View Full Version : Mapping sex offenders
I'm curious to know what people think of this. (http://www.naffis.com/somapper/) It's a guy using Google Maps to pinpoint the residences of sex offenders in the D.C. area, complete with mugshots.
Uesugi Kenshin
06-24-2005, 03:46
I am really not sure. If it helped reduce the number of assaults significantly it may be tolerable, but it does violate an individual's privacy. However, they did (most likely anyway...) committ a sexual assault so it is for the most part their fault. Gonna have to go with Gah! for now.
Mongoose
06-24-2005, 04:03
I would rather violate an offenders privacy then risk a child getting...you know....
Papewaio
06-24-2005, 04:13
Why stop at sex offenders?
Why not allow everyone full information on all your neighbours, workers, son-in-law, girlfriend etc
Sasaki Kojiro
06-24-2005, 04:15
Hah, page taken down.
Albino Gorilla
06-24-2005, 04:19
How about we just kill the sick you know whats, then there would be no argument over sex offender mapping.
Why stop at sex offenders?
Why not allow everyone full information on all your neighbours, workers, son-in-law, girlfriend etc
Well, presumably those people aren't sex offenders- I think that's an important difference.
Productivity
06-24-2005, 04:34
I wouldn't mind seeing density maps, but specific names, faces and addresses are well out of order.
Presumably they have been convicted, sentenced, and endured their sentence. Vigilantes should not be going round trying to exacerbate that sentence.
sharrukin
06-24-2005, 04:53
Why stop at sex offenders?
Why not allow everyone full information on all your neighbours, workers, son-in-law, girlfriend etc
Well we do require information about the people we are going to date or marry or for son-in-laws. And introducing yourself to the neighbour across the hall or next door is fairly common. We do not require them to provide any information because they have done nothing to warrant such a demand. If on the other hand we saw them bathing nude in the hottub with their 12 year old daughter we, or at least most of us would demand answers.
Presumably they have been convicted, sentenced, and endured their sentence. Vigilantes should not be going round trying to exacerbate that sentence.
Criminal records are considered public information in many places. There's even Internet services that will run criminal history checks on almost anyone if you pay a small fee. If someone takes that initiative to compile what is public information I don't really see the problem.
Productivity
06-24-2005, 05:10
Criminal records are considered public information in many places. There's even Internet services that will run criminal history checks on almost anyone if you pay a small fee. If someone takes that initiative to compile what is public information I don't really see the problem.
If that is the case, then that is fair enough, although I am not sure if addresses and faces are part of that public information. But yes, fundamentally if it's publicly available information, then I have no issues with it.
IrishMike
06-24-2005, 05:19
Somebody explain to me how this is any different from the sex offender registry? You know the one required by law that all sex offenders have to put information to, such as where they live, what they look like. Nobody yells about that, why yell about the same thing with google in it though.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-24-2005, 05:23
you can currently get that information very easily in the city where I'm currently living. What we want to know is why can't we find out where the other violent criminals are living.
doc_bean
06-24-2005, 09:38
Criminal records are considered public information in many places. There's even Internet services that will run criminal history checks on almost anyone if you pay a small fee. If someone takes that initiative to compile what is public information I don't really see the problem.
My thoughts exactly. ~:cheers:
Although I find doing such a thing is in the moral grey area, it doesn't infringe privacy since criminal records are normally public anyway (except when a term expires I guess, I don' t know the exact details...).
English assassin
06-24-2005, 12:17
As a parent I say go for it.
As a normal human being I say I have a problem with it. This guy has no official status and no accountability. What happens if he makes a mistake, or if you p him off and he puts your face up there for fun? Here in the UK we have had vigilantes attacking paediatricians because mouth breathers don't know the difference between paediatricians and paedophile. Women who look a bit like Maxine Carr (who was involved in covering up a child killing) have been attacked in the street, some repeatedly.
If this sort of thing takes off god help you if you bear a passing resemblance to the local paedophile
Leave it to the cops and the criminal records bureau I say.
A.Saturnus
06-24-2005, 13:39
Well, presumably those people aren't sex offenders- I think that's an important difference.
Please note that what the site says just now:
And all this can happen on the capricious whim of a vengeful colleage, an emotionally disturbed family member in "repressed memory" therapy, a school child craving the attention of her peers after watching an exciting grown-up program on television the night before. Even if there is no evidence. Even if the accuser can't produce consistent accounts. Even if child protective services doesn't find any credibility to the accusation. Because no aspiring district attorney can afford to drop a sex offense charge in the face of the witch hunt - it's political suicide, the charges are a dime a dozen, and nearly every single one is a guaranteed conviction.
Since accused sex offender = sex offender, everyone might be tomorrow`s sex offender, even you.
doc_bean
06-24-2005, 13:58
Since accused sex offender = sex offender, everyone might be tomorrow`s sex offender, even you.
That's something completely different of course, I thought it was about convicted offenders.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-24-2005, 14:09
Why stop at sex offenders?
Why not allow everyone full information on all your neighbours, workers, son-in-law, girlfriend etc
Ohh that sounds like fun! ~:)
doc_bean
06-24-2005, 14:13
Actually, a society without secrets wouldn't be too bad, once we realize there's always dirt to be found, we might stop focussing so much on it. Although, i really don't want to know what my parents are 'into'. ~:eek:
Also, cheating on your wife or ******* a ten year old boy are dirt on such a different level that there's almost no comparison possible.
Don Corleone
06-24-2005, 14:33
Does anybody here really delude themselves into believing we still have a 'right to privacy' anymore? The only place the 'right to privacy' is alive and well is abortion, as SCOTUS decided that was the overriding legal principle upon which to base it's ruling that states cannot restrict access to abortion.
When it comes to what most of us think as privacy, you'd be shocked and amazed how much of your personal information is out there floating around. In most states, the DMV has the right to (and does) sell lists of all licensed drivers in the state. Your local tax assessor office sells homeowner information to mortgage companies. And let's not get started on the credit card companies....
So why should we make pedophiles a protected class? You can hand my data around but not theirs?
doc_bean
06-24-2005, 14:50
Does anybody here really delude themselves into believing we still have a 'right to privacy' anymore? The only place the 'right to privacy' is alive and well is abortion, as SCOTUS decided that was the overriding legal principle upon which to base it's ruling that states cannot restrict access to abortion.
That's not about privacy, that's about the difference between 'private' and 'public' affairs. Privacy is about the right to keep information secret, to a degree.
I think the EU has better privacy protection than the US, since we don't really care as much about the 'freedom of information' on basic principle. We can restrict companies from sharing information.
Of course, with the internet, privacy is only what you manage to make it. Be careful what you fill out or sign, be careful who you talk to, be mindful that everyone can be carrying a camera, especially since the cell phone cameras and that camera's can (and often are) placed at public locations (in the broad sense of the word).
Paranoid, me ? ~D
Mongoose
06-24-2005, 14:53
But if we ignore them and give them plenty of time alone with young children, they will be good people again! ~:grouphug:
Big King Sanctaphrax
06-24-2005, 18:01
The problem I have with this is to do with the fact that I think the only thing you'd really be able to use the information for is some kind of illegal persecution. Why would you need to find out there was a paedophile in your neighbourhood if not to harm them? What are you going to do, refuse to let your kids leave the house?
Kaiser of Arabia
06-24-2005, 18:03
The problem I have with this is to do with the fact that I think the only thing you'd really be able to use the information for is some kind of illegal persecution. Why would you need to find out there was a paedophile in your neighbourhood if not to harm them? What are you going to do, refuse to let your kids leave the house?
YES!
The problem I have with this is to do with the fact that I think the only thing you'd really be able to use the information for is some kind of illegal persecution. Why would you need to find out there was a paedophile in your neighbourhood if not to harm them? What are you going to do, refuse to let your kids leave the house?
Well said that man! :bow:
Plus it is a gros invasion of privacy, what if he got someone wrong anyway? Do we really want people outside of the state and the proper authorities knowing all this? I really do not think so.
t1master
06-24-2005, 18:15
imo, once you've been charged and convicted of molesting children you forfiet your right to privacy about the event.
i also believe that child molesters have one of the highest rates of ricidivism, meaning they continue to molest even after they've been convicted and 'served' their time.
every state in the union, as far as i know, has mandatory registery of sexual offenders, and the info is available via the internet.
as a parent, i too want to know if some sicko's are living in my nieghborhood so i can keep an eye on my daughter when she's outside playing.
life in prison or a bullet to the back of the head would be a simple solution, but prolly not practical. ~;)
Don Corleone
06-24-2005, 19:07
I don't have any problems with a convicted child molester having to report his address. And BKS, there's lots of reasons you might want to know Chester the Molester moved in next to you and your kids...
-You won't allow your children to leave without supervision
-You'll know to keep an eye out at the local park & such
-You'll make plans to escort your child to school.
- If you see strange behavior from an individual, such as offering candy, asking for help finding a puppy or such, you'll be able to include that a known sex offender lives in your area when you file the report.
The statistics are pretty clear on this one. The vast majority of those who abuse children will re-offend. Each time, they become progressively more violent, either as their depravity increases (they need to inflict physical harm as well as sexual abuse) or even to just protect themselves (strangled witnesses can't accuse).
Yes, some minor percentage, I believe about 20% learn their lesson and do not re-offend. 80% do at some point in their life.
Now, the particular vehicle for posting the offenders' information causes me concern. In the United States, any state that has a sex offender registry has a website that publishes all the info this guy does, so at best, he's being redundant, and others have pointed out, the potential for abuse exists.
This does raise another big, big flag that we deal with all the time with the sex offenders list... not registering address changes is supposed to be a probation violation, but it's estimated over 50% of registered offenders do not reside at their last listed address and could not be found by authorities. In that case with the girl who was abducted, repeatedly raped and and then strangled, down in Florida over Easter weekend, the offender (who was out of prison on parole for a sex offense against a child) wasn't even residing in the same munipality. He moved in with his sister, across the street from the victim, and never reported the address change.
THAT is why we maintain a sexual offenders registry and why we should. The odds are that given enough time out of prison, they will do it again, and the violence of their acts will continue to escalate. If you don't have sexual offenders in the UK or the rest of Europe, count yourselves lucky, but don't pretend you understand what we're going through either.
Page take down, so can't comment on it, specifically.
However, there was some TV FBI drama on the other day, and having nothing else to do, I watched it. It dealt with a guy who killed would-be serial killers before they ever got the chance to commit murder. One of the FBI agents supported it, since she was abducted and apparently abused as a child. The other FBI agents thought he was another psycho, just a self-righteous one.
If all the sex offenders need to register their addresses, mapping them out is no big step. It's just information. Acting on it is what makes the difference.
Mongoose
06-24-2005, 19:21
The problem I have with this is to do with the fact that I think the only thing you'd really be able to use the information for is some kind of illegal persecution. Why would you need to find out there was a e in your neighbourhood if not to harm them? What are you going to do, refuse to let your kids leave the house?
Well, i see the gross invasion of privacy a lesser of two evils. Neither are good...but keep in mind that, IIRC, many offenders will do the same thing twice.
The public should know if an offender lives next door.IMHO.
Well, i see the gross invasion of privacy a lesser of two evils. Neither are good...but keep in mind that, IIRC, many offenders will do the same thing twice.
The public should know if an offender lives next door.IMHO.
in my opinion the police forces in the area should be aware that these people are in their area of responsability....if these people have served their sentences there is no point for this information to be available to the general public...all that would lead to is to a persecution and even attempts at vigilante actions.
Don Corleone
06-24-2005, 20:21
in my opinion the police forces in the area should be aware that these people are in their area of responsability....if these people have served their sentences there is no point for this information to be available to the general public...all that would lead to is to a persecution and even attempts at vigilante actions.
I guess the police in Europe are light years ahead of American police. That a police officer in Portugal can anticipate and prevent a crime is truly amazing and you should be proud of the efficiency of your law enforcement.
Unfortunately, we in America are still living in the dark ages. While they try to prevent crime, anyone with half an iota of knowledge as to how American law enforcement works will tell you there's really little they can do to prevent crime, only investegate one and arrest the responsbile parties.
Maybe, in light of that, we Americans need to know our children are in jeoprady while you, with your advanced force of super police, can sleep soundly regardless of who's prowling your streets.
And you're right Ronin. Using the information to make a decision to keep your children from playing outdoors without supervision... that's just cruel to do that poor sex offender. He has every right to sit back and scope & watch. It's just vigilantism for people to monitor their children's activities.
I guess the police in Europe are light years ahead of American police. That a police officer in Portugal can anticipate and prevent a crime is truly amazing and you should be proud of the efficiency of your law enforcement.
Unfortunately, we in America are still living in the dark ages. While they try to prevent crime, anyone with half an iota of knowledge as to how American law enforcement works will tell you there's really little they can do to prevent crime, only investegate one and arrest the responsbile parties.
Maybe, in light of that, we Americans need to know our children are in jeoprady while you, with your advanced force of super police, can sleep soundly regardless of who's prowling your streets.
And you're right Ronin. Using the information to make a decision to keep your children from playing outdoors without supervision... that's just cruel to do that poor sex offender. He has every right to sit back and scope & watch. It's just vigilantism for people to monitor their children's activities.
information like the one that we are debating here would be used for a lot more than just "moniter children´s activities"....i know that...and you know that....so let´s not insult eachother´s inteligence pretending that this information wouldn´t be used for persecution and acts of violence against the people that would be in that list.....
tell me....what would happen if in a given town....a children went missing?...what would happen to the people in that list if it was public knowledge??....i wouldn´t bet much on any of them being alive till the next day....some band of self-right morons would see to that....were any of them guilty of this particular crime?....who knows?....maybe yes...maybe no....would anyone in the lynch mob care?....their names are in a list after all.....and once you get a mob logic goes out the window really fast i´ve come to learn....
now...on the other hand....if the list is just in the hands of the police.....and these police officer´s don´t have to be genious....they´re not over here and i´m pretty sure they´re not in the states either....once a child goes missing you have a ready made list of pre-suspects......and of course the police would know were they live...and work....they might be checked up on from time to time...
now...if you really ask me....this situation shouldn´t even present itself....it´s my opinion that child molesters should be given life sentences without any posibility of parole.....but...if you give them less prison time....once they come out they shouldn´t be in some ready made "lynch-list"....that´s not what i call justice..at least not in a civilized society.....
as far as to the society were you´d like to live....hey....that´s your opinion...
The Blind King of Bohemia
06-24-2005, 21:04
A bit of topic but i was on a Urban legends website the other day and came across this picture of a sex offender. Now if this is real ( which considering Aperts and crouzons syndrome had effected many people) this is one scary looking fella
http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp
To be honest i don't think people like Paedophiles can ever be "cured" or ever put back into society where they can cause further pain to innocents and should't be put anywhere but a cold dark cell with the key throwed away.
Don Corleone
06-24-2005, 21:09
If somebody is going to go vigilante on a child predator, they're going to do it whether their name shows up on somebody's list or not. The fact is the data is readily available in many states over here already, and we do NOT have a rash of vigilante attacks on these people. They might get dirty looks at the grocery store, or an occasional 'shame on you', but in light of what they've done, that seems pretty mild.
Why are you so insistent that people be defenseless? Why do you want to burden the innocent and protect the guilty? They can't arm themselves, they can't resist an attack, and now you don't even want them to know who the attackers are?
PanzerJaeger
06-24-2005, 21:09
Ive got to agree with Ronin here.
If you've served your time, you dont deserve to have everyone know of your past. I dont even believe in the registry. A person's criminal record should be between them and the police.
If you are worried that your neighbor might be some kind of former criminal, exercise your second amendment rights and buy a gun. Self defence is always going to be better than waiting for the cops anyway.
Im not a parent though, and dont plan on it - so all I have to defend is myself. Im sure if I had children my feelings would change a little. I still believe in having the chance to start over once a just sentence has been served.
Clarification -- the website, as it originally existed, did not claim to be a pedophile list or a rapist list. It was merely a map of people who were "sexual offenders," with no further info, beyond face, name and address.
As several others have pointed out, urination in public could get you on that list. This sort of takes the purposefulness out of the map.
If, on the other hand, you could have a list of convicted sexual predators ... well, that seems to be more what Don is talking about.
If somebody is going to go vigilante on a child predator, they're going to do it whether their name shows up on somebody's list or not. The fact is the data is readily available in many states over here already, and we do NOT have a rash of vigilante attacks on these people. They might get dirty looks at the grocery store, or an occasional 'shame on you', but in light of what they've done, that seems pretty mild.
Why are you so insistent that people be defenseless? Why do you want to burden the innocent and protect the guilty? They can't arm themselves, they can't resist an attack, and now you don't even want them to know who the attackers are?
you never know who the attackers are.....if you have childen you have to be vigilant.....and that includes being vigilant of anyone that might take an unusual interest in your children.....and let´s remember....before these weirdos were sex offenders they were everyday "normal" people........so even if you do have this list....you still have to worry about everyone else....that might be a first time sex offender....or simply repeat sex offenders that simply haven´t been caught yet........either way....the existance of the list has no real positive effect...
as for the vigilante issue.....i´m not so sure about the US...but in the UK it has happened.....a few years ago after a child sex scandal broke out some moron at a tabloid decided to publish a list to "name and shame" as they put it....results?....people were physically assaulted and generally persecuted.....the real kicker in that story?....most of the people that showed up in that journal hadn´t actually done anything....it still didn´t prevent some morons out there from acting out on the information....
bmolsson
06-25-2005, 02:55
The problem would be that the sex offenders never will have a chance to get back to society. It's very much like keeping them locked in for ever or execute them socially.
Out of a practical view from the societys side, it saves a lot of headache.....
Don Corleone
06-25-2005, 04:09
Ronin,
No offense, but is a grammatical structure of portugese to use an ellipsis (a ...) to link each and every phrase as one paragraph long sentance? It makes your writing very hard to read.
From what I could pick out...
Yes, an offender might be a first time offender, and yes, I would be foolish to turn my children loose in the street.
You know, now that I think about it, you're right all the way around. Buggering, murdering sociopaths have a right to live among us, scope their grounds, and be free from persecution. I nominate your neighborhood as the ideal relocation place, but as you say, we won't identify who they are on their way in. Have fun.
doc_bean
06-25-2005, 10:09
I'm not pro-vigilante and believe people should get a chance to redeem themselves, however, being able to protect your children is far more important than the right of privacy of some paedophile.
Do any of the people that believe in the rights of the criminals here actually have children of their own, or children in their immediate family ? I would certainly appreciate it if I could tell my child "Don't ever go near that man, he's bad, if he offers you candy run away, if he touches you or comes to close to your liking, run away screaming". I'd also appreciate knowing that i shouldn't ask my new neighbor to watch the kids for a minute. There are a million small other things. If society deems them worthy of a second chance (which I don't really agree with but that's a different issue) I'll try to give them that, but I sure as hell will be as careful as possible, and protect my kids, or the kids in my family, as best as I can.
If someone goes vigilante on them, without proper reason, they should be convicted as if they had done the same to any other law abiding person. Once you hand out a few life sentences they will calm down, and probably demand tougher sentences for the criminals. Which i can only agree with.
If you don't have sexual offenders in the UK or the rest of Europe, count yourselves lucky,
Are you serious ?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/delay_fourniret/5.html?sect=2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent_europe/1962263.stm
Ronin,
No offense, but is a grammatical structure of portugese to use an ellipsis (a ...) to link each and every phrase as one paragraph long sentance? It makes your writing very hard to read.
From what I could pick out...
Yes, an offender might be a first time offender, and yes, I would be foolish to turn my children loose in the street.
You know, now that I think about it, you're right all the way around. Buggering, murdering sociopaths have a right to live among us, scope their grounds, and be free from persecution. I nominate your neighborhood as the ideal relocation place, but as you say, we won't identify who they are on their way in. Have fun.
i did say that you would have to identify yourself to the police.....ignoring half of my position to further your argument is kinda of a lame position...
A.Saturnus
06-25-2005, 14:20
Don, I`m afraid you still don`t get the point:
Because no aspiring district attorney can afford to drop a sex offense charge in the face of the witch hunt - it's political suicide, the charges are a dime a dozen, and nearly every single one is a guaranteed conviction.
Why do you think every accusation is a garanteed conviction? Because only guilty people get accused? C`mon, that would be naive. We must assume that a significant percentage on that list are innocent people.
Don Corleone
06-25-2005, 16:31
i did say that you would have to identify yourself to the police.....ignoring half of my position to further your argument is kinda of a lame position...
I wasn't trying to ignore your postion, it just got to be REALLY hard to understand what you were saying. You made an entire paragraph into one sentance, with nothing but ellipses linking it together. I didn't ignore half of what you wrote, that's how far I got before going cross-eyed.
I'd say having the police know is better than nobody knowning, but still not good enough. Why are you so opposed to parents being able to protect their children? How can they protect them if there is a threat in close proximity but they're not allowed to know?
I wasn't trying to ignore your postion, it just got to be REALLY hard to understand what you were saying. You made an entire paragraph into one sentance, with nothing but ellipses linking it together. I didn't ignore half of what you wrote, that's how far I got before going cross-eyed.
I'd say having the police know is better than nobody knowning, but still not good enough. Why are you so opposed to parents being able to protect their children? How can they protect them if there is a threat in close proximity but they're not allowed to know?
i´m not against parents protecting their children.......parents should act as anyone they don´t know could be a threat....and act accordingly..
what i am against i creating a potential hit list full of people that having broken the law in the past....might not be breaking it anymore, like i said if a society really feels that these people can´t be re-integrated lock then up for life...that´s better than what you are defending.
Don Corleone
06-25-2005, 17:50
More of them will reoffend then won't. You're advocating making their job at reoffending easier, by granting them anonymity and the ability to live and hunt among children, unknown.
More of them will reoffend then won't. You're advocating making their job at reoffending easier, by granting them anonymity and the ability to live and hunt among children, unknown.
yes...they have a higher rate of reofence.....that is why their names and wereabouts should be the knowledge of the police........public knowledge is just taking it too far in my opinion......would it provide an extra layer of protection?..yes....would it ultimatelly also be used for negative actions?..yes it would
i say that we leave it at that...since it´s pretty clear that we´ll just be throwing the same arguments back and forth at each other...
Don Corleone
06-25-2005, 20:14
Fair enough chief. ~:cheers:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.