Talk:Sex offender/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

recent edit by Viperface

RE: The level of sexual recidivism in sexual offenders is lower than is commonly believed. I think this statement should be removed. It leans the article toward a point of view such as "everybody thinks sex offender risk is X, but it really is less than that". It's a generalization and speaks about what's "commonly believed" without adequate references. It also reminds me of the apologetic or minimizing tone this editor has been criticized for earlier in the talk page. pinging @Flyer22, James Cantor, FourViolas, and Etamni: I don't know if this the right thing to do in the culture here but I figure it can't hurt to call out for your opinions. --Cityside189 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it does suggest that popular belief is incorrect, and this might be perceived as POV pushing. That said, I also believe it is an accurate statement. I've heard people talk about this subject, and the common consensus seems to be informed by prime-time television police dramas, rather than by any systematic attempt to learn facts. The statement is immediately followed by sourced information explaining what the actual recidivism rate is. Technically, we could require someone to find a source proving what popular belief is, but I don't see any point in that, and the situation is likely covered by WP:Blue. As an opening sentence in a section, it sets clear expectations what the section is about and is, itself, supported by the information that follows. (For comparison, if the residents near a mountain lake all believe their lake is pure and unpolluted, but scientific testing showed high levels of mercury and lead, it wouldn't be POV pushing to tell them the results of said testing; it would just be explaining facts.) Others will likely have differing viewpoints. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I have added RS to support the statement, which I somehow failed to do when editing that part. [1] and [2] ViperFace (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Viperface, and I apologize to you for not reading more about this before suggesting a removal. (I originally typed out "...should be removed, repaired or sourced" but then got more and more tired as the evening went on and went for brevity. And a tip of the hat to you for being a thorough worker. A question I have now is should the sentence be paraphrased as not to be a direct word-for-word quotation of Harris' article? But he does say it very succinctly and maybe it's best for the direct quote? (can we use quotes here, i.e., "Andrew Harris, leading researcher in recidivism research has said that 'The level of sexual recidivism in sexual offenders is lower than is commonly believed'.< ref>? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just typing longer response as I did not have time to respond properly at the time of my last post, but there was edit conflict. Anyway here's copy paste of what I tried to post just two minutes ago: It might be wise to break down the recidivism rates further as it is known that certain offender groups have considerably higher rate of recidivism than that of all sex offenders as aggregate. I have read studies, if I recall right, that put recidivism rate of rapists of adult women, and those convicted of molesting pre-pubescent boys somewhere around 25%-30%. Furthermore, those classified as sexually violent predators have even higher rate of recidivism. @Cityside189: I'm not being apologetic for any crime but I do recognize the gaping injustice and disproportionality of consequences when handing this label out like candy. Sex offender is a broad label that is attached to people like Jesse Timmendequas, like it should be, like it was originally intended. Nowadays, it's also attached to couples having sex on beach or people like Zach Anderson. Latter cases are nothing less than absurd. They are also blatant violations of human rights considering all the restrictions and stigma attached to this label. Totally disproportional to crimes committed. To me, it's beyond mind boggling that something like this is taking place in civilized western country. I recognize my personal POV might bring NPOV issues to my editing but I expect the community to address them in civil way to reach consensus, just like you have done here. What I don't wish to see are counter-consensus things that recently took place in Talk:Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_and_Safety_Act. I salute you for your efforts in improving risk assessment section. ViperFace (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know I was WP:Pinged in this section until now. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In my haste the other day I was worried. Before I got to know Viperface's work, I thought I was seeing the article take a turn. So pinged you guys over here to take a look. But he's since added the references which makes all the difference. I figured you and the others were just busy as you normally are, but it's even more likely that I typed the code syntax wrong too. Seems like were making at least one progress at least.!! Thank you {user:Flyer22]] for coming. I would like to send a gift message on your talk page but I also don't want to make you uncomfortable with that either. Do you think it would be OK?--Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 03:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

question about John Walsh's history

Hello, I don't think it's important to include the following information: One discrepancy pointed out by critics is that John Walsh, father of Adam Walsh and supporter of the Adam Walsh Act, has admitted having a relationship with a 16-year-old girl while being in his early 20s and aware of age of consent being 17 in New York,[44] meaning that, had he been convicted, John Walsh himself could be required to register as a sex offender. I don't see an alleged crime referenced in the source material (even while it may be inferred by many of us), and I worry that the article is going beyond it's intended scope by including the information in this section. If Walsh violates the law, (or anyone else for that matter) they are subject to the law - so I don't think it's a valid criticism of the law itself. Propose deleting? --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 17:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

types of offenders

user:Flyer22 makes a good point about listing recidivism rates for child molester, something that User:ViperFace mentioned earlier in the talk page. This brings to mind the different types of offenders (or offense characteristics) and some discussion of these differences may belong in the article. I will begin looking at RS which may be acceptable and will leave further notes here for discussion. (i.e., child molesters, adult rapists, non-contact offenders (exhibitionists, etc.), offenders who victimize family members (incest offenders), predatory offenders, opportunistic offenders. I'll write back as I go along and report on the RS's which may bear these distinctions out --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Denial and minimization in sex offenders

Seems like undue emphasis on a particular element of the scholarship, that might be better suited as a subsection of sex offender- vergining on an essay when the main article doesn't include this topic. Sadads (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Article has since been deleted. Assuming the tag is no longer valid, I'll remove it. -- Chamith (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Nambla residents seek Doongi block jurisdiction - Does anyone know what this means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veteranshelping94 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

Jacob Wetterling: Kidnapped at age 11 from his Minnesota hometown in 1989 and has not been seen since.

You should add:

Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped and murdered Oktober 22, 1989. He was found September 1, 2016 and Danny Heinrich confessed to the murder and kidnapping. 62.92.45.220 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

done: thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

'When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court' NYT link

Here's a link to a recent, 2017-09-12, New York Times op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html

--196.251.88.15 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Move of this article

Deisenbe, per WP:Requested moves, do not move articles like this without taking the matter through the WP:Requested moves process. Just where did you think the term sex offender was going to redirect to after you moved this article to "Sex offenders in the United States"? How are we to have sex-offender related articles without a Sex offender article? All of this is why I moved the article back. The way to tackle a Template:Globalize issue is to globalize the article, not move the article. And do read Template:Globalize. Furthermore, a Sex offenders in the United States article would not be much different than the Sex offender registries in the United States article once the former began to be expanded with more United States material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Lede section

The lede section of this article strikes me as non-neutral, because it emphasizes "failures" of sex-offender classifications. CapitalSasha ~ talk 07:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Where? Here's the lede:

A sex offender (sexual offender, sex abuser, or sexual abuser) is a person who has committed a sex crime. What constitutes a sex crime differs by culture and legal jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions compile their laws into sections, such as traffic, assault, and sexual[clarification needed]. The majority of convicted sex offenders have convictions for crimes of a sexual nature; however, some sex offenders have simply violated a law contained in a sexual category. Some of the crimes which usually result in a mandatory sex-offender classification are: a second prostitution conviction, sending or receiving obscene content in the form of SMS text messages (sexting), and relationship between young adults and teenagers resulting in corruption of a minor (if the age between them is greater than 1,060 days). If any sexual contact was made by the adult to the minor, then child molestation has occurred. Other serious offenses are sexual assault, statutory rape, bestiality, child sexual abuse, female genital mutilation, incest, rape, and sexual imposition. However, particularly sex offender registration laws in the United States, may also classify less serious offenses as sexual offenses requiring sex offender registration. In some states public urination, having sex on a beach,[1] or unlawful imprisonment of a minor also constitute sexual offenses requiring registration.[2][3]

So what specifically's the problem here? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, just need more info. Herostratus (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response here. I think what I meant is that the emphasis on more minor crimes that can lead to sex-offender status in the lead is undue. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)