.

Re:WTF

[hurfy]

Well, it does mention the fact that there are 1100 sex offenders and 43 tracking devices....one would hope they put them on the most serious instead of the least serious. On the other hand having 1057 'sex offenders' that aren't dangerous enough to track but dangerous enough to label seems odd too.

Re:WTF

[Unkyjar]

It makes a difference to the person who's to be executed.

Re:WTF

[Wansu]

  Indeed. Consider also that many 'sex offenders' are people who got drunk and peed in public. Some are even people who, while teens, sent pictures of themselves to their girlfriend or boyfriend.

This is the undifferentiated continuum of sex offenses. They get put on the same registry with guys who rape little kids. It has become commonplace that a guy with "child porn" on his computer gets a harsher sentence than a guy who actually does something to a real child.

The whole thing is a god damned racket. They won't stiffen the penalties because it's easier to obtain convictions as things stand. Instead, we continue this hysterical circle drawing bullshit so the slop can continue and others can make money off this sorry state of affairs.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the need to protect the kids.
But what about you pay for your previous mistakes and then you can continue with your life if you learned ?
So not only this person goes to jail, but he has to pay for the same mistake all of his life ? Where is the justice in that ?

Show of hands - how many people can drive anywhere of consequence without going through a school zone ? Perhaps they should consider giving them a GPS device that shows where they can walk.

Re:WTF

[stonewallred]

Bad idea there. I'd rather my neighbor be a murderer, than a sex offender (of the rapist/child molesting type0; other than thieves, sex offenders have the worse recidivism, and unlike thieves, can not be broken of their fixations. If you question that, just stop and see if you can turn off your favorite sexual fantasy and/or orientation. So they can't be cured, they can't be broke and they can't be trusted not to reoffend. The death penalty is the kindest option. And there is a guy in my town who has two convictions for indecent liberties with a minor, separate crimes (as in molested, went to jail, got out, molested again, went to jail, and got out). I saw him recently at a store. He has started a xian ministry since his release. He is working on reaching today's misguided and unguided youths. And if I had shot him, I'd be the "bad" guy.

Re:WTF

[dougisfunny]

The high recidivism thing is actually false according to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17
But then, you're probably also trying to use the No True Scotsman logical fallacy with the 'real sex offenders' statement.

        During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.
        Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
        Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
        These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
        Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
        Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay some extra taxes and maybe we can get real mental health institutions instead of using prisons for caging them. They can't be allowed to turn into the dumps they were before though.

In the mean time there needs to be a distinction between someone who has consentual underage sex (like a 19 and a 16 year old), someone exposing themselves, a person posting a picture (even kids get charged with posting their own picture), and actual full blown rape. Lumping them all together and slapping extreme penalties on them makes a mockery of justice and ruins even more lives. People who commit murder get fewer restrictions on them after serving their sentence.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any cites for this? The evidence I saw showed that for sex crimes against children, the recidivism rates are LOWER than for almost any other crime. Rapes against adult women have a high recidivism rate. However, those crimes are not the reason for this database being created.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your comparison of Florida and giving examples of cruel and unusual punishment. The worst part to me is that many of these SO's have already paid their debt to society by doing prison time, probation, and the SO List which at the minimum is a 10 year sentence, most states go with 25 years to life with that. For all of you saying that SO's have the highest recidivism rate you need to do your research SO's are the least likely to be a repeat offender than other criminals.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

You could go just a little further and call it unconstitutional and thereby illegal, but who cares about that document nowdays anyway.

Re:WTF

[Bobakitoo]

And if it was a mistake? Years after new evidence show that he is inocent and was not the dangerous person some "expert" claim to be. Are you willing to be executed because you cause the death of a inocent person by suporting his execution?

Are you honest and rational or just a violent hypocrite?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the US puts almost 50 times more people in prison (per capita) than European countries, yet is afflicted with higher ongoing crime rates.

I'm not sure that locking up all the miscreants is the solution. Perhaps focusing on social conditions that cause people to become miscreants is a better solution.

You know the western country with the lowest rates of child sex abuse starts sex education in kindergarten, they are permissive of youth sexuality, in the context of good education on the topic, has an age of consent of 14 and gives very light sentences to sex offenders.

The US has the strictest sentencing and the most people in prison, but one of the highest rates of sex offenses.

Sure, rehabilitative work is good, but "removing from society" isn't the answer, except in extremely rare cases. There are more *sex offenders* in prison in the US (per capita) than the ENTIRE prison population of ten European countries including Belgium (per capita) - 95 per 100,000 population vs 71 per 100,000 population.

Cause, effect? Its hard to say, but the knee-jerk "Nancy Grace" style surely isn't the appropriate response. :-)

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

In this, the Republicans really can be called Retardicans, because they're the ones calling for ever-increasingly-tough "punishments" constantly...

Hey fuckface, Megan's law was signed by Bill Clinton. If you don't see that in the page, don't worry, you are not intended to. Google Megan's law and you will connect the dots.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

So for each "problem solved" (dead pedophile), you get one or more murders in prison to replace him. That really solve the prison overpopulation problem.

Re:WTF

[phantomfive]

For example, random blood tests, and no sign of alcohol or pot, at any time, for someone who was convicted of theft. This generally has little or nothing to do with their offense, and is ridiculously easy to violate.

If you find that keeping alcohol and pot out of your system is really that hard when you want to keep it out, you should look into getting help for your addiction. Seriously. That is something you should be able to do.

Re:WTF

[SecurityGuy]

I've wondered the same thing, and the answer I came up with was simply to let the convicted choose death instead of life imprisonment if they so choose. It's a given we're going to screw up and convict the wrong person some percentage of the time. When we do so, let's confine them humanely. I think this is better than executing the wrong person, and by giving them the choice, we insure that the ones who live in that circumstance are only the ones who agree. The ones who would rather be dead would be.

Re:WTF

[SecurityGuy]

My figure of 3 was a minimum to do it at all, it was not intended to be per. That would be ridiculous.

By the same logic, it takes a lot more than 3 people to run a prison, so we should monitor them instead.

I think the only way to do a good job with that many people would be to have it highly automated, using a GIS system or some such, which itself would be expensive and costly.

I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if you're one of the less technically proficient here. I don't intend to offend, I just suspect that very many of us read the article and realized that what you propose is exactly what they're going to do, that it wouldn't actually cost that much, and properly engineered, would be rather difficult to defeat. With the exception of the hardware, I could build such a system myself. And as for the hardware, they already use it, so the one part I don't feel qualified to do is a solved problem.

Re:WTF

[Devout_IPUite]

http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/recidivism.htm The rates are not as high as people assume.

Re:WTF

[Imrik]

If you can make a case that ensures, absolutely positively ensures, that the defendant did the crime then I would not be closed minded to expanding the death penalty.

Isn't that supposed to be the case anyway? To secure a conviction the jury is supposed to be convinced that no reasonable person could doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The problem isn't with the 'required' level of evidence, but with the mentality of the average juror.

Re:WTF

[Chowderbags]

We could try therapy. You know, instead of tossing people into a cell for a couple years (where they'll get raped, beaten, and otherwise abused) then releasing them out into the world, where on release they'll probably have trouble finding housing (both from not being able to live within X yards of Y places and having to disclose that they're a sex offender to everyone around) or finding a job (disclosue).

But America sees things like therapy as "soft on crime", because we apparently love the idea of "the bad guys" getting assraped in prison by other prisoners. Are there people who can't be treated? Undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Re:WTF

[Neil Boekend]

IMHO this is a great solution, albeit not perfect.
The problem is that it's hard to tell whether a sex offender is now capable of controlling his urges. I have no problems with a non-practicing pedophile. That's a mental disease, but not a danger. A pedophile who was in jail for it may have been shocked into controlling it. While probably uncomfortable for him, he poses no danger. To allow him to go near "seductive" places is a bad idea, for we cannot be sure he falls back to his urges (remember the high recidivism rate). A pedophile who ignores this simple but important rule has shown himself to be close or in the "dangerous" group. It would require personal details of each convicted pedophile to be publicly shown to get this kind of security. I would be against that because of the privacy implications.
The solution isn't perfect because the wrist bands are presumably visible. The problems this would cause for the social life of the person are great. So great that it may be impossible for him to build up a social life. This may actually cause him to fall back to his old urges.

Re:WTF

[Builder]

It looks like you've succumbed to society's view that only men are kiddie fiddlers by the use of 'all male' throughout your post. You might want to do some reading on how common female sex offenders are.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, sex offenders have a very low rate of recidivism. Please check your facts.

Re:WTF

[MareLooke]

Err, am I the only one who didn't instanly think "kids" when reading "sex offender"? Shouldn't that be "convicted pedophiles" or somesuch instead?

Re:WTF

[makomk]

They're common, but people don't get quite so upset about female sex offenders as they do about male ones, especially when their victims are male. In fact, I think in some cases (particularly within the feminist community) people are more worried about random men who aren't convicted sex offenders than women who have been convicted of sex offenses involving children.

Re:WTF

[jaggeh]

*The Running Man* has been brought to you by: Breakaway Paramilitary Uniforms, Ortopure Procreation Pill, and Cadre Cola; it hits the spot! Promotional considerations paid for by: Kelton Flame Throwers, Wainwright Electrical Launchers, and Hammond & Gage Chainsaws. Damon Killian's wardrobe by Chez Antoinne: 19th-Century craftsmanship for the 21st-Century man. Cadre Trooper and studio-guard side arms provided by Colchester: the pistol of patriots. Remember: Tickets for the ICS studio tour are always available for Class-A citizens in good standing. If you'd like to be a contestant on THE RUNNING MAN, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to: ICS Talent Hunt, care of your local affiliate, and then go out and do something really despicable! I'm Phil Hilton! Good night, and take care!

Re:WTF

[ThatsNotPudding]

Quit insulting my countries' Puritanical beliefs, you insensitive clod!

Re:WTF

[Issarlk]

So you reward criminals with a big cuddle with two inoffensive giant living plushies?

Re:WTF

[Issarlk]

The fact that they are monitored 24/7 doesn't mean they are dangerous. Therefore we shouldn't execute them.

Only God (I'm sure you believe in him) knows who's really dangerous.

Re:WTF

[bhagwad]

I would rather the government used my money to administer justice instead of revenge.

Re:WTF

[CubicleView]

Bit of a retorical question there. You should probably conduct a survey, and ask all the lifers if they'd prefer to be dead.

Re:WTF

[CubicleView]

I like this system and I think the technology is there to implement it now. However I also fully expect the first several generations of the system to be littered with bugs and vulnerabilities. Off the top of my head I would imaging it's possible to spoof the gps signals. None of that would matter though until the system was in wider use I suppose.

Re:WTF

[xelah]

Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society.

How much of a danger of doing what? A small chance of touching up a secretary? A moderate chance of raping a badger? A 90% chance of speeding? How about being an atheist legally challenging prevailing social values in an ultra-Christian part of the US? How are you going to measure this?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that most 'sex offenders' haven't had sex with a child and aren't a real threat. Child porn, pissing in a garbage can, and other crimes don't warrant locking people up or tracking. Until someone has violated a child physically and shown they will do it again there is little reason to lock them up. People have sex with children who are NOT pedophiles. These are rapists who can't control themselves.. If a pedophile actually does rape it isn't a guarantee it'll happen twice. People make mistakes. The difference between the two is so huge and society can't conceive the notion that not everybody is out to do harm. If a sex offender has not broken raped for the first 20-30 years of life do you really think they have no self control? We as a society blow things out of proportion. Children are not innocent either as we perceive them to be. Children tend to be more aware than people give them credit for and any failure is our own fault to recognize children do have rights and do understand things. When children react differently it is a matter of being treated differently. You would probably do the same thing if all your rights were taken away.

Re:WTF

[Zencyde]

People getting more upset doesn't justify double standards.

Re:WTF

[badkarmadayaccount]

Agreed, though as teenager, I must complain of the lack female sex offenders.

Sounds like

[Anonymous Coward]

.. I want MY neighbourhood to be an exclusion zone!
And I will vote for whoever is not evil enough to oppose making it one.

Sad

[Theotherguy_1]

The modern Scarlett Letter. What a sick, sad joke.

Re:Sad

[betterunixthanunix]

If they are so dangerous...why are they not kept in prison for the protection of society? Last I checked, that was part of the whole "prison concept."

Re:Sad

[rwa2]

Hey, does it work like Dan Brown's "GPS dot" in the Da Vinci Code?

/ can't believe I read that book all the way through

// should have followed my instinct to stop after the second blatant spelling error

/// haven't seen it, but maybe the first time the movie version is better than the book?

Re:Sad

[CyprusBlue113]

Then keep them in jail.

But this "list" is not anything like what you just described. It is in fact mostly public urination, statutory rape based solely on age of consent not actual consent, and the like by the numbers.

Re:Sad

[Theotherguy_1]

Because ALLEGED child molesters and rapists ...

This is why black lists and branding shouldn't be used as punishments. I can imagine there are several innocent people convicted of some kind of sexual crime now on a hiring black-list, putting signs in front of their houses, being tracked by GPS, etc.

If we're going to brand citizens convicted of sexual crimes, why not also brand all other criminals. After all, you wouldn't want to do business with someone convicted of thievery, right?

Re:Sad

[icebike]

If they are so dangerous...why are they not kept in prison for the protection of society? Last I checked, that was part of the whole "prison concept."

The "prison concept" is still (legally) viewed as "Corrections", and is based on the pretty much totally debunked myth that you can change future behavior by locking someone up for a period of time. Even if there were a veiner of behavior modification treatment/education available in prison (there isn't), the concept would still be suspect.

Be that as it may, if you can come up with a way to rule out recidivism in advance, AND get it passed through the various legislatures, then we are all ears. But baring that, we have this basic problem of incarcerating someone for a crime they MIGHT commit, which, most folks find unfair.

Re:Sad

[betterunixthanunix]

we have this basic problem of incarcerating someone for a crime they MIGHT commit, which, most folks find unfair.

Yet nobody finds it unfair that we have lists of people who have to announce their crimes to their neighbours, who are barred from living or working in certain areas, and who have to now walk around with a bracelet on that starts beeping whenever they get "too close" to designated buildings? It has gotten to the point where sex offenders are actually forced to live under a bridge in some areas:

http://www.aclufl.org/tuttle/

If this is not considered unfair, then why should a prison sentence be considered unfair?

Re:Sad

[halivar]

I can't argue with that, because I agree.

Re:Sad

[mldi]

Because child molesters and rapists with amazingly high recidivism rates don't deserve the stigma at all. I'm sure you'd be comfortable hiring one to be a babysitter if that's your view.

False. Try ~5%. That's nothing compared to other crimes. Read this.

Re:Sad

[Manos_Of_Fate]

People keep claiming this. Do you have some data to back that up or are you just assuming that it is true?

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Another report says these folks are on probation/parole. I'm okay with that. Post-release, it becomes a dangerous concept that will eventually bite at least some of those who support this.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, yeah... no. That's not correct.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misunderstood-crimes

Re:Sad

[SirWinston]

I'd say the scarlet letter is the public sex-offender registry, and that we also unreasonably impose a modern form of exile by making too many areas "exclusion zones" where past sex offenders are forbidden to live and work (so they end up living under bridges, at seedy motels etc., and at far greater risk of re-offending). I've actually thought for a long time that better, cheaper GPS technology would create a healthier alternative, but that unfortunately the older laws would never be repealed and we'd just create more layers of cruft on a poor system. That seems to be what's happening here.

Now, what they should do instead of adding GPS tracking on top of public sex offender registries and live/work exclusion zones, is use it _instead_ of those even more draconian measures. If we can track where every past sex offender is at any moment, that in itself is a powerful deterrent--a permanent record of movements would put any such person at the scene of any crime, and knowing there's a 100% chance of getting caught would deter most would-be offenders. Those not deterred, who re-offend even knowing they'd eventually get caught, would clearly be the worst of the worst and could be imprisoned permanently. But that other 99+ percent would be allowed to live normal lives, not be subject to public harassment by having their names and addresses and charges on a publicly accessible list, and be able to be productive citizens provided they don't spend more than a normal commute time traveling through real exclusion zones like school areas. And anyone afraid that their would-be babysitting neighbor or boyfriend shouldn't be left alone with their children could still find out if the guy's a convicted sex offender by asking him to lift his pant legs, but the general public need not know.

That will never happen because no politician wants to be the guy who says, "Yeah, let's get rid of the sex offender registries! We don't need 'em anymore thanks to technology!" But I think it would be a far better solution to the issue.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that prosecution rates are exceedingly low as they're most often victims of someone they know well. It's hard to determine a solid guesstimate of unreported crime, but I do find it interesting that the two reports discussed in my sociology class both listed the report rate at less than 15% One at 8 and the other at 15.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

The Da Vinci Code: Directed by Ron Howard. Starring Tom Hanks... I'm gonna guess no.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

The modern Scarlett Letter. What a sick, sad joke.

We're not that far off:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-01-sex-offender-tags_N.htm

GPS'es require line of sight

[Anonymous Coward]

My GPS gets a poor signal under some conditions which are easy to replicate. What makes this a suitable technology for tracking?

Re:GPS'es require line of sight

[tophermeyer]

It's not really. But it is a fairly suitable method for making people to feel like they're safe.

Re:GPS'es require line of sight

[Manfre]

It's just like the TSA and the new X-ray back scatter devices. There is a lot of money to be had by providing technology and services that grant the illusion of safety, but don't actually deliver on their promise.

Re:GPS'es require line of sight

[Zerth]

I'm guessing this device does nothing when wrapped in foil, except perhaps alert the cops the subject is now "invisible".

Re:GPS'es require line of sight

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah I can see some funny stuff happening with this. A sex offender could look like they're flying around an area with a 200ft radius when they've just come out of a building, or like they're rapidly teleporting around when they're walking between tall buildings.

Branding would be easier

[BitZtream]

Why don't we just brand their heads with something like 'Molester' or the like, it would be far easier on everyone involved.

Children would know to watch out for them.

Adults would know if there happens to be a molester watching the kids in the playground.

Its more visible than a red M.

Probably would be easier on the offender since its a safe bet there are daycares, schools and tons of other 'red zones' scattered all over any urban area that you'd be very hard pressed to avoid without constantly referencing a map or just staying at home.

Hell, just keep them in jail, that really is probably the easiest solution on everyone including the criminals.

Re:Branding would be easier

[Shikaku]

Like the Jews?

Godwin'd already.

Re:Branding would be easier

[mcneely.mike]

No, like the people who are hurting innocent children.

Re:Branding would be easier

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why don't we just brand their heads with something like 'Molester' or the like, it would be far easier on everyone involved.

Yeah, given the likely result (vigilante killings), I can't see why we don't do that already...

Children would know to watch out for them.

They already do - don't spend time alone with your weird uncle tommy.

Probably would be easier on the offender since its a safe bet there are daycares, schools and tons of other 'red zones' scattered all over any urban area that you'd be very hard pressed to avoid without constantly referencing a map or just staying at home.

That's sort of the point - with all these exclusion zones and rules, it's nearly impossible to have a normal life. May as well go strangle a kid.

The Red Zone

[snspdaarf]

is No Molesting. The White Zone is...

Re:The Red Zone

[Anonymous Coward]

is No Molesting. The White Zone is...

...for Immediate Molesting only. The Green Zone is for 20 minutes or less of molesting. The Blue Zone is for Handicapped Molesting only. And regardless of markings, it is illegal to molest in front of a fire hydrant.

Implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the whole GPS tracking of sex offenders was nothing but a sham, where offenders go near schools while wearing their tracking devices, yet no one (including the police) does anything about it. Did they fix the system?

Uhh..

[Antisyzygy]

I don't really understand why people like this aren't kept in prison. If they have a high chance of committing another crime, enough so this device is warranted, why would you not keep them in prison to protect people? Why not just give every criminal something like this and completely get rid of prison. If you are a violent offender and your blood pressure goes up along with your adrenaline, the cops are called. If you are a thief and you go to the store, a cop is called. It just seems ridiculous that they spend more time and money locking up nonviolent offenders when the only thing our prison system in the US is good at is isolating people from society.

Re:Uhh..

[mark-t]

I believe that cost and lack of space are the key reasons why they are not kept locked up.

Re:Uhh..

[Antisyzygy]

Thats because they lock up people that would probably be more suited to an enforced drug rehab program.

Re:Uhh..

[betterunixthanunix]

Well, maybe we need to reconsider some of the other things we throw people in prison for. If it has gotten to the point where we have so many people in prison that we are forced to release (presumably) dangerous people, we are definitely doing something wrong.

Re:Uhh..

[clang_jangle]

Why not just give every criminal something like this and completely get rid of prison. If you are a violent offender and your blood pressure goes up along with your adrenaline, the cops are called. If you are a thief and you go to the store, a cop is called. It just seems ridiculous that they spend more time and money locking up nonviolent offenders when the only thing our prison system in the US is good at is isolating people from society.

I've been saying this for years now. Of course it won't happen because Aramark won't get richer by not having a captive market to exploit.

Re:Uhh..

[tiberus]

I don't really understand why people like this aren't kept in prison. If they have a high chance of committing another crime

In short simply because it's wrong. Our system of justice (lets not go into it's flaws at the moment) is basically crime -> conviction -> incarceration -> parole (maybe) -> freedom. You can't lock someone up based on what they _might_ do. That's the way the system is supposed to work, criminals are supposed to rehabilitated but, most of us know (believe) it really doesn't work that way.

If you divided "sex-offenders" into two groups 1) those with predilections to a certain behavior (sociopaths, pedophiles, etc) and 2) those who are not. Granted I'm not certain such a line can even be drawn. Case #2 seems simple, incarceration therapy, follow-up should in general lead to a low recidivism rate.

Case #1 is a sticky wicket. Right now, we are pretty much stomping all over their civil rights by treating those 'criminals' the way we do. It's too easy to get the public to support draconian measures that shouldn't pass Constitutional muster (Don't get me wrong, I'd like to choke the bastards with my own hands too but, that's not the point). The other option is to not treat them as criminals but, as someone with an incurable mental disease or defect and institutionalize them. Then the problems becomes, in many states, if there is no chance for a cure (many agree there isn't) you can't commit them unless they are a danger to themselves and society. Legally, most of them don't rise to that level.

I wish I had the answer, I could write a book, do the talk-show circuit and retire for life on a private island.

Re:Uhh..

[Antisyzygy]

The prison system is extremely flawed and corrupt, but if you were to improve it I don't see why keeping them in a special prison is a bad thing. Maybe call it something else, like a "mental health clinic". If you knew a person would exit jail and go murder someone why would you let them out of jail?

Re:Uhh..

[Eightbitgnosis]

Got a spare hundred million dollars to pay for that order?

Re:Uhh..

[Eightbitgnosis]

The reason begins with an M and rhymes with honey

Re:Uhh..

[tiberus]

if you were to improve it I don't see why keeping them in a special prison is a bad thing.

It might be a good thing, it might not. I was just commenting on how what is currently being done under existing (somewhat contradictory) laws isn't right.

you knew a person would exit jail and go murder someone why would you let them out of jail?

If you knew and had laws to support it, it makes sense not to let them out. The problem is unless Youree Dell Harris a.k.a. Miss Cleo or someone else is the Real Deal(tm) the problem is you can't know. You can suspect, believe, have an overwhelming statistic probability but, you can't know.

Re:Uhh..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we pay to keep them in prison?

Let's just shoot them if we don't like them that badly...

It's cheaper.

Re:Uhh..

[Antisyzygy]

Yep. Kick all the nonviolent drug addicts and dealers out.

Re:Uhh..

[gknoy]

In some cases, it sounds like it goes Incarceration -> [Parole?] -> Pariah-hood. No one wants to live near a felon or sex offender, no one wants to let them in the clergy, pump their gas, fix their fence, or be a crossing guard. No one wants to employ them, because it's a liability magnet. We seem, as a society, to have gravitated towards the punishment angle, rather than rehabilitation.

Wewease the secwet weapon...

[mcneely.mike]

they should just release the gps data to the public so WE can 'keep an eye' on them... i have 2 kids and yes, i should know who they are and if they are preying on my children.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[tophermeyer]

they should just release the gps data to the public so WE can 'keep an eye' on them

Because you're not a law enforcement officer, and when the individual is paroled and reintegrated back to society they deserve just as much privacy protection as you and I.

When you put "'keep an eye' on them" in quotes like that it very strongly implies that you will 'take matters into your own hands' and 'make sure they don't hurt anyone again'. Modern America is no place for paranoid vigilante mob justice.

... i have 2 kids and yes, i should know who they are and if they are preying on my children.

Not all sex offenders predate on children. Some of them are on that list for no other reason than they got drunk and took a leak in a playground. The list is fundamentally broken. In large part because people fail to see sex offenders as being capable of rehabilitation, and feel like they need to 'keep an eye' on them. We have a justice system that includes rehabilitation and parole. If you think people are being released that are a continued threat to your children, your problem is just as much with the parole board as it is with the individual.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[alta]

Eh, I know people are modding you down and whatever, but I have 2 kids, and yeah. I agree, mostly. I think they should have to wear a bracelet that beeps loudly so we'll know who they are. Or something identifyable. A big tatoo on their forhead?

But not everyone. Considering that being 18 and sleeping with your 17yo girlfriend can get you classified as a sex offender, I think this should be selective.

Rape, yes.
Incest, yes.
others? maybe.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[rjstanford]

Eh, I know people are modding you down and whatever, but I have 2 kids, and yeah. I agree, mostly. I think they should have to wear a bracelet that beeps loudly so we'll know who they are. Or something identifyable. A big tatoo on their forhead?

But not everyone. Considering that being 18 and sleeping with your 17yo girlfriend can get you classified as a sex offender, I think this should be selective.

Rape, yes.
Incest, yes.
others? maybe.

Incest? Really? Just going with your statement (and hey, I've got a daughter too), why would you be more afraid for their safety from someone who committed the crime of incest? By its very definition, it'd be unlikely that your kids would be affected by that crime. And how can you justify that one, where multiple murders, or the rape of 18 year olds, wouldn't be similarly treated?

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[mcneely.mike]

Yes... ever so slyly, you uncovered my sarcasm with the quotes....
I'm talking about the real child molesters, not someone URINATING. Tell me... if you had kids, wouldn't you want to know there was someone STALKING your child and thinking (frankly) DISGUSTING thoughts about them that they WANT to act upon? If you wouldn't want to know, then you really shouldn't be a parent, you should be an ostrich with its' head in the ground.
COME ON, it is one of my jobs to want to protect my kids as best i can. I put their seat belts on, we dress them warmly in the winter, and i watch who is approaching my children when i am with them.
Not to be insensitive, but the sex drive is STRONG. If i was to be a child molester, i would want to be watched and i should be watched. (And no, i would not go vigilante on him unless i actually caught them trying to do something... then it wouldn't be vigilanti-ism (sp?), it would be dad going dad on them.)

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[mldi]

Then let's stamp "Thief" on your forehead for downloading that MP3.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[mcneely.mike]

Nice to see a fellow human... if i had mod points, they'd ALL go to you one way or another!

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[rjstanford]

I'm talking about the real child molesters, not someone URINATING.

Really? That's not what the sex offender list is talking about - and that's the list that's being discussed here. Besides, how come by your argument the child molester gets on the list, but the child killer doesn't? And when/where does it stop?

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[mcneely.mike]

Sigh.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[Anonymous Coward]

You think other people wouldn't go frontier justice on them?

How do you know if they just took a lean or if they molested a kid, the list doesn't always differentiate?

Do you have a responsibility to protect your kids from harm, yes. Do you have a responsibility to stalk neighbors cause they might be a child rapist? (Might because you dont know how they ended up on that list.) No. Do you have the right to? No.

In fact I would support the person pressing charges against you for 'keeping an eye on" aka stalking them.
Please reevaluate your argument without the whole emotional appeal. Your the kind of person everyone makes fun of with the whole 'think of the children' bit.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[DJ Jones]

I completely agree. We should put collars on both of your kids so that when they approach within 5 feet of each other, the public can be alerted to their incestuous habits.

I would also hear arguments for tattooing them.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[Whatsisname]

I wouldn't care.

And the reason I wouldn't care is because the vast majority of molestation cases are perpetrated by someone the child's family knows and trusts. It's not going to be some boogeyman on the street. Its going to be your brothers or sisters, in laws, your childs teacher, coach, etc. One of them. Or you or your spouse. This monitoring stuff doesn't protect your children against the real danger to kids.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[mcneely.mike]

Your the kind of person everyone makes fun of with the whole 'think of the children' bit.
Oh please... YOU'RE the kind of person everyone just makes fun of.
When they stop having the ABILITY to stalk my children, i will have the right to stop watching out for them. Anonymous coward... don't post anonymously, holding yourself up as someone with a mouth, morality and right, then hide behind an anonymous blankie.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[mini me]

What is with the fascination with child molestation? Sexual abuse is a serious crime, but sexual abuse of a child is no more serious than sexual abuse of an adult.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's because, like many hysterical USians, s/he confuses and misapplies terms. For example, to most people in the US, it seems that pedophile means the same thing as pederast. They simply don't even seem to know there's a distinction. One that always got me was how up in arms people were getting about the polygamists. There was this case in Utah a little while back with all these sensationalist headlines about this monstrous polygamist and his evil polygamist crimes. Even after reading some of the articles (because most "journalists" these days majored in communications rather than journalism and somehow ended up not only incapable of investigating or researching, but of communicating as well, oddly enough) it wasn't clear what the big deal was. He married more than one woman, without attempting to deceive them about it, as far as I could tell. What was the big deal? Too many dependants on his taxes? I finally saw that the big deal was that he'd allegedly married at least one underage girl and consummated the marriage in maybe the fifth article or so I'd seen on the subject. Ok, then I got what the uproar was about. All the articles seemed to be written under the assumption that "statutory rape" would be naturally understood in the description "polygamist". So, we come back to alta's definition of "incest". It seems likely to me that this poster just naturally assumes that, when they say incest, you'll understand it to mean a parent who has molested their child from a very young age rather than perhaps a parent and child, both adult who have sexual relations for which they're both legally culpable under the law, or siblings of adult age who have sexual relations, or siblings both below the age of consent (why not make them twins so there isn't just one party who is "guilty" by dint of being older), or 1st cousins who marry (which, realistically, probably accounts for a decent percentage of married couples the world over), or maybe second cousins, etc.

Frankly, the incest taboo is one of the most obvious examples of laws being maintained purely because of the squick factor. I have a visceral automatic disgust at the thought, at a level I'm pretty sure is programmed biological instinct rather than just social conditioning, but I see absolutely no legal logic whatsoever that can explain making it illegal between two consenting adults provided no children are being produced (there's all sorts of arguments possible there, so maybe we should just make it a homosexual relationship, or stipulate that a vasectomy or tubal ligation has been done). We don't like it because its just gross to most of us, and that makes it immoral, and being immoral means it has to be illegal, but to claim it actually causes some sort of harm you have to get pretty abstract in your definition of harm. I can see people using arguments like the "homosexuals commit suicide more frequently than heterosexuals, so being homosexual harms people, so homosexuality needs to be discouraged and made illegal to cut down the suicides" crazy-stupid circular logic I've heard people employ. Or there's always the crazy logic that producing explicit sexual images of yourself, if you're a minor, gives aid and comfort to adult child pornographers and therefore you can be arrested, charged, and convicted using laws that are meant to protect the victim of the child pornographer, which is you, since they're pictures of you. It truly, deeply disturbed me how many people were in favor of prosecuting kids in these "sexting" cases. It throws into sharp relief how much of these laws are about punishing sexual immorality rather than actually protecting anyone. People sympathize with the poor teenager being ruthlessly exploited by the adult with all the power regardless of what the teenagers actual thoughts are on the matter, but take the adult out of the equation and, if it's a girl, then she's a shameless slut and deserves what she gets and if it's a boy, then he's probably some sort of sexual predator in training himself.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[mini me]

both adult

"Adult" is another one of those hysterical terms. I was a child once. I knew what I wanted, and I would tell you if it was not what I wanted. Looking at kids today, they are no different. Just try feeding a food item that is disliked by a child and see how they react.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[alta]

FYI, the tatoo was a joke.

For the below AC, most in the US associate Incest with an adult mail with a sickness having relations with a child. Sure, there are adult/consensual exceptions but this thread is about sex offenders, not consenting adults.

Regardless though, I think the longterm response to these criminals should be relative to their crime. A young guy sleeping with a slightly younger girl? No permenant punishment. A 50yo man that preys on young boys, sorry I want to know where you are for the rest of your life so I, and my kids, can stay away.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[gknoy]

It may be that children are inherently a more vulnerable target. They can't carry arms, they're generally not strong enough to fend off (or escape) ANY attacker, and they're often gullible. I imagine they're less likely to report it, because they might not even know (why) it's wrong, and often it's perpetrated by someone they see already as an authority figure.

I agree with you that both are terrible crimes -- but I think the public tends to sympathize with children more, partly because we're parents and worry about our own kids more than we worry about ourselves (or each other).

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[Dixie_Flatline]

Most rapes are committed by people that the victim knows. This has always been the case, not just for child rape, but for every kind of rape.

Statistically speaking, a father is considerably more likely to rape their children than a random stranger.

A lot of these people that are 'sex offenders' aren't rapists and never have been. The number of things that can get you assigned that label is positively asinine, and you're not making your kids any safer by knowing who these people are.

People that are dangerous need to serve their time, get their treatment, and then go free if they're no longer a danger. If your crime was trading nude pictures while you were underage with your underage girlfriend, then you were NEVER a danger. It's a badly broken system.

Re:Wewease the secwet weapon...

[Anonymous Coward]

But even adult consensual incest is a crime. This thread is about sex offenders, yes, but sex offender and consenting adult are not mutually exclusive.

Traffic jam arrests?

[Robocop559]

I hate to sound like I'm defending them but what about when they're driving? I always end up stuck in traffic at school zones if I don't pay attention to the time.

Re:Traffic jam arrests?

[Locke2005]

Oh, stop with the excuses already! We know the real reason you keep getting stuck in traffic in school zones is your habit of "eying little girls with bad intent"!

Re:Traffic jam arrests?

[Lashat]

If they have Red Zones they cannot enter. Then guess what? They won't be in the Red Zone to get into that traffic jam.

Re:Traffic jam arrests?

[AbbyJ]

And what happens when the placement of redzones causes there to be no legally safe place for these people to live?

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/04/community-of-sex-offenders-forced-to-live-like-animals-under-miami-underpass/

Here's a story of Sex Offenders that have to live under an overpass because every other place is either too close to a park, school, church, or daycare, or the landlords will not rent to them. The kicker in this is that by living under an overpass, they are likely breaking the terms of their parole which often times states that they must have a registered address. Most of these guys want a second chance; why treat them worse than those who kill?

Re:Traffic jam arrests?

[mcneely.mike]

He's watching the pretty panties run.

Re:Traffic jam arrests?

[Cwix]

Wont someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!! /sarcasm

If they are so bad that they cant be trusted being anywhere near children, then they should be in some sort of psychiatric facility.
If they can be trusted (aka the guy who took a leak in public) they should be released. If they do re offend then place them in said facility.

Forcing them to live underneath an overpass is cruel and unusual punishment, especially for people who (by being released) have apparently already paid their debt to society.

Re:Traffic jam arrests?

[Lashat]

Did you read the webpage you quoted? Under the article the webpage owner posts "I can think of better place to put them, but since we already have them all in one convenient locationwell, I’m just sayin’." Hardly a sympathetic voice.

Punishment fits the crime for this guy. Osvaldo Castillo, 29, who was convicted of molesting a 6-year-old boy, told the Herald. “It’s not fun at all. We are living like animals and trying to make the best of it.”

Perhaps the county contracts with a more rural location and puts the 65 people on a work farm or other cheap labor enterprise. Provide their basic needs plus a small stipend for personal use.

Re:Traffic jam arrests?

[Locke2005]

At least somebody caught the Aqualung reference... most of my obscure references are wasted on today's youth. By the way, the lyrics page gives it as "Watching as the frilly panties run". I always thought it was "pretty" as well.

Re:Traffic jam arrests?

[Hognoxious]

What do you expect, he's just a low-born so-and-so. His sperm's in the gutter, but at least you don't have to wind him up on Sundays.

Error prone, for one

[Amorymeltzer]

I will preemptively agree with what I assume will be an outburst at the absurdity of this, but I'll also add that this is really kind of an advancement on the technology already used to put people under house arrest. That being said, it's a very dangerous slope from being sentenced to house arrest and having your whereabouts monitored, and imagine keeping miss Lohan away from out of all bars and liquor stores? Okay, that actually sounds like a good idea, so how about any restaurant with a liquor license? I think the inanity is best exemplified by this quote:

“Because the psychology of the crime of the criminal actually is, they will re-offend and so we’re looking at persons who are recidivists,” Zappala said.

Lack of grammar aside, that's a dangerous thought, and of course patently wrong. Besides, if you are of the twisted mindset that someone will always re-offend, then you should keep them locked up and not in public anyway.

Finally, it alerts the tagged individual. If indeed it does, I hope it does so a tad of discretion. "Hey, pedo, get away from this school. Sicko." doesn't make for good sidewalk conversation.

Close the centers

[MBCook]

“Exclusion zones for example [are ..] facilities where children congregate for those sex offenders"

How about just closing down the centers for the molesters full of children? Wouldn't that be easier than GPS tracking?

Who thought facilities to supply sex offenders with victims was a good idea in the first place?

Re:Close the centers

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering if this was something you guys had in the states... I know some parts of merka are ass backwards (don't worry we have a few places like that in the UK too, they are just a lot smaller) but I mean that's just weird. Places where kids congregate for sex offenders!

Sounds good but..

[Entropy98]

While 1000ft exclusion zones around schools, parks, playgrounds, daycares etc sound like a reasonable idea to most people I've always wondered how difficult it must be to actually go places and obey them.

There are so many schools, etc in most populated areas how is someone supposed to get from one side of town to the next without coming within 1000ft of a schools property? Do they distribute maps? Obeying something like this would require so much effort that I doubt anyone who actually attempted it would be successful.

The local news here once ran a story that 90% of sex offenders live within 1000ft of a bus stop. Makes a great sensationalist story, but I would bet that 90% of all people live close to a bus stop.

Obviously some sex offenders need to be kept away from children, but other than forcing them to live in the middle of nowhere I don't see an easy solution.

And these aren't the only people exclusion zones are applied to, they are also used against people carrying drugs or guns, of course most people completely ignore this unless they are unfortunate enough to get stopped in front of an elementary school with a little marijuana.

Re:Sounds good but..

[Manfre]

I think you're on to something. You can't get more "in the middle of nowhere" than an island. The US needs to establish an island "colony" for the individuals on the list. Given enough time, the colony could even become an independent, thriving country.

Re:Sounds good but..

[betterunixthanunix]

We're halfway there:

http://www.aclufl.org/tuttle/

Re:Sounds good but..

[gknoy]

I wish I could mod you informative.

Re:Sounds good but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Google Maps can offer a "Sex Offender" direction routing option.

Re:Sounds good but..

[misexistentialist]

Could have GPS on all children too. If the sex offender gets within 4 feet he gets one warning alarm before he is tased and flagged for arrest.

Re:Sounds good but..

[Kjella]

There are so many schools, etc in most populated areas how is someone supposed to get from one side of town to the next without coming within 1000ft of a schools property? Do they distribute maps? Obeying something like this would require so much effort that I doubt anyone who actually attempted it would be successful.

I checked how that would look in my town. I searched for primary school on Google Maps and tried envisioning 1000ft circles around the dots. The city is already almost unmanagable, you certainly have no hope with bus or tram. Maybe by car or on foot you could take small streets and long detours to make it happen. If you add secondary schools, parks, playgrounds, daycares there's no point even trying, downtown is all one giant red blob.

The insanity of it all is that it stlil means they won't be kept away from children. Children are everywhere, live on every street no matter what is or is not near. If you need them that badly kept away from children, you need a controlled environment without children. There are minimum security prisons like that, internally it's more like a village only the perimeter resembles a prison.

Re:Sounds good but..

[gknoy]

It would be really interesting to write an Iphone or Andriod map (or perhaps an app that leverages Google Maps?) which allows anyone to view their maps with known exclusion zones marked. This would be a service to parolees/ex-convicts looking to move somewhere ("Where are the schools/groceries/jobs at?"), as well as to people looking to lobby for change. ("This law effectively banishes anyone from Town X. Is this legal/moral?"). It would also be really interesting for those who are idly curious.

Re:Sounds good but..

[swillden]

While 1000ft exclusion zones around schools, parks, playgrounds, daycares etc sound like a reasonable idea to most people I've always wondered how difficult it must be to actually go places and obey them.

Danged near impossible.

I interact on a regular basis with law-abiding people who'd like to be able to carry a gun for self-defense, but for whatever reason don't have a concealed carry permit. In the state I live in (Utah), it is perfectly legal to carry a gun without a permit as long as it isn't concealed, and as long as you don't have a round chambered, BUT there's a huge caveat -- school zones.

Per state law, within 1000 feet of the property of any school, which includes pre-school, day-care, K-12 and post-secondary schools (universities, cosmetology schools, etc.), it's illegal to be in possession of a firearm. So, being the careful, conscientious citizens that they are, some of these open carriers have carefully identified all of the school properties and plotted out 1000 foot-radius areas around them. The result is that in any community in Utah the map is pretty much a solid red zone, with only occasional "cracks" where it's legal to possess a gun. It's the same in many other states. There's also a federal law that says much the same thing, though it isn't enforced.

Of course, in the case of the gun-free zones, the laws have some exceptions for firearms in vehicle, firearms on private property, etc., so with some care it is possible to carry without a permit without breaking the law. But similar exceptions aren't likely to be applied to sex offenders. The result will be that there is virtually no place for them to live, or work, or shop, and even if they can find places for all of them, there aren't likely to be any routes between those places.

I just don't get it....

[mark-t]

If a person is going to have to pay for the rest of their lives with such limitations on their freedom, then why not simply execute them and be done with it? Certainly it would have to be loads cheaper than maintaining the infrastructure to manage something like this. Not that I'm saying I'm a proponent of capital punishment in general, but I really don't see the point in continuing to live among other people if one is going to be forever prohibited from functioning as a normal member of society.

Re:I just don't get it....

[WilyCoder]

I totally agree with you.

Re:I just don't get it....

[stewbacca]

If a person is going to have to pay for the rest of their lives with such limitations on their freedom, then why not simply execute them and be done with it?

Well I for one would rather live with a monitoring device and not be executed if I were a sex offender.

The binary logic of the slashdot crowd today is exceptionally prevalent.

Re:I just don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem exists, though, that human life is worth living. Even with limitations. Not that I agree, but perhaps I'm warped and need help?

Re:I just don't get it....

[jklovanc]

Personal freedoms are limited all the time without death;
1. hold office.
2 Purchase a gun.
3. travel to certain countries.
4. drive a vehicle.
5. come within a certain distance of certain people
6. associate with criminals
7. work for financial institution
8. obtain a security clearance
9. etc
All of these are things that someone 'functioning as a normal member of society' can do. Do we kill everyone who falls in these categories?

Re:I just don't get it....

[Fyz]

GP has a extreme view but his argument is valid as reduction to absurdity. And why indeed not just have them executed? In fact, let's all be honest here and burn them at the stake, because that's what sex offenders actually are in the view of the frothing masses: modern day witches.

Re:I just don't get it....

[fermion]

Because it is security theater, not security fact. We all want to believe our kids are 100% safe, so we try to create a perception of that security through extreme acts, such as arbitrarily removing rights. About 3/4 of kids who are abused will be abused by someone they know and trust. That is why it is important for teachers, and priests, to not be known abusers. That is not necessarily enough because sexual abuse in about a quarter of the cases are evidently perpetrated by a minor. Niether of these is solved by keeping a known sex offender, most likely an adult, away from children. Therefore we can't keep them in jail, as much as many would want to. The compromise help us feel secure while not violating the constitutional right to be free from unjustified punishment is through tech such as this.

Of course abuse is, in principle, no more or less horrific than stabbing or shooting. While the later is unlikely to walk the street again, I suspect the former will be out in 10 years, free to attempt to murder another child.

Re:I just don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much.

Sadly, on the books (legally), the term 'sex offender' covers such a wide range of acts that, by definition, the laws could be argued as being insane (by clinical definition).

Peeing in public should not place one on a sex offender list. Neither should 'sex in public', though, IMO. But Puritanism, and it's historically long reach, has it's foot firmly placed up America's ass.

Re:I just don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot voting, in many states...

Most of those are either discretionary privileges (clearance/driving) or should also not apply after your sentence is served.

If you don't see this situation, which you seem to be well aware of, as truly fucked-up, I guess we know who's part of the problem...

Re:I just don't get it....

[Eightbitgnosis]

Killing people....that's one way to balance the budget

Re:I just don't get it....

[mark-t]

What, may I ask, is the point of trying to live amidst a society that has permanently ostracized you from ever being a part of? Human beings have evolved to be social creatures, and to permanently deprive someone of the ability to function in a socially normal capacity is equivalent, IMO, to depriving them of some of what it means to be human. Without the hope that it could somehow change or improve... *EVER*... there is absolutely no point in continuing to live at all.

Re:I just don't get it....

[mark-t]

No... rather I would suggest that when the restrictions upon a person are so broad that they *forever* prevent a person from functioning as a normal member of society, that it would make much more practical sense to simply execute the individual.

Again, not that I am a proponent of capital punishment... I just don't see the point to eternal punishment that prevents a person from actually being able to live their life with some semblance of what it means to actually *be* alive, and to that end, it seems equivalent to killing them anyways, so why not simply execute them and be done with it?

Re:I just don't get it....

[mark-t]

But limitations that prohibit us from functioning as a normal member of society, because we have evolved into social creatures, effectively deny us some part of what it actually means to be a human being. Without any hope that it will ever change, how is it remotely right that a person should be condemned to remain so?

Justice without compassion or mercy is not justice at all... it is tyranny.

Re:I just don't get it....

[stewbacca]

Well, after reading the varied responses, it is clear that there is a difference between public urination and raping a child. The punishment, therefore, should be equally different.

Re:I just don't get it....

[stewbacca]

I can think of lots of things to do if I were a locked down sex-offender that would ALL be better than being dead.

Read a book in your house, for example? Become an expert programmer? Be a hobbyist movie critic? Contribute to society be being really good at whatever it is you do for a career?

Re:I just don't get it....

[gknoy]

It's hard to have a job if there's no job that you're allowed to travel to. Perhaps for already-affluent-and-knowledgeable convicts. I agree, though, it's nice to have the option of exile rather than execution, but both are pretty bad options.

Re:I just don't get it....

[mark-t]

Your suggestions, although perhaps valuable, do not meet the criteria of what would be considered a *normal* functioning member of society, as it is normal for human beings to socialize and to work in groups, rather than alone.

Re:I just don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's better to live without being able to go near schools than not to live at all?

"exclusion zone"?

[roc97007]

> If the offender moves into an "exclusion zone,"

What, like, the mall?

Scarlet Letter

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Well Hester Prynne's village would be proud. I am glad that they mark the exclusion zones red on the maps. They have got the Scarlet part of the stigma correct, but they are missing the letter. Let's just carve 'SO' into their foreheads so everyone can be safe from these dastardly outcasts of society....

By the way, just so I don't repeat Orwell's mistake, this comment is not an instruction manual.

Re:Scarlet Letter

[L4t3r4lu5]

They already have the letter, only it's bound to their ankle instead.

I retract my earlier statement

[spun]

It appears you are entirely correct. I had always heard that high recidivism was the reason we treated sex offenders differently. Turns out that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than any other class of crime except murder. So why do we treat them differently?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[rotide]

Simple answer, punishing boogymen gets people elected/paid.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Omnifarious]

We treat them differently because as a society we do not want to think about this sort of crime at all. We don't want to understand it. It's scary and frightening and we would prefer to class those who commit these sorts of crimes as monsters than trying to understand why and what might be broken that would cause these sorts of things to happen.

I also have a theory that every generation has a way of trying to class a group of males as totally unfit. Men and women are born in approximately equal numbers, but in fact we are somewhat polygynous in our actual behavior. This requires getting a large number of males either killed, or out of the dating pool.

That last theory I realize is highly speculative and somewhat trollish. :-)

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[rjstanford]

Even if the recidivism rate was inline with other serious crimes, that still wouldn't explain why we'd let a convicted child murderer or a serial rapist go free after his or her prison sentence was complete, but not a child molester (or, as is more frequently the case, a public urinator or an 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend).

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Wyatt Earp]

Is this because too many crimes are considered sex crime?

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[betterunixthanunix]

we are somewhat polygynous in our actual behavior. This requires getting a large number of males either killed, or out of the dating pool.

Or we need to acknowledge that women are promiscuous also; humans are not gorillas.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[tukang]

Is it possible that the recidivism rate is lower *because* we treat them differently? Isn't that the entire point of programs like these - to lower the recidivism rate?

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Applekid]

Is it possible that the recidivism rate is lower *because* we treat them differently? Isn't that the entire point of programs like these - to lower the recidivism rate?

I'd like to see the recidivism rate over time, since the moral panic of pedophiles and the subsequent complete destruction of any possibility for a normal life after conviction seems to be a recent thing.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Registered Coward v2]

>I also have a theory that every generation has a way of trying to class a group of males as totally unfit. Men and women are born in approximately equal numbers, but in fact we are somewhat polygynous in our actual behavior. This requires getting a large number of males either killed, or out of the dating pool.

We already have the later - they're called /. readers...

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Omnifarious]

Or we need to acknowledge that women are promiscuous also; humans are not gorillas.

That's my personal solution to the problem. :-)

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Omnifarious]

There is evidence to show that the scarlet letter of sex offender status does more harm than good as it makes it harder for them to integrate into the community and makes them the target of vigilantism. And rules like these 'exclusion zones' make it even more difficult.

OTOH, there is a lot of evidence to show that psychological treatments programs are amazingly helpful.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but studies show the most effective thing at lowering recividism is compassionate counseling programs that accept them as people and help them learn to control behaviors.

On the other hand, these "exclusion zones" and having all sorts of draconian rules have been shown by some studies to INCREASE recividism by making them feel marginalized, desperate and antisocial.

Not productive, just reactionary.,

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, not really. The evidence that I've seen is that most kiddy diddlers aren't sick per se, but opportunistically having sex. Basically, they aren't seeking out children in the first place, but they did end up sleeping with one (probably a teen, but I have no data for that).

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Also they tend to be old white men... not the type you normally associate with crime.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard it on good authority from other slashdot posters that you have molested your children several times. Not that I am judging you based on mere rumors, but you should probably keep your mouth shut in discussions about pedophilia, lest you accidentally let something slip that you don't want to.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[517714]

From those statistics: "An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991."

This would indicate that an effective parole/probation system could result in a significant reduction in rape and sexual assault.

The figures are for convictions three years after release, ( pg 2 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf) most would be on parole for most of that time. Trials tend to drag out out so three years is much too short of a time span to base any judgement on. Also the figures do not consider the number of charges against the criminal (pg 5). I would be more interested on the data at ten or fifteen years. Table 6 shows that 7.3% of child molesters had prior convictions for sex offense against children - that is better indication of the rate.

Also, you should recognize that the recidivism rate is higher than the reconviction rate. The study included fifteen states, so repeat offenders who committed their crimes out of those states were not reported. Those who prey on children get better at avoiding detection with practice. The bank robber may get arrested the first three times he commits his crimes, the child molester probably won't have his crimes reported in that number. Bank robbery is not an underreported crime, child molestation and rape are.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Turns out that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than any other class of crime except murder.

Suicide may have a lower recidivism rate.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[digsbo]

This statistic doesn't distinguish between different types of sex offenders. Sexual assault against an adult, statutory rape, and child molestation are very different offenses, and the perpetrators very different kinds of people.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Your theory assumes polygynous without polyandry. The truth is that polygamy is the default state.

Re:I retract my earlier statement

[Omnifarious]

Your theory assumes polygynous without polyandry. The truth is that polygamy is the default state.

Well, I believe that polygamy is the 'default' state. But I think our culture has skewed it towards being more polygynous than polyandrous.

What "type" of sex offender?

[MrNemesis]

Can't you be classified as a sex offender in the US for things as heinous as taking a slash or having sex in a public place? Something along the lines of a sexual offence being anything that's offensive and involves genitals, rather than committing a violent sexual crime (which is most people's definition of a sex offender).

TFA was light on any details, other than this being used on 43 out of 1100 people, but even if it's just for paedophiles I can't see them being able to step out of the house, since surely there are hundreds of places where children will congregate outside of schools...?

Of course, once it's used to track paedophiles I figure you can start issuing automatic tickets to the people who pissed in public if they haven't been to a registered urination point for the last 4 hours.

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[stewbacca]

What does "taking a slash" mean? Public urination? If so, then no, not even the most absurdly conservative jurisdictions would classify that as a sex offender.

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[tabrisnet]

It's considered public exposure, give or take... b/c you were pissing on a tree, somebody might have come up alongside you and saw your dong.

And yes, it does happen.

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[rjstanford]

Not true, I'm afraid. A very little googling show's that unfortunate fact. A charge of public urination is often accompanied by a charge of indecent exposure, which is enough to get you on the list in a lot of places... sometimes, even if the act took place before the list existed.

This is scary stuff. Maybe not now, but in how easily its become "accepted."

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does "taking a slash" mean? Public urination? If so, then no, not even the most absurdly conservative jurisdictions would classify that as a sex offender.

Actually, they would:

http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/03/florida_banishe.html

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[rjstanford]

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/09/11/us-sex-offender-laws-may-do-more-harm-good is a good example of some decent commentary, FWIW. Its sad to me when the threat of someone taking away our right to large-capacity rifle magazines after a political shooting gets a national outcry, but the idea of lifelong movement tracking of people who may have committed victimless misdemeanors decades ago is silently accepted. Probably because anyone who comes out against it is afraid that they'll be branded with the "pro-child-molestor" label... and put on the list.

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[Anonymous Coward]

13 states consider public urination a sex crime, only 2 of them require a child to be present.

Most states also consider "exposure of genitals" to be a sex crime. Those of us wearing skirts and kilts are probably safe. Everyone else probably has to expose a little bit of skin, unless they just dribble down their leg.

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[mldi]

What does "taking a slash" mean? Public urination? If so, then no, not even the most absurdly conservative jurisdictions would classify that as a sex offender.

Then you'd be shocked to know that that happens. Also: piercing (like an earring) a minor without parental consult.

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[An Anonymous Coward]

What does "taking a slash" mean? Public urination? If so, then no, not even the most absurdly conservative jurisdictions would classify that as a sex offender.

It would seem you are wrong: http://www.macinstruct.com/node/89

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[Manos_Of_Fate]

This post is depressingly insightful.

Re:What "type" of sex offender?

[stewbacca]

Interesting (if true). Which 13 states. And if so, is it the same class felony as the sex crimes that get you registered as a sex offender?

I have a problem with sex offender laws that bust 18 year old dudes for having sex with their 17 year old girlfriends.

I have no problem with laws that strap monitors to real sex offenders' legs.

WTF

[alta]

from the summary:

facilities where children congregate for those sex offenders

know, I'm pretty sure this is a comma placement issue, but if not, just WOW.

We sure are making it easy for sex offenders these days... But if that causes it to call the police, is that entrapment?

Odd.

foolish human...

[TiggertheMad]

If they have a high chance of committing another crime, enough so this device is warranted, why would you not keep them in prison to protect people?

because that is not what prison is for. The legal system is there to punish people for things that they have done, not a place to put people who might do something.

If you are going to use prison to keep 'dangerous' sex offenders off the street, I want at-risk children proactively locked up for life, because they are statistically most likely to become violent criminals. Also, get more illiterate, minorities, and mentally disabled in there too, because they are more likely to cause problems for society.

If someone is a repeat sex offender, they need medical treatment, not prison. But, it seems because the are the unholy scum of the earth in the eyes of society, that proper (and costly) programs to treat them will not be funded. The real problem is the simplistic 'just throw em in prison' attitudes like you expressed.

Re:foolish human...

[Antisyzygy]

Not entirely. If a child molestor/rapist has done it twice or more times already then they should be isolated from children (which is easiest to do in prison) until such a time that they are cured of their problem. Prison doesn't have to be some horrible place, that's what makes it a shitty thing to do. However, some people need to be separated from society such as serial murderers, rapists, and people you keep committing assault.

Re:foolish human...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because for a lot of these, prison is where the want to be. Roof over their head, clothing, food, entertainment and gym memberships all provided, free of charge - hell, in some ways it's like a damned hotel and spa place compared to their home life.

Now, for the record, if you just put them in, let it be known they're a child molester, the problem will resolve itself (ie the other inmates will kill or maim the sick fuck).

Personally, I prefer the 1 shot method. A bullet is a lot cheaper than prison, and there are plenty of gators about, dump their dead bodies in a swamp.

Re:foolish human...

[vlm]

... I want at-risk children proactively locked up for life, because they are statistically most likely to become violent criminals. Also, get more illiterate, minorities, and mentally disabled in there too, because they are more likely to cause problems for society.

We already do that. We segregate our homes by income, and run the "poor kids schools" like a wannabe jail, complete with guards, searches, lockdowns, locked doors, yard/exercise time, tight schedules, solitary confinement, guard patrols, sometimes uniforms, ID numbers instead of names ... All they need is some bars on the windows.

Re:foolish human...

[Insightfill]

because that is not what prison is for. The legal system is there to punish people for things that they have done, not a place to put people who might do something.

I don't believe the book is closed on 'the purpose of prison'. While there is the school of thought that it's to "punish people", I'd hate to think that our goal is simply to 'get even'. Are we to PUNISH the person, or REFORM the person?

If the person is simply punished but doesn't change their behavior, then prison essentially becomes a 'barter system' where someone trades their time for a crime. We make a decision as a culture that certain crimes are worth a certain price, and criminals decide whether or not the cost (multiplied by the percent chance of getting prosecuted) is worth it.

If the purpose is to REFORM the person, then our goal as a culture is to give the person a time-out and hopefully the tools to behave differently the next time.

Sadly it seems that the "punish" people theory is winning out. Due to budget problems, most prisons do nothing at all with the prisoners until their release. Because of overcrowding, they're released quickly anyway.

Disclaimer: my younger brother has been in and out of jail several times in his life, almost entirely for drug crimes. His last stay was for four years, and it was the FIRST time he was given any drug counseling or treatment. He was previously not eligible because other inmates with more years and more stays had priority. This should be the last time he goes in.

Re:foolish human...

[TiggertheMad]

and criminals decide whether or not the cost (multiplied by the percent chance of getting prosecuted) is worth it.

Oh, if only criminals were that rational about their activities...

I am sorry to hear about your brother's experiences. It's really too bad that he wasn't able to get better help sooner. I hope he is able to get his life straightened out. It sounds like he is exactly the kind of person that we have way too many of in our prisons, people that just need a little help and guidance to get their life on track.

Re:foolish human...

[anyGould]

We already do that. We segregate our homes by income, and run the "poor kids schools" like a wannabe jail, complete with guards, searches, lockdowns, locked doors, yard/exercise time, tight schedules, solitary confinement, guard patrols, sometimes uniforms, ID numbers instead of names ... All they need is some bars on the windows.

Your schools don't have bars on the windows? Ours have for years.

Of course, it was to protect the *windows* from errant balls...

Sex offenders have LOW recidivism rates

[ClioCJS]

Stop spreading bullshit. The rate is 5 percent. According to the Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of Justice, in New York State the recidivism rates for sex offenders have been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder. Another report from the OJP that studied recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 in 15 states accounting for two-thirds of all prisoners released in the United States that year,[4] reached the same conclusion. Read some facts yourself, then verify them with google.

Not being full of bullshit: an easy process.

Re:Sex offenders have LOW recidivism rates

[Anonymous Coward]

You stop spreading bullshit! Wikipedia is NOT a primary source. DOJ pats its own back unless it wants to hype something.
"The base rate for sexual recidivism for certain offenders is high enough that an actuarial prediction method can improve the accuracy of prediction when the definition of recidivism is in keeping with the sexual offender commitment laws. The recidivism rate, however, differs among various studies. Hanson and Bussière (1998) report that only a minority (13.4%) of their total sample of 23,393 subjects from their meta-analysis committed a new offense within the average 4- to 5-year follow-up period. Even with studies with thorough record searches and follow-up periods of 15 to 20 years, the recidivism rate never exceeded 40%. A universal finding in the literature is that incest offenders have the lowest rates of reoffending."

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_6.htm

Re:Sex offenders have LOW recidivism rates

[ClioCJS]

Still puts the majority on my side.

But notice: The paragraph says "for certain offenders". So already, sampling bias up the wazoo. Yes, for certain human beings there is a 100% chance they are a fucking asshole, but that's simply not the number for human beings as a whole. "Certain offenders" is already a subset of who knows which certain ones.

But yes, that aside, the point still stands that it's not true for most of them.

Question: Is there a table of all crimes with recidivism rates listed next to them? I wonder.

Re:Sex offenders have LOW recidivism rates

[517714]

The Wikipedia article takes the statistics and presents them quite inaccurately. The source is cited, and the study used data from 15 states allowing serial crminals to move out ot the study's scope, so rates are underreported. Even so, Table 6 of the study http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf shows that 7.3% of child molesters released in 1994 had prior convictions and 18.3% had prior arrests.for "Sex offenses against a child". The recidivism rate is much higher by any reasonable measure than 5%.

What if an offender has a child they care for?

[Vrtigo1]

I presume that at least some portion of convicted sex offenders have children they care for. Does this mean they can't enroll their child in day care, take them to a park, or drop them off at school?

idle?

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this filed under idle?

Re:idle?

[Cwix]

Otherwise we would have ten anonymous cowards ranting on about news for nerds, and Micahel Kristpoiet or whatever his name is, would be yelling that every one here is a feeb and that slashdot = stagnated.

Re:idle?

[Clandestine_Blaze]

*sigh*

Too late.

Time to exploit?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before this technology is exploited to frame someone? No doubt a multitude of ways and reasons can be thought of over time.

Not new

[jklovanc]

I worked for a company that was developing this technology ten years ago. Once one has the ability to track a moving target it is trivial to check it the object in in a certain area. Here are some other applications we developed.

1. Check the a moving object was not within a certain distance of a point. Same idea as area but simpler to implement
2. Check that two moving objects do not come withing a certain distance. Restraining orders.
3. Check that object does not leave a certain area. Make sure disabled, ill and/or elderly people do not leave a designated area.

Having an email sent based on the above criteria is simple.

Cost, LE Response, & "The List"

[Lashat]

COST: The cost benefit for tax payers is enormous. "Special Needs" inmates like sex offenders are exponentially more costly than those in the general population. They are in protective custody from inmates that consider it their duty to kill sex offenders, especially child molesters. It is important to note that these are parolees wearing the GPS. They will be getting out someday and have agreed to wear the GPS for an earlier release.

Law Enforcement Response: This is a powerful tool for the enforcement of stay away orders in general basically getting LE one step closer to "Minority Report" level pre-emptive policing. This gives LE the ability to put offenders back in jail for parole violations instead of waiting for a new victim. Be prepared for this to become standard for all parolees because this pilot program will be successful. Everytime a parolee wanders into a Red Zone it will be treated as a prevented sex crime against a child. Powerful PR stuff.

The List: While you can find the some people on the registered sex offenders with the "indecent exposure" charge the vast majority of offenders fall into the "annoy/molest children" charge. Anyone who gets caught for public urination/indecent exposure and AGREES to register as a sex offender for LIFE needed a better lawyer. Any decent lawyer (I know there are many horrible lawyers) should have plead that down to vandalism with the max fine and even max jail time. Take the MAX sentencing for vandalism or destruction of property before registering as a sex offender for LIFE due to that lame of an offense, just to avoid jail time. Jail time ends. LIFE.. well that ends too, but you get the idea.

Re:Cost, LE Response, & "The List"

[Tanuki64]

the vast majority of offenders fall into the "annoy/molest children" charge

No problem with 'molest' children, but what do you mean by 'annoy'? Hey you rotten kids, get off my lawn. Kid annoyed, me sex offender?

Re:Cost, LE Response, & "The List"

[Lashat]

I'm sorry that should have been stated more accurately. When searching the Megan's Law website for offenders in my area (California) I found that most offenses were for 288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS OF AGE.

I interposed another California legal term having to do with a modified stay away order called a No HAM order. harass/annoy/molest. That's what I get for /.ing at work.

Shock collar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother the police with sex offenders moving into exclusion zones? Why not just outfit the GPS device with a device that delivers a shock?

I'd propose that the further into an exclusion zone you get, the more intense (logarithmically probably) the shock gets.

Personally I'd even further propose that the shock intensity would get to the point of execution if the offender is ignoring the shocks and continuing to move further and further into the zone. But that's just me. I'm pro-capital punishment (and not for the so-called deterrent factor that so many people say it doesn't have but simply for the financial and social benefits).

But back to shock-collars -- it works for dogs, why not sicko-sex-offenders?

"exclusion zone" is the wrong term!

[Anonymous Coward]

This technique is called "Geofencing" and it's been around for a long time. I guess "exclusion zone" makes it sound more exciting.
I write software which allows users to create geofences and then can alert them in real time if a violation has occurred.
My favorite type of geofence is called a "Threat Net". A Threat Net is a 3D geofence which protects a critical infrastructure (i.e. building) from planes and missiles.

The only interesting thing about this article is the controversial aspect of tracking citizens who were previously convicted of a sex crime.

Re:"exclusion zone" is the wrong term!

[GameboyRMH]

I prefer the term "exclusion zone" because then I can say

GET OUT OF HERE STALKER

What I really and seriously wish to happen...

[Tanuki64]

...in America, is that a man is lets a child drown and later on states that he decided it is better to be convicted of non-assistance of a person in danger than to risk to be put on such a list for touching a child during a rescue.

Re:What I really and seriously wish to happen...

[Eightbitgnosis]

You should see a doctor about your dreams to drown children

Re:What I really and seriously wish to happen...

[Tanuki64]

I'll see a doctor about that the day Americans see a doctor for being extreme-paranoid about so called 'sex-offenders'.

Re:What I really and seriously wish to happen...

[MiniMike]

IANALG (I am not a life guard) but I don't think the best practice is to pull the drowning child out by the genitals...

Otherwise, wouldn't the Good Samaritan Laws cover any liability in this situation? Note that consent is implied for minors under most situations, probably for this too (but IANAL either).

Re:What I really and seriously wish to happen...

[Tanuki64]

Maybe, maybe not. I am not an American and only read of the most outrageous cases in the news. So maybe there is some exaggeration, though when I see other comments here and the examples therein I really doubt it. Under those circumstances why take a risk? For me it seems to be better to defend myself for non-assistance of a person in danger than to be put on such a list.

"out of the dating pool"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't we have Slashdot for that?

it's too bad...

[Charliemopps]

Unfortunately the majority of the people wearing the devices are likely 19yr olds that had 15-16yr old girlfriends.

Re:it's too bad...

[andoman2000]

That's what happened to my brother. His girlfriend was 16 and he was 18 but both in high school. Consent is given by the parents not the minor, so they didn't like him and now he's on the list for life.

Re:it's too bad...

[blueg3]

Not among those imprisoned for sexual assault, at least. The median age of the victims of people incarcerated for sexual assault is 13.

You are quite frankly, wrong.

[C0R1D4N]

http://www.ncianet.org/publicpolicy/publications/SexOffendersReportJan2006.pdf and here is the evidence.

you really should

[Anonymous Coward]

keep dangerous sex offenders in prison. the trouble with this is that you then have to determine who's dangereous and needs imprisoned. with these tracking devices, you don't have to do that work, you can lump everyone together, plus, when the truly dangerous one goes into an exclusion zone, you can be notified and pick him up after he's done killing a few kids.

Not false.

[SuperBanana]

"Sex crime" includes everything from pissing on the side of a building in an alley, to being underage and having consensual sex. Possession of certain pornography counts. Etc.

The wikipedia article you link to, in fact, goes to great lengths to cover all the ridiculous things that make someone considered to be a "sex offender".

Let's also not forget that rape crimes have the highest false-accusal rate of any category of crime; an astounding number of "victims" later admit they filed complaints only for revenge for something else. In fact, the false accusal rate is greater by a factor of ten (I'm too lazy to dig up the FBI and Wikipedia links, sorry.)

So, no shit the recidivism rate is low...most of them are innocent in the first place.

Re:Not false.

[mldi]

I wouldn't say most are innocent, but here's the links you were referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

It appears that the false accusation rate with child sex abuse is probably higher than rape, but the numbers they quote is still pretty high (child sex abuse appears to be around 10%, and for rape is 2-8% -- the FBI said 8%). It also varies WIDELY upon the circumstance, location, etc. I can't find figures on other crimes, but if they are lower I'd imagine it's probably because it's harder to pull off as there is not much emotional appeal on the side of the accuser in other crimes (except murder).

With those figures in mind, it doesn't make a big enough impact on the recidivism rate even if you remove the innocents from that figure to claim that recidivism rate is way off. It's still incredibly low, especially by comparison to other crimes.

Prisons

[antdude]

We have too many people in prisons? Where would we put more? Maybe we should kill them off like on the earlier thread?

Just kill em

[andoman2000]

I mean they don't give these people any rights after paying their debt to society so why keep going with all of this tracking and list bullshit and just behead them right in front of the judges.

Three Strikes..

[Paracelcus]

Two Strikes then one "Strike" and life imprisonment?
How many can you keep locked up? @65,000/Year?
America has the largest prison population in the world, larger (by far) than all of the EU and South America combined! larger (by far) than the Russian federation! and probably larger than China (if we could really know).

Why are we broke?
Fighting useless bullshit wars, making a lawbreaker out of almost everybody & locking them up in ever increasing numbers for longer periods of time at ever greater cost.

What's in the future for America? The rich will get exponentially richer and everybody else will suffer. The bankrupt aging paranoid "war state" will become more repressive an draconian and we will hear daily about the boogieman du-jour and more about protecting "the children" and "freedom" "terrorism/terrorists" "for our own good". There will be more and more "shadowy EVIL organizations" that need to be "fought".

What amazes me is that anybody believes this shit, considering what we all know about the last forty years!

Re:Three Strikes..

[froggymana]

America has the largest prison population in the world, larger (by far) than all of the EU and South America combined! larger (by far) than the Russian federation! and probably larger than China (if we could really know).

I thought that everyone in China was in prison? Think about it, they are barely ever allowed to leave, can't bring "sensitive" information with them about the inside, and they even have Great Wall surrounding them and holding them inside.

Re:Three Strikes..

[Anonymous Coward]

What you think the TSA is slowing acomplishing? Once everyone is pissed off and wont care about flying, no one will care when it will be forbiden to leave anymore. The TSA is here to conditionate the americain public for it future condition.

mental-court supervision not jails

[davidwr]

Jails and probation and certain other restrictions are set at sentencing and are based on the laws in place at the time of the crime.

The ONLY reason a person should be under ANY restrictions after those expire is if he is a present danger to himself or others. This should be the SAME standard that applies to people who have never been convicted of a crime. If I raped someone 15 years ago and was convicted and served my full 14 years, my brother raped someone 15 years ago and got away with it on a technicality, and my cousin didn't rape anyone then, but all 3 of us have an identical risk of hurting ourselves or others today, we should be treated the same by the mental health system. The ONLY additional restrictions on me vs. my brother and cousin would be based on laws in effect in 1996 - which probably means I can't own a gun, I can't serve on a jury or in public office, and if my state had a sex-offender registration requirement in 1996 I would be subject to that. Otherwise, any restrictions on me should apply equally to my brother and cousin because, for the purposes of this illustration, we are equal risks to others.

Monitored by someone paid less than Min wage!

[Cobol God]

I interviewed with a company that monitored people nationwide with the ankle bracelets.

Job was for network technician responsible for all computers/sat links/ect. Also was to make the receptionists coffee and copies as she needs and be her gofer.
6 days a week. With possible 7 days a week. Salary. $18k a year. No bonuses/perks. Oh and if the system messes up and someone gets hurt. Guess who is the fall guy?

I basically RAN from the interview.

What if

[Anonymous Coward]

they have kids later in life? They won't be allowed at the schools?

Seems Like Overkill

[stewbacca]

IANASO but my drive home takes me through probably 3-5 school zones (depending which route I take).

Am I to understand that registered sex offenders are not allowed to drive through a school zone, when there could be several schools on the main road? Do these guys have to carefully plan their routes to avoid entering the red zones, or is it a matter of them "hanging around" these red zones?

capital offenses

[davidwr]

In most states the term "capital" is reserved for death-penalty-eligible offenses like capital murder.

Yes, I know some states use "capital" for other very serious crimes but many do not.

false convictions

[davidwr]

I'm willing to live in a society where I have a low chance of being falsely convicted of a misdemeanor, a very low chance of being falsely convicted of a low-level felony, and an extremely low chance of being convicted of a life-sentence felony in exchange for the privilege of not having a lot more people get away with crimes than already do.

I'm not willing to take any risk of being falsely convicted and sentenced to death.

The "bar of absolute proof before sentence is carried out" must be set at a point where more than a small number of citizens stand up and say "woah, it could be ME you are falsely convicting tomorrow and I won't stand for it."

For purists, that bar is the lowest-level misdemeanor. For me, it's the death penalty. For Socrates, there was no bar - he drank the hemlock in respect for the law. For others the bar is somewhere between a fine-only misdemeanor and life.

Where is the "5% mark" - that is, the level at which 5% of Americans would scream "that's too high!"

I don't know.

Re:false convictions

[Unkyjar]

You can live in a society that lives up to your desires. Move to Singapore.

it costs so much to keep then locked up for life a

[Joe The Dragon]

it costs so much to keep then locked up for life and the prisons and prison overcrowding is so bad people are getting out just on overcrowding.

got 2 in the woods?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take care, in US you are in the same category and the same law/treatment applies . Very weird, no?

In utero you say?

[davidwr]

I confess, I drove to work today thereby polluting the air the mother of your children is breathing, which is causing them actual albeit infinitesimal harm.

Hardly worthy of execution.

Higher up the harm scale my unwillingness to tax myself to death to support a K-12 education system 10x as good as the current one is also harming them, but again, hardly worthy of execution.

If they apply for a job 18 years from now and I'm the hiring manager and turn them down in favor of another applicant thereby hurting them financially, does that deserve education?

Yes, I know what this thread is about but my point is you need to choose your words more carefully.

To wit:

If I'm not born yet either and I'm your kid's future boyfriend or girlfriend and I fool around with them when we are both 15, will you kill me? Will my parents kill your precious child? Metaphorically perhaps but I hope not literally.

Re:In utero you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever he is I'm sure he's within about 20,000 kilometers of you. Either that or he's staring down at you from space.

Let's hope he's not armed with a long-range ICBM.

Third option probably the most prevelant:

[davidwr]

They wise up and stop doing things that are illegal.

you ignored the other half of the problem

[SuperBanana]

Way to only focus on the false allegations, and not all the ludicrous things that make you a a "sex offender".

Also, you neglected to mention that some studies found obscenely high rates of false rape accusations- well over half, in fact.

Lastly: let's not let a little thing like The Innocence Project get in the way of anything. You know, that project where they free huge numbers of death row inmates after proving they're innocent, usually using DNA testing? Funny how they find so many innocent people on death row, given murders receive the heaviest investigation.

Re:you ignored the other half of the problem

[mldi]

Way to only focus on the false allegations, and not all the ludicrous things that make you a a "sex offender".

Also, you neglected to mention that some studies found obscenely high rates of false rape accusations- well over half, in fact.

What ludicrous things that label you a "sex offender" was not the topic of that particular conversation. Sorry that I do not re-iterate every point of the more general topic when discussing a single point. But thanks for sharing (and you are right). Also, I DID mention rate of false rape accusations. I provided links to back up what I said, which in turn provides plenty of cited sources where you can read the figures yourself. I didn't see any mention of any study that claimed those figures were "well over half". That's just ridiculous.

Lastly: let's not let a little thing like The Innocence Project get in the way of anything. You know, that project where they free huge numbers of death row inmates after proving they're innocent, usually using DNA testing? Funny how they find so many innocent people on death row, given murders receive the heaviest investigation.

Well, in the Innocence Project, I believe they focus on cases where they were convicted based on identification in a lineup. Turns out those aren't so trustworthy (misidentified). There's other factors that come into play as well, as some cases were subject to racism, some had careless juries, and others were just one of the usual suspects in the right place at the right time (aka - lacking an alibi) while their history of crime wasn't violent. Hell, some just had cops that scared them into confessing (this shit still happens today).

hypocrites

[celle]

"We could outlaw religion and most of these sex crimes would disappear in a couple of generations. But we don't have time for rational solutions. -- George Carlin

Take away arbitrary standards (age, morality, etc) these problems go away.

We've had bankers and executives mess up the lives of millions of people(that includes children) and have gotten away with it, prosecutors going after sexting kids for political reasons, etc. So how can we "punish/abuse" so-called sex offenders individually doing what actually comes naturally when we won't deal with the "wmd" of abusers doing it for greed or those that abuse for political gain. Talk about hypocrites.

We'll vaporize entire cities with individual scenes and commentary on national TV with no problem but if theres one bare titty everyones up in arms.

Re:hypocrites

[treeves]

If you think that being a real victim of sexual abuse or rape is on par with being taken advantage of financially or being sold bad products, then I suggest you read this and reconsider: http://gizmodo.com/5726667/the-agonizing-last-words-of-bill-zeller

Private prisons don't like sex offenders

[rsilvergun]

they're too expensive to house, and when they inevitably get murders in jail the family sues. We're not letting these ppl out to be kind, we're doing it because private run prisons want a nice, quiet non-violent drug offender that does his time and is a perfect little profit center.

What's Singapore's false-conviction rate?

[davidwr]

You can live in a society that lives up to your desires. Move to Singapore.

Are you saying Singapore has

*a 0% false-conviction rate for the death penalty
*an extremely low false-conviction rate for long-sentence felonies
*a very low false-conviction rate for low-sentence felonies, i.e. less than 10-15 years
*a low false-conviction rate for misdemeanors

and

*a society in which 95% of the population thinks the false-conviction rates at each of these levels is acceptable enough that they are willing to be one of the falsely convicted?