Ok, the question is simple: should ALL sex offenders be stuck on a registry for sex offenders for life? Is there a difference between the man in this story and man who sodomizes a 5-year old?


http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Sex_of ... _life.html

In my opinion there needs to be some way to diffrentiate between different types of sex offenders. I don't think there can be a single sweeping law; instead I think there needs to be some kind of hearing where a judge or a small panel decides whether a person should be on the list, and for how long.

Well, most 30 year olds don't go on the prowl for 16 year olds to date. It's more than a little skeevy. But I do agree that there should be some removal process similar to the one for felons to have their right to vote restored.

Most registries list the crime that was committed so there is some differentiation between the stupid and the really really bad.

sex offender for life

Personally I don't think sex offender registration lists are a good idea, and that putting anyone's name on one, regardless of what they did, is wrong. The claim is that it helps prevent recidivism by alerting neighbors, etc, but it fails to take into account that sex offenders already have one of the lowest recidivism rates (they did prior to the beginning of the 'lists' too).

It also operates on the presumption that being sexually assaulted is the absolute worst thing that can happen to you beings we don't require murderers, drunk drivers, etc to notify neighbors or to go on a publicly available list that you can access through various websites.

These lists exist for no reason other than to give the populace a false sense of safety, and to make them feel good about themselves.

You're wrong.

The lists are invaluable and a great tool, because the nature of victims are easily manipulated, it's easy for a predator to stay at large but go undetected.

The 'poster boy' for this group is a guy who had sex with a teenager and now wants his name off the list so that he can have daily interaction with teenagers. The sounds off warning bells in my head and makes me extremely concerned about the rest of this 'group' that claims it doesn't belong on the list.

Depends on the sex offense. If you are getting your dick sucked in a car you should be cited or something, but since the act doesn't hurt anyone, no you shouldn't be tagged for life.

However rapists and pedophiles? Yes. They should.

Sounds like just the kind of guy who should be on the list to me...

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

So you see no difference between a guy having sex with a 16 year old, and a guy raping a 5 year old?

What about Stephen Fisher in the story? He was 18, had sex with a 13 year old, and got probation. Now he's on the registry for life, and can't get a job. No way that's fair.

Or, how about the couples it mentions that are put on the registry for having consensual sex in a public park? Is that the same, too?

See, the registry in question makes no diffrentiation between these acts and someone who rapes 5 year olds. But it's all the same, right?

Don't commit crimes if you don't want your life marred by those decisions.

Couples having sex in a public park is not ok. 18 year olds having sex with 13 year olds is not ok.

Fribur, of course there is a difference. The one who rapes a 5 yr old should still be in prison. Regardless of the difference, though, both still should be on the list. The 18 yr old should not be having sex with a 13 yr old. 13! Did you not read that part? That's middle school FFS.

It's stupid to even get involved in this conversation, but how about a 17 year old girl having sex with her 16 year old boyfriend on prom night. Should she be a lifetime sex offender?

I like Neesha's example better. Better yet, the boy was 16 and 11 months!

I'm honestly not sure where the line is drawn. I'm also not completely convinced that an 18 year old with a 13 year old is worth a lifetime of punishment. I mean, a person seriously can't change from the age of 18, and is also a danger to society because of that one act(I mean, it's not "right", but it's not really rape either IMO, assuming she consented). The line gets a little less blurry as you move along the age bracket. A 24-year-old guy with a 13-year-old girl? That's looking very bad.

The point of the list (supposedly) is to protect other kids in neighborhoods.

Several of the listed examples are simply being punished way beyond their crime because of the lifelong status of the list.

Never being able to get a job other than menial work because you got daring and had sex with your girlfriend in a public park and got caught? Not even close to fair.

Never being able to get a job other than menial work because you had consentual sex with a 15 year old, even though you served your 8 years in prison, and are now married to the girl in question? Not even close to fair.

People make mistakes. Back up a few hundred years, and the idea of having sex and getting married to a 13 year old isn't a big deal anymore. Maybe it's not so black and white.

Sex offender lists are just a bullshit Scarlet Letter. As much as I despise these people, they are entitled to rights. If they serve their time, the debt to society is finished (as a matter of law). If they are dangerous, don't release them by changing the minimum sentencing laws. But the registrations set an extremely dangerous precedent in my view.

I agree.

It needs to be revised. The catch all 'sex offender' title could be considered cruel and unusual punishment being a lifelong stigma. If someone is a threat to society, they need to be in jail. If they aren't, it's harassment.

As correct as this is, and legally it's also my spouse's viewpoint...I must admit severe personal bias here.

The problems is when it comes to this topic, many people are not logical or even reasonable. It evokes an emotional response.

_________________

Then those people shoudn't be in law, or in a position to write laws, or render decisions based on law. There's a reason Lady Justice is often depicted with a blindfold on.

On the topic of sexual offenders, again, there are no absolutes, only what society thinks is right or wrong during the current era. As Fribur already alluded to, getting married and having sex at age 13 was probably not a big deal even a century ago.....and now it's a crime?

The laws regarding sexual crimes will change as the times change. Homosexuality and miscegenation used to be crimes. What was a crime yesterday may be acceptable today, what is a crime today may be acceptable tomorrow.

It's more than a crime now, it's like....I don't know....it's like an affront to all humanity, it's some kind of reaction that seems near-primordial, making people lose all sense and reason or something. It's something that is so terrible to people that we'll arrest them for just talking about it, make TV shows to parade them in front of everyone, make us abandon our views of law and justice...it's almost insane.

Riiiiiight.....because people don't get married and have kids at age 13 anywhere in the world? It's an affront to ALL humanity, or maybe just your limited view of it?

Honestly, go out and travel more. Go to other countries and see what their views on sexuality are. Then you would realize how ridiculous your statement is that somehow 13 year-olds having sex is an affront to all humanity.

You didn't read my entire post, did you?

I did. If that was your attempt at sarcasm, then it was lost on me.

Nekrotic has gotten better at jumping to conclusions. (38)

If I could edit it I would try to make it a little simpler to understand.

But I shouldn't have to for someone like you that is such a self-professed pinnacle of intellectual dominance and judgement.

You put that in your original post. It was pretty clear what you meant.

But just in case you're not quite the intellectual paragon that you presented yourself to be in the other thread, I'll amend it...

"It SEEMS as though people in this nation view it as an affront to all humanity."

From my perspective as someone who has been on the receiving end of sexual violence... these registries are a crock of shit. Some kid who is 17 knocks up his 15 year old girlfriend, her dad gets pissed off, and now not only do they face the difficulties of being teenage parents, he's stuck in menial jobs for the rest of his life. It's retarded.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

What about a Junior or Senior screwing around with a freshman and whatnot? Under that context how many men on this forum alone would be on that list?

One of my stepdad's nephews went to prison because he was 19 dating a 16 year old. When they broke up the girl's mother turned him in for "rape" as a way to get revenge....

One blanket list for offenders is about as stupid as those blanket zero tolerance policies in schools...you know, the one where they expelled a girl that saved her friend's life by letting her use her own albuterol inhaler? Apparently that was "dealing drugs"...

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

Yes, there are issues with 'lists' and differentiation between crimes. But as long as our criminal justice system continues to release predators onto the streets we, the public and particularly parents and all others responsible for the safety of children, have a right/need to know who can be trusted.

One solution is for there to be a minimum age for placement on the list but then the issue arises about teenage babysitters raping young children. Others might say that nobody whose victim says the sex was consensual should be listed but that is putting a lot of pressure on children and do we truly want children to be the guardians of justice? There are no good solutions here. Personally, I'm not against lists that include all violent offenders, that would remove any civil rights issues and perhaps act as an impediment to precriminals.

But, I just can't endorse removing someone from a list whose offense was to have sex with an underage girl who was under his authority at the time so he can again be placed in a position of authority over underage girls.

The list doesn't tell you who can or can't be trusted. There are plenty of people on the list who can be trusted.

You know & vouch for all of them personally? Would you recommend that a child be left in the sole care of anyone chosen from the list? The list is not, nor ever will be, perfect but it is a reasonable response to a system that does not rehabilitate but only removes people from society for some set time, regardless of danger to the public.

How would you structure something to inform school systems, preschools, parents, etc about proven dangers to their children?

I already answered that question. The details would need to be worked out, but I think there should be some sort of hearing or something similiar where the length of time on the list should be determined.

None of us are perfect. You cannot trust ANYONE. Should we just make a list with all of us?

First, what poor schmuck or small group of schmucks are you going to make bear that responsibility?

You honestly see no difference between someone who has already broken the social contract and one who has not? While nobody is perfect & thus inherently trustworthy, did you hand off your EQ items to a known thief? Invite a known undroppable item grabber to your raids? Or in the real world would you leave your car parked unlocked in a parking garage known to have problems with thefts? Do you give out your private information to callers or do you make sure the other end of the line is legitimate by requesting a number to call them back after checking out their credentials? If stopped in an area that 'fake cops' are known to be victimizing would you not be sure the cop stopping you is real before opening your car?

I see nothing wrong with arming people with knowledge. Maybe the lists should be more specific, I don't disagree, but they aren't.

Again I would point you towards the posterboy for this group. Do you really think he should be given a job teaching high school? Would you want to be the principal who hired him if he were to seduce another girl in his charge? Would you want to be a parent who trusts him to tutor your daughter after school not knowing he'd offended in the past? How about allowing him to chaperone an overnight trip? There are lines that shouldn't be crossed and without the knowledge to draw those lines the public is at this guy's mercy.

The amusing part about all of this? The VAST majority of sexual predators target people they know, not the people they don't. I know they tend to be quite biased, but you should watch the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on "Strangers". You should spend more time making sure your kid isn't hit by a bus than you should concerning yourself with bullshit predator lists.

And for the record, as a parent, you do NOT have the "right" to be sure your kids are safe. That's your job. Do it. If you disagree with minimum sentencing laws, then change them. It's akin to getting 3 speeding tickets and then being banned from buying a sports car. You've paid your fine, your debt is paid. The end.

My kid isn't a kid anymore, and for the record, he was never hit by a bus. I am more than aware that it is a parent's job to be sure their kids are safe, not society's.

Yeah, it's like getting 3 speeding tickets (a victimless crime), sure. Even then you end up on a list of sorts and pay for it by paying more insurance after you've paid your fine.

Thread getting dumber by the minute.

I don't think it is fair at all that this one particular crime turns the person into a social pariah their entire life, to have their names and faces paraded over publications and lists everywhere they go. Here at the library we even keep a big stock of the "Sherrif's Local Sex Offenders List" things for people to take, and boy do they ever take them.

I dunno....maybe if every other serious crime had such publications and lists and treatment I'd be ok with it. But it's odd that we single these particular people out and treat them like such lepers.

I like it how some of the responses to this thread about a 30+ year old man and a 16 year old girl involve hypothetical prom-night sex. This case is clearly a lot worse than that, making such comparisons entirely inapposite. It's one thing to be against the list in general, but you can't argue this particular case is one of minimal degree. It's moderate to severe at best. And yes, even though it may be the subject of current debate (perhaps especially because it is), this law does reflect a society's view of right and wrong on a particular topic. That doesn't make it any less legitimate as a law; that's why we have most of the laws we have for god's sake.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

The title of this thread is "sex offenders marked for life." The first line in the thread is "Ok, the question is simple: should ALL sex offenders be stuck on a registry for sex offenders for life?" Quit making the thread dumber by your inability to comprehend what is being discussed. Gracias.

Great, because your child is more likely to be hit by a bus than accosted by a stranger.



Whoosh. You're missing the precedent this sets. How far does this get taken? If not on probation or structured release, you've paid your debt to society in full.

I like this thread. It serves as a subtle reminder that there is a difference between caring deeply for children and pursuing zealotry in their name.

they could have bumper stickers that say SOFL

_________________

ROFL SOFL WTF?!

You didn't read the article. Every other example I and others gave are in the article and are on the same list.

Come back and post again after you've actually read it.

I knew a cab driver that would piss in a bottle because he said if he got caught pissing in public he would have to register as a sex offender. Probably true - waving your genitals in public seems like something that would get you on the list, even though it is pretty "innocent".

But more on topic - I never understood this obsession with stigmatizing men who are attracted to 16 year old girls. They are old enough to reproduce, and since they are young and healthy they are probably the most attractive to most men, since they are the most likely to produce healthy offspring.

Attracted to 16 year old = perfectly normal
Attracted to 8 year old = not normal

If they have gone through puberty and are fertile, it only makes sense that older men would want to breed with them. Of course, I am also of the mind that we keep our kids at home about 2-3 years too long. We love to coddle our children in America. Course, with our inferior public education system, kids are not prepared at 16 to live in the world - that's not to say they aren't capable though. If someone is attracted to prepubescent children and acts on it, then that is a pretty big problem though.

We also happen to be a society where women prefer older men and men prefer younger women. This makes it doubly retarded to convict an 18 year old for having sex with a 16 year old. What 19 year old girl wants to do an 18 year old guy? The 19 year old girls all have their sites on the 21+ crowd.

Anyhoo, yeah these lists are completely retarded. Pee in public - listed. Drunken sex? - Listed. (you can't have sex with somebody if they are impaired). Sex with a girl 2 years younger than you if you are 18? - Listed.

There might be offenses that probably should be listed, but the current system is stupid and should be revised.

_________________

The article makes the very same poor comparison you do. The fact that it lists more sympathetic cases than the person it introduces us to most thoroughly supports MY point that he's not even close to a good case to parade around for letting up on the list-making. Unlike a third grader, I don't feel the need to constrain my thoughts to the assertions and mistakes of an article I found on the web. The guy in the first part of the article may present a pretty interesting grey area on some aspects of this issue, but he's not a pity case.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

I dunno. I certainly feel some pity for a guy being punished the entirety of his life just because he made the mistake of screwing his girlfriend who was only one year below the age of consent and who later became his wife.

Lower the age of consent already.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Does the below not seem reasonable?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/crime-bill.html

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

it's already 14 in some states, however the vast majority of states have a "minor line" clause, saying that even if one person is of the age of consent, if the other person is a legal adult, then it is still statutory rape.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Wife, or common law wife? There's a difference.

As far as I know, not in Texas they aren't. The only difference is when it comes to seperation.

I recall seeing a story on the news, the basics of it was:

18 yr old got with 16 yr old, Mom hated 18 yr old so she filed stat rape on him. The two stick that out and actually get married, 7 years later he still cant pick his own kids (from the original "rape victim") up from school because he is a sex offender.

I believe he had an eventual point of being off the list at that time though, but a "perma-ban" so-to-speak would be quite horrible for anyone in that situation.

If you are afraid they are going to recommit keep them locked up. If it is not 'justice' keeping them locked up then it is definitely not 'justice' to scarlet letter them.

My parents were 18 and 17 when they were first dating and my Grandma hated my dad. She tried to get him arrested. Had she been successful my dad would have had to register as a sex offender. He wouldn't have been able to serve his country by enlisting in the Navy for 12 years. He wouldn't have been able to get his current job working in a jail. Would that have made you safer?

I have to say, I'm pretty divided here. I don't think a 20 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend should be on the list. But I do think the list needs to exist. Predators don't change. There have been numerous studies on this. While they may, with great discipline, be able to control their impulses, those urges remain. If I had children, would I want to know if there was a predator in my neighborhood? Absolutely.

My inclination would be each person to be put on the list on a case by case basis, with migitgating circumstances being taken into account.

Interstingly enough, I remember looking up the Miranda lists that showed the location of registered sex offenders in my town. A fairly wealthy area in a nice respectable town in the wine country of CA. Not only where there a lot more than you would expect, but a large majority of them were on there for sex acts with minors under the age of 13. Sometimes under the age of 5. It was pretty frightening.

Well, to me the point isn't the severity of the crime or the "19 with 17" stuff. It's the principle of the lists and photos and the singling out and the pariah stuff and basically lifelong harassment.

As has been said before, if we don't think the sentences are long enough, make them longer. Do something along those lines. But this stuff where they "pay their debt to society but not really" is just bad business.

Well, let's address something here. The VAST VAST VAST majority of sex offenders are NOT pedophiles. Most sexual acts are manifestations of a need for power and control. Sex is only a tool (one of the reasons the whole "castration" crusade fizzled). Now, do you think making them pariahs after they've served their sentence will do ANYTHING to help rehabilitate them? And let's be real, if they've served their time, it's in our best interest to see that they are rehabilitated, however much we despise their acts.

I think the point is that essentially, they can't be rehabilitated. Or at least that is my understanding. I admit, I'm far from an expert, so if I'm wrong feel free to correct me. Anyway, if rehabilitation is out, all that remains is either keeping them locked up or putting them on the list to protect potential victims.

Color me unconvinced that they can't be rehabilitated. That's one very large brush you're using on people on varying types. Some may well be so easily-inclined to act on their urges that they're beyond, or at least close to beyond rehabilitating. But I have a hard time believing every single person who acts on a sexual urge and attacks is completely beyond reforming themselves and using their own willpower to prevent it from happening again. Some may finally end up feeling remorse for their actions, decide what they did was wrong, and act in a way which they can control themselves.

Not to mention society as a whole pretty much damned them from the start, why would rehabilitation work? This is a similar situation with serial killers and the like. No one really gives a flying damn whether they rot in a cell or get fried to death as long as they're as far away from our being as possible. Because of this, the level of attempts at rehabilitation is going to naturally be significantly lower - whether that attitude comes from taxpayer dollars willing to fund such projects, or the actual psychologists "trying" to rehabilitate them.

Whether or not the "urges remain" is somewhat silly to even think about. Of course they do. People have sexual urges all day long, every day. That particular disorder happens to redirect those urges towards children, which is horrible, but that's nature(more than likely - unless you want to buy into some of the grandoise theories that people made up for homosexuals as well). I'd be willing to bet that for every one pedophile that acts on their impulses, there are another 50 that are controlling them.