NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, as different cities are putting out effective sex offender bans, which I guess is really the last resort they were pushed to, I think it's time to think of the downside to such things.


There is ALWAYS a downside, no matter how good an idea is.

With the sex offender registry it's judges who don't take the thing seriously.

There are teens on the Sex Offender registries. Why? Sometimes just as little as a one year age difference. Do they deserve to be barred from cities and 1000 feet from a school?

A 12 year old was put on the list because his grandmother, whom he lived with, caught him and his little brother (or cousin, I forgot which) playing with each other naked. The grandmother told the judge to teach them a lesson, and so he was put on the list. Now, try finding work or living with THAT on your record for the rest of your life.

My point is that the system is very much flawed, and we're overlooking this problem by just looking at all of the people on the list the same way. As child rapists. Some of em aren't even child molesters to begin with!! Some looked at illegal porn. Yes, that's illegal, but it's looking at pictures! You can get in trouble in the US for looking at Danish porn due to the fact that they have a minimum age of 16 to be in porn there, instead of 18.

The system should be that those who are on the list for these little things not be included in these "no SO areas" and not have their addresses and names and pics put online.

Now, those that HAVE committed these horrid offenses such as rape and molestation are a different matter. That guy who kidnapped Shasta and, it looks like, also killed her brother should never have been let out of jail. He held a kid at gunpoint wanting sex. Ok, yes, I understand, that ain't worth a life sentence, but he reoffended. On a reoffense, there should be no bail and no 3rd chance, IMO if it's something as bad as what he did.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, I totally agree. I also think that consent shouldn't be judged on age AT ALL, if someone is taken advantage of they can still complain.

Yeah, I totally agree. I also think that consent shouldn't be judged on age AT ALL, if someone is taken advantage of they can still complain.

Well, I agree with that for the most part, except for kids who've grown up with parents telling them that sex is wrong anyway, and then they'd hide the fact if they didn't consent just so no one knew they had sex.

Okay, as different cities are putting out effective sex offender bans, which I guess is really the last resort they were pushed to, I think it's time to think of the downside to such things.


There is ALWAYS a downside, no matter how good an idea is.

With the sex offender registry it's judges who don't take the thing seriously.

There are teens on the Sex Offender registries. Why? Sometimes just as little as a one year age difference. Do they deserve to be barred from cities and 1000 feet from a school?

A 12 year old was put on the list because his grandmother, whom he lived with, caught him and his little brother (or cousin, I forgot which) playing with each other naked. The grandmother told the judge to teach them a lesson, and so he was put on the list. Now, try finding work or living with THAT on your record for the rest of your life.

Is this in the United States? Because if so, I believe his record is whiped when he turns eighteen, anyway. But, if not, the judge should be fired for being a dumbass - if two kids are within one or two years of age, they are equally at fault for anything... strange... they do, unless the younger of the two is too young to be aware of what he's doing, for instance a four-year-old and a six-year-old, but this doesn't sound like such a case.

My point is that the system is very much flawed, and we're overlooking this problem by just looking at all of the people on the list the same way. As child rapists. Some of em aren't even child molesters to begin with!! Some looked at illegal porn. Yes, that's illegal, but it's looking at pictures! You can get in trouble in the US for looking at Danish porn due to the fact that they have a minimum age of 16 to be in porn there, instead of 18.

I would be very surprised if a judge gave a guy more than a fine for looking at a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old in a porno, especially considering the fact that they could look eighteen. But, yeah, the system is flawed when shit like that happens.

The system should be that those who are on the list for these little things not be included in these "no SO areas" and not have their addresses and names and pics put online.

I'm not sure anyone is on the sexual offender registry that did nothing more than look at a 16- or 17-year-old porn. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I doubt it.

Now, those that HAVE committed these horrid offenses such as rape and molestation are a different matter. That guy who kidnapped Shasta and, it looks like, also killed her brother should never have been let out of jail. He held a kid at gunpoint wanting sex. Ok, yes, I understand, that ain't worth a life sentence, but he reoffended. On a reoffense, there should be no bail and no 3rd chance, IMO if it's something as bad as what he did.

Raping a kid by holding him at gunpoint isn't worth a life sentence? Are you daft?

Raping a kid by holding him at gunpoint isn't worth a life sentence? Are you daft?

Um, no, THAT is. I'm saying that if the sexual act was not done , like if the gunholder got cold feet or something, then perhaps it's not worth a life sentence.

However, I don't think such trials should be decided by an act. Say 40 years for this, and 20 years for that. Everything should be on a case by case basis, IMO, and for the most part, that's how it's done here.

Also, whatever happened to so called change of heart? I know that SOs do reoffend at about a 15% rate. However that's 85% that dont.

Supposedly we have class one, class two, and class three offenders, but painting them all with the same brush makes things so muddled. Congresses of state and the National gov., should look at retooling the SO system quite soon, so that high risk offenders stay behind bars, but those just barely in the system or whom psychiatrists think have changed can have a chance to live a normal life once more.


No, I don't believe your record gets expunged after you turn 18 for sex offenses, btw, but I'll have to look it up. Putting a kid on the SO list for life is just idiotic.

few more instances that i have heard of (sorry, dont have the sources)

this one is fairly recent, may be able to google it

some guy almost hit a minor with his car when she ran in front of him or something. he stopped, tried to yell at her, she ignored him, and he grabbed her arm and proceeded to yell at her. got hit with charges of assualt, unlawful restraint of a minor, few others. all but unlawful restraint of a minor were dropped.

now, dont get me wrong, i dont think what he did was quite right, but if all he did was grab her arm and yell at her.... still not right, but not too bad imho...

anyways, that charge(unlawful restraint of a minor) counts as a sex offense, so now he's on the registry and everything. the judge himself said he didnt think it was appropriate, but felt his hands were tied by the mandatory registration/punishment bit.


also, i believe it was some states in the south, where two kids could get charged with statutory raping each other(most places require that the person being charged must be over 18, but not in some of these states) so two highschoolers get caught having sex or something, and both get charged with statutory rape, and are now sex offenders...

dont know what the solution is, but i think it should maybe have some requirement for violence/forced/coerced behavior dunno, but that will likely have loopholes as well...

dont know what the solution is, but i think it should maybe have some requirement for violence/forced/coerced behavior dunno, but that will likely have loopholes as well...

That's at least a start. Loopholes can be taken care of later. But the problem is that people don't really care, for some reason. As long as their lives are fine, everyone else can die.

Is this in the United States? Because if so, I believe his record is whiped when he turns eighteen, anyway.

The record might be wiped but depending on their state, their name may never be wiped from the sex offender registry. Believe it or not, there are people actually lobbying to include juvenile sex offenders in the registry in those states that dont already do so.


But, if not, the judge should be fired for being a dumbass - if two kids are within one or two years of age, they are equally at fault for anything... strange... they do, unless the younger of the two is too young to be aware of what he's doing, for instance a four-year-old and a six-year-old, but this doesn't sound like such a case.

The prosecutor is the one who should be fired.



I would be very surprised if a judge gave a guy more than a fine for looking at a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old in a porno, especially considering the fact that they could look eighteen. But, yeah, the system is flawed when shit like that happens.

Don't be surprised. Mandatory sentencing laws are pretty much standard for child pornography cases these days. This means that it doesnt matter if you looked at a picture of a 16 year old or a 8 year old, you are still getting the same minimum sentence (often in the 15+ years range).



I'm not sure anyone is on the sexual offender registry that did nothing more than look at a 16- or 17-year-old porn. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I doubt it.


Plenty of people are. Again, its the mandatory minimums thing. Judges have had their power legislated away. As a result, many people have to suffer the consequences that come with being judged by a system that is inflexible and purposely avoids human reason.


Raping a kid by holding him at gunpoint isn't worth a life sentence? Are you daft?

It would be, but he was a minor himself at the time.

Good points, but what eludes me is why so few people care that such things are inflexible. It apparently doesn't matter if you ruin someone's life on a mere technicality or for something they did when they were young and didn't know the law...

Yeah I have to agree thats kinda messed up.

*shudders* Whenever I hear the words 'Sex Offender" I think of that dma Brian peppers.

Hell, I know someone who is now a registered sex offender for a crime he was found not-guilty on.

He was accused of selling "lude" comic books to a minor. He doesn't actually have any lewd comics in his store, and he won't even sell mature comics (which are not actually illegal to sell to minors) to minors without a parent there. It was an obviously false accusation (and the city confiscated all kinds of comics - including really old Batman and Superman comics which they never returned, despite a court order to do so). Anyways, he was acquitted of selling lewd comics to a minor - but still somehow labelled a sex offender. He even has to go around the neighborhood when he moves and tell everyone (which he gets a weird kind of amusement out of - since it isn't true).

Good points, but what eludes me is why so few people care that such things are inflexible. It apparently doesn't matter if you ruin someone's life on a mere technicality or for something they did when they were young and didn't know the law...

Every major legal association from the American Bar Association to the Supreme Court has come out against mandatory minimum sentences. They remain popular because the laws are reactionary rather than logical. Something happens that causes an uproar and a law is created that looks like it would help that situation. Everyone applauds the government for closing an imaginary loophole that allowed such a terrible thing to happen, and no one notices the repercussions of that law. Watch for this to happen as soon as Dylan's body is positively identified. What will Dylan's law bring us?

It's real simple, but we've all forgotten what it looks like, so we don't do it because is sounds harsh... But here it is.

People that prey upon the weakest members of society have lost all value to society. End of story.

There is no rationale reason to risk rehabilitation or reintroduction into society once a person who violently assaults a minor is caught once.

If a violent child molester is treated and released into society, and commits another offense, the victim should and can blame the legal institution and the community and society itself for the assault, they ‘knew’ he was a danger to society, proven in a court of law.

There should never, never be a second offense. I don't care if it's life in prison, capital punishment or life long incarceration at a sexual offenders resort in Siberia, the value of one un-molested child is more than the hopeful value of any one rehabilitated child molester ever could be.

Violent child molesters must be treated like the worst type of murderer. The value of the criminal is zero because the risk is higher than the winning bet for rehabilitation can be. IMO

If you read my initial post, you would see I was not talking about violent offenders in the first place for the most part.

I was talking about seperating violent and non-violent offenders in our minds.

However, it seems you are dealing in absolutes. I guess, according to you, there is no such thing as a change of heart, an epiphany, or any such thing?
You are always the same way?

That's strange, because I'm constantly evolving into a different person...

I used to be a embarrasing, geeky kid that really had no idea that others thought I was really weird...

After my nervous breakdown in the 9th grade, I changed into what I am now, and basically am the opposite of what I was.

Recidivism rates are significantly higher than this thread would suggest: Read the first few links on this google search. (http://www.google.com/search?hs=0Qy&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=sex+offender+recidivism+rate&btnG=Search)

Recidivism rates are significantly higher than this thread would suggest: Read the first few links on this google search. (http://www.google.com/search?hs=0Qy&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=sex+offender+recidivism+rate&btnG=Search)

Okay, but read this.... http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

It shows that depending on how they calculate it, it could be a bigger number.

All someone has to do is be arrested to be part of the statistic, not be proved of guilt in a court.


You guys seem to have lost the point of this thread.... This is about people unfairly caught in the SO registry. This is NOT about repeat offenders and serial rapists. If you would look at the initial post, you would see that I said those should NOT be out of jail.

I'm speaking of non-violent offenders here. People who were put on the list due to bureaucratic laws that have no leway... I know you really don't care if people's lives are ruined by these things, as if it has nothing to do with you, the rest of the world can probably go to hell, right? If you're just going to make a knee-jerk response, then I don't see how that's different from the people you are condemning without looking at facts.