Homeless sex offenders directed to woods

[Rachmaninoff]

Okay... I must be out of touch here since this is the first time I've heard of this. The full details can be found in the article here:

[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33060361/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/"][U]Homeless sex offenders directed to woods[/U][/URL]

I mean, I can understand and I even support the restrictions, but pointing them to the woods for living accommodations, just seems like it's going too far. Especially since this is for people who have done their time and are trying to follow the restrictions.

So what do you guys think? There's a poll there which asks: "[U]Should sex offenders be forced to live in tent camps as a last resort?[/U]" And the choices are as followes:
[SIZE="1"][LIST][*]No. Authorities need to help sex offenders find housing that complies with the law.
[*]Yes. At least authorities know where to find the sex offenders.
[*]Not sure. Perhaps officials should reconsider the tough sex offender policy.[/LIST][/SIZE]At the moment, unless other information leads me to think differently, I'm leaning towards the first choice. What about the rest of you?

[The Spectacular Professor]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Yeah, the woods are far too close to civilization. Might I suggest the peak of Mt. Everest?[/FONT]

[Jabberwocky]

[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]How about a spot right next to the devil and his eternal flames?

Just sayin'[/FONT]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Jabberwocky'][FONT="Palatino Linotype"]How about a spot right next to the devil and his eternal flames?

Just sayin'[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]How about this one:

[LIST][*]Not sure. Maybe they shouldn't have "sex-offended" in the first place, and any consequences are their own danged fault.[/LIST]
I mean, who doesn't like to go camping?[/FONT]

[Horendithas]

[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Indigo"]I'm going to go against the trend coming up so far in this thread. Not because I feel sorry for sex offenders, but because of the impractical nature of just sending them to the woods and hoping they'll behave and stay put.

I see several glaring problems with that 'solution'. Namely, you can't effectively track them or know if they're not crossing into areas they shouldn't if they're living in the woods.

Sure you can't if they're in the city. But if you know where they're living and working and they're doing as told by sticking to the restrictions, then it's much easier to keep an eye on them than it would be if they were still running about in the woods.

Oh and you could suggest we put GPS implants on them so you'd know if they left the woods and went into an area they shouldn't, but do we really want to move into something that's more of a big brother deal? I'd rather not move in that direction for law enforcement.

Also, this article is talking about people who have served their time and are actually trying to follow the restrictions. Why miss out on the opportunity to direct them towards appropriate housing and thus more effectively keep an eye on them?

Whether they shouldn't have done it in the first place, when they've served their time as society dictates, is a moot point really. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[Nerdsy]

[color=deeppink]I pretty much whole-heartedly agree with Indi on this. Turning them into tree-folk is not really efficient here.

I just feel like adding that hating sex offenders as a whole is a little extreme for my tastes. The rapists and the pedophiles, yes, they should burn in the lowest depths of hell... but there are sex offenders out there who where put on the list for soliciting a prostitute and and (as best I can verify) public urination.

I really don't like holding the latter to the same standards. I'm kind of getting that vibe here, though I understand there's nothing concrete in any post here that shows anyone really going to this extreme, and it's not even really applicable to this situation because it doesn't appear that you can get put on the registry in Georgia for anything other than rape and pedophelia, but I just felt it needed to be said.[/color]

[Horendithas]

[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Indigo"]Depending on where you live, getting placed on the Sex Offender Registry is much easier than people realize. Instead of explaining it I'll just link to two articles that do so.

[URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/09/sex-offender-registry-no-help-to-jaycee-dugard.html"][U]Sex Offender Registry No Help to Jaycee Dugard[/U][/URL]

And this one here:

[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=4444516&page=1"][U]Parents Turn to Police When Daughters Have Sex[/U][/URL]

The problem is that assuming someone on the Sex Offender Registry must be dangerous, is far from accurate. Plenty of people are on there for stupid choices they made instead of being individuals who are truly dangerous to society. Either way, it's still not an effective solution at all. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[Zen]

[quote name='Indi'][FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Indigo"]Depending on where you live, getting placed on the Sex Offender Registry is much easier than people realize. Instead of explaining it I'll just link to two articles that do so.

[URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/09/sex-offender-registry-no-help-to-jaycee-dugard.html"][U]Sex Offender Registry No Help to Jaycee Dugard[/U][/URL]

And this one here:

[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=4444516&page=1"][U]Parents Turn to Police When Daughters Have Sex[/U][/URL]

The problem is that assuming someone on the Sex Offender Registry must be dangerous, is far from accurate. Plenty of people are on there for stupid choices they made instead of being individuals who are truly dangerous to society. Either way, it's still not an effective solution at all. [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue][size=1]

I cant' believe it took this long for someone to make this statement. Yes, while genuine sex offenders are really bad people, the law is far to broad and inclusive on who's considered a sex offender. An eighteen year old boyfriend of a 17, 16 year old girlfriend who possesses naughty photos of his girlfriend could be considered a sex offender, on equal grounds with a convicted pedophile. A guy who drunkingly urinated on a tree on the side of the road is up there with a guy who attempted rape. The laws either need to be relaxed or far, far more discriminatory between minor and major offenders (or what constitutes a genuine offender).

I'm a believer in redemption, and if a person is a genuine sex offender, served his time, and is deamed "reformed", they should atleast be given the chance to show they've learned some what of a lesson (with probations involved of course) before they are punished for the rest of their lives (though I suppose a guy who's raped multiple people should not be given this opportunity). The government should atleast help them. I mean, I'd be just as concerned living next to a convicted burglar or drunk-driver as I would be a sex offender but we aren't given a public notice of their crimes, they aren't told they can't live in areas where their crimes can be recommitted and harm others.

*sigh*[/color][/size]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Indi'][FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Indigo"]I'm going to go against the trend coming up so far in this thread. Not because I feel sorry for sex offenders, but because of the impractical nature of just sending them to the woods and hoping they'll behave and stay put.

I see several glaring problems with that 'solution'. Namely, you can't effectively track them or know if they're not crossing into areas they shouldn't if they're living in the woods.

Sure you can't if they're in the city. But if you know where they're living and working and they're doing as told by sticking to the restrictions, then it's much easier to keep an eye on them than it would be if they were still running about in the woods.

Oh and you could suggest we put GPS implants on them so you'd know if they left the woods and went into an area they shouldn't, but do we really want to move into something that's more of a big brother deal? I'd rather not move in that direction for law enforcement.

Also, this article is talking about people who have served their time and are actually trying to follow the restrictions. Why miss out on the opportunity to direct them towards appropriate housing and thus more effectively keep an eye on them?

Whether they shouldn't have done it in the first place, when they've served their time as society dictates, is a moot point really. [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"]This.

I also just realised the preview from the main page of the boards regarding this thread is just hilarious.[/SIZE]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri][CENTER][IMG]http://fitnessgurunyc.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/why-so-serious-300x300.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

I dunno, guys, I kinda prefer to be glib about stuff I can't actually vote on yet. Haven't heard much about anything of this sort in my state, yet, so.[/FONT]

[SunfallE]

[FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]I've no idea if there is any current legislation to lighten up the laws in regards to what could get you placed on the registery, Allamorph. I still think what [COLOR="Indigo"]Indi[/COLOR] said here fits it the best: [quote name='Indi][FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Indigo"]The problem is that assuming someone on the Sex Offender Registry must be dangerous, is far from accurate. Plenty of people are on there for stupid choices they made instead of being individuals who are truly dangerous to society. Either way, it's still not an effective solution at all. [/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote]This would be my main concern. Even so, turning someone, as Nerdsy put it "into tree-folk" isn't an effective solution at all. So based on the poll choices I'm leaning towards both one and three. Help direct them to proper housing and lighten up the laws for those who aren't a danger to society. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Allamorph;][FONT=Calibri']I dunno, guys, I kinda prefer to be glib about stuff I can't actually vote on yet. Haven't heard much about anything of this sort in my state, yet, so.[/FONT][/quote]I don't think there is anything to be voted on. More like pointing out that the current system for dealing with people like that is failing. And it doesn't even go into how many people aren't dangerous sex offenders.

But yeah, most threads here don't do much more than let people comment on what they think of the current situation.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think this story underlines the fact that really, nobody knows how to effectively deal with "true" sex offenders.

I mean there are a few arguments you can make here.

One side says that these people committed potentially horrible crimes and they've now served their time in jail. So at this point they should have the same right to a home as everybody else.

The other side says that despite any time they have served, they remain a danger to the community and must therefore be isolated from society.

My feeling is really somewhere in the middle. I mean, I have nothing but contempt for people who commit horrific sexual crimes - how could a reasonable person have any other emotion about it?

On the other hand, I think it's sort of easy for people to say "well you shouldn't have done this in the first place" or "I'd be happy if you just burn in hell". I mean, [i]duh[/i] - talk about state the obvious.

The issue is now more about how do we handle the situation once a person has been released from prison. And in a civilised society, we do have this expectation that you do the crime and you do your time and then (for the most part) that's it.

I think sex offenders are a particular problem though because the evidence does seem to show that re-offending is fairly common. Therefore, we have to think of how best to prevent re-offending.

I disagree with the idea of just sending people into the woods, for one thing. Surely it's obvious that this policy ultimately doesn't work on a number of levels (even if you're only thinking about the practicality of it).

Having said that, where do you put sex offenders? Most towns and cities are not likely to have much housing that is sufficiently far from school zones.

I almost think the only true solution is to literally build some sort of specialised accommodation or something - I don't know. It's a really tough problem. [/font]