Question: When you think of a facility for sex-offenders which is described as “a structured environment with close supervision by professionals and observation by their peers… a tight web of supervision, treatment, surveillance”, what comes to mind?
Call me crazy, but I can’t think of a better structured environment with professional supervision and surveillance for these disgusting, perverted freaks of nature than a prison.
Well, apparently there is a debate currently going on in Colorado about what to do with sex-0ffenders who have been released from prison but still have high likelihoods of recidivism. This article tells the sad story of five poor little sex-offenders who tried to live together in a Denver suburb.
It all began in 1999 when five men dutifully went to the Lakewood Police Department to register as sex offenders.
Each gave the same address, which grabbed the attention of city officials, who quickly took action to close the house. Soon the City Council passed an ordinance permitting only one sex offender to live in a house in a residential area.
Lakewood’s approach spread like wildfire, with 16 other metro- area cities promptly passing similar regulations.
The citizens of Lakewood were obviously unhappy with the concentration of disgusting, perverted freaks of nature and therefore passed a law restricting said concentration. The five poor little sex-offenders were obviously offended and upset. They were living together for accountability and a stable environment. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the two teenage boys living in the house next door, frequently unsupervised, let alone the other families and children in the neighborhood. So, the five poor, little sex-offenders moved away into a different group home for other disgusting, perverted freaks of nature like themselves.
Here’s the plot twist:
But governments that passed laws over the past few years to keep sex offenders from living in group homes in their jurisdictions may have done so at the cost of public safety.
A number of studies, including one released last month by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, conclude that restricting where offenders may live does not prevent repeat sex crimes.
Instead, the restrictions encourage sex offenders to “disappear,” blending into communities where they live in the privacy essential to committing new sex crimes, the studies say.
“Frankly, sex offenders like being told they can’t be around other sex offenders,” said Greig Veeder, executive director of Teaching Humane Existence, a sex offender treatment program. “It ruins their privacy. They can’t commit their crimes unless they have privacy.
Moral of the story? The laws against sex-offenders concentrating in residential areas backfired. Studies are now showing that these disgusting, perverted freaks of nature are less likely to re-offend if they live in “group homes” with 24-hour surveillance and staff, treatment, and accountability.
What keeps that from happening is having sex offenders living in a structured environment with close supervision by professionals and observation by their peers, English said.
“Residency restrictions prevent us from having sex offenders living together,” Veeder said, “but 25 years of my experience and significant research all support that the more you can make them live together, the easier it is to control them.
“It’s far better to have snakes in a basket than running around loose in the yard.”
The Colorado research, based on a 2004 survey of sex offenders, found that high-risk sex offenders living in shared living arrangements had significantly fewer probation and criminal violations than those living in other living arrangements.
Violations also were more quickly reported because of the heightened peer and professional oversight. Quick reporting is essential for speedy action to protect potential victims, the study noted.
“Offenders hold each other accountable for their actions and responsibilities and notify the appropriate authorities when a roommate commits certain behavior, such as returning home late or having contact with children,” the 2004 Colorado report said.
Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t that sound a lot like prison? These disgusting, perverted freaks of nature should obviously not be allowed outside barbed wire fences when they have such a high rate of recidivism. Group homes? Warm fuzzies by being accountable to your new best friend forever if you come home late or snuggle with children? Whatever. I say forget the baskets, keep the snakes in the slammer.
Sphere: Related Content
Another take: It is our duty to protect them from themselves, ’cause they can’t help it. So we have to keep them away from kids. Hey, they don’t have kids in prisons, right?
(Mine sounded nicer :))
Group homes? Warm fuzzies by being accountable to your new best friend forever if you come home late or snuggle with children? Whatever. I say forget the baskets, keep the snakes in the slammer.
Well, drug addicts use halfway houses. This sounds similar, and I much prefer it to those nutjobs running around, unattended.
Thing is, if you make mandatory life in prison sentences, juries are less likely to convict. I’ll take the lesser of two evils (i.e. group homes), but would love to see them mandated by law.
Yes, let’s let them live together. In prison. Forever.
Bah. Bridget, as much as I hate to admit it, you have a good point there about the juries. However, don’t you think that sex-offenses are bad enough crimes that juries would want to convict? I don’t know… perhaps law-mandated group homes are the answer. But my problem is this: they are going to re-offend. Everyone knows they are going to re-offend. If they are in anything less than a prison, the rest of society is in danger. Can’t we present that to juries in justification of life sentences?
Or, maybe Kevin’s “nicer sounding” way would work?
Since when is Kevin nicer than me? This is insane. He’s the one that wants to kill all mentally/physically disabled people.
hey there hun!..I have NO stomach for them whatsoever…life in prison or execution!…2 choices! thanks for visitin my site ..come more often eh!
Kevin’s way does sound nicer.
But my problem is this: they are going to re-offend. Everyone knows they are going to re-offend. If they are in anything less than a prison, the rest of society is in danger. Can’t we present that to juries in justification of life sentences?
Well, it would make a good justification for a new law (whereby, for example, a child molester who was not deemed to be cured would not be released), and, if you phrase it Kevin’s way and point out that we have a duty to protect people from this nutjob, yeah, juries might buy it.
I think it would require an overhaul of how we think about prison. A lot of the point of long sentences is not to punish people, but to keep them (and, specifically, young men) out of society until they grow up (i.e. their 40s) and calm down enough to be socially acceptable. It’s not all about punishment, although such is a very nice side effect.
If we ask juries what sentence would be appropriate to punish that person, deter others from doing that harm, AND to ensure the safety of kids, you might have a shot at it.
You know… Alcatraz island would be a superb option for this!
I think Eric’s idea takes the cake on this one. We’ll do what Bridget says and convince the juries a few different ways, then lock them up on the island!
Growing up, my family was close friends with another family we met through church. The Mr. in that family was one of these, as you put it, “disgusting, perverted freaks of nature” who’d spent his time in prison, got out, became a Christian, reunited with his wife (an amazing woman I might add) and proceeded to raise his family (three kids, all turned out mostly normal). I don’t recall ever having been around him alone, but I also don’t ever recall him having sought any “personal” time and we did spend odd days over at their place, playing with his kids and such.
I believe him to be a case of successful rehabilitation and I can only imagine the struggle he went through to keep himself on the “straight and narrow”.
If I did not know someone who’s struggled with this, I would be quick to agree with all y’all, but because I know someone who does not deserve to be “locked away” for life I’m on the side of caution.
It is a difficult dichotomy, that of balancing justice and punishment. I’m all for death penalty being an option in murder cases, but there have been a few (very few) cases where there was railroading or miscarriage of justice and the death penalty was prescribed and carried out. Do we make it more difficult to prescribe the death penalty or put additional safeguards and checks to prevent innocent deaths or do we leave it as it is and accept that there will be a certain level of good caught with the bad…
I’d tend to err on the side of caution here. I’m all for group homes for these people, many of whom are trying to change and need a supportive environment. Especially if they want to be in accountability situations and make efforts to be that way. In my experience, certain sins seek seclusion and it would be my gut feeling (no scientific data I’m aware of to back me up here) that sex offenders will try to live alone to carry out their acts in privacy.
Just my two cents on this doozy…
Matthew,
The problem is, I see the risk as far too great to say that because one person was “fixed” that the rest just might have that same chance.
The bottom line is that a percentage of the people released back into society WILL repeat their offense. In my mind, it’s about the children. If we start throwing away the key and it protects a few more children, then it’s all worth it.
We should never, EVER have to hear news about a man who was released only to rape or molest again. Period.
My two cents.
-Eric
tieki rae
The points you make here and the comments by Bridget and the daily list of these perverts that liberal Judges just release (that you hear Bill O’Reilly talk about) makes a strong argument in my opinion for Vigilantism. After all why do you think we have the Second Amendment……….steve
Matthew,
“perverted freaks of nature” who’d spent his time in prison, got out, became a Christian, reunited with his wife (an amazing woman I might add) and proceeded to raise his family (three kids, all turned out mostly normal)”
I have a “Christian” former friend that turned out to force his grand daughter to provide oral services when she was 7. He was a Christian and talks today about leading others to Christ in Prison (while he does 8 years). I guess my point is if you are one of these guys and even if you are a Christian it doesn’t change anything in my opinion. And if along the way a miscarriage of justice occurs to one or two then so be it. Much better than a policy that exposes many many children to these crimes and a miscarriage of justice to hundreds of them. After all Christian or not, if they did it once why should we risk our children because Christian or not they are still a risk. This is a zero tolerance policy, God can forgive (that is between the offender an God) but man must protect innocent children.
If there were a hundred rooms with 98 poisionous snakes (one in each room) and two garter snakes in two rooms. Would you want your kids going in the room because in theory some rooms may contain docile snakes. In effect if they are cured, fine, but still do the time. (NO KEYS)………steve
Just heard Dennis Miller doing a comedy special.
“Now they’re talking about putting microchips into pedophiles so they can keep tabs on them. You know what makes it even easier to keep tabs on them? Burials!”
Matthew - I’m not trying to take anything away from your story, but I’m going to have to go with Eric and Steve on this one. I just can’t justify the risk of letting more of these disgusting, perverted freaks (I stand by that description) loose on the streets because a few might not re-offend. In my opinion, this is firmly in the area of “do the crime, pay the time”… these are heinous crimes, and “Christian” or not, people have to take responsibility for their actions. If they really are “cured” and converted, then GREAT. I’m sure they can have an effective ministry in prison.
Steve - This is one area where I have always leaned towared vigilanteism as well. When you see these sex-offenders being put back on the streets and then re-offending… I don’t know, it’s just unacceptable. I can say with complete confidence that if someone were to ever even think of messing with my (future) children or myself or any of my friends and family, I would whole-heartedly exercise my 2nd amendment rights.
And Kevin, thanks for that quote.
Definitely in agreement here.
Put me on the vigilanteism side. Matthew, no offense, but I honestly don’t believe your family friend has been fixed. It really doesn’t matter though, to me, child predators never deserve a second chance.
I just wanted to add my two cents. If execution isn’t an option (especially if the victim or victims were children) I would like to see Eric’s Alcatraz plan instituted!
WOE put me on the vigilantism side as well. Dad I love your analogy! In the words of London Bridges… “Take the key and lock them up!”…
And Matthew, everyone is holding a respectful tone with you so I will do my best to follow that good example. But what woman in her right minds goes on to have children with a sex offender? That has to be the antithesis of wisdom. Who knows what this man has done. You don’t take an alcoholic, put him in a brewery and ask him to start making the beer and expect them to be okay.
If I ever knew that someone in vicinity of my child had any sex offenses they would never see my children again if it depended on me.
Even most of the experts say it is impossible to change these tendencies.
All the creeps on dateline remind us that these freaks are everywhere and I hope that everyone is gone for life.
Excellent question MZ. As much as I detest sexual predators, I have to say that women who enable them and refuse to protect their children from them are equally abhorrent to me.
If I did not know someone who’s struggled with this, I would be quick to agree with all y’all, but because I know someone who does not deserve to be “locked away” for life I’m on the side of caution.
No child deserves to be molested, especially by someone who already has been convicted of that same crime. We all deserve to live in a safe society.
You err on the side of caution. Pray tell, why is erring on the side of caution to put children in danger?
Hi tieki,
Like Eric, I was thinking of an island home for these people. Perhaps a nice tent city on one of the Aleutian Islands?
the Grit