Slashdot Mirror
New York State Releases Sex Offender Facebook App
Just in time for Halloween, the New York state Division of Criminal Justice Services launched a Facebook application to help families know which houses contain sexual offenders. “Knowledge is power. New Yorkers now have another way to access up-to-date information about sex offenders in their neighborhoods,” DCJS Acting Commissioner Sean M. Byrne said in a release. “With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as strangers’ homes. The Facebook app puts that important information at parents’ fingertips, whether they are at home or on the go.”
I want to know how broad this covers.
31 y/o having sex with a 5 y/o?
18 y/o having sex with a 17.9999999999 y/o?
Drunk college kid peeing on a dumpster at 2 am "exposing" himself?
What about the 16 y/o that sent nude photos of her/himself to another 16 y/o. One getting charged with creation of and the other distribution of 'child pornography.
In its current form most states "sexual offenders list" is dang near useless.
And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.
I think most people would agree that homosexuality is not a choice, and most would agree that people do not elect to be sexually attracted to children.
They need counselling and in the extreme cases some form of chemical castration.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
When you have a biological need that can only be satisfied by harming others or, for that matter, doing things that are so strongly counter-cultural that you must not do it in the culture you live in (e.g. polygamy in many countries or cultures, including most devout religious communities in the United States), then society not only MUST make counseling available but do so in a way that doesn't DISCOURAGE people from getting it. If people are afraid to tell their therapist "I'm in love with 2 women but I know God doesn't want me to sleep with both of them" or "I'm in love with my 6 year old cousin who lives next door but I know God and society don't want me to take him to bed" then we have a serious problem, one that will result in higher incidences of child abuse.
As for chemical castration:
Very few people are so controlled by their bodies that they cannot "say no" if they want to badly enough. However, it should be available as a tool to tone down the biological urges for those who would rather have low or no libido than live with a libido which they cannot satisfy without hurting others.
Chemical castration as a way to voluntarily lower libido isn't just for pedophiles and sex addicts. I wouldn't be surprised if more than one devout Roman Catholic man who has a civil divorce would prefer to lower his natural libido than be forced to live with a life of celibacy with his current sex drive. Unfortunately, because of its unpleasant side-effects, these drugs are too dangerous to use as a mere "lifestyle aid" when a libido which cannot be ethically satisfied is a mere annoyance - when it is not driving a person to want to sexually abuse others and it is not driving them to crippling depression or suicide.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I need an app that will help me track abusive policemen.
At this point, it seems like there is a much greater need to track abusive policemen than sex offenders. After all, if a sex offender causes problems, you call the police and they get put away. But if you are abused by a policeman, then calling the police just gets you more abuse.
I have a much greater need to track Tony Boloney http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/19/tony-bologna-with-a-side-of-pepper-spray-docked-10-vacation-days-videos/ than some random kink.
Abusive police we have with us always. We can't get rid of them. Our only defense is to track them and keep our distance.
Miles
Most states have Romeo and Juliet laws and those that don't typically don't AUTOMATICALLY put young offenders with close-in-age partners on the sex-offender registry even if they are convicted of statutory rape or equivalent.
Most states don't put first-time misdemeanor offenders on the registry. This includes the drunk exposing himself when he didn't know there were kids around AND when there weren't likely to be children around.
While some teens have been charged with sexting to age-peers, most states and prosecutors look for other charges or are modifying the laws so these aren't considered registration-required offenses. Even the federal prosecutors are loathe to prosecute things that teenagers commonly do as sex crimes.
it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.
Or, possibly even more likely, an older or same-aged family member or neighbor. I wonder how common forced/coerced incest is among 2-child families where the male is 2-10 years older than the female AND where, as the older child, he's routinely been required to babysit the younger one from the time he was 11 or 12 until the time she was the same age?
I wonder how often the parents find out but, because they don't want to ruin their son's life with even a juvenile sex-offense conviction, they handle it "within the family," depriving the younger child of helpful counseling and POSSIBLY (if the local prosecutors have youthful-offender pre-trial diversion programs that the family may not be aware of) necessary counseling for the older one?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The statistical answer is that they have the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime other than first-degree murder.
The political answer differs substantially.
What about the 16 y/o that sent nude photos of her/himself to another 16 y/o. One getting charged with creation of and the other distribution of 'child pornography.
My personal favorite is when they want the 16 year old who took the picture of him/herself tried as an adult for creating child pornography.
So you have an adult (assumed maturity and greater power) being charged for taking pornographic pictures of a child (assumed innocence and inability to fight back) when the adult pornographer and the violated child are THE EXACT SAME PERSON AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.
How did we develop a legal system so retarded that an argument that requires you to doublethink a single person into mature victimizer and immature victim doesn't get laughed out of court and is instead made precedent?