|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Sex Offender Registry
Do you think it's a good thing? Do you think it's a thing that started with good intentions but has been skewed out of line so the benefits are gone? Do you think it's a bad thing? Sep 08 15 06:02 pm Link The details of this case should answer that question. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christiner … f-n2047902 http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230634 Sep 08 15 06:28 pm Link Lovely Day Media wrote: I think it's a good thing to register the hard-core sexual predators, like serial-rapists and pedophiles mainly. Sep 08 15 07:57 pm Link Lightcraft Studio wrote: ^^ what they said - - - There are people that simply cannot be locked away legally forever - (as appealing as it is to think about) - and without that avenue - society needs to know where they are and keep them on a very tight set of restrictions Sep 08 15 08:35 pm Link Vintagevista wrote: Question: how does society know where they are? How tight are the restrictions? Sep 08 15 08:43 pm Link Lovely Day Media wrote: No solution is ever 100%. The registry does help people avoid hiring someone for an inappropriate job, and it helps prospective landlords know important info about prospective tenants. Sep 08 15 08:53 pm Link Lightcraft Studio wrote: I can't speak for every state, but on the NJ registry, before one can get this information, one has to agree to use it in away that doesn't threaten, intimidate, etc etc and any misuse of said information may be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability. Sep 08 15 09:00 pm Link Lovely Day Media wrote: I have some duplex rental buildings, and some have families on one side. I would try to avoid renting the other side to a sex offender if at all possible. Sep 08 15 09:08 pm Link If I were the parent of children or a woman I would want to know where the pervs are living I once spent some time looking at those internet maps ( of cities like NY ) and the numbers of sex offenders concentrated in certain areas was staggering Sep 08 15 09:19 pm Link You remember the Patriot Act. It was supposed to be used to combat terrorism. But wait it is now overwhelmingly used in routine criminal investigations and also to surveillance ordinary citizens. Surprise! Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations Politicians always want 2 things. 1. More power 2. Job security Your and others safety is a secondary concern. Once they get more power they always abuse it to create boogy men to gain job security. Michael Bots wrote: The prosecutor is undoubtedly adding the conviction of two child molesters to his/her resume. It really doesn't matter that he/she ruined the lives of two people for doing something stupid. Sep 08 15 09:23 pm Link People who got caught peeing in alleyways, and 19 year olds with 17.5 year old girlfriends have no business being on sex offender lists. Unfortunately, they are, so I can't possibly take it seriously. Sep 09 15 05:31 am Link Why is that society has decided that we must be warned of sex offenders, and only sex offenders? Why isn't there a list of people who have committed violent crimes? Of people that assault their spouses? People that are likely to scam you? People that have committed DUI? Litterbugs? Why isn't every parking ticket made available for public scrutiny? The people that work with returning convicted people to society complain that the stigma and record keeps people from getting jobs. Without jobs, they are likely to commit further crimes and return to prison. To combat that, we create a sex offenders list, with even more stigma against the people on the list. After all, who would you hire first, the rapist of children or the woman that hacked up her husband with an ax? The concept was well meaning. The implementation is abused. Sep 09 15 05:57 am Link I've been having this discussion with someone of late. They are of the opinion that this registry is of great importance because it tells them where all the sex offenders live so they know where they should or should not send their children. They know who should or shouldn't be teaching in classrooms, coaching sports, this, that and the other. Most important, it's a deterrent to ever committing the crime again. I say it's a big waste of time, money, resources and energy. Just because I know where someone lives doesn't mean I know where they are all day every day. If they aren't committing any crimes, why would I even care? Sep 09 15 06:56 am Link Hunter GWPB wrote: Is govt supposed to be logical? Sep 09 15 08:58 am Link My problem with it is that it creates bias. 1. Often the exact nature of the sex crime isn't clear and people assume the worse. Some guy who is now 56 can be on the list because he had sex with his under age girlfriend when he was 18, or because he peed behind a dumpster in an alley, but many will assume he's a sexual predator. 2. We don't keep such accessible registries for other crimes, so this makes people immediately aware of people who have committed one crime while they remain ignorant of people who pose an equal or greater threat. So you might be worried about some guy who lives two blocks away being a threat who in reality did nothing more than pee behind a dumpster a decade ago, while the guy next door has brutally battered 3 people, but you have no idea, because it wasn't a sex offense. Sep 09 15 08:59 am Link Lovely Day Media wrote: I feel like, if we didn't live in such a puritanical nation, it could be a good thing. In some states, it is illegal to have oral sex, or practice consensual bondage in your own home. In others, it's still illegal on technicality for male couples to engage in "buggery." Technically, a man can be sent to court for having sex with his (now) legal husband in certain places. Sep 09 15 09:11 am Link Koryn wrote: I agree... it's nuts to lump these people in with serial rapists and child molesters. That doesn't make much sense. Sep 09 15 09:14 am Link Koryn wrote: What about taking a wiz out in the backyard, when your nearest neighbor is around 300 yards away, and not another one for a 1/2 mile..? Sep 09 15 09:15 am Link I heard a State Senator speak about his proposal for a revision of how a person gets on the list. He wanted it to be a separate issue that was decided by the jury (or the judge, if not a jury trial) after the guilty verdict. This would allow the defense to make a case as to why the person should not be required to register. He said this would do a better job of making sure only those who are thought to be a potential danger appear on the list. His argument was that as more and more people are placed on the list because their offense technically is list eligible, but in reality pose no potential danger to anyone, it waters down the list and also places a scarlet letter on people who don't really deserve to be marked. Sep 09 15 09:19 am Link PhillipM wrote: If a little girl tells her mama she saw you shaking your tallywacker, you go on the list. Sep 09 15 09:20 am Link ernst tischler wrote: Well, she's way off the beaten path, and better have a good reason for being there... Sep 09 15 09:38 am Link ernst tischler wrote: PhillipM wrote: She gets juvy probation for trespassing and you go on the list. LOL Sep 09 15 09:42 am Link My biggest problem with the registry is that they made it retroactive, so if a person committed a sex crime in 1934, they're on it even if they finished their jail sentence in 1939. My next biggest problem is that it's really easy to get on and almost impossible to get off. In NJ, they say if one commits a crime against a child, one is on for life. Well, what's the definition of a child? I know that technically anyone under 18 is a minor, a child, but let's be real. Some of these "children" (especially the girls ... though I"ll admit to not checking any of the guys out) are built like brick outhouses and with fake ID and other deception, can be in places where they shouldn't go. Meet them, get lied to, have sex with them and one is on the registry for life. Finally, they make a person do all their time in jail and then slap them on the registry for life. In NJ, if a person is deemed "compulsive and repetitive" and thus sent to the sex offender prison for treatment, they get to tell the police every 90 days where they live (even if it hasn't changed since the last time). Everyone else who didn't go to that prison does it once a year. This means that at no time does anyone get to move on with their life because every year (or more often), they're getting slapped in the face with the past again. They can't ever live it down. What do I propose? If they really think this list is a great thing and helps, make it part of a person's prison sentence. Let them out on parole and part of the conditions for that parole is keeping their address current with local police along with everything else that is required. If a person doesn't want to go on the registry, they can opt out of parole and stay in prison until their time is up. When their prison time is up, they go free. If they opt for the parole and do something while they're on it, they get to go back to prison to finish their first sentence day for day (no good time) and the 2nd sentence will be at least 25 years before they are eligible for parole again (not that they have to get it then). If they don't want to do that, keep a person on the registry for a certain amount of time (10 years, 20 years, etc) and they could even make it in relation to how long they were sentenced to do in jail. This way, if a person does 10 years in jail, gets out and stays trouble free for 10 years, they can go free (for instance). I don't see any of these happening, though, because no one wants to appear to be soft on crime, especially sex crimes. I'm not talking about people like Jesse Timmendaquas or Jerry Sandusky here. I'm talking about the people with relatively minor and/or non violent crimes. The people urinating behind a tree or something similar would qualify. Sep 09 15 11:49 am Link Wasn't there a news story a couple of years ago about a male soldier who had drinks with a female soldier and then they had consensual sex. He got disciplined by the military because it is against military rules to give drinks to someone and then have sex with them. So when he is discharged from the military with that conviction on his military record, his home state tells him he has to register as a sex offender. The problem is, if he had done the same exact thing in his home state, it would not have been against the law...it was a violation of the military code of conduct. I don't remember what happened with that and I did not find it with a quick google search. Anyone remember what state that was in, or when it was? Sep 09 15 12:32 pm Link Lovely Day Media wrote: Police state. Sep 09 15 08:51 pm Link Lightcraft Studio wrote: 'That doesn't make much sense', yes it does. See my post above this one. Sep 09 15 08:52 pm Link Garry k wrote: There must be some here at MM. Sep 09 15 08:55 pm Link ernst tischler wrote: There is similiar rules now for many (American) colleges. If you give alcohol to a woman in order to have sex with her it in not consensual sex. It is considered duress. I remember reading an article about that a couple of years ago. I think it stuck in my mind because I was young once and I am pretty sure that was the game plan for a lot of guys Sep 09 15 10:06 pm Link martin b wrote: predator! Sep 09 15 10:13 pm Link What kind of guy gives alcohol to college women in order to get them in bed? Apparently you can get kicked out of many colleges now for this. I don't know if you need to register. Sep 09 15 10:21 pm Link My personal opinion of the registry is very low. I think it is a bad idea overall. I believe that its creations was based on emotional responses to the very worst and most rare sex offenses. People don't make good decisions when emotions are boiling and the politicians who jumped on the band wagon are IMO as much predators as any sex offender could be, striking when the "target" is vulnerable. Using them for their own gain under the guise of "justice and right"! Yet the extreme restrictions are applied to all offenders who make the list. And making the list is very simple and is only getting easier. Also in most states once an individual is on it its for life. The restrictions are quite asinine in today's society and make it difficult for anyone on it to find housing and jobs, friends etc.. How can anyone ever get past the mistakes in life if they are constantly dogged by them? In essence this creates a strong sense of "the fuck its" adds stress and anxiety to every aspect of their life. Oh and additionally they on the list are forced to wear GPS tracking devices on their ankles for (20 years minimum), of which the physical presence creates a lot of additional restrictions. I have a friend who is in this boat and he cannot take a bath or go swimming can not wear winter boots of any kind due to the size of the thing can not go camping because the battery will die has to charge up twice a day in the best conditions more often depending on signal availability, cannot play most sports due to the running which creates a potential to damage/stress the strap resulting an alarm and arrest, going to jail and paying about $800.00 to replace the strap!. Oh yeah and then they are required to pay for these wonderful services monthly and yearly! People fuck up all the time,make bad choices and develop ways to justify crazy behaviors like a 25 year old man meeting a 15 year old child for sex or dating/grooming a child for same, over a period of time. Often the child 'victim' knows what he or she is doing and know also that it is wrong yet remain blameless. Often times they are blameless but not always. People can change and sex offenders are not as bad as we all make them out to be (most anyway). Also the recidivism rate is much much lower than what most people assume. Enough of my rant Dec 03 15 09:02 am Link Since many (most) I knew back in the day were getting laid pretty regularly by the time they were 14 - 15 it seems that most of society should be on "the list." Just saying.  Dec 03 15 09:13 am Link Many of the members on this website are 1 honest mistake away from ending up on the registry. Model gave you a fake ID, for example. Dec 03 15 09:19 am Link It's good to know if people living around us are criminals, drug addicts or potentially dangerous. Lots of people on the sex register are labeled and scarred for life, maybe for something they got caught up in when they were young and stupid, or unlucky. Others have served their time and paid their price to society, and do not have any permanent predatory inclinations at all. These people should not be stigmatized or ostracized further because they are on a list that permanently labels them as a dangerous pervert. Some people get nailed as "sex offenders" by false accusations or other circumstances that are taken out of context. I think it's a rough, bureaucratic and imperfect system. Real concerns for safety should be managed, especially in densely populated urban areas. False drama, fear mongering and hysteria need to be avoided. Some states are much stronger and opinionated about this than California. If I pull up the map for the university area in San Diego where I rent my houses, there are hundreds of sex offenders in all directions around me. My standard boilerplate California rental agreement has a Megan's Law disclosure addendum that addresses this issue. Sad, but true. When I screen applicants, if I can find any criminal records, or if they are on a list like this, then I will generally avoid them as tenants. If they lie on their applications by not disclosing this when the question is asked, then I can reject them for falsifying their application. I'm the guy who is liable for the safety of my rental properties. I don't want to be accused of neglecting the due diligence that is expected of me. I can be a target for seedy lawyers who are prospecting. I have to be as careful as I can to the best of my ability. College kids can be very sexually active, they do lots of things that are illegal or stupid, and they can make lots of problems for themselves by being empty-headed and naive. It's part of growing up, right? They are all emancipated adults and it's not my job to mother them. I have to try to protect myself from the backwash when they get themselves in trouble. I was looking around on the sex register list once and discovered one of my favorite Cambodian Monks who lives at a local Buddhist temple is on the list. The temple is listed as his address. It's public information. I asked him what happened and he said he had some trouble many years ago. There may have been a difference of cultures and laws when he arrived here from Cambodia. For whatever reason, he's now on that list for life. He's old and was sick the last time I saw him. I'm not sure he's still alive. I asked him if I could take him to my doctor and pay the bill for him. Like a good Buddhist Monk who is at peace with nature he said "I'm not afraid to die."  Dec 03 15 10:04 am Link Lohkee wrote: Phoenix Glamour wrote: No kidding. Dec 03 15 10:18 am Link martin b wrote: Haha. Go to any college party where guys and gals are socializing. Lots of students of both genders start their evening by getting sufficiently high, then proceed to getting wasted. How many of them are already seriously impaired by alcohol and/or drugs before they jump in bed? How many blame someone else for "getting them drunk" or "drugging them" after the fact? What percentage of people go to college parties and DON'T drink and/or take drugs? I would guess it's close to zero. Dec 03 15 10:29 am Link Click Hamilton wrote: Scary images! Dec 03 15 02:05 pm Link sure it's good to know about predators but filling up the registry with kids who had sex with their girlfriend/boyfriends seems silly (surely there are other ways to handle that). and if there's even need for a registry doesn't that call into question whether people can be rehabilitated? and has anyone done a study to see if sex offender registries actually reduce crime? if you are a parent you can't watch your child every moment even if a predator is in the neighborhood. and some people who probably should be on the list get away with "grooming" their victims as minors hoping that they will able to have their fun once the kid becomes legal (possibly sleazy but not illegal). possibly a good thing is to educate your kids that there are bad people in the world and those people may be charming and try to talk them into stuff or that if you are a minor it's illegal to have sex with an adult and doing so might result in the adult being put in prison or getting on a sex offender list. so maybe what we have partly is a failure to be a responsible parent and discuss the way the world really is versus how we might want it to be. and sometimes minors make poor choices (their brains aren't fully grown and they are subject to peer pressure and curiosity, etc.) don't get me started on all the stuff that happens in college. we send our kids off to go wild for four years and then shake our heads when weird stuff happens. makes you think the adults are the problem, not the kids. Dec 03 15 03:05 pm Link ontherocks wrote: I will look for the study but the answer is yes a study has been done and the conclusion was that the registries have not reduced sex crimes. Dec 03 15 07:54 pm Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: Change the image search to passed out nudes. It gets more scary. Dec 03 15 08:32 pm Link |
LOL
