Sex offender list made public

[PLAYER57832]

Can I own porn of an adult-looking cartoon but her actual age is really 5?

Just delete it from your hard drive already AOG, and avoid any future complications.

ok

but in all seriousness (>implying my last post wasn't serious), in some cases of let's say statutory rape, I think the "rapist" is unjustly put in the sex offenders list.

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

Yeah, I'd agree with that- a registry of sex offenders lists all kinds of crimes, from those so minor that they're barely crimes, to very very serious offenses. Publishing such a list collates all sex offenses as if they are all the same. It's dumb.

I have commented on this before. It is a problem with a lot of these blanket "solutions" that look purely at labels.. often well after the fact. Three strikes has similar problems.

We have to remember why this list was created. It was largely in response to a young girl who was taken from her slumber party, raped and left for dead by someone who had previously been convicted and released. In the uproar, the idea was that if there were at least a list, then parents could better know who to avoid.

The problem? It just does not work well. Basically, we went from one extreme.. everything being kept secret to putting people convicted of certain types of crimes on a public list. Except, the list has to do with basically "anything sexual involving minors" and not "crimes that are known to indicate future potential problems". As noted, a 17 year old who goes out with a 16 year old can wind up convicted of statuatory rape, no matter how willing the 16 year old. Its not even up to the 16 year old, its up to the parents whether the matter is taken to court. (and yes, I intentionally made both parties under 18). Even if he later winds up marrying the girl, having a happy long-standing marriage, his conviction will still stand. (more than a few cases of that exact scenario exist!!!)

Folks know these problems exist, but changing it is too much of a hassle, takes more effort than passing the law in the first place. No politician wants to be known as someone who advocates for sex offenders... and that is exactly how anyone fighting to oppose or even just change this law will be protrayed. Also, what most people want is not to do away with the law so much as to change it.

I would like laws to focus not on specific labels, but on behaviors that are directly tied to future crimes. For example, someone who tortures animals is likely to be someone who will torture people in some fashion later. Yet, we don't track those crimes. Someone who commits a sex offense when young, who is committing crimes when 12 is also likely to be a problem later. They don't appear on these lists, for the most part because they were juveniles hwen the crimes were committed. And ,no, I don't buy the trying 13-15 year olds as if they were adults as a solution. Kids and teenagers are not adults. We need to be able to track some crimes past youth, but simply claiming they "were acting like adults" is idiotic.

A 19 year old who goes out with a 16 year old is probably not someone you want your daughter to meet, but is he really a true threat to the general communiy? To school kids? Does he deserve to be banned for life from every coaching little league, teaching, helping with scouts or working in a hospital... to name just a very few impacts? Do his kids.. maybe the kids of the same girl he was supposed to have "raped", who now is his wife, deserve to suffer the results? Most people would say "no". Should there be some kind of penalty for sleeping with older minors? Probably (a different issue), because teen parents and such are not good for society.

[PLAYER57832]

Can I own porn of an adult-looking cartoon but her actual age is really 5?

Just delete it from your hard drive already AOG, and avoid any future complications.

ok

but in all seriousness (>implying my last post wasn't serious), in some cases of let's say statutory rape, I think the "rapist" is unjustly put in the sex offenders list.

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

Worse, this could be a 50 year old businessman who wound up marrying the girl, having kids together and then... 30 years after finds the record suddenly appears and he is fired from his job as a result.

[Army of GOD]

Can I own porn of an adult-looking cartoon but her actual age is really 5?

Just delete it from your hard drive already AOG, and avoid any future complications.

ok

but in all seriousness (>implying my last post wasn't serious), in some cases of let's say statutory rape, I think the "rapist" is unjustly put in the sex offenders list.

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

Worse, this could be a 50 year old businessman who wound up marrying the girl, having kids together and then... 30 years after finds the record suddenly appears and he is fired from his job as a result.

Why would he be working if he's 80?

[PLAYER57832]

Can I own porn of an adult-looking cartoon but her actual age is really 5?

Just delete it from your hard drive already AOG, and avoid any future complications.

ok

but in all seriousness (>implying my last post wasn't serious), in some cases of let's say statutory rape, I think the "rapist" is unjustly put in the sex offenders list.

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

Worse, this could be a 50 year old businessman who wound up marrying the girl, having kids together and then... 30 years after finds the record suddenly appears and he is fired from his job as a result.

Why would he be working if he's 80?

He was convicted when he was 19 .. and thirty years later finds himself on a Megan's Law list. (true story, repeated many times)

[Nobunaga]

I used the local list when I was shopping for a house.

There was a rapist a few doors down and across the street from a house I liked.

I didn't buy that house.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, I see you defend the people who are pedophiles but chose not to act on it. Since we're talking about a list convicted pedophiles you have to assume they've all acted on it so it makes no difference. I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that the list is a way for pedophiles to met like minded. This is more disturbing to me than the fact that a list like this is quite immoral. I'd like the list removed for everyones best.

I do defend pedophiles who don't act on their desires, that's true. Apparently the bit where several posters discussed that nuance is not considered part of the thread. I can respect that you would like to return to the main topic, but I'm not sure you're quite doing that either. Are you certain we're "talking about a list of convicted pedophiles"? Or was the OP about a list of sex offenders and you made the leap to "convicted pedophiles" and ran with it?

[thegreekdog]

My mother-in-law has used the list to tell us where to live and where not to live (it didn't work exactly the way she planned).

I am not supportive of sex offender lists. If you want to punish someone forever for engaging in illegal sexual activities, just put them in jail for life. What? That's cruel and unusual you say? Oh, irony...

[chang50]

The problem with making such a list public,is how the public uses it.I can remember about 15 years ago,approx, in Britain,the gutter press getting all high and mighty about paedophilia,as if they remotely cared about the child victims.Anyway in the ensuing hysteria we had a brief period of mob rule,where several people were assaulted and public disorder offences multiplied.What sticks in my mind most vividly was a case of an attack on the property of a pediatrician.Be careful of what you wish for,and mindful of the law of unintended consequences.if you want to make these lists public you have a much higher opinion of Joe Public than I.

[Gillipig]

Symmetry, I see you defend the people who are pedophiles but chose not to act on it. Since we're talking about a list convicted pedophiles you have to assume they've all acted on it so it makes no difference. I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that the list is a way for pedophiles to met like minded. This is more disturbing to me than the fact that a list like this is quite immoral. I'd like the list removed for everyones best.

I do defend pedophiles who don't act on their desires, that's true. Apparently the bit where several posters discussed that nuance is not considered part of the thread. I can respect that you would like to return to the main topic, but I'm not sure you're quite doing that either. Are you certain we're "talking about a list of convicted pedophiles"? Or was the OP about a list of sex offenders and you made the leap to "convicted pedophiles" and ran with it?

Symm EVERYONE on that list has been convicted for whatever crime/offense they did! Even if it turns out that what they did was petty or that they were even falsely convicted, they still were convicted for it. So there's no sense in talking about people who don't act on their pedo tendencies. Now if you want to talk about pedos being wrongfully convicted then I think it's on topic, but talking about those who's never been convicted is quite far stretched because they're not on those lists. Wrongfully convicted and rightfully convicted people are on those list, but no not convicted.

[kentington]

Symmetry, I see you defend the people who are pedophiles but chose not to act on it. Since we're talking about a list convicted pedophiles you have to assume they've all acted on it so it makes no difference. I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that the list is a way for pedophiles to met like minded. This is more disturbing to me than the fact that a list like this is quite immoral. I'd like the list removed for everyones best.

I do defend pedophiles who don't act on their desires, that's true. Apparently the bit where several posters discussed that nuance is not considered part of the thread. I can respect that you would like to return to the main topic, but I'm not sure you're quite doing that either. Are you certain we're "talking about a list of convicted pedophiles"? Or was the OP about a list of sex offenders and you made the leap to "convicted pedophiles" and ran with it?

Symm EVERYONE on that list has been convicted for whatever crime/offense they did! Even if it turns out that what they did was petty or that they were even falsely convicted, they still were convicted for it. So there's no sense in talking about people who don't act on their pedo tendencies. Now if you want to talk about pedos being wrongfully convicted then I think it's on topic, but talking about those who's never been convicted is quite far stretched because they're not on those lists. Wrongfully convicted and rightfully convicted people are on those list, but no not convicted.

I already tried to say this, he thought I was talking semantics.

My mother-in-law has used the list to tell us where to live and where not to live (it didn't work exactly the way she planned).

I am not supportive of sex offender lists. If you want to punish someone forever for engaging in illegal sexual activities, just put them in jail for life. What? That's cruel and unusual you say? Oh, irony...

I don't think the point is to punish them, so much as to let the surrounding neighbors be aware of who is living next to them. I don't think it is cruel to put them in jail for life. They took away someone's freedom for life and they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again. This is speaking of rapists and pedophiles (who are convicted!).

[GabonX]

What are your thoughts on making sex offender lists public? Some states in the U.S have these lists that anyone can check out, where you get detailed information on where sex offenders live. What are you thoughts on it? Good or bad and why?

I'm generally against "hanging out" people and I must say and I'm not sure it helps the general public very much to know where convicted sex offenders lives. This only further brands them as criminals and makes it harder to change their behaviour. I don't think this is the way to build a fair and just society.

I once had a 300+ pound man ask me to go into cahoots with him hunting down former kiddy diddlers. He seemed pretty serious too...

I'm pretty sure he was touched as a child.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think the point is to punish them, so much as to let the surrounding neighbors be aware of who is living next to them. I don't think it is cruel to put them in jail for life. They took away someone's freedom for life and they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again. This is speaking of rapists and pedophiles (who are convicted!).

Then they should be put in jail for life. They should not be put in jail for 10 years, get their "freedom" and then be social pariahs identified by the government for the rest of their lives. That defeats the purpose of letting them out of prison in the first place.

[Gillipig]

I wonder how it would look if there were no laws. Like in deadwood during the gold rush. Would be interesting to just see how crazy our societies would become.

[GabonX]

I don't think the point is to punish them, so much as to let the surrounding neighbors be aware of who is living next to them. I don't think it is cruel to put them in jail for life. They took away someone's freedom for life and they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again. This is speaking of rapists and pedophiles (who are convicted!).

Then they should be put in jail for life. They should not be put in jail for 10 years, get their "freedom" and then be social pariahs identified by the government for the rest of their lives. That defeats the purpose of letting them out of prison in the first place.

Would you go as far as to say that it's cruel and unusual?

[ManBungalow]

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

What's the age of consent in the US ?

[bedub1]

Yeah, I'd agree with that- a registry of sex offenders lists all kinds of crimes, from those so minor that they're barely crimes, to very very serious offenses. Publishing such a list collates all sex offenses as if they are all the same. It's dumb.

Exactly. Did you know that if you get caught urinating in public that you are added to the sex offender list? So you get drunk, and piss on the side of a building, and now you are grouped in with real criminals that molest children. It's terrible.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think the point is to punish them, so much as to let the surrounding neighbors be aware of who is living next to them. I don't think it is cruel to put them in jail for life. They took away someone's freedom for life and they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again. This is speaking of rapists and pedophiles (who are convicted!).

Then they should be put in jail for life. They should not be put in jail for 10 years, get their "freedom" and then be social pariahs identified by the government for the rest of their lives. That defeats the purpose of letting them out of prison in the first place.

Or, perhaps create some king of "middle ground". That is, locking someone up for eons is expensive. (that's my primary objective), so if lessor means can keep them from harming the public, then we should use those means. One possibility is to form monitored communitees where these offenders can live, work and get counseling. Support themselves, but not be a threat to the "outside". However, the experiments along these lines have mostly been poorly run and implemented. Also, locating them is hard because nobody wants a community of sex offenders near them.

That said, the biggest problem is that sex offender is too broad a term. Not everyone in that category is a child rape-murderer or child rapist. To treat all the same is not justice or protection, its ill-conceived vengeance.

[PLAYER57832]

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

What's the age of consent in the US ?

18, generally. However, it can be 17. In practice, its up to the parents to decide, really. I have a 16 neighbor who got pregnant by a 19 or 20 year old guy. The parents answer? They invited him to live in their house with them!!!! (definitely a messed up family).

The real issue, though, is not whether an 18 year should be freely able to go out with a 16 year old. The real issue is what the penalty should be and if that person presents such a risk to society that they should be tagged a sex offender for life (not allowed any job dealing with kids and many other positions of responsibility).

Megan's law was aimed at those sex offenders that take kids, rape them , sometimes even murder them. To apply the same rules to a guy who, well, could not keep his pants zipped and made pretty poor judgements on his choice of "women"... seems a bit much. That doesn't mean there should be no penalty, just that the penalty should be lessoned in some cases. In other cases.. the serial rapists, etc, I am in favor of locking them up for life, albiet perhaps in something other than a traditional jail (for cost-effective reasons, not so much humanitarian concerns).

[GabonX]

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

What's the age of consent in the US ?

18, generally. However, it can be 17. In practice, its up to the parents to decide, really. I have a 16 neighbor who got pregnant by a 19 or 20 year old guy. The parents answer? They invited him to live in their house with them!!!! (definitely a messed up family).

Typically 18, but the age of consent is 16 in our state.

[MeDeFe]

In my high school, an 18 year old who was dating a 16 year old was charged by the 16 year old's parents for having sex with their kid. Everyone know she didn't have malicious intent while doing it (derp, they were dating), so that was pretty stupid.

What's the age of consent in the US ?

Colour-coded for your convenience

[thegreekdog]

I don't think the point is to punish them, so much as to let the surrounding neighbors be aware of who is living next to them. I don't think it is cruel to put them in jail for life. They took away someone's freedom for life and they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again. This is speaking of rapists and pedophiles (who are convicted!).

Then they should be put in jail for life. They should not be put in jail for 10 years, get their "freedom" and then be social pariahs identified by the government for the rest of their lives. That defeats the purpose of letting them out of prison in the first place.

Would you go as far as to say that it's cruel and unusual?

Yes. But I think a lot of punishments are cruel and unusual so I'm not the best person to judge (or maybe I am).

If the purpose is to protect the general public from identified sexual predators, either keep them in jail, or as Player suggests, set up some other community for them (which would effectively be a jail).

[GabonX]

I don't think the point is to punish them, so much as to let the surrounding neighbors be aware of who is living next to them. I don't think it is cruel to put them in jail for life. They took away someone's freedom for life and they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again. This is speaking of rapists and pedophiles (who are convicted!).

Then they should be put in jail for life. They should not be put in jail for 10 years, get their "freedom" and then be social pariahs identified by the government for the rest of their lives. That defeats the purpose of letting them out of prison in the first place.

Would you go as far as to say that it's cruel and unusual?

Yes. But I think a lot of punishments are cruel and unusual so I'm not the best person to judge (or maybe I am).

If the purpose is to protect the general public from identified sexual predators, either keep them in jail, or as Player suggests, set up some other community for them (which would effectively be a jail).

But the word JAIL just sounds so unfriendly... Couldn't we just call it something else, like a park??

A pedo park...

[saxitoxin]

I don't think the point is to punish them, so much as to let the surrounding neighbors be aware of who is living next to them. I don't think it is cruel to put them in jail for life. They took away someone's freedom for life and they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again. This is speaking of rapists and pedophiles (who are convicted!).

Then they should be put in jail for life. They should not be put in jail for 10 years, get their "freedom" and then be social pariahs identified by the government for the rest of their lives. That defeats the purpose of letting them out of prison in the first place.

Would you go as far as to say that it's cruel and unusual?

Yes. But I think a lot of punishments are cruel and unusual so I'm not the best person to judge (or maybe I am).

If the purpose is to protect the general public from identified sexual predators, either keep them in jail, or as Player suggests, set up some other community for them (which would effectively be a jail).

But the word JAIL just sounds so unfriendly... Couldn't we just call it something else, like a park??

A pedo park...

"Civil Commitment Center"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNeil_Island#section_3

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think the point is to punish them, so much as to let the surrounding neighbors be aware of who is living next to them. I don't think it is cruel to put them in jail for life. They took away someone's freedom for life and they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again. This is speaking of rapists and pedophiles (who are convicted!).

Then they should be put in jail for life. They should not be put in jail for 10 years, get their "freedom" and then be social pariahs identified by the government for the rest of their lives. That defeats the purpose of letting them out of prison in the first place.

10 years + total testicle and penis removal is cheaper. Turn them into Unsullied.