Radio Personality marks houses of sexual offenders in his neighborhood.

[Andara Bledin]

When we have 6-year-olds on the list, you know it's a steaming pile of shit.

[fireheart17]

When we have 6-year-olds on the list, you know it's a steaming pile of shit.

and I thought having an intellectually disabled boy being labelled a sexual deviant was bad enough!

(for the story-apparently there was a boy who was being set up by some quite malicious boys to go around and de-pant other people. Someone eventually observed what was happening and managed to a) stop the boy and b) punish the boys responsible for setting him up, but the school was ready to label him a sexual deviant before that!)

[Titi]

This is why we have these laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Megan_Kanka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan%27s_Law

But some places take it too the far.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Local lists here generally provide an explanation of someone's conviction, which I think is helpful. I never considered how out of date the address information might be.

That's the meat of my problem with this. They've been using the argument of the sexual offender being registered at several houses at the same time for years now.

In fact, the chap is no longer even in the state any more. For whatever reason he's now living in the mid-west and he's registered at his new residence. And the house next to my kids...the house in the development next to the one they live in, an apartment complex in the next county over (actually near where I live currently) and many many more.

[protege]

That's the meat of my problem with this. They've been using the argument of the sexual offender being registered at several houses at the same time for years now.

How often is the information updated, and how carefully do the list maintainers check? That's what I think everyone would be interested in knowing.

There's a guy down the street from me, who comes off as a possible offender. As far as I know, he's never done anything. However, his behavior is a bit odd. He'll spend hours walking around the 'circle.' Nothing odd about that--quite a few people do that. But, if he sees a house where children are present...things get creepy quickly. That is, he'll stop and *stare* at the place

He creeps *me* out, and I'm nearly 40. I can imagine what the kids think when he makes his "rounds." I've seen them hide, or go the other way to avoid him. I remember one afternoon, I was outside working in the yard, and some of the kids were playing in one of my trees. When the creep crossed the street, I remember one of the girls saying that she was afraid. I reassured her that nothing was going to happen.

Again, as far as the rest of us know, he's never done anything. However, he has been checked out by the cops, after complaints about his staring habit. The cops pretty much told us that as long as he doesn't do anything, there's very little they can do.

[Gravekeeper]

This is why we have these laws.

The vast majority of crimes of this nature are committed by someone the victim knows. Not by some total stranger. While that case is tragic, the perpetrator should not have been released. It was a failure of the justice system, not a failure of public information. Even the guy's therapists said he had zero interest in treatment and would likely re-offend. The judge described him as a compulsive offender. But the prosecutor offered him plea deals in both original crimes he committed.

He had a long and clear history of mental illness, but the justice system kept shrugging and letting him go or offering him plea deals, etc. Even when he failed to show up for counselling for the first attack he committed ( The judge in the first trial figured he was disturbed but also figured hey, he would totally be safe on the streets and ordered him to attend counselling. Which he of course never showed up for. ).

A lack of a sex offender registry was not the failure in that case. It was a failure of the justice system and how the US treats mental illness.

Canada has a sex offender registry as well. But its NOT public. The public has no access to it or any information on it. It is strictly for use by police. All the information is confidential and the only people on it are those who have strictly committed major offences as defined in the criminal code of Canada. Yet, we're not under siege by wandering bands of rapists. -.-

The US registry functionally accomplishes nothing except encouraging mob justice and increasing the risk of re-offence and/or homelessness ( In which case you lose track of the offenders anyhow ). I mean there are cases where you've ended up with sex offender colonies living under overpasses and crap because they can't live anywhere else due to NIMBY.

[Kelmon]

Just... why?!

Thank you, those are exactly my thoughts. A person should not be punished twice for something he or she did.

[HYHYBT]

This has me wondering again about a customer complaint several years ago now. A woman came to the counter complaining about a man for "watching my children." She clearly thought he was up to something. Her children were playing on the playground. He was inside the regular eating area, facing the playground, but as far from it as it was possible to sit in that area, and it's pretty well impossible *not* to look at from any seat in there (except those facing the opposite direction, in which case you're looking at the drink station.)

On the one hand, she was clearly worried; on the other, he wasn't DOING anything, she hadn't seen him before... and he came in almost every day, taking the same spot if it was available, sitting maybe half an hour, with the only difference being that he normally came in the very early morning, when the only other customers were invariably adults. I still don't know what the right response would have been, nor do I even remember what mine was, other than I didn't make him leave like she wanted.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I remember once when I was a kid, one of the mothers complained about a man who was sitting in the children's playground. Imagine her embarrassment when it turned out that he was a father waiting for his kids. Sometimes, it really is as innocent as that, but nowadays everything has to be blown up hysterically until parents think that there's a pedophile lurking behind every bush.

[smileyeagle1021]

I remember once when I was a kid, one of the mothers complained about a man who was sitting in the children's playground. Imagine her embarrassment when it turned out that he was a father waiting for his kids.

You notice it is always the man who is suspicious. Of course s woman could never be a predator towards children
I had a neighbor in salt lake who was terrified for her son's safety because a sexoffender moved in a block away... I looked up his info, and he groped women on a college campus, probably not a threat to her son... did notice though that there was a woman who molested a boy she was babysitting that was about the same age, but my neighbor was convinced it must have just been a misunderstanding.

eta- I can't believe I missed this one earlier

(for the story-apparently there was a boy who was being set up by some quite malicious boys to go around and de-pant other people

I that is the standard now to be labeled as a sexual offender, then Liam Payne should be added to that list... for that matter probably about half my middle school and 2/3 of my elementary school would need to be added... makes you wonder when inappropriate but essentially harmless (other than being slightly embarrassing) became worthy of being added to the sexual predator list.

[fireheart17]

Canada has a sex offender registry as well. But its NOT public. The public has no access to it or any information on it. It is strictly for use by police. All the information is confidential and the only people on it are those who have strictly committed major offences as defined in the criminal code of Canada. Yet, we're not under siege by wandering bands of rapists. -.-

Australia I believe has a similar system. The only time it ever becomes known that you're a sex offender is if you have to go through a police check/working with children check (both different things). If you're doing a working with children check, it's only sex offences relating to children, if it's a generic police check, then any offence will be listed.

That said, we also do not have the same amount of stupidity in regards to who goes on the list. If you're caught having a piss where children can see, you're more likely to get dinged for indecent exposure, which usually cops a fine or a short suspended jail sentence depending on the circumstances.

I that is the standard now to be labeled as a sexual offender, then Liam Payne should be added to that list... for that matter probably about half my middle school and 2/3 of my elementary school would need to be added... makes you wonder when inappropriate but essentially harmless (other than being slightly embarrassing) became worthy of being added to the sexual predator list.

This was close to 5-10 years ago in Aussieland. The story came from my coordinator at uni. The reason why they were ready to label him one (not actually label him one) was because from their point of view, it was deliberate. It wasn't until another adult actually observed the child that they discovered what was happening.

[Kelmon]

Australia I believe has a similar system. The only time it ever becomes known that you're a sex offender is if you have to go through a police check/working with children check (both different things). If you're doing a working with children check, it's only sex offences relating to children, if it's a generic police check, then any offence will be listed.

Roughly the same for us in Germany, though we don't have a specific sex offender list, just a general database for crimes commited. Since we're all about rehabilitation and reintegration here, the public can't access it, and future employers usually only get a list of any serious crimes you may have committed, but not - say - that you groped someone on a bus. (With exceptions - if you work with children for example). Additionally, items on that list get deleted after 3-20 years, depending on severity of the crime.

[protege]

Now this is interesting...

Seems that one of the local (Pittsburgh) channels has just posted an article...including some names of offenders. As if that wasn't enough, there's a link to the State Police's Megan's Law page, that goes into greater details...including primary residences and work addresses.

[Gravekeeper]

That said, we also do not have the same amount of stupidity in regards to who goes on the list. If you're caught having a piss where children can see, you're more likely to get dinged for indecent exposure, which usually cops a fine or a short suspended jail sentence depending on the circumstances.

Yeah, up here its very clear that it only applies for primary sex crimes. AKA sexual assault, kiddie porn, etc. Something that was actually violent or dangerous in other words. Indecent exposure doesn't count.

[Hyena Dandy]

This is why we have these laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Megan_Kanka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan%27s_Law

But some places take it too the far.

Okay, yes, that is technically an accurate cause-effect situation. But while that is the reason we have those laws, that's a "We must do something - This is something" sort of situation.

Why do we have these laws NOW, now that we're no longer in the same heightened emotional state and can start to see how stupid they are?

Edit: This is not to say "Laws protecting children" are stupid. It's to say "We wrote this in a panic, and so made them overzealous and damaging.