US Federal Judge Strikes down Colorado Sex Offender Register Law

[Hellion1999]

Anthony Weiner is happy!, he is moving to CO....lol

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

Putting a 21-year old male, who got caught peeing on a statue after drinking too much during spring break, on a lifetime sexual offender list should be unconstitutional. As should placing the kid that got charged with statutory rape the day he turned 18-year old, despite the fact he had been dating that same 15-year old girl for the previous 2 years without being charged with anything, on a public lifetime list. Neither of those individuals are a danger to anyone. Those lists should be reserved for only predators who are a danger to the community, not idiots who need a good smack to the head. What is more, they shouldn't be automatically for a lifetime and there should be mechanisms for re-evaluation every X number of years.

I completely agree. Why the "offender" in either of these scenarios should be likened to a true sexual predator defies all reason.

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by pknopp

This is a tough one. I believe we need to re-look at who we place on these lists but in some cases they serve a proper purpose.

The judge makes a valid point but you have to counter that with the safety of the public. In some cases the public is at zero risk but in others that is not the case.

I don't know what these three did to comment on this particular case. Will be interesting to watch.

I'll tell you what, let one of those "zero" risk ex-con sexual criminals move in next door to you, your wife and children. Better yet roll out the welcome wagon, invite him over for BBQs, and even let him baby sit your kids and or be in the house alone with your wife.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

I'll tell you what, let one of those "zero" risk ex-con sexual criminals move in next door to you, your wife and children. Better yet roll out the welcome wagon, invite him over for BBQs, and even let him baby sit your kids and or be in the house alone with your wife.

Did you read all the replies? If you had you would understand why your reply to me is silly. "Better yet" if you actually took the time to read what I said you wouldn't have replied like you did.

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

I'll tell you what, let one of those "zero" risk ex-con sexual criminals move in next door to you, your wife and children. Better yet roll out the welcome wagon, invite him over for BBQs, and even let him baby sit your kids and or be in the house alone with your wife.

So, if I have you right, you're saying that there is no middle ground? That every ex-sex offender must be pilloried for the rest of his/her life, regardless of circumstance?

That you must either let him/her babysit...or have posted 'danger' signs on his/her lawn?

I wonder if the isolation and excoriation of sex offenders might contribute to recidivism?

There seems to be a huge gap between perception and reality when it comes to recidivism--the public take is that all sex offenders re-offend, it's just a matter of time--while the stats say about 5%. Which is true--and does registering sex offenders help in any way with that?

As I said earlier, I'm for registries--because I think it's a deterrent to committing sex crimes...but as far as keeping people from re-offending..I just do not know.

I think most just use the knee-jerk reaction when the topic is brought up.

[MPowering1]

The registry should only exist for serious crimes for the protection of others.

Unfortunately, if you're a drunk college student and moon someone or take a whiz in an alley and you're arrested for it, you're on the list.