posted
I have a new neighbor three houses down. He's a 3 time sex offender. Twice convicted of sex with girls under 16 and once for sexual assault with "slight force", whatever that means. I printed up his rap sheet and handed it to all my neighbors. I had to stop Arty, my Jamaican neighbor from making a preemptive strike with his machete...no joke.
I feel a slight tinge of guilt for printing his wrap sheet and photo and sharing it with everyone on the street. Our children ride their bikes up and down the road together on a daily basis and I thought the families should know.
Was I wrong to let all his neighbors know what he just got out of prison for? He paid his price but the next charge will be his 4th. Any other crime would mean nothing to me.
posted
You know how the activists on whale wars are so damn ignorant and arrogant that they practically make me feel sympathy for the whalers? Well, lookahere. Malanthrop is trying to make me feel sympathetic to sex offenders.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe he won't offend for the 4th time in fifteen years. Maybe he's finally learned his lesson and I should consider the debt to society paid. I do have a twinge of guilt, but I bet he feels a different kind of twinge when the neighborhood kids ride their bikes past his front window.
Did he pay his price and deserve privacy? Am I wrong for letting his neighbor with a 14 year old kid know who just moved in next door? Maybe I am an unforgiving bastard. I feel that twinge of guilt for letting the cat out of the bag.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe he won't offend for the 4th time in fifteen years. Maybe he's finally learned his lesson and I should consider the debt to society paid.
Maybe you're the last person to be considered to have the self-awareness and reason required to be an adequate judge of what social vigilante measures should be taken!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You know how the activists on whale wars are so damn ignorant and arrogant that they practically make me feel sympathy for the whalers? Well, lookahere. Malanthrop is trying to make me feel sympathetic to sex offenders.
I'm not trying to illicit sympathy for sex offenders. I'm truly conflicted about having a recently released offender rent a house down the road. Has he learned his lesson? Do I have anything to worry about? If I could force him out of my neighborhood, I would. The ACLU is defending the likes of him for city laws that force them to live outside the city. I wish my city had those kind of laws.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You went beyond and above what could be considered reasonable in this situation, it is very rude, if your concerned for your neighbours then inform them privately and discreetly.
Did you know what actions get you on the listing? Consensual sexual relations between a 17 year old male and a 16 year old female in some states.
One of the few perks about Quebec, the age of consent I hear is 14.
IP: Logged |
posted
This guy was born in 1966 and his first offense was in 1998. I know that jerking off behind a tree can get you on this list. A one time "lewd and lascivious behavior" charge isn't a 3x 30+ year old having sex with 15 or under.
I understand that pissing in public might get you on this list but his wrap sheet is something different. He was 32 the first time he had sex with someone under 16. Under 12 and he's a "sexual preditor". Make sure they're between their 12th and 16th birthday and you're a minor "sexual offender".
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The girls were "under 16"? That doesn't necessarily make him a pedophile. Congratulations, you destroyed this guy's chance at some sort of life with your crappy psychological diagnosis.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was 32, and the victims were under 16. While he may not meet the psychological distinction of "pedophile," that doesn't make malanthrop's actions wrong. And as far as destroying this guy's chance at some sort of life: that's completely NOT malanthrop's responsibility.
I REALLY don't see what the problem here is; malanthrop informed his neighbors of a repeat sex offender living in his neighborhood. I consider that being a good neighbor.
Blayne, as far as I can tell malanthrop DID inform his neighbors privately and discreetly. Do you have information to the contrary?
Are people reacting to malanthrop's personality and history rather than the actual argument?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure a 30 year old who thinks it's ok to have sex with 16 year olds should be kept away from 16 year olds. I am with Elmer, I thought the cops already had to inform the neighbors. But yes, I think parents of teens should be aware that an adult may try to have sex with their kids. Especially if there was force involved at some point.
Not that others haven't made good points about our sex offender laws. One should always be leery of the labels and even some of the explanations. (One case of SVU, the perp claimed his sex offender label was from urinating in public and the cop counter that he'd done it three times and groups of young girls always just happened to be nearby.)
But a 30 year old convicted of sex with a 16 year old with force is pretty cut and dry wrong.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are people reacting to malanthrop's personality and history rather than the actual argument?
I'm assuming the girls he had sex with were teenagers. I also suspect that Mal would have acted in the same way if there was no mention of "slight force," whatever that means.
I'm sneering at this because statutory rape is, in my opinion, a pretty sketchy concept. We all have an "ew, gross" reaction to a much older person having sex with a much younger person, but that is not necessarily reason to criminalize it.
There are reasons for having stat rape laws, but these reasons - the power differential, etc. - are based on generalizations. There is no intrinsic reason why a 14 or 15 year old is incapable of giving consent to sex with an adult. If they can give consent to sleep with someone of their age, than they can do the same with an older person.
So, I think Mal has done a great deal of damage to this guy's life based on very limited information. It's a dick move.
My opinion would change a little if they were actual children. Sex acts with children are violent and the recidivism rate is really high.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be honest, I'm with malanthrop to a point here. This wasn't a guy who had sex with his girlfriend while they were both teenagers and got caught. This is someone who went after girls who were at most half his age. And he's done so three times already.
The parents in the neighborhood absolutely need to know that this guy is in the neighborhood, which building he's in and what he looks like. They need to be able to know if he's around their children, and they need to know which homes to avoid on Halloween, for example. Notifying neighbors who don't have kids at home is questionable to me, though.
I know that I was not notified when a registered offender moved in a few blocks away from me. My daughter's best friend lives a couple HOUSES away from him, and I'm not sure they were contacted, either. I only found out about him because I make a point to check the registry before Halloween.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, here I am. I am a teacher and we are periodically sent the list of sexual offenders in our county. I scanned the list and discovered that a man now lives on my road, next door to children, and the road has a lot of children on it. It's a cul-de-sac road, so the children play all around the road, and in it, often. Do I inform my neighbors? I've considered it, especially the next-door neighbors. Or do I just stay out of it. And then if something happens feel guilty for not informing my neighbors? ~Sala
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I had to stop Arty, my Jamaican neighbor from making a preemptive strike with his machete...no joke.
Why did you stop him? I mean, I'm not saying you should go at the guy with a machete, but I wouldn't pee on a sex offender if he was on fire.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I feel a slight tinge of guilt for printing his wrap sheet and photo and sharing it with everyone on the street. Our children ride their bikes up and down the road together on a daily basis and I thought the families should know.
Was I wrong to let all his neighbors know what he just got out of prison for? He paid his price but the next charge will be his 4th. Any other crime would mean nothing to me.
If you were my neighbor, I would feel nothing but gratitude. I don't know why you feel guilty. I mean, a guy gets on the list for one count of jailbait, that's one thing. Maybe he didn't know. Second time, that's pushing things. A lot. But sexual assault? You should hammer a copy of the printout into his forehead.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm frankly baffled your resposnes too, Blayne and Samprimary. I wonder how much of them are colored by malanthrop's well-earned reputation?
quote:Maybe you're the last person to be considered to have the self-awareness and reason required to be an adequate judge of what social vigilante measures should be taken!
Exactly what is a 'social vigilante'? Warning neighbors a multiple-repeat offender targeting adolescents has moved in their neighborhood? Frankly that sounds a lot more like responsible citizenship than vigilantism to me. The problem isn't with malanthrop's actions, it's with our crappy handling of sex crimes. This goes both ways, with our treating serious sex crimes many times too leniently and treating minor sex crimes (19yr old sex with 16yr old) much too harshly.
But malanthrop has said that this wasn't a case of a senior having sex with a freshman. So what's the problem? And the 'slight force' is all that's needed, for me anyway, to remove even the slightest whiff of uncertainty over whether to inform the neighbors.
quote: There are reasons for having stat rape laws, but these reasons - the power differential, etc. - are based on generalizations. There is no intrinsic reason why a 14 or 15 year old is incapable of giving consent to sex with an adult. If they can give consent to sleep with someone of their age, than they can do the same with an older person.
All laws are based on 'generalizations'. That's why we have degrees of laws. Laws against homicide are based on generalizations-that it's almost always really, really bad but very rarely it might be deemed acceptable. A 14-15 year old is not an adult. Not every decision belongs to them at that age. That's just the way things are in our society, and frankly in all societies-the only thing that changes is the age setting.
So, is it possible a 32 year old who has repeated sex with mid-teenagers might be a non-dangerous, reasonable, sane person who doesn't pose a threat to others? Of course it's possible. But you know what else is possible? That maybe someone who can't keep their pants zipped up and themselves away from having sex with adolescents when they're well into adulthood maybe has some shine taken off of their general trustworthiness.
quote:My opinion would change a little if they were actual children. Sex acts with children are violent and the recidivism rate is really high.
A little? OK, well, at least now I know where you stand, and it's a place that shouldn't be taken seriously. If your opinion that this was a 'dick move' would only change a little if they were actually children, well then, I don't understand at all where you're coming from.
'Sexual assault' and 'slight force' are words that are supposed to alarm people! Especially when you throw in the grossly disproportionate ages.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that from the few posts I've seen from malanthrop over the past day, I'm pretty sure this is a troll. He didn't pass out flyers. There is no sex offender. He's just trying to start an argument.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I disagree with most everything mal has written on every other thread, but I don't think what he did was totally crazy.
The repeat offenders often slip through the cracks and offend again (Jaycee Dugard anyone?). Mal has kids and so do his neighbors. Someday his kids (dunno how old they are) will be 16. Not everyone talks with their neighbors and the people who do are certainly free to gossip about their other ones. And quite frankly informing other neighbors about stuff that is true is probably prudent, especially when it's public information. One of the punishments for sex crimes is a loss of anonymity. The list does have levels and people do have the right to know exactly what you have done. Don't want to get on a list, don't do sexual things in public and especially don't do them with people who can't or didn't legally consent. I don't feel bad for this guy at all.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to point out that from the few posts I've seen from malanthrop over the past day, I'm pretty sure this is a troll. He didn't pass out flyers. There is no sex offender. He's just trying to start an argument.
Well, yes, that's quite likely. But at least this is an interesting topic, and there are some actual contradicting positions in it that don't come from him, so it's interesting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I'd like to point out that from the few posts I've seen from malanthrop over the past day, I'm pretty sure this is a troll. He didn't pass out flyers. There is no sex offender. He's just trying to start an argument.
posted
I think it's fine to inform neighbors that he's a sex offender. Parents should know not to let their kids over to his house and kids should know to be suspicious of getting involved with him.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't any quibble with people doing whatever is within the law to protect their children as best they can. I'm not going to touch that -- by me, fine. Do what you need to do.
I'm also not going to defend anyone who steps over any lines with children. When I've seen anything suggestive of it, including at this website with young adolescent girls, I believe I've been the first to flag it and pursue it as a high-priority problem with those in charge. Again, I think this is good to do.
I'm also a little bit worried about identifying to children those people in the neighborhood they should distrust. If one isn't careful, this comes with the natural connotation that the child doesn't need to be on guard with other people, because they aren't the bad ones, when, really, most potential predators are not known to law enforcement.
Just be careful, please. Nobody wants to raise children too afraid to trust anybody, but do encourage them to listen to the natural promptings of their own instincts about anyone that doesn't feel right to them, including people their parents know and trust. From the information gathered in actual cases, those people pose proportionally much greater risk to our kids than do identified perpetrators -- and our kids are going to be even more reluctant to tell us about feeling uncomfortable in situations with them.
posted
Below is an excerpt from a USA Today article. It references the comments of a representative of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which advocates for sex offender registry. Again, I am not arguing against registry or against discussions about identified registrants, and it should be obvious that this woman isn't, either.
"Jacob's Law" was the federal precursor to "Megan's Law," FWIW. The JWF (now JW Resource Center) helped launch the AMBER Plan in Minnesota and across the US.
quote:Broad restrictions provide a "false sense of security," says Nancy Sabin of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which fights child exploitation. She says such laws do not protect the more than 90% of abused children who suffer at the hands of people they know. And many of the laws bar offenders from living near schools but do not stop them from loitering there, she says.
posted
Excellent point, CT. I think it's just a rather striking and disturbing example of how hung up the US's sex crime laws really are-even when it comes to protecting children against registered sex offenders, our response is...dubiously effective, at best.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm frankly baffled your resposnes too, Blayne and Samprimary. I wonder how much of them are colored by malanthrop's well-earned reputation?
basically I can know three things about this because of what Malanthrop has established about himself.
1. He's the last person you want running your neighborhood DIY vigilantism because he's not rational and you can't trust him to make good distinctions.
2. This thread is here not only to express his act but to branch into him talking about his judgment of legal process and protective social measures.
3. Malanthrop can't be trusted to be telling the truth about these things anyway.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
(herself, mal I think is a she)
IP: Logged |
posted
Given #3 Samprimary, how can you actually have a real handle on #1-2?
My responses weren't based on malanthrop having been honest about it. He's such a hack and so suspicious on many political subjects, I wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw him. On Jupiter.
Which is really why I was asking if your reactions were because it was malanthrop was saying these things, or if your reactions were on what was strictly said about the matter.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't #3 actually mean you can't rely on any assessments of the person in question except that assessment: lack of integrity?
Anyway, my interest in this thread isn't malanthrop, it's reactions to his post. Are they based on a reaction to anyone if they described this scenario? If, for example, Papa Moose had made a post including the initial anecdote, what would people's responses be?
I'm just using him as an honest poster who is widely trusted-I'm definitely not suggesting malanthrop personally should be accorded that level of respect.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question is, what did malanthrop get outer for doing, so that he felt the need to retaliate? I'm guessing he has a public storage shed to keep the skeletons that no longer fit in his closet.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Repeat offenders have already surrendered thier rights to privacy, in some states this guy would never have left incarceration after his third strike. I dont truely understand how anyone could want to coddle a person who would fondle a child, take pictures and play "games" if you have ever looked at kid that you watched grow and thought about how unfair it is that they will inherit the world as it is, then you know it is the gravest sin to introduce them to the worst we have to offer.
Even in gangs and prison you can murder, steal even rape other inmates and your just another person. That is until the others find out that you put your hands on a child. Because the people who directly perpetuate negative cycles in society will not tolerate those who would steal away innocence, atleast the criminals are more effective in thier means.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Doesn't #3 actually mean you can't rely on any assessments of the person in question except that assessment: lack of integrity?
No. In this case, 1 and 2 are in case he's not a troll / liar. 3 does not CONFIRM that 1 and 2 aren't relevant anymore.
I can say to someone "you're probably just trolling, but even if you aren't, this, this and this still apply."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Repeat offenders have already surrendered thier rights to privacy, in some states this guy would never have left incarceration after his third strike. I dont truely understand how anyone could want to coddle a person who would fondle a child, take pictures and play "games" if you have ever looked at kid that you watched grow and thought about how unfair it is that they will inherit the world as it is, then you know it is the gravest sin to introduce them to the worst we have to offer.
Even in gangs and prison you can murder, steal even rape other inmates and your just another person. That is until the others find out that you put your hands on a child. Because the people who directly perpetuate negative cycles in society will not tolerate those who would steal away innocence, atleast the criminals are more effective in thier means.
I don't recall us discussing children.
IP: Logged |
quote:Not every decision belongs to them at that age. That's just the way things are in our society, and frankly in all societies-the only thing that changes is the age setting.
I think we should be giving teenagers a lot more credit than we do. They are perfectly capable of being intelligent, sane and responsible. Don't we all have the suspicion that our society's extended adolescence is a bad thing?
Your second sentence is an argument in favor of my position, not yours. Cultures that refuse sexual relations between adults and teenagers have been few and far between through human history. I am certainly not arguing for some kind of return to the past, given that these relations often treated a teenage girl as the property of her adult husband, but I don't think we need to worry about that sort of thing so much anymore.
quote:dThat maybe someone who can't keep their pants zipped up and themselves away from having sex with adolescents when they're well into adulthood maybe has some shine taken off of their general trustworthiness.
This is a chicken-or-egg argument. What came first? I'd say their lack of "trustworthiness" is wholly a result of the prohibition against sex with teenagers. If no such prohibition existed, and I am arguing it does not need to, then we wouldn't consider them untrustworthy.
quote:A little? OK, well, at least now I know where you stand, and it's a place that shouldn't be taken seriously. If your opinion that this was a 'dick move' would only change a little if they were actually children, well then, I don't understand at all where you're coming from.
Well, I think it would change enough to make you happy. I'm perfectly happy to label pedophiles - who have acted on their desire - as a legitimate danger to children. I just think we should be careful about throwing out the concepts of rehabilitation and/or a fresh start so easily and glibly. It is something to be thought about carefully - there is no room for a pitchfolk-and-torch reaction.
My suspicion of this kind of reaction - that pedophiles are the highest form of evil in our society, worse than racists and sexists and therefore deserve no rights - is that it is more based on the chimerical notion of childhood innocence than it is on an actual calculation of danger.
I'll be clear: when it comes to pedophiles, I do not have a problem of neighborhood notification per se. My problem is with vigilante action.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knocked on the doors of fellow parents and handed them his picture and criminal record. I did consider posting it on the telephone pole, but decided that was going too far.
Where I live, "predators" are mandatory notice. In fact a predator couldn't live in my neighborhood as I live too close to a park, bus stop, etc.
I don't know the circumstances of his offenses, all I know is he is a three time offender. Offender is under 16 and a predator is 12 and under. Sex with 13,14,15 is offender. Sex with 12 and under is predator.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no issue with what you did, Mal, and since we are not on the same side of most arguments that should mean something. I also think you did the right thing NOT posting it on a phone pole.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Kwea. I only brought it up since I did feel conflicted about it. He has solicitation of prostitution, domestic violence and cocaine charges as well. For those charges I wouldn't become the neighborhood gossiper and vigilante. I did feel conflicted about "gossiping" the sex offender charges. My record isn't perfectly clean but I doubt my neighbors care I had two driving without insurance tickets and a speeding ticket 15 years ago.
25% of offenders get caught again and the average sentence is 3 years.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Cultures that refuse sexual relations between adults and teenagers have been few and far between through human history. I am certainly not arguing for some kind of return to the past, given that these relations often treated a teenage girl as the property of her adult husband, but I don't think we need to worry about that sort of thing so much anymore.
You must not live in the South. I'm one of two women I know who by marrying my high school sweetheart married someone I actually went to high school with. The rest of them married guys who were 20 when they were 15.
So I've even got some sympathy for some statuatory rape situations. If he's a little emotionally immature and she's impressed by the money he's got working for his dad's business, I can see that. They can grow up together and she's got a decent shot at financial security right out of high school. I see the argument.
But where's that line? At what age can we say with certainty that a guy's just out to take advantage? Cause the other women I know who married much older got control freaks. I think one of them was in the 18/30 sort of range. Her friends miss her since they're not allowed to see her. When she does sneak off to be with them, she's miserable. (Yes, a grown woman still sneaks out of the house to be with her friends.) It's definitely not healthy. Or mature.
You can't craft case-by-case laws to try to keep the weirdos away from the kids while letting the emotionally delayed slide. I might be ok with raising the statuatory rape age limit to 21, but I wouldn't support it going to 30. Somewhere we have to draw a line and let folks work things out as best they can.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Avid, would you agree that as bad as the 18/30 range marriage was, it shouldn't be illegal?
quote:I might be ok with raising the statutory rape age limit to 21, but I wouldn't support it going to 30.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that you would be ok with the age of consent being raised to 21?Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't believe we can tell people they're adults and then tell them there's still limits on which other adult they can marry.
For the statuatory rape part, I'd be ok with creating some kind of age bracket where 15-20 isn't illegal.
I've also remembered I had a friend whose parents were 15 and 30 when she got pregnant. It was actually the younger mom who turned out to be the control freak in their relationship. So it's not even that I think the man is necessarily out to take advantage of the girl but that there's an unhealthy power structure in play with one party that much older than the other. [Edit to add] With one party being a minor, anyway.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
