Friends:

I have just read Paul Shannon's fine article, "It's Time To Reform Sex Offender Laws" (CounterPunch, July 10, 2007).

Reproduced at the bottom of Shannon's article is a copy of the Reform Sex Offender Laws Now! petition.  It "call[s] for the immediate reform of America's sex offender laws." 

I have just added my signature to this petition.

In case any of the rest of you might be willing to do the same.

Reform Sex Offender Laws.org (Homepage)

"Gestapo Journalism," ZNet, April 24, 2005
"In the Penal Colony," ZNet, May 5, 2005
"Aggressive/Antisocial, Drug Addiction, Mental Illness," ZNet, August 15, 2005

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Postscript.  As of June 30, 2006 (note that there is always a good 12 month time-lag in data such as this), there were a total 2,245,189 inmates locked-up in U.S. prisons and jails (Federal, state, and local).  This number is 2.8% higher than it was as of June 30, 2005; and in sheer terms, is higher than at any other time in U.S. history, having risen on an unrelenting basis for 30 years.  ("Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006," Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, June, 2007.)  Factoring-in the number of persons on probation or parole in the U.S. system of criminalization (sometimes referred to as the "adult U.S. correctional population"), which by the end of 2005 stood at 4,946,944 (or 4,162,536 adult men and women on probation, plus another 784,408 on parole ("Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005," Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, November, 2006)), we find that as of the year 2006, there were approx. 7.2 million adult men and women who had been drafted into the "U.S. correctional population."  (And by today, July, 2007, there most certainly is.) -- Like virtually every other non-white-collar-crime under U.S. law, the malicious, punitive aspects and mandatory sentencing-terms associated with so-called "sex-offender" laws are profoundly unjust, and wouldn't be fit for enforcement against rats and cockroaches, let alone human beings. These laws deserve to be shredded.

I am actually the wife of Tom Kolze's son. My husband has not spoken to his father in more than 20 years and thankfully was not raised by him. After having learned some things online about him, I am very glad he has never had anything to do with him. We have children of our own and elderly that we love. We both feel that he should have been tortured to death after the first incident involving the first child. I think it is a crying shame that these predators are even allowed to ever get out and if they ever do get out they should at least be castrated!!! Our government needs to re-evaluate all the laws concerning sex crimes against the defenseless. Many people oppose the death penalty and the harsh methods that other countries use as punishment. Maybe if we followed suit, we'd have a safer country.

 

http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc04/docs/pap1261.pdf

Friends:

"Two Registered Sex Offenders Are Slain," Tomas Alex Tizon, Los Angeles Times, September 4, 2005 Los Angeles Times September 4, 2005 Sunday Home Edition SECTION: MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 16 HEADLINE: THE NATION; Two Registered Sex Offenders Are Slain; Police in Bellingham, Wash., suspect a man who posed as an FBI agent. The case renews concerns about laws to register such criminals. BYLINE: Tomas Alex Tizon, Times Staff Writer DATELINE: BELLINGHAM, Wash. The three men who lived in the light-green house on Northwest Avenue hardly ever spoke to neighbors, but the neighborhood knew all about them: their names, backgrounds and crimes. The men were registered sex offenders. Police had notified residents when the first of them moved into the quiet Columbia neighborhood, north of downtown, about three years ago. Schools handed out fliers warning students of their presence. Late Aug. 26, two of the men were shot to death in their home while the third was away at work. Police say the killer, still at large, had knocked on their door claiming to be an FBI agent warning of an Internet hit list. On Wednesday, the local newspaper received a letter from someone claiming responsibility for the slayings and threatening to kill all Whatcom County sex offenders designated as Level III, considered the most likely to commit similar crimes again. Now, as Bellingham police investigate what appears on the surface to be a case of vigilantism, local leaders and activists have renewed the debate over the 1990 state law requiring sex offenders to register their addresses. The victims' address had long been posted on the city's website. "If this is a case of revenge or vigilantism, then it brings to light the question, 'Are there unintended consequences of this well-intentioned law?' " said Bellingham Mayor Mark Asmundson, an attorney. Washington was the first state to pass such a law, which is intended to help the public keep track of dangerous sexual predators. In 1994, Congress mandated that states create registers of sex offenders. Now all 50 states have their own version of Washington's Community Protection Act. Such monitoring and public notification have made it difficult for many sex offenders to find places to live once released from prison. In one highly publicized case in 1993, a sex offender notified authorities of his plan to move into a family home south of here, in Snohomish County. Before he could move in, someone burned the house to the ground. Many databases provide the general location of sex offenders, but Bellingham and Whatcom County websites provide exact addresses with photos of the offenders and descriptions of their crimes. Whatcom County, a mountainous, mostly rural region about 75 miles north of Seattle, has 31 registered Level III offenders. Bellingham, the county seat, had six Level III offenders in a population of 71,000. Among them were Hank Adolf Eisses, 49, convicted of child rape; Victor Manuel Vasquez, 68, convicted of child rape and molestation; and James Russell, 42, released a month ago after serving time for child molestation. Eisses owned the house on Northwest Avenue and rented rooms to the other two. The house is a small, boxy cottage with a white picket fence and a well-tended yard. Across the street is a home-turned-law office. Police said the three men had been law-abiding since moving into the neighborhood. Neighbors said the men kept to themselves. "Everybody knew they were there, but they didn't talk to us and we didn't talk to them," said Angel Gonzalez, 16, who lives with his mother two houses away. "I always saw them walking by. That's my bedroom. I see everything that passes my window. They'd walk by and then come back holding [grocery] bags." Gonzalez said there was talk in the neighborhood about "something happening to them," but the murders shocked him. It was a quiet Friday night about 9 p.m. when a white man in his late 40s and wearing a blue jumpsuit and black baseball cap with an FBI logo knocked on the door of the house, according to police. The man said he was there to warn the three about the hit list. Soon after, with the man still at the house, Russell left for work. When he returned about 3 a.m., he found Eisses and Vasquez dead of gunshot wounds. Police have discounted Russell as a suspect because it was confirmed that he was at work during the estimated time of the deaths. Neighbors also reported seeing the man with the FBI cap at the house. Eisses and Vasquez had committed their crimes in Whatcom County, and some city employees speculated that one motive could be revenge rather than random vigilantism. Police have refused to disclose more details of the case. "We haven't ruled out any motive," said Lt. Craige Ambrose. At the same time, he said the department was warning all local Level III sex offenders of the death threat relayed by the Bellingham Herald newspaper. Earlier in the week, Police Chief Randall Carroll told the Seattle Times that "if sex offenders were targeted and attacked because of their offense, the Legislature could decide they could repeal our sex-offender notification law." Retired law professor John Q. La Fond said that would be the correct course of action. La Fond, who was on the faculty at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, argued on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union against the state's notification law. He said public notification virtually "invites society to take the law into their own hands." La Fond said research showed that public notification laws did not prevent sexual violence or make sexual crimes easier to solve. He called the laws "symbolic but futile gestures" made by a society groping for a way to deal with a complex problem. State Sen. Dale Brandland, a Republican from Whatcom County and a former county sheriff, said there was virtually no possibility that Washington's notification law would be repealed as a result of the murders. Given the climate of anxiety regarding sexual predators, he said, the Legislature might even make notification laws more stringent. Brandland referred to the recent case of Joseph Edward Duncan III, a 42-year-old convicted sex predator from Tacoma, Wash., who is being investigated in the deaths of six children and two adults across four states, including California. Duncan is being held in Kootenai County, Idaho, in the murders of four people and the kidnapping of two children in May near Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. "People here were outraged that he was loose and that terrible crime was allowed to happen," Brandland said. "If there was any kind of leaning by the public, it would be to make the law stricter and to make it even tighter for sex predators. There's very little sympathy for people who prey upon defenseless children." Asmundson, the mayor, said friends in Bellingham had told him, "Too bad they didn't get the third one." There's been a trickle of sympathy for Eisses and Vasquez. Although the city has held no public memorials for the slain sex offenders, some people have dropped off bouquets of flowers and handwritten cards at the front gate of their house. On one blank sheet of paper next to a wilting orchid, someone had scrawled the words, "It is wrong to kill. The end."

Friends: Below you will find something that the Chicago Sun-Times posted to its webpage, following the April 24-25 publishing of its two-part series from which this blog took its start. (For the record: I also sent the Sun-Times my comments on the series. But the Sun-Times never pulished them in its print edition. Never posted them to its website. Nor responded to them---and I wrote to each of the individuals whose email addresses I listed in the blog proper.)

Chicago Sun-Times April 26, 2005 Tuesday SECTION: NEWS; INSTANT MESSAGES; Pg. 34 HEADLINE: INSTANT MESSAGES; Quck e-mail responses to Sun-Times articles Chicago Sun-Times reporters Lori Rackl and Chris Fusco on Monday completed a two-part series on sex offenders and parolees who live in nursing homes across the state. Here are some responses: I still can't believe that this situation exists. How in the world could the state allow this? Everyone must realize that the people who own the nursing homes will probably not admit that anything wrong is going on while these criminals are living in those nursing homes because "financially" it is in their best interest to gloss over problems. Something ought to be done about this situation. Criminals do not belong in the same facility with our elderly. Vikki *** Although I find it distressing to put sex offenders and ex-offenders in nursing homes, I do understand the crunch that IDOC (Illinois Department of Corrections) is in. Speaking as a social worker, it is hard to get ex-offenders into housing in the city because of either their criminal record or because they do not have any money to pay for housing on their own. We can't expect ex-offenders to reintegrate back into society and then have roadblocks thrown in the way. You might as well keep them in prison if that's the case. Ellen *** I am a 68-year-old man who offended his granddaughter 12 years ago. She was 5 at the time. You make it sound like all previous sex offenders are just waiting for the opportunity to offend again. We have made a terrible mistake, but please give us a break and don't condemn us for the rest of our lives. I am listed as a "predator" [on the sex-offender registry] even though I only have one offense. The average person looking at the registry would think I am a monster waiting in the dark, looking for an opportunity to strike. This is simply not the case. Bill *** I thought your article was pretty alarmist. Have there been instances of crime committed by these people in nursing homes? I think there's more crime actually committed by people who WORK in nursing homes! Nancy *** This situation needs to be fixed right away or our court system will be headed for a major meltdown with further lawsuits from families pulling their "loved ones" out and suing the facilities for not notifying them of this concern. It is like putting a pedophile in a pediatric facility and saying, "Have fun." Sandra *** The problem is not offenders that did their time and are now in these facilities. The problem is the prisons that don't want to care for people with medical needs; judges that let people off; facilities that don't bother to know their patients; and families that don't know how to check out a facility prior to placing a loved one there. The saddest part is most people in these places do not have any support or family that cares what is happening. Rebecca *** I agree with Rep. Kevin Joyce [that] all sex offenders and violent criminals should be banned from living in existing nursing homes. They should all be housed together in one nursing home. If this can't be done, then only limit one sex offender to one address and all staff should be informed and keep watch. Norman *** I believe the articles create unnecessary worry in the minds of many who have loved ones in the many nursing homes across the state. . . . Also, whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt that those incarcerated can be rehabilitated? I doubt your articles were truly anything but another way to point out the horrors of nursing homes and to grab a headline. I have had firsthand experience with nursing homes and am tired of seeing them bashed. Ron *** Thank you so much for your article on nursing homes. It is a disgrace that the most vulnerable of our citizens are housed with dangerous, younger felons -- and not even notified! We are becoming an aging society. With the cost of health care, many citizens end up in retirement homes with no other options available. Housing senior citizens or the disabled with felons should be illegal. It is already immoral. Barbara *** My mother was a resident of a wonderful nursing home for about six months only. She had Alzheimer's. If I had to worry that there was a sex offender in the facility that my mom was in, I do not know what I would do. I know the staff has a full day taking care of those who need them, let alone having to worry about a sex offender in the facility or a parolee. Our governor needs to open facilities for these people alone. Kathleen *** Parolees of any kind do not belong in nursing homes. I find it absolutely appalling for the state of Illinois to allow sexual predators to even be placed in this vulnerable environment. . . . Putting them in nursing homes is like placing the hunter and the prey in one cage. Mary *** Let's face it: Simply locking people up is no solution to the problem of antisocial behavior. It only makes it worse, as you have pointed out, in the high rate of recidivism in Illinois. Isn't it time to change our system from one of punishment and retribution to one of restoring both offenders and their victims to a condition where they can contribute to our society, pay their own way, and help plug the drain of billions paid by the state to warehouse prisoners? Ted *** Who pays to keep these sex offenders in these nursing homes? Are we paying as taxpayers? If so I want to call my congressman and try to stop this. Thanks for the great article. Bob *** Thank you for bringing scrutiny to this problem. I think a follow-up avenue for you would be to investigate what kind of "off-site therapy" the parolees are receiving. It appears that the owners of certain facilities are simply warehousing people with no interest in providing care or therapy to them. Kelly

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/1.html "Molesters engage in sex with children for a variety of reasons and sometimes these reasons have little to do with sexual desires. This type of offender, called a situational child molester" "The second classification of sexual offender is defined as a preferential child molester. These offenders have a sexual preference for children and usually maintain these desires throughout their lives." "The pedophile collector falls into three general categories: closet, isolated and the sharer. The closet collector maintains and views his erotica in secret and does not molest children.... The isolated collector is actually engaged in molestation and will display the material to a victim. The sharer-collector trades and displays the material with others and may do so for profit. He also will molest children and keeps company with other pedophiles.... Some pedophiles believe that they have done nothing wrong and are simply more enlightened than the general public. They feel they are part of a special progressive movement and one day society will come to accept, what they see as, their sacred ritual of adult/child sex."

Where are these people supposed to live when they get out? And what about a wrongly accused or a person who mistakenly slept with an underage girl? These new laws are a can of worms.

yo these were convicted criminals right? Did'nt they serve their time? How old are these 'sex offenders' and what's the deal with Gestapo journalism? It's the newest trend in neo-con propaganda. Who cares about 'deviants' and expose them when they are at their weakest and most dreary time of life (old age). Yeah they 'exposed' criminals who served time and have nowhere to live. I guess they should be lined up and shot then lime em up in a big pit eh? Maybe some of those 'convicts' had therapy or something. Don't jails rehabilitate? Is is punishment or reform? Hey just ship em to cuba. More neo-con propaganda. Anything to forget Iraq.

"When citizens live in constant fear of crime it is just as bad as living under a brutal dictatorship." Precisely. That's why the right loves to stoke people's fear of crime through stories like this. The fear of crime in many societies, especially the US, is out of proportion to the actual rate of crime. Realpc, I think everyone here wants to protect their loved ones from crime. The question is how one does this. To me, it seems the best way is to reduce the amount of crime through genuine prevention strategies, instead of fear, surveillance and repression.

Protection from crime and individual freedom are at odds, so we try to find a sensible balance. Finding a compromise between conflicting values is the challenge we face in so many areas of life. It's easy find examples where people go too far in one direction or the other on the question of crime. Only totalitarian societies can elimate crime completely, but too much concern for criminals' rights can be just as bad. When citizens live in constant fear of crime it is just as bad as living under a brutal dictatorship. Either situation is out of balance and therefore dangerous.

Yeh, as if an 80 year old ex rapist who are likely to be suffering from all kinds of old age illnesses and may have problems getting it up without Viagra is going to pose a big threat. People should be more worried about senior abuse in nursing homes by the staffs. This article is sheer sentational, fear mongering.

Friends: For another case in point of Gestapo journalism:

"Predators don't belong among our most defenseless," Editorial, Chicago Sun-Times, April 26, 2005

Like the two-part series, and the egregious front-page introduction to it on April 24, this editorial is scaremongering, plain and simple. The editorial cites one case---that of Thomas Kolze. What we are witnessing here is the progressive slide---or push---of U.S. society towards the myriad forms of paranoia from which calls for ever-more draconian protections also follow. Chicago Sun-Times Editorial April 26, 2005 Predators don't belong among our most defenseless How would you feel if you put your 80-year-old mom in a nursing home and discovered, by chance, that her room was next to that of a convicted rapist? The nursing home director wouldn't have been able to alert you about your mom's felonious neighbor because he may not have known about it himself. There is no rule requiring criminal background checks for people moving into nursing homes. Forget about your mom's sense of safety and security. There are 100 sex offenders residing in 54 nursing homes, long-term care facilities and supportive living centers around Illinois. There are also 61 parolees convicted of other crimes, such as murder, arson, burglary and drug possession, living in 37 nursing homes or other specialized facilities for the aged or the infirm. Many of the state parolees in these centers, living side by side with your daughters or uncles or mothers or friends, have mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. These disturbing facts came to light following an investigation by Sun-Times reporters Chris Fusco and Lori Rackl. They learned that one sex offender placed in a nursing home, Thomas Kolze, had been discovered rubbing an Alzheimer's patient's thighs and inappropriately touching another woman. The nursing care staff thought Kolze, who had been sent to the home in June 2003 because he had heart and kidney problems, would be safe among elderly adults, since his crimes related to children. He was sent back to prison, but he is out again, living in a supportive living center in Evergreen Park. Sex offenders are listed on a state registry, but you have to go through a few hoops to determine if they are in the nursing home with your loved one. And why would you even suspect? You'd figure the facility would do some checking. But that isn't required. In the case of non-sex offenders, the state says releasing the identities of parolees in nursing homes is an invasion of privacy. So mom's safety is trumped by a felon's rights. Illinois isn't the only state grappling with this problem. A seniors' rights group, A Perfect Cause, determined last year there were 600 sex offenders in living-assisted homes across the nation, and many were under 60 years old. There have been few reports of criminals in Illinois' care facilities committing crimes. Yet there remains the potential for harm. Also, crimes and abuse at nursing homes are under-reported. State Rep. Kevin Joyce (D-Chicago) wants to amend Illinois' Nursing Home Care Act to ban sex offenders and violent criminals from living in nursing homes. This is an idea that needs support. Some form of disclosure to patients about criminals in their midst should be required. An alternative is to house all these felons in a separate mental health or nursing facility where they would have no opportunity to prey on unsuspecting patients. Criminals' rights should never supersede those of our guiltless loved ones.

They were exaggerating. That's what people do.

Friends: Let me restate something from my previous comment, as upon reading my own words this morning, I see that I was terribly unclear: According to the Chicago Sun-Times's own research, one-tenth of one percent (100/100,000) of the residents of the State of Illinois' long-term care homes are registered sex offenders, and an even smaller percentage (61/100,000) are non-sex-crime parolees. ("Sex offenders living in nursing homes," April 24; and "Vulnerable Have Little Way of Knowing Parolees in Midst," April 25.) I do not know whether these numbers are accurate. But let's accept them at face value. Now. The same mass-circulation daily in a major American media market (the Sun-Times, Chicago and beyond) places the photos of 97 of the first group on the front page of its Sunday, April 24 edition, along with the headline:

SEX OFFENDERS GET 'DUMPED' IN ILLINOIS NURSING HOMES

There is something scandalous afoot here. But what, exactly, is it?

The pedophiles referenced are in nursing homes. There aren't many small children going about unsupervised in nursing homes. I wonder if the repeat crimes are a result of some mental illness for which no cure has been found or if it might be the consequence of being hounded and targeted for the rest of one's life. Probably a bit of both, but being labeled "sick and dangerous" isn't helping. If you are worried about protecting your children, then you protect them. Where is all the "personal responsibility" here?

bwong, there are different kinds and degrees of sex crimes. An otherwise normal guy whose girlfriend gets mad and somehow gets him convicted of rape should not be stigmatized for life. At the other end of the spectrum, there is the type who cannot control the impulse to rape and murder little girls. It is stupid, cruel and insane to let this type out of prison and expect them to fit back into society. But the same goes for most murderers anyway. I don't know what should be done about non-violent rapists. I don't even know if any rapists are really non-violent, since rape requires force of some kind. Pedaphiles can be non-violent I guess, since some children will obey any adult. I don't know if they should be integrated back into society or not, and I guess it depends on the number of convictions, etc. But even non-violent pedaphiles are sick and dangerous and you don't have to be a narrow-minded right-wing conservative to want your children protected from them.

"Criminals who rape, torture and murder because of irresistable compulsions are still criminals, and society needs and deserves to be protected from them." What is the rate of recidivism of sex offences? Apparantly most sex offenders do not have prior convictions. Also most rape victims know their rapists. I don't see how broadcasting the identities and personal information of ex sex offenders would help protecting the public. In fact it makes rehabilitation impossible.If you must keep track of released sex offenders, it would be much more effective by requiring them to report to social workers or physchologists reqularly, discreetly. A couple of years ago a little girl was murdered in Toronto. The police collected DNA samples from known sex offenders within a certain radius of her home. All but one guy surrendered their DNA sample. The police could do nothing because he had the right to refuse by law. Predictably there was a hue and cry demanding that the man's identity be released. But the law prevented the publication of his identity. Some conservative politicians began to lobby that the law be changed. Well, a few weeks later the police arrested a man, who quickly confessed to the crime. Except, this was NOT the man everyone suspected. He was a neighbour of the little girl with no prior criminal record. But somehow the lobby to change the law continued.

Yes, people are afraid of sex offenders. It would be stupid not to be afraid of them. Medical science does not know what can go wrong with a person's brain or soul that makes them prey on women and children. And there are no experts who know how to stop a person from acting on these evil compulsions. Yes I feel sorry for anyone who suffers from that kind of insanity, but there is nothing anyone can do to help them. Maybe in the future there will be therapy that works, but I doubt it. For now, and maybe forever, the priority should be protecting society. Criminals who rape, torture and murder because of irresistable compulsions are still criminals, and society needs and deserves to be protected from them.

Friends: Here are five paragraphs lifted from the two Chicago Sun-Times articles in question:

State officials bristled at the "dumping ground" assertion. They say potential nursing home residents are screened to make sure there's a medical justification for placing them. They also note the number of sex offenders and parolees in long-term care facilities is miniscule, given that Illinois' nursing home population totals more than 100,000. "This is by far a very limited set of cases," said Deanne Benos, assistant director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, one of the government agencies that place sex offenders in nursing homes. "Certain facilities may have more of an expertise . . . to treat a certain type of individual." ............ But outside of the 2003 incident involving Kolze at the central Illinois nursing home in Bement, there is scant evidence of sex offenders committing crimes in nursing homes and similar facilities here. Advocates say that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Abuse in nursing homes is notoriously underreported, according to a congressional report in 2002. "Sex offenders living in nursing homes," Lori Rackl and Chris Fusco, Chicago Sun-Times, April 24, 2005. (For the PDF version of the same report.)

Parolees -- many of them under 60 -- often end up in nursing homes after being placed there directly by corrections staff, or by hospitals or family members after they're released from prison but still under a parole officer's watch. Many are admitted for mental-health reasons from depression to schizophrenia. State officials insist they're keeping close tabs on them. Parole officers regularly visit the ex-cons, and the state's health department is made aware of parolees' presence so inspectors know to ask about them during site visits, said Deanne Benos, an assistant director in the corrections department. Officials also note that the 61 non-sex criminals in nursing homes as of last month are a drop in the bucket compared with the 35,000 who will be paroled this year. "Vulnerable Have Little Way of Knowing Parolees in Midst," Chris Fusco and Lori Rackl, Chicago Sun-Times, April 25, 2005

One question worth asking the editors at the Sun-Times might be: Since you report that somewhere on the order of one-tenth of one percent of the State of Illinois' long-term care homes currently provide residencies for registered sex offenders, and since you also report that an even smaller percentage of the State's long-term care homes currently house non-sex-crime parolees (or less than two-tenths of one percent of the total number of people paroled from Illinois prisons annually), then why on earth are you publishing such a high-profile, be-on-the-lookout-for story in the first place, including the names, photo IDs, and current addresses of the registered sex offenders? Isn't it clear that the whole mentality at work here is fear, fear, and more fear?---And what a wonderful population cohort on the basis of which to sow the seeds of fear, on top of it all: Registered sex offenders and parolees in general, most (and perhaps just about all) of whom suffer serious physical and mental health problems, and would be homeless, without the aid of the long-term care facilities. Don't you guys sense what an important step towards the notion of life-unworthy-of-life these two Chicago Sun-Times's stories represent?

Do all people have the guarantee of having the same rights? If so, then it would seem that those, regardless of crime, should enjoy some of those basic rights. Would you want to be notified about a murderer out on parole in your neighborhood? How about a car thief? My purpose is not to base my argument on the slippery slope, but it must be asked do people have all the rights when they come out of prison, regardless of the crime? The comments on fear being driven into the minds from the media is right on and a large portion as to why they printed it. If it bleeds, it leads. The end result is that the Sun Times may have sold a few more papers than previous Sundays as compared to the Trib. What's lost in all of this argument, I believe, is that there is a real problem with sexual crime and all our major and influential institutions are more apt to bring about policy in the form of a reactionary knee-jerk than on prevention. It would be interesting to see the statisitics on this group of people when compared to socioeconomic status, education, and the like. j.

People might like to be able to recognize released rapists and child molesters. I might want to keep my own child away from the man who raped the child next door. It is completely ridiculous to think victims only need to recognize the one who raped them personally, as if that is the only one anybody needs to worry about. You obviously have no experience with victims of these crimes. And don't think it's no big deal if a woman or child is only raped but not killed or injured. During the attack they do not know whether they will get away alive or in one piece. Hardly any experience is more terrifying. Bloggers here get intensely outraged by all kinds of imagined evils. But this is a real evil, one of the worst, and I don't see them feeling any outrage. Instead they defend the rights of people who are true villains.

You probably know at least one woman who has been raped, even if she has not told you about it. Having more concern for the rights of a sex offender, such as a rapist, than you have for their innocent victims is truly insane. Ask some of your leftist feminist friends how they feel about sex offenders' rights to privacy and freedom. Women who have been raped never feel safe again, never lose the sense of horror. Do you ever consider that when crusading for rapist rights?

Is David Peterson really defending sex offenders? My G-d, I've read it all! The depth of his support for all things unorthodox knows no bounds.

It is true that a person can be wrongly convicted of a crime and their life ruined because of it. This kind of mistake should of course be carefully avoided. On the other hand, being more concerned about wrongly convicted criminals than about the victims of released criminals is absolutely outrageous. The lack of concern for the victims of crime has done more than anything else to turn Americans against extreme liberalism. Former liberals leave in droves when they see their daughters living in fear of rapists. Who is more deserving of freedom, a convicted rapist or an innocent young woman? Like most things, it's a trade off. Too much compassion for criminals results in callous disregard for the safety of innocent citizens. And women and children are the ones who are most vulnerable to sex offenders.

There's a newspaper here in the UK, the News of the World. Some time ago, the editor launched a campaign of releasing as many personal details of convicted paedophiles as possible, and trying to incite the readers in every way short of actually explicitly encouraging lynching. The main result of this was, as documented here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm a hate campaign against a paediatrician, apparently just because the first few letters of "paediatrician" and "paedophile" admit some confusion as to their various natures. There's plenty of analysis to be found about it, including http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1709708.stm which also details how at least one innocent person was beaten up because they looked like one of the poor-quality photos the paper published. In fact, much can be found merely by doing a Google search for things like "paediatrician" , "paedophile", "News of the World" and "Sarah's law".

You seem to be outraged about something, but I can't tell what. Are you saying you don't want people to be warned about sex offenders? Is it because you sympathize with sex offenders, rather than their victims? The reason for your anger is obvious to you, but there is no explanation for those who so not already share your view, whatever it might be.