Flutterby™! : Sex offender's rearrest unlikely

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Sex offender's rearrest unlikely

2003-11-17 16:35:12.239927+00 by Dan Lyke 7 comments

Ya know how there's all that press about how we need these "sex offender" registries because we need to know when dangerous criminals who prey on our children move into our neighborhoods because "sex offenders" are never really cured? Apparently it's hoohey: Sex offenders have lower recidivism rates than other incarcerees. Variations on the same AP article Boston Globe, Washington Post, ABC News.

Perhaps there are a lot of troubles with that interpretation, the study covered one year of releases, three years from release, and I can't seem to find the press release or related material on the U.S. D.O.J. site.

Speaking of the U.S. D.O.J. site, have y'all seen the ironic LifeAndLiberty.Gov? The very first advancement of the Patriot Act[Wiki] listed is:

  1. The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking

ie: It isn't about terrorism at all, and we're totally willing to define "terror" in any way that suits our purposes. Don't you feel safer?

[ related topics: Politics Sexual Culture Current Events Law Enforcement ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: Sex offender's rearrest unlikely made: 2003-11-17 17:41:38.221814+00 by: Dan Lyke

I think Bureau of Justice Statistics Reentry Trends in the United States is related to the data, but I don't immediately see the "sex offenders" category.

#Comment Re: Sex offender's rearrest unlikely made: 2003-11-17 19:29:03.293557+00 by: nagbaj

#Comment Re: Sex offender's rearrest unlikely made: 2003-11-18 14:13:33.398627+00 by: Bryant

While I detest the Patriot Act, I think you're misreading that site. The meaning of the first point is "X and Y have existed for a long time, and have been used to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. Now they can be used to investigate terror."

I think it's a bullshit point, but it's not the horrendous irony you see.

#Comment Re: Sex offender's rearrest unlikely made: 2003-11-18 15:23:18.601992+00 by: Dan Lyke

Aaaaah, so you see "available" binding more strongly to "to investigate..." than to the beginning of that sentence? Hmmm... I suppose I could buy that, although why include the "to investigate..." bit in that case?

#Comment Re: Sex offender's rearrest unlikely made: 2003-11-18 22:31:58.017194+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

Purely for greater marketing effect. We must create lumps of abhorrent behavior. Otherwise people would be encouraged to think for themselves and make their own decisions regarding individual topics.

It's no different than the constant association created by the ubiquitous "sex and violence". The phrase results in the "evilness" of the two elements feeding off each other in a kind of circular, exponential growth. The whole winds up being greater (in the case, more "evil") than the sum of its parts.

(FWIW, I read the sentence the same way Bryant did.)

#Comment Re: Sex offender's rearrest unlikely made: 2003-11-18 23:15:25.030104+00 by: Dan Lyke

Well, it's fairly clear that the Justice Department has used the anti-terror provisions to:

...crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by\ alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

So I'm still not sure which way they meant it.

#Comment Re: Sex offender's rearrest unlikely made: 2003-11-21 05:45:55.820386+00 by: Bryant

Ah, hm, I see your reading now. OK, in isolation, that's a better binding. But I think the Joe Biden quote that follows clarifies and points back towards my reading.

It's still PR and not particularly true.