Registered Sex Offenders

[archibaldcrane]

The list shows hundreds of thousands of sex offenders. That one occasion is a shitty one we can all agree on that, but you still can't ignore the list based on 1% of the list being "wrong".

Why is the list good again? Do you believe it reduces recidivism rates? Do you think it makes you safer?

Do people actually believe that there is less sexual violence occurring because of this law?

[Skjie]

Where was the case with the people taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub? And anyone have a news source of it? I'd like to look it up.

Kashmir Hill - The Not-So Private Parts – In defense of Wal-Mart in the bath tub photos (a.k.a. child pornography) controversy - True/Slant

First google hit, suck less.

[Howard Roark]

I think we should start a national registry of driving infractions where I can look up every time you've fucked up. I don't want you parking near my car if you can't fucking drive. You should automatically be denied a job because you drive like a douche. It makes perfect sense.

lol are you making an analogy so you guys get more rights?

[archibaldcrane]

Where was the case with the people taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub? And anyone have a news source of it? I'd like to look it up.

The Mommy Files : Are bath-time photos child pornography?

Apparently after significant legal maneuvering they were able to clear their names.

[Khamsin]

Why again should someone be on a sexual offender list for the rest of their lives for taking photos of their children in the bathtub?

Being on the list doesn't do anything bad. Sure, someone like you might look on the list and find your neighbor, but if doesn't say he's a rapist or molester or has talked dirty to kids, then from what you're saying, you obviously don't mind and won't hold it against him. How is being on the list harming him?

Why is the list good again? Do you believe it reduces recidivism rates? Do you think it makes you safer?

Do people actually believe that there is less sexual violence occurring because of this law?

Maybe, maybe not, but it lets us know who not to hire and who to keep away from our kids, who not to socialize with and who to shun.

[archibaldcrane]

How is being on the list harming him?

Here you go: Sex offender laws have unintended consequences | Minnesota Public Radio NewsQ

One of many, many examples.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The Mommy Files : Are bath-time photos child pornography?

Apparently after significant legal maneuvering they were able to clear their names.

Thanks, unfortunately I don't think it's been published yet.

[archibaldcrane]

Maybe, maybe not, but it lets us know who not to hire and who to keep away from our kids, who not to socialize with and who to shun.

Right.

Because if they're not on this list, they're safe. Because the list involves all violent crimes. Because everyone who commits these crimes is brought to justice. Because people who commit crimes should be ostracized, shunned by society, years, even decades after serving their sentences.

[Darus Grey]

Then it's a good thing there are lists like this, so we can keep a close eye on them. Especially if they are inclined to rape more kids to go back to jail, as you suggest, that just means they cannot be trusted and an even closer watch must be maintained. Perhaps ankle bracelets for life?

At least other people will be less inclined to decide to rape a child, knowing their life will become a living hell and they will be unable to be a part of society ever again. When a reasonable person weighs the pros and cons, the risk and rewards, they will decide it's not worth it and forget about the idea.

As for those who still choose to do it, just keep vigilant. After serving their time, they will be unable to commit more crimes to go back to jail because such a close watch will be kept on them.

Besides, if your complaint is about the list, that's not what keeps most offenders out of work. When you apply for a job, you are required to say whether you have been convicted of a crime before. Even non-sex related stuff. So if this list weren't around, they'd still be out of work and we'd be in the dark about who to protect our kids from.

The point was these lists keep them from re-entering society, their inability to re-enter society is what causes many criminals to re-commit, specifically so they can go back to jail.

Because yes, being in Jail is often better than being outside when the world wants nothing to do with you ever again.

These lists compound that problem. If I have nothing to lose and everything to gain(place to live, since I can't get a job, and food, since I can't get a job...benefits of jail, among others) I'm actually REWARDED for going out and raping again.

It's simply bizarre to consider this justice.

Also, last part, you are in fact not required to state if you're a felon or not. That is a company policy, and frankly very few companies actually have those. The majority of employers are small businesses who do nothing more than a small informal interview. Large Corporations definitely have those, but you can just lie with little to no repercussions outside of maybe losing your job in the future. Very very few companies actually do formal background checks.

[Correction]

Being on the list doesn't do anything bad.

Tell that to abortion clinic doctors who have their names/addresses/schedules listed for public consumption by anti-abortion extremists. What harm could it possibly do?

I'm intrigued by the 'so we can keep an eye on them' argument. Are you advocating vigilantism? Get Rorsharch on the horn fellas, the neighborhood needs a cleaning!

[Intense]

A good friend of mine from high school is on the list.

He was dating this girl in HS, he was 17 when they started dating and she was 16. He turned 18, and soon after her mom found out they were sexually active and she got mad at him over it.

She called the police and pressed charges. He fought the charges, lost and ended up having to register as a sex offender. The sad part is is that we all have real jobs now and hes delivering pizzas.

While were able to read the degree and reason a person is on such a list is irrelevant at times but the fact of the matter is their lives are basically fucked over because of it. Its a death sentence of sorts in my opinion. My friend does not deserve to be on the same list as an actual child molester.

His is a case where justice was NOT served, however I'm of the opinion that we should rehabilitate people when possible instead of just punishing them. I'm a happy, snappy liberal though so you know how that goes.

[Khamsin]

Right.

Because if they're not on this list, they're safe. Because the list involves all violent crimes. Because everyone who commits these crimes is brought to justice. Because people who commit crimes should be ostracized, shunned by society, years, even decades after serving their sentences.

Because if we don't have a perfect system, it's best not to have a system at all. Hell, mistakes are made all the time by our judicial system, too. Let's abandon the law altogether. Until we can convict with 100% accuracy and certainty, no one is going to jail anymore. Yay.

Someone not on the list may or may not be safe, and there may be some safe people on the list. But that doesn't mean I'm going to trust people on the list explicitly labeled under "Rape", "Molestation", "Kidnapping", or "Communication with minors for immoral reasons" around my kids.

What about those who took pics of their kids? Well, they're not labeled under "Rape", "Molestation", "Kidnapping", or "Communication with minors for immoral reasons", are they? So they can be my babysitter, I don't care. I'm capable of using this thing called "judgment".

I never said it was an all-inclusive list, nor that all crimes need be treated in this manner. But partial identification of some offenders with reasonable (but not 100%) accuracy, even if it's not all-inclusive, is better than nothing at all.

And if you think such discrimination is unfair, then once you look someone up on the list and read their conviction history, decide for yourself if you want to trust them. You have your own mind, your own will. Use the list however you see fit.

Tell that to abortion clinic doctors who have their names/addresses/schedules listed for public consumption by anti-abortion extremists. What harm could it possibly do?

I'm intrigued by the 'so we can keep an eye on them' argument. Are you advocating vigilantism? Get Rorsharch on the horn fellas, the neighborhood needs a cleaning!

I think you're confusing using information so as not to put children in your care in compromising situations, and using information to maliciously attack someone. They already served their time, and it's not our responsibility to punish them. It is our responsibility to keep our children out of danger and our prerogative not to hire sex offenders if doing so would put children (such as the OP's niece) at risk.

[Rhyis.]

But that doesn't mean I'm going to trust people on the list explicitly labeled under "Rape", "Molestation", "Kidnapping", or "Communication with minors for immoral reasons" around my kids.

What about those who took pics of their kids? Well, they're not labeled under "Rape", "Molestation", "Kidnapping", or "Communication with minors for immoral reasons", are they? So they can be my babysitter, I don't care. I'm capable of using this thing called "judgment".

Chances are, a 16 year old girl is never going to be on that list. Just sayin'

[Khamsin]

Chances are, a 16 year old girl is never going to be on that list. Just sayin'

Nor would a 16 year old boy.

There are probably a number of slightly older women, perhaps teachers, that may make the list, though.

Although you're right, most people would probably rather have a 16 year old girl than a 40 year old creepy looking guy as a babysitter, anyway.

[Kerberoz]

Someone not on the list may or may not be safe, and there may be some safe people on the list. But that doesn't mean I'm going to trust people on the list explicitly labeled under "Rape", "Molestation", "Kidnapping", or "Communication with minors for immoral reasons" around my kids.

What about those who took pics of their kids? Well, they're not labeled under "Rape", "Molestation", "Kidnapping", or "Communication with minors for immoral reasons", are they? So they can be my babysitter, I don't care. I'm capable of using this thing called "judgment".

So why even put people from other categories on the list? It doesn't have to be "list everything" or "no list". The list should only include criminals judged to be a danger to society.

Imo, the list should be reserved for severe crimes, and not slapped onto a sentence along with community service. If the crime wasn't bad enough to warrant 10+ years in prison, it's not bad enough to warrant a lifetime of harassment and ostricization. Average people don't use judgment. They're terrified of anything and everything, and extremely impressionable.

[Rhyis.]

Although you're right, most people would probably rather have a 16 year old girl than a 40 year old creepy looking guy as a babysitter, anyway.

Exactly why your whole arguement is a moot point. People don't ask single 25+ year old males to watch their kids ever. And these are the people that are the most likely to be on that list.

The only thing a list like that is doing is keeping fear mongering wasp communities happy at the expense of destroying peoples lives.

[Khamsin]

Exactly why your whole arguement is a moot point.

People don't ask single 25+ year old males to watch their kids ever. And these are the people that are the most likely to be on that list.

The whole argument is moot because I used babysitter as an example? Okay. Teacher. Bus driver. Lawn mower in a neighborhood with kids. Parks and Rec attendant. Better?

I used babysitter more to show that I can be so trusting of someone on the list that hasn't been convicted of rape/molestation/kidnapping/cyberkidsex that I'd even let them babysit. But any other job works, too.

[Rhyis.]

Teacher is the only position I agree with that should get a background check for this sort of thing before hiring (Which I'm assuming they do already. But I don't know). And being on said list should completely negate them from getting any teaching position. Even then, the list should not be open to the general public.

I can't think of any other job or reason for a list like this to be in place, let alone be open for anyone to read.

[Intense]

Nor would a 16 year old boy.

Wrong.

A 16 year old boy who did something with/to a person under 13 can be charged as an adult (p.c. 288: lascivious acts with a child) and thus end up having to register as a sex offender. Its also considered a strike under California's 3 strikes law.

[archibaldcrane]

Ok Khamsin, here you go.

Let's say you're 17, fuck your 16 year old girlfriend, her mom gets pissed, you get partyvanned, and now you're a sex offender for life.

Do you think that any school will ever hire you as a teacher ever?

This is the problem with the list. You are labeled a sex offender, and now certain life avenues are cut off to you. You will never get a job as a teacher, ever - not because of the innocuous "crime" you committed, but because of the label that comes with it.

How can you not see that this is a problem? I know you're going to respond "well that's not the list's fault - that's the school district not properly using the list" and that's bullshit.

This ruins people's lives - being convicted of (consensual) statutory rape is rough enough as it is, but the "registered sexual offender" tag will -never- wash away.

No school district in the country would stand up for a registered sexual offender by saying to parents "no it's ok that he's a registered sexual offender, it was a consensual statutory rape conviction!"

The list fosters hysteria.