U.S. appeals court says sex offenders have right to libraries

This is a good news/bad news scenario; the good news is that the judges have ruled on the side of the Constitution and against discrimination. The bad news is that the judges, honored individuals in high positions, those to whom people listen when they speak, those who have a responsibility to themselves, the courts, and the people they serve to get it right, are so ill-informed that they can actually, in what I will assume was good faith, make this statement: "We therefore are especially mindful that registered sex offenders, whom studies have confirmed have a considerable rate of recidivism, may threaten to shatter the peace and safety of this environment." No, your honors, studies have not confirmed that. Studies have confirmed the exact opposite. Not to insult your abilities to research it for yourselves, but here is just one such finding you will make when you do that research: "The USDOJ reported that twenty four states posted sex offender recidivism statistics, and their average was 4.22% committed new sex crimes."
Please, please do that research. Please find for yourselves everything that reputable studies reveal about recidivism for registrants. Please.

Shelly, we appreciate your comment and attempt to correct the court's misstatement of fact. Unfortunately the courts inherit "assumptions" via previous court rulings. The statement stems from early cases, especially in the SCOTUS rulings early on, where that court was presented with statistical evidence that was not current, incomplete and in error and not controverted at the time of the decision. The City Of Albuquerque used similar language in it's defense and appeals based on SCOTUS law and precedent. The 10th Circuit Appeals Court can not rule on something that has not been presented as evidence at and in the record. The opportunity to present or controvert what is now factually a "myth" never presented in this case. There a a number of SCOTUS case that would have to overturned or new rulings made in new cases to change this unfortunate set of circumstances. This filters down into State, County, and Municipal governing bodies; many who base their laws and ordinances on this incorrect assumption.

We strongly suggest working on the local level to educate elected officials on the facts backed up with the numerous contemporary studies done not only by the USDOJ but many States themselves. Often the recidivism studies done in the past include inflationary information: parole violation, probation violation, failure to register, and NON register-able sex crimes such as theft, felony DUI, etc. Consider this a call to get both the media, courts, and legislators to do studies where the definition of "recidivism" concerning sex offenders is the commission of NEW sex crime and not some no related offense.

When non registered sex crimes are taken out of the recidivism number it results in a range of 1.8% to 5.3% The 1.8% by the way was the result of a 2010 study that included New Mexico ... that was the number for New Mexico!

Shelly Stow wrote:

This is a good news/bad news scenario; the good news is that the judges have ruled on the side of the Constitution and against discrimination. The bad news is that the judges, honored individuals in high positions, those to whom people listen when they speak, those who have a responsibility to themselves, the courts, and the people they serve to get it right, are so ill-informed that they can actually, in what I will assume was good faith, make this statement: "We therefore are especially mindful that registered sex offenders, whom studies have confirmed have a considerable rate of recidivism, may threaten to shatter the peace and safety of this environment." No, your honors, studies have not confirmed that. Studies have confirmed the exact opposite. Not to insult your abilities to research it for yourselves, but here is just one such finding you will make when you do that research: "The USDOJ reported that twenty four states posted sex offender recidivism statistics, and their average was 4.22% committed new sex crimes."
Please, please do that research. Please find for yourselves everything that reputable studies reveal about recidivism for registrants. Please.

That's really low recidivism. also, public libraries mostly have security guards, AND you should not be using them to baby-sit your kids either.

Fairly Low wrote:

<quoted text>
public libraries mostly have security guards

You mean those old man who don't carry guns and are hunched over with bad backs?

Just what can they do if they ask someone to leave and that person shoves them, not much, to old, not enough energy to defend themselves, someone would have to call 911 to get help for the "security guard".

And I have not seen one yet in three of the libraries I have been to here in ABQ.

So your comment MOST should say a few, or some but for sure not all have security guards.

The problem is the expansive definition of "sex offender", which now includes a lot more than your traditional pervert.

Some years ago I prosecuted pedophiles. Real pedophiles. The recidivism rate among them was very, very high.

Strel wrote:

The problem is the expansive definition of "sex offender", which now includes a lot more than your traditional pervert.
Some years ago I prosecuted pedophiles. Real pedophiles. The recidivism rate among them was very, very high.

Sounds as if you are a lawyer or in the legal field, so answer this question and it is not being a smartazz, I have read in the past that there is some type of medicine plus shock treatment that is suppose to help them change their mind set on little kids etc.

It stated that it cut the recidivism by around 35% or so, any truth to that and if so is it only a few states like CA that use this treatment or is it nationwide or just another false experiment being pushed as a way to get government money?

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds as if you are a lawyer or in the legal field, so answer this question and it is not being a smartazz, I have read in the past that there is some type of medicine plus shock treatment that is suppose to help them change their mind set on little kids etc.
It stated that it cut the recidivism by around 35% or so, any truth to that and if so is it only a few states like CA that use this treatment or is it nationwide or just another false experiment being pushed as a way to get government money?

That sounds more or less correct. I used to specialize in prosecuting physicians for various things, including sex offenses involving their patients. I could tell you some stories...and people hate lawyers! They have no idea the kind of stuff docs get up to.

Anyway, the really bad ones we sent to the Physician's Recovery Network (that's what it was called in the 90's) in Atlanta, where they did something like what you describe - and not unlike the "Ludovico technique" from A Clockwork Orange. Rather unpleasant, or so I have heard. They claimed that without this treatment the bad ones - the real ones- had a ridiculously high recidivism rate.

Whether it really worked or not I couldn't tell you for sure. The defense lawyers talked it up, of course, while begging the Board of Medicine to have mercy on their client. The provider of course claimed that it was effective. I don't really know because most of the ones I busted for sex offenses were either normal guys that just got involved with the wrong female patient (I tried to go light on them, they weren't really sex offenders, just stupid horny guys) or they were truly bad, in which case I usually got their license permanently revoked so we never heard from them again...

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
That sounds more or less correct. I used to specialize in prosecuting physicians for various things, including sex offenses involving their patients. I could tell you some stories...and people hate lawyers! They have no idea the kind of stuff docs get up to.
Anyway, the really bad ones we sent to the Physician's Recovery Network (that's what it was called in the 90's) in Atlanta, where they did something like what you describe - and not unlike the "Ludovico technique" from A Clockwork Orange. Rather unpleasant, or so I have heard. They claimed that without this treatment the bad ones - the real ones- had a ridiculously high recidivism rate.
Whether it really worked or not I couldn't tell you for sure. The defense lawyers talked it up, of course, while begging the Board of Medicine to have mercy on their client. The provider of course claimed that it was effective. I don't really know because most of the ones I busted for sex offenses were either normal guys that just got involved with the wrong female patient (I tried to go light on them, they weren't really sex offenders, just stupid horny guys) or they were truly bad, in which case I usually got their license permanently revoked so we never heard from them again...

Interesting indeed, and correct about lawyers and not to change the subject most politicians are lawyers, why we hate them so much. LOL

Anyway sounds like the information I have read about so there truly is no way to really know how well it does work considering both sides claim it does etc.

Would I be correct they still use this sort of treatment today or say more improved types or is it really still experimental at best?

Come to think of it there was some treatment in CA several years ago where they did some type of surgical removal of a part of the male anatomy, not sure how much of that portion was removed or exactly what was done but never did follow up research on it.

My interest was more due to my wifes work as a PO and in the medical field so I heard things and my brother in laws being in LE.

The stories one hears from those who deal with the scum of our society!

Let sex offenders go to libraries, without guards.

That is, in prison libraries, with the general population.

WorkingStiff wrote:

Let sex offenders go to libraries, without guards.
That is, in prison libraries, with the general population.

Now now WS, how can they offend anyone there, I mean do you think they just might try and offend each other?

Might be the best thing to ever happen, but them all in one big cell put curtains over it so the guards cannot watch and let them go at each other.

Sex Offenders Orgy !

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

<quoted text>
Now now WS, how can they offend anyone there, I mean do you think they just might try and offend each other?
Might be the best thing to ever happen, but them all in one big cell put curtains over it so the guards cannot watch and let them go at each other.
Sex Offenders Orgy !

Heh.

No, put them in the general prison population. Then make sure everyone knows they are pedos.

Things usually get worked out for the best. ;) Remember Dahmer? They beat him so bad his head almost came off.

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean those old man who don't carry guns and are hunched over with bad backs?
Just what can they do if they ask someone to leave and that person shoves them, not much, to old, not enough energy to defend themselves, someone would have to call 911 to get help for the "security guard".
And I have not seen one yet in three of the libraries I have been to here in ABQ.
So your comment MOST should say a few, or some but for sure not all have security guards.

So are you a sex offender hanging out at the library? You sure do seem to know a lot about the status of armed or unarmed guards at libraries. Do you log in to here to cover up the fact that you're spying on little kids?

Come On wrote:

<quoted text>
So are you a sex offender hanging out at the library? You sure do seem to know a lot about the status of armed or unarmed guards at libraries. Do you log in to here to cover up the fact that you're spying on little kids?

He couldn't get a date with Rohypnol, dude1

LOL wrote:

<quoted text>
He couldn't get a date with Rohypnol, dude1

SCREW YOU GAY BOY.

And your lover of a thousand names in la la land too.

I hear you love hot curling irons pushed up your back door, and not the house door either.

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

<quoted text>
SCREW YOU GAY BOY.
And your lover of a thousand names in la la land too.
I hear you love hot curling irons pushed up your back door, and not the house door either.

Hey now, I thought this thread was about sex offenders and the public library. Not you professing your love for the guy from Santa Fe thread. Nor do we want to hear about your sick, sick same sex perversions. I just hope there are no children on this forum for their sake.

ACLU Asinine Coward Lawyers Union

Strel wrote:

The problem is the expansive definition of "sex offender", which now includes a lot more than your traditional pervert.
Some years ago I prosecuted pedophiles. Real pedophiles. The recidivism rate among them was very, very high.

so if they reduced the scope of the expanded definition, you would support the legislation?

Come On wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey now, I thought this thread was about sex offenders and the public library. Not you professing your love for the guy from Santa Fe thread. Nor do we want to hear about your sick, sick same sex perversions. I just hope there are no children on this forum for their sake.

I have a very sneaking feeling you and him are one and the same, just figured out how to change your location.

Besides I am a straight guy, married and not the least bit interested in any male or she/male or female other than my wife.

So if you want to go make love to your boyfriend go right ahead, I could care less.

He doesnt wrote:

<quoted text>
so if they reduced the scope of the expanded definition, you would support the legislation?

Personally I think pedophiles and other true sexual predators should be taken out back of the courthouse and shot.

Fortunately it doesn't matter what I think. I'd have to see the legislation to know whether it was constitutional or not. The problem with a some of the current legislation is that it is seriously overbroad, catching horny teenagers who are otherwise normal and branding them as a sex offender for life...

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a very sneaking feeling you and him are one and the same, just figured out how to change your location.
Besides I am a straight guy, married and not the least bit interested in any male or she/male or female other than my wife.
So if you want to go make love to your boyfriend go right ahead, I could care less.

I have a sneaky feeling that you are very wrong. And, again, with the homosexual references. Being married doesn't mean anything these days anyway. Who knows, you might be using that marriage as a deflection for who you really are.