Imagine, if you will, an idyllic park setting where sounds of children’s laughter and shrieks of delight fill the air. You shade your eyes from the sun and catch a glimpse of someone sitting on a nearby bench. Looking around, you discover that this person is at the park alone, which you find strange. “Something’s not quite right,” you think, as you watch him wander through the playground. Your instincts tell you that this person shouldn’t be anywhere near children.
Back home, you log onto your computer and check the database of registered sex offenders, during which you find that there are 12 offenders within a mile radius of your address. Your pulse quickens as you look through the database. You suddenly see a picture of someone that stops your heart cold, and you ask yourself, “Is it him? Is this the man who was at the park”? You’re horrified. That man is a Level 2 sex offender, and what’s more, he’s NON-COMPLIANT. Your hunch was right. He has no business being anywhere near children.
So you share the news in the public forum of your community’s neighborhood blog because people need to know, and parents with children who visit the park need to be aware that this dangerous man could return to the park at any time and possibly re-offend. Before long, people are asking, “Why is this guy allowed to be in the park?” People then report that they’ve seen this man everywhere: at the supermarket, the library, and a bus stop. What’s worse is that someone else calls the Seattle Police Department to report “the incident,” and dispatcher tells the caller that since the man is not on probation, there is nothing stopping him from being around children.
Meanwhile, fliers emblazoned with “HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN?” and the man’s photo are distributed to parents in the park. One parent Google’s the man’s name, only to find out that he was thrown in jail last year for keeping pornographic files of children on his computer. “Why the HELL,” she asks, “isn’t this man still in jail?”
But then, someone else does a bit more digging. Finds that the man in question is actually not the same man in the database. That man has been behind bars for the past year, and he will remain so for 11 more. That man should have been taken off of the Sex Offender database last year.
It’s an honest mistake, to be sure, but one that has raised a lot of fears. The intention was admirable, but the cascade of events that followed was not.
We are incredibly lucky to be living in the digital age—where infinite information is delivered to us effortlessly. We are more informed, more aware, and as such, more proactive about delivering information that can be helpful to our neighbors. But sometimes, a little information can be very dangerous. Without checking facts or digging deeper, we stand a chance to instill unnecessary fear and widespread panic.
What has happened reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode “The Monsters are Due on Maple Street” where, after a power outage in a neighborhood, unfounded fear, suspicion, and blame leads to chaos and mob rule. The neighbors turn on one another. One man is shot to death while another is being chased. Before long, neighbors are smashing windows and picking up weapons to use on one another. All the while, there are two aliens observing the mayhem from above, commenting on how easy it was to set people off. They conclude, “The easiest way to conquer the Earth is to let the people of the Earth destroy themselves.1” Rod Serling ends the episode with a final narrative:
…For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own: for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.
It’s not to say that keeping a watch on our neighborhood is reprehensible. The world has its share of perverts and criminals, and we live in an urban sprawl where we are forced to co-exist with people both good and bad. Having neighbors look out for one another is what makes a neighborhood a great place to live. What’s crucial is that we retain our objectivity and continue to question the information we receive from the Internet. We must also recognize that we lend credibility to misinformation by spreading it further through social mediums. So let’s make a solemn promise to one another that we will continue to look out for our neighbors; but we’ll do so, responsibly.
Why is it “strange” for a man to be hanging out in a park by himself?
Sad but true. Thanks to the public registry we have unparalleled panic in this society. We have grown to be suspicious of a man in a park. Or a man with a child. Or men in general.
Recently we applauded a woman with a lengthy criminal record including violent assaults and drug offenses; we even sent her money. Why? Because of an unprovoked attack of someone on the registry. Some guy who was a young teen when he was forced to register. It was unprovoked, and she used a baseball bat. We were even outraged when she got a mere 90 day sentence; many thought this violent offender deserved a medal.
Our culture is not one of forgiveness.
I came to this article because of the title. Not all sex offenders are “monsters.” Most are humans who made bad mistakes and a few wrongfully convicted, thrown into this pit together, ostracized, and never given a chance for redemption.
If you want sex offender truths, check out oncefallen . com
Thanks for the reminder to keep a responsible lookout!
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy has tons (yes, I was going to write ‘reams’, then thought better of it) of data about community notification, recidivism, etc. here: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/topic.asp?cat=10&subcat=55&dteSlct=0. This is pure data, one of my favorite morning beverages.
I checked out oncefallen, by the way, and I’m really not impressed by the lack of data on recidivism and the focus on ‘false allegations’. You can cherrypick all you want, but most folks who end up on the registry did not ‘make a bad mistake’. They did bad shit over and over. I’m a HUGE fan of restorative justice, because even the worst offenders are going to get out of jail sometime and we really need to be able to integrate them safely back into the community, but considering the level of unreported sexual violence out there, you’d be better off focusing on something like this (check out the comments, they’re by turns funny, heartbreaking and brilliant): http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/.
And I think we keep our kids safest when we educate them, evaluate risk clearly with as much information as possible and keep a level head about us. Most sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim, not by a park lurker. He’s just an easy target.
Public parks and playgrounds are not just for children and their female caretakers. Keep an eye on your own and let the rest of us enjoy the space without your scrutiny.
I realize you’re going for dramatic effect, but the inflammatory language you chose for the lede really doesn’t help here – it just drums up the “grab a torch and let’s git ’em” that was incited previously. Also, you’ll find that some on the registry are there for reasons that could put any number of so-called “decent” folks on it – they had sex with an underage person when they were underage. (Or were 18 and the other was 17, for example.)
Not saying they are all lovely peaches, but honestly, I’m really close to abandoning the blog. This kind of writing is borderline irresponsible.
Full disclosure: as a former newspaper person (RIP many, many former employers), I know about trying to engage the reader and set the tone. And I know it’s a blog, not the press. But stirring up your readers – and let’s face it, not everyone will read to the end – could end up backfiring. Apparently, it already did.
@jacqui
>> Also, you’ll find that some on the registry are there for reasons that could put any number of so-called “decent” folks on it – they had sex with an underage person when they were underage. (Or were 18 and the other was 17, for example.)
I think that’s exactly to the author’s point. Stay objective and dig deeper before you grab that torch.
Also, this is pretty clearly an editorial. (AFAIK, news stories don’t usually dispense opinions) Does your lede analysis actually apply here?
Amen, Margaret and others. Thanks for your thoughtful comments about this important subject.
@7 I would argue that the line between news and personal opinion on any blog blurs quite a bit, especially the way many people read them (skimming). Yes, I get that she was saying think before you leap – perhaps a better point would be that, IMHO, she buried the lede pretty deep.
The question for me is whether or not the registries are merely punitive or if they actually reduce recidivism, which is what any tool around sex offending should aim for. I don’t think they actually do that – they just give people a false sense of control (or heightened fear, which is what I think the WSIPP data shows, though it’s been a few years since I last looked at it). Sometimes we lose sight of what our ultimate goal is.
As for blog v. news, feh. I take it all with a grain of salt.
Until you said man, I had a momentary zap that you were talking about me! Of course I am a harmless woman with gray hair and a very loving mid-sized labradoodle. But i have been sitting on a bench throwing the ball (when no people are near) because I have a pinched nerve and the Dr. said not to walk more than necessary.
I am at the park once or twice a day and have not noticed any particularly scary looking men–just the usual nomads. Most of them know us. Pehaps I should be more watchful.
Jude
Wow, I sincerely apologize for the witch hunt that I apparently started as that was not my intention. I trusted that the registry was up to date and that was a big mistake on my part.
However, I did not single this man out because he was alone in a playground. I am aware that a public park is a place for everyone to enjoy and it’s insulting that some think that is the reason why I thought this person was up to no good.
My intentions were good but my actions were irresponsible. My sincere apologies.
I’m sorry, but when it comes to children’s safety there is no such thing as being too careful, andif someone looks like a sex offender, and acts like a sex offender, then he probably quacks like a sex offender, too! They are NOT rehabilitatable, and should be in prison for life!
Sandy, what does a sex offender look like?
You just got caught in a lie, J.
I have a whole page on recidivism and only one page on false allegations. Sounds a lot like you’ve been doing some “cherry picking” of your own. Maybe next time, read the whole site.
You’re quite a contrary person. You say “As for blog v. news, feh. I take it all with a grain of salt,” yet you linked to a blog instead. I wasn’t impressed with that blog, and it was filled with the same feminist mumbo-jumbo that has helped propagate the hysteria.
It seems you’re a pot calling a kettle black.
So what you did on your site was devote the same amount of space to recidivism as to false allegations (false equivalence), then refer to one as ‘a whole page’ and another as ‘only one page’. Which one is it? I also linked to WSIPP data – data! – as well as a blog, calling out the blog as such.
And I’m highly consistent if you look at my posts. But yes, I’m also contrary, especially with folks who refer to ‘feminist mumbo-jumbo’ and ‘hysteria’. And what are my beliefs about how best to deal with sex offenders and sex offending? It appears you don’t like my tone, but you clearly don’t understand my views.
Now, what was the lie you caught me in?
Hmm. I am the one who googled, discovered on The Seattle Times’ website that the man was supposedly locked up, and emailed Wallyhood with it. I was very alarmed indeed. You often hear about people getting their sentences shortened. My email stated:
“So, if that really was him at Meridian, and it seems likely (actually, I think I saw him myself at one point near QFC hence my extra high level of alarm), why THE HELL is he lounging around near our kids when he should be locked up for years?”
I asked Wallyhood to share the information I’d found as I was having trouble logging in. I think I acted responsibly, even with my high level of fear (as seen in my thought that, “hey, I think I saw him too!” which is possible as that sighting would’ve been over a year ago). I was hoping that the information would help determine exactly what was going on. I’m glad I did at least a bit of research and uncovered key information that allowed Wallyhood to confirm that he is in jail. You’re welcome!
This type of rapidly spreading fear based on misinformation is all the rage and it covers many topics. It’s not unique to parents, but parents are especially vulnerable to it. Vaccines come to mind.
As parents, we hear scary shit all the time and it’s hard not to be affected by it, and it’s very difficult to assess actual risk based on the individual horror stories. As a parent you’re supposed to follow your gut instincts, while also not trusting your gut and checking your fears and worries through thorough endless research. It’s a tough balance when there’s so much fear being churned out by the media, which affects our judgment without our even realizing it. If nothing else, this somewhat biased post is a good reminder to not take fearful soundbites at face value. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be more careful, I’m just saying, it’s not easy when you look at the cultural context.
You know, that police dispatcher’s statement really amped things up! Most of the uproar could’ve and should’ve ended with that call to the police. They should be more responsible with the information they provide.