So you ARE under the assumption that there has been an increase in sex offenders because our mores and values have changed since the days of "unspoken rules."

But you have nothing to base that assumption on. And you falsely believe there's a such thing as a society without certain forms of abuses of power just because we "do some things different."

Exactly.

If we didn't have a list, would people think that means we don't have a lot of rapes and sexual assaults?

It's amazing.

well here is a question...why bother even having one when it doesn't really even work because it's inaccurate?

Better question: What does that have to do with anything?

Let's not jump all over the place as we often do in your threads. I wouldn't mind it if I felt you knew what you were talking about and had a clear sense of reality. But reading your posts in this thread, you might be "special." ;)

Whether or not a country has a list is something which exists independently of whether or not there are sexual predators, or how many of them there are.

The things are completely independent except that the list was created because there are sexual predators.

But Daemon's whole line of reasoning seems to be that since Saudi Arabia doesn't have a list, they don't have nearly as many sexual predators. That just isn't logical. The two things are unrelated.

What is inaccurate about it?

Precisely.

He's probably arguing that it's inaccurate because it's not complete since many offenders fail to register.

That's a stupid argument, however, because many do. The purpose of the list is to inform the public about sex offenders in their area, and at that task, for the offenders who do register, the list is a success.

As for offenders who fail to register, their conduct violates the law and they can be imprisoned for that conduct. What more could you want? 200 lashes for a rape victim?

I was hoping he was arguing that the registry does not distinguish between types of sex offenders. Such as an 18 yr old who had "consensual sex" with a 16 yr old and was convicted of statutory rape versus an adult who molested a 5 year old.

But he's probably arguing what you say he is. That inaccuracy would make me wonder why he thinks the existence of an offender registry would be indicative of anything, in the first place.

The list I look at on FamilyWatchDog has the general convictions listed. It even codes the rape vs. child acts differently on the map.

And to say the list is inaccurate because it's incomplete is just laughable logic. If I make a list of Presidents of the United States, but leave Abraham Lincoln off, it doesn't make the rest of my list wrong. And I'd rather know about 2/3 of the sexual predators to be on the lookout for than none at all.

Unfortunately, many people access sex offender listings that group them all together.

No...I was arguing that in many places, the local gov't that are supposed to keep track of the list often DO NOT update.

It comes from both sides...failure to contact those who are on the list using a regular checkup to see if they are still where they say they are...and on the other side...failure of those on the list of not calling to update thier info when they change residence.

So where does this observation fit in with your initial point?

Just for clarity's sake.

That's not it at all...my reasoning whihc is more a question really....is....if there are stiffer penalties for these types of crimes, what are the frequencies of these types of crimes happening? Are the numbers greater or lower outside of that region?

Obviously these crimes do happen...we can't deny that. But because the punishments are so severe even with the sex offenders, do they have a lower rate of happening due to this?

Look at it like this too....what is the sense in reporting this story to the western world if this kind of thing is commonplace?

Are you on drugs?

Stiffer penalties do not always reduce crimes. That's because these laws are less about deterrence and more about retribution. People already know what the laws are before they commit the crime.

BTW, a reduction in crime can't be assumed to be about the penalties in place. We call that "tiger prevention." Crimes can increase or decrease independent of the penalties. That's why we conduct research to answer these questions instead of simply using our limited observation skills.