Making hatred.

The United States has had a long, and ample history of creating internal problems. From the old problems with slavery, to problems with racial and ethnic divisions created and used by enterprising politicians, we are good at hating. We've hated so long that we've forgotten why we hate, and often have taken up the same weapons that we claim to hate.

This has, always and ever, been one of the greatest problems with hatred. We tend to forget the target, forget the reasons, and indulge in that unfettered brutality for which some of our hearts long.

What causes hate? The greatest cause is fear and lack of understanding, lack of compassion feeds into this. We fear, and we are angry for the threat the fear creates. Part of this is a near-instinctual process, wherein we tended to avoid others who appeared similar, though acting oddly, in order to reduce disease. Part of it is an educational process, by which our enforcement in schools of the necessity for everyone 'fitting in' and punishment of those who do not tends to create the situations for anger and hatred.

But why do we hate? Perhaps the answer can be found in who we hate, and how.


We are fond of our hatred, as a nation, and as a species. When we feel powerless we hate ever the more, grasping for something to control.

And that control is the core of hatred. It removes compunctions against actions which would normally horrify us, removes the civilized veneer that we hide our own ignorance and fear with, and makes us powerful for that moment. It objectifies the targets, personifies in them all of the evil and viciousness we see out there, and see in ourselves. At its base it is all about control.

Being different is not a bad thing. That is the ultimate lesson we need to learn to get past hatred, to get past the barriers which politicians and well-meaning pundits put up. It is no less racist to profile a person as being racist due to their skin color, or their ethnicity. It is no less intolerant to say that all 'x' are intolerant. Racism is one of the many cross-cultural ties that bind us, but it is also one of the ugliest.

It can be used as a club to silence dissent, as an identity, as part of who we are. If we were truly colorblind, would the race of the candidate matter, even if he or she is considered a 'minority'? Would political considerations trump the ability to do the job? Does it matter what race they are, if they are capable of doing the job for which they are elected, and doing it faithfully?

But we harp on Obama being a 'black' and Sotomayor for being 'Hispanic' and saying that such is a good thing... when it matters even less than if a penny is copper. They have no control over the person to whom they were born, and we have no control over how they lived their lives, therefore the qualifications are far more important than the race or lack thereof.

Let's look at who we hate.. let's pick an easy target, shall we? In my search for hated persons and classes, the Judaic race, the African Americans, the Native Americans all got thought of.. but there are more classes that transcend these. In the cases of the African Americans, it's people seeking power once again that keep that brew mixed and fermenting, the Hispanics have much the same going on, as do the Caucasian and all the other races. To have a protector, you must have a boogeyman, and what better one than the tyranny of the 'other races'? What is more vague, and therefore more likely to continue, easy to blind yourself against things that are similar and focused on any slight or fault done by one of these 'oppressors'? Is it not also racist?

There are very few groups of persons we hate that cross racial or ethnic lines. Perhaps the most powerful hatred we have is visceral, and directed against those that transgress against the laws of our society. We look at history of the United States where people not guilty of capital crime were restored their rights, powers, immunities, and priviliges at the end of the sentence, their sentence was spent, and they were made peaceable again with the society until they once again transgressed.

Today, however, we want our pound of flesh, from the heart. We claim to do it without blood, but we look at the felon once again as a second class citizen. We feel a moral superiority that 'at least we haven't broken any laws', or 'at least I didn't do that'. The smug certainty we hold leaves little room for seeing the trials and travails of humanity that they undergo due to a spent punishment.

If the punishment was insufficient, what more could we do to them to make it so? If it was judged sufficient, how can we as people assume that they have not paid enough, if the court and jury believed they had?

Let's focus in a little closer. You have your murderers, your drug offenders, your larcenists and arsonists, you have your manslaughter, your property offenses and then you have your deviants and sex offenders.

Among these who is most likely to recommit their original or a related act? Would it be the murderers or sex offenders? No, actually, it's not. The murderers and sex offenders have a lower reoffense rate than any other class of criminal.

We see these sex offenders out there, and our instinctual response is 'kill them, mutilate them, open their corpse and torture them'. What is it in us that goes so far? It's not just a righteous indignation, it's something of a more visceral fear... a fear that in the correct or incorrect circumstances we'd be the same. It is a lingering guilt, a shame, over our own sexualities. We see this same shame against those accused of homosexuality, and in some cases people speak against it, but who dares... speak about attacks against a sex offender?

Only a total idiot would, or a sex offender, goes the reasoning.
But let's look at things a bit closer.

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420).

The first 12 months following their release from a State prison was the period when 40% of sex crimes were allegedly committed by the released sex offenders. Recidivism studies typically find that, the older the prisoner when released, the lower the rate of recidivism. Results reported here on released sex offenders did not follow the familiar pattern. While the lowest rate of rearrest for a sex crime (3.3%) did belong to the oldest sex offenders (those age 45 or older), other comparisons between older and younger prisoners did not consistently show older prisoners’ having the lower rearrest rate.

The study compared recidivism rates among prisoners who served different lengths of time before being released from prison in 1994. No clear association was found between how long they were in prison and their recidivism rate.

Before being released from prison in 1994, most of the sex offenders had been arrested several times for different types of crimes. The more prior arrests they had, the greater their likelihood of being rearrested for another sex crime after leaving prison. Released sex offenders with 1 prior arrest (the arrest for the sex crime for which they were imprisoned) had the lowest rearrest rate for a sex crime, about 3%; those with 2 or 3 prior arrests for some type of crime, 4%; 4 to 6 prior arrests, 6%; 7 to 10 prior arrests, 7%; and 11 to 15 prior arrests, 8%. Rearrest for a sex crime against a child The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting.

Of the children these 4,295 men were imprisoned for molesting, 60% were age 13 or younger. Half of the 4,295 child molesters were 20 or more years older than the child they were imprisoned for molesting. On average, the 4,295 child molesters were eeleased after serving about 3 years of their 7-year sentence (43% of the prison sentence).

Compared to the 9,691 sex offenders and to the 262,420 non-sex offenders, released child molesters were more likely to be rearrested for child molesting. Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994, 3.3% (141 of 4,295) of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child. The rate for all 9,691 sex offenders (a category that includes the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2% (209 of 9,691). The rate for all 262,420 non-sex offenders was less than half of 1% (1,042 of the 262,420).

Of the approximately 141 children allegedly molested by the child molesters after their release from prison in 1994, 79% were age 13 or younger.

Released child molesters with more than 1 prior arrest for child molesting were more likely to be rearrested for child molesting (7.3%) than released child molesters with no more than 1 such prior arrest (2.4%).

Rearrest for any type of crime compared to non-sex offenders released from State prison, sex offenders had a lower overall rearrest rate.

When rearrests for any type of crime (not just sex crimes) were counted, the study found that 43% (4,163 of 9,691) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were rearrested. The overall rearrest rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was higher, 68% (179,391 of 262,420).

The rearrest offense was a felony for about 75% of the 4,163 rearrested sex offenders. By comparison, 84% of the 179,391 rearrested non-sex offenders were charged by police with a felony.

Reconviction for a new sex crime Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period.

Reconviction for any type of crime Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 24% (2,326 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a new offense. The reconviction offense included all types of crimes.

Returned to prison for any reason Within 3 years following their release, 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were returned to prison. They were returned either because they received another prison sentence for a new crime, or because of a technical violation of their parole, such as failing a drug test, missing an appointment with their parole officer, or being arrested for another crime.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice.

Let's look at this a moment. 5.3% vs 1.3%... sounds like a hugely higher risk.

At the risk of being idiotic, let's look at the math there.. 517 sex offenders vs 3,378 non-sex-offender prisoners. Which is more likely?

They say that sex offenders inevitably reoffend.. but does 5.7% (on the maximum end, depending on the nature of the crime, reoffense rates drop to as low as 1%) and there is less likelihood of reoffending the longer that the person is without an offense.

Let's take 700,000 offenders and assume a steady rate of 6% (the number as of last year that were on the registry) and exceeding the offense rate proposed by the data.

Let's also assume none of them die until the sequence terminates.

According to my spreadsheet, the first year 42,000 would reoffend, assuming static reoffense rates, and assuming that there is no changes in supervision, hormones, etc, or new offenders coming into that set.

How many years does it take for them all to reoffend at that rate? About 218. Now, the study notes something else.. that offense rates decrease the longer the offender goes without reoffense. At this point we've got a scale that increases closer to the origin, and approaches something indistinguishable from 0 at infinity.

The initial decay is fast.

So.. how do we have 700,000 offenders on the registry without hearing about 42,000 Lundsfords, Kankas, or Walshes a year?

The statistic is misleading. A 'reoffense' can be as little as public indecency, at this point, and the microscope is on them. If you are in public and rip out the crotch of your jeans picking something up, even if no flesh is exposed, the offender can be cited. Some indeed choose new victims, some choose young victims, but these are in the minority as well. (7.3% of the total of multiple child molesters versus single-offense child molesters at 2.4%.) This is a great difference from 90% to 100%.

You have a non-hetrogenous group, being dealt with in a hetrogenous and punitive manner, seeking further control. Precedents are being established that allows them to 'regulate' due to past offenses the possibility of future offenses. This gives them a huge amount of power. Perhaps this would indicate why they shifted from the 'black crime problem' to one that nobody was willing to defend. Race will always have defenders... and registered sex offenders, when defending themselves, are considered to be 'in denial' or 'making excuses'. It's a catch 22. Even if you are innocent, there is no way out.

Power and control, gentlemen. Any idiot can see what you've had done to you. Maybe' it's time to look other directions and at why you hate.

Besides.. how many of you have said 'I'd tap that', and then found out the person was underage?

And how many politicians got a pass on it after the 'Boys Town' scandal of the 80s?

It would seem an act of total idiocy to question the official line when a boys prostitution ring (and not always a consentual one) was linked through the congress and white house, and the story got buried. It would seem an even greater act of idiocy to claim that the government would potentially hide evidence and such a story in such a way that several of the persons later were involved in the legislation attacking such offenders, and were further accused of indecent acts against underage individuals in the congressional offices themselves?

After all.. who would believe such a story about those who pushed the legislation the most...

Only a total idiot.