Talk:Sex offender

message: 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:
http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/materials/10myths.php
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.
Also, anyone care to mention the 14 year old sex offender?
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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.97.220 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More Details

message: Why is the only mention of the word female a broken link at the bottom of the page?  I think this article supports an incomplete perception that sex offenders, sexual predators, are only male. Slordax (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Double standard

message: 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?--Rookiee 18:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -Willmcw 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Sex Offenders' Register" in the UK has expanded in scope but seems to be commonly understood as covering only "child sex offences". 81.178.224.140 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested move

message: It looks like someone just copied another web page into this article. 71.179.35.115 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Watch

message: I'm sure I read about a "caution" or something similar resulting in registration. Can't remember if UK or US. Rich   Farmbrough. 21:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibley Pete Townshend? Rich   Farmbrough. 21:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Convicted"

message: 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.
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.
*"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.
*"As a result, unlike other crimes, the term "sex offender" often stigmatizes ex-convicts for the rest of their lives.
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.
*A significant portion of the public believes that those who have committed sex crimes are "incurable"...
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. 
Actually I don't see why this article exists. In the article Sex crime 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.Herostratus 06:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some redacting

message: I'm OK with merging the two articles. Herostratus 05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favor of keeping Sex offender registration separate. It definitely can support a separate article by itself. –SESmith 09:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Shaliya waya 13:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.218.226.203 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, add it to the Wiktionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfpc (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's called a penile plethysmograph, not a "plysmograph."  Daivox 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I first ran into this term in the early 1990s while doing research for a paper, so it's been around since well before 2002.    Etamni | ✉  06:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding the word plysmograph to Wikipedia

message: 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. Richardpowers1 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Daivox 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Dfpc 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Many of the studies on sex offender recidivism suffer from application of a "reverse scientific method" where the study parameters are carefully built to artificially report much higher recidivism rates. If a study is methodologically faulty, it should not be here. Many of the studies cited which have low recidivism rates are also the most straightforward and simple to verify, because the methodology is often "take list of released convicts, see if they were convicted of another sex offense within X years of release, count up the results and calculate a recidivism percentage." Contrast this with studies such as that by Langevin et al, showing "an 88.3% recidivism rate" only by cherry-picking the study subjects and artificially inflating figures to maximize the number. http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/cjc/cjc48a1.html Daivox (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recividism rates

message: 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 Wikipedia 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. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 WP:MOS. 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. Doc  Tropics 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! Doc  Tropics 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections. I watch this article as a function of WP:CRIME. Some of the articles are a mess and need a hatchet and forty whacks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgia

message: 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. Daivox (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section needs a rewrite

message: 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. Daivox (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Therapies section is poorly written

message: Why does this only feature infomation about the USA? This article is far too biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.140.83 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Tyciol (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: USA

message: 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? Doc  Tropics 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! Daivox (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 undue weight 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 speculation (OR). 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. Doc  Tropics 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recidivism

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.79.188 (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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).
Also, it says "punishment" when this law was specifically positioned as an "administrative" action NOT punishment.  That is how (at least in the US) our government managed to get it ex-post-facto.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.247.73.130 (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.131.224 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims: Adam Walsh 

message: I added to the external links on the mainpage a link to ATSA, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.  Although I doubt that that is controversial, I feel I should point out that I am a member of that organization, and am the editor of their research journal.— James Cantor (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosure. 

message: This sentence in the lead bothers me: "Pandering obscenity offences range from the possession of the book, within the United States, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure by author John Cleland,..." I thought that Memoirs v. Massachusetts had established that the work was not obscene. It sounds as if being found in possession of this work is still grounds for being declared a sex offender. It sounds like a misstatement. --Auric (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Fanny Hill still obscene? 

message: The Recidivism section makes a couple important misrepresentations:
1.  The wiki states that the DOJ study found that "recidivism" rates among sex offenders was 5.3%.  The study clearly states that the 5.3% number was not for "recidivism," but for "rearrests"--the distinction is HUGE.  Also, this rate covers only the three years immediately following release.
2.  The article then fails to present the vital fact that the DOJ study found that only 1.3% of non-sex offenders were rearrested within the same three years.  The study itself states:  "... the 5.3% rearrest rate for the 9,691 released sex offenders was 4 times higher [than the non-sex offender rate]."  The section introduces bias by deliberately ignoring the comparison data in the same study immediately followed by the data for rearrests for any offense (tending to further lead the reader to a different conclusion than might be reached by the inclusion of the comparison data) and listing only the conviction rate for the sex offender group.
Because the article derives its authority in this section in large part from the DOJ study, it is important that the study not be misrepresented in the article.
Papasavant (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation of Recidivism Rates in DOJ Study 

message: The section on registration includes information about residency restrictions, but, in addition to being biased towards the US (which is noted at the top of the page, so okay I guess), it also presents state and locality specific restrictions as though they applied everywhere. Residency restrictions are HIGHLY variable, and this is incredibly misleading. Residency restrictions are so controversial that I feel they deserve, if not a separate article or separate subject heading, at least a separate component under registration. The specific restrictions that are currently listed should say to which jurisdictions they apply, and the others should note that they are merely examples of common residency stipulations. I can come back and make edits later if no one else does, but I'm not as familiar with wiki guidelines so I'm hesitant to do so. I can provide resources as needed. The misconceptions about residency restrictions are so problematic that the general public is constantly confused. I'd love to see this wiki article be something people could use to get some clarification, instead of becoming even MORE confused. Elimeny (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residency Restrictions 

message: I work for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) and see that one of the external links to our website is no longer valid. 
Please replace the External Link: "Facts about Sex Offenders (ATSA)" with "Ten Things You Should Know About Sex Offenders and Treatment" (http://www.atsa.com/ten-things-you-should-know-about-sex-offenders-and-treatment). 
50.39.116.36 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done I have made the requested change. Thanks for letting us know. Keith D (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 6 March 2012 

message: Finnish pedophile who killed 2 little girls and raped them  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.228.228 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jammu Siltavuori 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Post-incarceration_registries_and_restrictions
1st sentence in this section.
"A sex offender registry is a system in place in a number of jurisdictions designed to allow authorities to keep track of the residence and activity of sex offenders (including those released from prison))." ← Why two parentheses? This is bothering me.
74.183.49.231 (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thanks for pointing it out. Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 5 June 2012 

message: Hi I'm doing a class project to edit Wikipedia and I was thinking about adding a section that deals with the use of phallometry on sex offenders in applied behavioral analysis. I also wanted to mention the dangers of sex offenders with developmental disabilities. What do you think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenniwey (talk • contribs) 18:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Class edits

message: This paragraph has some serious flaws:
Megan's Law, in the U.S., is designed to sanction sex offenders and reduce their recidivism rate. The law is enacted and enforced on a state-by-state basis. Most states also restrict where convicted sex offenders can live after their release, prohibiting residency within a designated distance of schools and daycare centers (usually 1,000–2,000 feet (300–610 m)). Guided by the 2007 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, sex offenders must avoid of such areas as schools, bus stops, gyms, recreation centers, playgrounds, parks, swimming pools, libraries, nursing homes, and places of worship by 500 to 2,500 feet (150 to 760 m). However, residence stipulations vary from state to state. Some states (such as Arkansas, Illinois, Washington and Idaho) do not require sex offenders to move from their residences if a forbidden facility is built or a law is enacted after the offender takes up residency.
Errors: 
1. The AWA does NOT mandate residency restrictions (RRs) at all. RRs have nothing to do with AWA and vice versa, not to mention most states' RRs preceded AWA
2. The intent of Megan's Law and its predecessor the Jacob Wetterling Act, was not intended to "sanction" as it is supposedly "regulatory/civil in nature. At least that was the justification SCOTUS used in the 2003 Smith v Doe decision, but to provide a list of potential suspects in the event of a missing person case. And there should be mention made of the studies that find no link between the registry and reduced recidivism in the interest of fairness.
3. The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) was signed into law in 2006, not 2007
4. There are two famous studies, a 2003 Colorado Dept of Public Safety study from 2003 and a Minnesota Dept of Corrections study in 2004, that found no correlation between residences and recidivism. Also, it is worth noting a number of municipalities are scaling back residency laws, as did the state of Iowa in 2009 (see http://www.oncefallen.com/residencylaws.html for more on this)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimaHolyFlare (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Residency Restrictions 

message: Both reference link 16 and 17 are broken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.162.165 (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Reference Links 

message: I'd like to point something out in the section of the article listing various sex offenders. They have Ottis Toole listed as a sex offender and claims that he confessed to multiple rapes & murders. But the wikipedia article on Ottis Toole makes absolutely no mention of him confessing to any rapes. And Toole was in fact not a rapist or sex offender but was a serial murderer and arsonist and sexual offenses were not a part of his modus oparandi. The murder of Adam Walsh was just that, a murder, a very heinous one. But it did not involve sexual assault or a sexual motive. There was no indication at all that Adam was sexually assaulted or that his abduction and murder was sexually motivated in any way. So I have to question why the Adam Walsh act targets sex offenders instead of murderers, arsonists, and other violent criminals. Even the wikipedia page on Adam Walsh only mentions murder and says nothing about sexual assault or sexual motive. Not that wikipedia is the authority on the matter but other complete and authoritative articles on the matter make no mention of sexual assault or motive either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.57.240 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies In This Wiki's Mention Of Ottis Toole & The Ottis Toole Wiki 

message: All right, thanks to everyone for jumping in to discuss. I had no idea a POV template was such good tinder, and I'm a little overwhelmed by the above conflagration.  I plead guilty to not reading the refs beyond noticing that most were WP:RS, and I'm open to the opinion that I am falling victim to the Just world fallacy or personal bias in assuming that US sex-offense legislation is not a human-rights problem; I'm willing to believe that it's a mainstream academic opinion that US laws are too punitive and ineffective, although I still think it would be activism to have that fact be the focus of the article. I apologize for anything I said which strayed from WP:AGF; my original complaint didn't name any particular editors, and I naîvely thought that would prevent anyone from being upset (although ViperFace has been very restrained and civil about the whole thing, considering how many hours of their work are at stake). The above miasma probably wasn't the ideal way to bring out and explain the appropriate policies and guidelines (to review: WP:NPOV, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SOAP, WP:TE, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:DBQ, WP:BRD), but they're there now and I think we're ready to start rebuilding the article. I think Herostratus's comment of 18:30, 4 December is spot-on; I'm putting my suggestions in a new section below. FourViolas (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Conciliatory statements and moving on

message: It is argued that in U.S. sex offenders have been selected as the new realization of moral panics about sex, stranger danger, and national paranoia, the new folk devils or boogeymen. People convicted of any sex crime are "transformed into a concept of evil, which is then personified as a group of faceless, terrifying, and predatory devils", who are contrary to scientific evidence perceived as constant threat in our neighborhoods, habitually waiting for opportunity to attack. Consequently, sex offenders are brought up by media on Halloween, despite there has never been recorded case of abduction or abuse by a registered sex offender on Halloween.
	 
Academics, treatment professionals and law reformist groups as RSOL and WAR criticize current sex offender laws being based on media driven moral panic and "public emotion", rather than advised attempt to protect the society, attracting the legislators to deliver knee-jerk laws which echoes "populist punitiveness" to counter the public hysteria, and to collect votes by appearing conspicuously vigilant on subjects related to sex offenders. One discrepancy pointed out by critics, is that John Walsh, father of Adam Walsh and supporter of Adam Walsh Act has admitted having a relationship with a 16 year old girl while being on his early 20s and aware of age of consent being 17 in New York, meaning that, had he been convicted, John Walsh himself could required to to register. Since passage of Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Walsh himself has criticized the law, stating "You can't paint sex offenders with a broad brush."
Critics point out that contrary to the media depictions, abductions by predatory offenders are very rare and 95% of child abuse is committed by perpetrator known to the child, as well as U.S Department of Justice studies finding sex offender recidivism to be 5.3% which compares as second lowest of all offender groups, only those convicted of homicide having lower rate of recidivism.
Critics say that, while originally aimed at the worst offenders, as a result of moral panic; the laws have gone through series of amendments, many named after victim of highly publicized predatory offense, expanding the scope of the laws to low-level offenders, and treating them the same as predatory offenders, leading to disproportional punishment of ending on public sex offender registry, and subjecting them to strict rules restricting movement and residency. The media narrative of sex offenders, highlighting egregious offenses as typical behavior of a sex offender, and distorting the facts of cases, the panic has increased leading legislators to attack judicial discretion, by making registration mandatory based on offense of conviction, without considering the likelihood to re-offend or the actual severity of the crime, thus catching less serious offenders under the harsh sex offender laws.--ViperFace (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy (proposal)

message: I am becoming increasing concerned by User:MONGO's unproductive behaviour here and at the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act page.  Mongo's comments such as these  are both unnecessarily antagonistic and entirely devoid of any content-based or policy-based argument.  Mongo's is editing simply out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  As I said in a diff comment, the material on these pages likely fall within the discretionary sanctions imposed by the Sexology case.  I must caution Mongo to tread carefully and to make any future edits with specific references to content or policy.  Mongo's statements such as "You guys seem to be very specifically focused on degrading articles. That isn't going to happen here or anywhere else on this website" are counter-consensus and disruptive. 
— James Cantor (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What we can do Mr. Cantor is open up a new case or reopen the Sexology arbcom case and let the arbitrators decide if your actions on these types of articles are either beneficial or not so. Since your opinion of such issues, citing almost exclusively opinion pieces and weak evidentiary   correlations then it definitely looks like an effort to degrade related articles and POV push fringe concepts for which there is no substantive proof.--MONGO 12:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do.— James Cantor (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: ViperFace clarified that he understands what I meant. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale reversions by [[User:MONGO]]

message: http://www.annexpublishers.com/full-text/JFSC/503/Tame-to-torture-psychosexual-correlations-of-sex-violence-and-torture.php - 
49.204.108.11 (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have just added a URL, not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014 

message: I think I can find good sources for risk assessment https://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/sexassessment.pdf, http://forensicpsychology.co.uk/downloads/CraigNewDirectionsCon2013.pdf, http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/2003-abuse/wright.pdfmeasures and propose some edits.  There are measures involving static https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf variables,  those that do not change, such as number of convictions, age of first victim, etc., and there are instruments which measure dynamichttp://cjb.sagepub.com/content/27/1/6.short, http://205.193.1.8/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/dnmc-prdctrs-sxl/dnmc-prdctrs-sxl-eng.pdf,(scroll down on that reference, it's a document) https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf, risk factors, those that can have variance over time), i.e., environmental factors, level of cooperation with supervision, treatment compliance, etc.), and general information about the static/dynamic risk assessment model: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf, http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch6_risk.html, http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pprchs-rsksmt/index-eng.aspx,http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html(this last one has good findings but it's not loading properly on my machine).  I will propose some language and sources here on the talk page and am leaving this note for comments and ideas as I'm going along.  Should I work up some edits in my own sandbox first and then move them here later?  --Cityside189 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to separate this comment from the references below, it looks like they follow immediately and belong to my comment, is there a way to box them off, so when I propose new ones they are somewhat apart?  --Cityside189 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Your best bet is to make incremental changes to the existing risk-assessment section, ensuring each is well-sourced and meets WP:NPOV.  Try not to put undo weight on any particular risk-assessment methodology, but rather attempt to determine which methodologies have the most support in the treatment community, and balance those with any that have significant support, even if not the first choice of the majority.  Who knows, perhaps this section will grow to the point that it does merit its own article, but that should not be the goal right now. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offender risk assessment instruments 

message: RE: The level of sexual recidivism in sexual offenders is lower than is commonly believed.  I think this statement should be removed.  It leans the article toward a point of view such as "everybody thinks sex offender risk is X, but it really is less than that".  It's a generalization and speaks about what's "commonly believed" without adequate references.  It also reminds me of the apologetic or minimizing tone this editor has been criticized for earlier in the talk page. pinging   I don't know if this the right thing to do in the culture here but I figure it can't hurt to call out for your opinions.   --Cityside189 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it does suggest that popular belief is incorrect, and this might be perceived as POV pushing.  That said, I also believe it is an accurate statement.  I've heard people talk about this subject, and the common consensus seems to be informed by prime-time television police dramas, rather than by any systematic attempt to learn facts.  The statement is immediately followed by sourced information explaining what the actual recidivism rate is.  Technically, we could require someone to find a source proving what popular belief is, but I don't see any point in that, and the situation is likely covered by WP:Blue.  As an opening sentence in a section, it sets clear expectations what the section is about and is, itself, supported by the information that follows.  (For comparison, if the residents near a mountain lake all believe their lake is pure and unpolluted, but scientific testing showed high levels of mercury and lead, it wouldn't be POV pushing to tell them the results of said testing; it would just be explaining facts.)  Others will likely have differing viewpoints. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I have added RS to support the statement, which I somehow failed to do when editing that part.  and  ViperFace (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:Viperface, and I apologize to you for not reading more about this before suggesting a removal.  (I originally typed out "...should be removed, repaired or sourced" but then got more and more tired as the evening went on and went for brevity.  And a tip of the hat to you for being a thorough worker.  A question I have now is should the sentence be paraphrased as not to be a direct word-for-word quotation of Harris' article?  But he does say it very succinctly and maybe it's best for the direct quote? (can we use quotes here, i.e., "Andrew Harris, leading researcher in recidivism research has said that 'The level of sexual recidivism in sexual offenders is lower than is commonly believed'.< ref>?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I was just typing longer response as I did not have time to respond properly at the time of my last post, but there was edit conflict. Anyway here's copy paste of what I tried to post just two minutes ago: It might be wise to break down the recidivism rates further as it is known that certain offender groups have considerably higher rate of recidivism than that of all sex offenders as aggregate. I have read studies, if I recall right, that put recidivism rate of rapists of adult women, and those convicted of molesting pre-pubescent boys somewhere around 25%-30%. Furthermore, those classified as sexually violent predators have even higher rate of recidivism. @Cityside189: I'm not being apologetic for any crime but I do recognize the gaping injustice and disproportionality of consequences when handing this label out like candy. Sex offender is a broad label that is attached to people like Jesse Timmendequas, like it should be, like it was originally intended. Nowadays, it's also attached to couples having sex on beach or people like Zach Anderson. Latter cases are nothing less than absurd. They are also blatant violations of human rights considering all the restrictions and stigma attached to this label. Totally disproportional to crimes committed. To me, it's beyond mind boggling that something like this is taking place in civilized western country. I recognize my personal POV might bring NPOV issues to my editing but I expect the community to address them in civil way to reach consensus, just like you have done here. What I don't wish to see are counter-consensus things that recently took place in Talk:Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_and_Safety_Act. I salute you for your efforts in improving risk assessment section. ViperFace (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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

message: The first paragraph under the Recidivism section reads as follows:
"The level of sexual recidivism in sexual offenders is lower than is commonly believed.[4][5] A 2002 study by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the United States Department of Justice following 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 US states in 1994 indicated that within the first 3 years following their release rearrest and reconviction rates for new sex offenses were 5.3 and 3.5 percent, respectively; that is, about 1 in 19 of released sex offenders were later arrested for another sex crime. The same study found that 68 percent of released non-sex offenders were re-arrested for any crime (both sex and non-sex offenses), while 43 percent of the released sex offenders were rearrested for any crime (and 24 percent reconvicted for any crime).[6]"
The last sentence is utterly meaningless because it omits any time frame.
Will someone who is knowledgeable on this subject please fix it so that it makes sense and can somehow be compared with the earlier portion of this paragraph? 
Or else, please just delete it. We do not need or want meaningless statistics in Wikipedia.Daqu (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Time frame is the same, 3 years. ViperFace (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recidivism nonsense 

message: What would you think about the idea of editing the article in some places to make it more readable for a general audience, average level of reading ability etc.  I think there are a bunch of advanced graduate level, and/or post-doc contributors here, who are making the article more and more refined, and also perhaps a bit more confusing for general readers who may get lost in technical descriptions.   For example I might add some very general comments to the risk assessment section that explains what the tests are designed to measure, to give readers an overview. 
--Cityside189 (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there needs to be a way of balancing the needs of the general public (reading this article) with the needs of other more advanced users.  An explanation of terms used, or links to appropriate articles about those items, would not be out of place.  It's important that any summary be just a summary, and not a synthesis unsupported by the original material. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  21:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing for general readers 

message: Hello and thanks for the ongoing collaboration.   I saw this sentence in the "Overview section":  The term "sexual predator" is often used to describe a sex offender or any of the "tier offenders"; however, only the category just below sexually-violent sexual predator is reserved for a severe or repeated sex offender: sexual predator.  The article hadn't introduced "tier offender" before that point and I think it relates to, for example, the New York State SORA registry, where there are three levels/tiers.  But I'm not sure if that's what is meant.  How about "The term "sexual predator" is often used to describe a sex offender or any of the most serious offenders assigned to a tier/level system (i.e., 1, 2, or 3), with higher numbers indicating more serious offenses.  The category just below "sexually-violent sexual predator" is reserved for a severe or repeated sex offender and is thus labelled "sexual predator".      ???   
--Cityside189 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  question in overview, sentence 

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

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

message: Seems like undue emphasis on a particular element of the scholarship, that might be better suited as a subsection of sex offender- vergining on an essay when the main article doesn't include this topic. Sadads (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has since been deleted. Assuming the tag is no longer valid, I'll remove it. -- Chamith (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Denial and minimization in sex offenders]] 

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

message: Jacob Wetterling: Kidnapped at age 11 from his Minnesota hometown in 1989 and has not been seen since.
You should add:
Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped and murdered Oktober 22, 1989. He was found September 1, 2016 and Danny Heinrich confessed to the murder and kidnapping. 62.92.45.220 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: done: thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017 

message: Here's a link to a recent, 2017-09-12, New York Times op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html
--196.251.88.15 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court' NYT link 

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

message: The lede section of this article strikes me as non-neutral, because it emphasizes "failures" of sex-offender classifications. CapitalSasha ~ talk 07:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Here's the lede:
So what specifically's the problem here? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, just need more info. Herostratus (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

message: "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)
replies: text: See the section above this one. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the neutrality dispute about? 

message: Please remove the adjective "female" when referring to Genitalia Mutilation. [First paragraph of document.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019 

message: Surprise surprise!  No mention of "convicted sex offender" Harvey Weinstein.  Wonder why?? 125.174.218.87 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvey Weinstein? 

message: — Assignment last updated by ColleenESullivan (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Forensic Psychology