The witch hunt begins
So, with Phil Angelides throwing in his support for Jessica's Law it looks like the witch hunt is really starting to pick up steam here in California. First we whip up some real hysteria about sex offenders, convincing everyone that "it's only a matter of time before they strike again" and "we have to do something to protect our children".
Sure, you as parents have to do something to protect your children. Be parents. Know where you children are and what they are doing. Make sure they know right from wrong. Make sure they know what to do if something do happen. Most of all, make sure that they aren't afraid to talk to you, tell you something is wrong, and make sure to listen to them.
People say that children don't lie. In most cases that's probably true, but there is one known reason that children will, and that's to get attention. Regardless of whether it's good or bad attention, if they aren't getting what they need, like anyone they will do whatever it takes, including lying. If you as parents are listening to your children, understanding what they are saying, and paying attention to them then you have gone a long way towards protecting them.
Needless to say I wandered off the subject and that's certainly not meant to be read as blame for any parent or excusing any sex offender. Like anyone else, I firmly believe that anyone who commits a sex crime against a child or anyone needs to be dealt with. It certainly applied to me.
But the problem that I see is that people are not looking at sane and reasonable measures to deal with the problem. Restricting sex offenders from living within any range of anything just doesn't make sense. All you're doing is driving them elsewhere or underground, and speaking of driving, do you think they don't have a car? How far away are you going to send them so they can't get in a car and drive there? To the moon, perhaps?
There are some aspects of Jessica's Law that make some sense, and could be effectively applied, but the problem is that it paints everyone with too broad a brush. Reading through the law it's apparent the authors have a fixation that basically reads "sex offender = predator". The law directly reads that it applies to sex offenders, but consistently refers to them as predators. Has the definition of predator changed lately and I didn't hear about it?
Oh, but there's one of the problems here in California. The term "sex offender" is applied to anyone who commits a fairly broad group of crimes. The pedophile who snatches a kid off the street is a sex offender. The father who molests his daughter is a sex offender. The man peeping in the window of the woman down the street is a sex offender. The teacher who has sex with her student is a sex offender too. The man who visits a porno website and then discovers it's got child porn is also a sex offender. The 18 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is a sex offender. The man who's had too much to drink and winds up peeing behind a tree? Yep, he's a sex offender too. How abut the proud mommy who shows off pictures of her baby naked on the floor. Sounds strange, but that could be classified as chiild porn and she'd be a sex offender too.
So, as you can see, the brush is too broad. These laws would apply to everyone, regardless of just what their crime was, or how long ago it happened, or whether there was actually even a victim involved. Do take note of the fact I'm not arguing against many of the provisions that have been included in Jessica's Law, only a few of them. The people of California certainly have a right to enact laws that they feel will make them safer, and the stiffer penalties for sex crimes in general and the significant changes for repeat offenses should do that.
For those that have been caught.
Because let's face it, not every sex offender has been caught. Around 90% of the new sex offenses committed in the country are by first time offenders (well, actually people who haven't been caught yet, they may have committed multiple offenses, but that's just semantics). Just because of fear and hysteria don't punish people who are trying to put their life back together. Don't ban the person who made a mistake from living where he's been for 10 or 20 years. Becuse that's really the worst part of this law, the part that doesn't make sense, the part that simply isn't sane because it only punishes those who are trying to stay honest now.
Sure, you as parents have to do something to protect your children. Be parents. Know where you children are and what they are doing. Make sure they know right from wrong. Make sure they know what to do if something do happen. Most of all, make sure that they aren't afraid to talk to you, tell you something is wrong, and make sure to listen to them.
People say that children don't lie. In most cases that's probably true, but there is one known reason that children will, and that's to get attention. Regardless of whether it's good or bad attention, if they aren't getting what they need, like anyone they will do whatever it takes, including lying. If you as parents are listening to your children, understanding what they are saying, and paying attention to them then you have gone a long way towards protecting them.
Needless to say I wandered off the subject and that's certainly not meant to be read as blame for any parent or excusing any sex offender. Like anyone else, I firmly believe that anyone who commits a sex crime against a child or anyone needs to be dealt with. It certainly applied to me.
But the problem that I see is that people are not looking at sane and reasonable measures to deal with the problem. Restricting sex offenders from living within any range of anything just doesn't make sense. All you're doing is driving them elsewhere or underground, and speaking of driving, do you think they don't have a car? How far away are you going to send them so they can't get in a car and drive there? To the moon, perhaps?
There are some aspects of Jessica's Law that make some sense, and could be effectively applied, but the problem is that it paints everyone with too broad a brush. Reading through the law it's apparent the authors have a fixation that basically reads "sex offender = predator". The law directly reads that it applies to sex offenders, but consistently refers to them as predators. Has the definition of predator changed lately and I didn't hear about it?
Oh, but there's one of the problems here in California. The term "sex offender" is applied to anyone who commits a fairly broad group of crimes. The pedophile who snatches a kid off the street is a sex offender. The father who molests his daughter is a sex offender. The man peeping in the window of the woman down the street is a sex offender. The teacher who has sex with her student is a sex offender too. The man who visits a porno website and then discovers it's got child porn is also a sex offender. The 18 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is a sex offender. The man who's had too much to drink and winds up peeing behind a tree? Yep, he's a sex offender too. How abut the proud mommy who shows off pictures of her baby naked on the floor. Sounds strange, but that could be classified as chiild porn and she'd be a sex offender too.
So, as you can see, the brush is too broad. These laws would apply to everyone, regardless of just what their crime was, or how long ago it happened, or whether there was actually even a victim involved. Do take note of the fact I'm not arguing against many of the provisions that have been included in Jessica's Law, only a few of them. The people of California certainly have a right to enact laws that they feel will make them safer, and the stiffer penalties for sex crimes in general and the significant changes for repeat offenses should do that.
For those that have been caught.
Because let's face it, not every sex offender has been caught. Around 90% of the new sex offenses committed in the country are by first time offenders (well, actually people who haven't been caught yet, they may have committed multiple offenses, but that's just semantics). Just because of fear and hysteria don't punish people who are trying to put their life back together. Don't ban the person who made a mistake from living where he's been for 10 or 20 years. Becuse that's really the worst part of this law, the part that doesn't make sense, the part that simply isn't sane because it only punishes those who are trying to stay honest now.
posted by ObservationsOnLife at 10:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home