MyFox
 

Chip's Blog

by Chip from Phillipston, Mass

Last Post 20 days, 17 hours Ago


Sex Offenders, Jobs, and Public Safety
Apr 2, 2008 | 5:28 AM
Category: News
Report This Post

I have been following closely the story out of Bridgewater regarding the Level 3 sex offender who was fired after a woman informed the manager of his status.  As a mental health professional, I am keenly aware of a few things.  First off, the treatment of sex offenders is difficult.  There is a growing "technology" of treatment tools.  However, these tools are not as effective as many others we have.  However, the notion that sexual deviance is totally untreatable is outdated.  Secondly, the "Sex Offender Registry" and its public activities have been put into place to allow individuals access to the identity of certain sex offenders who pose a risk of re-offense.  It is designed to be used by individuals to use knowledge to protect themselves and their families from potential predators.  Thirdly, the "Registry" expressly is not allowed to be used to otherwise lower the quality of life for sex offenders who are released from prison after completing their sentences.

But beyond these facts, there are others that have to do with protecting the public from sexually based offenses.  Let me give you a few facts culled from pertinant empirical research.  There are behavioral and social predictors to re-offense.  What does that mean?  It means that there are certain things that, if a sex offender doesn't deal with, he is dramatically more apt to commit another sexually based offense.  These factors include the consumption of alcohol (extremely high risk behavior and legally presumptive evidence of high risk of re-offense), failure/resistence to seeking specialized treatment,  untreated co-morbid mental illnesses, lack of healthy social outlets, poor/inadequate housing and economic stressors.

I stressed these last three, not because they are more important than those that preceded them, but because they explain the legal uses and the illegal uses of the "Sex Offender Registry".  Essentially, the legal prohibition to using the contents of the Registry website to discriminate or create economic hardship addresses just these points.

Don't get me wrong.  I experience the outrage everyone else does over sex offenders in general and pedophiles in particular.  My heart says, "Hang 'em from the highest tree..."  But my head tells me we have to base our actions not on our hearts, not on our outrage, but on doing those things we KNOW reduce the potential for others to be harmed.

Given these facts, I ask you this:

Is a sex offender, behind the counter of McDonalds, supervised by a manager (McDonalds never runs a shift without one) more hazardous than an unemployed sex offender, living in inadequate housing, collecting money from the government?

I think the "unemployed sex offender, living in inadequate housing, collecting money from the government" is simply less visible.  And I think, based on empirical data, that less visible is more dangerous.

49 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 49
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
 Last
Happyg read my blog
Apr 2, 2008 | 7:38 AM

Sorry Chip, but I go with your first instinct.Unless of course your last statement " doing those things we KNOW reduce the potential for others to be harmed" means that they are incarcerated permanently.This of course is for Level 3 offenders only.I believe Level 3 covers all acts of rapes and pedophilia.If some of these acts are included in Level 2, the system needs to be adjusted.
While many in the mental health industry continue to suggest that these types of offenders can be "rehabilitated back to the normalcy of society" this conclusion has been found faulty far too often. Not one more child should be victimized by a "repeat offender" of rape or pedophilia.Remove them from mainstream society.It's that simple.




My heart says, "Hang 'em from the highest tree..." But my head tells me we have to base our actions not on our hearts, not on our outrage, but on doing those things we KNOW reduce the potential for others to be harmed.
Valintyne read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 7:57 AM

I think this whole issue highlights the fact that as a society we haven't figured out how to deal with convicted sex offenders. Sexual crimes are the ONLY crimes for which we've decided time served in prison is insufficient punishment. If Level 3 sex offenders are so likely to reoffend once allowed back into public life, then we need to pass laws to keep them permanently incarcerated. What we can't do is what we're doing now - letting them out, then not letting them live. They can't work, they can't attend schools, most town ordinances ban them from living anywhere in town, and they can't go anywhere where children are present. Their neighbors don't want them around. What kind of lives can these people have in society if this continues? If we're that serious about branding them with a permanent scarlet letter, then we're not doing anyone any favors by letting them walk among us.
Chip read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 8:10 AM

My point exactly, Valintyne. We have designed a "non-system" that actually INCREASES the likelihood of re-offense. However, does anyne think we can get the world we live in to permanently incarcerte ANYONE? Do we think this is RIGHT?

My point, HappyG, is simply this. Let's not blithly go on and pretend that what we are doing now protects the public. Denying sex offenders jobs only makes it MORE LIKELY they will re-offend.

This ain't easy folks and generic, knee-jerk solutions only place more vulnerable people at risk.
DuxburyMA read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 8:12 AM

I am actually more nervous of the level 2 offenders that are not listed. Level two to me means nothing more than they could reoffend, but we are not sure.

We need to do what ever we can to protect our children so that they do not become victims or worse yet, future offenders themselves.

Keep the children safe. I dont give a rats arse about an offenders "rights." He did not give a damn about his victims.
jonsmom read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 10:08 AM

Why can't we keep level two and three offenders in prison for good? Is there a good, valid reason not to? I understand that the circumstances of the crimes can vary but if someone performs a sexually based crime against someone else, epecially a child, goes to trial and is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then nine times out of ten they are probably guilty of said crime. Now I'm all for people's rights and all but these people had nobody's rights except their own in mind when they commited their crimes. What kind of people are we talking about when even the people they're imprisoned with don't like their type? I know people will think I'm cruel. Sorry for that. I deal with some offenders in my job. Doesn't mean I have to agree with the fact that they're walking the streets. The only solution to keep society safe from these people is, once they are convicted, NEVER let them see the light of day outside of a prison. That way our rights are protected and so are theirs.
mccrn98 read my blog
Apr 2, 2008 | 10:57 AM

Chip:
You raise a great point about the sex offender being employed. Employment gives accountability and supervision. Also, employment will provide means to prevent homelessness which is worse as they are truly out and about. BUT, there truly should be "job appropriateness" meaning, never employ them in an area where children may be. Luckily, because of the astute Tewksbury resident who brought light to the employment of a sex offender at MacDonald's, the children were protected.
Happyg read my blog
Apr 2, 2008 | 10:58 AM

To Jonsmom--I'm onboard with Level 3, but the lines have to more clearly defined between 2 and 3 before I included Level 2's.
As for any type of this reform being made, forget it. The "good" people of Massachusetts elected a Governor who is sympathetic to rapists.One can only hope he, or any member of his family is not the victim of such an attack.If however, this did occur, would the irony be lost on anyone?




jonsmom
Apr 2, 2008 | 1:08 PM Why can't we keep level two and three offenders in prison for good? Is there a good, valid reason not to? I understand that the circumstances of the crimes can vary but if someone performs a sexually based crime against someone else, epecially a child, goes to trial and is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then nine times out of ten they are probably guilty of said crime. Now I'm all for people's rights and all but these people had nobody's rights except their own in mind when they commited their crimes. What kind of people are we talking about when even the people they're imprisoned with don't like their type? I know people will think I'm cruel. Sorry for that. I deal with some offenders in my job. Doesn't mean I have to agree with the fact that they're walking the streets. The only solution to keep society safe from these people is, once they are convicted, NEVER let them see the light of day outside of a prison. That way our rights are protected and so are theirs.
Jodrey75 view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 11:02 AM

I think that the lady in Tewksbury did the right thing. I would have done the same. I do not have a problem with a lever 3 sex offender getting a job but I do have a problem with where he/she gets a job and McDonalds to me a big NO NO!! That to me is a childrens place!! Families take their children there for lunch and I know from the town I live in that alot of teenagers hang out there with their friends. This sex offender should be working at a job where he would not be involved with children. Maybe in some factory or something.
joburt view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 11:09 AM

I honestly think the closed-down military bases should serve as sex offender communities! Once out of jail, they should be released only into one of these communities,as well as still being registered in the sex offender data base . There would be employment opps for them (as well as the non-offfenders to make sure they stay in their sex-offender town), and the offenders will be away from the general puplic. They would be in a "controlled environment" (a locked-down community) so there will not be any temptations for them to re-offend. If they feel the need to re-offend, let them re-offend on each other, see how they like it! The offenders always boo-waah about their rights. Well, in these communities,they will be able to have rights. They will have the right to shop ,go to school, or work at McDonald's or at Burger King,where they can truely have it their way. They also have the right to stay in their community, especially away from children,and the general public!!
Chip read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 11:48 AM

Ok...another question I've left on the message boards...:

How many Level 3 (or 2) sex offenders EAT at McDonalds every week?
northmass3
Apr 2, 2008 | 12:23 PM

Joburt, why dont we just take nantucket island and designate it as the Sex offender colony? that is basically what your are saying, just like the old lepper colonies. im not defending, nor do i respect sex offenders, but what your suggesting is beyond human decency and would make the "progress" we have made on sex offenders reverse itself. im sorry, but i do not agree
Chip read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 12:34 PM

Or spend money on reseaarch while they are in jail and lenghthen sentences?
joburt view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 12:56 PM

northmass3,
so what do you suggest? All I'm saying is they can have their own functioning community,won't be boo-whaa-ing because they're being singled out,and where they can't harm anyone else! Human decency went out the window when these people commited their crimes. As for Progress.....What "progress" have we made? Have you watched the news in the past month or so? Several offenders were let out by the same judge, and they are all back in jail, for re-offending. Yeah, that's great progress!!
Jodrey75 view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 1:27 PM

Chip that is true How many do eat there? We do not know but Im sure there are alot of them that do. But knowingly having a sex offender working in a resturant where chrildren are drawn to is WRONG!!! Im with Joburt These sex offenders should be put somewhere together away from the general public. Who cares about offending their rights what about our right as parents to protect our children from these predators?
Chip read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 1:32 PM

Now, let me ask a couple more questions...ones that I think would be important in dealing effectively with this issue. Remember, my point isn't that we should "kiss the *ss" of sex offenders. I am in favor of stricter sentences, and greater expectations once they return to society.

ANDhose of you "blog trolls/oldtimers" here, you will remember Xantun's idea of "Pedop[hile Island", where we held and segregated sex offenders. It morphed into more than a cute turn of phrase into what I think was a brilliant idea. Incarcerate, Segregate, Rehabilitate AND....not release until there are empirical measures that prove to us that re-offense risk is minimal. No level 3's or 2' released until they become level 1's...and only so after treatment that is measured.

Here's the question:Will this pass the testof Constitutionality? Is it "cruel and inhuman"? what are our legal standards and how are they applied?

AND, if this plan IS un-constitutional, can we afford to segregate and limit sex offenders without INCREASING the risk to our women-folk and children?

Let's have a practical argument for a bit.
josephine-binaca read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 2:40 PM

has anyone visited the city of boston website lately.
all you can find out about sex offenders in your nieghborhood is a number of how many are there. no pictures, no names
Valintyne read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 2:46 PM

Well, here's the problem (as I see it) with treating sex offenses differently from any other offenses. We just don't know if someone is going to reoffend. We release criminals back onto the streets all the time; many of them have histories of violence, and considering the lives they've led hitherto, are more than likely to go back out into their neighborhoods, get another illegal gun, sell more illegal drugs, and shoot another innocent bystander. We just don't have the legal means to keep them incarcerated longer than their sentences mandate.

Unless we want to make the sentence for rape an automatic life without parole, I really don't think we have constitutional justification for segregating sex offenders.

I think it would be possible to classify child rape as a crime of the same order of magnitude as first-degree murder, but the question is whether we really believe that to be true. Is sexual assault the same thing as taking a life? If it is, then is ANY kind of assault the same as taking a life? I think we run into problems here. Ultimately, we have to be a nation of laws, not of vindictive parents. And sex crimes have to be dealt with under the law, just like any other crime.
joburt view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 3:07 PM

Okay, this is what I'm thinking.In these "communities" I speak of, the offenders would have more help geared towards their individual needs and levels.They would have more resources accessible to them (i.e. counceling,support groups),in comparison to the help that's available to them now, while being mixed in with the general public. As for unconstitutional,is jail ? What would be the difference? They shouldn't be in our communities, hunting down their next victims. What about drug and alcohol treatment centers,are they inhumane? Cruel and inhumane were obsolete when they brutally impeded some one's life.They made that choice to hurt someone. It's not like a sneeze, that just happens.They're coherent in their choices!Putting them in their own community, allows some of the congestion in the overcrowded jails to deplete. It would also be a way to give them some independence, without being singled out like they are in the our neighborhoods. Instead of being a financial burden on us, by being in jail, they can become contributing members in society.They would be on a Base that already has the security in place.They would be away from us, on a Base, with a high level of security. They still would be registered in the sex offender data base.
Jodrey75 view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 3:08 PM

I personally want them all thrown together somwhere where children and women can be safe. I think alot of people will think it is cruel and inhumanbut who cares? Is their rights more important than our childrens rights? I think it is cruel and inhuman for these sex offenders take the innocence and security away from our kids.
Xantun read my blog view my photos
Apr 2, 2008 | 5:16 PM

Chip, the island is sounding like a better and better idea, however, we have one tiny problem that could bite us all in the hindquarters. A 1954 ruling in the Brown vs Board Of Education case that stated that "Separate is NOT equal". In that case, it was applied to racially segregated schools, but today, it could be just as easily applied to the idea of segregating sex offenders. I don't think that the idea of "Pedophile Island" is all that "cruel and inhuman", considering that it would merely be a place for treatment and not like the Tower Of London, but it could still be determined unfair segregation. And I don't think that there's another way to segregate/limit sex offenders without adding more risk to women and children in society. Look at the case in Georgia last summer, when a sex offender tortured and killed a little boy. The offender only found the little boy as a target when he was forced to move into the trailer park the boy lived in, because his old home was too close to a playground and violated town ordinance.

As to sex offenders EATING at McDonald's, there are probably quite a few, but my question on that statistic would be this: How many of those sex offenders only use the drive-thru and how many eat inside?

And as to the original questions of this post, I think that an employed sex offender is under much more supervision than an unemployed one, even if the unemployed one is still on probation. I can't say that that alone determines which one is better off, because there are other factors that play into this issue than just employment.
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
 Last


Write your comment below:




Chip

Just your average guy, married to a woman who is incredibly smart and possibly more conservative than I am. Father of three and grandfather of one soon to be two. Devoted Patriots fan and season ticket holder, snowmobile enthusiast and lifelong public servant.

Member Since: 9/26/2006


 

View All Photos