Sex Offender Registry

Good? Bad?
Shouldn't these kid fuckers get a chance to live normal lives after receiving punishment for an indiscretion?

 

I think that it should be a lot less broad than it is. Hell, Daniel's uncle is on there because his ex-girlfriend lied about some shit and when she went and admitted she was just a stupid whore, they still wouldn't take him off it. What kinda shit is that?

 

I had one of the postings hanging from my door one day.
It even listed where the guy worked... that seemed shitty,
but so is touching a child.

 

Pretty fucked up.

 

Yea, but you know that 9 times out of 10 the kid is asking for it.

 

My problem with the registry is that it doesn't just fuck pedophiles over, it screws up lives of people who really didn't do anything wrong, like guys who get pinned with statutory rape when the girl is plenty old enough to make decisions for herself. That fucking sucks.

 

Thats the thing, im all for the registery with proven rapists and peds, but you have to be damned sure before you put some one on it. And i also heard in America you can be put on it for shit like public urination, unless you're exposing yourself directly, hows that a sex crime?

 

yup.
If someone has a history that is that fucked up, and they are that dangerous they should be locked up - in a mental institution or some sort of care, not back on the street..
the rest- people who are on the list for things like minor statutorily rape charges9screwing their 15 yr old girl when they were 18)
- or just for having hit someone who is the opposite sex, they shouldn't be registered....I mean, yeah keep an eye on them when cases come up, based on their previous charges like they do for every other sort of offender, but the registry is sort of ridiculous

 

They were talking about putting this one kid on there because he mooned a school bus. They wanted to give him 31 counts of sexual harassment.

 

i can understand warning people that a rapist or child molester is moving into the area.

but a lot of it is also fucked up. you can be considered a "sex offender" in some places for indecent exposure. i once had a teacher who got fired because he was found guilty of indecent exposure. all he'd done was peed on a tree in a park.

 

See i dont even see how thats indecent exposure, there is a reason we (guys) use a tree and its not because it helps urinal flow!

 

i dont see how it is either, but he was in public with his dick out, and laws are laws. in some parts of the us, if a woman gets too warm while mowing the lawn she can be arrested for taking her shirt off, yet a man can do the same thing with no issues, no matter how big he and his tits are....

 

Yeah but lets be real here, people write laws, and if laws are stupid they need to be amended. And i dont know how long this registery has been about, but im sure they (the poli's) could have legislated it so it only included substantiated and grevious crimes, a person taking a pee in public is not (im sure there is an exception) committing a sex crime.

 

People who pose a threat to society should be noted.

But with the pedos and that, well if they aren't inside getting the shit kicked out of them, and they've served their time, they need to be watched.

But as to whether the public should know about it is a different matter. It's a very contentious issue.

 

you're expecting a larger degree of rational thought than my government has given any reason to expect.

i do not wish to pretend to have more knowledge about the subject than i do, which is very little.

but as i understand it, indecent exposure is indecent exposure, and thats that, and as i understand it it counts as a sex crime according to the letter of the law.

further, things like statutory rape (which is often committed by people under consentual contexts, with only a small age gap) count, as well as people who had sex with a drunk person who regretted it later (this is more common than you'd think - as i understand it, from a legal standpoint the person not only has to consent, they must be sober when consenting to be considered capable of consent)

again, this is all from my limited understanding, so i'll leave it at this. some of it may be incorrect or out of context, i dont really know. but i DO know that people are being persecuted for isolated mistakes after enduring the prescribed punishments and rehabilitations, and some of these people didnt even do anything morally wrong.

 

i do think people convicted of child molestation (not simply statutory, but little kids) and people convicted of a violent sexual offense involving another adult more than once should be the only folks to have to endure this kind of persecution. thats just me, though.

 

I don't agree with it. If someone is a menace to society, that person should be under arrest. Once society deems that that person has received proper punishment, then it's imperative that you give him or her full opportunity to be a contributing member of society again.

It's the same thing with felons who have to state they are felons in work applications. Wtf? It's a private issue at that point, unless that individual commits another crime.

I just think it's a risk that society has to take. Otherwise, you got these walking zombies who never truly reinsert themselves into the fabric of society and become more prone to recindivism.

I don't think a registry really does much to prevent future cases of molestation or rape, either. It's alarmist, and a false sense of security.

 

^all good points, imo

 

I don't think it is a bad thing.
It can be abused, just like any other legal measure.
I would want to know if I lived next door to a person who raped countless children, especially if I had kids of my own.

 

if they had been convicted of "raping countless children" then they'd not be out and about in society.