BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Crime and Stigma

  
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
 
Ganesh
13:50 / 28.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Buk:
I was just thinking about the two situations. I suppose the point is that you try and help someone out and you end getting burnt in a very minor but still 'told you so' way...but what are you supposed to do? Not help people, not give them a chance.
I suppose the point is to accept human failings but still try and do something constructive, ya know.

Yeah. And, I guess, try not to negatively stigmatise all ex-offenders as a result of one bad experience. Easier said than done, I know.
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:27 / 28.02.02
...so your answer is to vilify everyone who is geniunely concered about this issue? sure seems like a backassward way to go. not everyone who wants to know wants to organize a lynch mob, you know. there are very real problems with revealing the health hazards of a food product; however, the public has a right to be aware of these potential dangers if there is actually the potential for danger. sorry, but some people, especially repeat, violent offenders, are nothing more than a liabilty. if they run into hiding, it obviously doesnt make anyone safe, however it does remove the trust element from the situation. which is the single most worrisome point of having an offender in your neighborhood
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:32 / 28.02.02
I know the idea that there might be a convicted child-abuser on the block is pretty terrifying, but I don't see how that idea is more terrifying than the thought that there might be any sort of child-abuser on the block, whether convicted or not... the point being, you just can't tell, and having a register of convicted offenders isn't going to change that. If there's no convicted offender in the area, would you actually feel safer? I dunno...

Edited to say: my clumsy point being, that there's always a potential for danger where people are concerned.

[ 28-02-2002: Message edited by: Kit-Cat Club ]
 
 
Ganesh
14:35 / 28.02.02
What do you mean by "the trust element"? I feel we're banging our heads against opposite sides of the same wall here, Bitchiekittie. I've asked you now several times how, exactly, knowing the address of someone who'd previously offended would help you, practically, to protect your child. Advising them against going there - fine, but your child shouldn't be going into the house of any stranger. How else, other than driving the individual out, does a community 'protect itself' in this situation?

The pro-Meghan's/Sarah's Law view is a very narrow one. It may be said to work locally in that the ex-offender is far more likely to take fright and disappear and you no longer have him in your Back Yard. Only problem is, next town's ex-offender's done the same thing and is living anonymously among you, possibly under a new name - and neither you nor the authorities know who he is...

I don't see anyone being "vilified" here; try not to be so sensitive, eh?
 
 
Ganesh
14:41 / 28.02.02
quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
not everyone who wants to know wants to organize a lynch mob, you know. there are very real problems with revealing the health hazards of a food product

Not comparable: the health hazards of a "food product" are predictable, the food product is easily identifiable (doesn't change its name or wander off to another supermarket) and the problem can be solved by not eating it. How, exactly, does this map onto the "need" to know ex-offenders' addresses?

How else - other than organising lynch mob or driving the individual out - do you propose that the community 'protects' itself? And how does one prevent the lynch mob thing happening?
 
 
Ganesh
14:52 / 28.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Kit-Cat Club:
I know the idea that there might be a convicted child-abuser on the block is pretty terrifying, but I don't see how that idea is more terrifying than the thought that there might be any sort of child-abuser on the block, whether convicted or not... the point being, you just can't tell, and having a register of convicted offenders isn't going to change that. If there's no convicted offender in the area, would you actually feel safer? I dunno...

Yeah. The 'we want their addresses' response serves to focus an entire community's fear/anger on specific individuals and, apart from driving offenders underground and actually increasing the overall risk of harm, externalises the whole thing as Other, drawing attention away from the much commoner phenomenon of abuse within the family/community.

It's an understandable human reaction but it's not rational and, as I've pointed out, it just doesn't work. If one's reaction to being "concerned" is based on gut reaction rather than evidence, and actually increases the overall numbers of incognito ex-offenders whose whereabout are unknown to the police, isn't it a bit crap? "Backassward", even.

[ 28-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
bitchiekittie
15:06 / 28.02.02
Ive mentioned several times that Ive allowed my child to go into another home. its rare, but its happened. shes been in 3 neighborhood homes without me in her life. this happens, people allow their kids in a home not knowing if theres guns, if theres drugs, if theres anything lying about the home that could hurt them. but guns dont attack your kids, you can teach them about the dangers of anything but people can overpower their caution. yes, people are unpredictable and thats why Im afraid of their ability to harm. some people are simply a liability and should be given a wide berth at all times. I can spy a crackhead a mile away and know not to let them in my house for fear theyll steal my shit - theres no identifiers for molesters and thats why its so damn scary for people to deal with
 
 
Ganesh
15:08 / 28.02.02
So... how would knowing an address decrease the overall risk of danger to your child?
 
 
bitchiekittie
15:19 / 28.02.02
she wont go there, ever, for any reason. he may leave but Ill know his face
 
 
Ganesh
15:26 / 28.02.02
... which means you'd have to accompany your child everywhere, 24/7, on the off-chance she didn't recognise his face herself. And hope that your very specific warnings didn't increase her curiosity/fascination with the individual concerned. And hope that no-one else in your locality is a multiply convicted (but happily incognito) offender who's disappeared from the next Back Yard along because his name was made public. And hope that none of the other strangers she meets are unconvicted offenders.

Etc.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:07 / 01.03.02
Alright, I'm gonna try to make a few points without stepping on any toes. No criticism, just arguments. I'll probably fail, so apologies in advance.

First of all, hands up anyone who'd think twice before lending a lawnmower (assuming you've got one) to a convicted sex-offender living in your street. Most of us, I expect, myself included. It's stupid but it's human.

My point, and I realise it's been made before in various forms, is that it will be impossible for a sex-offender to have any kind of normal life after his release if the people he has to live and work with know of his crime. Which would defeat the point of releasing them, wouldn't it? So flicking waaay back to Haus' original post on this, I don't think it's too far off in linking ppublic sex-offender registries with permanent incarceration or summary execution, as they are all lifetime punishments. At least the last two have the decency to admit to it beforehand.

Which is what I think a lot of people have been trying to articulate one way or another, that if the current system of law proscribes a limited term sentence on any criminal, then we either have to assume that all released criminals are 'reformed' and deserve another shot at life without prejudice, or change the law so that those we feel cannot be reformed are permanently separated from those they might harm.

For the record, I'm not advocating any particular solution, just trying to explain why I feel the public register option is not just the worst of the bunch but incompatible with the basc principles we base our laws on. Best definition of justice I ever heard was vengeance tempered with mercy. Sometimes swift, hardline vengeance is more merciful than being slowly suffocated with woolly liberalism.

And a few random points on safety, anybody have aircraft passing overhead, cars in the street, knives in the kitchen? All dangerous, all fixable. Just a bit more personal.

Also, I figure I can get round the world in a day or two. How far away would someone have to live before you stopped worrying about them?

Am I making any sense?
 
 
Ganesh
12:26 / 01.03.02
Perfect sense. Thankyou.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:44 / 01.03.02
Of course, the riposte to that is that if a sex offender (and why the hell do we keep using that term when we all mean "child molester"- or does this also apply to flashers and Spanner-case sadomasochists as well?) is not publicly identified, then he or she has the potential to ruin somebody else's life, and if anybody's life is going to be ruined it may as well be the nonce, since he is a pretty masty piece of work anyway...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:57 / 01.03.02
Child abusers in the community can be (and I believe generally are) monitored by the police, which should help at least a little, and doesn't involve revealing their whereabouts to the general public...

... which I admit goes against the idea of a sentence being adequate for the crime, but I suppose... if one argues that a child molester molests children because s/he is attracted to children, that attraction is unlikely to have been altered by imprisonment (if it is not a 'behaviour' which can be reformed, like stealing), and in that case convicted molesters should be monitored in order to prevent them re-offending, and damaging more children ...
 
 
Ganesh
13:05 / 01.03.02
Haus: after the lengthy 'define a child molester' sessions we all enjoyed with the Apocaloids, I've been reluctant to get into the subject in detail again - particularly as the initial post seemed to be talking about 'offenders' in a more general sense.

Being placed on a confidential police/social services register is one thing; having one's home address publicly identified is quite another...
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
14:45 / 01.03.02
Haus: I thought I'd covered that bit. Ah well, worth restating, I suppose. You're right, if anyone should be inconvenienced it should be the offender (and you can expand that to cover any crime you want). My point was that public registers would exclude said offender, reformed or no, from society as much as prison walls ever did, turning any limited prison term into an effective life sentence. I was trying to say that if that's what people want, they should bloody well say so not beat around the bush.

Better?
 
 
01
15:48 / 01.03.02
Exactly. It's a case of the society deciding if rehabilitation of a child molester is in fact a desired and reachable goal. If this is not the case, the options are either:

a. Incarcarate them for life, with no possibility of parole or
b. Execute them.

If rehabilitation is preferred then part of the equation involves reintegration. Public registries obviously would do nothing to serve this end.

A system similar to the one used for the criminally insane should be employed. Offenders should only be reintgrated after being deemed able to function in the community while not posing a threat to that community.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: 01 ]
 
 
Ganesh
16:52 / 01.03.02
quote:Originally posted by 01:
A system similar to the one used for the criminally insane should be employed. Offenders should only be reintgrated after being deemed able to funciton in the community while not posing a threat to that community.

I basically agree with all of your post, 01, but must add that offenders (whether we're talking specifically 'child molester' or otherwise) are, in most cases, not actually 'insane' in a medical sense - so their 'rehabilitation' wouldn't necessarily follow a comparable path...

It would however be similar in that it would be imperfect at best: it's impossible to guarantee that someone will never offend again. Risk cannot ever be completely eliminated, and society - if it chooses the rehabilitation rather than the execution or life imprisonment models - must accept that.
 
 
01
17:10 / 01.03.02
I agree Ganesh. While the grounds as to the offender being insane or not is probably not comparable to someone that is, (I'm not sure as to the psychological diagnoses of child molesters) the treatment of the offenders by the system is comparable or should be.
I'm talking structure of the system here. With this case and with many others, the entire system needs to be overhauled so reahbilitation is favoured.
 
 
01
17:14 / 01.03.02
And yes, risk of reoffence is never completely eliminated.
 
 
mr insensitive
20:38 / 01.03.02
Kind of reminds me of that Brass Eye episode about child molesters. A newflash reports about a space-shuttle that has been launched into space as a permanent prison for a lone kiddy-buggerer. The news then goes on to reveal the fact that NASA had accidentally placed a baby girl on board before take off. The NASA spokeman said "this is absolutely the last thing we wanted to happen".
 
 
Ganesh
21:05 / 01.03.02
Yeah, I remember that.
 
 
Not Here Still
21:24 / 01.03.02
Quick, serious, question: Why does any conversation on crime and punishment on here always seem to default to child abuse?

Because it's a 'bogeyman' we can all agree on, perhaps.

What do you think?
 
 
Ganesh
21:37 / 01.03.02
I think you're probably right. Bogeymen of previous decades include the Communist, the homosexual 'invert' and the serial killer. Now, for our sins, we've got the 'child molester'.

Or perhaps the Greenland Posse have left their stamp on the Barbe-psyche...
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
21:52 / 01.03.02
Well, in this case it did not devolve so much as ghet wrenched there, but it's a perfectly good point. One of the things that always amuses me about my own beloved London is that the same people who want paedos to be thrown to an armed crowd of concerned parents are frequently the ones who for long decades have demanded the release of men who brutally murdered as a business proposition...

Now, take our habotually violent man, or indeed our habitual thief. Both of these can be in and out of jail fairly quickly in many cases, and it cannot be *proven* that they will not reoffend. Should the public be warned of their proclivities and alerted to their presence in the neighbourhood?

Or, for that matter, the released murderer. He may only have killed once, but who can guarantee that if the circumstances present themselves he will not do so again? Once again, should the public be warned?

And is there a difference between "forgiveness" - no longer being forced to account for having committed a crime, and "rehabilitation" - nobody thinking that you may be likely to commit another one. Can one forgive a criminal but still treat him or her as if he or she may well reoffend?
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:43 / 02.03.02
ok, again I got into somehow arguing support for some fucking laws I dont support

Id want to know. I see all the myriad drawbacks I see the problems. I never once said that I support any existing or proposed laws regarding sex offenders (and by sex offenders I mean anyone convicted of a sex crime, because, lets face it, thats one of the problems - theres not many really clear legal distinctions drawn between the guy flashing someone and the guy repeatedly attacking people, they are bunched into the same category and thats part of the problem). I dont support the way people react to the situation and I dont approve of the way that sex offenders are handled in sentencing. I think there are changes that need to be made all through the line, including treatment. and yes, I think that all repeat, violent offenders (whether the nature of the crime is sexual or not) should be denied release for life. you cant be allowed unlimited chances with to screw other peoples lives, theres got to be a fucking end to it

and tell me honestly - if you were on the police force (not that you would be, just if), and you found out that there was a violent offender two doors down from your little slip of sunshine niece or cousin or baby brother...you wouldnt call their parents and warn them? very seriously think about that. that little bit of information could mean nothing. or absolutely everything. would you be able to live with yourself in the off chance that something happened? honestly put yourself in that situation before attacking my post

neighborhoods and entire towns have outlawed certain breeds of dogs because of their proclivity towards violence. I dont agree with that. but I can certainly see why you wouldnt want one thats been known to bite living next to the one person in life that matters most to you
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:53 / 02.03.02
So did anyone in the UK see Julie Burchill's column in the Guardian today? One of her more effectively thought-ptovoking pieces, I thought...

quote:But socialism is meant to be about supporting the underdog, and whatever way you slice it, the underdog in a violent crime situation is the victim and not the perpetrator. Liberals never fail to amuse me - you'll hear them banging on about how dreadful racial and homophobic attacks are, and then when you suggest that the people who carry out such attacks should be incarcerated until they're unable to lift a half-brick without rupturing themselves, they pull a switcheroo and the rabid racist/homophobe suddenly becomes a poor deprived victim of society!

There's a tired old saw which insists that the civilisation quotient of any society is best judged by the way it treats its prisoners. This is absolute 24-carat crap; on the contrary, the measure of a civilisation is the way it treats the victims of violence, be they refugees who have been tortured by secret police or an old soldier beaten up in his own home. Currently, there are some 96 organisations for the care, resettlement and nose-wiping of offenders - and just one to look after the victims.

...

What makes people who think of themselves as being on the side of the weak and the poor, card-carrying members of the brotherhood of man, in fact, repeatedly take the part of the mugger, the molester and the murderer; those who believe that in any given circumstance, might is right?
 
 
Ganesh
13:08 / 02.03.02
Bitchiekittie, if you're arguing for names/addresses to be made public, you are supporting the laws we've been discussing. Aren't you? Of course you're not in favour of vigilantism/lynchings (at least, I don't think you are) but surely you recognise that a significant - and dangerous - minority are? The spread of information can't be controlled once it's out there; anyone and everyone can use it as they see fit (and it's been hypothesised that this may have helped 'child molesters' locate each other in the past).

Your hypothetical example of 'warning' family and friends of a violent offender living nearby: I honestly don't know what I'd do; it'd depend how much I knew about the situation. I'd probably check up on how closely the guy was being monitored. I suppose I might emphasise to the kid's parents the importance of drumming in the whole 'don't talk to strangers' routine and I might warn them in a vague way ('take care, it's a bad area' sort of thing) but I honestly don't think I'd pass on his name and address. I'd be worried that they'd inflame the situation somehow, put him on the defensive and increase the likelihood of something awful happening.

Repeat offenders being permanently jailed is a valid suggestion... which then leads us onto the question of how many times is 'repeat', what constitutes 'violent' and what might be seen as mitigating circumstances. And perhaps lead to a shuffling of prison budgets, etc.

I don't think the 'dangerous dog' analogy is that apposite, really. As with your 'health hazard' example, it differs in that certain breeds are known for their aggression, readily-identifiable and relatively easy to dispose of (they can be put down as adults or puppies, and their breeding programmes can be controlled). The contribution environment may have made toward their aggression is more readily ignored, as is the question of whether or not they have 'rights'. And there's little chance that someone within your local community might secretly be a rottweiler...
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:21 / 02.03.02
And, for that matter, why "violent offenders"? An individual with a talent for embezzlement and fraud can cause a lot more human misery than someone whose talents lie in purse-snatching...
 
 
Cherry Bomb
13:39 / 02.03.02
The problem, as I see it, has to do with the fact that currently the laws are set up pretty much "crime" = "punishment." If you break the law, you will end up in jail, etc.

This is pretty cut-and-dried, and in a way quite simple, but it doesn't really address the actual problems. I don't necessarily see how doing a "bad thing" to someone who did a "bad thing" will stop that person from going out and doing a "bad thing" again, or even show them why whatever they did was unacceptable.

Of course, bear in mind that I felt just as sorry for John Wayne Gacey (child molestor/killer) as I did for his victims. This is because I figured the only way someone would do something that horrible was if they were just that mentally ill, which is tragic, or, even worse, something so horrible had happened to JWG that he became somebody who could commit unspeakable acts.

If I live in the ghetto, and I have no money, I might find selling drugs to be a viable option of survival (not to mention lucrative). I see all these products I want all the time (Nike, Starter, etc.) but I can't afford any of them, except now that I'm selling drugs I can buy a Sony Playstation, some Nike gear AND pay my rent.

So let's say I get arrested. Would the simple answer be to lock me up? Or might we want to look at the CAUSES behind why I did what I did? I had no money, I had no job prospects, I couldn't afford to go to school, I had to pay my rent because I had no viable housing, I keep seeing all these ads all the time for shit I want but can't afford, and what of those things will change once I am out of prison?

I'm not saying that somebody who commits a crime is a victim - I mean I think you should be able to make ethical choices in life - but I just don't think the answers exist in black and white. And I think if one actually wants to PREVENT crime we must look at the CAUSES of crime. Which does not happen too much as things are today.

And I definitely do not think that treating people as subhuman animals (which certainly happens in prison) is the way forward. It's been my experience that people act pretty much as you treat them. What does it do to your psyche to be treated like garbage? I think one should have consequences for one's actions, but there is no reason to treat people with cruelty, NO MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.

Now, I do believe some people really are dangerous to society at large. I'd say someone like Gacey or Dahmer or Ted Bundy would be such people. These people I think should be confined to some sort of institution, where they can hopefully get help and the general public can be protected from them.

Your average garden variety pedophile? Not sure what to do with them. I agree with Haus' point that to publish their names pretty much forces them underground and actually prevents them from getting help. But I definitely see where Bitchie is coming from. If I were a mother I would absolutely want to know if the guy who lived next door was a child molestor. On the other hand, simple "don't talk to strangers" things might help.

Something to think about...
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:42 / 02.03.02
haus - simply put, fuck off

ganesh - I see your point. and I havent made mine clearly - Im not really for publicly making the names and addressed known. I just want to know. doesnt make any fucking sense, Im perfectly aware of that. and content with it: Ive never claimed to be above hypocrisy or stupidity. I cannot express enough how the love of my child has affected me, or the lengths I would go to protect her. people make mistakes for this love, its why some people do violent things to the person they perceive as a threat. the intent - in this case, love - doesnt make it right, I agree with you. I also agree that - thanks to your input, really - making the info public would be more of a hindrance in the long run of things. I have no disagreement with you on these points, or really, any that you have made

but Id still want to know

does anyone here other than me have a drive for something that defies logic? or have you all analyzed your lives, desires, and emotions to such a degree that you can put them in their own little boxes, neatly folded and organized?

Im sorry, I dont work like that. maybe it really is just me, but I simply cannot forgive some breaches of trust, of empathy for the harm youve done to some innocent person, to certain lines crossed. I just cant
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:49 / 02.03.02
but theres simple accountability here - yeah, hey, weve all dealt with shit in our lives. we have two choices - dig ourselves deeper into the shit or dig our way OUT. sure, the former is much easier, downhill always is

of course, its different for the mentally ill, but the rest of us need to take responsibility for what we do. jail isnt the best place for helping people with issues, Ill agree with you there.

<crap smartassedness>but Id go on to say maybe its too damn good for some people - Ive been there myself (resulting from a tiff) and my uncle has spent most of my lifetime there (repeated armed robbery) and my aunts been there quite a bit. man, I wish I had free cable and spinach quiche< crap smartassedness>
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:53 / 02.03.02
quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
haus - simply put, fuck off


Very good. Tell you what, why not defecate in your hand and throw it against the wall? That'll really show up the weaknesses in my argument....

*sigh*
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:56 / 02.03.02
you do your brand of shit flinging, Ill do mine
 
 
Cherry Bomb
13:56 / 02.03.02
bitchie, as I said, I agree that people need to have consequences for their actions. However if we are looking at PREVENTING crime, we MUST look beyond the individual who comitted the crime and examine society as a whole as well. Because there are social factors that influence crime, and that's a fact.

And I don't think it's fair for you to take your individual experience of the American Penal system, and your uncle's, and apply that to the entire system. It's not realistic. I have heard absolute horror stories from people who have been to jail. So, my experience all ready differs from yours. It's not an accurate way to judge the system as a whole.

There are more people in jail in the U.S. right now than at any other time. Do you honestly think that the reason for that is simply because there are more criminals? I think this is something that should be looked it.

But I sense myself moving off topic.
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply