Policy implications Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.
The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.
Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).
Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.
I have a few issues with your offerings:
1. Consider this bit, Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.
... and this bit, Most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. This may be the most important finding of this study as this finding is contrary to some strongly held beliefs. After 15 years, 73% of sexual offenders had not been charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offence.
Even if these findings are more accurate than other findings which suggest a higher reoffending rate... there seems to be a suggestion here that people overreact to the release of sexual offenders given their 'low' reoffending rate of 27%.
2. The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003).
This sounds pretty good in theory, however such a practice relies on human judgement. With no truly distinct language and vague parameters to define high risk and low risk offenders, we introduce the human error variable. This forum is littered with pieces bereft of unsound professional opinion that, ultimately, has resulted in unspeakable harm to innocent people. The only thing that is 'certain' when dealing with pedophile rapists is that they are pedophile rapists. We can deliberate who is a lower risk offender and higher risk offender based on how they respond to fallible rehabilitation efforts or taking into account their personal history (among other defining components), but we can never be sure.
So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?
Policy implications Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.
The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.
Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).
Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.
So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?
There is no good answer to any of the questions you pose. I don't have the answers. I can only pass on the facts I have and come up to my own conclusions. I can't come up with a specific percentage that would make me happy. But I do believe people can change.
In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.
And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.
I should also clarify that if a panel of experts does come to the conclusion that a violent sexual offender is very likely to re-offend upon release I agree with all of you that they should not be let out. They shouldn't be out until that panel of experts thinks they are safe to reintegrate into society.
but you can't do that without that dangerous offender designation. that's the only thing lawfully keeping people in prison who have served their entire sentence already.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I have no problem with the dangerous offender designation. The dangerous offender designation is rarely used and as a last resort. I think it should remain that way. The police release the name of said offenders and keep track of them after their release and that seems to work. I haven't heard many cases of these guys getting caught committing these same acts again, but I could be wrong. A quick google search didn't come up with much. Maybe someone else here has more info.
Policy implications Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.
The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.
Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).
Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.
So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?
There is no good answer to any of the questions you pose. I don't have the answers. I can only pass on the facts I have and come up to my own conclusions. I can't come up with a specific percentage that would make me happy. But I do believe people can change.
In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.
And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.
that last 2 lines concerns me. should we not be worried about people attacking these former prisoners? I once had a client that was listed as a sexual offender but was later found out that it was not him after he was released. if we listed that to the public it might harm my former client.
Policy implications Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.
The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.
Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).
Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.
So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?
There is no good answer to any of the questions you pose. I don't have the answers. I can only pass on the facts I have and come up to my own conclusions. I can't come up with a specific percentage that would make me happy. But I do believe people can change.
In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.
And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.
that last 2 lines concerns me. should we not be worried about people attacking these former prisoners? I once had a client that was listed as a sexual offender but was later found out that it was not him after he was released. if we listed that to the public it might harm my former client.
I get the impression that they only release their names and what area they are living in when they are deemed to be a high risk to re-offend? Again I have not heard of many cases of these offenders being the victims of violence after they are released but maybe you can find some examples.
I'm trying to look at this as what is good for society as a whole. His safety vs. the publics safety. What is the right balance?
Policy implications Although no finding is ever definitive, the basic findings of the current study are sufficiently reliable to have implications for criminal justice policy. Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.
The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). The greater the assessed risk, the higher the levels of intervention and supervision; the lower the assessed risk, the lower the levels of intervention and supervision. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Consequently, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as "high risk" waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offenders and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service.
Although the broad risk markers in the current study are useful for estimating recidivism risk, it is possible to improve predictive accuracy by combining such factors into structured risk scales (e.g., Hanson, 1997). The evidence supporting the validity of these risk scales is now sufficient that they should be routinely included in applied risk assessments with sexual offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, Peacock, 2001; Sjöstedt, & Långström, 2001; and reviews by Doren, 2002; Hanson, Morton & Harris, 2003).
Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.
So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?
There is no good answer to any of the questions you pose. I don't have the answers. I can only pass on the facts I have and come up to my own conclusions. I can't come up with a specific percentage that would make me happy. But I do believe people can change.
In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.
And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.
that last 2 lines concerns me. should we not be worried about people attacking these former prisoners? I once had a client that was listed as a sexual offender but was later found out that it was not him after he was released. if we listed that to the public it might harm my former client.
In late May, 2011, my community heard some great news that we were going to receive a Grade A loser that our weak judicial system was releasing. Authorities assured us there would be some really good monitoring so, pshew, we were very relieved. Oh yeah, he wasn't supposed to have knives, ropes and duct tape as part of his conditional release too.
Of course, in November, 2011, my community heard some disturbing news that the aforementioned loser had abducted a woman from her boutique and did what he does best.
In hindsight... given our judicial system couldn't protect us... it might have been a good thing if someone had attacked him. The woman in the second story didn't have to go through that. That scumbag reoffended within a half a year. He'll get another chance too. Let's hope his next victim is nobody you know- it's always easier advocating for scumbags when you're not truly affected.
no one is advocating for certain individuals. we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all. again, you claim vigilantiism to be a viable solution. good lord.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
for 30 unpaid bills, i have also known people who have been on the other side and been arrested for things that they didn't do.
I am not saying that everyone should be released and that is quite a sad story. I raised a concern about releasing people names to the public. as for the scumbag statement, lets just hope the next person who is wrongly conviction is not close to you and they gotten beaten up or killed.
finally, this is a place to debate so i don't know if you should finish off your post with " the Canadian Justice system is a joke. No debate"
for 30 unpaid bills, i have also known people who have been on the other side and been arrested for things that they didn't do.
I am not saying that everyone should be released and that is quite a sad story. I raised a concern about releasing people names to the public. as for the scumbag statement, lets just hope the next person who is wrongly conviction is not close to you and they gotten beaten up or killed.
finally, this is a place to debate so i don't know if you should finish off your post with " the Canadian Justice system is a joke. No debate"
he usually, at some point in a discussion about lenient justice topics, ends at least one post with that very statement. you'll get used to it.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no one is advocating for certain individuals. we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all. again, you claim vigilantiism to be a viable solution. good lord.
I guess I'll have to use the 'tongue in cheek' icon a little better. Obviously I am not advocating for people taking the law into their own hands and I'm pretty sure you knew this.
If we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all... then you must agree with me that our penalties and turnstile penal system are incredibly weak and inadequate to label them as even remotely 'justice'. Are we arguing or agreeing?
for 30 unpaid bills, i have also known people who have been on the other side and been arrested for things that they didn't do.
I am not saying that everyone should be released and that is quite a sad story. I raised a concern about releasing people names to the public. as for the scumbag statement, lets just hope the next person who is wrongly conviction is not close to you and they gotten beaten up or killed.
finally, this is a place to debate so i don't know if you should finish off your post with " the Canadian Justice system is a joke. No debate"
he usually, at some point in a discussion about lenient justice topics, ends at least one post with that very statement. you'll get used to it.
Okay. Seeing as we're in the business of making clarifications as to people's internet behaviours... be prepared for Hugh to get a little huffy if the discussion starts going badly for him and declare that he's done playing internet. But don't worry... he'll be back.
for 30 unpaid bills, i have also known people who have been on the other side and been arrested for things that they didn't do.
I am not saying that everyone should be released and that is quite a sad story. I raised a concern about releasing people names to the public. as for the scumbag statement, lets just hope the next person who is wrongly conviction is not close to you and they gotten beaten up or killed.
finally, this is a place to debate so i don't know if you should finish off your post with " the Canadian Justice system is a joke. No debate"
You did raise a point about releasing names to the public in an effort to protect identities just in case they were wrongfully convicted. If you are serious about protecting all identities as policy, then there is a trade off: the public is uninformed that there is a violent criminal who preys on women/children living beside them; hence, no 'precautions' are taken to safeguard themselves and their family from someone who, at least in this case, lurks in the weeds waiting to act out again. This is a trade off I am not personally in favour of making.
The scumbag comment your refer to... that scumbag reoffended within a half a year... was not a wrongfully convicted case. He was reconvicted for another violent kidnap and rape. What's your problem with this statement to prompt you to remind me of the fact that there are some wrongful convictions I should be wary of? I understand there are a few innocents serving time for something they didn't do. This is horrible, but it doesn't mean we roll out the red carpet for those found with blood on their hands.
I'll rephrase my last statement: I think the Canadian Justice system is a colossal joke.
for 30 unpaid bills, i have also known people who have been on the other side and been arrested for things that they didn't do.
I am not saying that everyone should be released and that is quite a sad story. I raised a concern about releasing people names to the public. as for the scumbag statement, lets just hope the next person who is wrongly conviction is not close to you and they gotten beaten up or killed.
finally, this is a place to debate so i don't know if you should finish off your post with " the Canadian Justice system is a joke. No debate"
he usually, at some point in a discussion about lenient justice topics, ends at least one post with that very statement. you'll get used to it.
Okay. Seeing as we're in the business of making clarifications as to people's internet behaviours... be prepared for Hugh to get a little huffy if the discussion starts going badly for him and declare that he's done playing internet. But don't worry... he'll be back.
I didn't leave because of one specific thread or person or because I was "losing" any argument. That very idea is why I left. People seem to want to "win" as opposed to learning and discussing. All of your "debate over" comments are counterproductive to what AMT is supposed to be.
it's unfortunate if someone is wrongfully convicted of a sex crime. But society must react and engage in policies where the courts leave us with. If he is found to have been wrongfully convicted at some point, then compensation can be dealt with at that time. No different than if a person is found not guilty, but everyone knows he is, and posters don't go up.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no one is advocating for certain individuals. we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all. again, you claim vigilantiism to be a viable solution. good lord.
I guess I'll have to use the 'tongue in cheek' icon a little better. Obviously I am not advocating for people taking the law into their own hands and I'm pretty sure you knew this.
If we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all... then you must agree with me that our penalties and turnstile penal system are incredibly weak and inadequate to label them as even remotely 'justice'. Are we arguing or agreeing?
you have advocated for violence against "scumbags", and said it several times in several threads on several similar topics. No, I can't know if you were serious or not. I can only take your comments at face value, and if it's not immediately evident that it is sarcasm, then I don't take it as such
It's not the entire system that sucks. It's the lenient sentencing and ridiculous parole reg's that are the problem. Letting people have multiple chances for the same crime (drinking and driving, for instance), is sick.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no one is advocating for certain individuals. we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all. again, you claim vigilantiism to be a viable solution. good lord.
I guess I'll have to use the 'tongue in cheek' icon a little better. Obviously I am not advocating for people taking the law into their own hands and I'm pretty sure you knew this.
If we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all... then you must agree with me that our penalties and turnstile penal system are incredibly weak and inadequate to label them as even remotely 'justice'. Are we arguing or agreeing?
you have advocated for violence against "scumbags", and said it several times in several threads on several similar topics. No, I can't know if you were serious or not. I can only take your comments at face value, and if it's not immediately evident that it is sarcasm, then I don't take it as such
It's not the entire system that sucks. It's the lenient sentencing and ridiculous parole reg's that are the problem. Letting people have multiple chances for the same crime (drinking and driving, for instance), is sick.
It's just my passion, Hugh. I see red every time I read of such nonsense and sometimes speak a lot tougher than what I truly feel (yes... emotionally).
I agree with what you are saying in your last section here. I also don't wish to come off as dismissive or flippant. Both you and Fife are no dummies and I do value your comments and thoughts- you personally have made me reflect on my own thoughts and values several times. Thanks.
thanks 30bills. another thought just popped into my head about the releasing of names. it would be interesting to see if releasing names to the public would increase public safety or would it drive these people into hiding where police might not have their whereabouts and hence maybe decrease public safety.
I wonder if there has ever been a report like that?
for 30 unpaid bills, i have also known people who have been on the other side and been arrested for things that they didn't do.
I am not saying that everyone should be released and that is quite a sad story. I raised a concern about releasing people names to the public. as for the scumbag statement, lets just hope the next person who is wrongly conviction is not close to you and they gotten beaten up or killed.
finally, this is a place to debate so i don't know if you should finish off your post with " the Canadian Justice system is a joke. No debate"
he usually, at some point in a discussion about lenient justice topics, ends at least one post with that very statement. you'll get used to it.
Okay. Seeing as we're in the business of making clarifications as to people's internet behaviours... be prepared for Hugh to get a little huffy if the discussion starts going badly for him and declare that he's done playing internet. But don't worry... he'll be back.
I didn't leave because of one specific thread or person or because I was "losing" any argument. That very idea is why I left. People seem to want to "win" as opposed to learning and discussing. All of your "debate over" comments are counterproductive to what AMT is supposed to be.
Great point. This is a problem here on AMT. I think it keeps a lot of people from trying to join the conversation. Getting railroaded when you have a different opinion is a big turn off. I've been guilty of it a few times but I try and keep it to a minimum, it just entrenches people in their views and adds nothing to the discussion.
Comments
1. Consider this bit, Given that the level of sexual recidivism is lower than commonly believed, discussions of the risk posed by sexual offenders should clearly differentiate between the high public concern about these offences and the relatively low probability of sexual re-offence.
... and this bit, Most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. This may be the most important finding of this study as this finding is contrary to some strongly held beliefs. After 15 years, 73% of sexual offenders had not been charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offence.
Even if these findings are more accurate than other findings which suggest a higher reoffending rate... there seems to be a suggestion here that people overreact to the release of sexual offenders given their 'low' reoffending rate of 27%.
2. The variation in recidivism rates suggests that not all sex offenders should be treated the same. Within the correctional literature it is well known that the most effective use of correctional resources targets truly high-risk offenders and applies lower levels of resources to lower risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003).
This sounds pretty good in theory, however such a practice relies on human judgement. With no truly distinct language and vague parameters to define high risk and low risk offenders, we introduce the human error variable. This forum is littered with pieces bereft of unsound professional opinion that, ultimately, has resulted in unspeakable harm to innocent people.
The only thing that is 'certain' when dealing with pedophile rapists is that they are pedophile rapists. We can deliberate who is a lower risk offender and higher risk offender based on how they respond to fallible rehabilitation efforts or taking into account their personal history (among other defining components), but we can never be sure.
So I am clear as to your position... in your opinion, what level of risk of recidivism should we assume as we place our efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration? What reoffending rate is acceptable when placing children at risk? Is the 27% your contribution boasts sufficient to abate our fears and allow room for pedophiles to have another chance at normalcy?
In my opinion we cant lock these people away forever. We can't afford it. We are cutting programs left and right to build more prisons to house these offenders when it is shown that most don't reoffend and most can be rehabilitated.
And just so I am clear, I have no problem with warnings going out to the public when these offenders are released. People should know who and where these people are. The more info everyone has the better.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm trying to look at this as what is good for society as a whole. His safety vs. the publics safety. What is the right balance?
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20110516/KAMLOOPS0101/110519837/-1/KAMLOOPS/notorious-sex-offender-living-in-valleyview
Of course, in November, 2011, my community heard some disturbing news that the aforementioned loser had abducted a woman from her boutique and did what he does best.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/repeat-sex-offender-charged-in-kamloops-abduction-1.731264
In hindsight... given our judicial system couldn't protect us... it might have been a good thing if someone had attacked him. The woman in the second story didn't have to go through that. That scumbag reoffended within a half a year. He'll get another chance too. Let's hope his next victim is nobody you know- it's always easier advocating for scumbags when you're not truly affected.
Canadian justice system is a joke. No debate.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I am not saying that everyone should be released and that is quite a sad story. I raised a concern about releasing people names to the public. as for the scumbag statement, lets just hope the next person who is wrongly conviction is not close to you and they gotten beaten up or killed.
finally, this is a place to debate so i don't know if you should finish off your post with " the Canadian Justice system is a joke. No debate"
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
If we're advocating the administration of justice in a fair manner for all... then you must agree with me that our penalties and turnstile penal system are incredibly weak and inadequate to label them as even remotely 'justice'. Are we arguing or agreeing?
Okay.
Seeing as we're in the business of making clarifications as to people's internet behaviours... be prepared for Hugh to get a little huffy if the discussion starts going badly for him and declare that he's done playing internet. But don't worry... he'll be back.
The scumbag comment your refer to... that scumbag reoffended within a half a year... was not a wrongfully convicted case. He was reconvicted for another violent kidnap and rape. What's your problem with this statement to prompt you to remind me of the fact that there are some wrongful convictions I should be wary of? I understand there are a few innocents serving time for something they didn't do. This is horrible, but it doesn't mean we roll out the red carpet for those found with blood on their hands.
I'll rephrase my last statement: I think the Canadian Justice system is a colossal joke.
it's unfortunate if someone is wrongfully convicted of a sex crime. But society must react and engage in policies where the courts leave us with. If he is found to have been wrongfully convicted at some point, then compensation can be dealt with at that time. No different than if a person is found not guilty, but everyone knows he is, and posters don't go up.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It's not the entire system that sucks. It's the lenient sentencing and ridiculous parole reg's that are the problem. Letting people have multiple chances for the same crime (drinking and driving, for instance), is sick.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I agree with what you are saying in your last section here. I also don't wish to come off as dismissive or flippant. Both you and Fife are no dummies and I do value your comments and thoughts- you personally have made me reflect on my own thoughts and values several times. Thanks.
I wonder if there has ever been a report like that?