Talk:Sex offender/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Massive POV and neutrality problems

The article is currently a disastrous example of POV-pushing and WP:Activism by people who seem to be trying to minimize the severity of sexual offenses and criticize the "excessively harsh" treatment of sex offenders. Examples:

• The definitional sentence includes the activist minimization "a person who has committed....in some instances mere public urination."
• The "Overview" starts with a mention that "many jurisdictions are reforming their laws to prevent the over-prosecution of sex offenders" re: child porn.
• There's an entire, fairly large section (admittedly well-sourced) on "sex offender panic" and how sex offenders are not as bad as you think they are (low recidivism, sexual offense laws a product of "intelligent dishonesty and populism thriving on moral panic", whatever that means)
• WP:WEASEL words are liberally distributed: "some critics," "some have argued," "many academics," "considered cruel by many."

There are other issues (persistent copyediting problems, a "See also" full of editorial memorializations of victims and lists of trivial offenders), but the above are the major POV points. I'm tagging the page as "disputed neutrality," because User:ExpatSalopian's comment above drew no effective response. FourViolas (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The only person I see editing the article in the way you have a problem with is ViperFace (talk · contribs). Before ViperFace's edits, the article had come to a very sporadically edited state. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And as his contributions show, he's been editing in that way at other articles as well. I'm not currently very interested in policing his additions and trying to figure out what past Wikipedia account he edited under (yes, his editing history tells me that he is not at all new to editing Wikipedia). But if he takes that type of editing to the Child sexual abuse or Child pornography article, I won't be tolerating it much at all. Flyer22 (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,FourViolas (talk · contribs) and Flyer22 (talk · contribs) Actually I am new in editing Wikipedia and I don't even live in U.S. but in Europe, Finland and am not myself affected by any of your legislation. I'm an academic student so that's why I don't do that much "rookie"- mistakes and might appear more experienced. Yes, I do see a blatant human right problem which has been addressed by HRW, twice actually while the rest of the world does not even know about the issue, so I might have some POV problems, but please if you see them try to convert them into neutral. Actually the weasel word problem is only one I might be guilty of, I try to take care of it ASAP. Anyway, I don't think I have asserted anything controversial without adding appropriate references. There is huge body of research that is over looked and not even mentioned in many of the articles I have edited. There are a lot of news articles about consensual teenage relationships leading to sex offender registration as well as mentions of mere public urination possibly landing someone in the registry. I have not written the part "a person who has committed....in some instances mere public urination.", nor any other parts of the "Overview" that are being disputed for that matter, but may I ask: why should it not be mentioned if public urination can land one in the registry? No one has minimized the severity of child molestation or rape, but pointed out that some rather mild offenses may lead to registration. I see this information pretty relevant. If it is not relevant, please tell why it is not and should be left out. "The sex offender panic" is solely written by me and the last sentence is probably crappy, since English is not my first language. I have no intentions to edit Child sexual abuse or Child pornography. IMO some of the articles covering the issues are poorly written and could be made more coherent, but this far I have restrained my self from deleting any info and tried only to add more, since I'm new here. ViperFace (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2014‎ (UTC)

ViperFace (talk · contribs), being an academic student does not explain how you were able to edit like this on the first day you edited Wikipedia as ViperFace. Plenty of academics have edited Wikipedia and they usually do not edit like that (with citation templates and correct reference formatting) as soon as they start; even WP:Student editors, whether guided by their teachers or not, often don't have the Wikipedia citation formatting skills that you have. I can't be convinced that you are entirely new to editing Wikipedia. The way that you sign your posts (I added your time stamp for you above), and the way that you copied me above concerning linking usernames makes me think that you are somewhat new to editing Wikipedia (I linked your username that way so that others can easily see your contributions). But that's as far as my "You are new here" thought process is willing to go with you. As for the rest, you are somewhat POV-pushing, and that needs to stop. I'm certain that the vast majority of people do not look at consensual teenage sexual relationships as sex offender cases, except for in the cases where one teenager is significantly older than the other, such as a 13-year-old and a 19-year-old, and many people cannot see how that is at all consensual. But a rapist or child sexual abuser (meaning a non-teenage adult with a child or a minor that is not close-in-age)? Those are different matters, and researchers have a lot more opinions on those matters than the minor sexual offenses you've referred to above, without there being any sort of consensus that such offenders generally are not harmful if let back into society; this is especially the case for adults who have sexually abused a prepubescent child and might be a pedophile.

Also, there is no need to ping me to this talk page; it's on my WP:Watchlist. I won't ping you to it anymore if you state that it's on your WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what to say. Citation templates come automatically from the left corner of the edit window. I don't think one has to be a rocket scientist to employ deliberately user-friendly features, altough I did quite a lot errors in the begining. Luckilu there is "Show preview option. And when I don't know what to do I simply copy/paste what others are doing and replace the relevant parts. What comes to rest of your message, it's missing the point. No one is advocating for 19 year old with 13 year old. the point is that academic researchers are criticising the way sex offenders are handled in society. The habitual predatory offenders who should not be released in first place IMO are treated the same way than 19 year offender who has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and it continues decades, even if those two get married and try to build life together, regardless of how vast majority of people looks it. If you don't know this, please research the subject. It has happened and will continue to happen. Critics claim that there is no differentiation between different level offenders and the whole group of offenders are subject to same rules as is the case in many states. The registration reguirement comes when certain statute is offended, there is no judicial discretion available for the judges. In effect they are saying that whole sex offender management is being done wrong. It seems like you don't like that type of criticism due to your own perception on sex offender boogeymen and you are trying to oppress the large body of critique presented by researcher and other advocates from surfacing on this article. Am I right? If presenting research results and views of treatment professional working on the field of sex offender management contradicting the public image of sex offender is seen as POV-pushing, then we should probably start using comment sections of Fox news articles (i.e. public view) as references. For the second time, I don't know what to say. If we may hold ATSA's position on these matters as some sort of professional consensus, it is clear that they do not approve with the current management and public perception of sex offenders. Here are two opinions of ATSA which pretty much sums their position: The Registration and Community Notification of Adult Sexual Offenders and "Sexual Offender Residency Restrictions" This page is now on my watch list. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ViperFace, I know what I am talking about on the topic. You are apparently presenting yourself as knowing what you are talking about (keyword there is presenting), and, by your latest commentary to me above, you project your biases onto others; for example, stating "sex offender boogeymen." And considering both you and Noterie (talk · contribs), a "new editor" who edits the same topics as you and who "just happened" to pop up at the Hebephilia article after I told you above that I would not be tolerating your type of editing at the Child sexual abuse or Child pornography article, I'm thinking that a WP:Sockpuppet investigation is in order. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, what? I have no idea about any of the above, and I have no idea what it has to do with my changes on hebephilia, but I do agree with ViperFace that there has been social extremism that has led to many bad side effects. A moderate or neutral page will probably look bad to anyone at any extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noterie (talk • contribs) 09:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just editing my previous message to add the position of ATSA, which I consider as scientific consensus. Sorry for the use of "boogeyman", but you are implicitly implying that I'm some sort of NAMBLA advocate and you can't see the relevant references that I have presented in the article, so I got bit irritated. I have no connection with the other user you are talking about. This is my ip: 88.112.215.140 You may verify my location to Finland. I have occasionally edited while not being logged in, but if you wish to conduct some sort of investigation, I'm ok with that. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being/imply that you are a NAMBLA advocate. Not all child sexual abuse advocates are a part of NAMBLA, after all. Nor are all of them pedophiles, especially since child sexual abuse laws can concern pubescents and post-pubescents in addition to prepubescents. I also did not accuse you of being a child sexual abuser or a pedophile. Not all people who think that child sexual abusers and pedophiles are not as bad as they seem are sexual offenders or pedophiles. And I know that you focused on consensual teenage sexual relationships above. As for your possible connection with Noterie, like I stated here, here and here, you are two "new editors" popping up to edit the same relatively inactive articles, with one of you (ViperFace) engaging in noticeable POV-pushing at various articles. You want me to believe that Noterie simply popped up to edit the same relatively inactive articles as you. The only articles so far that Noterie edited that you have not yet edited are the Hebephilia and Ephebophilia articles, and that is only after I told you that I would not tolerate your type of editing at the Child sexual abuse and Child pornography articles. If you are not WP:Sockpuppets or WP:Meatpuppets, this is a strange coincidence. Noterie asked above what does this section have to do with his edits to the Hebephilia article. Well, hebephilia obviously partly concerns child sexual abuse. FourViolas was nice to you on your talk page regarding your POV-pushing. Good. Since I'm not usually that nice to editors who POV-push, especially on sexual topics, FourViolas makes up for my lack of a softer approach in such cases. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Sockpuppet angle is not adding much to the discussion, so I am willing to put that aside for now. The problem with your edits is that you are adding too much to the article (and other articles) about sex offenders not being as bad as people think. This tends to create WP:Undue weight. Pariah24 criticized your edits here (though, unlike Pariah24, I feel that some of that material belongs in the lead...per WP:Lead; I told you that before) and, in addition to the above and on your talk page, FourViolas criticized your edits at the Megan's Law talk page. These criticisms do not mean that it's just reverse POV, and you are right. It means that you should truly analyze how you are adding material to these articles. If it's not clear by my "06:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)" post above, I'm in agreement that consensual teenage sexual relationships should not be treated in the same way that offenses by habitual predatory offenders are treated. But that is not the point. As much as possible, we are not supposed to let our personal opinions affect the article content. Flyer22 (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer, thanks for weighing in; I was hoping to see you here. I'm sure you could be a great help, but I respect your choice to pick your battles. (nb for ESL readers: that's an idiom, not a reference to literal WP:Edit wars).
ViperFace, I was pretty impressed by how well-sourced the "panic" section was, and I'm happy to believe you're new since Flyer had her doubts about me, too. I'm glad to be reassured that you're working in good faith, and your add-only policy is a smart way to keep off people's toes. I greatly appreciate that you're only adding factual material. The issue here is mostly one of due weight: which of many true facts should be reported, and in what way? I'm sorry to throw more rules at you, but Wikipedia:Advocacy (under #Defences) explains that truth or worthiness is not sufficient justification for unbalancing an article. This article, Megan's Law, and similar articles should include perspectives in proportion to their actual representation in the world. Review articles in peer-reviewed journals often give this kind of information in neutral language. If you can find a good one
Part of the problem is simply organizational. If you want to include this kind of criticism of sex crime laws, put them in a section labelled as such. Giving activists their own section in the middle implies that unfair treatment of sex offenders is what "Sex offender" is all about. I respect your views that the US situation is a human-rights issue, but "Sex offender" should be mostly about sex crime and the people who commit it. Concerns about the societal prejudices which lead to these labels are peripheral.
The basic idea here is that Wikipedia is not a tool for WP:Righting great wrongs. We're here to give the major opinions on an issue, with most weight given to the majority position. There are other fora for fixing the world; WP is for describing it. FourViolas (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Having looked over ViperFace's edits more, I'm convinced of their good faith, and even that they have good points to contribute. It's just that their current style is not neutral enough for us. FourViolas (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Sockpuppet aspect is being discussed elsewhere. Too many "coincidences" for my tastes, especially if ViperFace or Noterie don't claim the IP in question. Flyer22 (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I struck through the above since I've remembered that ViperFace claimed the IP above. Flyer22 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As stated here, I am willing to believe that ViperFace and Noterie are two different editors. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

My take is that at this time it's a red herring. If there were more than two editors (or accounts, whatever) involved it might start to matter. Right now on one is claiming consensus to do anything so whether its sockpuppets, meatpuppets, a tag team, or coincidence, whatever. I'm sure we can work thru this on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well

Well all this is rather complicated -- it's a complicated subject, there are a lot of edits, and there's a lot of material here on the talk page. So let's slow down a little. For now, I've rolled the article back to its status as of November 15 per WP:BRD. Let's look at proposals for specific improvements, and I'd recommend looking at relatively small improvements a little at a time. It's a fraught subject and a complicated one, and there's no hurry -- we want to get this right. Herostratus (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I wanted to, but wanted to raise the issue and let others do it (if anyone agreed with me). FourViolas (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Herostratus, FourViolas & Flyer22

What I have been trying to add to these articles is IMO the majority position of academics and treatment professionals, which most of the articles seemed to be lacking. As FourViolas says edits "should include perspectives in proportion to their actual representation in the world." The criticism seems to be widespread in academic world, but naturally academic opinions come up less often in popular media. Majority opinion among professionals seems to be that registration should be tailored according the results of risk assessment, not solely by virtue of conviction statute, as is the case in most jurisdictions in U.S. and they are not supporting many aspects of the current legislation, since it is not based on scientific research but more on public emotion. (Please see links to ATSA's position on these matters above, more similar viewa can be found from other references I have used) The considerable minority opinion among general population, i.e. the reformist groups and other critics are echoing the views of academics. In fact, at least two of popular media publications I have used as references were written by research professionals as well. I maintain that my edits have been in proportion to actual representation, at least in the academic world. The academic views are contrary to that of general public, so my edits might appear to give too much weight to views that are not so often presented outside the academic world, but is this necessarily wrong?? I can add more references to make it more clear that the critical views are indeed held by majority of professionals working on this field, but I have seen that adding 5 references in a row makes the article less readable. If my sections are unbalanced merely in length with respect to other sections of the said articles, I can see the problem, please try to contribute by compressing them without deleting too much of relevant information or by expanding the other sections if you wish. I'm not good at writing compactly, since English is not my first language. That being said, I'm bit disappointed for seeing the article reverted this far back in time and especially the loss of "panic" section. It was by far my best edit this far. I also think it is very relevant to this article. I think the quality of the article could have been improved without leap back in time, merely editing it more coherent. I hope we can find some common ground so that we may accept to include at least some part of the "panic" section. Thank you FourViolas for acknowledging the quality of my references. I'm happy to see this bruhaha calm down a little. How this started seemed bit aggressive and unfair to me at least from the part of Flyer22, at least that's how I felt it, given that I have not deliberately distorted any facts and have delivered sufficient amount of reliable references IMO. I guess I share some of the blame for not adding too much info in edit summary and explaining my edits on talk pages, I'm still a newbie here so please forgive me. --ViperFace (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Oh and FourViolas, I have yet to read through review articles, but there seem to be quite a lot content available on Google Scholar. Anyway, I don't believe that this episode could have been avoided even if I had used some review article as a reference, since I believe that you and Flyer did not actually check my references at first, but were just alerted for someone giving "too much" attention on controversial subjects. I will try to come up with a review article if that is enough to justify lengthy sections (compared to other sections) covering critical views. Also, if you wish to revert the quote on Megan's Law, I'm ok with that. It just seems to summarize the critique of Wetterlin, but I can see why it may be seen standing out of the line --ViperFace (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about rolling back so much, but what can I do... there're a lot of edits there, all in a row. I'm certainly not saying that none of the material is useful. It is! I'm not in a position in terms of time, energy, and interest to pick out the good from the bad... I'm willing to help by participating in discussion and that's it.

OK. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer to the question of "how should a society in general, and the United States in particular, deal with these issues". It's complicated. I infer that you think that all this is lot of nonsense and moral panic. Maybe you're right, or (more likely) it's not possible to ascertain "right" or "wrong" about that because it's a matter of opinion.

I get that the ACLU has criticized some laws in this area. I'm a former member of the ACLU and support their mission generally, while at the same time recognizing they will not and cannot take a detached neutral view on most matters (and shouldn't). Ditto I assume for the other groups you have mentioned, probably. These are advocacy groups and what they have to say is of some value but limited value for our mission. Our best bet IMO is to have short (but punchy) material indicating that the definition of "sex offender" is contested. By all means pile on the names of groups especially if they're bluelinked, and [ref] [ref] [ref] them.

I would steer far away from several sentences based individual studies. I have a number of questions about this. I'm not qualified to answer my own questions because I lack expertise re the methodology and so forth.

On the merits of various sex offender registries and so on.... the American people are entitled to, through their elected representatives, enact laws which are ineffective but symbolic or whatever if they want to. It's not possible to say that they are "wrong" because it's a purely political question. By the same token, more people are killed in car crashes every X days than died on 9/11, but the American people have decided that they can live with the one but not the other. Ditto for stranger child sex crimes, I infer.

At any rate, I would also steer away from "moral panic" stuff.... moral panics are mostly about stuff that basically isn't true, like satanic child abuse or whatever, or even if true are blown way out of proportion like Joe McCarthy's claims of Communist infiltration. It's OK to mention in passing that such-and-such person(s) have said "this is a moral panic" but I wouldn't put as too much emphasis on that since it seems to be minority view if not a fringe view. These laws are pretty popular I think.

Does this help you see where I'm coming from? Maybe others can chime in. Would it be possible for you to start a new section below and be like "here's a particular section, and here's my proposed revision" (or "here's a new section I propose"), or maybe individual paragraphs or even sentences. This is slower going but we want to get this right. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ViperFace, thanks a lot for your patience and forbearance as we wreak havoc on your hard work. I addressed your other concerns below, but I wanted to share my story about Flyer22.
When I was very new to WP, she gave me a revert and a polite nip after I clumsily made some unconstructive changes to Asexuality. I, like you, found her response a "bit aggressive and unfair," and felt punished (by a SP suggestion) for having made a good-faith effort to learn the rules before editing. Since then, I've spent some time reading her talk page and block history, and noticing her tireless contributions. I've reversed my feelings and come to admire her for her willingness to preserve the quality of WP at the cost of exposing herself to Internet hate. Most people on WP have a little more patience when dealing with edits they disagree with, but Flyer has other specialties: she's highly intelligent, writes well, and knows what she's doing. I hope your hurt feelings will heal a little upon learning that Flyer has a justifiably short temper from noble battles with vicious people who sometimes superficially resemble the likes of you and me.
I'm much fresher to WP, so I still have extra goodwill to spend noticing that you are using great English (especially in mainspace) for a non-native speaker, contributing factually and with good references, and working hard to bring valuable (if highly sensitive) perspectives to the topic. FourViolas (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, after convincing herself that FourViolas and I were the same person, she reverted EVERY EDIT I have made since joining, not because of any problem of content, but because she thought FourViolas and I were the same person. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebephilia&diff=636579768&oldid=636579469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&diff=636580528&oldid=636580470 In fact, right now, on the Hebephilia page, she reverted my edits and said I should bring them to the talk page. She then made edits to the Hebephilia, but when I reverted them and asked HER to bring them to the talk page, she reverted THAT and declared her 4-hour old changes to be the stable version instead of the version that had been untouched since September!! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebephilia&curid=336056&diff=636711817&oldid=636626227 She isn't biting newbies, she's mauling them.Noterie (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I was clear about why I reverted you at the Hebephilia article. And you keep convincing me that you are not new to editing Wikipedia, including with the sudden signing of your posts without any signing mistakes, a contrast to how ViperFace kept making signing mistakes like the vast majority of WP:Newbies do, and your sudden knowledge of the WP:Canvass guideline. Whether you are a WP:Sockpuppet, a WP:Meatpuppet or something else, you are not completely new to editing Wikipedia. And trying to convince me that you are is futile. I've caught various WP:Sockpuppets, ones who thought they were smarter than me and everyone else, and I know the signs. Even when I back away from a WP:Sockpuppet case, it does not mean that I no longer suspect that editor of not being a new Wikipedian (WP:Sockpuppet or not). Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding my temper, similar to what I stated in my "09:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)" post above, there are definitely types of editors I am short-tempered about; I was not always like that, and I am working on being less temperamental regarding such editors. But I definitely have a lack of patience for nonsense and POV-pushers, unless it's well-meaning nonsense. And I can sometimes excuse well-meaning POV-pushing. Returning editors who edit under a different account also irritate me unless it's a WP:SOCK#LEGIT or WP:Clean start matter (in the case of a WP:Clean start, I mean as long as they are not returning to the same areas they edited before, expecting that no one will recognize them). ViperFace strikes me as a case of well-meaning POV-pushing; and as long as he stays on the right path of editing, I won't have much of a problem with him. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Conciliatory statements and moving on

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)

Proposed new outline

• Lead paragraph Keep very general and factual. Definition, punishments, maybe gender breakdown. Note: A sex offender is someone who has committed a sexual offense; arguments about what should be considered a sex crime belong elsewhere.
• Types of sexual offenses To get across the main info of the topic: what offenders have done.

• Felonies and
• Misdemeanors Of course these will vary by country; mention particular offenses treated differently in different jurisdictions. Describe global cultural variation in treatment of offenders.

• Effects on society Percent of population victimized and victims' trauma, effects on women of the threat of sexual violence according to feminist opinions on sexual violence and rape culture.
• Legal treatment Describe typical sentences, including registry, and how they vary globally.

• Debate Here is a fine place to put lots of good refs, activist groups, and the most reliable quote you can find saying that it's mainstream evidence-based criminology to assert that US laws need to be more logical and less punitive.

• Therapies Make sure to balance professional opinion on various therapies and their effectiveness.
• See also Maximum a handful of historically significant perpetrators and victims (Jack the Ripper, Megan Kanka). No editorial memorials. Cull the current unusually-large section to what people are actually likely to want to see from here.

I'm by no means wedded to this plan, and I don't want to be a major contributor for personal reasons. Please respond with alternatives, variations, and comments. FourViolas (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks FourViolas for taking this to the right direction

Few comments and proposals on otherwise good outline:

To be able to describe a typical sentence may be hard, since it varies depending on jurisdiction. In U.S. federal and state level sentences are very different. Also is there a typical sex offense? Predatory abductions picked up by media are statistically very rare. My gut feel is that most common sex offense is statutory rape.

Another more important point about legal treatment and sentencing: The sex offender registration is NOT part of the sentence in most U.S jurisdictions, judge does not impose it nor has discretion on it. Prosecutor is the only person with discretion trough offering plea bargain to non-listed offense. Instead it is collateral consequence of being convicted under one of the listed statutes. That's why arguably disproportional consequences like these example, example2, example3 occur. While arguably punitive, it's not considered as punishment, but regulatory measure similar to felons losing right to vote. This is why more rules can be retroactively applied without violating the constitution. I don't wish to see mistakes with respect to these facts in any article. This combined with harshness of the registry is the number 1 main point of the critics. Outside U.S., registration is not based on offense, but is determined by risk assessment or based on sentence length. (In UK sentence of 5 years and over will get the offender in registry) I'm not aware of any considerable criticism towards these systems.

If there is going to be a section of post incarceration registries, like there is currently, these differences among jurisdictions should be presented clearly, and the distinctive nature of U.S, system should be made clear IMO. I'd also wish to add some coverage on criticism and main parties presenting it, although there is already main article Sex offender registration (which could use some re-writing as well) where differences of the registries in various countries and criticism could be covered, but it is more about registries in general, while the U.S. system is the only one generating criticism. So I really don't know what is the best article for criticism??

Debate section might be good place to cover some points presented in recent "panic" section. If this article is to be strictly about sex offender, not sex offender registries, then only relevant debate IMO is the public perception vs. academic view of sex offenders (e.g. dangerousness, what else?), and debate/criticism of registries themselves might suit better in other articles covering the legislation. Like Herostratus said we want to get this right. I would extend getting "this right" to also articles as sex offender registration, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, United States National Sex Offenders Public Registry and Megan's Law, since these articles are closely related.Some of them are some what fragmented and cover partly same issues. I would like to see these articles forming a coherent pack covering these subjects. I suggest that we take this discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Sex_offender_registration

Thank you again FourViolins for taking the first productive step.--ViperFace (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm more than happy to move past those heightened emotions. "Real" (off-line) life is upsetting enough, as the article illustrates.

I'm increasingly reassured that you've accepted my, Flyer22's, and Herostratus's feedback. In turn, I'd like to let you know that I fully respect and appreciate the points you have to bring. The main problem, I think, was about structure rather than content (although the content is somewhat too detailed on one side for WP:Balance). I'll clarify by exaggeration: the article as you were editing it was something like,

"Sex offenders are people who have committed a sexual offense which may not have been as bad as you might think, and many respectable activists say US sex-offender law is unjust and ineffective."

I think it's necessary to include broader info, more like

"Sex offenders are people who have committed a sexual offense. There are many types of sexual offense of different severities, with many different deleterious effects. To counter these effects, societies punish sex offenders in widely variable ways. US sex-offender law has some unique details which many respectable activists say are unjust and ineffective."

Do you see how the first is incomplete to the point of activism, even if fleshed out with perfectly good info and sources? If too many of the article's bytes relate to a debate several levels down from the article title (that is, controversy about mandatory registration provisions of the US's version of legislation about sex offenders), the article is ignoring lots of higher-level content. If those bytes are heavily dedicated to one side of the debate, the article stops sounding like an encyclopedic compendium of important facts and starts to read like a pamphlet. However, that's no reason to reject your points, moderately condensed, if they're under a heading which makes it clear that they aren't what "sex offender" is all about.

It's my guess that this and related articles will always have less room for criticism than you'd like; you're an activist on this issue, and that's not a bad thing but an inconvenient one for you (and maybe me [smiley emoticon]) while you're editing WP. I encourage you to read the Child_sexual_abuse#Offenders section, if you haven't yet, for an model of an encyclopedically written, heavily sourced (to peer-reviewed studies), thorough look at a subset of sex offenders. The article on relevant US laws (several links away) has no mention of controversy except a SCOTUS case on whether child rape should be a capital offense, but the article presupposes a subsection of sexual offense less likely to generate sympathy for convicted offenders. Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws appears neutral and detailed, and relevant to many of the specific situations you and your refs been talking about. That said, I think it would be totally fine to quote highly-reliable sources (in this article) on the distinctiveness, and questioned utility & fairness, of US registration policies.

Your proposed discussion move sounds logical, but I have an impression that nobody ever looks at category talk pages. (The only post on Category talk:Sex offender registration was by an IP in 2008.) You could drop a link there saying there's a lot of discussion here.

FourViolas (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification FourViolas. I can see your point and I try to edit along those lines in future, although some times I might need some gently whipping from more experienced editors like you. I have suggestion of section that is pretty much cleaned and condensed version of my recent "panic" section and would like to hear your feed back. Please find it below. To your advise to find "most reliable quote you can find saying that it's mainstream evidence-based criminology to assert that US laws need to be more logical and less punitive", I have to ask help of — James Cantor. I would like to establish this notion in this article, but I'm not aware of any in-depth review article that would explicitly spell out the critical consensus among academics and treatment professionals, but IMO it is evident: I have not found a single article supporting current laws even though I have tried. Anyway, ATSA has been critical in every opinion and report I have read considering this subject. Would ATSA be mainstream enough? I can't see why it wouldn't.

@Herostratus: I have to counter what you said about steering "away from "moral panic" stuff...moral panics are mostly about stuff that basically isn't true": The public perception of dangerousness and rate of recidivism is not true. There is an academic consensus about this. See any of the articles I posted here. Yet, it is the main rationale behind the laws. Judging by The Meaning Of Moral Panic Criminology Essay the characteristics of moral panics are easily fulfilled. Media exaggerates the dangerousness of ALL those labelled as sex offenders by highlighting the most repulsive and egregious offenders, generating the perception that ALL offenders are truly dangerous. There's also clear distinction between "them" and "us", and there is wide spread perception among general public, that this group poses great danger. Also, the measures taken to counter this exaggerated danger are disproportional and irrational, as they are applied to ALL offenders. There's academic consensus on this as well. If applied to only those assessed to pose risk, rather than everyone found guilty to qualifying offense, the measures wouldn't be irrational and disproportional. Just to clarify that the term is largely used by academics with respect to sex offender legislation, here are some Google Scholar results. Researchers not explicitly using the term are practically always stating something along the lines: "laws should be based on scientific evidence, rather than to public emotion", in the introduction or background, and it's usually repeated in conclusion/discussion sections. To me it reads like: "these laws were made amid moral panic"

This being said, I'm asking your opinions on adding below section in main space. I understand that this might disturb the balance for a while, but this should be temporary problem, if we are going to follow FourViolas proposal. Also, if you don't totally object this, but still want to make some modifications, and maybe check my spelling, please do, I'm a rookie editor after all. Later this could be under "Legal Treatment" section according the proposed outline, or what ever we decide. This is also pretty much all I want to add considering criticism, so I personally have no further pressing urges to be adding more criticism, except the notion of academic consensus. Oh...and sorry for my lengthy posts. I'm probably pain in the ass already :) --ViperFace (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversy (proposal)

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)

References

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

http://www.annexpublishers.com/full-text/JFSC/503/Tame-to-torture-psychosexual-correlations-of-sex-violence-and-torture.php - predatory open access 49.204.108.11 (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

Edit request from LODweed, 2 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the recidivism section, I think the following should be added:

One study with a follow-up period of 25 years, however, found that when "undetected crimes" were accounted for, the recidivism rate for sex offenders rose to 88.3%.

Ron Langevin et al., Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: a 25-Year Follow-Up Study, 46 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, no. 5 (2004).

LODweed (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting fact, but could you clarify how exactly 'undetected crimes' are accounted for? It goes without saying that by virtue of being undetected the crimes are not accounted for. Intelligentsium 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.—C45207 | Talk 00:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, sexual offense recidivism is a very complicated research field with many contradictory findings. Typically, we don't put much weight on individual, unreplicated findings. Personally, unless one is attempting to collect a comprehensive list of all reported findings, I would not overturn a very solid, very well-replicated finding on the basis of a single report in a relatively low-end journal. As they say, "One swallow doesn't make a summer"...or even more on point, "Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence." IMO.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Langevin et al. has been analyzed and their 88.3% recidivism rate is a useless figure constructed by manipulating the definition of recidivism and carefully crafting the study's methods and population to maximize the figure. See http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/cjc/cjc48a1.html Daivox (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions by User:MONGO

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_and_Safety_Act&diff=637581946&oldid=637470844] 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)

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)

Please do.— James Cantor (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My comment as the original objector to ViperFace's work:

While I directly empathize with MONGO's instinct that POV is bad and even good-faith newbies are liable to be unfamiliar with proper protocol, I think it's time to let VF and Dr. Cantor do some work unimpeded. I believe VF has done a lot of work to learn the guidelines and Dr. Cantor knows what he's doing, and (having gotten around to reading VF's refs and doing my own research) I'm willing to concede that there is broad academic consensus on the specific criticisms in question. The article must emphasize plain facts and facts about opinions, without UW or POV, but I'm admitting that the ideal NPOV includes more criticism than the current article. So, let's all be civil and let the WP:YESPOVers have their say. FourViolas (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: As shown in my sex offender discussion with ViperFace above, I was clear that certain types of sex offenders are a threat, or are very much a threat, and that I was not asserting that consensual close-in-age matters with regard to age of consent are a part of that threat. I think it's clear, except apparently to ViperFace, that I was not referring to all sex offenders. So if anyone refers to what I am in agreement on in this case, keep that in mind. I was not reverting ViperFace; nor am I in complete agreement with ViperFace's view of things regarding the topic of sex offenders. Flyer22 (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

ViperFace clarified that he understands what I meant. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding the word plysmograph to Wikipedia

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, [email protected] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.218.226.203 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Be bold, add it to the Wiktionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfpc (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

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

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)

Offender risk assessment instruments

I think I can find good sources for risk assessment measures and propose some edits. There are measures involving static variables, those that do not change, such as number of convictions, age of first victim, etc., and there are instruments which measure dynamic, ^{(scroll down on that reference, it's a document)} 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: , , ,^{(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)

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)

Fixed Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, it seems like a giant job to select out all the references here and point to certain assessments, I was wondering how you felt about using a paragraph such as above to describe risk assessments in general. A sex offender risk assessment could be a series of articles all on their own, but I wanted to include at least a starting off point. OK with trying a paragraph and discussing the static and dymamic risk concepts and seeing where that leads? ( I tried to use the Refill tool on this page so that I had more than bare URL's as sourcing, but it doesn't seem to work, is it because many of the documents are PDF's? --Cityside189 (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

References

References

Recidivism nonsense

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)

Done. Time frame is the same, 3 years. ViperFace (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy editing for general readers

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)

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)

question in overview, sentence

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)