-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Chip implant for sex offenders
- Thread starter wondering
- Start date
Werbung:
Well, without even having to resort to the slippery slope argument, this is simply...people, please, like NO! WTF!? This is a step backwards in the field.
A similar looking argument that is actually quite different: if we were to enforce implanting chips on sex offenders, then we should implant chips on EVERYBODY.
A similar looking argument that is actually quite different: if we were to enforce implanting chips on sex offenders, then we should implant chips on EVERYBODY.
With that sarcasm tacked on there, I really don't know what point you're making...or if you even have a point...?
Mine is that the chip implies subscription to "once a sex offender, always a sex offender." It perpetuates an unnecessary and inaccurately ascribed stigma. The other one about the having to put chips on everybody is a bit more obscure, and since it's 330am where I'm at and I'm way too tired, I'll only explain it if prodded.
Mine is that the chip implies subscription to "once a sex offender, always a sex offender." It perpetuates an unnecessary and inaccurately ascribed stigma. The other one about the having to put chips on everybody is a bit more obscure, and since it's 330am where I'm at and I'm way too tired, I'll only explain it if prodded.
I lacked a point. I just felt like making a sarcastic joke.
I personally dislike the idea of tracking sex offenders. The whole purpose of jail is to punish and rehab criminals. Maybe the correct response should be to increase the sentences for sex offenders, instead of tracking them outside of prison.
One of my fears is the "slippery slope" arguement. The government is not known to stop regulation after one law. I would fear that all criminals would then be implanted with one of these chips. It might not even stop there. I would not like to live in a world were every citizen is fitted with a chip to monitor there whereabouts.
Some Americans are against government monitoring your every move. This is why you see people fighting against small things like cameras looking at public grounds and property.
I personally dislike the idea of tracking sex offenders. The whole purpose of jail is to punish and rehab criminals. Maybe the correct response should be to increase the sentences for sex offenders, instead of tracking them outside of prison.
One of my fears is the "slippery slope" arguement. The government is not known to stop regulation after one law. I would fear that all criminals would then be implanted with one of these chips. It might not even stop there. I would not like to live in a world were every citizen is fitted with a chip to monitor there whereabouts.
Some Americans are against government monitoring your every move. This is why you see people fighting against small things like cameras looking at public grounds and property.
mamab
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 251
You know, I'm all for increasing the sentences for sex offenders. Personally, I think they should be castrated. I think that would more of a deterant than having to face a couple years in prison. However, I do believe that they should be tracked. Not with chips, but somehow.
We have two known sexual offenders that live at the end of my road. (Thank God I live at one end and they live at the other.) But I have a friend who has one living really close by. This person crosses her yard to get their relatives house. Therefore, my friend is afraid to let her children out of the house. They can't play outside. They're basically prisoners in their own homes.
I dunno Mama it sounds to me like your neighbors are more prisoners of their own fear than anything. Sex offenders in general have a lower recidivism rate than other felons. If we don't have to track people "prone" to assault, murder, etc, why track sex offenders in a special way? Why fear them any more than a regular felon?
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I'd want to live on a street with nothing but felons. Just that if I did I wouldn't pay the sex offender any more attention than the others. In all cases they've done their time and earned their release, and in most cases they've learned a lesson by serving their sentences.
With respect to the castration idea, unless you want to go Islamic fundamentalist and suggest we start cutting off thieves hands and whatnot I think what you're talking about would fall under cruel and unusual. There's also not much basis for saying its necessary.
Some of the "edge" cases worth thinking about when brandishing a blanket policy like this:
College kid streaks across a football field as a prank = sex offender
19 y/o sleeps with a 16 y/o = sex offender
assault repeat offender = not a sex offender
murder 10 people = not a sex offender
murder 10 kids = not a sex offender
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I'd want to live on a street with nothing but felons. Just that if I did I wouldn't pay the sex offender any more attention than the others. In all cases they've done their time and earned their release, and in most cases they've learned a lesson by serving their sentences.
With respect to the castration idea, unless you want to go Islamic fundamentalist and suggest we start cutting off thieves hands and whatnot I think what you're talking about would fall under cruel and unusual. There's also not much basis for saying its necessary.
Some of the "edge" cases worth thinking about when brandishing a blanket policy like this:
College kid streaks across a football field as a prank = sex offender
19 y/o sleeps with a 16 y/o = sex offender
assault repeat offender = not a sex offender
murder 10 people = not a sex offender
murder 10 kids = not a sex offender
Framed, can you please tell me where you got your statistics on sex offenders having "a lower recidivism rate than other felons". I have NEVER heard that before. In fact, I have only heard that they are very likely to reoffend. My experience, my studies, my sister and my nephew who work with sex offenders and my father who has a 35 year history in law enforcement and other people who work in law enforcement and in social work all tell me that sex offending is a lifelong struggle.
Back to the original point. I don't like the idea of chips in anyone. We have a legal tracking system and that should suffice.
Back to the original point. I don't like the idea of chips in anyone. We have a legal tracking system and that should suffice.
I posted in this in another thread on this topic and it got brushed off as "damned lies and statistics" but here it is: The link to a study the DoJ did back in 1997 about prisoners released in 1994. I like reliable statistics more than anecdotal evidence, and I can't think of a better source than the DoJ on the topic of repeat offenders.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm
Within 3 years of release from prison:
3.3% of child molesters were rearrested for molestation
2.2% of non-molester sex offenders were rearrested for molestation
0.4% of the entire set of released criminals were rearrested for molestation
43% of sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)
68% of non-sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)
In general you can fairly say offender type X is more likely than other criminals to recommit crime type X, but overall its a misconception to believe that sex offenders re-molest frequently or that they are rearrested more often than other criminals.
The stats more generally point out a pretty serious problem in our parole system. If anywhere near 43-68% of the criminal population is re offending they aren't getting the support they need to be successful after release.
In any case the original point i was making is that if you tag sex offenders, the bar is already low enough that you should be able to make the case that every felon should be tagged. (After all, they re-offend more than sex offenders! Gasp!) Further, I can't see how the tagging system addresses the root of the problem which is that ex-cons (sex offender or otherwise) are released into an environment that encourages them to fail and re-offend.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm
Within 3 years of release from prison:
3.3% of child molesters were rearrested for molestation
2.2% of non-molester sex offenders were rearrested for molestation
0.4% of the entire set of released criminals were rearrested for molestation
43% of sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)
68% of non-sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)
In general you can fairly say offender type X is more likely than other criminals to recommit crime type X, but overall its a misconception to believe that sex offenders re-molest frequently or that they are rearrested more often than other criminals.
The stats more generally point out a pretty serious problem in our parole system. If anywhere near 43-68% of the criminal population is re offending they aren't getting the support they need to be successful after release.
In any case the original point i was making is that if you tag sex offenders, the bar is already low enough that you should be able to make the case that every felon should be tagged. (After all, they re-offend more than sex offenders! Gasp!) Further, I can't see how the tagging system addresses the root of the problem which is that ex-cons (sex offender or otherwise) are released into an environment that encourages them to fail and re-offend.
I would think that sex offending being a lifelong struggle applies insofar as it is a reflection of mainly one's orientation and predilections (the "nature" component, if you will). Some will find it much harder than others for this reason, although it would be reasonable to consider other environmental and behavioral factors. But Framed is right- I've followed up the stats and it does seem that "sex offenders are likely to reoffend" is a blatant and highly prevalent misconception which serves but one feasible purpose- fearmongering among the public.
If these offenders are so bad that we need to implant them with chips to monitor their actions, why the hell were they released back into the population to begin with? If these sex offenders cannot be brought back to a state where they can function in society, leave them in jail. I am not against the idea of a chip implant so much as I am against the idea of potential offenders being re-released into society.
destiny_star200
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 33
From coming from first hand experience of what it is like to be living on fear of your attacker.
I would gladly welcome tracking them,that way police will always know where they're at 24.7.
And im sure it would stop them re-offending if they know there on a tracker!
I would gladly welcome tracking them,that way police will always know where they're at 24.7.
And im sure it would stop them re-offending if they know there on a tracker!
Thanks for the link, Framed. I still disagree because I read the site you listed and accompanying study and as mentioned above. It is only a 3 year study.
I found more information on the study you pointed out. You can find it here. http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/Sex_Offender_Treatment.pdf
This is from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections. It mentions the different results between this 3 year study and a 7 year study. The recidivism rate triples. It mentions that sex offenders are still less likely to reoffend within 7 years. But, it expresses the need for a longer study time. The second paragraph is of particular interest. In fact, it mentions that one study shows unmarried convicted child-molestors who molest boys actually reoffend at a 77% rate.
We can not base our opinion on a 3 or 7 year study, we need a lifelong study to know the true rate of reoccurence. But, if you are going to go only by statistics then, common sense would dictate that if it triples every 4 years then, within 15 years of release, the recidivism rate would be more than 100%. I know that is impossible but, I am just making a point that we can not judge an entire lifetime by the measure of a few years.
Here is a study form Arizona Dept. of Correcitons. The stats are pretty similar within those first few years but, they have studied it further. It is disturbing to say the least.
"Among the 1,649 sex offenders released from the Arizona prison system to the supervision of state parole officers, 70% eventually returned to prison with a new felony conviction for a sex crime, including 1.5% who committed a new sex crime while under state supervision."
You can find the article here http://www.azcorrections.gov/Recidivism.htm
Iowa participated in this study. http://www.state.ia.us/government/dhr/cjjp/images/pdf/01_pub/SexOffenderReport.pdf
Note that they say that just within the sampling of study participants, 24.9% ALREADY had previous sex convictions and were on the sex offender registry and 28.9% that were not on the registry. Of interest is the mention that recidivism rates are less for those on the registry.
I could go on and on with this but, I think it is clear that sex offenders certainly do have a very high recidivism rate when studied for more than 3 years.
I also think that some of these studies show that the sex registry is a deterent; at least it is lowering recidivism by registered sex offenders.
Please note that I didn't pick and choose any studues. I just did a quick search and took the first three I found. I have also checked on my state in the past and the experiences I had at Rape Relief and Crime victims Center showed me that every sex offender I have met with the exception of one has returned to prison for another sex crime.
I do consider myself an expert in this subject because of my work experience and I also am very aware of statistics as is required for social work and psychology studies. I am not saying to take my word for it, but, I am suggesting to look in many places before forming an opinion and make sure that you are taking the context of the statistics into account.
I found more information on the study you pointed out. You can find it here. http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/Sex_Offender_Treatment.pdf
This is from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections. It mentions the different results between this 3 year study and a 7 year study. The recidivism rate triples. It mentions that sex offenders are still less likely to reoffend within 7 years. But, it expresses the need for a longer study time. The second paragraph is of particular interest. In fact, it mentions that one study shows unmarried convicted child-molestors who molest boys actually reoffend at a 77% rate.
We can not base our opinion on a 3 or 7 year study, we need a lifelong study to know the true rate of reoccurence. But, if you are going to go only by statistics then, common sense would dictate that if it triples every 4 years then, within 15 years of release, the recidivism rate would be more than 100%. I know that is impossible but, I am just making a point that we can not judge an entire lifetime by the measure of a few years.
Here is a study form Arizona Dept. of Correcitons. The stats are pretty similar within those first few years but, they have studied it further. It is disturbing to say the least.
"Among the 1,649 sex offenders released from the Arizona prison system to the supervision of state parole officers, 70% eventually returned to prison with a new felony conviction for a sex crime, including 1.5% who committed a new sex crime while under state supervision."
You can find the article here http://www.azcorrections.gov/Recidivism.htm
Iowa participated in this study. http://www.state.ia.us/government/dhr/cjjp/images/pdf/01_pub/SexOffenderReport.pdf
Note that they say that just within the sampling of study participants, 24.9% ALREADY had previous sex convictions and were on the sex offender registry and 28.9% that were not on the registry. Of interest is the mention that recidivism rates are less for those on the registry.
I could go on and on with this but, I think it is clear that sex offenders certainly do have a very high recidivism rate when studied for more than 3 years.
I also think that some of these studies show that the sex registry is a deterent; at least it is lowering recidivism by registered sex offenders.
Please note that I didn't pick and choose any studues. I just did a quick search and took the first three I found. I have also checked on my state in the past and the experiences I had at Rape Relief and Crime victims Center showed me that every sex offender I have met with the exception of one has returned to prison for another sex crime.
I do consider myself an expert in this subject because of my work experience and I also am very aware of statistics as is required for social work and psychology studies. I am not saying to take my word for it, but, I am suggesting to look in many places before forming an opinion and make sure that you are taking the context of the statistics into account.
Werbung:
What makes me incredibly skeptical about this system is the fact that a percentage of tracked offenders were still returned to prison, nonetheless for another sexual offense. I just don't think there is a viable treatment out there yet, and I just don't see how re-victimizing the people who are innocent is going to help protect the offenders' rights, nor do I think they necessarily deserve such a chance to re-offend.
