Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you looked at a registry? They are quite specific. They state the crime as well as the ages and sex of the perpetrator and victim(s).
If you are on a registry for peeing in the bushes, it will be pretty obvious that you are not a degenerate. But let's be honest, what prosecutor wastes their time on a person on the way to sing in their church choir while feeding the homeless who simply needed to answer the call of nature.
Answer: None.
You never know though. Many prosecutors, as well as defense attorneys, will do and say anything to further their career. There's a reason terms such as "ambulance chaser" and "scheister" exist in the general public's perception of the legal field.
I'm not entirely sure if sex offender registries would be considered unconstitutional. You have a right to privacy, but the state can take away any right they want so long as there is due process. To my knowledge, you cannot be made a sex offender unless you commit a crime. Therefore, there is due process.
The argument that's it's cruel and unusual might work though.
As the article notes, average citizens may use the registry to harass or possibly even threaten registrants. And indeed, that seems to be the only real purpose of a sex offender registry. I'm unaware of any evidence that suggests the registry has done anything for public safety.
I tend to favor criminal punishment that is more rehabilitative. I see no potential for the registry to act as rehabilitation. A sex offender (which is a surprising broad term it seems) should learn not to be a threat while in prison. To me, having a registry for post-prison is basically just a lazy way to not address the failures of the prison system.
And naturally, some sex offenders never actually go to prison. If they aren't serious enough for prison, they can't possibly be so dangerous that we all need to know where they live.
Some don't go to prison for lots of different reasons,not becuase they are not guilty.In the case where young children are at stake you era on the side of caution.
I'd say the total number of people deterred from committing a sex crime because of the existence of the registry is probably rather low.
Actually those on the list have an improved record. It's the ones not yet on the list that are the problem such as the friendly neighbor next door or Uncle You-Know-Who.
The ones who have proved themselves incapable of self-control eventually are locked in institutions with very little hope of release. Others on the list have their lives so closely scrutinized by the community that they scarcely dare socialize.
I have mixed feelings. We only see the careless, high profile and perhaps more seriously ill offenders. Within the community for each on the list there are dozens more who go unnoticed.
Part of the reason for that is that many have no desire to harm others. They aren't sociopaths. They have an intense and often personally painful need to act out. Some, when offered treatment are eventually relieved and grateful. (I'm not saying the majority of them. Just saying many, like addicts, are in torment with their condition.)
I feel a great deal of empathy for them and their families for the high visibility and meanness they endure because of the offender list. Still some say that being on the list helps keep them on the straight and narrow.
It's a mixed bag but seems to be the best plan we have come up with so far.
In my state we have a judge fighting the rules of the Sex Offenders Treatment Program since so very few so far are able to meet the criteria sufficiently enough to graduate out of the program. Apparently he thinks it should be easier to get out.
I look at it more like proof of how difficult an obsession it is to overcome. If medical people with experience have set the criteria then I think we need to listen to them. I don't think a judge is qualified to determine what constitutes a sufficiently treated and monitored offender.
Treating it as a public health issue, to me, should override the influence of the legal system many of whom are uninformed about the issue. (A good example of how this interferes is the case of the nurse following hospital protocol who was arrested by a LEC this week. She was actually doing a better job of protecting the patient's rights than the officer.) Same with mental illness - medical staff are often more capable of determining what is best for a patient and community's health when he is not of sound mind.
Now you can stand me up with Seligman and whichever side doesn't hate him can hate me.
Have you looked at a registry? They are quite specific. They state the crime as well as the ages and sex of the perpetrator and victim(s).
If you are on a registry for peeing in the bushes, it will be pretty obvious that you are not a degenerate. But let's be honest, what prosecutor wastes their time on a person on the way to sing in their church choir while feeding the homeless who simply needed to answer the call of nature.
Answer: None.
Honestly you'd be surprised. If the prosecutor was some religious fanatic then I wouldn't put it past them.
As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't have registries because all child molestors and other sex offenders should be incarcerated for life.... I have no doubt in my mind that an offender can and may offend again even when they say that they won't, what their level of potential offense is, what the prosecutors say, and the doctors say that they wont. Since when could a lightswitch be flicked and a deep down mental issue is fixed? I may get hate for this one by some, and that's fine
Isn't raping/molesting a child evil and worthy of losing your rights?
All of your rights? The right to live in a home,the right to have a job and support oneself and ones family? What if the offender is married and has a family, should they all lose the right to live in peace?
I see no issue with LEO's having a database that is only accessible by them when needed for investigation but this public list has done way more harm than it ever did good.
Nobody can show where that list has saved anyone or deterred anything.
All of your rights? The right to live in a home,the right to have a job and support oneself and ones family? What if the offender is married and has a family, should they all lose the right to live in peace?
I see no issue with LEO's having a database that is only accessible by them when needed for investigation but this public list has done way more harm than it ever did good.
Nobody can show where that list has saved anyone or deterred anything.
Let's see what the appeals court says. This could be a due process violation, but the appeals court might rule that the practice is reasonable and its factual basis does not have to be demonstrated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
