If we don't act sex offenders may not have to register anymore!

[MrsDeathlynx]

This is really important to me, normally I'm not active in these types of things but on this one I can't help it. It's a subject near and dear to my heart, so please read the article and follow the instructions.

http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahshow/20090220-tows-adam-walsh-act

Sex offenders may no longer be required to register if we don't act, so please I beg you to consider this. This isn't for political discussion, this is to inform people of the issue. Not only that but the man worked so damn hard to get this law passed in the first place and I would hate to see his decades of work go to waste!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

America's attitude about sex offenses has changed in the last 100 years.

One of my ancestors, 34, married a 16 year old girl in 1863. Until 1925 an adult male could marry a pre-teen in Florida. There were no sexual molestation laws until the 20s. Fourteen was the legal age for a girl to wed when I was a kid. And I dated plenty of 15 and 16 year old girls when I was 18-19, and with the consent of everyone. It never occurred to any of us that I was a beast.

But times have changed. If youre 18 and have sex with a 17 year old youre at risk of prosecution as a sexual offender. And I know of numerous women who consent to sex while drunk, feel remorse later, and scream rape.

I'll feel better about joining the peasants, with my pitchfork, and whooping for harsh penalties, if and when we de-criminalize much of what isnt sex offenses.

 

[xssve]

I'm sure it will be extended - quite shocking that the republican congress didn't try to make this "permanent".

It needs some tweaking though, no question - forget an 18 year old and a 17 year old, if a 17 year old and a 16 year old have a sexual relationship, they're both sex offenders, and the sexting thing is technically a federal rap.

When the human lifespan averaged about Thirty, then the "age of consent" generally hovered somewhere around Twelve - with increased lifespans come extended neoteney, so the conventional wisdom of raising the age of consent makes a certain amount of sense, although in some countries, or parts of this one, mostly the country, marriage at Fifteen or Sixteen still doesn't raise many eyebrows.

I don't believe it's because they're "backwards", I have friends like this, it's more a factor that their lives are pretty much mapped out anyway, they mature early, and they're just not as excitable about it, it's kind of a distinct subculture.

In any case, the law was changed in many jurisdictions, making is lesser offense when you have say an 18 year old and a 17 year old, than between a Thirty year old and a 17 year old - where there may be some question of potential coercion in involved.

Still, the law in general seems to make few distinctions otherwise between minors - post-pubescent adolescents, and children, i.e., prepubescent, which I think is a cogent distinction that most people make.

 

[R. Richard]

As has been pointed out, one of the first things that needs to be done is to establish exactly what sexual abuse of a child really is. I can see no way to do this other than judgment.

In our local community, there was a meeting about the problem of registering sex offenders. They had people, many with PhDs, speak to the assemblage. None of the people had a real solution to the problem. I then got up and presented a simple plan that would be cost effective, protect children and easy to enforce. I present the plan:

"The solution to the problem of registration of sex offenders is location, location, location. Have them register in Hell."

 

[cloudy]

I'm sorry, but I think the way the laws work right now, the sex offender registration needs to go away.

As it is, people who aren't really sex offenders are branded for life, along with the predators that truly deserve it.

Until it changes, I'm totally against it.

 

[xssve]

I'm sorry, but I think the way the laws work right now, the sex offender registration needs to go away.

As it is, people who aren't really sex offenders are branded for life, along with the predators that truly deserve it.

Until it changes, I'm totally against it.

There is a significant nimbyism factor at work here I believe; while sex between post-pubescent minors is considerably less alarming than predation on prepubescent children - they are not even remotely the same thing - at the same time, most people would prefer not to go through the stress of guiding their "child" through it - it's easier to let the hysterics run amok.

 

[Liar]

This isn't for political discussion, this is to inform people of the issue.

I mean this in the best of ways, but... this is a discussion forum. And it's a political topic. Did you really expect people to not discuss?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CLOUDY

I suspect everyone knows what is and what isnt bonafide sexual abuse and exploitation. And I suspect most of us know when we became sexualized. I certainly recall about when it was that girls became a lot more interesting than my chums. So we have an idea where the lines are.

But if she's 'just seventeen, and you know what I mean" then youre forced to get real. You cannot abuse a 17 year old unless she's paralyzed or mentally retarded. I knew a human piece of shit who preyed on 18 year old handicapped girls. He finally had the decency to kill himself. But he made herds of babies before he did.

Bottomline: Hang the rapists and kiddie diddlers. Thirteen and older is fair game.

 

[MrsDeathlynx]

I personally would rather know someone who is accused of being a sex offender is living in my area. In my mom's town there are near a dozen living near the elementary school alone. No law is perfect, but isn't something better than nothing? Innocent people may be effected, but that happens with any law. I personally would rather something than nothing, this would be like taking away the question on an application about being a felon...

 

[cloudy]

I don't subscribe to the collateral damage theory. Sorry.

If people are being labeled a sex offender simply because they were sexting, or something equally innocuous, then until the laws are changed, the registry needs to go away.

...And I am a felon. Want me to be registered, too? You certainly wouldn't want me living in your neighborhood, right?



eta: when someone has "paid their debt to society," and done everything that was asked of them, you believe it's okay to ruin the entire rest of their lives, keep them from getting jobs, from voting?

I couldn't disagree more, if that's the case.

Look...I understand that this is a sensitive issue for you, and that your heart is in the right place, but the law is wrong. Period. If it affects even one innocent person, it needs to be changed, and saying "it's better than nothing" means that that person's life means nothing to you. What if that person was you? Your husband? Would it still be okay?

It's not "better than nothing." It's worse. Much worse.

 

[carryonmyfriend]

If someone robs a bank to support a drug habit, is found guilty and does their time then they deserve to be reintegrated into the world. I do not believe that a felony conviction should even stop you from voting. It sure as hell doesn't stop you from dying in the Middle East. However, a sexual predator will, it appears, always be a sexual predator. Should there be a registry? Damn straight there should be. But, like every tool, it needs to be used with some common sense which is a commodity sorely lacking in the United States in the past 20 years. I'm not sure if it's the Religious Right or just fuckin' morons but we have a whole lotta people in positions of authority that wouldn't know a well-informed, logical, common-sense decision if one bit them in the ass.

Go to your local registry page (maintained by your local Law Enforcement Agency). Read the descriptions of the crimes that got those people into the registry then tell me they should just melt into the background so they can continue to do what they do best, prey.

You got a bum rap from the 'justice' system? I feel for you. I really do. But that does not mean we let these pieces of human feces squat where ever they want to and feed on our children.

 

[cloudy]

If someone robs a bank to support a drug habit, is found guilty and does their time then they deserve to be reintegrated into the world. I do not believe that a felony conviction should even stop you from voting. It sure as hell doesn't stop you from dying in the Middle East. However, a sexual predator will, it appears, always be a sexual predator. Should there be a registry? Damn straight there should be. But, like every tool, it needs to be used with some common sense which is a commodity sorely lacking in the United States in the past 20 years. I'm not sure if it's the Religious Right or just fuckin' morons but we have a whole lotta people in positions of authority that wouldn't know a well-informed, logical, common-sense decision if one bit them in the ass.

Go to your local registry page (maintained by your local Law Enforcement Agency). Read the descriptions of the crimes that got those people into the registry then tell me they should just melt into the background so they can continue to do what they do best, prey.

You got a bum rap from the 'justice' system? I feel for you. I really do. But that does not mean we let these pieces of human feces squat where ever they want to and feed on our children.

I wasn't talking about it being wrong to register true predators, but you knew that already.

 

[glynndah]

I agree with Cloudy on this one. There are too many people who aren't sexual predators on those lists. Perhaps it was a good idea at the time, but it has mutated into a monster.

 

[sr71plt]

Aren't the existence of a list and who to put on the list (and in pursuit of what agenda) two different things?

 

[S-Des]

I personally would rather know someone who is accused of being a sex offender is living in my area. In my mom's town there are near a dozen living near the elementary school alone. No law is perfect, but isn't something better than nothing? Innocent people may be effected, but that happens with any law. I personally would rather something than nothing, this would be like taking away the question on an application about being a felon...

I think there should be a complete list for the police, but I'm firmly against one for the people. There is literally nothing I'd do differently if I knew there was a sex offender living in my building than if I didn't. Knowing shouldn't make you any more responsible as a parent than you'd be otherwise. It also doesn't do anything to distinguish someone who plead out to a lesser charge (from a bunch of other serious incidents) from someone who got accused of something and had to cop a plea because he couldn't afford the tens of thousands it costs to defend yourself in the court system.

If people want to make laws tougher, fine. But lists for people to be able to assume they know what someone is like based on an incident they know nothing about.....it's just pointless.

 

[xssve]

I think there should be a complete list for the police, but I'm firmly against one for the people. There is literally nothing I'd do differently if I knew there was a sex offender living in my building than if I didn't. Knowing shouldn't make you any more responsible as a parent than you'd be otherwise. It also doesn't do anything to distinguish someone who plead out to a lesser charge (from a bunch of other serious incidents) from someone who got accused of something and had to cop a plea because he couldn't afford the tens of thousands it costs to defend yourself in the court system.

If people want to make laws tougher, fine. But lists for people to be able to assume they know what someone is like based on an incident they know nothing about.....it's just pointless.

I personally have mixed feelings - I'd like to know if my babysitter is a sex offender.

The problem with these things, is they aren't very specific, i.e., they don't really give you any details of the crime - I read the list they have over at my sons middle school, and I check it online from time to time (one of my tenants is a sex offender), but you can't always tell a statutory offender from a predator - i.e., presumably Third degree sexual contact is statutory/consensual, First degree or felony would be more serious.

If it's there, I'll check it, I'd rather know than not know.

 

[sr71plt]

Four of the most-recently conviction-result sex crimes in my region involved three sports coaches at separate high schools (in separate cases) and a youth pastor at a church. Two of the four had been convicted of similar crimes in the past and still managed to get jobs giving them contact with children. If I had teenagers connected with any of these activities, I would want either absolute assurance these people would never again have access to children in trust roles or I would want to know that they were back in the mix--and then I'd keep my child away from them myself. If the justice system couldn't pin this down and it took a list available to the community to do so, then I would want access to such a list. It isn't just that they live in the neighborhood.

I feel somewhat lucky that when my children were growing up, all I had to worry about were easy access to drugs and the occasional military coup and terrorist plot.

 

[driphoney]

I feel somewhat lucky that when my children were growing up, all I had to worry about were easy access to drugs and the occasional military coup and terrorist plot.

It might have been all you knew to worry about, but it wasn't all you should have been worrying about. Sex offenders didn't just spring up since they decided to start making lists of them. There's not much new under the sun.

 

[S-Des]

I personally have mixed feelings - I'd like to know if my babysitter is a sex offender.

That is definitely a different situation. I don't have babysitters for my daughter because I don't have her that much (and her mom babysits if I need it). At the same time, the vast majority of sexual predators (although not all as we were reminded this week) are men, and I wouldn't trust any man to babysit my daughter, whether he had a record or not. It might make a difference with things like Church or Scout volunteers, but in most cases I teach her not to trust any stranger. Just because he hasn't been convicted doesn't mean he isn't every bit as dangerous (or more so) than someone who has.

Personally, I think the lists lull some people into a false sense of security. But like I said, the police should have it and if there's a problem (either real or perceived), those ex-offenders should expect a visit and questioning without complaint. That's the price they pay for their original crime (unfortunately, that goes for the less guilty ones who get caught up as well).

 

[DeeZire]

When I followed the link to the Oprah page and read what was there, I couldn't find any specifics on the law in question. Lacking such information, I'd have to agree with the consensus here - registration of sex offenders in this country is draconian. If they want to keep a pedophile list, great. However, if all sex offenders are on that same list, I'd tell the list-keepers to get over their Hitler complex and mind their own business.

 

[carryonmyfriend]

The only thing I disagree with Cloudy about is the sequence of events that needs to happen. Cloudy seems to be leaning towards a temporary suspension of the 'list' while it is purged and I would rather see it purged in-place.

Regardless, just like the goofy DHS Watch List, so many people are on it for stupid reasons that it has lost its value to a great degree.

 

[cloudy]

The only thing I disagree with Cloudy about is the sequence of events that needs to happen. Cloudy seems to be leaning towards a temporary suspension of the 'list' while it is purged and I would rather see it purged in-place.

Regardless, just like the goofy DHS Watch List, so many people are on it for stupid reasons that it has lost its value to a great degree.

I don't see that it makes a difference, really. It's a meaningless list, since the person could be on there for raping a three-year-old, or having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. There's no distinction.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

It's not meaningless at all. It's actually counterproductive. It gets people all scared because "there are 27 registered sex offenders in town". How many of them are statutory offenders and how many are predators? Nobody has a clue all we know is we're surrounded by rapists and pedophiles and the sky is falling.

In my opinion a badly designed list is worse than no list at all. It's actually harmful to society. Not to mention the damage it does to people who are listed for things like having consentual sex with that 17 yr old girlfriend years ago. Destroying "innocent" people's lives with no real payoff to the list itself is beyond absurd.

 

[cloudy]

In my opinion a badly designed list is worse than no list at all. It's actually harmful to society. Not to mention the damage it does to people who are listed for things like having consentual sex with that 17 yr old girlfriend years ago. Destroying "innocent" people's lives with no real payoff to the list itself is beyond absurd.

Exactly what I said above.

 

[sr71plt]

It might have been all you knew to worry about, but it wasn't all you should have been worrying about. Sex offenders didn't just spring up since they decided to start making lists of them. There's not much new under the sun.

Maybe not, but this activity seems much more an American thing than it ever was a Japanese, Thai, or Cypriot thing--which is where my children were raised.