Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
Yesterday's Globe and Mail asked a very good question: should the public get open access to private details of sex offenders? This, of course, comes after two sex offenders were shot and killed in Maine by Stephen Marshall, a Cape Breton man (pictured at left). Marshall, who has since committed suicide, found information on the men through the publicly-available online registry that Maine keeps. Ontario has a similar registry, with about 8,000 names, though it is only available to police officers.
Should Ontario make its registry public? The Globe and Mail seems to think not (noting that the police do issue public warnings about particularly dangerous sex offenders and that it would likely drive many offenders into hiding), but the killings have re-opened the debate and Torontoist wonders if the issue deserves some reconsideration. Certainly, this kind of information can be used for vigilante justice, but at times - especially in areas where the concentration of offenders is high (in Toronto, it's supposed to be highest in the Symington area) - it seems to make some sense. As much as we may want to jump to defend the privacy rights of the offenders, it's easy to empathize with a nervous parent unknowingly living next door to a convicted criminal. In the end, it all comes down to your faith in the justice system: when sex offenders are let free, are they "reformed" or are they likely to re-offend?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If their privacy goes, why shouldn't everyone's?
It's a good question, but does the right to privacy ever take a back seat to other concerns, or the rights of others?
And as for the "privacy of others," I know that finding out where I live would be really easy for anyone who wanted to. All you'd need is an internet connection or a phonebook. Hell, a Google search for my name would probably reveal a ton of information, as I imagine it would for many others.
I searched google and the first four hits were: David Bowie, David Suzuki, David Letterman and Dave Lachapelle.
Who knew Torontoist was so well read?
I think it should stay the way it is. It protects lesser offenders (ie. 18 year old convicted of statutory rape on a 16 year old), the wrongfully convicted from unjust scorn and vigilantism.
If the government wants to protect the public, make the punishment stiffer so those convicted of major sexual offences aren't hanging out in parks two years after they're sentenced.
Their victims are often affected for life. The punishment should better reflect the impact on the victims.
To mm: Har har ;)
I meant my full name (the one that's included with this post). With a bit of selective digging, I just found where I live, what school I used to go to (and where I go now), several sites I'm a member of (including this one), and so on. With a bit more creative searching, I found several old e-mail addresses, my ebay feedback score (which I could easily get more personal information through contacting members who I bought from or sold to), and so on.
Is that really an invasion of my privacy? Not really, because most of the information that's online is things that I've either knowingly made public or things that I wouldn't care if people knew. But privacy means different things to different people - sharing someone's name online doesn't neccesarily constitute a breach of privacy unless they don't want it shared, but just because someone doesn't want something shared doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Is it a breach of privacy if a newspaper publishes an expose about a CEO who's making way more money than they should by doing insider trading? Or if I tell someone about their partners child with another person who they never told them about? What about publishing the name and photo of a convicted sex offender?
There's a thin line between the right to privacy and people just wanting certain things kept quiet.
And ColinM: I agree with you, but when you say 'stiffer' do you mean that they should never be let out? I don't know if time is the best cure for sexual predators.
Easy. Their right to privacy takes a back seat, and stiffer sentences are needed.
why don't we just make a giant criminal database, and every time a criminal moves into the 'hood, we let everybody know! that way, even after you do the time as prescribed by law, you will never live down the fact that you were once a criminal.
The only thing missing from this "right to privacy takes a back seat to the rights of others" is, oh, I don't know, what particular freaking right of others is being violated. Their basic god-given right to know the personal information of sex offenders? Their right to guaranteed safety from bad stuff ever happening?
if you make their info public you ought make all criminal (and perhaps even non criminal) info public - what makes them so different? at the end of the day they are still citizens. If you're willing to publicize their history you'd better be prepared for anybody elses history to be equally publicized.
sex offenders are not easily rehabilitated for one thing ... another thing IF these offenders had preyed on children, damn straight they should be known to the public. their rights end as soon as they decided to end the rights of a child or anybody else...
yeah, they pretty much forfeit all rights to privacy and such when they commit a heinous crime. sexual predators hardly ever get 'cured.' they infect others like a disease. they shouldn't do the crime if they can't do the time.
Symington area...oh yay.
I wonder what my house-arrested neighbour is stuck on his front porch for.
"they infect others like a disease"
Huh? When did sexual predation become infectious? Whether sexual predators can be "cured" or not is another open (and highly subjective) question, but I'm skeptical that one can "catch" sexual predator-ness. Of all the reasons not to go near the pedophiles, worrying that they might sneeze on you is probably low on the list.
Besides...you go from saying they can't be cured to saying they shouldn't do the crime if they can't do the time. The first part suggests it's something involuntary while the second part implies it's premeditated. You can't have their cake and try to make them eat it too :-)
Thirdly, the problem (I think) with the Maine registry was that it lumps in statutory cases (e.g. 19 yo with his consenting-except-in-the-eyes-of-the-law 16yo girlfriend) with the really icky cases (predatory pedophile rapists, let's say). There are varying shades of sexual offense there folks.
There is no "cure" for sex offenders/pedophiles. The Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) in Brampton has been a leading source of research data on sex offenders, their treatment, recidivism, etc. Nothing indicates any type of "cure". Shoudn`t any group or organization, having staff or volunteers in positions that bring them into contact with children, be able to confirm if a prospective employee has a history of sexual offences?
The concern for privacy rights of convicted offenders is based on the assumption they are attempting to move on without committing further offences. Do we have the right to make that assumption when childrens safety is involved?
no jail terms for the especially violent/repugnent rapists but give immunity to anyone in the public who takes revenge on them. or maybe eliminate protective custody and let the other prisoners sort it out. Ok its a bit "barbaric" or "right wing" but these guys are sick!
stiffer sentences only cost us more.
There already is a criminal database, that`s how the police check for oustanding warrants, and some companies can access it to screen prospective employees, etc.
Dave, from the post: "Ontario has a similar [sex offender] registry, with about 8,000 names, though it is only available to police officers."
Sex offenders include streakers. They are labelled for life, and on regisries. Sex offenders include teen aged boys who wrestle with a teen aged girl and touched her breasts out of curiosity. Sex offenders include fathers who touched their daughters inappropriatly. And at the far end of the spectrum, sex offenders include repeat offenders termed preditors, who staulk, rape, prey on children, teenagers, people of all types. It is necessary to differentiate the nature of the crime and degree in order to make an informed suggestion on such matters. In some cases it is valid to give personal information, and in some cases it is not. Lesser offenders are certainly "curable", and greater ones are not. A sex drive is something every single person has, and most people have done inappropriate things. Think about it, I'll bet you have. Right!? If your caught, tour the sex offender, or your kid, or ... You decide. But dont speak from ignorance.
Why did you lump in "fathers who touch their daughters inappropriately" in with the less harmful group of offenders?
Have we all done "inappropriate things"? I don't know. But I know that most people haven't broken the law when it comes to sexual acts.