A Spineless Culture
Last night I checked out the Google Map API. It's a way that Google allows site designers to incorporate the Google Maps into their own sites. As I was studying it, I remembered a site I'd stumbled across that used this same API. Someone had combined the national database of sex offenders, with Google Maps to produce a map of where sex offenders live. My wife and I were shocked to see how many lived near us.
For some reason that site is now down. It may have been because the national sex offender registry has been making it harder for others to compile their information. Some people think that registry poses a danger to sex offenders, especially after some nutcase killed two several years ago, after locating them via the public registry. But quite a number of parents feel the registry helps protect their children from those who would exploit them.
Unfortunately, it appears that those who manage these registries aren't very efficient, because while addresses are supplied, they are often wrong and very hard to locate. Based on the current addresses of 5 of the sex offenders listed as living in the same town I live in, they all live within 500 feet of a school. According to state law, they're not supposed to live within 5,000 feet of a school. But another site shows their location (same exact address) at another part of town. The geocode locators provided for addresses don't seem to be very efficient, and ironically enough, one sex offender in the registry had a comment by city police that the address was bad, but that seems to be as far as anyone's actually done anything.
One problem I see is that the sex offender registry has been abused by tossing people into it who do not belong. One person listed locally was convicted of "allowing abuse", which usually means her child was abused by someone else, but she didn't do enough to stop or prevent the abuse, based on some DA's standard. Should that be someone listed on a sex offender registry? Men who are accused of abuse by bitter ex-wives would also find themselves on the registry, along side people whose parenting style don't match the whims of whatever social worker wanted to make an example of them.
But, there are dangerous people on that list as well. People parents need to know about. According to the national registry there are ten sex offenders that live within the same zip code as my family, but based on the addresses provided, it's almost impossible to know where exactly they live. Many of the addresses don't match local streets. Presumably there's someone that supposed to make sure the data the taxpayers are paying for to be in that registry is actually usable, but it seems that presumption is wrong.
Why have a national registry if it can't be used?
The answer is because having the registry offers the illusion that something's being done, which is the real goal of many bureaucrats, the appearance, not the reality.
Why waste taxpayers' money on programs that fail to provide what's needed?
Because to those bureaucrats and politicians, the appearance is all that matters. We have entire generations of Americans well trained in situation ethics, which means they determine right or wrong based on their own rules, their own needs. They want to appear to care, but really don't, so they make a system that, on the surface, perpetuates that illusion, but in reality is a sham.
But isn't making up your own rules based on your own needs and perceptions pretty much what make sex offenders, sex offenders?
The societal impact of moral relativism creates abusers, then prevents us from responding to them correctly, because those we trust to do so, think it's okay to "fake it".
How hard would it be to actually locate these sex offenders and monitor their whereabouts? Not very. A simple latitude and longitude to accompany the address would allow parents to quickly see what locations to avoid. It would also help determine of the locations the sex offenders chose, fit the law. Why is that so hard?
We took morality out of schools, we took the foundation out of the nation. Let's start rebuilding it by electing leaders who won't compromise on the need for moral absolutes in government, rather than leaders who hide from any stand that may demonstrate they understand right from wrong.
Posted by Danny Carlton at May 15, 2008 6:57 AM