Sex Offender Listings
I know a lot of people are going to read this and say, “They got what they had coming to them.” I disagree with that. They were caught, convicted, and they served their time. They were being monitored by the state. They had paid for their crime.
It appears that two of them were executed by some one who is taking the law into his own hands. Execution was not their sentence. This is the problem I’ve always had with publishing the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders. Their sentence never ends. Their names and addresses remain in the list for the duration of their lives.
So, twenty years after being released from prison, a sex offender will still have his name on the list. His neighbors will all know as well as any friends he may have, not to mention the loss of jobs and livelihood. At what point is that cruel and unusual punishment? Do we feel that they should just be the target of this kind of punishment? I wouldn’t object to the state monitoring them permanently, if that is what is deemed necessary. But to publish their names and addresses on a public website is only inviting this to happen. We might as well put a bulls eye on their back.
It was only a matter of time before this happened.
I do feel for the children who were molested. I care very much about that. But, it is the job of the state to protect its’ citizens. Making sex offenders a target for discrimination and death is not the way to achieve that, in my opinion.
BELLINGHAM, Wash. -- On Friday night, a man claiming to be an FBI agent dropped in on three Level 3 sex offenders living together, supposedly to warn them of an Internet hit list targeting sex offenders.
The man was not an FBI agent, but he may have been enforcing a hit list of his own.
Two of the roommates were found dead of gunshot wounds early Saturday, and Bellingham police are investigating a crime authorities say may be one of the nation’s most serious cases of vigilantism aimed at sex offenders.
The killings also highlight a potential problem about Washington’s 1990 law requiring sex offenders to register their addresses so the public can keep track of them.
Police Chief Randall Carroll said it is too early to conclude that Hank Eisses, 49, and Victor Vasquez, 68, were killed because they were sex offenders. Police released a sketch of the suspect, who is at large.
But Carroll noted that their address and descriptions of their crimes were posted on the city’s website. If someone used that information to target Eisses and Vasquez, it could have a broad impact, Carroll said.
“Certainly if sex offenders were targeted and attacked because of their offense, the Legislature could decide they could repeal our sex-offender notification law,” Carroll said. [...]
The public is understandably concerned about sex crimes, but Kit Bail, a Department of Corrections official, said the three men had been quiet and law abiding while they were living together. None of the three had violated supervision conditions, she said, and none had reoffended.
“In a sense, they are a success story,” said Bail, the field supervisor for Whatcom County. “These guys were doing fine. They were employed. They were living according to the conditions.” [...]
John La Fond, a lawyer who fought the notification law on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said posting sex offenders’ addresses “almost becomes a confession by the state that they cannot keep the society safe from harm, and invites society to take matters into its own hands.” (source)
That was published on August 31, 2005. Then today, this came out.
Michael Anthony Mullen, 36, called police Monday to turn himself in and later confessed to killing Hank Eisses, 49, and Victor Vasquez, 68, on Aug. 27, officers said. [...]
Police believe Mullen killed the Bellingham sex offenders because he knew details only the killer would know, according to a department news release. He knew that the victims were each shot once in the head, and he knew the caliber of the weapon.
“Mullen also said that he had planned the murders for some time and that on July 13, 2005, he had accessed the Whatcom County Sheriff’s sex offender Web site, and from that selected at least one of the two victims,” the release said. (source)
09/07/2005 - Man says he'll plead guilty to killing sex offenders
10 Comments
Leave a comment
Fritz,
I would have done that same thing, for what it's worth. Sex offenders should never be around children - EVER.
I guess I'm trying to draw distinctions here between different types of behavior and have the state deal with those distinctions. Perhaps the state is just not able to do that in a rational way, I suspect because most people just don't want to take the chance that someone would slip through the cracks.
But if I knew of someone who had molested a child and knew that person was going to have access to children, no question about it, I would have done the same thing.
I won't watch another person's child either, and for the same reasons.
As it stands I took one hell of a risk in that regard marrying a woman with children. In fact in the case of my stepdaughter who has had more than her share of problems, I was particularly concerned what could have happened.
I have been in some nasty confrontations with my stepdaughter since she was 12 years old. She had a drug problem, drinking problem, stayed out late, hung out with gangster types, and treated her mother badly. I actually had to disarm her one night when she threatened my wife with a knife!
She is also very attractive, (which authority figures unconsciously take into consideration,) but with brutish personality. I was worried that she might implicate me in some fabricated incident as a form of revenge. Luckily for me, it turned out she isn't that kind of person.
Now she is 18. I have a great relationship with her, and so does her mother, but there were some pretty scary times for our family. I guess the prefrontal lobes of her brain finally finished developing.
Jeff, A guy we went to junior high with (I won't name him here) was molested by one of his high school teachers when he was 15. It really messed the boy up and he attempted suicide. His mormon family partially blamed him for what happened -- they couldn't deal with the idea of his being gay. The boy dropped out of school and moved in with another family. Soon, they kicked him out and he ended up living with his grandmother.
As a young adult, he was arrested for having sex with men in a restroom at the Esplanade Mall. He was convicted and was required to register as a sex offender.
The last time I saw him, he was working as a prostitute in West Hollywood and had AIDS. That was over a decade ago. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he is no longer among the living.
The teacher went on to live a normal life. He became a well-respected business owner and very few people knew about his past conviction and how he completely destroyed the life of one of his students. However, when I learned that he had become the leader of a youth program, I had to bring his past to the attention of the sponsoring organization.
My point is that this issue touches everyone. And, the government does let offenders slip through the cracks. If I had not intervened, a convicted child molester would have been in charge of a youth group.
I got quite a bit of negative feedback from folks who thought I should have minded my own business. But, I felt that the man had already ruined the life of one person I knew -- I wasn't going to let him have a chance to do it again.
I think you are right Jeff. All of this has effected how I relate to children as well, and, in my opinion, not in a good way.
I'm all for protecting children. I've probably come across as trying to protect those who have molested children by trying to protect the abusers identity. That's really not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that there are different levels of abuse. When people hear the word pedophile, they think of some guy brutally raping a 5 year old, or some other disgusting act like that. In a great majority of these cases, it was never anything like that. I'm not defending this action what so ever. I'm merely saying, in my mind, there is a difference in inappropriate touching and sodomizing a child. Maybe I'm wrong and others will disagree with that. The law makes little distinction between the two in terms of the sex offender listing.
The law also makes little distinction on how long a person has been free of trouble and, what they have done with their lives since then. And again, I do believe that they should be monitored for the rest of their lives. I just disagree with putting all of them on the site, as if they are all the same. I think they should have different levels, if you will. And, if you reach a certain level, you aren't put on the site (but are still monitored).
Back to my point... I will NEVER be with someone else's child by myself. We have friends who have a 5 year old boy. I won't baby sit or watch him at all. I will never be left alone with him even for a second. That is where this issue has brought us as a society. And of course, the children all know this. I've actually heard about kids threatening adults with a molestation charge if the kids don't get their way. One would hope that in the end, the law enforcement would see the situation for what it is - a lie, but not before your name was mentioned in the papers - just in case it isn't a lie.
In the meantime, your life, your reputation, your job, your friends... are ruined. It's just not worth the risk. I honestly don't know who in the world would baby sit for anyone anymore.
Oh, and by the way, you are right, Bill. There are different types of offenders, and you can see proof of that on the Megan's law website. Each offender comes with a little bio of what offence he committed, and a good number of them committed the offence of, Lewd and lascivious act with a minor”, or words to that effect. “Lewd and lascivious”, at least in this state, has a very broad definition so as to protect the minor.
I honestly feel a homeless person could be taking a leak near a schoolyard, and if there are kids present, and a cop sees him doing it, the poor bastard could be charged for committing a “lewd and lascivious” act.
There is also the occasional false claim of abuse that somehow sticks in court. I was perusing the Megan’s law site and noticed that a man who lives in the house my family lived in in 1966 was listed as a child molester. I went to school with his kids, and coincidentally enough ended up having his daughter as my next-door neighbor just a couple of years ago, and while his kids are admittedly a little strange, I never thought the old man was a child molester.
I asked a friend of the old man about it one day, and the friend said the man had told him all about it, and according to him it was a vengeful act on the part of a family member with whom he had a beef. It was all water under the bridge, but the charge stuck, and he was convicted, and his picture and home address was on the Internet for all to see.
The good news is evidently you might be able to have your information removed. I have since been back to the site, and every scrap of information on this man has been removed. Perhaps he was telling the truth when he said he had been framed.
Incidentally, I found my old sixth grade teacher on the site, and to my knowledge the only child abuse meted out by him was by way of a paddle with the words, “Board of Education” stenciled onto it.
There isn't a perfect solution out there, and each of them can potentially be an double-edge sword, and I think fear and a false sense of heroism can turn one into a vigilante.
It is sad just to think about a situation in which one can never live the same way just because of a crime he/she committed sometime ago, of which he/she had paid for. . .
I believe violent criminals/abusers should be kept on a list, one which can't be accessed by mere civilians. . . This way the government will have a way to keep track of their activities if there is a need for it, and prevent those so-called "heroes" from popping up from nowhere and taking the law into their own hands. . . Everyone deserves a chance. . .
Rather than shifting all the blame to the offenders, I believe the justice system needs a serious makeover too. . .
Just my take on things. . .
Cheers and be gay,
D.
I agree there should be a better way to monitor sex offenders,but untill there is a better way to protect society we have to have someway of knowing which neighborhood they are living in,there is always going to be one stupid person who take the law into his or her own hands,but as long as the parole board finds it in our best interest to release a potential killer out of prison to rape and maybe murder to cover up their crime,we have examples of what offenders do if they are not monitored,i would like to see killers be on the same list,i have no sympathy for a rapist,i do have sympathy for their familys and the victims they hurt,some offenders will never rape again,but can we be 100% sure.
I think the lists are evil in that they give people a false sense of security and create a dangerous environment for the sex offenders.
I agree that these lists shouldn't exist. Non-violent offenders should be able to live in peace after serving their time. The lists are the equivalent of the government telling the public that they can't monitor these offenders and dumping the responsibility back on them. What are they doing with our taxes!?
I don't advocate total isolation for the violent offenders -- that would be cruel. They should always be able to have family and friends visit their homes. They should be allowed to attend formal gatherings outside the home, go to church, and do other approved activities. They just couldn't have casual contact with others -- going to bars, hang out at a mall, park, etc. And, they would not be able to have contact with children at all.
Thank you for sharing. Your personal experience made me empathize -- only someone with a heart of stone wouldn't. I respect your courage and your devotion to your family. You're a better man than I.
Personally, I don't think someone who violently rapes a child should ever be released.
The majority of those released will reoffend.
There isn't an easy answer to this. One solution that I have thought of would be to house them in facilities that are more like apartment buildings. They could work via computer or be driven to outside locations and returned home immediately after work. But, they would not be allowed to have casual contact with the rest of society -- for the rest of their lives.
It just isn't worth the risk to let them loose on society. Statistics show that recidivism rates for violent child molesters are very high.
A U.S. prison study of violent child molesters found that 42% were reconvicted of a sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year period after release. Ten percent were convicted of another violent sexual crime between 10 and 30 years after release. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offenses, who selected non-family member boy victims, and who were never married.
That means the child molestors who are given level 3 status (like the men who were murdered) have a 3 in 4 chance of violently raping another child. Those are very scary odds.
Of course, this doesn't justify murder. But, we'll likely find that the vigilante was a victim of a violent child molestor and took the law into his own hands when confronted with these horrible statistics.