Gov.uk link for the lazy: Clare's law aka Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme(DVDS), you can request information about your partner or on behalf of someone you are concerned about, the police can also just disclose if they feel the need
I have heard UK HR types have struggled to get American employees to sign up to employee anything schemes for the same reason. The US negative connotation around the word always meaning devious, like ponzi, so they won't sign up for a beneficial "pension scheme" which the company contributes to.
Many american accents lend themselves well to spitting the word cunt with hate. It sounds more disrespectful when a sweet southerner says cunt as opposed to any of the UK-ish accents, imo
it lets people find out if their partner’s got a history of abuse kinda like a quiet version of a registry, just not public-facing. Wouldn’t hurt if more countries adopted something similar tbh
Are arrest and court records not public information in most of the world? In the US, there are websites where you can look up people's court and arrest records for basic information like name and the nature of the charge and the verdict. It's not the full report, but it's enough if you just want to know about the existence of criminal history. You can also request the full police reports from law enforcement.
Is this privileged information in most countries or something?
Half baked comparison but I feel like it's tied to the same ideas and values that makes it so that movie rating in America lets you rate a film with brutal murder and war and physical violence and death as PG-13 in many cases. But you see 1 (adult) penis even nonsexually, or 1 vagina or even a single titty if it's on screen for toooo long and it's immediately rated R. If there is a fully consensual sex scene it is R. Meanwhile very high levels of physical violence can be shown rated PG-13. We as an american society normalize physical violence a lot more than sexual activity, violent or not.
u can go thru 11 season of the walking dead showing u any kind of gore there is and thats fine for tv, showing a tit? how fucking dare u, and your character better speak like this is spongebob or else !
I think this is where intent vs. long-term risk comes into play.
Murder and DV can absolutely be just as serious, but they’re often treated as situational or episodic, while sex-offender laws were built around the idea of ongoing risk after release.
It would still help protect against those who have been convicted for DV. A lot of rape accusations never see the court room, so should we get rid of the sex offender registry?
The failure to prosecute, let alone convict DV charges is entirely a different problem. Most DV perpetrators will repeat their abusive behaviors.
Exactly. Prior violence is one of the strongest predictors of future violence. That’s why treating DV as purely “situational” doesn’t really hold up when you look at long-term patterns.
Good point but domestic abuses is often a personality trait or at least highly persistent behavior with any future partner the abuser has. So, it’s a good criteria you lay out, but domestic abuse would meet it.
Absolutely sexual crimes are serious, of course, but it does feel inconsistent that other violent crimes, which can be just as devastating, don’t get the same public tracking. It highlights how our system sometimes focuses more on stigma than consistent protection.
Including colleagues, clients and other people one might meet at work. Outright rape might be mostly by partners/family members, but harrassment etc. often also occurs at work.
Idk, a DV registry wouldnt be a bad idea, especially for people who are single. Would be a nice way to find out if a potential boyfriend/girlfriend was a psycho without doing so the hard way.
people that commit domestic violence are also more likely to repeat their behavior. look up the stats… well now that i think about it, the stats of repeat offenders usually roll over into murder :(
DV can also be roommates and/or neighbors, not just family hoss. Cops over-apply it on purpose since it’s a non-bailable offense. Verbally threaten a neighbor with violence, in Ohio at least, that’s DV.
From my experience it’s because domestic violence cases are viewed as more “complicated” (source: had a family member experience domestic violence and the police held off on doing anything for awhile because the situation was viewed as “complicated”)
Source - my mom and her wife of 3 years. My mom got violent when drunk but my former stepmother wouldn't press charges because of my mom's past. Yea, my mom went through some horrible shit, including abuse from past boyfriends, but that doesn't excuse her actions.
If I was a DV victim, I think I would want some men with badges and guns to show up saying “hey quit being abusive or else.”
But I wouldn’t necessarily want job loss, loss of housing, lengthy court process, etc.
So that’s where I think the fundamental reason people call the police and don’t press charges right away. They’re trying to send a warning, not upend their lives.
See, DV victims don't want that. All that means is the aggressor is more pissed at the victim and they'll suffer the consequences of someone calling the cops. There's no winning until the aggressor doesn't want you anymore or you leave the area and make sure they can't find you.
Similarly, can’t some states put you on the sex offender list for public indecency (mooning your friend but a bystander catches you). Obviously far less common, but also why I wish sex offender lists were more nuanced or not so permanent
My state just straight up tells you why they are on there, and every state should be like that.
I have unfortunately met a lot of people that are on the registry and they all love to try to lie about what they actually did because so many people don't know that in our state it outlines exactly what they did, or they moved here from states that hid what they did so they assumed it was the same here. The whole public indecency thing is literally the most common lie they try to tell, and they're always full of s***.
So in my opinion every registry should have the actual crime, because it protects people from lying abusers who don't want to be honest about the things they've done. It's super rare to be put on the registry for things like public indecency and yet it gets brought up constantly in these conversations like it's some sort of epidemic. Most of the people on the registry are there for good reason.
Not just “complicated” but DV cases aren’t anywhere close to the severity of murder and sexual assault. The vast majority of DV cases are he-said-she-said with no to minor injuries
This is untrue. DV is a catch-all term that includes murder, beatings, and sexual assaults by a partner/family member. Most sexual assaults and murders of women (at least in the US) are committed by a partner, family member, or close friend. SYBAU.
Or a 19 year old who slept with their 17 year old bf/gf. But that doesn’t mean having a registry is wrong- rather, a specific subset of offenders currently on the registry shouldn’t be included
A lot of states do have laws which carve out exceptions for edge cases like that. They’re called “Romeo and Juliet Laws”. A general rule of thumb in the U.S. is if the couple in question could have conceivably been in high school together, it isn’t illegal. This prevents weird edge cases where someone who was a senior in high school begins to date a sophomore/junior and then they graduate and now could be charged with a crime, although morally and ethically speaking nobody would find their relationship abhorrent (some people might, but I’m talking reasonable, level-headed people).
The registry is not a good thing, at least as it currently exists. Even the people who pushed for a registry seem to regret it now because of how damning it can be and how wide the definition of sexual offender can be.
Near me there's a fourteen-year-old on the registry for an offense committed at age thirteen, so their address is visible to any of the other people on the list as well as the general public. So the state is literally putting a child who was likely already the victim of CSA (very common for CSA victims to act out sexually, I'd say it's more likely than not that this is the case and they weren't just born fucked up, not that the latter would make it okay) at risk and opening them up to being abused again by predators not already in their social circle who are now aware of their existence, location, and the likelihood of them having previous sexual trauma to exploit. This isn't a sixteen or seventeen-year-old, this is a child below the age of consent in the entirety of the US. So they can't consent to sex but can be socially ostracized and doxed for sex offenses. Make it make any sense. This is probably more a common situation than people realize when they're blindly calling for death to all sex offenders and dogpiling anyone who says maybe the registry is a little too far with accusations of pedophilia.
And people keep arguing that there's "nuance" and the law takes the bush-pissers and "intent" into account because they're in denial and desperately want their version of the sex offender registry where every offender is an evil pedo rapist to continue existing in their mind. Meanwhile we're at the point where we're doxing children in the name of "protecting children." It's a government-sponsored witch hunt.
Then you have the problem that the perp decides he might as well murder the vic. It's fucked but the lesser sentence is an incentive to leave the victim alive.
The lower sentence is part of the reason they’re on what’s essentially probation. Sexual offenses can encompass a wide variety of crimes from major to minor, whereas murder is, well, murder. There’s not like “misdemeanor murder.”
The other factor is that murder has a wildly lower recidivism rate than sex crimes.
Murder is far worse and thus carries harsher sentences including capital punishment, I don't think the reason for the sex offender registry is what you said as it'd be really contradictory. Needless to say that you can get added to the registry for things that are pretty minor yet considered "sexual offenses"
I mean I get it lowkey, cause it’s the only crime that has no justification whatsoever, you can’t just say oops I slipped there, at least with murder it could be like that person that you murdered hurt someone you love or they abused you etc which makes it not okay still but understandable, cannot say the same for sexual crimes tho
Since murder in UK carries a mandatory life sentence, any convicted murderers are only ever released on licence, and can be recalled to prison at any time, so in that practise that is a register.
Because the list is designed to shame. Some of the people who have to register on there aren’t even a threat to society. Its more of a society control thing than actually for safety
Serial murders might get off on that notoriety. Society doesn’t shame people the same way for violence that they do for perversion
Fwiw I don’t think most countries have a sex offenders list
Fwiw I don’t think most countries have a sex offenders list
Maybe because studies shows there's no effect on recidivism but it carries a significant social stigma. And being shunned by society is not exactly known to foster lawabiding productive citizens.
That's a valid point. That being said, I'm not sure it's so much about preventing recidivism in general vs. giving potential victims a "head start" in the form of a warning. I can't decide on a firm opinion, shunning is unproductive, but I also think people should be able to look up these kind of glaring red flags about their neighbors and potential partners.
That’s really faulty logic. You’re exponentially more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know than by some stranger you found out about online.
While society carves out special stigma for sex crimes, it also works exceptionally hard to rationalize predatory behavior and discredit victims. Suggesting this helps potential victims is just misleading and wrong. Our justice system is currently set up to impede the prevention of sexual assault.
Used to work with someone on the registry and he was 100% still a creep to everyone because he didn’t think we knew. One day someone mocked him for it and his face went pale. Dude toned down his behavior from gross comments to subtle glances at asses. Still not great, but it does help.
Like I said, I do understand that side of it. But it's good for, say, single moms to find out that the guy they met online has a record. Yes, "someone you know" is more dangerous than a stranger. But dangerous people WANT to know you. It's harder to effectively moderate the people with access to your children if you don't have a way to learn about things like this.
Ultimately the only reason for the list in my opinion is to keep the victims and their family aware of their, the attackers, movements. Recidivism is weird with sexual offenders. The media likes to talk about them so it’s commonly thought that the rate is a lot higher than it is.
I believe it’s only 7% but there’s a time element when you look at the research. If they haven’t recommitted at 10 years their chance of recidivism drops significantly. The list has no effect on recommitting though.
A second list for serial offenders may work better since their rate of recommitment is higher. But the element of social stigma is one of the reasons registration doesn’t work here.
Registries are pointless and eventually make it so that there’s nowhere a sex offender can live. If they’re really that dangerous, why are they out of prison? Make it make sense.
I didn’t say rapists aren’t a threat to society. When did people stop being able to read properly.
Some people on those lists aren’t. An example I used elsewhere is that there are states where public urination would be classed as indecent exposure which COULD land you on a sex offender’s list.
Now I’ll speak slowly because I know this is tricky for you, it doesn’t mean I think public urination is a good thing. But I also don’t think those people are a danger to society.
Thank you for your well wishes. I also hope I don’t get raped and I appreciate your support on that matter.
Because of (mistaken) beliefs about sex offenders being uniquely likely to reoffend. It would actually make way more sense to have a DV registry than a sex offender registry based on recidivism odds. Also virtually every DV offender should also be classified as a sex offender.
You need the Right to be Forgotten in order to be rehabilitated back into society.
The alternative is for an offender to be locked into a life of crime.
because western culture always frame big drastic laws around children, and secondly criminalize sex more than violence. They typically don't care as much about women and have historically treated them like they are lying
For two examples
Jacob Wetterling a child whose murder created the national sex offender registry wasn't known to be sexual assaulted. He was murdered.(But the murderer was proven to later be a sexual predator of young boys and admitted to the crime in other cases, long after the registry was created)
An example of this recently is Trump on Domestic violence
"They said, ‘Crime’s down 87 percent.’ I said, no, no, no — it’s more than 87 percent, virtually nothing. And much lesser things, things that take place in the home they call crime. You know, they’ll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime. See? So now I can’t claim 100 percent but we are."
A view that criminal domestic violence is just a little fight is wild, but in line with historically how western men see both beating and raping wives.
My ex partner (and abuser) maintained that the only problem left between us was that I would not admit it was "just a fight" and it was "50/50 both our faults". There's video proof that says otherwise, evidence that authorities have never once cared to look at. Apparently the fact that I fought back well and we were roughly the same size means I wasn't actually being attacked or that I was fighting for my life.
you can make a category "sex" that includes sexual violence but also broadly includes porn, clothing that makes men think of sex, sex in media vs violence in media etc.
ie why does the US make you put in an ID to view porn in the worst conservative states and not to see someone's head blown off?
why is the US more concerned about gender identity then children being shot in schools?
Considering there is no evidence supporting the registry actually helps stop crime why do we have it at all? In fact there’s actually evidence that it has increased crime and many individuals have decided to target the people on the registry to either commit home invasions, theft, assault, and even murder.
Actually it’s pretty simple…it’s a government scam used to fleece money off people. They charge people to register and they charge civilians taxes to maintain it. So the scam is now generating revenue from at least 2 fronts.
Not to mention fines and jailtime imposed for failing to register which means more taxpayer money fleeced or fleecing the one who was required to register.
It is strange that they don’t use the same fleecing method for theft, assault, or substance abuse despite the fact that those 3 crimes actually have a much higher repeat offense rate.
People with sex offenses have the lowest rate of committing new crimes…but that means they aren’t generating as much revenue. So the government needed more methods to fleece revenue from them, ergo the strictest probation requirements and forcing them to pay for the registry scam.
The beauty of this scam is that 27 states in the US have what is known as “For profit prison systems” meaning those states somehow generate profit off crime. That means those states are incentivized to give out harsher sentences, criminalize minor offenses into more severe ones, and have stricter probations, because anything that puts people into the system and the longer they can be kept in it the more revenue the state sees from it.
Ohio has the VOD (violent offender database) , but it was only created in 2019. Works like the sex offender database, except imposes no duty to inform neighbors.
In the US a lot of police officers would end up on a domestic violence registry which is a bad look, and the police unions are very powerful. Politicians don't want to piss them off.
The sex offender registry is based on some pretty shoddy social science claiming that sex offenders have higher rates of recidivism than other types of offenders. Homicide has one of the lowest rates of recidivism of any category of crime.
Violent and sex offenders shouldn't be allowed to have dating profiles at all. I was informed my ex was on Bumble. I immediately reported him and forwarded the link to his public record (he of course goes by his middle name, so I'm not sure if the birthday and middle and last name matching their records was enough... But I guess with capitalism, so long as he's paying them, they don't care).
He assaulted me so severely a decade ago, I had to have surgery that cost $155k and the insurance company sent me a letter demanding I tell them which car accident I was in.
The vast majority of those checks described are to ensure that the user matches their photos and is not catfishing.
They do not require you to link your full name and identity to your profile which is what I was describing.
You have options for a secure dating app if you desire.
We don't need more laws requiring mandatory online ID verification. Those that want a secure site can choose that option, and those that don't shouldn't be required to show ID.
People are trying to get a domestic violence registry set up. But of course there is an uphill battle. It wasn’t easy to get a sex offender registry and some people find ways to evade it by pleading to lesser charges specifying they won’t be a registered sex offender.
I personally wouldn’t be scared of every murderer but I won’t want my kids near any child predator. I’ve met murderers before and even tho they usually aren’t great people they also had their reasons for their actions they wouldn’t just attack strangers.
I think that's a myth. If your intent is merely to relieve yourself, that's not a sex offense. Attempting to conceal yourself behind a dumpster would rule out other intent.
Sex offender registries do come with information about the charges, though . So if someone does the smallest amount of actually looking at the registry, it will be clear if it was for public urination or basically any other horrible act that gets you on a registry
Edit: I believe the above person edited their comment. They previously had said the old chestnut about how you can be put on there for public urination, with no mention of prostitution.
People should note that you also don’t automatically get put on the registry for stuff like that, it’s part of your punishment specifically decided in court.
Assuming it’s always child molestation would mean one is forgetting all the other awful sex crimes like rape and sexual assault of adults. But rarely are people put on the registry for things like prostitution or public urination. In my state for example, it is typically reserved for those with crimes against minors or sexually violent offenses.
This reminded me i worked at a fast food place with a guy that was recently out after serving like 20 years for murder. His sister's boyfriend did... awful things to her, so he killed him. He had no regrets. He was super nice and a hard worker so it was bizarre knowing that about him like it was no big deal. He was really excited to explore the internet and catch up on movies. Obviously not a representation of all murderers.
Yeah I became friends with a guy who did 20+ years in prison for murder. He shot a pedophile in broad daylight and then waited for the cops to get there. He has no regrets. Most of his adult life was spent behind bars. The unfortunate part is that spending that much time in there means he's so institutionalized that he practically misses being inside. It's what he knows. There's food and shelter with a jail sentence, but not so much the case when living on the street because no one will hire or rent to you. I've lost count of the amount of people I know in the homeless community that would gladly give up crime for a place to live and a job to pay for it. But our system is designed in such a way that deprives people of basic human rights and can't figure out how on earth to prevent petty crime. There's not much deterrent if getting locked up increases the likelihood of getting fed and having somewhere dry and warm to get some sleep. And yet, this simple concept is overlooked. Probably intentionally, since homelessness and incarceration are big business.
I agree. There’s always exceptions and reasons for murder but not for sexual assault. And they’re most likely to reoffend. Domestic violence I could see a registry
Same reason people can't tolerate rape in video games, but murder is fine. We're fundamentally OK will killing people we don't like, but rape can't be easily justified.
While DV absolutely is an issue which needs to be better handled, it is ALSO true that SOME people have falsely claimed that a former lover is an abuser. This can ruin the life of the falsely accused. I’ve known people who have lost their jobs after being falsely accused (the accuser later confessed the claim was false). How does this get handled in the UK?
Because sex crimes are seen as "worse" even though the sex offenders registry isn't very well designed. I've heard a horror story of a literal child being put on it like a 6 or 7 year old because she was touching her siblings inappropriately. But she was as stated a young kid who didnt know better. She should've never been put on the list. You can also be put on one for something as minor as peeing in public.
Because police officers would populate the entire list almost immediately.
I don’t think people understand how common domestic violence is.
Protect yourself and loved ones, it is very unlikely someone else will. People are willing to do a lot to help but risking themselves in situations like that is usually not on that list.
In Europe they're trying to pass something called Clares law so any potential, current or future partner can go to thr police and ask if they have a dv record.
You ask this like the sex offender registry is some flawless thing.
People have been put on the registry and had their lives ruined because of shit as basic as drunkenly pissing in public. Get a bad cop or circumstance and all of a sudden you're treated and labeled the same as a pedo rapist.
We definitely don't want to have a bunch of registries.
Also, criminal convictions are public record. You can very easily find out if someone has been convicted of such crimes as-is.
Killing someone doesn’t mean you have a continuous urge to kill. Being a pedophile means that while you did indeed serve your time for that one rape, doesn’t mean you’re no longer a pedophile. That’s the rationale here.
I think what underlies this is the same sort of over the top "positive" and "affirmative" action that gets called virtue signalling or woke.
People see a problem and try to do something about it. However after some years it builds up momentum and goes past where it is just common sense, and turns into over reaction.
Fear of sexual predators is like fear of sharks. It ignores the closer dangers in favour of the more spectacular and emotionally triggering dangers.
I have worked in schools where the teachers and parent's fear of paedophiles or being falsely accused of being one, is affecting most children. Teachers are afraid to touch children and children are told not to touch each other. Touch is a very important form of communication, and if we give children the impression there is something wrong with it, we are damaging children.
When affirmative action turns into a band wagon that people jump on, then it has already gone too far.
Sure convicted paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to work with children. However if they are always made into pariahs in the community for their whole life, then there is no hope for them to become good citizens again.
Murderer registry would matter less because someone convicted of murder is both less likely to do it again and less likely to get out of prison young enough to still be a threat.
DV registry would be amazing, although I do think most people who commit DV would still find victims. They're often very persuasive and good at finding vulnerable people.
We sort of do in the UK. It’s called Claire’s law
Gov.uk link for the lazy: Clare's law aka Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme(DVDS), you can request information about your partner or on behalf of someone you are concerned about, the police can also just disclose if they feel the need
Sarah's law aka Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme
One of my favorite things about the uk is how often you guys get to use the word scheme. We never get to use scheme positively.
I have heard UK HR types have struggled to get American employees to sign up to employee anything schemes for the same reason. The US negative connotation around the word always meaning devious, like ponzi, so they won't sign up for a beneficial "pension scheme" which the company contributes to.
They get all the good words over there. They even get to call each other cunts!
Am American, have proudly been using cunt for years. It’s funny how taken aback people are by it here lol
Many american accents lend themselves well to spitting the word cunt with hate. It sounds more disrespectful when a sweet southerner says cunt as opposed to any of the UK-ish accents, imo
Mainly the Scots
I have good news for you
https://www.scheme.org
does it have any effect on the person you request info about?
it lets people find out if their partner’s got a history of abuse kinda like a quiet version of a registry, just not public-facing. Wouldn’t hurt if more countries adopted something similar tbh
If anybody can call and ask for information from it, how is it not public-facing?
Are arrest and court records not public information in most of the world? In the US, there are websites where you can look up people's court and arrest records for basic information like name and the nature of the charge and the verdict. It's not the full report, but it's enough if you just want to know about the existence of criminal history. You can also request the full police reports from law enforcement.
Is this privileged information in most countries or something?
Half baked comparison but I feel like it's tied to the same ideas and values that makes it so that movie rating in America lets you rate a film with brutal murder and war and physical violence and death as PG-13 in many cases. But you see 1 (adult) penis even nonsexually, or 1 vagina or even a single titty if it's on screen for toooo long and it's immediately rated R. If there is a fully consensual sex scene it is R. Meanwhile very high levels of physical violence can be shown rated PG-13. We as an american society normalize physical violence a lot more than sexual activity, violent or not.
Nothing blew my mind as a kid more than Titanic being rated PG-13 even with titties in it.
that shit is so stupid...
u can go thru 11 season of the walking dead showing u any kind of gore there is and thats fine for tv, showing a tit? how fucking dare u, and your character better speak like this is spongebob or else !
seems like sexual crimes get singled out, even though DV and murder can be just as serious
Yup, google "sex exceptionalism".
sexceptionalism
[Sighs] …. Sexlexia
Have the boy lay out my formal shorts.
The Man With No Name
r/unexpectedfuturama
I've been called "sexceptional."
I haven’t.
Travis calls himself a "sexpert", but if there's a degree on his wall, I haven't seen it
Making a sexception
I think this is where intent vs. long-term risk comes into play.
Murder and DV can absolutely be just as serious, but they’re often treated as situational or episodic, while sex-offender laws were built around the idea of ongoing risk after release.
The amount of women who are murdered by their partners who reported abuse prior would suggest that should change.
How would a registry help that though?
Many of these men aren't convicted or haven't been convicted yet when they do the murdering.
Sex offenders aren't on a list unless they've been convicted either.
I mean, men who choke their wives and gfs are 700% more likely to commit murder
It would still help protect against those who have been convicted for DV. A lot of rape accusations never see the court room, so should we get rid of the sex offender registry?
The failure to prosecute, let alone convict DV charges is entirely a different problem. Most DV perpetrators will repeat their abusive behaviors.
Which is stupid because having a history of violence is a major risk factor for being violent again.
Exactly. Prior violence is one of the strongest predictors of future violence. That’s why treating DV as purely “situational” doesn’t really hold up when you look at long-term patterns.
Good point but domestic abuses is often a personality trait or at least highly persistent behavior with any future partner the abuser has. So, it’s a good criteria you lay out, but domestic abuse would meet it.
Sorry, do you think that murder can be as serious as a sexual crime? Murder is pretty much always more serious.
Much more serious. It is difficult to think of a worse crime, maybe apart from terrorism/mass killing, but it includes or assumes murder anyway.
And atleast for Murder youre typically gone for a long as time. Rape? A year or two and then ya can go rape again.
Absolutely sexual crimes are serious, of course, but it does feel inconsistent that other violent crimes, which can be just as devastating, don’t get the same public tracking. It highlights how our system sometimes focuses more on stigma than consistent protection.
Murder can be “just as serious”?! Pretty sure being dead is as serious as it gets
You're unlikely to commit DV and Murder at work or to strangers though.
DV is for your family not your colleagues.
Serial killers aren't getting out in time for them to get a job and most murders are one offs.
Sexual predators are much more likely to repeat their behaviour especially if they're allowed to be alone with the vulnerable group they prefer.
Most sexual offences are also perpetrated by people who know their victims already
Including colleagues, clients and other people one might meet at work. Outright rape might be mostly by partners/family members, but harrassment etc. often also occurs at work.
More often than not, it's someone in their personal life though.
Idk, a DV registry wouldnt be a bad idea, especially for people who are single. Would be a nice way to find out if a potential boyfriend/girlfriend was a psycho without doing so the hard way.
Claire's Law in the UK. Fairly new but has been used successfully by many people.
And its one of the crimes people dont age out of
people that commit domestic violence are also more likely to repeat their behavior. look up the stats… well now that i think about it, the stats of repeat offenders usually roll over into murder :(
Well DV is likely to happen again if they get a new partner. So, why not earn potential partners?
DV can also be roommates and/or neighbors, not just family hoss. Cops over-apply it on purpose since it’s a non-bailable offense. Verbally threaten a neighbor with violence, in Ohio at least, that’s DV.
Well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(workplace_killings))
Murder is ok in media
Rape hell no on tv
From my experience it’s because domestic violence cases are viewed as more “complicated” (source: had a family member experience domestic violence and the police held off on doing anything for awhile because the situation was viewed as “complicated”)
Sometimes victims refused to press charges too.
Source - my mom and her wife of 3 years. My mom got violent when drunk but my former stepmother wouldn't press charges because of my mom's past. Yea, my mom went through some horrible shit, including abuse from past boyfriends, but that doesn't excuse her actions.
If I was a DV victim, I think I would want some men with badges and guns to show up saying “hey quit being abusive or else.”
But I wouldn’t necessarily want job loss, loss of housing, lengthy court process, etc.
So that’s where I think the fundamental reason people call the police and don’t press charges right away. They’re trying to send a warning, not upend their lives.
See, DV victims don't want that. All that means is the aggressor is more pissed at the victim and they'll suffer the consequences of someone calling the cops. There's no winning until the aggressor doesn't want you anymore or you leave the area and make sure they can't find you.
Also abusers don't just start hitting from day one. They often isolate and habituate their victims first. So you're kinda brainwashed along the way.
It is in many cases. You can get a DV charge just for grabbing someone.
Similarly, can’t some states put you on the sex offender list for public indecency (mooning your friend but a bystander catches you). Obviously far less common, but also why I wish sex offender lists were more nuanced or not so permanent
My state just straight up tells you why they are on there, and every state should be like that.
I have unfortunately met a lot of people that are on the registry and they all love to try to lie about what they actually did because so many people don't know that in our state it outlines exactly what they did, or they moved here from states that hid what they did so they assumed it was the same here. The whole public indecency thing is literally the most common lie they try to tell, and they're always full of s***.
So in my opinion every registry should have the actual crime, because it protects people from lying abusers who don't want to be honest about the things they've done. It's super rare to be put on the registry for things like public indecency and yet it gets brought up constantly in these conversations like it's some sort of epidemic. Most of the people on the registry are there for good reason.
Not just “complicated” but DV cases aren’t anywhere close to the severity of murder and sexual assault. The vast majority of DV cases are he-said-she-said with no to minor injuries
This is untrue. DV is a catch-all term that includes murder, beatings, and sexual assaults by a partner/family member. Most sexual assaults and murders of women (at least in the US) are committed by a partner, family member, or close friend. SYBAU.
Because sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous.
Dun dun
DICK WOLF
Hey you lawyer guuuuuyss.
Dun dunnn.
You dont know me and johnnie are watching you. While. Were. Hiiiiigh
Maybe a hot take but guy pissing in bushes shouldn't be on the same list with a rapist
Or a 19 year old who slept with their 17 year old bf/gf. But that doesn’t mean having a registry is wrong- rather, a specific subset of offenders currently on the registry shouldn’t be included
A lot of states do have laws which carve out exceptions for edge cases like that. They’re called “Romeo and Juliet Laws”. A general rule of thumb in the U.S. is if the couple in question could have conceivably been in high school together, it isn’t illegal. This prevents weird edge cases where someone who was a senior in high school begins to date a sophomore/junior and then they graduate and now could be charged with a crime, although morally and ethically speaking nobody would find their relationship abhorrent (some people might, but I’m talking reasonable, level-headed people).
As fellow students!!!
Yes. I felt that was perhaps implied by what I said but it is worth mentioning that this doesn’t include the high school teacher and football coaches…
The registry is not a good thing, at least as it currently exists. Even the people who pushed for a registry seem to regret it now because of how damning it can be and how wide the definition of sexual offender can be.
i have mixed feelings about it, but i do know that it can encourage reoffending because it makes harder for offenders to reintegrate with society
Romeo and Juliet laws are made for this issue
Near me there's a fourteen-year-old on the registry for an offense committed at age thirteen, so their address is visible to any of the other people on the list as well as the general public. So the state is literally putting a child who was likely already the victim of CSA (very common for CSA victims to act out sexually, I'd say it's more likely than not that this is the case and they weren't just born fucked up, not that the latter would make it okay) at risk and opening them up to being abused again by predators not already in their social circle who are now aware of their existence, location, and the likelihood of them having previous sexual trauma to exploit. This isn't a sixteen or seventeen-year-old, this is a child below the age of consent in the entirety of the US. So they can't consent to sex but can be socially ostracized and doxed for sex offenses. Make it make any sense. This is probably more a common situation than people realize when they're blindly calling for death to all sex offenders and dogpiling anyone who says maybe the registry is a little too far with accusations of pedophilia.
And people keep arguing that there's "nuance" and the law takes the bush-pissers and "intent" into account because they're in denial and desperately want their version of the sex offender registry where every offender is an evil pedo rapist to continue existing in their mind. Meanwhile we're at the point where we're doxing children in the name of "protecting children." It's a government-sponsored witch hunt.
Typically guy pissing in the bushes isn't included unless he was showing it off. There is usually an intent requirement.
They get included if done near schools and churches. They prevailing thought is “deliberate to minors because of location”
I am not saying it is good (or bad). Just saying why those are done.
Yet receive less time than murder?
Then you have the problem that the perp decides he might as well murder the vic. It's fucked but the lesser sentence is an incentive to leave the victim alive.
The lower sentence is part of the reason they’re on what’s essentially probation. Sexual offenses can encompass a wide variety of crimes from major to minor, whereas murder is, well, murder. There’s not like “misdemeanor murder.”
The other factor is that murder has a wildly lower recidivism rate than sex crimes.
You haven’t seen law and order have you
Murder is far worse and thus carries harsher sentences including capital punishment, I don't think the reason for the sex offender registry is what you said as it'd be really contradictory. Needless to say that you can get added to the registry for things that are pretty minor yet considered "sexual offenses"
I mean I get it lowkey, cause it’s the only crime that has no justification whatsoever, you can’t just say oops I slipped there, at least with murder it could be like that person that you murdered hurt someone you love or they abused you etc which makes it not okay still but understandable, cannot say the same for sexual crimes tho
Mariska Hargitay is a babe.
lol I officially don’t have to scroll any further.
We do technically have a murder registry. It’s just a separate thing. Murder convictions are mostly felonies that follow you for life.
Some States have a “career offender” registry that will track/register people who are considered 3 strike felons.
Floridas site: https://coffender.fdle.state.fl.us/coffender/coast/home.jsf
Legal description of who/what is a “career offender”
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/944.608
Since murder in UK carries a mandatory life sentence, any convicted murderers are only ever released on licence, and can be recalled to prison at any time, so in that practise that is a register.
I find it fascinating that the average fixed term for murder before liscence is 14 years for murderers in the UK
Because the list is designed to shame. Some of the people who have to register on there aren’t even a threat to society. Its more of a society control thing than actually for safety
Serial murders might get off on that notoriety. Society doesn’t shame people the same way for violence that they do for perversion
Fwiw I don’t think most countries have a sex offenders list
Maybe because studies shows there's no effect on recidivism but it carries a significant social stigma. And being shunned by society is not exactly known to foster lawabiding productive citizens.
That's a valid point. That being said, I'm not sure it's so much about preventing recidivism in general vs. giving potential victims a "head start" in the form of a warning. I can't decide on a firm opinion, shunning is unproductive, but I also think people should be able to look up these kind of glaring red flags about their neighbors and potential partners.
That’s really faulty logic. You’re exponentially more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know than by some stranger you found out about online.
While society carves out special stigma for sex crimes, it also works exceptionally hard to rationalize predatory behavior and discredit victims. Suggesting this helps potential victims is just misleading and wrong. Our justice system is currently set up to impede the prevention of sexual assault.
Used to work with someone on the registry and he was 100% still a creep to everyone because he didn’t think we knew. One day someone mocked him for it and his face went pale. Dude toned down his behavior from gross comments to subtle glances at asses. Still not great, but it does help.
Like I said, I do understand that side of it. But it's good for, say, single moms to find out that the guy they met online has a record. Yes, "someone you know" is more dangerous than a stranger. But dangerous people WANT to know you. It's harder to effectively moderate the people with access to your children if you don't have a way to learn about things like this.
Ultimately the only reason for the list in my opinion is to keep the victims and their family aware of their, the attackers, movements. Recidivism is weird with sexual offenders. The media likes to talk about them so it’s commonly thought that the rate is a lot higher than it is.
I believe it’s only 7% but there’s a time element when you look at the research. If they haven’t recommitted at 10 years their chance of recidivism drops significantly. The list has no effect on recommitting though.
A second list for serial offenders may work better since their rate of recommitment is higher. But the element of social stigma is one of the reasons registration doesn’t work here.
That could be easily handled without a publicly-browsable database.
Registries are pointless and eventually make it so that there’s nowhere a sex offender can live. If they’re really that dangerous, why are they out of prison? Make it make sense.
[deleted]
At no point did they even imply they were against it chill out
You think rapist should kill their victims so they're 'better off'? Also DV and murrder/assault have much high rates of recidivism. Like 40% vs 15%.
Ok I don’t doubt that sex re-offending is extremely high.
However, how many people that do domestic abuse repeat? It may be even higher
I didn’t say rapists aren’t a threat to society. When did people stop being able to read properly.
Some people on those lists aren’t. An example I used elsewhere is that there are states where public urination would be classed as indecent exposure which COULD land you on a sex offender’s list.
Now I’ll speak slowly because I know this is tricky for you, it doesn’t mean I think public urination is a good thing. But I also don’t think those people are a danger to society.
Thank you for your well wishes. I also hope I don’t get raped and I appreciate your support on that matter.
Because of (mistaken) beliefs about sex offenders being uniquely likely to reoffend. It would actually make way more sense to have a DV registry than a sex offender registry based on recidivism odds. Also virtually every DV offender should also be classified as a sex offender.
Because the DV registry would have too many cops on it
You need the Right to be Forgotten in order to be rehabilitated back into society. The alternative is for an offender to be locked into a life of crime.
meanwhile in america:
because western culture always frame big drastic laws around children, and secondly criminalize sex more than violence. They typically don't care as much about women and have historically treated them like they are lying
For two examples
Jacob Wetterling a child whose murder created the national sex offender registry wasn't known to be sexual assaulted. He was murdered.(But the murderer was proven to later be a sexual predator of young boys and admitted to the crime in other cases, long after the registry was created)
An example of this recently is Trump on Domestic violence
"They said, ‘Crime’s down 87 percent.’ I said, no, no, no — it’s more than 87 percent, virtually nothing. And much lesser things, things that take place in the home they call crime. You know, they’ll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime. See? So now I can’t claim 100 percent but we are."
A view that criminal domestic violence is just a little fight is wild, but in line with historically how western men see both beating and raping wives.
My ex partner (and abuser) maintained that the only problem left between us was that I would not admit it was "just a fight" and it was "50/50 both our faults". There's video proof that says otherwise, evidence that authorities have never once cared to look at. Apparently the fact that I fought back well and we were roughly the same size means I wasn't actually being attacked or that I was fighting for my life.
did you just say sexual offend is not violence?
criminalize sex more than violence
you can make a category "sex" that includes sexual violence but also broadly includes porn, clothing that makes men think of sex, sex in media vs violence in media etc.
ie why does the US make you put in an ID to view porn in the worst conservative states and not to see someone's head blown off?
why is the US more concerned about gender identity then children being shot in schools?
[deleted]
Facts, probably the actual reason if anyone seriously tried to make it happen.
Considering there is no evidence supporting the registry actually helps stop crime why do we have it at all? In fact there’s actually evidence that it has increased crime and many individuals have decided to target the people on the registry to either commit home invasions, theft, assault, and even murder.
Actually it’s pretty simple…it’s a government scam used to fleece money off people. They charge people to register and they charge civilians taxes to maintain it. So the scam is now generating revenue from at least 2 fronts. Not to mention fines and jailtime imposed for failing to register which means more taxpayer money fleeced or fleecing the one who was required to register.
It is strange that they don’t use the same fleecing method for theft, assault, or substance abuse despite the fact that those 3 crimes actually have a much higher repeat offense rate. People with sex offenses have the lowest rate of committing new crimes…but that means they aren’t generating as much revenue. So the government needed more methods to fleece revenue from them, ergo the strictest probation requirements and forcing them to pay for the registry scam.
The beauty of this scam is that 27 states in the US have what is known as “For profit prison systems” meaning those states somehow generate profit off crime. That means those states are incentivized to give out harsher sentences, criminalize minor offenses into more severe ones, and have stricter probations, because anything that puts people into the system and the longer they can be kept in it the more revenue the state sees from it.
because it goes against all the rich people that have influence.
Ohio has the VOD (violent offender database) , but it was only created in 2019. Works like the sex offender database, except imposes no duty to inform neighbors.
In the US a lot of police officers would end up on a domestic violence registry which is a bad look, and the police unions are very powerful. Politicians don't want to piss them off.
Because it would be full of cops
The sex offender registry is based on some pretty shoddy social science claiming that sex offenders have higher rates of recidivism than other types of offenders. Homicide has one of the lowest rates of recidivism of any category of crime.
The registry is totally unconstitutional.
You know what? This is a DAMN good question.
While we're here, unpopular opinion:
You should have to provide ID for dating apps and violent offenders and sex offenders should have a stamp on their profile.
Violent and sex offenders shouldn't be allowed to have dating profiles at all. I was informed my ex was on Bumble. I immediately reported him and forwarded the link to his public record (he of course goes by his middle name, so I'm not sure if the birthday and middle and last name matching their records was enough... But I guess with capitalism, so long as he's paying them, they don't care).
He assaulted me so severely a decade ago, I had to have surgery that cost $155k and the insurance company sent me a letter demanding I tell them which car accident I was in.
and was he jailed at least?
Already a thing. You can choose a dating app that requires ID.
No one is forcing you to use a dating app that doesn't require ID.
Which of the well known dating apps requires ID?
https://idscan.net/blog/which-dating-apps-have-identity-verification/
The vast majority of those checks described are to ensure that the user matches their photos and is not catfishing. They do not require you to link your full name and identity to your profile which is what I was describing.
You have options for a secure dating app if you desire.
We don't need more laws requiring mandatory online ID verification. Those that want a secure site can choose that option, and those that don't shouldn't be required to show ID.
How would you define dating app for this law?
People are trying to get a domestic violence registry set up. But of course there is an uphill battle. It wasn’t easy to get a sex offender registry and some people find ways to evade it by pleading to lesser charges specifying they won’t be a registered sex offender.
We shouldn't have any of them, but you have a point.
I personally wouldn’t be scared of every murderer but I won’t want my kids near any child predator. I’ve met murderers before and even tho they usually aren’t great people they also had their reasons for their actions they wouldn’t just attack strangers.
....why do you know so many murderers?
could be their job, could be living somewhere with a previous war
Lawyer, police officer, anyone who works in a prison, mob boss, politician, plenty of people know murderers.
I don’t really but I think I’m just not a very judgmental person and I’m also very open about myself so people tend to tell me about theselves
I am also the same, but people tend to tell me about their sad childhoods not that time they bludgeoned Mrs Hampton to death with a croquet mallet
We need to update Clue.
Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick.
Murderers do have low recidivism rates. But what about domestic abusers?
They have higher reoffending rates than pedophiles.
(edit: meant to say sex offenders in general, not just pedophiles. But I think pedophiles have low recidivism as well.)
Probably cuz a lot of our culture defends abusers, until it comes to children (well, tbf a lot of children are also subjected to this- I was).
This is the important question.
If domestic abusers have a high recidivism rate, then they should absolutely be on a registry.
One can be put on the registry for peeing behind a dumpster or getting caught with a prost. Assuming it's all kid abuse is part of the problem.
I think that's a myth. If your intent is merely to relieve yourself, that's not a sex offense. Attempting to conceal yourself behind a dumpster would rule out other intent.
Sex offender registries do come with information about the charges, though . So if someone does the smallest amount of actually looking at the registry, it will be clear if it was for public urination or basically any other horrible act that gets you on a registry
Edit: I believe the above person edited their comment. They previously had said the old chestnut about how you can be put on there for public urination, with no mention of prostitution.
People should note that you also don’t automatically get put on the registry for stuff like that, it’s part of your punishment specifically decided in court.
Assuming it’s always child molestation would mean one is forgetting all the other awful sex crimes like rape and sexual assault of adults. But rarely are people put on the registry for things like prostitution or public urination. In my state for example, it is typically reserved for those with crimes against minors or sexually violent offenses.
It’s not very clear lol
This reminded me i worked at a fast food place with a guy that was recently out after serving like 20 years for murder. His sister's boyfriend did... awful things to her, so he killed him. He had no regrets. He was super nice and a hard worker so it was bizarre knowing that about him like it was no big deal. He was really excited to explore the internet and catch up on movies. Obviously not a representation of all murderers.
Yeah I became friends with a guy who did 20+ years in prison for murder. He shot a pedophile in broad daylight and then waited for the cops to get there. He has no regrets. Most of his adult life was spent behind bars. The unfortunate part is that spending that much time in there means he's so institutionalized that he practically misses being inside. It's what he knows. There's food and shelter with a jail sentence, but not so much the case when living on the street because no one will hire or rent to you. I've lost count of the amount of people I know in the homeless community that would gladly give up crime for a place to live and a job to pay for it. But our system is designed in such a way that deprives people of basic human rights and can't figure out how on earth to prevent petty crime. There's not much deterrent if getting locked up increases the likelihood of getting fed and having somewhere dry and warm to get some sleep. And yet, this simple concept is overlooked. Probably intentionally, since homelessness and incarceration are big business.
Seems you knoe different murderers then me.
The ones i know did it because they lost control and took it out on the very person that crossed their way.
So, yes, they had reasons. The reason being lack of control.
..... You're not scared of murderers?
I agree. There’s always exceptions and reasons for murder but not for sexual assault. And they’re most likely to reoffend. Domestic violence I could see a registry
Probably because if you actually get found guilty of murder (not manslaughter or something else) you are likely look at 20 years- life sentence.
That said mentally people combine all these but they really are not the same.
The sex offender registry puts restrictions in place which PREVENT access to victims.
A registry for murder and dv wouldn't do that.
Because society has decided that some crimes should be monitored constantly, while others should not, even though the risk of recurrence is no less.
Illinois has a Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth registry
There is a domestic violence registry in the US. It’s just limited on who can search it.
There are violent offender registries. Indiana uses one
Even if you account for gangbangers, only 1-3% of violent killers in the US will kill again. Also, they very rarely target children.
Sex offences have to be proven in court of law. DV doesn't.
We probably wouldn't have much of a police force, very few active pastors/priests, and little to no politicians if this were to happen. That's why.
Same reason people can't tolerate rape in video games, but murder is fine. We're fundamentally OK will killing people we don't like, but rape can't be easily justified.
That would involve too many politicians
Because the police are t going to report themselves.
Considering extreme propensity for cops to commit dv, do you expect them to create a list to report on themselves?
In America it would have way too many politicians, political donors, police officers and soldiers on it for any to push that legislation.
It's not free, but you can access public records with some's name and date of birth.
In many states, you can search court records for free.
Have to fire all the cops if you did
Well domestic violence isn't a concern for the safety of the general population. You can't DV a stranger
While DV absolutely is an issue which needs to be better handled, it is ALSO true that SOME people have falsely claimed that a former lover is an abuser. This can ruin the life of the falsely accused. I’ve known people who have lost their jobs after being falsely accused (the accuser later confessed the claim was false). How does this get handled in the UK?
Because those crimes have different legal repercussions. We also do.
Because sex crimes are seen as "worse" even though the sex offenders registry isn't very well designed. I've heard a horror story of a literal child being put on it like a 6 or 7 year old because she was touching her siblings inappropriately. But she was as stated a young kid who didnt know better. She should've never been put on the list. You can also be put on one for something as minor as peeing in public.
It would be mostly cops and politicians....
Because then all the cops would be on it….
Why we don't have a human rights violation registry...
Because police officers would populate the entire list almost immediately.
I don’t think people understand how common domestic violence is.
Protect yourself and loved ones, it is very unlikely someone else will. People are willing to do a lot to help but risking themselves in situations like that is usually not on that list.
In Europe they're trying to pass something called Clares law so any potential, current or future partner can go to thr police and ask if they have a dv record.
Clare's law is specific to the UK not Europe.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if other European countries have or are trying to have similar types of registers / mandatory informing.
While the UK is part of Europe, it's not Europe passing such laws. Not even the EU...
It's passed in the UK, I believe. I don't know if they're trying to roll it out to all of Europe
Because mostly men are in charge on making laws
You ask this like the sex offender registry is some flawless thing.
People have been put on the registry and had their lives ruined because of shit as basic as drunkenly pissing in public. Get a bad cop or circumstance and all of a sudden you're treated and labeled the same as a pedo rapist.
We definitely don't want to have a bunch of registries.
Also, criminal convictions are public record. You can very easily find out if someone has been convicted of such crimes as-is.
Who's we? In my country there's no such thing.
There'd be a lot of cops on that list.
Because then policemen couldn’t find work.
Killing someone doesn’t mean you have a continuous urge to kill. Being a pedophile means that while you did indeed serve your time for that one rape, doesn’t mean you’re no longer a pedophile. That’s the rationale here.
I think it’s because those that commit sexual crimes are far more likely to repeat those crimes.
Most murder isn’t serial murder. But most rapists don’t do so in isolation
Because it needs to be formulated, debated x 2 or 3, and passed by the different parliaments to become a law.
I think what underlies this is the same sort of over the top "positive" and "affirmative" action that gets called virtue signalling or woke. People see a problem and try to do something about it. However after some years it builds up momentum and goes past where it is just common sense, and turns into over reaction.
Fear of sexual predators is like fear of sharks. It ignores the closer dangers in favour of the more spectacular and emotionally triggering dangers.
I have worked in schools where the teachers and parent's fear of paedophiles or being falsely accused of being one, is affecting most children. Teachers are afraid to touch children and children are told not to touch each other. Touch is a very important form of communication, and if we give children the impression there is something wrong with it, we are damaging children.
When affirmative action turns into a band wagon that people jump on, then it has already gone too far.
Sure convicted paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to work with children. However if they are always made into pariahs in the community for their whole life, then there is no hope for them to become good citizens again.
DV is too broad a term
Murderer registry would matter less because someone convicted of murder is both less likely to do it again and less likely to get out of prison young enough to still be a threat.
DV registry would be amazing, although I do think most people who commit DV would still find victims. They're often very persuasive and good at finding vulnerable people.
Great Idea
We do, it’s called public court records
Tbh, offender registries should also provide clear context.
A drunk idiot pissing in the bushes is nowhere as bad as an old creep preying on children.
I'm pretty sure when i checked, they do exactly that.
My state definitely does. I think a lot of places do, people just don't really pay attention.
Once a person is convicted of murder. And said person completes there prison sentence. They are very less likely to be a repeat offender.
Don’t quote me on this but I’m pretty sure they are the lowest repeat offenders.
There is a registry for domestic violence. It’s called National Domestic Violence Registry.