Poll: Sex Offender Registries, Out of Control.

[tkioz]

So I haven't got a news link to this, because the people involved are trying desperately to keep it under wraps and fighting it in the courts, but the story goes a mate of mine, he's pushing 50, married to the same woman for over 30 years, with three kids, is fighting to keep his name off the sex offenders registry.

Now I know what you are thinking, same thing I would be, burn the pedo alive!!!! but the story is, about 30 years ago his father in law, who has since dropped dead, was a big dick head, and after finding his daughter in bed with her boyfriend had said boyfriend charged with statutory rape, given boyfriend was 18 and girlfriend was 16, never mind they'd been dating for a year, boyfriend plead out, did some community service, later married said girlfriend, stayed married to her for 30+ years, and raised 3 kids.

Only to have this "criminal" record come out recently during a background check, and now he is fighting to keep his name off the scum rolls.

Now this all happened around the time I was being born, but personally I think Jesus, not only will this destroy a man's life, but it devalues the entire point of the registry, if you see a person on that list you should know he's a scum bag, not the victim of a dickhead dad.

What are your thoughts?

 

[slowpoke999]

I thought there a 5 year rule, were as long as the age of two people weren't 5 years apart it doesn't matter if ones not age of consent. And yeh it's stupid the situation your friend is in.

 

[Spektre41]

If one of the partners (always the woman) isn't at the age of consent, it's statuatory rape. Even if they're 17 years, 11 months, and 364 days old.


But to be on topic, yes this is crap.

 

[Pimppeter2]

While I can sympathize with the guy (My idiotic brother is on the verge of having the same problem), I don't think "Burn Them All" simply becuase of some unfair cases is a very bright idea.

 

[tkioz]

While I can sympathize with the guy (My idiotic brother is on the verge of having the same problem), I don't think "Burn Them All" simply becuase of some unfair cases is a very bright idea.

Burn them all means burn all sex offenders not burn all registries.

 

[tkioz]

I thought there a 5 year rule, were as long as the age of two people weren't 5 years apart it doesn't matter if ones not age of consent. And yeh it's stupid the situation your friend is in.

I think that's the law now here, the Romeo and Juliet rule they call it, but this was 30 years ago.

 

[NiceGurl_14]

Ok, here's the thing, the (current) legal age of consent throughout most of the USA is 16 yrs old *WITH PARENTAL CONSENT* And the rule is I do believe 2 or 3 yrs difference. But this is total crap seeing as it happened so long ago and the girl is now his wife. They should drop the charge.

 

[Tdc2182]

I thought there a 5 year rule, were as long as the age of two people weren't 5 years apart it doesn't matter if ones not age of consent. And yeh it's stupid the situation your friend is in.

Think they should change the age but yes, I agree. This is rediculous and seeing how most guys have underage Gifrlfriends at the age of 18, should be changed

 

[j0frenzy]

My opinion on the subject is hard to express. On the one hand, I can see the practical reasons why people want to take away the rights of pedophiles and sex offenders with these registries. On the other hand, you get cases of some people with a lot of power who can ruin people's lives and turn teenage romance to sex offender registries. This not including cases of false accusations that could ruin people's lives for a while if not forever because they don't have enough proof to disprove claims.

 

[Carlston]

Life isn't fair.

No but the registery isn't either.
Let's say a police officer is at a scout camp. You go off for wilderness survival (away from toilets ect) to survive three days and nights on your own. Now, if your a scout master say... 30 years old. And join the scouts to insure they do not die, get bit by a snake, cheat the merit badge ect... and you need to piss. You walk to a bush and relieve yourself. Out of view of the children/teens but the cop find you. Congrats you are now a sex offender. You urinated in a area know for children. So you get indecentcy with a child charge... and your on a list as a pervert.

Fair? No, real? Yes... happened in Texas not long ago.

He got the charge dropped but refuse to remove his name from the registy because of "He was charged."

 

[Macgyvercas]

Isn't there a "1/2 your age plus 7" rule? Hold on...

18/2=9, 9+7=16

Should be fine. My first instinct would be to say that the father overreacted, but I can't really make a clear cut call (I love alliteration) regarding the situation, seeing as I don't know all the facts.

 

[sheppard419]

Yes they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell!

If you don't get the movie reference I apologize.

 

[WolfThomas]

Can't you get on the sex offenders registry for stuff like public urination or topless sunbathing?

 

[Craftybonds]

the problem with the sex offender list is that while it is mainly used to track pedorasses, non-pedophiles get grouped with them.

Fun Fact: Public urination places you on the sex offender list.

And while this isn't true for everyone, most people assume that everyone on the sex offender list is a pedophile.

Related:

 

[Craftybonds]

I thought there a 5 year rule, were as long as the age of two people weren't 5 years apart it doesn't matter if ones not age of consent. And yeh it's stupid the situation your friend is in.[/quo

Isn't there a "1/2 your age plus 7" rule? Hold on...

18/2=9, 9+7=16

Should be fine. My first instinct would be to say that the father overreacted, but I can't really make a clear cut call (I love alliteration) regarding the situation, seeing as I don't know all the facts.

that's not a law, that's just a guideline for determining if someone is too young for you.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Regardless of which type of sex offender we speak of, what do the society actually want to do with them?

I mean what's the point of a "just" penal system that punish these types of crime for a set period of time (i.e the time you have to do in jail), if the criminal in question won't ever get a chance to ever rehabilitate from the crime in question?

I mean, what's the point of letting them back out on the streets at all if they are all going to be effectively barred from any type of job or productive lifestyle just because employers have the "right" to do full background checks and are able to discover certain dirty laundry who may or may not even be relevant at the present time, and most likely reject the job applicant because of that?

Don't get me wrong, I truly hate real sex offenders, and I could probably kill rapists out of principle, even if I don't really know the victim or the rapist. But what's the point of locking these people up for a brief time and then releasing them after they have "served their sentence" if the rest of society is basically going to be well within their rights to effectively keep the child molesters and rapists out of society for the rest of their lives?

Wouldn't a "second chance" be more preferable, at least in the way of imposing laws that let people work and earn a living instead of becoming a constant parasite on society? Should we just kill them all, not necessarily because of the crimes they have committed but because their reputation is irrevocably tarnished?

And also, how will this be put into practice and guarantee that we only kill the "right" people? I can tell you all, as much as I hate rapists and child molesters, I hate false accusations from "rape victims" and mothers in custody battles who coach their children to lie to courts and blame their fathers for child molestation as well. And I for one WILL NOT support a system that murders people based on arbitrary grounds, and if anything the legal system (in any country) is probably one of the most flawed and faulty systems ever created, making all death penalties completely and utterly dysfunctional, because if the wrong guy or gal is caught, it is impossible to release him/her once the error has been found.

So if we can't have them all killed, because that would most certainly present a risk that innocent people get killed as well (yes, all of you death penalty proponents out there ARE WRONG, regardless of how you try to justify your opinion on the death penalty). What are we to do with the sex offenders? Is it really beneficial for the whole to effectively bar them from any sort of job and productive lifestyle? Also, isn't rhe risk of a relapse into crime a lot worse if these people can't even hold a job and have to spend the better part of their time twiddeling their thumbs?

 

[Therumancer]

Okay, there is a lot to say here but I don't want to get too off topic since I'm tired and don't have the energy for a major rant.

I think sex offender registries were a good idea that got out of control. Especially seeing as there is no mechanism in place to sort out severity of sex offense, which in of itself comes down to a lot of moral judgements. What's more the system is doing a lot of things that were not intended.

Simply put I think this entire aspect of our system needs to be substantially reformed. As does our entire system for sex crimes. For example I don't consider teen on teen stuff to be a big deal, but I *DO* consider it an issue when you have like a 30 year old dude and a 14 year old girl (as I've said many times before). Our laws however make little in the way of distinction.

In a general sense I pretty much think we should be doing more to seperate petty offenses from severe ones, and substantially increasing the actual institutionalized punishment of the severe ones. The idea of everlasting community punishment is the kind of thing that our society was not intended to have to deal with.

To be entirely honest, I'm one of those people who would prefer to make chemical castration of serious sex offenders mandatory, and not even bother with these sex offender registries which take a lot of time and effort to maintain and police, as well as create ridiculous moral dillemas which shouldn't even exist. Basically if an offense isn't worthy of castrating the person medically, then chances are it's not worth 10x as much effort to police the person in question.

A simplified version of my attitude of course.

I will also say that just because someone on a sex offender registry claims that they got on the list claiming they were involved in voluntary statuatory rape as a teenager with their teenage girlfriend, does not mean that it's true. You have to expect anyone in a situation like that to lie, especially with a vested interest and family (no offense to anyone telling stories, I'm speaking in general).

At any rate my idea means simply that if the crime was severe enough to worry about, we don't have to worry anymore. The "sex offender registry" is a case where attempts at "humanitarian morality" have created bigger problems, more chaos, and more evil, than the "horrible" alternatives they were intended to prevent.

 

[Raikov]

Umm, if he married her and they seem happy together I see no problem with erasing this particular record.

But law will be law, and even if it really sucks we must all follow it to some extent. And there will always be assholes and immoral sentences. Just think about all the 'rapists' that is wrongly accused, but usually convicted just because the popular belief states that the rape victim always telling the truth.

And we also have my favorite; the at least twice-as-harsh punishment (in Sweden) for file sharing as compared to rape. It's a beautiful world...