Wow, I Agree With Hillary Clinton???: National Sex Offender Bill

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2005 9:19 a.m. EDT
Hillary Clinton Presses Bush on Sex Offender Bill

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is calling on President Bush to sign legislation that would make a national registry of sex offenders available to the public.

"Parents - and all concerned citizens - should have the ability to access information to see if a convicted sex offender is living in their neighborhood or near other places where their children spend time,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters on Monday.

The bill - known as the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Database Act of 2005 - has been passed by the Senate and now awaits approval by the House.

"I am pleased that my Senate colleagues took the critical step of approving this legislation that would enable the public to easily find out if a sex offender is living nearby and give them access to the same nationwide database that law enforcement has," the top Democrat said. "I call on my colleagues in the House to do the same.”

In comments covered by her official Senate web site, Hillary made no mention of her husband, who was accused by several women of sexual assault before he was impeached for perjuring himself in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Likewise, reporters declined to ask her about a Clinton era directive that required state Medicaid programs to cover Viagra, which made the impotency drug available to nearly 800 sex offenders nationwide.

In addition to the Dru Sjodin Act, Mrs. Clinton is a co-sponsor of S. 1086, a more comprehensive bill aimed at cracking down on sexual predators.

That legislation would mandate that violent sex offenders be tracked by a Global Positioning System device. It also establishes a new, federally maintained sex offender DNA database to be used by law enforcement and prosecutors, and makes failing to register as a sex offender a deportable offense.
Link

This is great, now New York just needs Arkansas to send them a bunch of these signs.
clinton%20sex%20offender.jpg
 
I agree to an extent, but some of the sex offender laws are rediculous. Watch COPS sometime, and check out the prostitution stings they set up. Some times you'll see the female cop dressed as a prostitute solicit a guy over, who doesn't seem like he would've stopped normally had he not been called to. So he decides "eh, what the hell", and then he gets busted, which puts him on the sex offender list for life.

I agree that all level 3's should be made available to the public, but some of the lower stuff? Seems like somebody could be given the Scarlet Letter for life over something stupid and trivial.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']I agree to an extent, but some of the sex offender laws are rediculous. Watch COPS sometime, and check out the prostitution stings they set up. Some times you'll see the female cop dressed as a prostitute solicit a guy over, who doesn't seem like he would've stopped normally had he not been called to. So he decides "eh, what the hell", and then he gets busted, which puts him on the sex offender list for life.

I agree that all level 3's should be made available to the public, but some of the lower stuff? Seems like somebody could be given the Scarlet Letter for life over something stupid and trivial.[/QUOTE]


I'm pretty sure being a John doesn't put you on the sex offender list.

It's reserved for violent sexuals attacks. Sex with children, rape...the like.
 
Yeah, but if Hilary wasn't planning to run for President she wouldn't be for this sex offender bill.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Yeah, but if Hilary wasn't planning to run for President she wouldn't be for this sex offender bill.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, damn that Hillary! She's all for sex crimes until she wants to run for President. :roll:
 
That we should even have to talk about recidivism is pitiful enough. Society treats ex-offenders in terms of their likelihood to reoffend, so they are blackballed from communities, jobs, families, etc. It's called the "labelling effect," go look it up.

Here's my problem, one all of you, conservatives alike, should appreciate. If we're going to incarcerate people, why let them out if we think that the likelihood of reoffense exists, or is greater than the average person? In so doing, we are admitting that, in their time incarcerated, we have done absolutely nothing to help them, better them, or otherwise prepare them for release.

Instead, they've become victims of the prisonization effect, unprepared to deal with free society. Beyond that, they suffer from social problems at the hands of a society that seems to blithely accept releasing untreated offenders. We need to start in the prisons and jails, rather than releasing people and monitoring them, acting surprised if they don't reoffend.
 
Personally I don't think you can ever rehabilitate child abusers and sex offenders whose victims were children. There is a big moral and societal line that you cross when you go after a child and I honestly don't think you can be brought back across that threshold of decency. The recurrance rate is disturbing to say the least but people get squeemish about harsh sentencing without any hope of reform, murders excepted.

Child offenders should receive life without parole. The crime is that heinous.
 
Why stop at sex offenders? Lets have a national hate crimes database, national spousal abuse database, national child abuse database. I wonder how far it could go...
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Yeah, but if Hilary wasn't planning to run for President she wouldn't be for this sex offender bill.[/QUOTE]

I knew there was only ONE politician who based decisions on future political gain. Thanks for pointing out exactly who it is.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Why stop at sex offenders? Lets have a national hate crimes database, national spousal abuse database, national child abuse database. I wonder how far it could go...[/QUOTE]
Statistically, persons convicted of sex crimes have a higher rate of repeat offenses than any other group.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Statistically, persons convicted of sex crimes have a higher rate of repeat offenses than any other group.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't change the fact that people don't wantwife beaters and child abusers in their neighborhood either. Sex crimes aren't the only heinous criminal acts. A national drug abuser database should be in effect if that is the case. They are repeat offenders above and beyond any other crime. Plus they bring gun violence with them, stealing, drug dealers...
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Statistically, persons convicted of sex crimes have a higher rate of repeat offenses than any other group.[/QUOTE]

I was watching a documentary a while ago on sex offenders against children. There was a guy who was either on medication or about to undergo surgery so he would no longer have a sex drive. Why don't we do something along the lines of this:

convicted of child molestation, 10 years in jail, or 2 years if you remove your sex drive.

Though we're still presented with a problem. What about the wrongly convicted people who are pressured into sex drive removal? It's bad enough being on the sex offender list, but now they would be physically altered for life with no hope of a normal life. I'm not sure if I agree with myself here.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']That doesn't change the fact that people don't wantwife beaters and child abusers in their neighborhood either. Sex crimes aren't the only heinous criminal acts. A national drug abuser database should be in effect if that is the case. They are repeat offenders above and beyond any other crime. Plus they bring gun violence with them, stealing, drug dealers...[/QUOTE]

The assumption is sex offenders often do it out of biological drives, not just screwed up thinking. Therefore, getting them to want to change their lives and see things differently often doesn't work. If you ever watch interviews with people who have raped/molested children (not the ones who actually murder them though, since that's another realm entirely), they often come across as particularly remorseful. I've seen multiple ones who say they shouldn't be released, because they'll likely reoffend, and not much is being done to try to stop it.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Personally I don't think you can ever rehabilitate child abusers and sex offenders whose victims were children. There is a big moral and societal line that you cross when you go after a child and I honestly don't think you can be brought back across that threshold of decency. The recurrance rate is disturbing to say the least but people get squeemish about harsh sentencing without any hope of reform, murders excepted.

Child offenders should receive life without parole. The crime is that heinous.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's fine that you think that way; IMO, because our prison system is more punitive than rehabilitative, the scenario I argued can be said of any release: they are simply unprepared to reenter society. If we aren't going to prepare them for release, then we're setting them up for failure. Thus, why create false hopes for a successful postrelease outcome? Keep their expectations exactly where they're going to stay: in prison.

For those of you who argue that sex offenders tend to recidivate more than anyone else, please cite your sources. Most any criminological study of prison return rates shows that 60%+ of ALL offenders go back within 3 years, and it goes above 80% as you approach 10 years. With that in mind, there isn't a great deal of leeway to say that one group reoffends more than a group of people who already recidivate at astonishingly high levels.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The assumption is sex offenders often do it out of biological drives, not just screwed up thinking. Therefore, getting them to want to change their lives and see things differently often doesn't work. If you ever watch interviews with people who have raped/molested children (not the ones who actually murder them though, since that's another realm entirely), they often come across as particularly remorseful. I've seen multiple ones who say they shouldn't be released, because they'll likely reoffend, and not much is being done to try to stop it.[/QUOTE]

My point is that while a national database has noble intentions, how long will it be before someone wants to use it for something other than sex crimes and will the public accept it?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']My point is that while a national database has noble intentions, how long will it be before someone wants to use it for something other than sex crimes and will the public accept it?[/QUOTE]

This is one of those things where I can spend an hour arguing myself with, so I'm not really gonna argue for one side or the other to much. Though, as always, I feel that the focus should be on rehabilitation, just like other offences should be.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Personally I don't think you can ever rehabilitate child abusers and sex offenders whose victims were children. There is a big moral and societal line that you cross when you go after a child and I honestly don't think you can be brought back across that threshold of decency. The recurrance rate is disturbing to say the least but people get squeemish about harsh sentencing without any hope of reform, murders excepted.

Child offenders should receive life without parole. The crime is that heinous.[/QUOTE]


that is not completely true, I remember reading a study done in like Norway or something where they took sex offenders and gave them the option to be released early if they had their testicles removed. For the most part the prisoners who had a procedure did not return to sex offending and they could still enjoy normal lives. I'll look for the study later.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']that is not completely true, I remember reading a study done in like Norway or something where they took sex offenders and gave them the option to be released early if they had their testicles removed. For the most part the prisoners who had a procedure did not return to sex offending and they could still enjoy normal lives. I'll look for the study later.[/QUOTE]

Offtopic but I just told a guy friend of mine this and he kinda winced when I got to the "testicles removed" part, hehe.
 
Can't we just put sex offenders in one community away from the rest of society?

You know, take some useless state like New Mexico and make it for sex offenders only.

Whatever few children are born in can be airlifted out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top