Sex Offender Registry

[Rageaholic]

It should be used to warn people about actual predators, not not people like Zach Anderson, a 19 year old who used a dating ap to hook up with a 17 year old girl. Turns out she lied about her age (she's really 14), she admits she lied, and neither her or her mother wants him to face any charges. But the judge has him put on the sex offender registry for 25 years plus 90 days in jail. And it gets worse,

In addition to the 90-day jail sentence and sex-offender status, Anderson also faces 61 conditions including restrictions that bar him from going online, dining at restaurants that serve alcohol and even living at home, because he has a 15-year-old brother.

According to Klieman, Anderson is not alone in his nightmarish situation -- 25 percent of people on the sex offender registry are under the age of 18.

WTF?

[Andara Bledin]

It's a sick joke perpetrated on the American public and needs to be destroyed, along with a handful of other abused regulations that go far outside of their intended effect.

This is what happens when laws aren't written for specific effects because of knee-jerk think-of-the-children hysteria.

[Greenday]

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/24/th...g-practices-of

The judge is known to be a corrupt POS. He is an absolute disgrace to our justice system.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/19-year-spe...ry?id=32783206

But the judge condemned what he called a culture of “meet, hook-up, have sex, sayonara, totally inappropriate behavior,” according to court documents.

Basically we have a judge on a power trip ruining people's lives because they don't conform to the 1950s style of life.

Michigan state Sen. Rick Jones, who helped write the state’s sex offender registry law, says Zach should have been more careful.

“As you grow up, I mean young men are told you know in high school, 15 is jailbait,” Jones said. “Now that’s a slang term, but that’s what young men are told … I would hope that somebody who was 19 years old would say ‘Well do you have a driver's license or something? You don’t appear to be the appropriate age.’”

Who the hell has EVER asked to check someone's ID before having sex with them? I know 21 year olds who look 12 and I've known teenagers who look much older. This whole thing is stupid.

Megan's Law is the definition of a knee jerk "for the children" law that does nothing that it is intended to do. The only thing it does is ruin lives and prevent people from ever having a chance at making a positive contribution to society.

[Estil]

The problem with this sex offender registry deal is that it all started because someone who murdered Megan (and others like her) were convicted of sex crimes against children already. IOW, repeat offenders, the worst of the worst kind of sex offenders...and those are the kind that those who made and supported sex offender registry laws expected would be targeted. There no doubt a few who had a bad feeling about this going too far (like say, going #1 behind the trees or like in the OP, someone who ended up having sex with someone underage and didn't have a reasonable belief that she was getting put on the same level as the truly bad scum)...but were scarred that if they even suggested anything but full support for SOR's, their political opponents could then label them as "soft on crime/soft on sex offenders". And hence the mess we find ourselves in here and elsewhere.

Here's something I'd like to know, the only reason we have SOR's is that apparently we are so sure that sex offenders are just ticking time bombs and that reoffending is pretty much inevitable. If that's true, then what's the point of them being placed back in general society if they got little to no chance to stay on the straight and narrow so to speak? Sounds like SO's would be better off staying in prison or at least in some kind of segregated community where only sex offenders can live/work. I know that would probably never pass Constitutional muster but it would honestly be in the best interests of BOTH the SO's as well as general society that mostly would rather not have anything to do with them.

[Gravekeeper]

\
Here's something I'd like to know, the only reason we have SOR's is that apparently we are so sure that sex offenders are just ticking time bombs and that reoffending is pretty much inevitable. If that's true, then what's the point of them being placed back in general society if they got little to no chance to stay on the straight and narrow so to speak?

Because applying actual mental health care would demonstrate an actual understanding of the problem and that would be un-American. >.>

Someone who cannot control their sexual urges and thus is a risk of being a compulsive re-offender is mentally ill. But the US legal system and the sex offender registry just lump it all together because won't someone think of the children? instead of actually taking any steps to address the real problems. And thus arrive at real results.

Throwing mentally ill people in jail solves absolutely nothing and they're still mentally ill when they get back out. You didn't fix or address the problem, you punished it and put it out of sight out of mind for a while to convince the voting public you did something about it.

The entire idea of the registry is absurd when you think about it. Its not done for any other type of crime despite the fact there are other crimes you would really want to know about.

I mean, would you rather know the guy living next door on the left groped someone on the subway once or that the guy living next door on the right beat his neighbour to death 25 years ago over a BBQ? -.-

[Racket_Man]

Not to mention the persons who, while being a bit tipsy, decide to take a leak in some out of the way place in a very dark alley and get caught by the cops.

OHHHHHHHHHHHH he had his dick out in pub----lic = sex offender for life

[protege]

Because applying actual mental health care would demonstrate an actual understanding of the problem and that would be un-American.

Unfortunately, mental illness is still a problem in the US. It's the nasty little secret that nobody wants to talk about, let alone to address.

Someone who cannot control their sexual urges and thus is a risk of being a compulsive re-offender is mentally ill. But the US legal system and the sex offender registry just lump it all together because won't someone think of the children? instead of actually taking any steps to address the real problems. And thus arrive at real results.

Throwing mentally ill people in jail solves absolutely nothing and they're still mentally ill when they get back out. You didn't fix or address the problem, you punished it and put it out of sight out of mind for a while to convince the voting public you did something about it.

Agreed. You can blame the stigma that mental illness carries in the US. Why is it that after every time someone gets caught--for raping a child, shooting up a theater--people flip their shit about how the US doesn't do anything for mentally ill people. Yet, our elected officials have cut back funding mental health facilities to practically nothing.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd gladly pay a small increase...if it meant that someone wouldn't be spending their day talking to fire hydrants on Lysle Blvd in McKeesport...or paranoia.

Granted though, even when there was some funding available, the facilities and staff weren't all that great. Abuse and overcrowding was pretty common--look at what went on at Pennhurst, which was finally closed in '87.

[Shangri-laschild]

I don't have a problem with the registry existing as much as with the way crimes are handled. If it can be proven that the underage person flat out lied about their age, how is that any different than teens who get in trouble for sending naked pictures because that's distributing child porn? If the older person didn't get in trouble for it and it reflected worse on the younger person, maybe less underage people would be lying about their age like this. And peeing in an alley really needs to be taken off the sex offender category.

It's sad how horribly things are handled, not just with mental illness but with all criminals. How many criminals could potentially be rehabilitated? They way our system is set up almost boxes them into corners to get into trouble again.

[BlaqueKatt]

And peeing in an alley really needs to be taken off the sex offender category.

You know this has reached urban legend status, no one can point to a single person on the registry for that, in fact this group actually looked into it, and found not a single one. they found 463 people on the registry for "indecent exposure", looking into 50 cases of state with 433(50 cases is a statistically significant number), quite a few had probation(4-20 years worth) and suspended jail sentences, 12 were incarcerated, none of which are NOT handed out for "peeing in public".

Sex offender registries are not useful, but using a myth against them makes you're position untenable.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't have a problem with the registry existing as much as with the way crimes are handled.

You don't have a problem with punishing someone who has already served their sentence? -.-

[Shangri-laschild]

You know this has reached urban legend status

No, I had not realized that it wasn't a real thing. I'm glad to hear that. I don't know that I think things like indecent exposure ought to be on the list either.

You don't have a problem with punishing someone who has already served their sentence? -.-

To clarify, my position was that I have a problem with certain crimes being considered sex offender level crimes and what sex offender crimes end up on the list. I didn't explain the second part very well but yes, I'm fine with the list. I would also be fine with it being redone so that it was like a probation type thing with ways of eventually getting off the list as well and to only include things like violent criminals or those who were targeting little children (not those who had sex with their girlfriend who's 2 years younger than them). I think too many violent sexual criminals and people with compulsions to harm children get out of jail only to reoffend. And sadly at the moment we don't try and rehabilitate people. If we tried to do that and had better sentencing for people who aren't safe to be out on the streets, I might be more against it. I work in a department where any sex offenders going to the college have to come see us to register so I encounter quite a few as a result. Some who did something harmless and dumb and shouldn't be getting punished and some who have done some very horrible things. It tends to effect my opinion on the matter.

[Gravekeeper]

I think too many violent sexual criminals and people with compulsions to harm children get out of jail only to reoffend. And sadly at the moment we don't try and rehabilitate people. If we tried to do that and had better sentencing for people who aren't safe to be out on the streets, I might be more against it.

But the highest re-offence rates in the US are actually burglars, robbers, fences, illegal weapon sellers and car thieves. By a huge margin. Do you support a registry for them?

Conversely, sex offenders have the lowest rates of re-offence of any type of crime and public notification of their crimes ( such as registering with you ) actually increases the chance they will re-offend. While a private registry available only to law enforcement actually reduces the chance.

The US is the only country with a publicly accessible sex offender registry and by making it publicly accessible its literally doing the opposite of what you want it to do.

[Shangri-laschild]

But the highest re-offence rates in the US are actually burglars, robbers, fences, illegal weapon sellers and car thieves. By a huge margin. Do you support a registry for them?

Conversely, sex offenders have the lowest rates of re-offence of any type of crime and public notification of their crimes ( such as registering with you ) actually increases the chance they will re-offend. While a private registry available only to law enforcement actually reduces the chance.

The US is the only country with a publicly accessible sex offender registry and by making it publicly accessible its literally doing the opposite of what you want it to do.

That is an interesting point and one that I need to think about some and will have to respond better on later when I have more computer time. I do wonder if part of that is due to all the stupid criteria for being on the list though I doubt that's all of it. I will say now that if the list was law enforcement only, I would argue that schools being able to access the information as well to some extent. We had someone who applied to be a groundskeeper here which included doing work by the day care center. He wasn't legally allowed to work in that area but because of how hiring was handled the information wasn't known ahead of time. If it was simply that the schools were able to make yes/no inquiries about if someone was legally allowed to work in that area that could cover it to.

[TheHuckster]

Doesn't one's felony history come up in background checks with or without a registry? Where I live one must consent to a background check before any job that involves children. Not only sexual assault, but any kind of violent crime would come up during the check and likely disqualify someone from that line of work.

Conversely, sex offenders have the lowest rates of re-offence of any type of crime and public notification of their crimes ( such as registering with you ) actually increases the chance they will re-offend. While a private registry available only to law enforcement actually reduces the chance.

What data do you get this from? I'd agree that registries are ineffective, but I have a hard time believing they increase the reoffender rate.

[Nekojin]

I don't have a general problem with the underlying concept of a sex offender registry, but the way that it's executed is utter failure in pretty much every respect.

1.) Like a few other "registries" that the US Government uses (see: "No Fly" registry), it is very difficult, if not impossible, to be removed, even if you're placed on it in error.
2.) There's no expiration date or renewal date - once on it, you're on it for the rest of your life (and beyond!).
3.) While originally envisioned for rapists and child molesters, the uses for it since then has been ridiculously broad, including putting underage males on the registry because they had consensual sex with an even-more-underage person (male or female, doesn't really matter).

Like the death sentence, I feel that it's a good idea in concept, but that the government is fundamentally incapable of doing it responsibly, so I must oppose it.