Should level 3 sex offenders be allowed on campus?

Koggit

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
What is the definition of a Level III sex offender?

These offenders pose a potential high risk to the community and are a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity. Most have prior sex crime convictions as well as other criminal convictions. Their lifestyles and choices place them in this classification. Some have predatory characteristics and may seek out victims. They may have refused or failed to complete approved treatment programs.
Click to expand...

My law professor raised this question today. Real situation -- there's a level 3 sex offender going to my school right now. The student body association is throwing a huge fit about it. He raped an 8-year old boy 12 years ago.

There's a day care on campus for the students' children. There are also some running start teens taking classes as young as 13.

Most students say no, he should not be allowed to attend school. And I think that sounds nice and rational until you have to ask -- where do you draw the line? If you don't run into this guy on campus you still risk running into him at the grocery store, at a concert, etc, etc. If he can't go to school, what can he do? At the same time, if level 3 is likely to re-offend, can he really be allowed to be near our children? Would you want your kid, at day care, near someone who raped an 8 year old and is likely to do it again?

I didn't really reach a conclusion...
 
It's a tough one. Alot of times these guys end up sleeping under bridges because everywhere else is too close to a school. Still - it's hard to feel sorry for them...
 
It's not an easy thing to figure out. If he had been rehabilitated it would be different, but if he's really that likely to offend and hasn't completed his rehabilitation then I don't know if he should be allowed around his victim of choice.
 
Sex offender recidivism rates aren't as high as you might think, which lends credence against the notion that they are, by and large, driven by uncontrollable, insatiable urges.

On one hand, I think anyone released to the public, whether a prisoner who maxed out, a parloee, or a probationer, should be assumed to no longer behave criminally; after all, if we expect them to recidivate, why in the world are we allowing them out in public in the first place? That's a failure of the justice and corrections systems to efficiently use the time they have the person in their jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, I am deeply troubled by someone who did not complete a treatment/rehabilitation program, particularly if it's a compulsory one (which it can be for sex offenders).

But let's not be naive entirely; a repeat offender who displays no propensity to desist offending should be carefully monitored to a degree. Just on a case-by-case basis, IMO.

Long story short, he should be allowed on campus, but those working in the day care should be made aware of who he is and what he looks like.
 
they should just cut off his balls, i remember reading a study that happened in Europe where they castrated like 7 sex offenders and afterwards only like 1 became a repeat offender. It was a volunteer procedure.
 
Chemical castrations seem more civil, to me. I think a chemical castration should be the sentencing for any serious sex offender anyway. My prof brought it up and called it unconstitutional when not the choice of the criminal, but I don't see how it's any different than a mandatory lethal injection, as far as the constitution is concerned. But I don't know much about law, yet. This is just the second week of an intro class. The constitution's chapter 5, oddly enough.
 
So here's a counter-example. A college-aged student murders someone, pleads down to manslaughter, Then serves their time in jail (which of course is reduced, etc). The university you attend now accepts this student, who has been deemed by the state and the university to be rehabilitated.

Should they be banned from the campus if no one (other than the state and the university that accepted them) knows they are a murderer?

While I don't like the idea of a sex offender living in my building, or attending my classes with me, the fact of the matter is the only reason you even know about it is because sex offenders, unlike nearly any other criminal who has been released, are branded after leaving prison. I don't necessarily disagree with this either, especially if I had kids in the area. But the fact of the matter is, you're in college, not working at an elementary school.

If an assault happens on campus, the university would likely be liable because they've accepted this student, despite his former charges. While this still isn't settling, in a society such as ours, and in a criminal justice system such as ours, if someone has served their time, and is abiding by the terms of their parole (in this case, being a registered sex offender), then what more can we expect from them?

Also I'd be interested to hear if your college/university is a public or private institution.
 
He served his time and has not had any issues in the past several years.

Do you have to feel comfortable and accept them? Absolutely not, but they do need a fair chance to rebuild their lives, and make up for their mistakes.

Redemption cannot take place without society recognizing that people can change. Paying for your crimes in jail is one thing, but he also needs the opportunity to become a contributing member of society again, and what else is better to do that than to get a college education?

Punishment is absolutely useless unless criminals can pay for their crimes and then actually MAKE something of themselves after serving their time. The idea of having thousands of rehabilitated offenders doing absolutely nothing with their lives after release shows a completely flawed Justice and Social system.

Admittedly, a record of offense should bar these people from specific jobs and areas, based on the offense, but with 12 years in the clear and the determination to rebuild their life and earn an education, I believe this person has earned their chance.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='lordwow']So here's a counter-example. A college-aged student murders someone, pleads down to manslaughter, Then serves their time in jail (which of course is reduced, etc). The university you attend now accepts this student, who has been deemed by the state and the university to be rehabilitated.

Should they be banned from the campus if no one (other than the state and the university that accepted them) knows they are a murderer?

While I don't like the idea of a sex offender living in my building, or attending my classes with me, the fact of the matter is the only reason you even know about it is because sex offenders, unlike nearly any other criminal who has been released, are branded after leaving prison. I don't necessarily disagree with this either, especially if I had kids in the area. But the fact of the matter is, you're in college, not working at an elementary school.

If an assault happens on campus, the university would likely be liable because they've accepted this student, despite his former charges. While this still isn't settling, in a society such as ours, and in a criminal justice system such as ours, if someone has served their time, and is abiding by the terms of their parole (in this case, being a registered sex offender), then what more can we expect from them?

Also I'd be interested to hear if your college/university is a public or private institution.[/QUOTE]

It's public.

I think it's quite a bit different than a murderer because sex offenders re-offend MUCH more often, and pedophilia cannot be rehabilitated. That's why sex offenders have to register and publicly announce anywhere they live, work, etc, while murderers do not.

I'd be much more comfortable if he were a murderer, because it would be easier to believe that he wouldn't re-offend.
 
[quote name='Koggit']It's public.

I think it's quite a bit different than a murderer because sex offenders re-offend MUCH more often[/quote]

lose the "much."

and pedophilia cannot be rehabilitated.
Click to expand...

bah.

That's why sex offenders have to register and publicly announce anywhere they live, work, etc, while murderers do not.
Click to expand...

double bah. It's because of moral panic; there's no relationship whatsoever between public perceptions of crime and victimization and actual rates of crime and victimization - so any publicly driven policy is more or less the result of many things except for the actual crime and treatability itself.

I'd be much more comfortable if he were a murderer, because it would be easier to believe that he wouldn't re-offend.
Click to expand...

But given the sentences for sex offenses versus murder, you're far more likely to encounter the former on campus. Far more.
 
It would really depend on the individual case. But if someone is a repeat sex offender (say 3 or more times), especially of violent rape, children offense, or parole violation - It's hard to see why they should ever see freedom again.
 
[FONT=arial,helvetica]ahh found something

Sex offenders, especially those with an egregious history of recidivism, will almost certainly continue their behavior, unless their urge to engage in it is effectively curtailed. One such approach, castration, has been summarily dismissed in America for many years. But with the recent passage of legislation in California mandating chemical castration for repeat sex offenders, several other states are also exploring similar initiatives.

[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]Most research to date has reviewed not chemical, but surgical castration (i.e. removal of the testes and replacement with prostheses). Since the late 1920s Denmark has studied the effects of surgical castration in hundreds of its most grievous sex offenders who volunteered for the procedure. The program also included trained, committed psychotherapy and follow-up monitoring for over forty years. A climate of doctor-patient confidentiality at Herstedvester, the host institution, facilitated patient disclosure. The result: recidivism rates below 5%, duplicating results in similar castrated populations in Norway, Switzerland, Germany and Iceland. Yet many of the castrated maintained an adaptive sex life; the treatment curtails drive, not the capacity for sex. In contrast, a non-castrated Danish group of offenders showed a recidivism rate of approximately 50%.

[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]Chemical castration with Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (which lowers circulating testosterone), has been examined in the United States and Canada in a number of studies of sex offenders. As in earlier European hormonal research, sex offenders have shown improved recidivism rates. Furthermore, studies have consistently shown its side effects to be even less frequent and disabling than those of many traditional behavioral medications. Thus, chemical castration offers an alternative to surgical castration that is perhaps not as biologically effective but is more palatable to those who have apocalyptic visions of "A Clockwork Orange."[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]California's castration legislation omitted the specialized counseling that has traditionally accompanied such programs. States must enhance such castration legislation by providing for pilot counseling programs targeted at high-risk offenders. There is a very specific place for castration—when selectively and thoughtfully applied.[/FONT]
 
[quote name='lordwow']http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rpr94pr.htm

In 2002, CA found that recidivisms rates were exactly the same for those who committed murder and sexual assault, the lowest of any form of crime: 41%.[/QUOTE]

That's "serious new crimes", I think you're twisting the data a bit. It's pretty widely accepted both that sex offenders have high recidivism rates and that pedophiles are the least susceptible to rehabilitation.

My first result from Google was this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/71876/recidivism_among_sex_offenders.html

Recidivism among sex offenders is quite high, according to the United States Department of Justice. Although not all sex offenders reoffend, they are four times more likely than a criminal convicted of robbery, murder, assault or any other charge. Psychologists believe that recidivism is high among sex offenders because their desire to rape, molest or assault is a psychologically engrained predeliction.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending to be an expert on the subect -- I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I've never heard the statistics you and mykevermin seem to know about, and don't feel as though your link supports those views.
 
[quote name='lordwow']http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rpr94pr.htm

In 2002, CA found that recidivisms rates were exactly the same for those who committed murder and sexual assault, the lowest of any form of crime: 41%.[/QUOTE]

That's "serious new crimes", I think you're twisting the data a bit. It's pretty widely accepted both that sex offenders have high recidivism rates and that pedophiles are the least susceptible to rehabilitation.

My first result from Google was this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/71876/recidivism_among_sex_offenders.html

Recidivism among sex offenders is quite high, according to the United States Department of Justice. Although not all sex offenders reoffend, they are four times more likely than a criminal convicted of robbery, murder, assault or any other charge. Psychologists believe that recidivism is high among sex offenders because their desire to rape, molest or assault is a psychologically engrained predeliction.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending to be an expert on the subect -- I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I've never heard the statistics you and mykevermin seem to know about, and don't feel as though your link supports those views.

Edit: Actually, from that same link, I can reply to mykevermin...
[quote name='mykevermin']
That's why sex offenders have to register and publicly announce anywhere they live, work, etc, while murderers do not.
Click to expand...
double bah. It's because of moral panic; there's no relationship whatsoever between public perceptions of crime and victimization and actual rates of crime and victimization - so any publicly driven policy is more or less the result of many things except for the actual crime and treatability itself.[/QUOTE]

In the late 80’s, state governments began to take notice of the high recidivism rates among sex offenders, and they began to enact statutes meant to protect the public.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='lordwow']So the basis of your argument is that "he might do it again" so he should be banned from your campus?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Koggit']I didn't really reach a conclusion[/QUOTE]

I don't have an argument for either side, really. I never did. Stop being an ass.

The definition of being a level 3 sex offender is that they are the most likely to re-offend. The whole level system is basically a way to determine how large of a risk a person is. This guy is the highest risk that the system allows. Restricting freedoms to minimize risk is nothing new. People with a history of terrorism aren't allowed to fly because they're flight risks. Similar deal here.

Once again, I don't fully support one side or the other, I just can see both sides of the argument... it's a tough call.
 
I don't see how questioning the fact that people want to ban someone for campus for the potential of a future crime as being an ass, especially when the university itself has accepted him.
 
[quote name='lordwow']I don't see how questioning the fact that people want to ban someone for campus for the potential of a future crime as being an ass[/QUOTE]

I was just frustrated with you putting words in my mouth. It's a cheap way to debate -- implying I have an unreasonable stance that I explicitly denied in the OP.

[quote name='lordwow']especially when the university itself has accepted him.[/QUOTE]

It's not like he put "I raped children and refused to participate in rehabilitation" on his personal statement. His criminal history was not part of the admissions process. Under the current laws, the university can kick him out if it is deemed "in the best interest of accomplishing state goals." For it to be kosher they'd have to prove that his presence is detrimental to the education of others, which it very well may be. What if you were a 14 year old running start student, assigned to sit next to this guy for your final exam? I think I'd be affected. I'd be psyched out.

Coincidentally, this is why universities are allowed to discriminate based on race in admissions. They give bonus admissions index points to minorities, to increase diversity, since diversity in educational atmospheres is considered in the best interest of the state.
 
When I read the words "Level 3 Sex Offender" on a video game site....I started to think...Maybe there is a new shooter game out there where you kill sex offenders...
 
[quote name='Xevious']When I read the words "Level 3 Sex Offender" on a video game site....I started to think...Maybe there is a new shooter game out there where you kill sex offenders...[/quote]

Sounds like a great idea, but the liberals who think that everyone should be protected and given 10th chances, regardless of how many people they rape or kill, would be offended... :cry:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sex offender recidivism rates aren't as high as you might think, which lends credence against the notion that they are, by and large, driven by uncontrollable, insatiable urges.

On one hand, I think anyone released to the public, whether a prisoner who maxed out, a parloee, or a probationer, should be assumed to no longer behave criminally; after all, if we expect them to recidivate, why in the world are we allowing them out in public in the first place? That's a failure of the justice and corrections systems to efficiently use the time they have the person in their jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, I am deeply troubled by someone who did not complete a treatment/rehabilitation program, particularly if it's a compulsory one (which it can be for sex offenders).

But let's not be naive entirely; a repeat offender who displays no propensity to desist offending should be carefully monitored to a degree. Just on a case-by-case basis, IMO.

Long story short, he should be allowed on campus, but those working in the day care should be made aware of who he is and what he looks like.[/quote]

Agreed.
 
[quote name='Koggit']My law professor raised this question today. Real situation -- there's a level 3 sex offender going to my school right now. The student body association is throwing a huge fit about it. He raped an 8-year old boy 12 years ago.

There's a day care on campus for the students' children. There are also some running start teens taking classes as young as 13.

Most students say no, he should not be allowed to attend school. And I think that sounds nice and rational until you have to ask -- where do you draw the line? If you don't run into this guy on campus you still risk running into him at the grocery store, at a concert, etc, etc. If he can't go to school, what can he do? At the same time, if level 3 is likely to re-offend, can he really be allowed to be near our children? Would you want your kid, at day care, near someone who raped an 8 year old and is likely to do it again?

I didn't really reach a conclusion...[/QUOTE]
It's his right to an education. Not to surprise you, but you'll always find dirtbags at your job, your school, your church, etc.

One thing I know for sure is that he's not receiving financial aid, so he's paying for this himself (or through a private loan).

Some towns require sex offenders to notify the neighborhood of their existance and to stay away from certain centers. If he's cleared for college, it's OK with me. I'm sure the daycare you speak of is already trained on him, so he won't be a threat. Campus police already know about him (trust me, they know!) so he'll easily be spotted and sadly watched.

And to answer some of these other comments....arming people with weapons won't help anybody. Nor will cutting off anybody's balls. Sometimes innocent people get charged with rape. Yes, it's true. There are laws in certain states which prohibits an 18 year old from having sex with a 16 year old - or a Senior screwing a sophmore. Idiotic, but that's how it is. So, what if the basic run of the mill sex offender who was caught up because he messed around with someone 2 years younger than him was on a college campus. Would everyone two years younger of him be terrified? Would he be shunned from getting an education? Cut off his balls?

The guy made a mistake, and his life is almost over because nobody is really going to hire him. At least let him waste his money and get a degree so he can try and make himself feel normal again.
 
I'll never believe any report or person that says that sex offenders are more likely to commit the same crime again than someone convicted of robbery or anything to do with drugs.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']they should just cut off his balls, i remember reading a study that happened in Europe where they castrated like 7 sex offenders and afterwards only like 1 became a repeat offender. It was a volunteer procedure.[/QUOTE]

There were only 7 people in that study. That's hardly a good sample. You also fail to note how long the study lasted.
 
I'm going with no. Schools are different from grocery stores. Anyone can go to a grocery store. Not everyone can go to college (I assue this is a college).
 
[quote name='BigT']Sounds like a great idea, but the liberals who think that everyone should be protected and given 10th chances, regardless of how many people they rape or kill, would be offended... :cry:[/quote]

you know as a liberal I never have advocated protecting and giving people 10th chances for rapist or murders. I advocate that 1st police and prosecution should not bend any rules to frame someone they think is guilty. 2nd the accused is entitled to an adequate defense and not some burnout trying to get through the day. 3rd prevent and try to eliminate the conditions that lead to these terrible crimes before they happen. After that throw them in jail and let them serve time.
 
[quote name='davidjinfla']No the level 3 sex offender should take classes over the internet. Not on campus with potential victims.[/QUOTE]

Good point, there are no potential victims online...

catchapredator.jpg

Oh wait...
 
keep your freaking kids off the internet or teach them how to use it! You know parenting, give them rules, boundaries, and limitations. Follow up check to see what they are doing. Don't believe them or to quote Ronald Reagan, "trust but verify".

My brother took online courses at FSU and you don't get to be all creepy private and there is a transcript. It is safer but nothing is totally safe. Rather have them in cyberschool than real school were something might happen.

Also you should warn students in his class, at the daycare, and any underage student attending from high school. But this should be covered as standard be aware of your surroundings type orientation that all students should attend. Besides at least you know about this one unlike all the unreported sexual assaults that happen these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top