Family Watch Dog
 

This is a must have for every household.

Simply enter your street address, and see how many sex offenders live in your neighborhood. Find their name, street address, for what crime(s) they've been convicted, and more!

Spread this in any way you can... e-mail, websites, blogs, etc.
Everyone should have open access to this information.

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Something like this already exists in any state. You can access state websites that shows if a sex offender lives in or around your area since they are by law required to register as a sex offender. I also think that there is no reason to try to spend panic and fear amongst us since I am sure other people know about such things already.

I looked at one of these for my state and saw a woman who was my baby sitter when I was a child! I hope I haven't repressed anything.....

"Panic and fear" was not my objective. With the national rate of child abduction, rape, and murder on the rise, one couldn't possibly have too much ammo in their arsenal to protect their children. And with the rate of repeated crimes by registered offenders also rising, we should know that the registration system doesn't work unless we use it to help ourselves. IOW, protective parenting was my goal.

We just suffered an attempted abduction of a young girl at the middle school in my neighborhood less than two weeks ago, right here in laid-back, sparsely developed Cecil County, MD. I was more than happy to receive the link to FamilyWatchDog from a friend, and to pass it on in any way I could for those who might wish to use it. And I will not apologize to anyone who doesn't appreciate my efforts. I only pray that they don't have children that could possibly fall victim to one of those creeps.

Thanks for your reply, but obviously I don't take crimes against children as lightly as you.

Cheers

We are currently having a debate in Australia (been going on and off for some time) about a publicly accessible sex-offenders list.

I'm not sure about it - have there been any instances where someone has been listed wrongly? Also, would it be better just to have the Police keeping an eye on the sex-offender, and not encouraging vigilantes?

--Ian

I agree completely. Nothing is as sacred as the life of a child. Yes, I'm a parent, but even before my daughter was born I felt that nothing is as hideous of a crime as those against children. Now then, I don't get all sobby when those TV informercials come on asking for me to adopt a child in some far away land (I'm doing everything I can to keep up with the one I already have...haha), but nothing enraged me quite so much as this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20385345.htm

The first time I read that article, I was speechless. (by the way, I'm NOT trying to turn this into a debate on the war in iraq or the politics behind it...I'm just pointing to a story that REALLY upsets me).

Bottom line is, if the parents aren't defending their children in a proactive manner, then when the nightmare of child abduction or rape or murder hits, they have no one to blame but themselves...and the sad part is that it is the child that loses out the worst.

Hi, Ian;

The publicly available lists are a great plus. They give one access to necessary information to help protect their children. As far as vigilantes are concerned, we've not had any problems with that. But we just don't have enough police officers to watch everyone's every move. So yes, my vote goes for informing the public so they can protect themselves.

EDITED TO ADD: As far as someone being wrongly listed, I'm not aware of such an incident. One must confess to the crime or be convicted by a jury to be added to the list. And with today's technological advancements in DNA testing, it would be extremely difficult for that to happen.

Cheers
Bill

... I'm taking a bit of a different side here.

Ever seen South Park? In one episode, the kids pretend their parents molested them, and get them sent off to prison in Denver. The parents aren't listened to, and finnally beaten (Mentally) into submitting that they did infact touch their children innappropriatly.

Point I'm trying to make, is that a publicly viewable site listing all criminals is an invasion of privacy. Governements can keep an eye on them, sure, but what about the wrongly accused? Those who learn their ways? Are we allowed to alienate them forever?

Something needs to give though in the justice system, if a Quebec woman gets 2 years for molesting a bunch of teens, and is able to get a degree in psychology in the process, while someone's being nailed to a plank because no one beleives him/her.

I feel everyone deserves some privacy, and some forgiveness for what they have done. How would you feel if you were sent to prison, and that people could spy on your location, and could alienate you in various ways? Regardless of whether or not you're innocent, that's a violation of your rights.

Of course, child molesters aren't really people to begin with...

I watched a news article on the list and they interviewed various people on the list. Some had had sex when they and their partner were underage. Now, they both are listed. I know for a fact that most teens are already active, any idea how many "criminals" will be listed 15 years from now? The rules for the list need to be defined in a better way, that way innocent people are not viewed as felons.

I do agree with your last line to some extent. By and large, the criminals do have a mental defect. I would be all for a gov-funded program that would provide pyscological help for those that would accept it. But they won't. And the gov won't offer it. And we can't lock them away forever for child sex crimes. 10 years, 20 years, 30 years... How long is too long, or not long enough? Seems that the longer they're in lockup, the quicker they repeat their crime when they're released. So, the debate goes on. And the parents are still left with their own resources. And while we debate, who wins? The criminals. And who loses? Our children.

When crimes against children have been completely eradicated, then, AND ONLY THEN, will I agree that a sex offender has any rights to privacy.

Just a thought for everyone to ponder...

Suppose it was your 9-year-old daughter who was abducted, repeatedly raped, brutally beaten to death, and then dismembered and thrown into a dumpster, and the criminal was set free on a technicality- the arresting officer 'abused' him by cuffing him too roughly, and now you have to find your own way of protecting your remaining three children from your next-door neighbor.

How would you feel about the criminal's right to privacy, then?

I would assume that if the guy was acquitted, he wouldn't be on the register unless previously convicted of another sex offense anyway.

I am not taking crimes against children lightly, though I thought perhaps you were not already familiar that such information about sex offenders are already publicly available, and of course I do applaud your efforts.

I highly doubt due to the severity of the crime committed that the perpetrator would be let go on such a 'technicality.' Perhaps the arresting officer might face an inquery and disciplinary action, but what judge in his right mind would let someone go because a cop was a little too rough on him if the crime he was arrested for and is clearly proven against him is that severe?

Considering also that these days that most predators lurk online, but I am not eliminating the fact that there are still predators out there that physically look for their next victims, one must definetly monitor his/her own child's online usage, and no amount of blockers and cybernanny software can do squat, and whats just as bad in my opinion that some might just leave it up to using software as a 'virtual babysitter', not realizing that most young teens these days are much savvier than their parents and can find ways around that. When I will have my own child, there will be no computer in their room, and I will strictly monitor their online usage in my own home, if they won't like that tough, then no online time, and none of this myspace shit either.

[edit]

One other thing, well what if the officer had to use much more brutal force to apprehend the suspect? The suspect was resisting arrest, and so the officer was forced to either taser or pepper spray them and then shove him down? Surely that is more painful than slapping the cuffs roughly, but thats not a case for 'excessive force' at all! Plus, what if he had a gun? Then the officer's life would also be at risk, and he must defend himself, and he shoots him in the chest, but the suspect survives? How the hell can he get off by such a 'technicality'. It is just not possible.

.... IMNSHO, these lists are almost useless.
Why? Simple. Not everyone on the list will have a repeat offense, and while we plot drives away from sex offenders, our children are in danger from everyone. Instead of focusing on past offenses, we should teach our kids how to defend themselves. Two quick lessons? 1.Scream bloody murder 2.Aim for the nuts/face.

I should have been more clear on my point; criminals deserve privacy after serving their sentence. If a police officer has to use force to make sure someone who's suspected of a crime gets to the courts, so be it. If the criminal's found guilty of the crime, he should go to jail regardless of what the officer did. But if he was innocent, then he has the right to go back and bring the officer to court for abusing an innocent person (let's hope).