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.
We punish criminals by issuing fines and/or restricting free movement. In extreme cases, we sentence offenders to death. Usually, when you have "paid the price" for your crime, you are done.
What exactly do we hope to accomplish with publicly shaming people?
Is it for our safety? If so, why not just force them to live in designated ghettos?
You see, the problem with such public lists is that the people on there are often not who you think they are. Thus, you have an 18-year of who got a BJ from a 16-year old at a party, a drunk guy who peed against a pole while a kid walked by, and a child rapist, all on the same list. It doesn't matter that the specific charge is listed, either - once you're on the list, you are a child molester.
In some states, a person breaking into a home, finding a minor inside, and locking the minor in a closet or basement will result in that burglar being placed on the Sex Offender list - even though he never touched anyone!
Being on that list usually comes with a bunch of restrictions - can't live near schools, can't open the door on Halloween, can't live close to a school bus stop, can't live close to a house of worship, can't live close to a playground, etc. In some cases, such as Miami Beach, people on the list were, for a while, not allowed to legally live anywhere because of the multitude of restrictions and thus, were forced to live under an overpass in make-shift shacks and tents.
People on the list lose any and all prospect to reintegrate into society. They can't get jobs, they can't get a lease, they can't get a loan.
While I understand the idea of protecting ourselves, I also believe that we need not dole out punishment that outlasts the prison sentence issued by a judge. If we condemn them in such an extreme way, we would be better off just killing them.
I would think that creating yet another list for yet another type of crime will come with the same issues.
If any offense comes with a life-long sentence, then why have a judicial system at all that allegedly apportions punishment to reflect the crime?
Furthermore, life long sentences eliminate incentives for criminals to behave better.
If any crime other than murder gets the same sentence as murder, that creates an incentive for criminals to kill their victims.
See, that's the problem: You, too, think that every "Sex Offender" is a person who rapes children... In other words, every single person on the sex offender list is, in your mind, guilty of raping a kid. And in your mental image, I would guess, that child is likely a prepubescent little kid and not a 17 year old who lied about her age after having snug into a party.
I actually managed to live next to a "sex offender" a while back. The offense that got him on the list? During his divorce, he had a heated argument with his wife, when the wife had left the house, he took their seven-year-old girl to his house, and locked the kid in so she couldn't escape.
My neighbor was in his 60's - the crime had occurred when he was in his 20's. Once the sex offender registry was created, he fell into a category that demanded he be placed on this list retroactively.
Like you, everybody immediately thought that he must have molested a child... He got fired, he couldn't get employment, the police came by every three months, the neighbors ostracized him, etc.
Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.
In our state, the crime is listed that got them on the list. Be it statutory rape, rape, lewd and lascivious with a child, etc.
Also, your neighbor - what crime did he specifically get convicted for? It's a fishy story.
It's the same with drugs. Rich Hollywood idiots talk about doing drugs all the time and they never get prosecuted. But LE loves to prosecute protesters and groups they don't like.
Talking about doing drugs is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, so I'm not sure what your point there is.
If Miley Cyrus would've pulled her stunt anywhere else rather than on stage, she would have to register for lewd behavior...plenty of other people have
Talking about doing drugs is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, so I'm not sure what your point there is.
My point is LE chooses who to prosecute. They chose not to prosecute the TV station that displayed an illegal gun in DC, but chose to prosecute the protester who did. Do a little research. It happens all the time.
Here is another example:
Two-time Oscar winning actor Kevin Spacey and director George Hickenlooper may have committed a felony last week by visiting convicted felon Jack Abramoff in prison. They are involved in a feature film--tentatively titled Casino Jack or Bagman--about the Abramoff lobbying scandal.
Although their felonious infraction may seem minor, the consequences are not.
According to federal Bureau of Prisons policy, "The inmate must have known the proposed visitor(s) prior to incarceration." The actual inmate-visitor application inquires: "Did you know this person prior to his/her current incarceration? If the answer is yes, indicate the length of time you have known this person and where the relationship developed."
Hence, one cannot visit a prisoner with whom one does not have a pre-existing relationship.*
The inmate-visitor application goes on to warn that "[t]he criminal penalty for making false statements is a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years or both (See 18 U.S.C. § 1001.)"
There are kids on the list for mooning, farting in a schoolmate's face and tea bagging.
My god, are you saying the sex registry - unlike everything else, isn't perfect?
That can't stand! If something isn't perfect, we must get rid of it!
I dunno what to tell you, California has taken steps to moderate what constitutes a sex crime, if your state hasn't, then you should do something about it.
Yes, Law enforcement does have discretion when prosecuting. A protestor with a gun in public is a bit different than a news article - there's the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, and as a police officer, I'd probably be more concerned with a protestor in a large public gathering having a gun than I would be in a news station after the fact.
And of course, it's the D.A, and not the cops that charge people with crimes, so the police arresting a protestor but not going down to the news station after the fact - well, one can easily identify the contextual differences of both scenarios.
In our state, the crime is listed that got them on the list. Be it statutory rape, rape, lewd and lascivious with a child, etc.
Also, your neighbor - what crime did he specifically get convicted for? It's a fishy story.
In my state, he got on the list for depriving a minor (his daughter) of free movement. Why is that fishy? And what reason would I have to convey a false story? State laws can be quite crazy, especially if a person gets on this list retroactively many years after conviction simply because a given law paints with a very broad brush.
While there is a subheading that summarizes the crime in one- or two-word categories, these categories are broad enough enough to not tell the public anything, and they generally consist of jargon whose scope the average citizen does not comprehend. Even when looking up definitions for the various categories, a layman would be very confused. The terms used are not like the ones on your list.
In order to access the specifics, one has to apply for the release of the specific proceedings from the local Sheriff.
The result is simply that anyone on that list is automatically deemed a child molester, no matter the actual crime.
In my state, he got on the list for depriving a minor (his daughter) of free movement. Why is that fishy? And what reason would I have to convey a false story? State laws can be quite crazy, especially if a person gets on this list retroactively many years after conviction simply because a given law paints with a very broad brush.
While there is a subheading that summarizes the crime in one- or two-word categories, these categories are broad enough enough to not tell the public anything, and they generally consist of jargon whose scope the average citizen does not comprehend. Even when looking up definitions for the various categories, a layman would be very confused. The terms used are not like the ones on your list.
In order to access the specifics, one has to apply for the release of the specific proceedings from the local Sheriff.
The result is simply that anyone on that list is automatically deemed a child molester, no matter the actual crime.
It's fishy because your state must have a bizarrely broad list of what constitutes a sex crime.
As I said, the list in California specifically lists the offense.
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.
