National Sex Offender Public Registry

I don't think this will actually be a trigger, since I'm just posting a link, but just in case, I included a trigger warning. I'm sure some people would like to know about this.

National Sex Offender Public Registry
http://www.nsopr.gov/

interesting site. thanks

i wish thier was something like that over here in england , to keep our children safe !!

is there one for people who hit kids?
how about those who verbally abuse kids?

what concerns me is that sometimes people are reformed and trying to live changed lives...

this kind of thing makes it impossible for them

I can sympathize with the folks who really want to get their lives back on track, but I think my need to protect my kid is more important. Also, while this database might make things more difficult for those offenders, I don't see how it makes it impossible for them to live changed lives.

Whether you *need* to protect your kid or not depends on whether the person is likely to reoffend or not. A register doesn't tell you that... It doesn't tell you whether they are likely to reoffend and it doesn't tell you who the new offenders are going to be.

There is a public register in NZ too... There was a public outcry that this guy was being released after 30 years and was going to live with his elderly mother in some small town. They were trying to prevent him living there. But... Where was he supposed to live?

They looked through the public register and this guy lost his job as a bus driver too. They were thinking they would not let people drive buses ('cause of school busses) if they had been charged for a sex crime with children.

One man went on TV. He was two years away from retirement (so he was around 63). He had been charged by his girlfriends parents for having sex with his girlfriend when she was 15 (legal age is 16). He married her the next year and they are still happily married... But he is no longer allowed to drive intercity busses of tourists up and down the north island. Because he is on the register.

Repeat offenders... Seriel offenders...

IMO it is a shame that the authorities don't do their job and actually properly protect us from these people by keeping them away until they are properly rehabilitated.

All I want to say is... Spare a thought for those who are rehabilitated / those who were falsely accused. That kind of thing literally can be life destroying. Even in cases where there was no victim.

That's one of the problems with the term "sex offender." There are still crimes on the books that can be enforced, even if they're consensual crimes, and it will get the person labeled a "sex offender." When people hear the term "sex offender," they think of rapists and child molesters. They don't think of a man who had consensual oral sex with his wife, and a jury decided to convict him because they could. Sodomy is still on the books in many states in the U.S., and includes oral and ****** sex.

I believe in free speech, but when the New York Times newspaper revealed information on methods our government was using to catch terrorists, it also informed the terrorists, and drove them further underground. That teaches them to hide better and to come up with sneakier ways to implement their goals. The same thing is true of pedophiles, rapists and predators. I don't want them living around me (but they do), but if they have nowhere to live (it's easy to say, "Not in my backyard," without helping to find a suitable alternative backyard), they'll find ways to live without anyone knowing where they are. They'll be more secretive, hidden and harder to find. And this will enable them to keep doing what they're doing. I prefer them to be out in the open, where I can know where they are, and where they feel freer to take risks--that can get them caught.

>That's one of the problems with the term "sex offender." There are still crimes on the books that can be enforced, even if they're consensual crimes, and it will get the person labeled a "sex offender." When people hear the term "sex offender," they think of rapists and child molesters. They don't think of a men who had consensual oral sex with his wife, and a jury decided to convict him because they could. Sodomy is still on the books in many states in the U.S., and includes oral and %#@&#! sex.

I heard that any position other than missionary is illegal in... Ohio? Someplace anyways. Not that it is enforced (can you imagine the FBI jumping out from under your bed to bust you ROFL!!!!!). But still, point is that IF these people are tried... They get their names on the public register do they not?

Hence... Consider the benefits / harms to the public register. Do the benefits outweigh the harms? I'm not sure that they do...

> I believe in free speech

Sure, I think that freedom of speech is important to, but I also think that there are limits. Hate speech is unacceptable IMO and thus there can often be a conflict. There can be a conflict between slander and liabel and freedom of speech as well... There can also be a conflict between privacy and freedome of speech. What to do when values conflict? Maybe one needs to weigh the benefits and the harms to decide what should be done...

> The same thing is true of pedophiles, rapists and predators. I don't want them living around me (but they do)...

A 16 year old (in NZ) who slept with a 15 year old (in NZ) would probably count as a pedophile. It would be considered that 15 is too young to be able to give informed consent (whether she thought she wanted to or not). Consider the bus driver... He would be classed as a pedophile on the public register. He married that girl the following year and they have been married for over thirty years. He hasn't had so much as a parking ticket since, and certainly hasn't had any crimes against persons. But he is on the public register. Would you not want him living in your back yard?

All I'm saying is that the public register doesn't tell you anything about
- The precise nature of the crimes
and even more to the point the public register doesn't tell you anything about
- Whether they are likely to reoffend.

Personally... If they aren't likely to reoffend then I don't have a problem with them living opposite their local preschool. I don't have a problem with them working as a teacher. I don't have a problem if they are unlikely to reoffend.

I worry that the public register gives people a false sense of security. There are plenty of people likely to offend who aren't on the public register and I'm sure there are plenty of people unlikely to offend who are on the public register.

> And this will enable them to keep doing what they're doing. I prefer them to be out in the open, where I can know where they are, and where they feel freer to take risks--that can get them caught.

So you think once an offender always an offender?

Why don't we just brand 'sexual offender' across their foreheads then it will save people having to bother looking at the public register.

Sigh.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

I do believe somebody or other said...

;-)

I have a close friend who has a conviction for having a 14 year old girlfriend when he was around 30.

He spent a few years inside for that. He is one of the nicest people you could possibly meet. Their relationship was completely consenting. His biggest crime, imo, was stupidity. Of course he should not have intercourse with her. But he's pretty low risk according to the STATIC (was opposite sex partner, not under 12, first offence etc). However, when he got out of prison, he was literally screwed in terms of getting a job, etc. He is now back working in his (our) profession. It was a long hard battle because many companies won't take the risk and of course, his name is on that damn register.

Fourteen year old girls can be little Lolitas. I don't believe it's always a one way street. And it isn't fair to shame him for the rest of his life.

Hey. Did he get any councelling / psychotherapy when he was inside? I really really really really really wish that inprisonment was about rehabilitation rather than retribution.

There are issues around whether a fourteen year old can give informed consent... There are also issues around whether he may have been in a position of power / authority over her. I guess we have no way of knowing how she is likely to feel about that in later years (many therapists would consider the relationship sexual abuse by definition and hence media / popular conception / therapy is more likely to lead to her feeling traumatised as a consequence).

Sigh.

But sure I hear what you are saying... I think there is a difference (a significant one) between violent crimes and non violent crimes. I think there is a difference (a significant one) between people only just under age and people who haven't hit puberty yet. I think there is a difference (a significant one) between people who have inappropriate sexual relationships (in the sense of with people underage) as a once off thing, or whether they make a routine habit of it. I think there is a difference between people who have a relationship with that person (where they date and hold hands and have an emotional attachment etc) and when there is sex that is kept quiet.

But the public register doesn't notice these distinctions...

And hence we tend to assume the worst of everyone on it...

And it really can ruin peoples lives. It really can. Imagine if you heard that someone on the register was hanging around your kids preschool... What would you think? Would you be concerned?

What if it was the bus driver going to pick up his granddaughter at the request of his son?

Yes he got rehabilitation. They do a lot of stuff around the offence chain etc at Rimutaka.

I spent three years doing stuff at Rimutaka for my phd and I can tell you most definitely that all sex offenders are most definitely not created equal.

Peoples' preconceptions are understandable to some degree but I don't think it is fair not to give a second chance after sufficient rehabilitation. Of course, that costs money which is a huge barrier - we cannot afford to give everyone the degree of help that they need.

special_k said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I heard that any position other than missionary is illegal in... Ohio? Someplace anyways. Not that it is enforced (can you imagine the FBI jumping out from under your bed to bust you ROFL!!!!!). But still, point is that IF these people are tried... They get their names on the public register do they not?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually, there have been cases of people charged on these kinds of crimes. Including the one I gave as an example, although it was a few years ago. In that guy's case, it was in court while he was being tried for rape against his wife. He was found not guilty of that, but both he and his wife admitted to the consensual oral sex, and he was put in jail for it.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Sure, I think that freedom of speech is important to, but I also think that there are limits. Hate speech is unacceptable IMO and thus there can often be a conflict. There can be a conflict between slander and liabel and freedom of speech as well... There can also be a conflict between privacy and freedome of speech. What to do when values conflict? Maybe one needs to weigh the benefits and the harms to decide what should be done...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I believe in freedom of speech, including "hate speech." I welcome people to tell me who they hate and why. I want to know who people really are. Stifling the truth gives power to those people, and makes them careful and crafty. But I also find hate speech laws and opinions are very discriminatory. It's wrong to hate this group or those people, but it's ok to hate those people and these groups. I believe even the most offensive speech is free to be spoken or expressed verbally. Everyone is offended by something, and no one has the right to say, "You can't say that!" Slander and libel are against the law. You can't say something that isn't true about someone that hurts their reputation and their income.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
A 16 year old (in NZ) who slept with a 15 year old (in NZ) would probably count as a pedophile.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

No. A hebephile or ephebophile is the correct term for a person attracted to teens, but I think it only applies to adults attracted to teens/post-pubescent children. A pedophile is an adult attracted to pre-pubescent children. I'm not sure what the term, if there is one, would be.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
So you think once an offender always an offender?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

That isn't what I said at all. I meant that, if you restrict a pedophile or predator (one who is going to do his or crimes again, given the chance) to the point they have nowhere to live, they will get better at hiding and finding ways to keep from getting caught.

> I believe in freedom of speech, including "hate speech."

so you think it is okay for extremist groups to post stuff on how all the modern evils are because of the jews or the blacks or the muslims or the christians or whatever? i don't think this is okay... i think there are limits to freedom of speech...

> I welcome people to tell me who they hate and why.

sometimes people aren't very interested in talking about why. sometimes their goal is solely to inspire hatred and discrimination toward some group or other...

> Stifling the truth gives power to those people...

i'm not so sure about that... i will listen if people are prepared to talk about reasons in a rational way. sometimes people are solely interested in rhetoric and in inspiring fear and hatred. those people... i don't think they should be allowed to air their views in a public forum. not until they are prepared to come to the party of providing reasons and having rational discourse.

> But I also find hate speech laws and opinions are very discriminatory. It's wrong to hate this group or those people, but it's ok to hate those people and these groups.

sure. i don't like hate much... when people hate... i am wary... i think they are likely to have been hurt... or they are likely to have been subjected to a lot of hate speech which has inspired fear and loathing in them.

> Everyone is offended by something, and no one has the right to say, "You can't say that!"

i think it depends what they are trying to say... i'm just worried about hate speech. and in this instance... i'm worried about privacy for those who have been convicted of sexual offences... don't get me wrong... if the list was those who are repeat offenders and who are likely to reoffend i wouldn't have a problem. the bus driver... the guy who engaged in oral sex with his wife... i think they are entitled to their privacy regarding their record. they are victimless crimes. the public doesn't need to know. they have a right (IMO) to privacy.

> Slander and libel are against the law. You can't say something that isn't true about someone that hurts their reputation and their income.

well you can but you might be taken to court for it...

> No. A hebephile or ephebophile is the correct term for a person attracted to teens, but I think it only applies to adults attracted to teens/post-pubescent children. A pedophile is an adult attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Ah. I didn't know that distinction, thanks for that. There is of course a difference between attraction and fantasy and acting out on that attraction / fantasy...

Out of curiosity I checked the list and sure enough I found a name that I am very familiar with. It's a shame I don't speak to my family. I'm sure my older brother would be interested to know that this person is on the list.

My ex is on that list.

I say kill 'em all! Sorry...just venting.

I was reading the thread and had a question...I agree that some people are labeled as sex offenders when they are not. What happens to those people? Do they ever live a "normal" life...do ya think?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
drunksunflower said:Their relationship was completely consenting.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm really not sure if a 14 year-old can give consent when we're talking about someone so much older. Regardless of how mature she was for her age, there's a huge difference in experience there.

Anyway, I agree that it's a shame that they don't differentiate the offenses more on these sites, but that would require providing more detail than most offenders would really want out there, don't you think? In the end, I do think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. It's true that not everyone on those lists is a predator, but there are plenty of predators on there. If one moves in next door, I want to know about it.

I don't have any desire to screw up anybody's life, but the life that I'm most concerned about getting screwed up is my kid's.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Lexicon78 said:

I was reading the thread and had a question...I agree that some people are labeled as sex offenders when they are not. What happens to those people? Do they ever live a "normal" life...do ya think?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Boy, I sure hope so, Lex. I know a guy who made the mistake of dating someone under the legal age limit (she lied about her age) and when he found out her true age, he broke if off with her. She went to the police and told them he raped her, and now he is on the sex offender's list. It makes me SO angry, because I have known him for many years and he has children of his own and he is an excellent dad. My son grew up around him, and he is excellent with kid's. I don't know how this has affected his life, but I feel bad that it was her word against his, and that she chose to falsely report him out of revenge.

Zen

special_k said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
so you think it is okay for extremist groups to post stuff on how all the modern evils are because of the jews or the blacks or the muslims or the christians or whatever?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes. I don't have to agree with what they say, but they have the right to say it.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
sometimes people aren't very interested in talking about why. sometimes their goal is solely to inspire hatred and discrimination toward some group or other...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes, and I didn't say they'll tell me why they hate. I said I would like them to. I think people have a right to hate. Feelings aren't a choice, only perspective is choice. And even perspective isn't easily changed, especially if it's colored by tragic experiences and violence.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
i'm not so sure about that... i will listen if people are prepared to talk about reasons in a rational way. sometimes people are solely interested in rhetoric and in inspiring fear and hatred. those people... i don't think they should be allowed to air their views in a public forum. not until they are prepared to come to the party of providing reasons and having rational discourse.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Some people don't know how to be rational. You can't expect "rational" behavior from someone whose life hasn't taught them to be rational. And why do you get to determine whose views and methods are rational? What you call rational may be irrational to someone else.

And yes, it does give them power. Because they will find others who share their views, and you won't know about it, because they've learned to hide it. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. They will build their popularity underground, and when no one is ready, they will surface, more powerful than anyone imagined.

Most people don't see the racist supremecist groups, even though they're not so underground. But it's because people dismiss them and ignore them that they gain power. They find the young people who are still easily molded. They find the adults who have been victimized by a person or persons of a particular race. Those people may not have formed racist views yet, but the racists show them one point of view, show how this race has done this, and this, and this, and in the mind of the person whose opinion hasn't yet formed, this might make sense. When something makes sense, we don't always consider other points of view. Once we find something that makes sense, we don't always keep searching and exploring.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
i think it depends what they are trying to say... i'm just worried about hate speech.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't know if you're American, but in the USA, free speech means you can say something that offends me greatly. I don't have to agree with it, I don't have to think you're right. Your opinion doesn't harm anyone. Your actions can. So, you can hate, and say you hate, as long as you don't commit actions because of your hate.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
and in this instance... i'm worried about privacy for those who have been convicted of sexual offences... don't get me wrong... if the list was those who are repeat offenders and who are likely to reoffend i wouldn't have a problem.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm not arguing. Not everyone who commits a sexual offense will do it again. Some sexual offenses should resul in lifetime prison sentences, in my opinion. But not all.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
the bus driver... the guy who engaged in oral sex with his wife......they are victimless crimes.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

They are victimless crimes that never should have resulted in punishment. They should not be crimes.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Ah. I didn't know that distinction, thanks for that. There is of course a difference between attraction and fantasy and acting out on that attraction / fantasy...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Exactly. And the same is true of hate. Having the fantasy/hate, and sharing it with others (even with the intent of finding others or inspiring others to feel the same way), is your right. Acting it out, on the other hand, is not. We don't want thought police.

Lexicon said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
What happens to those people? Do they ever live a "normal" life...do ya think?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Some manage, I think. Most people who find out what they do will have some sense and feel they got a raw deal. Whatever you might think of Rob Lowe, he seems to have gotten back to a "normal" life (not that a Hollywood actor's life is normal, LOL!). I don't know him, and I have no way of knowing that he hasn't committed more illegal acts with minors, and that he isn't a horrible person, but from what I've seen (which I know is only a public image, and may be a false one), he's living a normal life with a normal marriage. Of course, he could be divorced now, for all I know...I don't keep up with celebrity gossip a whole lot.

justben said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I'm really not sure if a 14 year-old can give consent when we're talking about someone so much older. Regardless of how mature she was for her age, there's a huge difference in experience there.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree. At 14, she doesn't know anything, even if she thinks she knows everything. Many girls believe sex equals love, or that it's okay to use their bodies and sex to get what they want, and they don't know the consequences that may not show up for several years. They're not capable of giving consent, because they don't understand enough about life. And men are not rendered victims who can't control their sexual impulses because a pretty girl (of any age) flirts with or seduces them. They are the adults, and they are responsible for saying no. They are perfectly capable of refusing sex with a woman, and they better damn well say no to an underage girl. The same goes for an adult woman and a minor boy or girl. It's stupid and even if you think it's okay, it's just not worth the trouble, IMO.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Boy, I sure hope so, Lex. I know a guy who made the mistake of dating someone under the legal age limit (she lied about her age) and when he found out her true age, he broke if off with her. She went to the police and told them he raped her, and now he is on the sex offender's list. It makes me SO angry, because I have known him for many years and he has children of his own and he is an excellent dad. My son grew up around him, and he is excellent with kid's. I don't know how this has affected his life, but I feel bad that it was her word against his, and that she chose to falsely report him out of revenge.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Yeah, that's one thing that really angers me. I know a lot of girls who could easily pass for legal age. What's a guy supposed to do, card her? Especially if it's a case where she's in a club or bar for adults, meaning the girl probably had a fake ID good enough to fool the bouncer. It's logical that a guy in such a place would assume all women in there are also adults.

May trigger at the end ... ok ... sorry. But it's quite graphic in terms of describing the qualitative differences between sex offenders.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
JustBen said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
drunksunflower said:Their relationship was completely consenting.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm really not sure if a 14 year-old can give consent when we're talking about someone so much older. Regardless of how mature she was for her age, there's a huge difference in experience there.

Anyway, I agree that it's a shame that they don't differentiate the offenses more on these sites, but that would require providing more detail than most offenders would really want out there, don't you think? In the end, I do think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. It's true that not everyone on those lists is a predator, but there are plenty of predators on there. If one moves in next door, I want to know about it.

I don't have any desire to screw up anybody's life, but the life that I'm most concerned about getting screwed up is my kid's.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

IMO there are huge differences between individuals. Many are not. Others are, especially when the 30 year old has perhaps had some bad experiences family wise himself ... they bonded because they were both coming from a similar place. It isn't always years that count, it is the way that two people collide in a certain place n time. My friend is not predatory. I have known him fairly well for a long period of time. I know his past, his struggles then and now. I confidently wrote a character reference from the standpoint of both friend and professional (given my qualifications and experience). Sometimes people make mistakes. It doesn't mean they are going to jump on your kid the next chance they get.

When I was 14 and 15 my friends and I were terrible little Lolitas. We would try and get away for 17/18, flirted terribly with way older guys, and quite frankly, could have got someone in trouble unwittingly.

So I don't think what may be classified as a "sex offence" is always the incarnation of the devil.

I also do believe in the efficacy of some rehabilitation, for some people.

I have spent some time with rapists in the context of writing a thesis looking at substance abuse and offending. There are some people I have shared a room with who I do not believe are safe and doubt that they will ever be safe. Unfortunately someone whose father sexually assaults them from the age of 11, while making them sniff petrol fumes, has little chance of developing a normal conception of sex. He's 25 years old now. He has attempted rape once, repeatedly acted out rape fantasy with his partner, and finally abducted, raped, and sodomised a 16 year old girl. He got caught finally.

There was also a boy who was 17 when I interviewed him. At 14 years old, as part of a gangbang situation, forced in his initiation to be part of the rape. Or he himself would have been beaten the crap out of.

One of these people has a pretty good chance of avoiding recidivism. The other may not ever get the counselling he needs ... his fantasies and need to offend tie in strongly with his marijuana and meth use, and create very disturbed fantasies and disinhibition which means he has the urge to physicially try them out.

It makes me very upset.

Address the freakin cycle of violence (both sexual and physical) and maybe we will have some solutions.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
zen13 said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Lexicon78 said:

I was reading the thread and had a question...I agree that some people are labeled as sex offenders when they are not. What happens to those people? Do they ever live a "normal" life...do ya think?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Boy, I sure hope so, Lex. I know a guy who made the mistake of dating someone under the legal age limit (she lied about her age) and when he found out her true age, he broke if off with her. She went to the police and told them he raped her, and now he is on the sex offender's list. It makes me SO angry, because I have known him for many years and he has children of his own and he is an excellent dad. My son grew up around him, and he is excellent with kid's. I don't know how this has affected his life, but I feel bad that it was her word against his, and that she chose to falsely report him out of revenge.

Zen

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

that is not uncommon. grrrrrrrrr.

I think that what counts as sexual abuse changes as society changes... Ian Hacking's 'Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory' is an interesting read on that score.

He considers how nowdays many things are considered abusive that never were before. Oftentimes calling something 'abuse' is a call for social change... All the way back in the history of our ancestors when the average lifespan was around 45 it was not uncommon for girls to be married off at puberty (around 14). It didn't count as abusive in the culture... But maybe we can call it abuse because we are more enlightened? Who knows...

I think that situations vary... I know a few 30 year olds with the emotional intelligence of teenagers and a few teenagers with around the same emotional IQ. I think it could indeed be possible for a truely consentual relationship to develop... But then I guess in the majority of cases in our culture such an age discrepancy signifies something... But then while an age discrepancy of say a 60 year old millionare and a late twenties trophy wife certainly also signifies something we don't consider it to be abuse...

Regarding the underage people acting of age...

Maybe there is a cautionary tale in there about casual sex...

>> so you think it is okay for extremist groups to post stuff on how all the modern evils are because of the jews or the blacks or the muslims or the christians or whatever?

>Yes. I don't have to agree with what they say, but they have the right to say it.

I agree that they have the right to say what they want in the privacy of their own homes... I guess... I'm just trying to say that I don't think freedom of speech is an absolute right that takes priority over all other considerations. Let me try and think of some examples where you might be willing to agree that other considerations can over-ride a persons right to freedom of speech.

- Lets say a school teacher wanted to teach his students that the current evils in the world were due to blacks / jews etc. Do you think he should be allowed to spout hate speech in the classroom?
- Lets say someone stands in a building and yells 'Oh my god the building has been bombed!'. When they know full well it hasn't. Do you think they should be allowed to do that?
- Lets suppose that someone tries to recruit people to bomb a building or something... Or tries to persuade people that god wants them to become a terrorist bomber or something like that. Do you think they should be allowed to do that?

>... perspective isn't easily changed, especially if it's colored by tragic experiences and violence.

Yes. And if it is fostered by hate speech.

> Some people don't know how to be rational.

Well... Apparantly people are born with an innate understanding of modus ponens (and logical forms in general). But it is true that critical thinking and critical reasoning and rational discourse is a skill that improves with formal instruction / practice. They are starting to try and teach these things in philosophy for children programs. If you want to have an authentic democracy then you need people who are critical thinkers...

> What you call rational may be irrational to someone else.

There are objective standards of rationality.

> And yes, it does give them power. Because they will find others who share their views, and you won't know about it, because they've learned to hide it. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. They will build their popularity underground, and when no one is ready, they will surface, more powerful than anyone imagined.

In order for them to have power they need to persuade other people around to their cause...

> Most people don't see the racist supremecist groups, even though they're not so underground. But it's because people dismiss them and ignore them that they gain power. They find the young people who are still easily molded. They find the adults who have been victimized by a person or persons of a particular race. Those people may not have formed racist views yet, but the racists show them one point of view, show how this race has done this, and this, and this, and in the mind of the person whose opinion hasn't yet formed, this might make sense. When something makes sense, we don't always consider other points of view. Once we find something that makes sense, we don't always keep searching and exploring.

So you think that if we listened to them more their power wouldn't be so great? I'm not so sure about that...

> I don't know if you're American, but in the USA, free speech means you can say something that offends me greatly. I don't have to agree with it, I don't have to think you're right. Your opinion doesn't harm anyone. Your actions can. So, you can hate, and say you hate, as long as you don't commit actions because of your hate.

Ah. But there are limits on where and how you can express your hate aren't there?

> They are victimless crimes that never should have resulted in punishment. They should not be crimes.

Yeah. Sometimes the law and morality diverge...

> Exactly. And the same is true of hate. Having the fantasy/hate, and sharing it with others (even with the intent of finding others or inspiring others to feel the same way), is your right. Acting it out, on the other hand, is not. We don't want thought police.

So it is okay for teachers to share their hate with their students then?

if you take all the people listed on the public register...

then you take all the people who commit sexual offenses in the next 10 years... (ideally, we can't access that info in practice)

then do you think that the majority of sexual offences in that 10 year period will be committed by people on the list or people not on the list?

i would have thought...

more would be committed by people not on the list.

hence... you have more to fear from people not on the list.

(isn't it interesting how you can play with stats)

to repeat: i think the list is harmful because it lulls people into a false sense of security.

i think the list is harmful because it can severely impact peoples lives when they are not likely to reoffend.

i guess people think: but how many sexual offenses can we PREVENT by the existence of the public register?

does that outweigh the harms done to people who are not a risk of reoffending?

whether you want more details on the public register probably depends on the nature of your sexual offense. If you committed a victimless sexual offense then i'd imagine you would want everyone to know that it was indeed a victimless sexual offense. if, on the other hand, you were a predator who was planning on reoffending... you would probably prefer people not to know that your modus operandi was to hang around the local primary schools...

I love the way you play with stats

So, anyone want to discuss the dark figure of crime, especially sexual crime?

Anyone want to tell me why domestic violence stats go up after implementation of no-drop policies?

Thank you I think the point of offiicial stats being s hite is pretty easy to make.