When exactly does it start being "cruel and unusual" punishment?

[kengr]

Some of you have no doubt heard me rant about the overkill of the way most places treat registered sex offenders.

Well, I just encountered a new one. A friend of mine is one (and no, I thought these things were wrong before I ever met said person).

My friend now has 45 days to move because a neighbor just got approved for a day care center. Lord only knows where my and the person sharing the house with her are , going to get the money to move, much less do first & last month's rent, etc.

Explain to me again how this and all the other BS is *not* extra punishment over and above the sentence passed by the court?

And it's not as if my friend is even *capable* of repeating the offense (physically capable).

And my friend, if you read this, *don't* out yourself.

Comments

[cleverthylacine]

Honestly, whether or not I think this is cruel and unusual depends upon what the person did. A penis isn't necessary to hurt children. If someone actually has sexually assaulted kids, then they should not be allowed to live near a day care centre, period--I don't care if it's been 75 years. (That said, they should get help with the moving expenses and arranging the move and all that what not from their parole officer or supervising agency.) There are some sex crimes that I don't think you should be left unsupervised after even if you have proven you should be let out of prison/jail.

However, there are an awful lot of sex offences on the books that shouldn't rate this level of scrutiny; I've heard of people who have had to register as sex offenders simply because they got caught fucking out of doors, or because they had consensual sex with a 14 year old who looked and acted 19 and lied her arse off--and I can't imagine you being friends with someone who actually raped a prepubescent child.

[kengr]

Well, what they did was wrong. But they were al;so an addict and a bunch of other things at the time. And as I recall, (I may have this wrong) they and their victim are communicating.

For what it's worth, if it hadn't been so long ago *I* would be on one of those lists. Not for anything violent just messed up. :-(

My main objections to these are that first off, the same as yours. They include way too many people who shouldn't be on the lists.

Second is that they practically eliminate what chances of "rehabiliation" may exist. If you are going to bear the labekl forever *and* you are subject to this (and worse), then what's the incentive to even *try*?

ps. I'd be rather surprised if there's any sort of aid available. They *charge* parolees for their visits to their PO and the like.

[cleverthylacine]

I find the "rehabilitation" argument troubling.

Raping children is not like stealing, which people do because they have no alternative or they think they can get away with it or a whole host of other reasons that are basically rational, and which harms only property.

It is also not like murder, which is usually committed by relatively sane people as a reaction to a specific set of circumstances that is unlikely to recur.

It is a symptom of a mental illness we do not know how to cure, with which victims are very often "infected" themselves. Until we know how to CURE it, I'm not comfortable letting people who have it run around loose, no matter how well-behaved they have been in a supervised setting, because if they get out of control, they will create more victims, some of whom will grow up to become offenders themselves.

I know it's the common "liberal" belief that all criminals can be rehabilitated but that really is only possible if we know what caused the criminal to become one and can reverse it. The common "liberal" solution is to censor the media, particularly erotic media even if there are no living people in it, as per Australia or Canada, and as you know I'm against that. Why? Because you can write NC17 chanfic for years, and never want to harm a child, and none of your readers will either. Yes, a paedophile might get off on it, but a paedophile is also capable of getting off on the children's underwear section of the Sears Roebuck catalogue.

People who cannot be cured and who have been proven to be dangerous shouldn't be turned loose without supervision. Sorry. They're usually not happy people either. If they were dogs, we would put them down. They're not, so we can't do that, but that doesn't mean I want them living next door to me if there are children in my house. Or even if there aren't, if the person is known for violence against women rather than or as well as children.

I feel very differently about nonviolent sex crimes, like public sex or statutory rape of a consenting and duplicitous minor (one of the reasons I feel that way is that I very nearly fell into that trap myself with a 15 year old boy who looked 22, but thankfully someone warned me in time), or soliciting prostitution. Most of those are things that I either think should not be illegal (prostitution, teenage sex) or that I think should be misdemeanors (I don't think most people want to be subjected to seeing people fuck when they go to the park, I know I don't want to watch anyone doing that unless we have a certain kind of relationship, but that's ANNOYING, not worthy of jail time). And I have a real problem with people who go out and get drunk with the intention of getting laid and then wake up the next morning and regret it and say they were raped. Not all drunk sex is rape. If she's so drunk you can't ask her and she can't answer, that's rape, but if she has beer goggles it's her own damn fault. And there should be help available for people who have to move, but then, I think genuine violent sex criminals probably ought to be living in supervised facilities anyway.