Should sex offenders names, and address be posted on the internet?

I'm probably alone in my views, and I hope i don't get flamed for this, but I cannot support anything that infringes on somebodies rights.

The way I see it is that it is unconstitutional, unless during the sentencing, the jury/judge specifically says that part of his punishment will be to have his name posted on the internet. While I want to be safe, I am not willing to feel safe at the expense of someone elses rights, and truly knowing they're there will not make me feel safer. The only thing in my eyes this leads to is them being ostrasized by society. The Punishment is them going to jail, and parole, once they've adheard to these, they have atoned for their mistakes, if that's possible, and do not deserve such treatment.

I recognize that they are both monsters for doing what they did, and can never atone to the person and family for what they've done. But the victim and the family do not have the right to administer punishment, that is the job of the government.

there's got to be a better way to deal with keeping tabs on these guys.

However, as a parent I can also see the other side. Though I'm not sure there aren't nutjobs out there that will decide to kill these guys because they deserve it in their minds..

tough issue.

a damn tough issue but I can tell you that I feel a little safer about my 14 year old daughter after seeing mug shots and addresses of these people who live in our area.

We used to live in a nice, fairly middle-class to affluent suburb of about 50K people - and there were 45 registered sex offenders living there. I have an 11 y/o daughter.

but first-time offenders will often respond to treatment. We're talking about a psychological problem, albeit one with victims who are often completely unable to fend for themselves. Those who can be rehabilitated should have their rights completely protected but those who won't respond or who display a pattern should be identifiable despite the consequences.

I think the rate of repeat offenses is higher than for rape, break ins or other crime. I think it is a sick addiction and unfortunately there is temptation all around for them.
That is the only reason why I would be inclined to violate their privacy by registering them. (by the way, our neighbor is a repeat offender and I'm really glad that I and the parents on our street know that!).

Does it acheive anything?

I'm very uncomfortable with this.Not the kind of people I want to stick up for,but something about this just seems wrong to me.

First time offenders and peeping toms and the like shouldn't be on any list. Multiple offenders need to be in jail permanently. That's a really tough stance, but since child molestation causes future molestors primarily, the benefits are enormous. Rapists cause enormous emotional damage as well. They are as bad as a serial murderer. They don't need to be out on the streets. Internet problem solved.

I also don't believe in jail as it exists anyway. I think there should be a host of quality treatment facilities that deal with individual criminal illnesses. People can receive treatment, develop their skills and talents, contribute to society in some way, take highly supervised day trips etc. Not having a family and freedom is a high price, but sexual offenders do not have a high success rate.

Treating Catholic priests and moving them around without adequate supervision is what caused that scandal. No reason not to learn from it and protect our children.

It is a constitutional violation and an invitation to vigilantism

"pay their debt to society" and potentially - I do say *potentially* - have a change of heart and reform their lives. The case of a sex offender is not quite the same - it's actually a disease for which there is no known cure; a disease which devastates others who come in contact with it, and furthermore a *contageous* disease, not in the case of adult rape but in the case of child sexual assault. This is indicated by the fact that child molesters tend to have been themselves molested as children.

My feeling is, the only way to really deal with it is to begin by destigmatizing it - it's a disease, like alcoholism. Yes, the rapist or child molester devastates the lives of others, but if we view it as a disease over which the sufferer simply has no control, such people can feel more free to seek help for their illness.

I had a very traumatic incident once in which a man who was giving me a ride home spent the entire half-hour drive threatening to rape me. I was terrified of talking about it, but did so, not because I wanted him punished but because I hoped someone could talk him into getting counseling. I felt that was quite reasonable. But instead, all I got was people flipping out and defending him, yelling, "That nice guy could never do such a thing!!!" If they could have recognized it as a disease, it might have been a less emotionally charged subject for them, and they could have thought about it with a cool, clear head and helped him get help. Instead, it ended up being a losing situation, most of all for him.

If you're cited for any number of "sex crimes" you end up on that list.

This includes :
*public urination-sometimes written up as indecent exposure
*public nudity /performance art/protest -indecent exposure again
*sex in a public place-sex crime
*sex in a public place, AND you're a minor--violation of sex w/minors act

I haven't even covered the statutes that our gay friends are threatened with daily.

You get the idea. Its just not a very good system at the moment.

EDIT: Don't forget PORNO VIOLATIONS!!

and so far good thread. This issue is hardly black and white. You hit on many of the problems this has. I think for very serious offenders and/or mulitple ones then OK. But the less serious ones both bloat the list and put people in jeopardy they shouldn't be in. I also think no offender, no matter how serious, should have had this applied to him or her ex post facto. That is a real problem.

to change the rules after the conviction is secured. In some states people convicted in the 60's who had no idea these lists would exist wound up on these. In many cases they had plea bargained and agreed to a certain punishment. It is one thing to levy punishments when people know they are getting them but quite another to say years later BTW we aren't through with you yet.

On edit If you were actually refering to my third to last and second to last sentences then look at post 9 and add in sodomy statutes for my idea of less serious sex crimes. In many states those crimes are covered on these lists. So some closet case who pled in the 60's to sodomy or sex in a john ends up being outed. That is just wrong.

was that the posting of serious sex offender's names/addresses should not be retroactive.

Or, IOW, the posting should only apply to newly convicted offenders.

Am I close?

that is precisely it.

I agree with you on most issues, but I really disagree. Parents have the right to proect their children from sex offenders.

That being said I think that DAs and local prosecutors should state that in no uncertain terms that these sex offenders are to be left alone and to be allowed to go about their business unless they molest more children. There should be strict penalities for those who engage in "vigilante" justice.

But I do think parents have the right to protect their children.

One, is that DA's don't have magic wands and decoder rings and have to get juries to convict people for burning down child molester's houses. That would be tough to do.

Two, these lists aren't confined to violent offenders and molesters in many cases. Crimes such as concentual sodomy, indecent exposure, and statutory rape are on these lists when those can mean to adult men getting it on, peeing on the side of the road, and a 17 year old sleeping with a 15 year old respectively. But they can't be gotten rid of entirely without masses of real offenders not being on the list.

Three, the ex post facto (retroactive) nature of these lists. Having people convicted, or coerced into pleas, before these lists were dreamed up on these lists is textbook ex post facto. In many cases people are entraped as part of police targetting gays and plea to save their skins. Now in their 50's and 60's they are on this list for the crime of being gay in the wrong restroom 20 years ago. Even with real offenders this is still a problem. What crime are we next going to add punishments to retroactively?

I really do. But ultimately parents have the right to protect their chldren from being molested. And that interest trumps the rights of the criminal when it comes to this crime.

I have mixed feelings about this, but the rights of children supercede those of sex offenders.

you bet.

The damage they inflict on others is WORSE then murder. Period. They should have no rights in society at all ever again.

If we wanted to protect kids (and everyone else), we'd publicize their names and addresses. But don't expect the repugs to go for that. They're all convicted DUIs including their heroes bush and cheney.

25% of all children will be sexually molested.

I hardly think that 25% of the entire population is getting hit by drunk drivers.

But I don't think the reason for tough crimes is put there for purposes of punishment and some deterrent for the offender and potential offenders to commit the crime.

The names database is a recognition of the severity of the crime (as to the victims) AND the fact that sex offenders are rarely, if ever, rehabilitated. They are still dangers to society. The medical community has concluded this. I don't understand why they don't get life in prison.

That database is simply the offenders' lucking out by NOT having to spend their whole life in prison. They get to have jobs and be free, etc.

Sexual molestation and assault DESTROYS ......absolutely destroys the soul of the victim.

but, I gather that there aren't people in this thread who have (a) been assualted/abused; or (b) known someone intimately who has had to deal with it in some form.

Sexaul assault is not really a choice for the offenders.......they can't have a "change of heart and mind" and just stop.

which is my biggest problem with them. Until just last month in 11 states I was a sex offender (sodomy laws) and yes in many states those count for those sites. As does a 17 year old having sex with a 16 year old (statutory rape in many a jurisdiction). One doesn't have to be ignorant of sexual abuse to have serious problems with those people being on a list like that. I also have a severe problem with ignoring the Constitution. It is clear about ex post facto laws. If we ignore that then what else will we ignore?

They get put on the list as well, and it's only indecent exposure. I would post more, but you already said it.

I am close to people who got molested. And you know what? They got away with it. In one case, the molester was a kid.

Many people are all for labeling these molesters...until they find out that Uncle Charlie is the one fondling your kids, in which case, they blame the kid because Uncle Charlie would never do such a thing.

Personally, I think the whole thing stinks. It's illiberal in any sense of the word. You do your time, your "punishment" should be over.

Don't like it, then work to change the penalties.

But don't think that these lists are going to "protect your child". What a joke. The one time some guy tried to get me into his car, the cops laughed at me. There was one guy who would never make it onto any list...because he was rich, clean cut and drove an expensive car.

25 percent of children molested?

And as for this remark--They should have no rights in society at all ever again.--that's just stupid. I mean, I know it's the kind of thing Americans say often, and it reflects the hard (I'm tempted to say puritanical) American stance on criminal justice, but... well, it's just stupid. Human rights are inalienable.

We are part of a societal contract. Some actions are so heinous that they void your participation in that society. Murder can be one of those. Child molestation and rape should be two others.

The sex offender registry is a must. Parents and neighbors have a right to know what monsters live near them and their children. I want to know if that teacher is a sex offender, if that coach or Scout master poses a sexual threat to my child.

Sex offenders who are bothered by this should note that a more rational society would never let them out to prey on our children again.

because they are kicked out of their homes when landlords find out about their history, how will people protect their children from a homeless wanderer who has nothing to lose?

We shouldn't let a good number of them out ever anyhow. I think it is Kansas that is already experiementing with that kind of sentencing. They send the offender to jail first and then commit him/her afterward.

I'm glad you didn't say death penatly. But why aren't they sent to jail for life now? I think it's been made painfully obvious this behavir doesn't just "go away."

I'm sure it has something to do with money.

If we violate the social contract, the government has the right to punish us, and thus violate our rights. But once our punishment is served, we become a regular citizen again, and they can no longer infringe on our rights without violating the social contract. Ergo, it isn't allowed in the social contract. The punishment the government gives a criminal is specified at sentencing, and any further punishment is a violation of rights.

Your machiavellian interpretation of the law, and your machavellian veiw of crime is unsavory to say the least.


"Sex offenders who are bothered by this should note that a more rational society would never let them out to prey on our children again."

So much for any compassion, and basically all liberal virtues. The society that adhears to the above quote is not rational, and is not a society I would willingly live in.

I have tons of compassion for the victims of sex crimes. I have none for those who rape or molest. I would NOT let them out to do so ever again. The most dangerous wouldn't even get that.

rot in jail, explain to me how a "rational soceity" works.


These people obviously have problems, phsychologic problems, that can be fixed/helped. Wouldn't a rational society expose these problems for what they are, and get these people help, and try to "fix" these messed up human beings? Or is it more rational to forget about them, and let them take their problems to the grave? Why are you so quick to condemn someone? Yes they committed a terrible crime, but does that change the fact that letting them rot in jail is also terrible?

A rational society gets rid of any ongoing legitimate threat -- especially one to its children, its future.

Many of these sex criminals are uncurable. I am unwilling to gamble young lives on finding out which are and which aren't.

I don't intend to forget about them, but I would love to lock them up and throw away the key.

Why am I quick to condemn them? Do you honestly ask that question? Easy, I've known victims of rape, victims of molestation. It is a horrible life-shattering crime and the perpetrators have a strong tendency to be repeat offenders. They deserve no sympathy, no compassion. But future victims do.

These people are like that because they are not Human, and because of that they deserve to be rendered locked up forever?

They defenately have problems, and what they have done cannot be excused, but I find it funny that you attribute locking up humans in cages and forgeting about them to be something that a rational society does.

Okay suppose that most cannot be curred, and if they are let back on the streets they are more likely to do it again that say someone that has never committed such a crime. That still means that some of these people can be cured, and some of them can be let back out into society. A rataionl society would see this, and they would try to discern the difference between someone that is incurable, and someone that has a phsycological problem that can be fixed.

This is where we differ, you see these people as animals, and I see them as sick humans. They need our help, they need us, and if we ignore them, then yes letting them back out will lead to more rapings and more molestations. But locking up a sick 30 year old man, and leaving him in a prison environment does not achieve anything, and it is not what a rational society would do. Rehibilitation is something a rational society will try and accomplish.

I said I wouldn't forget them. I don't forgive something like that. I don't forget it either.

Until someone can positively cure these animals, they need to stay caged. If you can POSITIVELY cure some and those would be no risk to the rest of us, then by all means do so. However, when that happens, we will all be long dead.

And yes, locking up such creatures that rape women and children is the BEST that any society would do. Most would just remove them permanently and, honestly, I find it hard to disagree with that choice.

The society cannot perform it's duty properly, and so they stay in jail for the rest of their life. Ha, your logic is stupifying.



"And yes, locking up such creatures that rape women and children is the BEST that any society would do. Most would just remove them permanently and, honestly, I find it hard to disagree with that choice."

So you've downgraded from any rational to society, to the best any society would do. Okay.

It is the duty of each of us to not rape and molest the rest of society. I don't care if someone is "evil" or just crazy. That is not my fault. I am happy to try and cure them, but lacking certainty, they should not be allowed to prowl around loose.

The difference between you and I is simple. You are concerned about the rights and welfare of the attackers. I am concerned about the victims both past and future.

I am comfortable with my choice, but yours baffles me.

superfluous sercurity. And only that.

If you think it is, try talking to some of the victims.

I know a number of victims who disagree with you.

In fact, some get sort of offended when people get indignant on their behalf and totally go overboard.

Very often this "no forgiveness / no understanding" approach is toxic to people's healing.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel that way. And I'm sorry that I even had to speak up here, but I just hate this attitude.

But it is a common attitude, especially among parents or those who care a great deal about victims of such attacks.

Or is there a reason they cannot take the punishment into their own hands.

It isn't even so much a matter of "forgiveness", though I am awfully happy you are willing to forgive the pedophile who molested me on my behalf.

This is a class of criminal behavior that even psychologists agree is difficult and usually impossible to cure the offender from repeating. So you have a molester on one hand that will statistically repeat his crime against another child when released back into society... and you have groups of children he will have access to in the community that have every right not to become his next victim.

I am chuckling at all the outrage on behalf of a molester's "right to privacy"... The rights granted in our Constitution merely expound on philosophical "rights-based" theories which stem from the belief in each individual's human dignity or autonomy. Autonomy is grounded in acknowledging that humans are free and rational, can make their own choices, forsee benefits and consequences and can take responsibility for their actions. If a pedophile makes the choice to actually molest a child, his "autonomy" or "human dignity" is in no way harmed by whatever consequences society set as a punishment. He CHOSE those consequences when he CHOSE to commit the crime.

Then you know nothing about our constitution, the society does not give punishments, the justice system done. If society gives a punishment, it is a clear infringment of that persons right. And the rights granted in our constitution are tangible rights, that are defined, and not theories.

as to where our FF's put the word "privacy" in our Constitution or BOR?

I won't even touch on the interesting statement you made about society not being the entity giving punishments to those who break our society's laws...

it more tells the government what it can do. So, it does not tell the gov. it can take our privacy Ergo we have the right to privacy.


Our justice system represents our society, but it is not our society!!! There is a large difference between the two.

I hope you touch on the interesting statement i made

In a previous post you stated "And the rights granted in our constitution are tangible rights, that are defined, and not theories."

That are DEFINED...

Now you are saying "Ergo we have the right to privacy."

ERGO?

What happened to defined?

The Bill of Rights is a set of restraints on our Federal Government... these restraints were defined explicitly to protect our personal liberty when we engaged in the social compact now known as the United States of America.

This also leads us to your interesting statement... our government and therefore our justice system (laws, punishments, courts) exist due solely to "consent of the governed".... us.... society. And the Constitution and state constitutions outline the procedure for American citizens to create laws and enforce punishments.

and so are all of the admendments, and I guess the whole constitution.

I'm sorry you precieve me as inconsistent, but nothing I have said was wrong, and variance is due to the variance of the constitution.

The Original Const, explains what rights the gov. had, and it was understood that they could take nothing more. But people wanted to be superfluous, so they put in the bill of rights, and admendments as a safegaurd, not to define all our rights, but rather to clearly define boundaries for the gov. I am sorry that this is confusing for you, but it still stands that if it is not in the const., then gov. cannot take that right. and the const says nothing about taking our privacy away, ergo it is our right to privacy.

What the constitution allows the gov. to do is pretty tangible, and it is also tangible that the gov. can take no freedoms away, that were not specified in the constitution, and thus it is tangible that we have right to privacy.

for many reasons, for one they're clouded by hate, and vengence. And so it stands to be superfluous.

"locking up a sick 30 year old man, and leaving him in a prison environment does not achieve anything..."

It achieves diminshing the threat the person poses to the public.

an achievment, then you are correct.

of rehabilitation then I think that is an achievement for pruposes of public saftey. Wouldn't you agree?

but no it is not an achievment, you can put anyone in jail, and it's even easier to keep them there forever. As far as public safety goes, you cannot assume that they will strike again after their prison sentence is over.

Certain crimes have enormous recidivism rates. I don't care whether they are mentally ill or just criminal, they remain a threat to society and should not ever get out.

Certain threats to the society have to be indured, thus is the the nature of a Democracy. Thus is the nature of our Justice system, and thus is the nature of the "rational Society"

But not all of them. Child molestors and rapists don't need your help. The rest of society, the victims and potential victims all do.

proves that they do need my help.

I run the risk of killing someone, and so do you, and so does everyone else, shall we all be locked up?

Yes we do run the risk of killing someone, but people who have commited these crimes have already done it and are statistically more inclined to commit crimes. That alone is enough to lock them up or put them to death in my opinion. Our "willingness to harm, and condemn them" is based on their decision to disreguard all decency and law and commit these heinous acts.

(not talking about Mary Jane and Billy Bob gettin' caught in the back seat, or Joe Blow takin' a piss in the woods)

since ther's only a say 10% chance of me killing someone in my lifetime, and a 40$ chance of me stealling something, I am immune. Is there a cuttoff or something where if there is a 50% chance of you committing a crime you've already committed it in the eyes of the Law?
Or even a 90% chance, does that mean you should be punished for it, because it's likely that you will? You are punishing these people for crimes they have not committed.

Statistically speaking arabs are more likely to committ terrorism, so according to your logic we should follow them, and post look outs on them.

No, your willingness to harm them is based on you wanting revenge based punishment, that a fair court would not give. You admitt that you are willing to harm them? They committ the acts, they go to jail, they get out, they have payed for their mistake, and no longer need to pay for it. And yet you want to punish them further? You want to take the law into your own hands?

I'll rephrase. Because these "people" have commited such horrible crimes and because statistically they are more inclined to repeat them if released to the public again than the averege person, they should be administered capitol punishment or life imprisonment. They choose to do these crimes they can reap the results.

I can see where me saying this: "but people who have commited these crimes have already done it and are statistically more inclined to commit crimes. That alone is enough to lock them up or put them to death in my opinion." could breed some misunderstanding.

(again so there is no confusion, i'm talking about cases of violant rapes and child molesters)

Trying to restate your position does not debunk the injustices, and stupidities I pointed out in the previous post.

The average person is not beatin by their parents, but people beatin by their parents are more likely to committ a crime than people not beatin by their parents, so statistically this small minority of people are dangerous to the rest of the society, so according to you we should follow these people, and watch them closely. We should hinder them because they are more likely to committ a crime?

So what's the cutoff? IF their's a 50% chance of me committing a crime, do I deserve to die, or get life? Maybe if their's a 90% chance, then I should have my rights violated? Or Maybe if it is 100% sure that I will committ a haneous crime, you don't know when or how, but you know that it will happen, then do I deserve to have my rights infringed on?
The punishment our society gives, the punishment any society gives, is for a crime committed, not for a crime yet to be committed. Even if there is a 100% certainty that I will kill someone in my life, my rights cannot be infringed untill I take a substantial step of committing such a crime.
But then again, we cannot know the percentage chance of an individual committing a crime, any more than we can predect the crime. We can know statistics of previous offenders in the same spot I was in, but we cannot know what I am going to do, and so we cannot punish me for something in the future.

Your logic is the logic of a supid man, the logic of our President. We went to war with Iraq for the same reasons you want to keep these people in prison, because statistacally the pose a threat. You do not take into account the individual, and the infinite uncertainty of the future. Our lack of knowing should not be projected on to anyone in the form of punishment.

No business whatsoever. By any rational definition, that is enacting a punishment.

Furthermore, rape and child molestation are NOT "life-destroying". People can and do survive. Like, most of them.

Next person to accuse me of "not knowing what it's like", well, MYOB.

:grr:

Sheesh, I knew from the age of four that there were "monsters" around.

"Hey little girl, how about some candy"?

It's the parents who cannot deal with this reality.

are separate issues. It goes without saying that human rights are inalienable. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with a person losing some of their societal rights when they have been proven to be dangerous - especially where children are concerned. Most research today indicates that repeat sex offenders will not benefit from treatment programs - they will continue to commit crimes. The safety and welfare of our children trumps a repeat offender's societal rights, in my opinion.

That being said, the system - as it stands now - needs an overhaul. There are people in those databases who pose a threat to no one, and their names should be removed. I also have a bit of a problem with the potential for vigilantism.

In the end, I think there has to be a better way to address the problem of dangerous offenders. It just seems to me that a repeat offender should not be out on the streets in the first place, able to move in next door to a family with four children.

It's a preposterous figure - 25%. Standard tactic of activists. They use lies to make their issue sound more serious than it is. Even if the lies are later exposed it no longer matters.

"Seven percent of girls in grades five to eight and twelve percent of girls in grades nine through twelve and said they had been sexually abused. {Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls, 1998.}
Three percent of boys in grades five through eight and five percent of boys in grades nine through twelve said they had been sexually abused. {Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Boys, 1998.}"

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html#kids

And that's just rape.

25% of kids will sexually molested??? YOu haven't a shred of evidence for that number. You're like the feminists who say half the women in the country have been raped.

Anyway DUIs do worse than molest kids; they kill them and blind them and disfigure them and put them in wheelchairs for life. Furthermore you said child molesters can't be cured and should be locked up for life. Same with DUIs. They're hooked on a drug they will never get off. Taking away their license does no good since they just keep on driving. DUIs should be locked up for life. This is a great issue to use against convicted DUIs bush and cheney and i don't know why dems don't use it.

Arent you the same one that insists that no-one can drive 15mph over the limit safely?

and it is making the community have to do the job that jails should be doing. If the person is full-time dangerous, keep him locked up.

In my Florida County of Hillsborough. ANYONE who has been arrested gets there arrest picture and offense, as well as personal information posted to the official Hillsborough County website.

So, I say tackle the sex offenders later-because this is simply public hmiliation for those faced with arrest, CONVICTION is not a necessary element for you to get your picture on this website, unreal, eh? Oh, and many counties are taking this trend of public humiliation, its not just limited to Hillsborough.


http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/
(maybe you will see someone you know)

There are sex offenders who get treatment and the residivism rate is low, yet repeat sexual offenders and in particular one's who are called Pedaphilliacs are very difficult or unable to treat. I think most parents would feel safer knowing where these types live to protect their children.

should the people who live with the sex offender also be treated like this? After all, it's their address too, and they did nothing.

And yes, I have heard from one or two people bashing on me just because I live with him and his name's on the list. Makes me wanna punch 'em every single time.

I have gone into homes where 290 registrants live with their spouse and children and have found nothing amiss. As long as they are actively seeking treatment around it and cooperating with probation, I don't think they should be "outed", and deserve their privacy.

I was making a general statement mostly in regards to pediphilia. These are perpetraters different from most 290 registrants that recidism is very rare and they don't respond to treatment. Those are the ones I am concerned about.

....have been violated by a sex offender.

thanks to this sort of "outing."

NPR did a report on this about 6 weeks ago.

I haven't yet seen another, blindingly obvious argument in all this: these laws are ridiculously easy to set up someone for a fall. In other words, not all sex crimes ever actually happened, but the 'victim' has something against their accused to begin with, and trumps up a story to get them put in jail.

This, exactly this, happened to my husband. The "victim"- and I shouldn't even use that term- testified in his deposition that my hubby was asleep when he- my husband- "molested" him.

Mind, all that happened was the back of my husband's hand flopped over onto the kid's crotch while he, my husband, was dreaming. The "victim" testified to these facts under oath, on the stand in court.

My husband served 3 years probation, has his name on the sex-offender's list for the next twenty-three years, and lost everything when his ex-wife filed for divorce. Surprise! He was in jail at the time- because of this trumped-up claim- and couldn't make it to the divorce hearing in time, so the judge ordered that everything currently in posession of either spouse would remain in that spouse's posession.

His ex-wife got the car, house, credit cards, comic book collection- worth several thousands of dollars- his knife collection, both his Samurai swords (worth quite a bit in their own right), AND child support. He also had to pay $1200 fines/restitution, and a $1500 supervision fee. Since then, he's has no less than 23 jobs, and now he's going on disability because, according to Social Security, he's now "unemployable."

Yeah. No shit. I am 100% against sex-offender registries, and I view all accusations of sex crimes with some suspicion. This is much more common than anyone would like to admit.

on edit: not to slam women, but they have men over a barrell on this issue, particularly if there's a) a child and b) an unhappy marriage. Some women, like my man's ex-wife, will do this out of sheer greed and vindictiveness.

That a child will say something that was strongly encouraged by the other parent (ugly custody issues) and the other parent gets reamed for it. This is a big problem and I will not lie to you and tell you I know how it should be resolved. For all that it is worth, I don't like seeing this kind of crap happen. Particulary when children are used to get revenge againist the other parent. I don't think these unresponsible parents can possibly understand the damage they are doing emotionally to their children.

A coach in my parish was convicted as a sex offender and sent to prison because he allegedly touched a 15 year old's butt through her clothes.

This is insane.

Another man, a doctor, was arrested because he was taking a shower in his own house and the neighbor's 3 year old broke into his house and saw his "pee pee." THe doctor dressed and took the boy home -- and was soon rewarded by a visit from the police with charges that he'd molested this child.

Now if you are not allowed to take a shower in your own home, then no one is safe from these accusations.

I don't doubt for a minute that people are being set up and destroyed over nothing. I have known of it happening for reasons of petty personal revenge. And it will become a powerful political tool as well. Look what they tried to do to Ritter. If we allow our brains to turn off every time we hear the phrase "sex offender," we are just going to make it very, very easy for the evil and the conniving to set up whoever they like. Lots of so-called sex offenses do not involve any physical proof of anything whatsoever! It's easy to claim claims and name names.

We should be bigger than this. And BTW telling people they're damaged for life because they were victims is a shitty thing to do, as far as I'm concerned. I refuse to consider myself damaged because of something another person did to me. The abuser is the sick, damaged person. I am strong and healthy. We do no favor to young women by hypnotizing them to believe they're scarred for life because of abuse.

so why protect such vermin?

Some are/were convicted of "sex offenses"- like public urination- that have nothing at all to do with sex. Others were set up by someone vindictive, as my post above shows.

Still others were convicted for political reasons- in the Oakland County point system used for public defenders, for example, the way the system works places it in the defender's financial best interest to secure pleas. This point system also influences judges- like the infamous "Jenny Jones" judge, whom my husband appeared before immediately after that trial- to do certain things for political reasons.

Some of these people are not "vermin", and don't belong on any list at all; being on such a list also prevents them from getting jobs and homes, even after their criminal sentence has been served without incident.

I personally would like to make it illegal for employers to ask the felony question. That might go a long, long way toward reducing recidivism.

Employers ask the question for a couple reasons:

* Liability -- if they don't ask and one of their employees harms another or a customer, they are at fault
* Recidivism -- who wants an employee who is likely to commit a felony?
* Bad PR -- Who wants their customers afraid of shopping at a store?

So I guess you'd qualify as "vermin"?

http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0307/27/a01-228232.htm


-snip-

From the crest of his property in the Sandia Mountains, David Siebers can look out at the scrub pine and cactus of New Mexico's high desert. It is a desolate land, dry and remote, where a man could get lost -- or hide.

For 10 months, the press chased the Michigan man across the country. Someone slashed his tires. Someone else kicked in his ribs. Police followed him around the clock. Churchgoing parents held signs telling him to "go back where you came from -- Hell."

And here, where he retreated into the mountains, they burned down his home.

"I understand their concern," said Siebers, standing on the cement foundation where his home once stood. "I'm America's No. 1 monster."

more...

-snip-

I read about what he did and I say that its time to remove him from the earth. Fry him or shoot him out into space with no concern where he ends up.....



"""In August 1979, Siebers walked into a Get It and Go grocery store in Grand Rapids, pointing a gun at a frightened female clerk. Siebers took money from the cash register, then raped the clerk.

More horrors followed. At a Wendy's restaurant, he allegedly ordered four employees into a back room, forced them to undress and raped one of the women. During another robbery, he allegedly sexually assaulted a female employee while holding a gun on the male workers.

Siebers pleaded guilty to one robbery and one rape.

In 1989, after nine years as a model prisoner, Siebers was released on parole. It took only seven months for Siebers to be arrested again -- this time for trying to lure a 10-year-old girl into his truck. At his home, police found the book "Sexual Trafficking in Children: An Investigation of the Child Sex Trade," an academic analysis of child abuse that took on a different meaning in the hands of a sex felon.

Siebers stayed out of trouble in prison, but some of his mail was disturbing. In 1994, he ordered several nudist magazines and books containing bestiality and incest. In 1997, prison officials stopped a book containing incest cartoons from being delivered, according to the Michigan Department of Corrections."""""

molesting children shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere in society near children, which means that they should be put in a mental hospital for life. Since our society somehow views this crime as being less important than smoking marijuana or having therapeutic abortions, the public has no recourse but to advertise who they are and where they live to protect the helpless and the innocent.

And I failed to see what would make a sex offender worse a "monster" than any other criminal, including corporate executive.

Arsonists are also a menace. Robbers are a menace. If you post the names of one type of criminal, you should have to do it for all types of criminals.

Commit a particularly heinous type of crime that harms the victim forever. Those who prey on children are a particularly monstrous bunch and should not EVER see the light of day -- either here or as the mayor suggested in the above case, a cave in Afghanistan.

is that it can cover a wide variety of offenses.

For instance, while I was in Nashville working a job (on a film crew) we were in a huge park down by the river. There was nowhere to take a leak, so most of us guys were tempted to go back into the woods (there were a lot of forests there) and take a piss, but the locals warned us not to, that the cops looked out for that and you could be arrested for it and the crime was a "sex offense" and that you would forever thereafter be listed as a "sex offender".

So it sorta depends on the actual crime. Getting arrested for "indecent exposure" because I'm taking a piss in a forest is a far far cry from child molester.

There are lots of sex offenses that get people put on the registry.

Perhaps an argument could be made for a registry of people PROVEN to have had sex with small children or to have committed violent rape.

But a sex offender could be someone who sold a dirty magazine in the wrong county. Could be a hooker giving the wrong 55 year old a blow job. Could be a "flasher" who actually thought he was alone on a side street and was just relieving himself of a beer. Could be a 17 year old who got caught going down on his 16 year old girlfriend. Could be a 6 year old playing doctor with an 8 year old. True, in the last two cases (which I read about in the press), children were involved. But are these really offenses that would scar their victims for life? Do the young people involved actually need to be labeled as sex offenders and be unable to find jobs and housing for life.

You know, I played doctor with other kids when I was a child. Some of those kids were younger than I was. Does that make me a sexual predator? Do two healthy teen-agers doing what God and nature intended them to do...are they sexual predators? Or is it only the boy that is a sexual predator? What if the girl is the one who is 17? You know, we are really making it tough for today's teens to have decent relationships. If one of them is the wrong age in the wrong state with the wrong parents, even if it's consensual and they care about each other, they can be ripped apart and one or both labeled as sex offenders.

These lists are filled with names of people that should not be on them.

To assume that all sex offenders have molested or "damaged" a child is completely wrong.

And, as a former victim, I am completely offended by the idea that I am damaged for life. I don't accept that. No one is going to put the idea in my head that I am somehow "less" because of rape. I refuse.

I am glad you are saying what you are saying about refusing to be "damaged for life." I question that sort of thinking, but having never been a victim, feel awkward making any comment. However, there have been studies that indicate that most children can survive and thrive after such an experience. A lot of their survival depends on how the adults around them treat the situation.

nt

Anyone notice how many 'sex offenders' are Repluticans?

but to to give parents and children the ability people to avoid the predators.

I don't have a problem with this.

You commit a horrendous crime against society- society deals with you the way it sees fit.

It might create a false sense of security. Parents might think "I don't have any sex offenders in a 5-mile radius, so I don't need to teach my child about inappropriate touching," that if something happens they need to not be afraid to tell, or anything else that might educate a child about such dangers.

After all, it's not the sex offenders down the street you should be most worried about, it's the ones down the hall. At last I read, about 90 percent of all molestation cases were by a family member, close friend of the family, or other authority figure the child is familiar with. A SOR wouldn't have done those 1,000 kids in Boston a damn bit of good, because the rapists were never reported to the police.

I'll take what information I can get regarding predators in my neighborhood.

And for anyone who seeks to enhance the rights and privacy of these sleaze bags, ask yourself how many rapes and molestations is it worth to protect the privacy of a convicted rapist or pedophile.

Get off the PC merry-go-round!

the rights of them. There is a difference between giving them rights that others don't have, and giving them rights that every human being should have.

Do you really think knowing where someone lives and their name will keep them from doing something? But that's besides the poing, we have no right to put them on the internet.

Monsters that attack women and children lose the rights that the rest of us have to be part of this society. They continue to exist at all at the sufferance of the rest of us.

because there is a chance they could do it again. Should we kill everyone then, because there is a chance that anyone could committ a crime? Or maybe just males ages 20-40, they're more likely to committ a crime, say bye to them.
Mentally handicap kids, and ophans hinder our society, should we get rid of them too.
I was unaware that we lived in such a Machivellian state.

Once they have finished their sentence, parole and jail, they are free from any further persecution and punishment. They do not, and should not have to put up with punishments outside the realm of their sentencing. They aren't causing a "sufferance" to me, I'm not intimidated or afraid of them, they've committed an act, they've paid for it, and now they are "square with the house".

Kind of hard to rebut that, isn't it? I mean, what is punishment all about? If we're all so concerned about recidivism, doesn't that bespeak a lack of faith in our existing system's ability to rehabilitate criminals? And if we aren't sending people to jail in the hopes of rehabilitating them so that they can safely re-enter society, then why send them to jail in the first place? Just because we want them to suffer, even though we know it won't do them or us any good? If the punishments we mete out aren't solving the problem to everyone's satisfaction, do we just shoot criminals because there's no hope of them ever becoming safe and productive members of society? Why not? Perhaps the focus of our discussion should be less on labeling criminals as "monsters" and adding layer upon layer of punishment which we all seem to agree is relatively ineffective insofar as actually rehabilitating anyone, but rather on devising methods of treating criminal behavior that hold out greater promise of rehabilitating them.

Didn't notice this comment.

No, you can rehabilitate from many crimes and that should be the focus of our criminal justice system.

But some criminals pose too much long-term risk to society. Once they commit a crime, they are found out. We know they for what they are and do NOT have to simply give them a sentence and a get out of jail free card.

If they are mentally ill, we can and should lock them up until such time as they can be cured. If that is never, I am OK with it.

We are not talking about the inconvenient of society or society's helpless, we are talking about the worst of the worst -- those who prey on the weak and rape women and children. I have no sympathy for them.

If they are mentally ill, we can and should lock them up until such time as they can be cured. If that is never, I am OK with it.

Are people who spank their kids equally "mentally ill"? I mean, if we're really concerned about "protecting children", we ought to also focus on things that mess children up in much greater numbers - like bad parenting, child abuse, verbal humiliation, bullying, harassment.

If you want to protect your children, I suppose you should move them away from the nearest public school, the nearest Catholic school, the nearest playground. Shit, just move the kids to Antarctica and get it over with. There aren't too many Republicans there.

Children are most in danger from their own damn parents, step-parents, relatives, etc. Who says that every "abuser" is on that list, or will ever end up on it?

Furthermore, I think the government has no business branding people as permanently "ill". This is in no way an objectively quantifiable concept, and even if it were, there would be all sorts of dangers in labeling people this way.

How in HELL did Democrats get to be such illiberal lovers of our criminal justice system.

There will always be threats to children. The difference is we KNOW that some people are already threats. Why treat them like they are not?

I think government has every business protecting us from these ... individuals. As I have said before, the difference is that I am more concerned about past and future victims. There are others here who are more concerned about the molestors and rapists.

However, I have no love for our criminal justice system. It wastes waaaaaaaaaaay too much time on minor drug offenders and let's these animals walk the earth.

into something other than Homo Sapien Sapien when they committ a crime?

Threats? Cars are threats to our children every time they go down the street, other kids our threats to our children every time the interact. Every grown man is a threat to our children, because according to your logic, he could do something wrong. Parents are a threat to our children, maybe the biggest.
Should they government protect us from all of these too? If a parent is having it's first kid, should the parent be monitored because he/she or both don't have experience yet?

I'm more concerned about the molestors and rapists, because the majority of Americans are irrational, and my do something stupid. And my concern for victims does nothing for them. The best thing I can do for them is to insure that they will be raised in an accepting country, that is both rational and democratic. Intolerance works both ways.

Anyone who could do the things they do can't be truly what I would call human.

We can't halt all threats. All cars are driven by people, most of whom pose no threat. All children are raised by parents, most of whom pose no threat.

All molestors and rapists pose a threat till rehabilitated. If you can't do that, then they should not be let out.

Sorry, I am wildly intolerant of these monsters. Most Americans are. Frankly, most folks in the civilized world would be the same. Perhaps it is YOU who are the odd man out.

But your argument is weak, and you are too willing to stop someone from doing a crime that they havne't committed yet, which is too machivellian for me.

Isn't that what started the Iraq war, we wanted to stop them from hurting the U.S., and using WMD?

How in HELL did Democrats get to be such illiberal lovers of our criminal justice system.

... right to privacy ahead of a child's right to not be sexually violated?

and giving someone the right to privacy in no way causes a child to be sexually violated

Convicted molestors and rapists pose a threat. There should be no balance.

So it's okay to infringe on some of the constitution, but not all?

You have the "possible victimization" of the molester because his name and address are made public (threats of vigilantes, aggressive neighbors, etc)... and you have the "possible victimization" of children he has access to that DON'T know his history (neighboring families he becomes friendly with, church he joins, etc).

Neither future "crime" is guaranteed to happen, but both will probably happen given the statistics. In this case, the molester should be made to take the chance of future violations against him because HE CHOSE TO COMMIT THE CRIME that caused the situation. The children in the community he moves to should not be made to suffer sexual abuse to protect him from suffering for his own actions.

because it is an infringment on there rights, that is not defined in their sentencing. So while this is victimization, letting them out could lead to a possible victimization, it has not yet, but could lead to.
Call me crazy, but we don't punish people for crimes they havn't committed yet.

He/she Chose to do the crime, and under the social contract chose to take the punishment given to him by the government at sentencing. Posting on the internet is not punishment specified at sentencing, so it is an infringment of rights. Once he has done the time, he is "square with the House" and no longer owes anything to anyone in the eyes of the law.

Your assumption that he/she will committ again, is based on statistics, but that doesn't justify the taking away of a humans rights.
Every american stands to committ a crime, shall we infringe on their rights to?

Your motley use of the law, and of the social contract is annoying. You bend the law where you see fit, and leave it strong where you see fit. I am not trying to justify these people's actions, but I am here to insure that they have their rights that are gaurunteed to them, and I cannot see how you could want to strip them of these rights. The right to privacy supercede's any right a parent has to know the private life of a criminal. Because a parent has no such right.
The future is irrelevant to this, because it has not yet happened. You cannot say who will committ an act of sexual abuse, and thus you cannot punish them for such an act. Prevention is one thing, but prevention at the cost of anothers rights is something compeletely different.

You said "because it is an infringment on there rights, that is not defined in their sentencing."

So define it into the sentencing guidelines... then the pedophile knowingly chose it as a condition of the punishment when they committed the crime.

If pedophiles are at all distressed at the possibility of losing their supposed right to "privacy" then maybe... just maybe...they should choose not to sexually assault a child. Gee, what a concept.

because it is unconstitutional, cruel and unusual.

A crime in the past does not mean a crime in the future, can you not understand this concept?

Well, if a Child is willing to give up its right to privacy, and have the government and society openly violate the constitution of anyone it sees fit, then it can be a little safer. But that would entail moving to a different country.

Their are certain risks I take to have my freedoms, and the whole society to have the same freedoms. Equality is an important virtue, no matter who you are. One of the risks I willingly take, is for me not to know who has raped who, ergo possibly putting my child at risk.
I am willing to take such a risk, because I think governmental freedoms, for me and you, are more important than security.

That's a pretty loaded notion, Muddle: how are we to recognize those criminals who can be rehabilitated and those who can't? What methodology are we going to employ to make sure that we're making the right determination about who is genuinely and irretrievably the worst of the worst, as you put it? Who gets to make that call? Would you want someone like Asscroft making that judgement? Jeez, if that fanatic wacko had his way, anyone who disagreed with the administration would be considered the worst of the worst and subject to lifelong imprisonment or death without trial. Sorry, I don't mean to be dismissive of your point that there are genuinely some deviants out there whose distressed mental conditions defy existing medical treatment or rehabilitative measures, yet who pose so severe a threat to the general public that they cannot be allowed to wander about. Hell, one need look no further than the administration to find scores of such people. :) But the implementation of what you advocate by a judicial system which experience has amply demonstrated to be riddled with human errors and prejudices makes me seriously nervous.

I am focusing on a very specific subset of crime. Not every crime, just these. If you can prove to me that if you release molestors and rapists that they are no longer a threat, then I would be OK with you releasing them. If not, I would vote to keep them locked up for as long as it takes.

although in some cases, this might be acceptable.

First of all: Let the punishment fit the crime. I don't advocate horrendous punishments for small crimes. But face it, the nature of sex crimes is that the perps are indeed sick- and they simply cannot control themselves.

And I am not referring to some poor bastard who gets nabbed for taking a leak in public, or even two consenting adults going at it in public. This is NOT a sex crime. We're ONLY talking about rapists, pedophiles and molesters here- and perhaps only even repeat offenders.

If our failure of a a judicial sysyem cannot improve it's methods of either rehabilitions or long-term (i.e. life) sentences, then I think it's important to give the citizentry the capability to defend itself.

If the only way to do this is to allow us to know the adresses of the released offender, than that will have to do.

Personally, I would not be opposed to placing some kind of mark on the perp's clothing, car and house that identifies him as a sex offender. This ultimate shame MAY stop a perp from committing his crime, and it may give the victims an edge in avoiding these degenerates.

People of the DU- I know it's hard, but you have to stop having irrational compassion for abusers. They need to be split off from society, shunned and disgraced for life.

Anything less and you are simply enabling the offenders and creating a climate of acceptance.

I thought it was ridiculous then, and I think it is ridiculous now.

<u>The Scarlet Letter</u> is about adultry which is not the same thing as the particuarly heinous sex crimbs he was talking about.


I don't have a problem with people who commit these crimbs being known. They chose to commit the crime, they can live with the results.


In particular, I think the punishment for rapists and child molesters should include capital punishment. This capital punishment should be a bullet to the head or a hanging. Don't misinterpret me and think i'm talking about all sex crimes, just child molesters and rapists of the most extreme sort. I think the revolving door of "rehibilitation" has gotten out of control in a lot of cases.

but, you are apt to throwing the "cruel and unusual" clause out the door, and thus for our society to take a few steps backwards, so I don't expect you to have learned anything.

Are you kidding me? How do you figure?

Soceity isn't the justice system, society cannot "deal with you the way it sees fit", but the Justice system can. And if the justice system does not specify that your name be posted on the internet, then it cannot be posted on the internet.

It does NOTHING to prevent these people from leaving their neighborhood and going elsewhere.

You think you're safer because you told little Johhny to cross the street when he gets to 1234 Mockingbird Lane?

I think that the list of sex offenders should be made availabe to law enforcement, public schools, and businesses that cator to children (ie, day care centers, summer camps, privateschools, theme parks, Chuck E Cheeses, Pediatricians, Family Doctors, and toy stores). Those establishments must have that information to protect children.

As for neighborhoods I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I don't support lynch mobs coming into town and engagin in vigilante justice. On the other hand I do think parents have the right to know so that they can protect their children. If I had children I would want to know if Mr. Jones living around the block from me was a sex offender. I would want to protect my children.

A compromise that would satisfy no one would be to tell people in a neighborhood that a sex offender is there without mentioning the name or the specific location. But that would never satisfy either side.

So, ultimately, when push comes to shove, I side with telling the neighborhood. Parents should be able to have the information they need to protect their children from being harmed.

At the same time I would also state that the offender, unless he/she harms more children, must be left alone. And that anyone who tries to harm him or her or prevent him from going about his or her daily business would prosecuted, fined, and/or (depending on the circumstnace of the incident) put behind bars.

Whats more important? The offender being embaressed or people being more safe. I think we all know the answer to this.

Blindly taking a stand against making his name public just because it "feels" like its violating his rights shouldnt take a back seat to common sense.

Parents should have that information. But at the same time we must not allow "vigilante" justice either.

It is a violation of rights.

You are either serving time or you are not.

Good god, I'm disappointed to see so many people having such a naive faith in the power of the government. Liberalism means that you regard the authorities with skepticism.

And, in the name of everyone who has ever been violated by someone who is not on any list, I say that it does not make anyone safer.

And please, could we put an end to this nonsense that someone who cares about the rights of ex-offenders does not care about victims? Would anyone who was really a victim say such a thing? It's as if victims are not allowed to have opinions that differ from those who "advocate" for them.

My love of civil liberties is as dear and central to my identity as is my anguish for people who are victimized. But branding offenders as something other than human helps NO ONE, most of all the victims.

I have mixed feelings, but ultimately parents have the right to protect their children from child molestors. There should be strict and clear penalties for people who take justice into their own hands, but children require protection.

Post the names & addresses of convicted burglars on the net too.
There. Feel any safer?

Exactly HOW does knowing where a convicted molester lives make your kid safer?

What about the ones who haven't been caught or convicted? Aren't THEY the ones you want to look out for?

... make your kid safer?"

It would have saved me from being molested by our neighbor when I was eight and then threatening me to the point where I didn't tell my parents for years.

I know I would have.

So there's a whole new wrinkle: you have to disclose this material fact; and it makes the house hard to sell; yet there's no demonstrable dollar damage.

But re: your neighbor: do you think it's entire possible he preyed on others not from your neighborhood?

Would those parents feel "Safe " from him because he didn't live nearby?

Compared to the damage done to children by monsters preying on them simply to satisfy a twisted sexual desire. I consider children to have inalienable rights, too, and I can't feel awfully sorry for a molester who loses some of his rights to privacy after molesting a child. I'd actually rather see him in prison for the rest of his life, but since society somehow feels that is overly harsh, the molester should never be allowed to move freely through the community again where they can abuse new victims.

Looking back, would you have moved away, knowing that another kid would be in your stead?

I wouldn't have gone into his house. He was the "sweet old man" of the neighborhood, friendly with most families that lived there and one of the homes that my friends and I were allowed to freely visit as we played around outside. Just knowing he was a threat would have prevented my being allowed there.

I never told anyone what happened until years later after we moved... and I'll always wonder if he molested other children on our street.

I'm sorry you went through that. As for the issue at hand. I'm not a father, but if I had a kid and I knew an offender lived close by I would not allow my child to be around him/her or his/her property without me being with him. I would see to it that my child was not in a position with this person if I could help it that he would be abused in any way. Would you want to know if your child was playing at an offenders house or in their yard? I know I would.

After years of working as a child advocate regarding sexual abuse and pedophilia, I recognize how incredibly fortunate I was compared to other victims :-(

And so many of these children are victimized by individuals with a criminal history of sexually abusing other children. Public registries of such offenders would limit their ability to merely move into a new locale and (confidentiality intact) gain the trust of the new neighbors and community members.

most of the people on these sex offenders lists are guilty of public urination, being 18 when your gf is 16, or something else.

If they kept those lists to know molesters, it might be different.

It violates their privacy, despite what they have done.
But maybe people who are worried could request to see a copy of the list of registered sex offenders in their area if necessary.

for fucking the american public, the following paedophiles are permanently listed on the sex criminal pervert register:

1. Pigfucker W. Bush
2. Ratfucker cheney
3. Oreofucker powell
4. ... etc.

Their addresses should be public and they should be monitored 24x7 to prevent further rape of america and its citizens.

of 50,000 where I live in Florida listed 199 (20 pages) of sex offenders. 3 of whom live in the tiny (less than 1,000) town that I live in.

That thing that will shock you about the databases are JUST HOW MANY offenders there are...

The site for Florida is--

Feel free to look at how many are listed as PREDATORS... What you find will probably shock you if you live in FL...

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/sexual_predators/search.asp?

Is that there are so many 'crimes' that will get you put on a 'sex offender' list.

Such as:
public uriniation
having sex with your 16yr old girlfriend when you're 17
getting caught having sex in the park (even with a willing adult)

These lists are bogus. It's just another way for the religious right to enforce their morality on people.

MURDERERS belong on public lists.
RAPISTS belong on public lists.

Some drunk guy taking a piss on a dumpster does not.

IIRC there was guy in Alaska who years after he graduated from high school found himself on the list, lost his job, lost his home well after prosecution and after his state appointed punishment was over.

His crime....he mooned his graduating class.

He was expelled, lost his diploma, got a slap on the wrist from a judge and went on with his life.

Why, years later does he deserve to have his life ruined?

This is the problem with these lists.

Zizzer

are still a decent percentage of those on the lists.

...I can also see the other side of this issue too. But why is this limited only to sex offenders? Why not people who've murdered, robbed, abused their spouses and all the other wrongs people do?

with sex.

Why else would lying about a blowjob get impeachment when lying to start a war gets applause?

The real problem with sex offender lists is that they list people who are not a danger along with the few that are.

"The real problem with sex offender lists is that they list people who are not a danger along with the few that are." this.

Despite my defense of sexual offender registries, I absolutely agree that this type of public notification should be strictly limited to individuals convicted of rape or sexual assault of minors.

I bought a home a few years ago. A few weeks after I had moved in, the police showed up at my door, and started asking me if I knew the wherabouts of the previous owner. When I asked what this was about, they told me that he was a registered sex offender, and that he was supposed to notify the police when he moved. Now what if his information was on some sex offender web site, and it never got updated?

I never considered such a scenario, the injustices just keep piling up.