Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby sardia » Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:10 am UTC

Sex offenders aren't allowed near certain areas like schools and parks, so communities took this to it's illogical conclusion by building tiny parks everywhere so that sex offenders can't live in their town/city anymore. Great idea right? right? guys?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/bu ... tml?ref=us
See the problem yet? If sex offenders aren't allowed to live in your city, where do they go? Answer: The town punts the problem by sticking their head in the sand and saying it's the state's problem. This does tell a cautious tale of over-zealously punishing criminals, felons or w/e. We're making the problem worse in our zeal to protect ourselves.

Side note: It's nice to take a break from the drama and tension of the world with some domestic news.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:20 am UTC

Seems like it would be cheaper and simpler to lobby Congress to make sex offenses federal crimes only punishable by exile.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Woopate » Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:15 am UTC

I would like to begin by apologising and admitting that this post is jerkish and makes light of a situation I agree is terrible. </disclaimer>

We could use this power for good! We should enact regulations saying sex offenders cannot live in low-emission regions, or near nuclear power plants, and that they get tax rebates for living next to privately run prisons! Saving the world by thinking of the children.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Sizik » Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:21 am UTC

Reminds me of something similar I heard regarding drug dealers. In some city, dealing drugs was (obviously) illegal, but had a much higher penalty within 1000 feet of a school and other such areas. Problem is, there were so many of them, that drug dealers ended up selling practically right across the street from schools, since it was penalty for being there was just as high as being anywhere else.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6577
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Thesh » Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:53 am UTC

Nothing brings out the public's irrational fear like sex offenders. It's the one issue in which people on both the right and left sit down together and agree to throw civil rights out of the window in favor of ineffective laws.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby lutzj » Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:26 am UTC

In Miami, dozens of convicted sex offenders camped under a bridge, unable to find any other shelter, until the encampment was broken up several years ago. Another camp in Miami, where a dozen offenders slept on the sidewalk, was dispersed last year when Marc Sarnoff, a city commissioner, had three pocket parks built in the neighborhood.

Mr. Sarnoff said he did not know where the offenders ended up.

“There has to be a strategy in place so they don’t just live on the sidewalk,” Mr. Sarnoff said. “We need more resources in place so these guys don’t reoffend. But that’s beyond the city’s resources. It has to be at the state level.”


Marc Sarnoff confirmed for disingenuous asshole politician.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Tirian » Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:29 am UTC

“There has to be a strategy in place so they don’t just live on the sidewalk,” Mr. Sarnoff said. “We need more resources in place so these guys don’t reoffend. But that’s beyond the city’s resources. It has to be at the state level.”


Yes, because the city is busy spending six million dollars on a park nobody is going to use.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:48 am UTC

I wonder how long you could put a dozen sex offenders in a shitty apartment with six million dollars.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby sardia » Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:20 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I wonder how long you could put a dozen sex offenders in a shitty apartment with six million dollars.

But then they'd could integrate into society. How could we tell who's a sex offender and who isn't?

I'm half joking here but why don't we send sex offenders and felons to desperate cities? I'm sure detroit could use the boost in population and resources.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Magnanimous » Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:40 am UTC

You must construct additional tiny parks.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:17 am UTC

The problem is that ex-felons and so forth tend to be a net negative for any city; the additional social services and criminal issues far outweigh the boost in productivity and "income" from federal medicaid. Unless Detroit has the world's cheapest police force and an all-volunteer social services, I doubt they'd want more felons. We need to ask why ex-cons can't be productive (it's probably not as simple as "they are bad people, end story"), and how can we fix that if at all.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby sardia » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:46 am UTC

An oversimplified partial answer is that felons don't get hired for at all except for the most marginal of jobs. No jobs means they have a higher chance of recommitting crimes. Now would a desperate city that banned asking questions about felonies during the hiring process get more than it spends in additional social services? Doubtful, since felons have other baggage that prevented them from getting a job in the first place.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby yurell » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:29 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The problem is that ex-felons and so forth tend to be a net negative for any city; the additional social services and criminal issues far outweigh the boost in productivity


Not if you have a good penal system designed for redeeming people rather than for driving them into a life of poverty and crime!
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Sockmonkey » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:54 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Nothing brings out the public's irrational fear like sex offenders. It's the one issue in which people on both the right and left sit down together and agree to throw civil rights out of the window in favor of ineffective laws.

Pretty much, and it's darn near impossible to have a rational discussion on most forums about it since it inevitably degenerates into hatewank with everyone trying to one-up each other on what horrific punishment to inflict on them.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby yurell » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:42 am UTC

Pretty sure these forums are an exception, especially since there are many people here from countries that actually care about the reformation of criminals and their subsequent contribution to society (unfortunately, I'm not from such a country).
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby dudiobugtron » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:54 am UTC

Woopate wrote:We could use this power for good! We should enact regulations saying sex offenders cannot live in low-emission regions, or near nuclear power plants, and that they get tax rebates for living next to privately run prisons! Saving the world by thinking of the children.

I really like this idea. Except what it means is that all the sex offenders would move to poorer areas which couldn't afford to keep building these things, and that rich areas would end up with way too many powerplants.
Image

User avatar
Nomic
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Gibbering in the corner

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Nomic » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:22 am UTC

Now, I don't like sex offenders any more thna anybody else does, but this is just stupid. Sex offenders still have to live somewhere, and the whole point of the regulations that prevent them from living near schools or parks is to make sure they live far away from the places where people they could sexually offend frequent. However, if you prevent them from living anywhere, all you're going to end up is roving bands of sex offenders sleeping under bridges. And that's no good.

Also, you can end up on the sex offender registry for a lot of things, some of which really aren't serious enough to ruin a persons life over. I think there was one case where two teenagers had consentual sex and were caught, and since they both were underaged they both got marked as sex offenders for having sex with an underage person.

fifiste
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 11:48 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby fifiste » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:52 am UTC

I've hear of possibility to get on said list for public urination.
1. Go to a bush in a park to take a leak and some kiddie (or its overprotective mommy) sees you
2. ???? *
3. Profit **

*end up on a list as a exhibitionist
**pack your bags and move under the bridge as the cities fill themselves with tiny parks everywhere even remotely habitable.


So better pee your pants I guess.
The "statutory rape" thing in previous post is all kinds of crazy. The all american sex-fear madness is astounding - hey kiddos I see you are enjoying each-others company a bit too much, lets better make criminals out of both of you. Don't you know that underage sex ruins lives!

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby engr » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Nothing brings out the public's irrational fear like sex offenders.


I wouldn't call it irrational.
Policy-makers often point out that recidivism among sex offenders is lower than among other ex-cons, but you have to be very careful on what category of offenders you're looking at, what follow-up period, and what methodology you are using. I've seen numbers anywhere between 5% and 90%. If I had kids and lived next to an ex-con child molester who has about 1 in a 3 chance of committing a sexual offense again, I would be kind of concerned.
When you are reading a document stating the recidivism rate, make sure you look at the nature of the crime and at the follow-up period:
Attachments
recidivism.png
Figure from the NCJRS study.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:13 pm UTC

That's an interesting graph. What does the general population look like? That is, the odds of a random person being charged with a sex crime in those periods?

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby emceng » Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:36 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I wonder how long you could put a dozen sex offenders in a shitty apartment with six million dollars.


Well if you don't let them out, about a week. Ok, that's an exaggeration, but Minnesota has a sex offenders program that basically takes anyone that is being released from prison, then locks them up again - indefinitely. It is supposed to be a 'treatment' facility, but in the 5 years or so it's been operating, no one has been released. There was a recent review by former judges I think, that basically said 'this is a constitutional issue, the state is hosed when it goes to court'.

Oh, and on your original statement - the cost has been enormous.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:45 pm UTC

Did some maths on the graph. Assuming constant force of failure during periods, in the first 5 years there is a 4.1% chance of a charge/yr. During the next 10 years, it's 2.8%/yr, and the final period is 2.4%. I assume that the chart accounts for mortality (e.g., dead people aren't included).

Of course, the probabilities of false charges are not independent of prior convictions...

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Роберт » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:20 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Of course, the probabilities of false charges are not independent of prior convictions...

Certainly true, but I'm pretty certain that the percentage in the normal population is nowhere close enough to "over one in ten will go to prison for a sexual offense within five years" for that to account for the difference.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6577
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Thesh » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:33 pm UTC

engr wrote:
Thesh wrote:Nothing brings out the public's irrational fear like sex offenders.


I wouldn't call it irrational.
Policy-makers often point out that recidivism among sex offenders is lower than among other ex-cons, but you have to be very careful on what category of offenders you're looking at, what follow-up period, and what methodology you are using. I've seen numbers anywhere between 5% and 90%. If I had kids and lived next to an ex-con child molester who has about 1 in a 3 chance of committing a sexual offense again, I would be kind of concerned.
When you are reading a document stating the recidivism rate, make sure you look at the nature of the crime and at the follow-up period:

The problem comes from the fact that most victims of child sex abuse are abused by someone they know.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Woopate » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:25 am UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:
Woopate wrote:We could use this power for good! We should enact regulations saying sex offenders cannot live in low-emission regions, or near nuclear power plants, and that they get tax rebates for living next to privately run prisons! Saving the world by thinking of the children.

I really like this idea. Except what it means is that all the sex offenders would move to poorer areas which couldn't afford to keep building these things, and that rich areas would end up with way too many powerplants.


Spoilered for continued inanity:
Spoiler:
That's the beauty of it! With this technology, any problem like this crops up, we simply ban sex offenders in the area! Accumulating in low income areas? Ban them and the income in the area will increase!


Are the numbers above compared to the risk of an individual who is not a registered sex offender commiting a violation? Seems to me that whether or not those with a history do it again isn't very relevent to anyone's safety if the risk is comparible or less than what could happen with no warning.

(the following paragraph is speculation based upon what I expect the answer to the above to be)

If not, I'd suggest that 4% seems quite low compared to any random person, when public urination qualifies as an offense. It would be my guess that more than 4% of the population gets caught urinating publicly (keeping in mind that getting caught and being aware you were caught are two different things. Maybe as a security guard who has over 30 cameras to monitor I'm biased). Even without the lesser severity crimes that are grouped in, the stats about unreported sexual assaults leads me to believe that the chances of just anyone committing an act are higher than someone who is registered.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby engr » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:01 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The problem comes from the fact that most victims of child sex abuse are abused by someone they know.

Majority of fatal car crashes are committed by sober drivers. Which is not a reason not to feel unsafe around a drunk driver (pardon the triple negative).
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby jules.LT » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:28 pm UTC

As per the comments on people being registered as sex offenders for peeing in public or having underage sex, why again does this concern anyone else than child molesters?
Even a real exhibitionist isn't dangerous enough to have their location of residence restricted after they're let out of prison they've paid their fine...
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby emceng » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:34 pm UTC

This thread would be much better if Sex Offenders was a band, and Tiny Parks was a Yoko Ono-like person.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby omgryebread » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:10 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:As per the comments on people being registered as sex offenders for peeing in public or having underage sex, why again does this concern anyone else than child molesters?
Even a real exhibitionist isn't dangerous enough to have their location of residence restricted after they're let out of prison they've paid their fine...
I don't think you understand the gravity of the danger here.

Kids might see some nudity. And that's pretty much the worst.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby Choboman » Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:07 pm UTC

I suspect that there are similar concerns about sexual compulsive behavior as there are with drug addiction. Many Americans worry about marijuana because they see it as a 'gateway' drug, and that heavy users of marijuana may move on to progressively harder substances as the intensity of the experience is desensitized over time. Similarly, I've heard that [some] people with sex addition issues go through a progressive escalation as they become desensitized and seek experiences with greater shock value. So someone who starts out wit a porn addiction may escalate from there to peeping, to flashing, to sharking/frontage, etc.

(With this I don't mean to imply that pornography or sex addiction necessarily leads to criminal behavior, just that for some people it can.)

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Breaking up Sex Offenders With Tiny Parks

Postby jules.LT » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:06 pm UTC

You forgot to mention that this would affect such a minute portion of the population that basing policies on it is utterly idiotic and unfair because it punishes large swathes of population for crimes that they haven't committed and almost certainly won't commit. Just saying.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests