Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth

[dylans]

I don't know if you are actually responding to my point, I said nothing else should be necessary if people deemed a risk were not freed from prison in the first place.
.

More knee jerk nonsense. People deemed at risk of reoffending are NOT released from prison. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is not higher than other crimes (in fact it is far less). The recidivism rate for sex offenders after 3 years is around 3% (despite what the Sun says)

 

[_angel_]

More knee jerk nonsense. People deemed at risk of reoffending are NOT released from prison. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is not higher than other crimes (in fact it is far less). The recidivism rate for sex offenders after 3 years is around 3% (despite what the Sun says)

Oh do fuck off with your patronising attitude.

People at risk of offending are released all the time because the prison system cannot impose longer sentences on people than the courts already have done.

I don't read the Sun.

 

[dylans]

You simply keep saying things that I've "said" that I have not. I am not the one looking to America and expecting to copy everything they've done, which is usually OTT.

Ok then enlighten me. ( because I don't feel like mooching through this thread to find your posts) . Are you in favour of the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders being made available to members of the public or not?

Yes or no?

 

[_angel_]

I don't think I will bother because you've consistently misrepresented me and others on this thread and dismissed anything that has been said as "nonsense" and other insults.

For example being in favour of some community groups having access to details of offenders living in their area, has been portrayed by you as wanting to publish the addresses of every sex offender in the News of the World. So there is no point in trying to engage with you.

 

[dylans]

I don't think I will bother because you've consistently misrepresented me and others on this thread and dismissed anything that has been said as "nonsense" and other insults.

For example being in favour of some community groups having access to details of offenders living in their area, has been portrayed by you as wanting to publish the addresses of every sex offender in the News of the World. So there is no point in trying to engage with you.

Because your argument has been destroyed. It would be nice if you had the courage to admit it.

 

[_angel_]

Because your argument has been destroyed. It would be nice if you had the courage to admit it.

Excuse me, but you are trying to say that I basically called you a paedophile a few posts ago, because you can't argue rationally without misrepresenting other people's opinions.

You lie about other people's positions and then arrogantly dismiss their opinions.

 

[dylans]

Excuse me, but you are trying to say that I basically called you a paedophile a few posts ago, because you can't argue rationally without misrepresenting other people's opinions.

You lie about other people's positions and then arrogantly dismiss their opinions.

I have provided you with substantial evidence of the negative consequences of making the names and addresses of offenders known to the public. You haven't answered that, because there is no answer. All the evidence shows that it leads to vigilantism, it drives sex offenders underground, it has a negative effect on rehabilitation and indeed makes reoffending more likely.

Because you are incapable of answering that you are now throwing your rattle out of the pram.

( btw- my comment about smears wasn't aimed at you, as has been said, so stop dodging the issue)
But you are right, this is no longer a debate about issues, it is rapidly becoming a childish flame war, so unless you wish to address the issue I guess the argument is over)

 

[_angel_]

I have provided you with substantial evidence of the negative consequences of making the names and addresses of offenders known to the public. You haven't answered that, because there is no answer. All the evidence shows that it leads to vigilantism, it drives sex offenders underground, it has a negative effect on rehabilitation and indeed makes reoffending more likely.

Because you are incapable of answering that you are now throwing your rattle out of the pram.

Do you think you could admit you mixed me up with another poster when you tried to accuse me of saying I thought you were a paedo apologist?

You're the only one on this thread getting this aeriated and putting words into people's mouths.

 

[dylans]

Do you think you could admit you mixed me up with another poster when you tried to accuse me of saying I thought you were a paedo apologist?

You're the only one on this thread getting this aeriated and putting words into people's mouths.

Yes I can admit that. I mixed you up with another poster.I apologise. I am big enough to do that.

Now can you admit that you have no substantive reply to the case I make that changing legislation to bring in some variant of Sarah's law would be counter productive.

 

[_angel_]

Thank you.

I am not basing anything on "megan's law" because I don't know enough about it but the bit I do know sounds extreme. I don't also know exactly what is proposed by Sarah's Law, but I don't think it's a bad thing for local areas to be put in charge of information about what goes on in their communities.
Information is just that, not a green light for some kind of vigilante activity which is what you are envisaging.

Of course there are going to be some bastards in any community, but you can't let a few idiots mean not treating the rest of the population as grown ups.

I would have thought sensitive information being passed on of this nature would also go hand in hand with increased police protection for individuals deemed to be at any risk.

Unfortunately tho I think "monitoring" of these people in the community by "professionals" is shaky at best because they are over stretched. Letting parents and neighbourhood's be aware of what is going on is often more helpful.

 

[dylans]

Thank you.

I am not basing anything on "megan's law" because I don't know enough about it but the bit I do know sounds extreme. I don't also know exactly what is proposed by Sarah's Law, but I don't think it's a bad thing for local areas to be put in charge of information about what goes on in their communities.
Information is just that, not a green light for some kind of vigilante activity which is what you are envisaging.

Of course there are going to be some bastards in any community, but you can't let a few idiots mean not treating the rest of the population as grown ups.

I would have thought sensitive information being passed on of this nature would also go hand in hand with increased police protection for individuals deemed to be at any risk.

Unfortunately tho I think "monitoring" of these people in the community by "professionals" is shaky at best because they are over stretched. Letting parents and neighbourhood's be aware of what is going on is often more helpful.

This is my whole point. The present legislation does a bloody good job of monitoring convicted sex offenders. 97% compliance is a pretty good figure (especially compared to the wholeful compliance rate for Megan)

Demands for a change in legislation. That "something must be done" are based on an erroneous view of the present situation. The idea that there is a problem that is not being addressed and the belief that new legislation is necessary to address this problem
But the facts say the opposite. There is no rise in sex offences.In fact they have fallen. No increase in rates of recidivism. No higher levels of recidivism for sex offenders as opposed to other crimes. No crisis to be resolved and certainly no problem that a change in legislation would solve.
It's a moral panic. There is no problem to be solved.

 

[JimW]

...

But the facts say the opposite. There is no rise in sex offences.In fact they have fallen. No increase in rates of recidivism. No higher levels of recidivism for sex offenders as opposed to other crimes. No crisis to be resolved and certainly no problem that a change in legislation would solve.
It's a moral panic. There is no problem to be solved.

This is the bit you've not convinced me on - partly because your 'facts' are pulled in from all over the shop, hopping back and forward across the Atlantic as suits, partly because it smacks of New Labour figure juggling to paint a picture. I admit as I said above that I've not looked into this issue in any depth, but sound bites like 'low recidivism' are I believe the case for most major crimes as opposed to, say, shop lifting, but that's not comparing like with like, plus also there's the different consequences if someone returns to kiddy fiddling as against going back to nicking socks from Primark.
Then you're conflating these two: 'no crisis' and 'no problem legislation can resolve' - my suspicion is these demos etc are part of a larger crisis in community breakdown. I'd agree that legislation scapegoating a few offenders, however despicable their crimes, won't actually address that bigger picture, but then nor will just telling people who are responding to the crisis that it's all just a moral panic and they should go home, lock their doors and let the authorities deal with things. That's why I say I've not been impressed with the tone of your contribution - starting off from the notion that people concerned about their community are as much or more part of the problem as the anti-social criminals and establishment that's presided over the breakdown. In effect, you seem happy to let the Murdoch rags and various other agenda pushers be the only ones to respond to this general sense that something's up with working class communities with anything other than outright dismissal.

 

[dylans]

This is the bit you've not convinced me on - partly because your 'facts' are pulled in from all over the shop, hopping back and forward across the Atlantic as suits, partly because it smacks of New Labour figure juggling to paint a picture. I admit as I said above that I've not looked into this issue in any depth, but sound bites like 'low recidivism' are I believe the case for most major crimes as opposed to, say, shop lifting, but that's not comparing like with like, plus also there's the different consequences if someone returns to kiddy fiddling as against going back to nicking socks from Primark.
Then you're conflating these two: 'no crisis' and 'no problem legislation can resolve' - my suspicion is these demos etc are part of a larger crisis in community breakdown. I'd agree that legislation scapegoating a few offenders, however despicable their crimes, won't actually address that bigger picture, but then nor will just telling people who are responding to the crisis that it's all just a moral panic and they should go home, lock their doors and let the authorities deal with things. That's why I say I've not been impressed with the tone of your contribution - starting off from the notion that people concerned about their community are as much or more part of the problem as the anti-social criminals and establishment that's presided over the breakdown. In effect, you seem happy to let the Murdoch rags and various other agenda pushers be the only ones to respond to this general sense that something's up with working class communities with anything other than outright dismissal.

Let's put this into context. We are not talking about outraged communites mobilising around a real issue that affects their neighbourhoods. We are talking about a 50 strong demonstration in dorset. Look at the footage. They are carrying a banner from that disgusting vigilante site Ratbook. It seems the vicious fuckers have supplied the Tshirts too.

These 50 people do not represent any significant community. They are a bunch of tabloid inspired idiots supported by one of the vilest websites on the internet. I find it incredible that you give them any credence frankly.

 

[kenny g]

Show me a single example from anywhere that shows that Megan works in the US? Show me a single reliable study that shows Megan has had any positive effect on sex offender re-offences or saved a single child from attack. One, just one. Do that and I may take you seriously, until then you are just another hysterical "do something" idiot.

Your position is based on a fallacy.

You could use the same argument against the imprisonment of Ian Brady by requesting that you are shown one child who was saved by his imprisonment.

The fact that I have not got a "study" to hand proves nothing.The dross you linked to earlier and keep on quoting at length is just an irrelevant mishmash of US statistics plagued with subjective comments and references to other dross. It proves nothing, which has been shown by the FACT that I easily built a counter position using the very same report that you linked to. Your response? Oh but that isn't what the study says! When all the study says is a wittering between cut and pastes.

Your posts have been utter horse crap. They have the integrity of a tabloid hack, but with the pretentiousness of a failed academic.

You have built a series of disingenuous straw men which you have then proceeded to insult and misunderstand. You are everything that you claim to hate.

 

[dylans]

I have said everything I want to on this thread so I will leave you to chase your bogeymen Kenny. People can read the thread for themselves and decide who is full of it and who isn't. Have a nice evening.

 

[kenny g]

I have said everything I want to on this thread so I will leave you to chase your bogeymen Kenny. People can read the thread for themselves and decide who is full of it and who isn't. Have a nice evening.

You too, have a nice one. Thank you for your tenacity in the face of defeat.

 

[dylans]

You too, have a nice one. Thank you for your tenacity in the face of defeat.

"If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the mor'ning. Hammer in the eve' ning", etc etc

 

[Louloubelle]

More knee jerk nonsense. People deemed at risk of reoffending are NOT released from prison. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is not higher than other crimes (in fact it is far less). The recidivism rate for sex offenders after 3 years is around 3% (despite what the Sun says)

I used to know 2 psychotherapists who worked in prisons with predatory sex offenders for years

They did not share your view and were highly doubtful that the people they worked with could actually change

I would be genuinely interested to read any credible literature that validates your claim of a 3% recidivism rate

 

[dylans]

I used to know 2 psychotherapists who worked in prisons with predatory sex offenders for years

They did not share your view and were highly doubtful that the people they worked with could actually change

I would be genuinely interested to read any credible literature that validates your claim of a 3% recidivism rate

Sex offenders, thought to reoffend compulsively, have in fact the lowest recidivism rate of any class of criminal. In 2004, the Solicitor General of Canada measured the recidivism rate for child molestation at 12.7%; the US Bureau of Justice Statistics recently found that three years after release, the recidivism rate for all sex offenders averaged 5.3%.

Source . http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=BF0FA813-7607-4666-B1F081D6A6C701CC

Other studies have put the rate at around 11%. Either way, the actual figures give the lie to the often repeated claim that recidivism is extra ordinarily high for sex offenders. It isn't.

Additionally, studies examining recidivism rates of sexual offenders within particular institutions have found low recidivism rates for sexual offenders, approximately 11 percent recidivism, as well as more comprehensive meta-analytical reviews reporting 12 percent recidivism among released sexual offenders (Hanson, Gordon,Harris, Marques, Murphy, Quinsey, & Seto, 2002; Nicholaichuk et al., 2000; Zgoba etal., 2003). Interestingly though, these low recidivism rates do not result in a re-formulation of legislation or a change in the perception of the media, politicians or the concerned public. For the most part, child offenders are viewed as predators solely prevented from re-offending by way of the current legislation, including both Megan’s Law and the Amber Alert. The propagated theories of highly recidivating child predators pave the way for child safety legislation, but may also create the counter productive result of misleading the public and misdirecting funds (Simon, 1997). The public is led to believe they are safe with this legislation in place, but the research illustrates that the majority of sexual offenders are not re-offending

http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Moral_Panic.pdf

 

[Louloubelle]

Source . http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=BF0FA813-7607-4666-B1F081D6A6C701CC

sorry

just to clarify

i was asking for credible literature

research by professionals working in the field and published published in reputable journals

 

[smokedout]

i was asking for credible literature

research by professionals working in the field and published published in reputable journals

as opposed to i used to know someone who worked in that field which is all you provided

 

[dylans]

sorry

just to clarify

i was asking for credible literature

research by professionals working in the field and published published in reputable journals

Not online but by By writing to the National Criminal Justice Reference Center, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20849-6000, you can obtain the following reports.

NCJ-163392 (February 7, 1997), Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault, finds the recidivism rate of 2,214 convicted rapists released from prison was 7.7% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (6.8%).

NCJ-193427 (June, 2002), Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, finds the recidivism rate of 3,138 convicted rapists released from prison was 2.5% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (1.2%).

In addition the paper I did quote earlier is from Criminal Justice Studies,
Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2004, pp. 385–404.
Source here. http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Moral_Panic.pdf

Are they credible enough for you?

Here are some more.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up of 1989 Sex Offenders
Releases, Office of Policy, Bureau of Planning and Evaluation, Paul Konicek, Principle Researcher

The recidivism rate of 879 sex offenders released from Ohio’s prisons in 1989, after ten (10) years, was found to be 8% for new sex offenses.

The ODRC study finds its results as typical, citing to:

1) Gibbons, Soothill, and Way, found in Furby, Weinrott &
Blackshaw, 1989. (Twelve year study finding sex offender recidivism
rate of 4%).

2) Gibbons, Soothill, and Way 1980, found in Furby, Weinrott &
Blackshaw, 1989. (Thirteen year study finding sex offenders
recidivism rate of 12%).

3) Hanson & Bussiere, 1996. (Mega-analysis of sixty-one sex
offender studies with a total of 28,972 sex offenders finding
recidivism rate for new sex offenses five years after release was
13.4%).

4) New York Department of Corrections, nine year follow-up study.
Finding a 6% rate of recidivism for new sex offenses.

These studies are cited on page 11 of the ODRC report here

http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf
On page 15 of the report the findings are summarised thus.
"

Contrary to the popular idea that sex offenders are repeatedly returning to prison for further sex crimes, in this population a sex offender recidivating for a new sex offense within 10 years of release was a relatively rare occurrence

.

The idea that sex offenders have a higher recidivism rate than other criminals is a lie and a lie that is repeated endlessly regardless of the facts. It has been repeated on this thread. The high risk of reoffending was one of the principle arguments for Megan and Amber and it is one of the main arguments used by those who advocate for Sarah's law type legislation here. The evidence however says differently.

 

[Louloubelle]

Thanks dylans

That is more like the kind of material I was thinking of

I will take a good look at it when I have a few hours to spare, possibly next week

My understanding is that the category of sex offenders is a very broad one and that sexual offenders fall into a variety of categories and some just cannot stop themselves, whereas some might be more likely to be able to.

Also the type of offending is on a scale from molesting women by groping them in the street (including bottom pinching) through to crimes that are much more serious for example the kidnapping and rape of young children.

I'm genuinely interested in the subject and would like to do the subject justice by informing myself properly

 

[dylans]

Thanks dylans

That is more like the kind of material I was thinking of

I will take a good look at it when I have a few hours to spare, possibly next week

My understanding is that the category of sex offenders is a very broad one and that sexual offenders fall into a variety of categories and some just cannot stop themselves, whereas some might be more likely to be able to.

Also the type of offending is on a scale from molesting women by groping them in the street (including bottom pinching) through to crimes that are much more serious for example the kidnapping and rape of young children.

I'm genuinely interested in the subject and would like to do the subject justice by informing myself properly

Yes and one of the criticisms of broad sweep laws like Megans law type disclosure legislation is that it include everything from public urination (public indecency) through to child abduction, rape, and murder in it's definition of sexual offences. Regardless of the seriousness of offence, they all end up on the public register.

 

[_angel_]

Yes and one of the criticisms of broad sweep laws like Megans law type disclosure legislation is that it include everything from public urination (public indecency) through to child abduction, rape, and murder in it's definition of sexual offences. Regardless of the seriousness of offence, they all end up on the public register.

Yes and that is exactly why I've stated such a thing is a bad idea. Lumping in prostitutes, blokes caught weeing and the 16 year old boy sleeping with a 15 year old girl is NOT what is needed.

You really are the only person talking about 'Megan's Law'!

 

[dylans]

Yes and that is exactly why I've stated such a thing is a bad idea. Lumping in prostitutes, blokes caught weeing and the 16 year old boy sleeping with a 15 year old girl is NOT what is needed.

You really are the only person talking about 'Megan's Law'!

You have said time and time again that you want a change in legislation to allow members of the public access to information about sex offenders.(yeah I know, only leaders of neighbourhood watch schemes and residents associations) .
I have given you literally reams of evidence as to why that's a bad idea, you have ignored them all because they don't fit your "do something agenda.
You have given me no good reason (except old wives tales about bogeymen and lies about high recidivism rates) why the present legislation needs changing.

There really isn't any point in my discussing with you any more because facts and evidence mean nothing to you or to the 50 or so idiots who marched through Weymouth waving Ratbook placards and screaming "pedos out."

So I won't.

 

[_angel_]

You have said time and time again that you want a change in legislation to allow members of the public access to information about sex offenders.(yeah I know, only leaders of neighbourhood watch schemes and residents associations) .
I have given you literally reams of evidence as to why that's a bad idea, you have ignored them all because they don't fit your "do something agenda.
You have given me no good reason (except old wives tales about bogeymen and lies about high recidivism rates) why the present legislation needs changing.

There really isn't any point in my discussing with you any more because facts and evidence mean nothing to you or to the 50 or so idiots who marched through Weymouth waving Ratbook placards and screaming "pedos out."

So I won't.

You're putting words in my mouth now.

Other people have been discussing wider issues than this march, but you seem unable to focus on anything other than "idiots marching with placards screaming"

 

[Zaskar]

YAWN - anyone who goes on a PEEEDDOOOO demo is a divver.

 

[dylans]

You're putting words in my mouth now.

No I'm not. I'm quoting you.

Angel Unfortunately people with these histories (of abuse) have a very high re-offending rate.

This is a tabloid myth and completely untrue. I have posted reams of evidence to show this.

Other people have been discussing wider issues than this march, but you seem unable to focus on anything other than "idiots marching with placards screaming"

Throughout this thread I have been told that I am contemptous of the people in the OP. I look down on them. I have no respect for their "concerns" (All of which is true I am, I do and I don't) I mention the demonstrators because I want to question this groundswell of concern you claim exists. I don't see ordinary communities mobilising around a genuine concern. I don't see a crisis.

I see 50 idiots marching through the streets of Weymouth wearing Tshirts from one of the nastiest vigilante websites on the internet and spouting ill informed hysterical bollocks straight from the pages of the daily mail.

 

[Zaskar]

Seconded.
Nasty angry poor idiots that have been provoked by nasty manipulative rich idiots.