Support NeoGAF

[Killer Queen]

Well, I'm the one making a claim (that US public sex offender registry laws have been ineffective, or even harmful), so it's reasonable to require me to provide an argument to back that claim up.



Sex offender registries can be a useful tool for police to use in order to monitor convicted felons who are at risk of reoffending. These are a common tool all over the world. Unfortunately it was a long time ago since I looked at this so I don't remember the studies I looked at (I need to start keeping track of the scientific articles I read so I can actually refer back to them), but I remember a significant one looked at UK police and found it helpful (though I don't remember what metrics they used to determine that...). Sorry for the lack of info here.

It is also common to require background checks for positions involving children (or disabled people). I don't have any data on the effectiveness of this but it certainly seems reasonable to me.

What is unique to the US is an online, publicly available registry, accessible to anyone. The US is the only country in the world to do this, and I'd say that's for good reason.

Whether notification laws (requiring sex offenders to register with police on moving, etc.) are helpful isn't entirely clear and there are conflicting studies in the matter. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policies for Reducing Sexual Violence against Women (Letourneau et. al) (full text available) noted:

However, other studies have cast doubts on the effectiveness of notification requirements and whether they work as a deterrent. I won't go into them here since my focus right now is on public registers, but my impression is that it seems like they might be helpful but it's not entirely clear.

Now, the same study goes on to say:


This is supported by a study by Amanda Y. Agan (full text available). She makes three conclusions:

1. Sex offenses were not reduced in states after the introduction of a publicly available register.
2. Sex offenders released into states which had publicly available registers were actually slightly more likely to reoffend than those who were released into states with no publicly available registers.
3. The locations of sex offenders were not a good indicator of the locations of new sex offenses. Thus, a public register is not helpful for determining how safe a neighborhood or other location is.

Another study in the same journal (The Journal of Law & Economics), Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior? by Prescott and Rockoff (paywall, but you can get access to it online by registering an account) finds that public registries increase recidivism rates and sex crimes overall. (A little confusing since they essentially use 'notification' and 'registration' in the opposite way I've been doing here.)

These were not the same studies as I read years ago but I don't remember what those were. Sorry.

Anyhow, the explanations may be twofold (my interpretation, supported by some of those old studies I read):
1. Public registries, along with things like housing limitations, may increase recidivism rates as they limit offenders' abilities to live a normal life. An extreme example of that being the sex offender colonies. Essentially, when you don't have a life to throw away, the consequences of getting caught don't seem that bad. (Obviously the colonies were not results of registries alone but of housing restrictions.)
2. Public registries is essentially another example of stranger danger. And like stranger danger it puts undue focus on the wrong targets. Most sex offenses are commited by first-time offenders known to the victim. Public registries present a false sense of security, which leads parents and children alike to be less cautious overall, instead focusing only on strangers (which, again, don't commit most offenses).

So largely what Ninja had in the Wikipedia article, while the second point about parents being less cautious is interesting as per the first point, again that liklihood is marginal at best.
As for the statistics provided by Wikipedia about pre/post SORN implementation and the liklihood to re-offend. It seems that about 80-95% of convicted sex offenders do not go on to re-offend, this number varies state by state. So roughly 5-20% of sex offenders do go on to re-offend. But the differences are generally considered to be statistically insignificant, usually varrying by about 2-3%.
and based off of everything in the article it leads me to the conclusion that SORN is flawed but it is in no way overwhelmingly or even significantly negative. It's a system that needs reform and could be better implemented as is the Animal Abuser idea, but neither system is unanimously bad and I still hold the opinion that I'd rather have these things exist than not and like I've said before, finding someone's personal information and history online is already fairly simple both in the states and north america. Being on a specific list to say that you're a sex offender or an animal abuser doesn't really make it any worse than things currently are now if someone wanted to look you up.

Animal murderers deserve the shame just like child rapists and vicious sexual sadists deserve to be on the sex offender registry.Problem is, just like with the SORN, you're going to end up with a bunch of people put on here for much less egregious offenses.

What is the definition of "abuse" these people are using? Will a person who leaves their animal in a hot car for a small period of time be put on? What about someone who feeds their pet improperly? Or someone whose pet escapes from their backyard too often? Or someone who walks their pet without a leash?

These things always start out as a list of vile trash but, a few years in, end up 90% full of decent people who made stupid mistakes, or were falsely accused, who pose zero threat to anyone.

If you're going to do this, make it for animal killers and torturers only.

You and I are in agreement, I don't think someone who left their dog out overnight or accidentally fell on their animal should be on this list nor do I think someone that's 19 years old and had sexual activity with a 17 year old should be on SORN. But those are arguments for system reform, not system removal.

 

[Griss]

Is animal abuse something with a consistent pattern of reoffending, like sexual abuse? Would it be made available to vet those who will be working with animals? Because if not this doesn't make a huge amount of sense, doesn't have a point. If so, sure, fire away.

But I always thought that animal abuse was either random opportunistic action from pyschopaths or more like:

the overwhelming proportion of animal abuse is perpetrated by people who neglect their own animals" and are unlikely to commit violence against other people and pets.

I'm guessing these people implementing this know a lot more about it than me.

 

[reckless]

Seems like a good idea but yeah there's a huge difference in severity which could ruin lives over small things.

Why would I need to disprove any of that? A few anecdotes aren't the point. Your argument is that everyone involved in this large organization is dangerous to animals and that's nuts and in no way true.

Well when

PETA, considered by many to be the highest-profile animal rights group in the country, kills an average of about 2,000 dogs and cats each year at its animal shelter here.

And the shelter does few adoptions — 19 cats and dogs in 2012 and 24 in 2011, according to state records.

Has what a 99% kill rate for animals at its headquarters, its a terrible organization. Especially when pets are stolen and then killed.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Good.

 

[mr2xxx]

I am not really comfortable for the database to be public. You can be sure that all employers will check the database, hiring someone with violent history is bad news.

Those abusers already punished by law, this database will force them into a life of unemployment and crime.

This info would show up on a background check if they committed a crime.

 

[PopeReal]

Not a pet person due to allergies, but I don't mind a database for keeping pets out of people's hands who have proven to bring them harm.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

So largely what Ninja had in the Wikipedia article, while the second point about parents being less cautious is interesting as per the first point, again that liklihood is marginal at best.
As for the statistics provided by Wikipedia about pre/post SORN implementation and the liklihood to re-offend. It seems that about 80-95% of convicted sex offenders do not go on to re-offend, this number varies state by state. So roughly 5-20% of sex offenders do go on to re-offend. But the differences are generally considered to be statistically insignificant, usually varrying by about 2-3%.
and based off of everything in the article it leads me to the conclusion that SORN is flawed but it is in no way overwhelmingly or even significantly negative. It's a system that needs reform and could be better implemented as is the Animal Abuser idea, but neither system is unanimously bad and I still hold the opinion that I'd rather have these things exist than not and like I've said before, finding someone's personal information and history online is already fairly simple both in the states and north america. Being on a specific list to say that you're a sex offender or an animal abuser doesn't really make it any worse than things currently are now if someone wanted to look you up.

Again, SORN refers to different things. It may refer to eg. community notification but I'm specifically talking about public online registers. And every single study I've found on the topic has indicated that they are, at best, completely ineffective and, at worst, harmful.

 

[Killer Queen]

Again, SORN refers to different things. It may refer to eg. community notification but I'm specifically talking about public online registers. And every single study I've found on the topic has indicated that they are, at best, completely ineffective and, at worst, harmful.

I mean, in regards to offenders reoffending because of SORN public records, the number of said offenders is incredibly minimal and chances are if they had the urge to re-offend in the first place they probably would have done it anyway and just continued to be another one in the 5-20% statistic.
and as for parents being less cautious I don't really think that's something you can blame on SORN over parenting skills. If anything knowing that you live near a dangerous sex offender should be a cause for alarm and encourage your children to be careful of all individuals, simply because that's now a reality for your child. And personally I'd want to know if I was living near a sex offender. I assume others would too.

Calling it ineffective is fair, but like I said, I'd want to know. In the same way I'd want to know if my friendly neighbor who offers to dog sit while I'm away has a history of abusing animals.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Why do you want to know? Because it makes you feel safer? I think that's the main crux of it. It's security theater, and quite effective at being just that (but nothing more).

 

[Yoshi]

I think this public blaming is not OK, neither for animal abusers nor for sex offenders. Such a register is hugely detrimental to resocialisation and further mob justice. I cannot understand how such a thing can be legal.

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

If anything knowing that you live near a dangerous sex offender should be a cause for alarm and encourage your children to be careful of all individuals, simply because that's now a reality for your child.

Define "careful."

The problem is that parents handle sex abuse education like they handle drug education. Firstly, they are often informed solely by the media while remaining totally ignorant relevant data and research. Secondly, they tend to avoid discussing awkward subjects with their kids instead of being realistic and assertive. Lastly, they tend to have extreme kneejerk reactions to the slightest suspicion.

People already call the cops on fathers photographing their kids at playgrounds, annihilate the careers of teachers for non-sexual physical contact, and are so generally distrustful that it actually impedes the community's ability to network and identify legitimate rapists and violent abusers.

If these same busybodies felt empowered to point fingers at pet owners for any action they disapproved of, they'd do it.

 

[Killer Queen]

Why do you want to know? Because it makes you feel safer? I think that's the main crux of it. It's security theater, and quite effective at being just that (but nothing more).

I mean, yeah?
Id want to know if the guy living down the street is a convicted rapist so that my child, girlfriend, wife, sister, who ever isnt caught anywhere near them and I'd want to know if the guy on the block over killed some animals for fun so im extra careful to make sure my pets aren't anywhere near him.

Sorry to say I care more about my personal safety and the well being of those around me more than someone elses resocialization. Im looking out for myself and my family first and foremost because they're my responsibility. The guy down the street is not.

Define "careful."

The problem is that parents handle sex abuse education like they handle drug education. Firstly, they are often informed solely by the media while remaining totally ignorant relevant data and research. Secondly, they tend to avoid discussing awkward subjects with their kids instead of being realistic and assertive. Lastly, they tend to have extreme kneejerk reactions to the slightest suspicion.

People already call the cops on fathers photographing their kids at playgrounds, annihilate the careers of teachers for non-sexual physical contact, and are so generally distrustful that it actually impedes the community's ability to network and identify legitimate rapists and violent abusers.

If these same busybodies felt empowered to point fingers at pet owners for any action they disapproved of, they'd do it.

What you describe is poor parenting.
Careful as in
"Hey, that guy down there? he's a pedophile so stay away from him at all circumstances, but in addition to that, there's living proof that these people are out there and that it could be anyone so be extra careful around other adults or even teenagers because these people exist and aren't just fairy tales made to scare you, and they could be anyone."
not that hard.

I'm not a parent right now so I can't really speak about how hard it is raising a child in general or what it's like. But someone's choice to remain ignorant on a subject is just that, a choice.
I remember in middle school that a teacher for the class next to mine ended up being convicted for messing around with middle school girls and throwing a swim suit party at his house or something another and inviting said girls, it made the local news. He was a pretty young guy, 20's or 30's and was considered to be the "cool" teacher or whatever, seemingly nice guy, I never had much personal contact with him aside from one time I spent the lunch in his class with a friend, didn't really talk to him but everyone liked him.
I'm sure if he moved to a different town and started trying to pull that shit again with local kids as a parent I'd want to know that the individual has a history of doing such things and take extra precautions to distance myself and my children from said individual.

 

[Pillville]

This is fucked up. I'm all for having a list of animal abusers, but there's nothing logical about throwing them into the sex offender list.

I read it that way at first too... I was really confused.

Big difference between
"Animal abusers are being registered LIKE sex offenders"
and
"Animal abusers are being registered AS sex offenders"

 

[Chainsawkitten]

I mean, yeah?
Id want to know if the guy living down the street is a convicted rapist so that my child, girlfriend, wife, sister, who ever isnt caught anywhere near them and I'd want to know if the guy on the block over killed some animals for fun so im extra careful to make sure my pets aren't anywhere near him.

Sorry to say I care more about my personal safety and the well being of those around me more than someone elses resocialization. Im looking out for myself and my family first and foremost because they're my responsibility. The guy down the street is not.

The point about security theater is that it doesn't actually make you any safer. It just makes you feel safer. Their resocialisation does not come at the expense of your safety. Their reintegration into society is a vital part of rehabilitation and keeping them from reoffending. That applies generally, to all crimes. That's a benefit to your personal safety and that of those around you. But I guess it doesn't feel as safe.

 

[Killer Queen]

The point about security theater is that it doesn't actually make you any safer. It just makes you feel safer. Their resocialisation does not come at the expense of your safety. Their reintegration into society is a vital part of rehabilitation and keeping them from reoffending. That applies generally, to all crimes. That's a benefit to your personal safety and that of those around you. But I guess it doesn't feel as safe.

I understand what you're getting at but again, if we look at the statistics of the chance of a sex offender re offending. There's a 5% to 20% for a sex offender to re offend, roughly.
Would you personally:
Rather be aware that some one near you has the chance to be a repeat offender and take precaution around them
or
find out after the fact that they've re-offended and personally harmed you or someone you know?
I don't really think this is an unfair position to take when speaking about a potentially dangerous individual. Does it suck for them? yeah but that isn't really my concern.

 

[Ponn]

This is great and has been needed, fully support. There is a guy here in my condo complex who's pit bull attacked a neighbor and killed her chihuahua when she was walking it. Turns out the exact same guy had another pit bull a few years ago that attacked the same neighbors dog before and he had to euthanize that dog. So how the fuck was he allowed to get more pit bulls!! These lists are important to track these assholes who shouldn't have animals. The key is enforcing them.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

I understand what you're getting at but again, if we look at the statistics of the chance of a sex offender re offending. There's a 5% to 20% for a sex offender to re offend, roughly.
Would you personally:
Rather be aware that some one near you has the chance to be a repeat offender and take precaution around them
or
find out after the fact that they've re-offended and personally harmed you or someone you know?
I don't really think this is an unfair position to take when speaking about a potentially dangerous individual. Does it suck for them? yeah but that isn't really my concern.

The second option actually makes me safer. I feel zero desire to know about sex offenders. It doesn't just suck for them. It sucks for you as well.

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

What you describe is poor parenting.
Careful as in "Hey, that guy down there? he's a pedophile so stay away from him at all circumstances, but in addition to that, there's living proof that these people are out there and that it could be anyone so be extra careful around other adults or even teenagers because these people exist and aren't just fairy tales made to scare you, and they could be anyone."not that hard.

Besides the fact that you'll have to answer "What's a pedophile?" and "Anyone? Even you and mommy?" after this, you choice of words breeds suspicion and paranoia of all individuals for the sake of avoiding the 0.01% of the population that's actually a threat to your child. At worst, this paranoia can create the same sort of trauma in your child you were hoping to prevent by shielding them from abuse: blanket distrust of others, the suspicion that all physical contact is abusive in nature, and difficulty forming physical relationships during adolescence and adulthood.

As a parent and a therapist, the best is to utilize evidence-based child abuse guidelines like "good touch, bad touch" and the "swimsuit rule" (nobody should touch you anywhere that would be covered by your swimsuit) and stick to those rules.

As for strangers, the rule I always give is twofold: 1) "Never talk with anyone who makes you feel strange" and 2) "Most strangers are nice, but you should still never go anywhere with a stranger, no matter what they say."

Unfortunately, most parents have a "shoot-first, ask questions later" mentality when it comes to their children's safety that often does more physchological harm than good.

 

[Killer Queen]

The second option actually makes me safer. I feel zero desire to know about sex offenders. It doesn't just suck for them. It sucks for you as well.

We're just going to have to chalk it up to difference in opinion then. But let me also say that I'm particularly close with someone who has experienced sexual assault on two seperate occasions and has been traumatized by said events, this is someone that has to live with the consequences of someone else's actions and it effects her mental and physical state just about every day. So this is somewhat of a big deal to me personally. and rather than have her potentially go through something like that again I'd rather she be aware of all dangerous individuals that could potentially do her harm as should anyone else that may be a target. Because while being publicly outed for your past transgressions may suck for you and your future, you've potentially ruined someone else's life and their future, and I can't say I feel any kind of sympathy towards any individual that would commit such an act when I've seen what it does to people first hand, and it sucks.
Edit: and despite being reported, one of them was never convicted, got away with it and did it to another girl, and continues to try and contact my friend through various forms of social media.

Besides the fact that you'll have to answer "What's a pedophile?" and "Anyone? Even you and mommy?" after this, you choice of words breeds suspicion and paranoia of all individuals for the sake of avoiding the 0.01% of the population that's actually a threat to your child. At worst, this paranoia can create the same sort of trauma in your child you were hoping to prevent by shielding them from abuse: blanket distrust of others, the suspicion that all physical contact is abusive in nature, and difficulty forming physical relationships during adolescence and adulthood.

As a parent and a therapist, the best is to utilize evidence-based child abuse guidelines like "good touch, bad touch" and the "swimsuit rule" (nobody should touch you anywhere that would be covered by your swimsuit) and stick to those rules.

As for strangers, the rule I always give is twofold: 1) "Never talk with anyone who makes you feel strange" and 2) "Most strangers are nice, but you should still never go anywhere with a stranger, no matter what they say."

Unfortunately, most parents have a "shoot-first, ask questions later" mentality when it comes to their children's safety that often does more physchological harm than good.

What you're saying is fair and understandable, so thank you for taking the time to educate me. I'm years off from ever becoming a parent but I do consider this to be a disucussion worth having and you're right in saying that it would be better to choose words more carefully than what I suggested around children.

 

[JoeBoy101]

This is great and has been needed, fully support. There is a guy here in my condo complex who's pit bull attacked a neighbor and killed her chihuahua when she was walking it. Turns out the exact same guy had another pit bull a few years ago that attacked the same neighbors dog before and he had to euthanize that dog. So how the fuck was he allowed to get more pit bulls!! These lists are important to track these assholes who shouldn't have animals. The key is enforcing them.

Not sure if that would have landed him on this registry. Was he charged with animal abuse/cruelty? Obviously he did something to get the pitbulls to that state, or more to the point, was that ineffectual. But the legal question is important with regards to the registry. It only effects those who have been convicted.

 

[Wazzy]

Good. Animal abusers are scum.

 

[Ponn]

Not sure if that would have landed him on this registry. Was he charged with animal abuse/cruelty? Obviously he did something to get the pitbulls to that state, or more to the point, was that ineffectual. But the legal question is important with regards to the registry. It only effects those who have been convicted.

It will absolutely need tweaking, and law enforcement and lawmakers that take this stuff more seriously. Animal abuse can take many forms including not taking care of your pet enough to allow it to attack others or kill another pet. As an owner you are as responsible as a parent of a child and too many take that for granted or view pets as objects. Those are shitty owners and should not be allowed pets.

People that truly care about the bad name of animals like pit bulls and constantly blame the owners should support something like this.

 

[levious]

I think this public blaming is not OK, neither for animal abusers nor for sex offenders. Such a register is hugely detrimental to resocialisation and further mob justice. I cannot understand how such a thing can be legal.

Probably because criminal/arrest records are public information to begin with.

 

[JoeBoy101]

It will absolutely need tweaking, and law enforcement and lawmakers that take this stuff more seriously. Animal abuse can take many forms including not taking care of your pet enough to allow it to attack others or kill another pet. As an owner you are as responsible as a parent of a child and too many take that for granted or view pets as objects. Those are shitty owners and should not be allowed pets.

People that truly care about the bad name of animals like pit bulls and constantly blame the owners should support something like this.

I need you to quantify that criteria.

That's going to be my issue with what you're saying here. There are no hard and fast rules for when and why a pet attacks something or someone else. Sometimes breed does come into it. Not to the degree that pit bulls and staffies get accused of, but it DOES happen. Sure, abuse is a reliable predicate to an attack, but when talking about a publicly available or legally based registry, we need to have solid guidelines for when someone lands on it.

Do we put someone on the list whenever their pet attacks someone? What if they're just fostering a previously abused animal and that animal attacks? My concern and trepidation with all of this is that when talking about a legal process, do not expect nuance.

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

What you're saying is fair and understandable, so thank you for taking the time to educate me. I'm years off from ever becoming a parent but I do consider this to be a disucussion worth having and you're right in saying that it would be better to choose words more carefully than what I suggested around children.

My pleasure. You have the right attitude, I'm sure you'll do a fine job.

 

[NoRéN]

I mean, fuck animal abusers. Can't say I have much sympathy towards them. I may go as far as to say they're subhuman trash, so making that knowledge public is fine by me.

Sums up my feelings.

This is fucked up. I'm all for having a list of animal abusers, but there's nothing logical about throwing them into the sex offender list.

Sums up what happens on this forum regularly. People don't bother reading.

 

[PSqueak]

Man, that title, i thought literally people who abuse animals were being registered as "sex offenders".

 

[Ponn]

I need you to quantify that criteria.

That's going to be my issue with what you're saying here. There are no hard and fast rules for when and why a pet attacks something or someone else. Sometimes breed does come into it. Not to the degree that pit bulls and staffies get accused of, but it DOES happen. Sure, abuse is a reliable predicate to an attack, but when talking about a publicly available or legally based registry, we need to have solid guidelines for when someone lands on it.

Do we put someone on the list whenever their pet attacks someone? What if they're just fostering a previously abused animal and that animal attacks? My concern and trepidation with all of this is that when talking about a legal process, do not expect nuance.

I'm not making the law or the registry or getting paid for it so I'm not going to come up with some definitive rules, that would be stupid. Like I said it's something that would need tweaking and would probably be different from state to state. Just like child abuse laws it will probably need exceptions and certain bias for circumstances. Not everyone would be happy, but then again honestly no matter what you do people are not going to be happy being told what to do with their animals no matter what. And right there is usually the start of problems with animal abuse cases so I honestly don't give a shit, I care about the animals with no voice.

I've also believed and still do that certain breeds of dogs should be treated differently for their own good. The breeds with demonstratively more violent tendencies should only be available from specially licensed breeders and they should have certain higher conditions for adoption or purchase. And illegal breeders should be cracked down on more.

 

[Replicant]

Good. I don't have sympathy for animal abusers.

Also, it's not sex offender list it's animal abusers list.

 

[LinkAndEpona]

If someone is fucked up enough to abuse an animal, they deserve something very harsh.

 

[ColdPizza]

Man, that title, i thought literally people who abuse animals were being registered as "sex offenders".

Can you get on both lists for the same beastiality act?

 

[RinsFury]

Good. There should be a public list for these evil fucks, if someone is heinous enough to abuse an animal to that extent then I have no problem with their life being ruined.

 

[Kthulhu]

I somewhat agree with the Wayne guy in the OP. There's no way the majority of the people who abuse animals don't have some sort of mental health issue. That should be the priority.

Edit: I see the part of GAF that think justice system exists to ruin people's lives forever is out in full force.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

I don't know how they're going to do it, but they belong on a list for sure.

 

[ironmang]

As with sex offenders, I'm all for a public list as long as it's people who are actually a threat and excludes minor offenses like whatever the animal abuse equivalent of drunk pissing in a bush would be.

 

[Psychoward]

Fuck it, let's make a database where you can type in anyone's name and get any juice on their past.

You make it sound like killing and torturing animals is something everyone does once or twice before they grow up.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

You make it sound like killing and torturing animals is something everyone does once or twice before they grow up.

Most people neither have the knowledge or capacity to care well for any animal, including most if not all pets. You can certainly 'torture' an animal through sustained ignorance about its needs, same as you (can) do with humans (children that is).

Seriously, most people have no idea wtf they're doing with either, yet believe themselves entirely entitled to both. (watch some Cesar Milan if you don't believe me that most people don't even properly walk their damn dog. Or keep them on the leash where required, as we had a recent thread on that)

Preventing known abusers from access to animals is a good thing, but using a shaming list is a terrible incentive, since it will force people underground. I've said it before on this board years ago, but I would seek a permit system for all animal ownership to prevent such incentives, make it easier to enforce, and prevent most of the loss of life on illegal capture and shipping of rare animals just because some rich dumbass thinks they can have it as a pet. This 'loss' tend be from 70% to 100% on rare animals, yet that still keeps happening.
Either way, it's not that different from any other 'I have a potential dangerous object' license, so it's no big change to do. It would certainly not affect any competent animal owner. The only real issue would be the administrative stuff, particularly if did it like the US DMV, which would be a terrible idea. But in countries that do have their automation in order, this is no different from the status quo, it's just easier on services, like reminding people to visit their vets and so on.

 

[krameriffic]

We have threads fairly regularly here that are overwhelmingly against many of the ways criminals are disenfranchised long after they've served their time. So why is it that we're now in favor of this when it involves animals?

I'm not trying to defend animal abusers but there's some fairly blatant double standards at play here regarding acceptable punishment.

Emotions are a powerful thing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Children who tortured and killed animals tend to grow up and become serial killers. It's a form of psychopathy that flies under the radar of criminal justice and really should be understood better and children who are found to be animal abusers should be kept under observation just like sex offenders.

Random factoid of the day: The FBI estimates at any given moment there are 25-50 undetected serial killers currently active in the United States.

 

[SoulUnison]

I can understand where this is coming from, but at the same time, we can't just have publicly searchable lists of every possible crime, can we?

 

[Killer Queen]

I can understand where this is coming from, but at the same time, we can't just have publicly searchable lists of every possible crime, can we?

All of your personal information including address (past and present), phone numbers criminal records are already available and accessible online fairly easily.

 

[EatinOlives]

Sums up what happens on this forum regularly. People don't bother reading.

I said like two posts after that that I had misread it. What is the purpose of this little quip from you, exactly?