Ex-Sex Offender biases seems to be illogical and lacking in Critical Thinking

[studioustudent]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA-Being involved in the sober community for over 30 years, I have noticed an ignorance and bias towards sex offenders that are also recovering human beings. Not every sex offender is a repeat offender, last statistics I saw was about 5%. Approaching 800,000 now in the U.S., 75,000 in CA. My general question is; If you are a recovering alcoholic and subsequently are required to "register", are you now barred from the very treatment(s) that can help keep you sober? Provided of course there are no children present in a detox facility; or a sober living home, isn't it (discriminatory) of a "class" of individuals, be the class of individuals alcoholic or sex offender(s); to refuse treatment based on the mere fact that they are? If it's not a protected right by law, is there any way to compel them to admit you? I ask this because it seems illogical, not to help anyone with an addiction, I would think society would want ex-offenders to be able to avail themselves of these services. Or is just part of the unforeseen consequence to society itself; branding their outcasts and ironically, increasing the danger? Is there a lawsuit here for the litigious? An "intended" result of my goal is; to get people off the street, maintain sobriety and find work. This leads a much higher probability of not re offending (in terms of addicts/alcoholics with a coexistent disease of addiction). Chasing people from established domiciles and making it impossible for them to find work both lead to the trigger(s) of relapse, and thus make people "less safe". The intended "punishment" of getting them evicted and advocating that companies don't hire them, sets up the very psychological environment which leads to criminal behavior.

 

[TheGeekess]

I'm doing my own homework. I'm not doing yours, too. And I doubt anyone else will do your homework, either.

 

[Ladyback1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA-Being involved in the sober community for over 30 years, I have noticed an ignorance and bias towards sex offenders that are also recovering human beings. Not every sex offender is a repeat offender, last statistics I saw was about 5%. Approaching 800,000 now in the U.S., 75,000 in CA. My general question is; If you are a recovering alcoholic and subsequently are required to "register", are you now barred from the very treatment(s) that can help keep you sober? Provided of course there are no children present in a detox facility; or a sober living home, isn't it (discriminatory) of a "class" of individuals, be the class of individuals alcoholic or sex offender(s); to refuse treatment based on the mere fact that they are? If it's not a protected right by law, is there any way to compel them to admit you? I ask this because it seems illogical, not to help anyone with an addiction, I would think society would want ex-offenders to be able to avail themselves of these services. Or is just part of the unforeseen consequence to society itself; branding their outcasts and ironically, increasing the danger? Is there a lawsuit here for the litigious?

Having worked with Juvenile Sexual Offenders---there was no addiction involved. These were kids 11 y/o to almost 18 y/o. They were not addicts. They were children who either had serious psychological issues or had suffered horrific abuse of their own. Just because they were children did NOT make them less of a sexual predator.
And based on my experience: Sexual predators are not addicts. Some of them are untreatable. No amount of counseling, therapy, medication, etc. will prevent them from re-offending.

(oh and just so you know: I have a family member who served 4 years for a sexual offense. He is not a sexual predator. He copped a feel on a 17 y/o at a party. He had a crap attorney who preferred plea deals... There are people who make poor decisions and commit a sexual offense out of sheer stupidity. And then there are sexual predators...)

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA-Being involved in the sober community for over 30 years, I have noticed an ignorance and bias towards sex offenders that are also recovering human beings. Not every sex offender is a repeat offender, last statistics I saw was about 5%.

That's not the whole picture though, is it?

Approaching 800,000 now in the U.S., 75,000 in CA. My general question is; If you are a recovering alcoholic and subsequently are required to "register", are you now barred from the very treatment(s) that can help keep you sober? Provided of course there are no children present in a detox facility; or a sober living home, isn't it (discriminatory) of a "class" of individuals, be the class of individuals alcoholic or sex offender(s); to refuse treatment based on the mere fact that they are? If it's not a protected right by law, is there any way to compel them to admit you? I ask this because it seems illogical, not to help anyone with an addiction, I would think society would want ex-offenders to be able to avail themselves of these services. Or is just part of the unforeseen consequence to society itself; branding their outcasts and ironically, increasing the danger? Is there a lawsuit here for the litigious?

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136

 

[studioustudent]

My username has 0 to do with my questions should I re-register with a different name?

I'm doing my own homework. I'm not doing yours, too. And I doubt anyone else will do your homework, either.

I thought this was a forum to ask intelligent questions in. I am not arguing a case, nor a current college student, I am looking for an answer to my question so I know what the legal issues are. I help people stay sober so they have better lives and transmit less damage to others. I am however a Psychology major and find these reactions noteworthy. Perhaps a paper about misconceptions and where they originate is in order. Or maybe read about I over E in your "thinking" and reactions to other people.

 

[studioustudent]

Sexual predetors not mutually exclusive or inclusive

Having worked with Juvenile Sexual Offenders---there was no addiction involved. These were kids 11 y/o to almost 18 y/o. They were not addicts. They were children who either had serious psychological issues or had suffered horrific abuse of their own. Just because they were children did NOT make them less of a sexual predator.
And based on my experience: Sexual predators are not addicts. Some of them are untreatable. No amount of counseling, therapy, medication, etc. will prevent them from re-offending.

(oh and just so you know: I have a family member who served 4 years for a sexual offense. He is not a sexual predator. He copped a feel on a 17 y/o at a party. He had a crap attorney who preferred plea deals... There are people who make poor decisions and commit a sexual offense out of sheer stupidity. And then there are sexual predators...)

My studies involve both alcoholics and sex offenders, Someone can be both, one or the other or neither. My goal is specifically concerned with alcoholics staying sober; upon which a strong foundation is essential for there to be any length of clean time. The term "sex offenders" as used by the government includes any sex offense spanning a long continuum. It includes the one time offense of; perhaps being visible to minors while urinating in a public place, to the psychotic personality that you see from time to time on television. There are different levels with different prognoses. These crimes don't happen in a vacuum, there is a chain of events that lead up to them, some of which society has an influence on and some they do not. My concern is that they are influencing things in a bad way. I only mention the number of offenders as an example of how many do not re offend given the proper environment, the structure of employment and a stable living environment provide. If 800,000 were constantly re offending, this topic would be on the news 24/7.

 

[Silverplum]

I thought this was a forum to ask intelligent questions in. I am not arguing a case, nor a current college student, I am looking for an answer to my question so I know what the legal issues are. I help people stay sober so they have better lives and transmit less damage to others. I am however a Psychology major and find these reactions noteworthy. Perhaps a paper about misconceptions and where they originate is in order. Or maybe read about I over E in your "thinking" and reactions to other people.

No, puddin'. That's not why we're here.

Perhaps a review of your manners in a new forum is in order.