By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A 54-year-old convicted sex offender, Lemar Beasley, was arrested after a 24-hour manhunt in Florida. He is accused of fatally stabbing 36-year-old Cheyenne Kastens outside a Dollar General store. Investigators have stated there was no apparent interaction or known connection between Beasley and Kastens. Beasley, who has a history of criminal offenses, was charged with first-degree premeditated murder and potentially faces the death penalty.
Read the original article here
Florida man accused of stabbing a woman to death outside a Dollar General is a convicted sex offender. Right off the bat, it’s pretty clear that this headline is designed to grab your attention. And frankly, it does. But let’s unpack why it’s so compelling, and what it might actually be trying to tell us. The immediate reaction for many, is a gut punch of disgust and anger, and a sense of “this guy is a jerk”. The fact that the man is a convicted sex offender, immediately colors the perception of the crime.
However, the real question is, why is the fact that he’s a sex offender even relevant? If he just up and murdered someone, shouldn’t that be enough to condemn the act? Many believe it’s because it fits a narrative of fear-mongering and sensationalism. It’s playing on the idea that sex offenders are inherently the most dangerous people in society. Is that really the case? The evidence suggests otherwise. The statistics show that sex-offense recidivism rates are actually quite low compared to other types of crimes.
Consider this: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rearrest rate for sex offenses within five years is only about 4%. Compare that to the figures for other offenses and it starts to put things in perspective. Firearms offenders, for example, have a 70.6% rearrest rate within eight years. Drug traffickers and DUI/DWI offenders also have significantly higher rates of repeat offenses. Yet, we don’t often see headlines that highlight these types of past convictions when an unrelated crime is committed. Why not? Why is it that the sex offender status gets special treatment?
The answer likely lies in the power of stereotypes and the sensationalism that drives so much of the media today. It’s easy to tap into existing fears and prejudices, and the “Florida Man” narrative is already a bit of a caricature. It’s a quick and dirty way to get people outraged and clicking, regardless of whether or not it provides any meaningful context to the crime.
The fact of the matter is, his previous conviction doesn’t change what happened in the parking lot of the Dollar General. He is alleged to have committed a murder. The law doesn’t care if the accused is a sex offender, a former accountant, or a kindergarten teacher; if the evidence points to a crime, they are guilty or innocent based on that evidence. Bringing in the sex offender status serves only one purpose, to heighten the shock value and reinforce existing biases.
In a court of law, the prior conviction would likely be inadmissible. Evidence of prior bad acts is generally not allowed unless it directly relates to the motive or method of the crime being investigated. The headline is more about generating an emotional response than providing any useful information. It can be easy to fall into the trap of using someone’s past actions as a way to prejudge them. That is the point of a trial.
The emphasis on his status as a sex offender might obscure what is truly relevant: the alleged murder itself. It also can overshadow a history of violence. His past doesn’t negate his role in this event, but it’s important to keep in mind why it is being presented, and in that context, consider the source.