| Revision as of 00:49, 7 March 2011 editJames Cantor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,721 edits →Edit request from LODweed, 2 March 2011: cmt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:02, 15 December 2024 edit undoChristieBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors106,922 editsm Transcluding GA review | ||
| (235 intermediate revisions by 85 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| {{FailedGA|02:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)|topic=Law|page=1|oldid=1261223093}} | |||
| ==More Details== | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
| Although I don't necessarily question the findings of the DoJ study, I have one problem - the study says there's like 234,000 sex crimes a day. That translates to roughly 84,000,000 a year - so evenly distributed, about one in three people are sex criminals (every year). Unevenly distributed (say as many as 5 are for a person per year) then that makes the rate about 17 million people per year which translates to roughly one in 17.5 people committing 5+ sex crimes a year. To me at least this sounds ridiculous. Another thing: | |||
| {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis|date=May 6, 2012}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo=old(30d) | |||
| | archive=Talk:Sex offender/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter=3 | |||
| | maxarchivesize=75K | |||
| | archiveheader={{Archive}} | |||
| }} | |||
| == What is the neutrality dispute about? == | |||
| http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/materials/10myths.php | |||
| "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." | |||
| That site shows distinctly different figures from more recent studies. Some important, like 93% of molestation is done by trusted members of families. Second, at least two state studies show relocation is ineffective in preventing recidivism. Also sex offender registries don't openly distinguish statutory and non-statutory rape. I'd also like to note that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 5.3%, yet the DoJ says they recidivism rate for any offense is 43% - I'm wondering how much of it is persecution, like if any study showed the majority of the charges were things like tresspassing, menacing, etc, any offense which can be thrown at someone and they'll be shoved back in prison/jail, even if there's no evidence. | |||
| Would somebody please clarify which discussion is relevant? What issues are in dispute? ] (]) 11:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Also, anyone care to mention the 14 year old sex offender? | |||
| :See the section above this one. ] ~ <small>]</small> 16:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/26/2009-03-26_14yearold_new_jersey_girl_may_get_sex_of.html | |||
| I think there should be at least some youth section, talking about the controversy with charging minors with sexual crimes, especially if there's no "victim" (as in they cases in which they publish media of themselves) | |||
| Finally, the wiki is literally a copy-paste of the DoJ page. At minimum, the info should be condensed like "Recidivism" - Sex offenders re-offend an estimated x%<citation> times within 3 years and x% within a lifetime for sex crimes. Other criminal offense recidivism rates are typically x% within a lifetime. | |||
| At least TRY to reduce all that space and prevent copy/paste. I will admit people (especially fanatics) will link a bajillion references putting sex offenders at like a 150% recidivism rate after 1 minute of freedom. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| The entry defines the term sex offender without making mention that organizations such as Association For The Treatment Of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) recommend people first language such as “individuals who commit sexual offenses.” See <ref> https://www.atsa.com/terminology.</ref> ] (]) 18:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Just a note--would someone care to add information on the tier systems, for examples, from a CNN post today, an article mentions that an offender was a convicted tier three offender (link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/24/ohio.missing.girl/index.html ), a definition of a tier system would be great--I can't seem to find it anywhere. | |||
| {{talkref}} | |||
| ==Contested move== | |||
| I'm trying to understand why people are constantly moving this page to "Child sex offender" when the page is supposed to talk about more than child sex offenders. Please stop? Pretty please?--] 18:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe it is "supposed" to talk about other offenders, but at the moment it only talks about child sex offenders. If you want to keep the title, please bring in additional material. -] 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The "Sex Offenders' Register" in the UK has expanded in scope but seems to be commonly understood as covering only "child sex offences". ] 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019 == | |||
| ==Human Rights Watch== | |||
| It looks like someone just copied another web page into this article. ] 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (DavidJCobb) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Sex offender|answered=yes}} | |||
| =="Convicted"== | |||
| Please remove the adjective "female" when referring to Genitalia Mutilation. | |||
| I'm sure I read about a "caution" or something similar resulting in registration. Can't remember if UK or US. ''] ]''. 21:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Possibley ]? ''] ]''. 21:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Accepting a ] for a relevant offence does indeed make one subject to the requirement to notify. See part II of the ]. ] 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Sexism | |||
| ==9.1 million sex offenders in LA?== | |||
| "Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone..." ] (]) 14:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
| How could this be possible when only 3.5 million people live in Los Angeles? -Unsigned | |||
| :{{Not done}} for not being an appropriate request. However, there was no indication that this was an example of a sex offense, so I simply removed the list item outright. –] (] • ]) 15:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Some redacting== | |||
| Made some edits, reasons being: | |||
| *"The word (sex offender) is also widely used in public discourse to describe persons accused of participating in sexually offensive behavior, irrespective of whether or not they were actually charged and convicted. | |||
| Hmmm. Well, I would certainly ''think'' that it wouldn't be used that way in public discourse ''by any entity that could be sued''. That is, I would be ''very'' surprised if a newspaper or TV station etc. were to say "Sex offender Joe Smith spoke today at the Lions Club..." or whatever ''if Smith had never been charged with a crime'' (or even if he had been charged but never convicted). And I live in the USA where libel/slander laws are looser than the the UK. So um this just doesn't seem to fly. Of course, ''alleged'' this-or-that is applied people who are, well, alleged to have done this-or-that (by the authorities or by authoritative sources, of course). But that applies to all human activities ("Alleged uber-bitch Josephine Smith..."). So I can't see singling it out for sex offenders is particular. | |||
| == Harvey Weinstein? == | |||
| Now, if the editor is saying that ''ordinary people in private conversation'' use "sex offender" to mean "person that my cousin says is a sex offender", two questions arise: 1) verifiability of that, and 2) so what. People refer to other people ''in private conversation'' as jerks, cheaters, crooks, tightwads, and on and on based on little evidence, I guess. So why are we specifically talking about that here in regard to sex offenders? So I'm removing that passage, subject to debate of course. | |||
| Surprise surprise! No mention of "convicted sex offender" ]. Wonder why?? ] (]) 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *''"The tolerance for deviant sexual behavior and sex crimes in western society has declined drastically over the last 20 years"'' | |||
| Er, is this true? What is meant here by "deviant sexual behavior"? If (say) homosexuality, I'd definitely have to see some good cites on that... I think the common feeling (not always right, I know) is that gays are if anything ''more'' tolerated than in 1985. If it's criminal-type "deviant" behavior (don't like that word "deviant" - can we find another?)... Which sex crimes were ''drastically'' more tolerated in 1985 than now? I can't think of any. Was (say) rape really really significantly more tolerated in the West in 1985 than now? Child sex abuse? What, exactly? Anyway I'm removing that passage, subject to debate and some good citations, of course. | |||
| == Demographics == | |||
| *''"As a result, unlike other crimes, the term "sex offender" often stigmatizes ex-convicts for the rest of their lives. | |||
| To the extent that reliable sources are available, it might be good to have a section about demographics. Just browsing through the database local to me, it seems that there is a slight tendency for sex offenders to be non-caucasian, but my casual search suggests the correlation is small. And they seem to be concentrated (again, not a strong correlation) in lower-income metropolitan areas. Indeed, I found a government source confirming this<ref>http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/disproportionate_minority_presence_on_u.s._sex_offender_registries_ackerman_sacks.pdf</ref> although it suggests that minorities are over-represented in sex offeder registries compared to their actual presence in the population. | |||
| So um "murderer" does not stigmatize someone for the rest of their lives? "Embezzler"? "Bank robber"? Hmmmm I'm not sure I agree with that. I think what the editor is trying to talk about is the Sex Offender Registries. If so, he should say so. | |||
| Interestingly, I found two sources suggesting a statistically meaningful correlation with religiosity: "a strong tendency for prisoners who declare a religious faith to be serving time for sexual offences"<ref>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prison-figures-show-a-link-between-sex-crime-and-religion-vkx53vxr8lz</ref> and "religiosity was linked to a higher number of sex offense victims and more convictions for sex offenses. Those sex offenders who reported regular church attendance, a belief in supernatural punishment, and religion as important in their daily lives had more known victims, younger victims, and more convictions for sex offenses..."<ref>https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=237824</ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *''A significant portion of the public believes that those who have committed sex crimes are "incurable"... | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| Lose the scare quotes. Other than that, the rest of the article is OK for now I guess, although it's not very good or balanced, but enh for now whatever. | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Forensic Psychology== | |||
| Actually I don't see why this article exists. In the article ] you have "Sex crimes are forms of human sexual behavior that are crimes. Someone who commits one is said to be a sex offender" which pretty much covers it. A reasonable exposition on the sex offender registries, the indefinite incarceration of "sexually dangerous persons", etc. might be a reason for the article, but as it stands the article is pretty lame.] 06:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Arizona_State_University/Advanced_Forensic_Psychology_(Fall_2022) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-08-18 | end_date = 2022-12-10 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 18:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ==Proposed merge== | |||
| I'm OK with merging the two articles. ] 05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would be in favor of keeping ] separate. It definitely can support a separate article by itself. –] 09:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Do not merge''' Merging articles makes sense when one or both or the related articles are relatively short. But as I have noticed, when an article gets long, it tends to be split, with conspicuous links between them. Both these articles are quite long, and therefore belong separate. ] 13:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Global scope == | ||
| This section, while informative, seems really out of place and would be better suited in the article on Iowa. -Unsigned | |||
| As it's written, this article is almost exclusively about the United States and doesn't provide a global overview of the subject. A lot of the information here doesn't apply to sex offenders in general. I wonder if the content specific to the United States should be split to ] or something like that? My reservation there is that tying the topic to a country like that might create a non-POV title. Pinging {{u|Absolutiva}}. ] (]) 22:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Adding the word plysmograph to Misplaced Pages== | |||
| I was doing a research paper on On-Line Sex Offenders, and while talking to an investigator here in Denver, CO he mentioned that many states are now using an additional test called a plysmograph. The only source of information I am able to find is that it was orginated in 2002 and known as the "Pervo Parks Penile Plysmograph". I think there should be further investigation into this word and added to the sex offender page because it is a requirement in many states now as part of probabtion. -Adam Aberle of Denver, CO, ajax2up@msn.com <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| :Be bold, add it to the <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| :It's called a penile plethysmograph, not a "plysmograph." ] 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I preferred by adding content for United Kingdom, India, Brazil, Japan and other countries that mentioned about sex offenders worldwide, also I propose split to sex offenders in the United States, does not ]. ] (]) 05:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recividism rates== | |||
| {{Talk:Sex offender/GA1}} | |||
| Recidivism rates vary widely depending on the study that is being looked at. Rates from 3% (Bureau of Justice Statistics) to 95.9% (Langevin) can be found. The focus of recidivism studies may vary widely. Each study may be looking at a mix of particular types of sex offenders such as rapists, pedophiles, voyeurs and/or individuals caught via online stings. The study group can be offenders who were only given probation, or individuals who were released from a mental institution. The general trend of these studies is that the longer sex offenders are studied, then the higher the recidivism rate. ] 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)richardpowers1 | |||
| :Of course, if you take one group of people and study them for one year, five years, ten years, or even thirty years, there is always a better chance of more recidivism. If the studied group remains the same throughout any given time frame, you will have a certain number of people at whatever arbitrary point in time is chosen that have recidivated. Now, how can recidivism stats go down in such a case? Those who have recidivated can't be counted twice, and those who haven't are the only ones remaining that can change the count; the count can only move up if the initial group is unmodified over time. Your comment is a convenient twisting of what is otherwise quite obvious, and you haven't provided sources to back anything you just said up, and I would caution all readers here to be very wary of the presentation chosen by those who comment. What exactly WAS the point of your comment, again? Judging by your choice of wording and your decision to withhold any credible sources, I must say that I have a "perception of deception." An item of interest, since you mention "Langevin," would be the summary of a bigger article on the subject here: http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/cjc/cjc48a1.html#four ] 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The general trend of these studies is that the longer sex offenders are studied....'' This is expected. For a given set of subjects and a given set of criteria, would be impossible otherwise. If 5% of them re-offend in the first 5 years after release, then the 10-year recidivism rate will include these 5% plus everyone who re-offended in years 6-10. The "interesting" number that you rarely see is how long before the person becomes very unlikely to re-offend. That is, if he's been clean for X years, we can safely assume he's no more likely to re-offend for the rest of his life than a person of similar age/gender/what-not that never offended in the first place. Once a person falls into the "no more than average" risk, it's a waste of resources to keep him on the sex-offender registry. ] 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Georgia== | |||
| I watched this set of edits go by an an antivandalism editor, and while I am hesitant to revert good-faith editing, I have huge problems with the changes that were made to the Georgia section today: (1) it doesn't fit stylistically, (2) it's not at all NPOV, it even makes Misplaced Pages appear to take a stance on pending litigation, and (3) it's a very disproportionately large part of the article now. Rather than just revert it, I'm going to bend over backwards in an attempt to salvage it, and edit it into more suitable form. ] 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 03/10/2009 - The user Bionga has screwed up the GEORGIA section by copying it, and modifying it with the ILLINOIS label, and thus causing issues with the GEORGIA section. Can someone consider undoing their changes? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Illinois has the laws mentioned in the 'Georgia/Illinois section'. Illinois law clearly states that no sex offender may live within less than 3 miles and 6 city blocks of any school, church, park, playground, day care center, and any place where minors are known to congregate, and that no sexual predator may live within less than 6 miles and 2 city blocks of the aforementioned places, nor may any sex offender live within less than 1,000 feet of a residence that contains individuals under 18 years of age, and nor may any sexual predator live within less than 5 miles of a residence that contains minors. In addition, Illinois law really does require castration of all sex offenders and sexual predators. ] (]) 07:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Gack! This is one of the ugliest pages I've ever seen. I removed most of the state-by-state legalistic info (which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia), and summed it up briefly in the first paragraph. However, there is a lot more that needs to be done. Especially, many sections are headed with "Source:" followed by a link to a website, which is not in keeping with our ]. I'll be continuing cleanup efforts, and help would be appreciated. To whoever's work I just deleted....sorry, but it really didn't belong here. It's often best to discuss things like that on the takpage first, to avoid having large amounts of your work deleted. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no issue with anything you're doing. An editor had changed some of the content significantly just before you deleted things last night and I saw that too much of what the editor added (which was at the least, quite wrong) still remained and couldn't easily be extracted from the current version, so I decided it was best to go back to a version prior to that edit and go from there. I am sorry that it undid some of your changes, but I didn't see a way not to do that. Cheers and good luck. ] (]) 01:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks W. Sometimes things just get messy and the only fix is a restart. It needed a lot more work anyway, so no great loss. thanks for such a clear edit summary tho, that really helped. Happy editing! ] <font color ="green">]</font > 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have no objections. I watch this article as a function of ]. Some of the articles are a mess and need a hatchet and forty whacks. ] (]) 03:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| =="sex offender"? == | |||
| The term “sex offender” is erroneous. It is a western/christian cultural phenomenon spawned by sexual oppression which includes homosexuals. In states where “sodomy” is officially illegal, homosexuals convicted or pleading guilty to such a “crime” are, by definition, “sex offenders”. How many people are on this so called “sex offenders registry” who’s only crime is being gay? What a horror. Western culture makes me sick. -amunptah777 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:38, August 28, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Criticism section needs a rewrite== | |||
| The "criticism" section of this article is, basically, crap. There is no significant discussion of criticisms regarding the term "sex offender" or what it means, and I'm not entirely sure that "Criticisms" is an appropriate section to have in the first place. If it can't gather more than a single poorly-written semi-paragraph of content, we should remove it and put its content in other parts of the article. ] (]) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Concur. I've reviewed and deleted the section. It was off-topic, not about sex offenders, only about a mismanaged database; and, the source was of dubious reliability.--] (]) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Therapies section is poorly written== | |||
| There are numerous errors in the 'Therapies' section of this article, and once again I do not have the time to fix it. If you have the time and inclination, please take a look at this section and demangle its contents as you deem appropriate; it has plenty of grammatical and punctuation errors, and that's just half the problem. ] (]) 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==USA== | |||
| Why does this only feature infomation about the USA? This article is far too biased. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Be bold, introduce information about other nations' laws then, if you have found some information about them. Many contributers are US citizens therefore have more knowledge of the laws where they live. Also, I cleaned up. ESL? ] (]) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recidivism== | |||
| This entire section is a confused collections of links and semi-random facts from the U.S. DOJ website. Personally, I really don't think that it adds enough useful content to the article to justify the space and verbage involved. I'd like to axe most of it and copy a couple of lines of useful content into the section above. Keeping the entire section would require a total rewrite and I find that very daunting. Are there any strong arguments for keeping the entire mess, or can I start whacking? ] <font color ="green">]</font > 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Unify the USDOJ information into one section. I've put the NC material back because information gleaned from the NC registry regarding recidivist-status offenders illustrates recidivism rates that are far lower than other studies which are more well-known. It is not state-specific legislation information, it is either an anomaly in recidivism rates or a very big problem with how accurate North Carolina's public registry information is. Please don't strip it out again without some specific discussion about why it should be removed; I feel that your reason as stated in the edit misses the point of the information's inclusion. Granted, though, it could use some rewording and needs to be more concise; I'm pretty horrible at being brief, so by all means, tear into it to shorten it and make it less confusing! ] (]) 20:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This article is about a global issue and giving article space to a single (questionable) study from one U.S. state is going to be ] no matter how it is phrased. I understand that ''you feel'' the information belongs here, but imagine if we tried to include detailed information about every study ever published, or specific information from every legal jurisdiction in the world. Why is this information so special that it should be given space when we don't do the same for every other municipality in the world? Frankly, without strong references explicity backing up your opinions, both the reasons that you presented are nothing more than ]. In short, the study doesn't belong at all, and the USDOJ info needs to be reduced to a few (properly wikified) sentences, not several indepenent sections, which is what I had tried to do. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Comment== | |||
| Anonymous said... | |||
| I Work in the financial department of the California government in the Sacramento office. | |||
| The laws do not work and not only do we know it but several of our so-called bosses are proud of it. The money spent does not even go where it is intended. | |||
| In CA it costs the taxpayers OVER $1800 per unit PER MONTH for the electronic tracking units that we use. These units are LEASED at this price and they are no more complex than a cell phone transmitter with a GPS tracking chip. A similar program is happening in Texas. And the units are bad. They are badly designed as the signals drift from area to area causing several of our parolees to be violated for technical violations that they are not even responsible for. The units are so badly designed that they are even using NiCad batteries which are prone to fail with extended use. | |||
| We have recently contracted a "psycho-therapy" company, "CPC Inc." claiming OVER 30 years experience in treating sex offenders and other such "criminals" in our state and others and, going over the financial records, discovered that they did not even exist thirty days ago. I went to one of their offices and was shocked to find a literally "fly by night" operation in which the signs on the door were handwritten on binder paper, perhaps two tables and laptop computers on the floor. | |||
| When I reported this to my superiors I was outright threatened that if I should continue with this investigation or pursue ANY oversight that I would be attending those courses myself before long. I am afraid for my freedom and the safety of my family and children. I am under contract to the state and cannot even break said contract for fear of this. Almost the entirety of our golden state is now run by the equivalent of organized crime. | |||
| This is the reason that unconstitutional, unjust and outright illegal laws Have been allowed, and forced, to pass. We are in the grip of the criminals that we have elected and I am guilty of this as any of you. | |||
| My contract will be up soon and not only do I have no intention of renewing, I and my family are leaving the country. Should I make it that far. This is no longer the country that I was raised to believe in nor a place that I want my children to grow up in. | |||
| Should I be able to before I leave I plan to release ALL of the financial records to the net and I encourage all within the state governments and especially any in the financial departments who feel as I do to do the same. As even with legal action they will not release them or if they do, it is published in such ways that make the records impossible to read as well as how much they receive in kickbacks. Even though they are blatant in such things. | |||
| May God forgive us for what we have done. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Comment== | |||
| Under Victims: Megan's Law was actually enacted Federally in 1996, not just in Ca. As well the Kanka family were NJ residents at the time the crimes were committed, which seems unclear (though maybe not significant). | |||
| Under Risk assessment: | |||
| In addition to Static-99, for pre-release assessment of re-offense risk there are numerous other tests, including, but not limited to RRASOR (older than Static-99, but still used) and MinSOST (also Min-SOST/minsost/MINSOST). | |||
| Under Recidivism rates: | |||
| As long as you are including stats from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf how about including the never talked about but very real statistic found in Page 1:Highlights:paragraph 3 - During the study 517 sex offenders were rearrested for sex crimes and 3,328 non-sex offending felons were arrested for sex crimes, the sex offenders accounted for only 7.4% of the arrests for sex offenses during the study. This might indicate a flaw in the penal system as there seem to be more sex offenders coming out than there are going in. | |||
| Maybe a section should be added to discuss controversies and contradictions? IDK | |||
| ] (]) 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Victims: Adam Walsh == | |||
| The section is long and without citations, it begins with an editorial comment, and most importantly is about a murdered boy. If there is evidence that the child was molested before being murdered then the section should be fixed up. Otherwise, it should simply be removed. | |||
| /mo'n <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Edit request from LODweed, 2 March 2011 == | |||
| {{tl|edit semi-protected}} | |||
| <!-- Begin request --> | |||
| Under the recidivism section, I think the following should be added: | |||
| One study with a follow-up period of 25 years, however, found that when "undetected crimes" were accounted for, the recidivism rate for sex offenders rose to 88.3%. | |||
| Ron Langevin et al., Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: a 25-Year Follow-Up Study, 46 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, no. 5 (2004). | |||
| <!-- End request --> | |||
| ] (]) 19:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :This is an interesting fact, but could you clarify how exactly 'undetected crimes' are accounted for? It goes without saying that by virtue of being undetected the crimes are ''not'' accounted for. <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">]''']'''</font> 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ESp|c}}—] | ] 00:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what it's worth, sexual offense recidivism is a very complicated research field with many contradictory findings. Typically, we don't put much weight on individual, unreplicated findings. Personally, unless one is attempting to collect a comprehensive list of all reported findings, I would not overturn a very solid, very well-replicated finding on the basis of a single report in a relatively low-end journal. As they say, "One swallow doesn't make a summer"...or even more on point, "Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence." IMO. | |||
| ::] (]) 00:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:02, 15 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex offender article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Sex offender was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 15, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
What is the neutrality dispute about?
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page."
Would somebody please clarify which discussion is relevant? What issues are in dispute? deisenbe (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- See the section above this one. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The entry defines the term sex offender without making mention that organizations such as Association For The Treatment Of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) recommend people first language such as “individuals who commit sexual offenses.” See Jasonwasserman (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the adjective "female" when referring to Genitalia Mutilation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Sexism "Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone..." Michaeltomasch (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done for not being an appropriate request. However, there was no indication that this was an example of a sex offense, so I simply removed the list item outright. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Harvey Weinstein?
Surprise surprise! No mention of "convicted sex offender" Harvey Weinstein. Wonder why?? 125.174.218.87 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Demographics
To the extent that reliable sources are available, it might be good to have a section about demographics. Just browsing through the database local to me, it seems that there is a slight tendency for sex offenders to be non-caucasian, but my casual search suggests the correlation is small. And they seem to be concentrated (again, not a strong correlation) in lower-income metropolitan areas. Indeed, I found a government source confirming this although it suggests that minorities are over-represented in sex offeder registries compared to their actual presence in the population.
Interestingly, I found two sources suggesting a statistically meaningful correlation with religiosity: "a strong tendency for prisoners who declare a religious faith to be serving time for sexual offences" and "religiosity was linked to a higher number of sex offense victims and more convictions for sex offenses. Those sex offenders who reported regular church attendance, a belief in supernatural punishment, and religion as important in their daily lives had more known victims, younger victims, and more convictions for sex offenses..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anachronist (talk • contribs) 02:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
References
- http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/disproportionate_minority_presence_on_u.s._sex_offender_registries_ackerman_sacks.pdf
- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prison-figures-show-a-link-between-sex-crime-and-religion-vkx53vxr8lz
- https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=237824
Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Forensic Psychology
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ColleenESullivan (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by ColleenESullivan (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Global scope
As it's written, this article is almost exclusively about the United States and doesn't provide a global overview of the subject. A lot of the information here doesn't apply to sex offenders in general. I wonder if the content specific to the United States should be split to Sex offenders in the United States or something like that? My reservation there is that tying the topic to a country like that might create a non-POV title. Pinging Absolutiva. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I preferred by adding content for United Kingdom, India, Brazil, Japan and other countries that mentioned about sex offenders worldwide, also I propose split to sex offenders in the United States, does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Absolutiva (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
Unsuccessful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sex offender/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Absolutiva (talk · contribs) 23:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 02:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I am quickfailing this on the grounds that the article has active maintenance tags, particularly the "globalize" tag. I agree with the placement of this tag as this is very United States based which is inappropriate for a broad article.
BROAD - I also doubt this passes the broadness criteria, as this is cited to a fairly small collection of not particularly high quality articles, when this is a very broad topic. This is in addition to individual reports, dubious sources like HuffPost and other news articles which are not good sources for this topic (too specific to individual cases). Generally this is a high level article and should be citing broader sources. Several of the citations are broken. There's also lots of uncited information.
NPOV - Critical Criminology tends to be a fairly fringe area of the field so I would be hesitant in giving sources of that type as much weight as this article currently does, failing NPOV. The "controversy" section makes this worse. I could dig in more to issues I see as I see more the more I look but this requires a lot of change to even approach the GA criteria. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories:- Former good article nominees
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors