Sex Offender Registry

[kibbles]

Sorry asshole, the law doesn't work that way. It sure threw him for a loop when she got pregnant...and when he tried to dump her, her parents went after him. He got busted, and from what I understand...disappeared.

What do you mean by disappeared??

[Wingates_Hellsing]

What do you mean by disappeared??

He up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T ?

[kibbles]

He up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T ?

Ohhhh...it sounded like something more sinister happened. Sorry for misreading.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Ohhhh...it sounded like something more sinister happened. Sorry for misreading.

Er... that was just my guess...

[Greenday]

Major crimes in addition to jail time get castration. That will keep them from reoffending

Explain this one to me since it you don't need a dick to rape someone.

[XiaoTortuga]

Each state is different in how they maintain the list. In California, it states whether someone has not registered in a timely fashion, what their crime was (generally) and their risk of reoffending. Pictures are included for most, but not all, based on their crimes. General locations is given but not specific street address.

Can the lists be used in a bad way? Yes, of course. But I think it is a good thing that the information is made available. I would prefer for statutory rape to not be included in sex offender registries, but I can understand arguments for its inclusion.

But as others have said, most children are abused by people they know. So known sex offenders are a risk, but to really protect your children you need to deal with the much greater risk of it being a teacher, coach, uncle, troop leader, Sunday school teacher, etc.

[elsporko]

Explain this one to me since it you don't need a dick to rape someone.

Its alot harder to get sexual pleasure when you don't have balls.

[Nyoibo]

Its alot harder to get sexual pleasure when you don't have balls.

Which shows you don't understand rape.

[Greenday]

Its alot harder to get sexual pleasure when you don't have balls.

Since when was rape about getting laid? Nearly every time, rape is about having power over someone else. If a rapist was just looking to get laid, they'd just hire a prostitute which is safer, cheaper, and less illegal.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Also, women can be rapists; and they have neither dick or balls.

[protege]

He up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T ?

Yep, the bastard didn't have the balls (pun intended) to face the consequences, and jumped bail. Now, instead of what would have been relatively minor (comparatively speaking), he's now a wanted felon. Of course, if he did "disappear," it's not like anyone would miss him--he was a complete loser to begin with.

Thought I should mention this too--about a month ago, I found out that one of the guys in my railroad group is currently serving time for sexual assault on a child We knew that he was busted back in the late 1990s, but nobody knew what for. That is, until I did some detective work...and found his name, photo, and other info on Georgia's sexual predator list.

After several strongly-worded emails, one thing became apparent--he can be a member all he wants, but we do not want the guy at any of our conventions. Quite a few members have children, and some of them bring their kids to events. Also, suppose he showed up, and did something stupid--the media would have a field day with it. Would we want to jeopardize our group's reputation and all the hard work that went into it?

[McDreidel09]

Its alot harder to get sexual pleasure when you don't have balls.

As Greenday said, rape is not about sexual pleasure. It is about a power trip. Some male rapists don't even use their penis. They can use their hands or anything near by, like a broom handle or plunger handle. The only pleasure they are really getting is the fact that they are over powering someone.

[blas87]

Call me a hypocrite, but I do consider the guys as scum (period) and the girls and naive and stupid. It does take two. I never said I didn't consent. I did every time. However, I was an idiot and should have known better. So maybe the guys are stupid as well.

Please give me some credit. I did grow up and realize I was being a total floozy and an idiot with these older guys. I was 14/15/16 years old getting involved with guys who were legal adults and preferred to play with the little girls instead of girls their own age. There is something extremely wrong with guys in their late teens and 20s going after girls in their early or mid teens. That's why I look back on it now and flip if any of my guy friends are trying to hang out with teenaged girls, especially ones that aren't even close to 18. I will even tell them to their faces that they are scumbags and dogs for it.

I'm not saying these younger girls are naive about sex or are stupid about the deed itself, but just naive about the guys' intentions and the fact that it's just so wrong and silly to allow yourself to be used by a guy like that. And it's sickening that a guy who is a legal adult is still going to the middle and high schools to find his sex dates.

[KitterCat]

I know I’m not in the norm for this, but I personally don’t believe in having a Sex Offenders list. Originally it was a nice idea - place offenders on a list who had done an abhorrent crime, generally against children. Problem is its become insanely easy for people to end up placed on these lists. Teenager “sex texts” another teenager their dating - ends up on the sex offenders lists. 17 year old has oral sex with a 15 year old not knowing their underage - on the list. Pissing in the woods can land you on that list since it falls under indecent exposure laws. Yes I know that many states have what are called “Romeo and Juliet” laws, but several of them do not allow for a reexamination of past convictions. In Ohio, if I remember correctly, merely being charged - not convicted just charged, can land a person on the list. Our sex offenders lists have pretty much become junk. So many things can land a person on thoughs lists that there pretty much useless.

Currently we have a state New Hampshire- that will allow a 13 year old girl to be married with parental consent and court permission due to a “special cause“. I can defiantly see a “special cause” as finding one’s self pregnant. I cant help but think it’s a bit backwards when a person who isn’t even out of high school can be married, but if their 20 year old boyfriend gets caught doing something sexual with them their on a sex offenders list purely depending on how the parents like the guy. Please understand in that case I find the idea of a 20 year old with a 13 year old repugnant, but it does show some of the double standards in our legal system.

Then there’s the mindset that we should only have the high end criminals on the lists. Only put people who are older adults who prayed on children. To put it bluntly, pedophiles. Some people would advocate only putting re-offenders on the lists. If we’re only going to put these people on, why are we letting them out of jail! Keep them there where they wont be a danger to society.

There’s also the legal issue - privacy laws, double punishment for crimes already punished for. We don’t make lists for murders, grand larceny, domestic disturbance ect. I’d love to see people like Enron Financial Officer Andrew Fastow to have a sign on his lawn saying he’s a grand larcenist. But instead we’re told they’ve “done the time, and paid for the crime”. If that’s the case than the same should hold true for sex offenders. If they haven’t paid for the crime than they should kept in jail. I would much rather see some predator looking to get their jollies off of a little kid kept behind bars than let back out among the public.

[kibbles]

I just think if the guys are scum then so are the girls. JMO. I don't know about getting rid of the list altogether. If it actually worked and protected real victims it would be perfect.

I think it should be modified but not done away with altogether.