# Has SCOTUS or the State Supreme Courts ruled on the Sex Offenders List? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 15, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426 "2017-09-15T20:01:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/21 "2017-09-19T14:35:56Z")
I support three strikes laws, but they should be only for serious crimes or violent crimes. And I’d prefer three strikes, or even two strikes laws, for serious sex offenders, than a registry. All registries really seem to accomplish is to draw threats of violence. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/22 "2017-09-19T15:23:08Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > In related news, the California legislature just passed a bill to reform the sex offenders list, and Governor Brown has indicated he will sign it. Among other things, it will no longer be a lifetime list. Names will come off after 10 or 20 years assuming good behavior for that period. Good behavior is _not_ being monitored, it’s really not getting caught \*or \*good behavior. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/23 "2017-09-19T15:24:47Z")
That’s true of all crimes, although I’d venture to guess that the only people who don’t get caught easily are people who prey on their own family members. “stranger” pedophiles get busted, because when a child accuses a stranger of hurting them, they are believed. Family predators are smart enough to know that children that accuse them won’t be believed in most cases. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/24 "2017-09-19T16:23:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **GFactor** and I examined such claims, and found them to be generally baseless, [here.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2887/is-it-indecent-exposure-if-im-visibly-naked-while-on-my-own-private-property) In my state not only does lewdness need to be an overtly sexual act not just exposure, it’s not even a Megan’s Law offense. > [@nelliebly](#): > > I agree that not everyone who is put on the Sex Offender List should be there. It’s a very wide net–TOO wide. When it comes to pedophiles and most child molesters, however, the recidivism rate is extremely high. Such an offender may not get caught in 10 years, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t offended in 10 years. And isn’t that the kind of crime that led to the List in the first place? I maintained our list for 5 years. Out of about 40 offenders I had doubts about one of them being on the list. > [@md2000](#): > > I recall reading a discussion that the largest category of sex offenders entering the registry were teen boys; basically, because at their age, doing what every other couple does is illegal in many states. Plus, I have heard of several cases where sexting teens have been threatened with the sex registry as an inducement to plead guilty to a lesser charge- i.e. it’s not a registry of potential offenders, it’s a Scarlet Letter list to threaten teens for doing what they do an boost prosecutor statistics. Why would a teenage girl who sent pictures of herself need to register as a menace to society? Why would her boyfriend need to register for doing what teen boys do - show off to his friends what she’d sent him…? That’s not keeping a list of people who pose a danger to society. Nothing even close to any of that ever happened in my experience. I know things vary from state to state so I’m not doubting that it’s happened. Here sexting between teens is not handled with charges. The only times it was even an option was when one party exposed the pictures online to others or spread them around school. Even then it never lead to being registered. All the training I got emphasized not handling underage sexting in the courts. At this point we could lock up most of the high school. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/25 "2017-09-19T16:46:15Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > … > > Nothing even close to any of that ever happened in my experience. I know things vary from state to state so I’m not doubting that it’s happened. Here sexting between teens is not handled with charges. … Then yours is a very enlightened state; however, intelligence and state prosecutors are not necessarily correlated. This is just the first two in Google… [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-sex-offenders-list-teens-risk-perspec-0529-md-20170526-story.html](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-sex-offenders-list-teens-risk-perspec-0529-md-20170526-story.html) > [@](#): > > …heartbreaking to read recently about Naperville 16-year-old Corey Walgren, who committed suicide following being threatened with sex offender registration for allegedly audiotaping a consensual sexual encounter with a classmate > … > Yet in Illinois, the law is quick to label young people as “sex offenders” for a surprisingly broad range of behaviors. During my career as an attorney for youth, I have seen clients as young as in middle school placed on the registry for sexting, for having consensual sex with youth their same age and for playing inappropriate games. Or this one: > **[Why Prosecuting a Teen Girl for Sexting Is Absurd](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/why-prosecuting-a-teen-girl-for-sexting-is-absurd-127458/)** > > A 14-year-old in Iowa is facing sexual exploitation charges for sharing a suggestive photo of herself – and that's not as rare as you might think. > [@](#): > > The Des Moines Register reported late last month that a county prosecutor is threatening to charge a teenage girl with sexual exploitation of a minor for sending a sexually suggestive picture of herself to another student. The 14-year-old girl, called Nancy Doe in a lawsuit aimed at heading off the charges, appears in underwear and a sports bra in one photo and, in the second, in underwear with her top off and her hair covering her breasts. If adjudicated delinquent – that is, found guilty in juvenile court – Nancy could have to register as a sex offender. ---
**Author:** ![GiantRat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@GiantRat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GiantRat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/26 "2017-09-19T17:00:49Z")
> [@Delicious](#): > > I’m curious whether the rationale behind keeping a sex offenders register would stand up if it was used to justify a violent criminal register or drunk drivers register. In many (most?) states, virtually any court action is a matter of public record. Several years ago, I got a DUI (traffic violation for the first offense here). It’s right there on the web for anyone to see, which is awesome when you’re looking for a new job… ---
**Author:** ![Pixel\_Dent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Pixel\_Dent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pixel_Dent)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/27 "2017-09-19T17:33:34Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > When it comes to pedophiles and most child molesters, however, the recidivism rate is extremely high I’ve read articles about studies that say the recidivism rate is actually quite low. In fact the researcher who is most often quoted when people claim the rate is high has said his statement was misinterpreted - he was just making a guess about a specific population who dropped out of a program he was running at the time. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/28 "2017-09-19T19:07:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I just question whether the list actually accomplishes anything in that regard. Plus of course public urinators or people who were accidentally naked in someone’s view should not be on that list. > > Also, there should be some kind of actual principle involved here rather than “sex crimes are gross!” If it’s about high recidivism rates, then all serious crimes that involve high recidivism rates should require registration. If it’s about immediate threats to a neighborhood, then house burglars and murderers should be registered. If it’s about the long term damage that sex crimes cause it should be limited to such sex crimes as actually do cause long term damage(public urination does not cause long term trauma), and crimes that cause long term damage should be added(such as murder, torture, and child abuse). > > It seems to me that courts could actually strike it down simply because there is no rational principle involved beyond “sex crimes shock the conscience”. But that says more about the normalization of murder and robbery and arson in our popular culture than it does about how crime actually harms society and individuals. Murder has been fodder for family entertainment for two centuries or more, but 50 years ago it was considered beyond the pale to show the inside of a bathroom on TV, or a married couple sharing a bed. Everything having to do with reproductive organs weirds us out, so we have stronger reactions to crimes involving them. But Laws should be based on real, demonstrable principles rather than feelings. In my more cynical moments, I believe it’s more that we think some victims are more terrible than others; that ‘good kids’ from ‘good families’ deserve to protected because we are more sympathetic to those kids: they could be us, or our kids. It’s a Sexual abuse within a family? Not MY family, because I’m a good parent and my family members are good people, so I’m not as heated up about preventing it. My outrage is more abstract, like my outrage over genocide in Mynamar. It’s tragic, but it’s not My Kid, it couldn’t be My Kid. The irony of course is that it could well be my kid. If we really wanted sex offender registries to be useful, it’s not the neighbors that need to know, it’s the cousins and other family members. But who looks them up? You can’t search by family connections. Is there an App that searches your Facebook friends? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/29 "2017-09-19T19:12:15Z")
> [@Pixel\_Dent](#): > > I’ve read articles about studies that say the recidivism rate is actually quite low. In fact the researcher who is most often quoted when people claim the rate is high has said his statement was misinterpreted - he was just making a guess about a specific population who dropped out of a program he was running at the time. If you count the people who have child porn on their computer or phone (like those teenagers) the re-offend rate is negative, since they have not even actually molested a child once. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/30 "2017-09-19T19:52:02Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > If you count the people who have child porn on their computer or phone (like those teenagers) the re-offend rate is negative, since they have not even actually molested a child once. I’ve mentioned this before, but when my son was in 4th or 5th grade, he told me a girl in his class sent him a picture. He handed me his phone and I nearly shat myself; there was a picture of a little girl, topless. I explained to him that he did nothing wrong. I also explained why situations like this were troublesome. I told him I should contact the girl’s parents and discuss the situation. I considered calling my lawyer for advice before placing the call. And then he handed me his phone again, this time with a picture showing the kid’s face. It was a little fat boy with boy boobs. Gotcha moment. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/31 "2017-09-20T14:54:13Z")
This 1997 SCOTUS case may also be of interest: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas\_v.\_Hendricks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_v._Hendricks) ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/32 "2017-09-20T15:06:52Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > This 1997 SCOTUS case may also be of interest: [Kansas v. Hendricks - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_v._Hendricks) Note then, the permanent incarceration is regarding a defendant who “had an extensive history of molesting children”. This is what the Kansas act appears aimed at - habitual dangerous offenders with no control of their urges. A subsequent case of an exhibitionist who commited two acts the same day (no other offenses mentioned) and threats in one of those instances - was considered insuffficient reason for permanent incarceration. But, never underestimate the tendency of a prosecutor to use a sledgehammer to swat flies. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/33 "2017-09-20T16:59:25Z")
There is a tool called [Static-99](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/283868-static-99rcodingform.html) that is used to predict recidivism for child molesters. It takes into account age at conviction, other offenses, including non-sexual offenses, whether or not the victims were family members, whether or not any of the victims were male, and some other things. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/34 "2017-09-20T20:27:01Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > The irony of course is that it could well be my kid. If we really wanted sex offender registries to be useful, it’s not the neighbors that need to know, it’s the cousins and other family members. But who looks them up? You can’t search by family connections. Is there an App that searches your Facebook friends? Which is exactly my problem with these registries. I don’t need to get to all the other questions , like who gets on the registry and just how likely are they to reoffend. What the registry results in now is people complaining that a sex offender lives 990 feet from the school rather than the required thousand, as if the ten feet makes a difference. Or people claiming they need to know where the sex offenders live because they would never let their child walk past a sex offender’s house. People just don’t look up their cousin, or the new classmate’s older brother, or their sister’s new boyfriend or the woman who runs the childcare at church or … And they wouldn’t check if there was a Facebook app - even people who know their brother/father/grandfather/boyfriend is a convicted sex offender often act as if they weren’t. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2017, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/35 "2017-09-21T12:29:59Z")
I checked the sex offenders in my area and none of them are really a threat. These aren’t the types of people who grab random children. One public urination, one public nudity, one statutory rape of a 16-year old, and a couple who abused their own kids. I don’t think that’s really what concerned citizens are looking for. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2017, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/36 "2017-09-21T12:56:35Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Then yours is a very enlightened state; however, intelligence and state prosecutors are not necessarily correlated. This is just the first two in Google… > > [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-sex-offenders-list-teens-risk-perspec-0529-md-20170526-story.html](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-sex-offenders-list-teens-risk-perspec-0529-md-20170526-story.html) > Or this one: > [Why Prosecuting a Teen Girl for Sexting Is Absurd](http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/why-prosecuting-a-teen-girl-for-sexting-is-absurd-w443829) As I mentioned I know that you can find examples. The is not the direction law enforcement is going in. It is recognized that sending nude pictures of children is a big issue but not because of a teenage boyfriend having them in private. It’s because way too often they are exposed publicly for revenge of other reasons. Teenagers can be real shitheads sometimes. The prosecutors are too busy to even listen to anything less. It’s usually one of the parent’s pushing. > [@adaher](#): > > I checked the sex offenders in my area and none of them are really a threat. These aren’t the types of people who grab random children. One public urination, one public nudity, one statutory rape of a 16-year old, and a couple who abused their own kids. I don’t think that’s really what concerned citizens are looking for. I wonder what state? If you look at the statf report linkrd above you can see that it’s extremely unlikely that someone would be on the list for peeing. Also remember that you are seeing what they pled down to not what they did. In my state most people aren’t even aware that there are many on the list they can’t see. We have a 3 tier system. Tier 1s who are deemedleast likely to reoffend have to report in yearly but are not on the public list. The charge they are convicted of is only one factor in determining the likelihood of reoffending. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/37 "2017-09-21T16:56:26Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Tier 1s who are deemedleast likely to reoffend have to report in yearly but are not on the public list. This must vary from state to state. In a search of my area (Maryland) most of the offenders listed were Tier 1. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/38 "2017-09-21T17:03:57Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Has either the State Supreme Courts or US State Supreme Court ruled on the requirement to compel someone to register with authorites for the rest of their life? > > I understand that parole comes with a lot of personal restrictions. It’s still much more freedom than being in prison. > > It’s afterwards that I don’t understand. The offender has served prison time and observed all the terms of parole. They have successfully completed parole. The offender has paid his debt to society. > > Yet sex offenders can be criminally charged for not registering their address with local authorities. Apparently they must register for the rest of their lives, even if they move to another state. This includes a very broad range of sex crimes. A dumb college prank of running through a public area naked (streaking) can get you on that list. It’s up to the authorities to decide. I’m not seeing any constitutional issue here. If you can put a person in prison for the rest of their life, why can’t you put a person on parole for the rest of their life? Permanent parole may not be a good idea but that’s for the legislature to decide. Courts are only supposed to decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, not whether it’s good or bad. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426/39 "2017-09-21T17:07:53Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > This must vary from state to state. In a search of my area (Maryland) most of the offenders listed were Tier 1. Yep, in PA I searched several zipcodes near me. They have Tier 1,2,3 listed as well as “Dangerous Sexual Predator” _shudder_. I found a “dangerous sexual predator” working at a local automobile mechanic. Guess where _we’ll_ never take our cars? Oh, and several of the people listed (two men, one woman) had done time for “luring a child into their car”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-scotus-or-the-state-supreme-courts-ruled-on-the-sex-offenders-list/796426.md?page=1)