For those who don't believe it can happen

In an earlier thread about a new Michigan (I think) law calling for arrest for indecent exposure for butt cleavage, I mentioned that someone so convicted would end up on the sex offender registry. I was told I was crazy.


Woman sues over ongoing sanctions for sex as a teen

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/07/13/sex_offender.html?cxntnid=amn071408e

Wendy Whitaker's name may be on Georgia's sex offender registry, but her offense suggests she is no predator.

At age 17, while a high school sophomore, Whitaker had oral sex with a 15-year-old male classmate. In 1997, she pleaded guilty to sodomy and got five years' probation.

(...)

Whitaker, 28, has moved twice because of the sex offender law's restrictions that say an offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of places where children congregate. Whitaker was recently told by a sheriff she must move again because her home is within 1,000 feet of a church.

(...)

Last week, Columbia County Sheriff Clay Whittle, after finding Whitaker's name was placed on the deed in 2007, ordered her to move within 48 hours.

I freakin' hate butt cleavage, but to make it illegal is just ridiculous.

And I think you're right that people could end up on the sex offenders list because of that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3600129

Flint, MI 'baggy pants' law. Butt cleavage calls for arrest for indecent exposure.

I'm not so sure one could very easily end up on a sex offenders list for that. A friend of mine as arrested for indecent exposure once because he was peeing behind a building. He's not on any sex offender's list.

But still, how ridiculous to be arrested for butt cleavage.

and the prosecutor. Here in Charleston, he'd most likely have ended up on a sex offender registry if a child had seen him peeing.

It's one of the reasons that I have objections to such lists. Yes, kids need to be protected from predators. But, just like the more stupid instances of 'zero tolerance', when you can end up having to register as a sex offender for taking a piss when you really thought you were unobserved (and unlikely to be observed), being a kid having sex with another kid who just happens to be 2 years or more younger than you are. The worst of these lists is that when they are published (and they ARE all published) most do not include the offense which caused them to be part of this registry and those that do are rarely read by the people who want to keep 'perverts' out of their neighborhoods.

If you have to have the list and have it published then it should read something like this:

Offense/Jail time/parole or release
Name
Address
picture...in some places (usually booking picture)

instead of
Picture
Name
Address
offense (usually at bottom in smaller type face)

public urination will get you labeled a sex-offender in CT, for example. Get convicted someplace where it doesn't get you listed, move to CT, then fail to register as a sex-offender (mind you, nobody sends you a note or postcard telling you that you have to)...you've just committed a felony. Decide CT is lame and has fucked-up laws? You're moving back where you came from? Guess what? Having been listed as a sex-offender in CT, you have to register as one wherever you decide to move.

I'm going to get flamed for this but, I think the entire idea of a blanket list of people convicted of any sex-related crime is inane and potentially-persecutive. It's a reactionary gigantic failure of a response to a small but major problem. Piss on a shrub in CT and spend the rest of your life on "the list" being run-off by your neighbors and constantly suspected of being a pedophile.

If they wanted to make a highly-precise list of people convicted of crimes like forcible rape, sexual assault, and molestation, one which is not automatic for other sex-based crimes but instead placement is determined during the sentencing phase of trial or plea bargain or as a condition of parole, I'd be its' biggest supporter. Even at that, I do think you should come off the list after a very-long-period of time. Some people are simply not habitual offenders. I don't care whether you don't have an urge to re-offend or if you just have great impulse-control...if you're not re-offending over a long enough period of time, you're probably not a risk.

It's a crime-prevention statute...not a scarlet A.

or did I miss something? :shrug:

and if a teenager having consensual oral sex could end up on a sex offender list, so could somebody convicted of 'butt cleavage' if shown to children.

Less than 2 ounces but in 1975 that was a felony in TX. The next year it was changed to a misdemeanor but it still shows on her record as a felony and is the ONLY thing on her record. She's lost out on several jobs because of this.

there are some things that are a bit ridiculous that will ultimately make it impossible for people committing minor offenses, like in the OP, that will pretty much ruin a person's life.

Sex Offender lists should NOT be a lifetime commitment for those who pee in public, moon (hell I mooned a cop by accident when I was 16 - should I live my life on the list?) and have consensual sex with an underage person PROVIDED that the older person was within a certain age range (ie a 16yo with a 19yo). I'm not saying that these people should not be punished but if they live, say 5 years without incident then they should automatically be removed from the list.

NPR carried the story about a year ago. A 17 year old was caught having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Her father insisted that he be arrested for statutory rape. They've been married 20 years and have 2 children, but he will always be a convicted sex offender subject to all of the restrictions.