I had a speaking engagement yesterday morning at a local service club’s breakfast meeting. I spoke to the group about some technological changes that are impacting the 911 Center, Lincoln Fire & Rescue, and the police department. Among the topics, I told the group about our new location-based services application, P3i. I explained that I was encouraging officers to get to know the parolees and registered sex offenders on their beat. I think this both helps in their supervision and encourages their own self-control.
An audience member just flat disagreed, and during my presentation she took me on head-to-head. She was quite adamant in disagreeing with this entire idea, and did not like this concept in any way, shape, or form. I tried to steer the Q & A in a different direction, by explaining that if she doesn’t like the sex offender registry or the concept of parole supervision her issue was with the legislature, not me. She would have none of it, though, and continued to opine in opposition quite stridently.
It was a little uncomfortable (more so, I think, for the audience than me) but I appreciated hearing her perspective, and admired her persistence and her willingness to go against the grain. She thinks forgiveness is important (me, too), and doesn’t like the idea of the police inserting themselves into the lives of past offenders in this way. It is always good to be reminded that not everyone sees things the same.
18 comments:
http://youtu.be/qRa9uhiAPBs
Hmmmm...Why in the world would anyone be opposed to that? That's just mind-boggling.
As someone who was sexually abused as a kid I can attest to the importance of forgiveness. I do not believe that forgiveness should ever be confused with ignorance. I forgave those that hurt me but I wouldn't let them around my kids unsupervised.
Being aware of the danger/risk is not the same as accusing someone because of their past with no evidence. It might benefit those trying to curb their behavior to know they are being watched a little more carefully.
Anyone who thinks that past behavior is not a good predictor of future behavior is kidding themselves. Yes people change but if sexual preditors were so easily reformed there would be no need for the public list. I hope, if people that feel forgiveness is equal to forgetting altogether have kids, they won't endanger them with a Polly Anna view of life.
Your perspective changes when you, or a loved one becomes a victim of one of these pieces of human garbage.
The ability to keep your head when someone is verbally confronting you is essential for a good LEO.
Because I lack this talent, I envy those who possess it.
Maybe the hot-tempered redhead stereotype doesn't always apply.
All predatory felons should be on the registry. Murder/manslaughter/MVH, robbery, burglary, forcible sexual assault, felony assault, and felony larceny. It does bother me that elected officials create a law which just picks out one type of crime, in order to stop their constituents from bothering them, and creates this registry for one type of predatory felony crime, but disregards the others.
Whats next? A sensor ring around the penis of preditors that souund the alarm. Not a bad idea, but funding for this task force may be an issue. And finding someone to work the detail is yet another challange.
Tom:
I'm sure you were very professional in dealing with this person who challenged your idea.
Personally, I think your idea will do much more in terms of preventing these parolees and sex-offenders from pursing their chosen life styles than the ordinance restricting where they can live does.
Anon @ 7:34 hit it right on the head: "Anyone who thinks that past behavior is not a good predictor of future behavior is kidding themselves." While it may not be true in every case, you'd be a fool to simply forgive these people and expect everything will be okay after that.
I recently started subscribing to the NetFlix streaming service. After watching several seasons of Wagon Train and Gunsmoke I found a more recent one called "My Name Is Earl".
The writers of this show must have used some of my neighbors for script ideas. A great show that gives some insight into the criminal mind.
Gun Nut
"hey look Earl, our other Cops is on" - Randy
I don't agree with the woman; however, I do believe that there can be a fine line between "getting to know" someone and harassment. As this information is more easily accessible, we will need to be aware that the possibility arises that the information will be abused. By addressing these issues in training coupled with proper screening of officer candidates, this possibility can be minimized.
Off the subject, but when will the firefighters receive time off for partaking in the policy violating pizza as did the officers partaking in the policy violating movie watching? Why Chief is there such a double standard for LPD compared to LFR. I had hoped you of all people would fix this...guess not
Now hold your horses. You are referring to a small group of citizens, who, wishing to perform a random act of kindness, decided to deliver pizzas to all the fire stations in remembrance of 9/11.
This was not something solicited by the firefighters, and since it is "food for immediate consumption" is exempt from the City's gift policy. LF&R does not have a more restrictive regulation on this subject. The circumstances bear little or no resemblance to the practice which LPD regulations have prohibited through at least the past five chiefs of police, the acceptance of free or discounted meals or similar gratuities.
If you are proposing that LF&R employees should have turned these deliveries away, I should remind you that on scores of occasions unsolicited food has been dropped off at the police station (cookies, ham, bagels, submarine sandwiches, pizza, chocolates, and apples--lots and lots of apples--come immediately to mind), which has been consumed with considerable gusto.
If you really don't understand the difference between this and the prohibited practice of a police officer--who has the power to arrest, and the obligation to enforce laws--accepting free grub from a restaurant with a liquor license, you really need to get a grip, and maybe study up on the history about police corruption in the United States.
There are a LOT of those "poor souls" that would be mortified at the thought of doing any such thing. There are 23 different offenses on the NE books that will get you placed on the registry. Most of those on the registry are law abiding ci...tizens that made a single mistake in judgement that landed them on the registry, some for life. The registry itself, operates outside the very law that created it. There is no appeal process for those on the registry nor any possibility for early release from the registry for good behavior. The registry promotes vigilantism by publicly listing even the most minor offenders to anyone with a narrow mind or cause. It basically promotes crime as it makes it almost impossible for these people to find jobs, go to school or even find a place to live so that they can become productive members of society. Even murderers can get let out and they don't have to be on some "registry"!
David Kempf
Where's your data to back up all of your claims?
To say you know why "most people" are on the list and what they did to get there is ridiculous at best.
There IS an appeal processs because I know someone who has been through it, he was off the list during the process.
There are laws on the books to protect those on the list from harrassment.
No system is perfect, I'm sure there are a FEW exceptions.
Perhaps your idea of a "single mistake of judgement" and the laws idea of it differ.
I think a lot of people might be surprised at the comparative recidivism rates for UCR Part I crimes. I know the rates, but I think it would carry more weight with blog readers if posted by a career LEO.
I have to wonder how long she has been on the registry.
With the current legislation passed in NE that has villified non-violent past offenders that had already satisfied the requirements of their sentence, parole/probation, and registering, by being retroactive, I can see her point. I know one person in particular that had slept with their HS girlfriend after he had graduated, had a child, wasn't charged until a year after when the joint custody of the child came into dispute and the parent decided to file charges. He was charged, did his 10 years on the registry and has moved on, now being married, with his own child, and STILL joint custody of his son. Now he has to re-list on the SOR, report all his movements for work and travel, list all computers that he has access too along with the accounts that go with them-and he works in IT for a major company.
It is ridiculous that he has to explain all this all over again for something that happened 14 years ago when he was barely out of highschool, and still maintains a joint custody relationship with the child and the mother. He faces limitations at work traveling to client sites and limitations as a whole because his employer is under no obligation to give NSP confidential login and password information to computers and accounts, so my friend can't always do his job. It's ridiculous that he is on the registry again thanks to the Adam Walsh Act when he was never in jeopardy of re-offending, and its ridiculous that he was on it in the first place-that the grandparents had no problems with his money and help until he decided to sue for custody, but were able to file charges a year later.
Not ever offender is a pedobear bush lurker trying to steal your child. Keep an eye on those freshman girl, senior/college freshman boy HS trysts that occur all over NE. There will be more of these situations.
Post a Comment