- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by Charlie.
January 7, 2020 at 11:29 am #66959
By Joshua Vaughn . . . The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to rule on five cases this year that could change how the state treats people convic
[See the full post at: Once again: Registries do not reduce or prevent sexual crime]
January 7, 2020 at 3:30 pm #66964
I believe that MOST sex offenders are everyday people like us who for whatever reason have gone down the wrong path be it curiosity, temporary mental issues, addictions and or a problem in their past. I do not believe Most are monsters lurking among us. I do believe however, that in this type of behavior once it comes out in whatever manner either being caught, reaching out for help or acting out that a person when faced with their problem CAN rehabilitate. Many on their own and certainly some with HELP. I believe HELP is what they need more than incarceration. How do I know this ? I know someone who rehabilitated himself because he had great remorse, he wanted to know what got him to that point in his life and decided to do something about it ! He has a huge desire to give back and has already mentored others who want to help themselves. He was over sentenced as the Judge said she wanted to make an example of him. He needs his family and his family needs him. A registery hurts the family as well and causes continuous pain for all in one way or another. Everyone deserves a second chance !
January 7, 2020 at 5:39 pm #66974
I’m glad these cases are being heard by judges who are NOT beholden to an electorate! They can rule honestly without fear of being ran out of town on a rail and having their judicial careers decimated by an angry, vengeful, hateful, and willfully ignorant public who only cares that registrants pay and pay for the remainder of their days.
January 8, 2020 at 10:29 am #66982
You know I liked that “ran out on a rail” it was plain and simple and even made a statement. I also liked yours Kathy. While we are not suppose to judge nothing wrong with opinions because conflict comes up in many or much of this sex ordeal.. such as I’m going to make an example of you or something like that. I’m sure that has came up thousands of times in trails. This sex ordeal in a lot of ways is a bit much.
One would wonder who does a lot of this vain glory even trespassing on another man’s conscious. True justice is still true justice and nothing wrong with a bit of punishment. Even a small conviction for smoking dope which is legal now in some states.. Much of this is overkill justice.
January 9, 2020 at 9:17 am #67016
Until the public truly understands that the hyperbole used by politicians to fan flames of fear and then allows them to score political points, e.g. inciting false fear in the public to enhance their political advantage, courts will err on the side of caution. Courts are very vulnerable to public opinion as well, and without good research at hand, has been educated by the hate politics of the registry. I find it unconscionable that politicians can treat the public with such blatant disregard for their safety. just like a domestic violence, it’s all about power and control. They’re using their power to create specious arguments in order to make the public fear imminent harm, which in turn inspires the public to turn their power and authority back over to the abusing politician, granting that politician the power to act with impunity. It disgusts me.
January 9, 2020 at 9:23 am #67017
“ But in a December opinion piece, State Attorney General Josh Shapiro warned that if the court were to “dismantle” the state’s sex offense registry it would “put the public at risk,” and Pennsylvania could become a “safe haven” for people convicted of a sexual offense.“
Oh really? And what about the time BEFORE the registry existed? Were sex crimes on the rise in PA?
It seems people like him need to be reminded that there was a time when there was no such registry.
January 10, 2020 at 3:18 pm #67048
Not a SO
If I may, I would like to offer a piece of insight that was brought to my attention here resently, and it has to do with the (mis)labeling of people with a sex related offense. Now this may not sound like much but think about what it is that I am saying here. Take a real good look at the label/name/characterization: “Sex Offender”. The word “sex” is self explanatory so let’s break down the word “offend(er)”. Offend, this word is an “verb”, it means to: cause an illegal act. Then “ER”, this is a suffix and a means “Present Future Tense” in parts of speech. Now, when you attach this suffix to the action verb “Offend(er)” and apply it to a person, what this denotes is, that the object of this label/name/characterization is designated as such, that this is who this person is and what he/she does like an occupation, e.g., FIRE FIGHT(ER) or POLICE OFFICE(ER)—get it? Therefore, when the state tells the public that a person is a “Sex Offend(er)”, what they are saying is that this individual commits sex crimes on a continuous bases and is therefore a threat to the community. Not that this person has committ(ED) “past tense” a sex crime. Understand? So naturally the general public is upset, caustic, I’ll tempered and wants something done about these people. Am I making sense here? Think about that label/name/characterization: “SEX OFFEND(ER)”. Think long and hard on it. So my suggestion is, kill this label/name/characterization and the general public just may turn about.
January 10, 2020 at 8:21 pm #67053
To Not a SO, Which is a good reason why many of us prefer to use the term Registered Citizen (RC). Still a lable, which is still offensive, but it at least denotes a certain status with accuracy versus labeling the present and future of our existence with a past event.
But to your primary point, why on Earth would those in power choose to alter their use of “sex offender” if it misleads the public? After all, that would remove some of their power to “rescue” that same misled public from the evil that surely awaits them, if not for the wise and daring action of our benevolent politicians. (Sarcasm intended).