Limiting Sex Offender Registry to Rape and Child Molestation.

[robert_columbia]

@Incubus

if the registries went away what’s stopping somebody who raped somebody years ago from becoming a foster parent when people want to know that somebody fostering or adopting a child or taking care of children had prior record involving violation of children?

@Jragon

Er, people still have criminal records and generally go through rather extensive background checks before adopting or being in the foster program. Nobody is talking about abolishing criminal records or background checks for jobs, just that extra level of sex offender registries and restrictions where you can go onto a website and look up all the offenders in your area and you have to tell your neighbors you raped your secretary. Sex offender registry or not, it’s not going to make that “have you ever been convicted of a felony?” box go away on forms.

Good point. Convicted burglars, check forgers, insider traders, perjurers, drug dealers, possessors of unregistered handguns, etc. generally don’t have to post their name and address online, register their travel plans, live more than 1000 feet from schools, or post “Danger! Convicted insider trader lives here! Call 1-800-SAFE-STOCK to report suspicious behavior.” signs in their yard. A convicted insider trader who applies for a corporate management job is still going to have that conviction show up on their background check. People who want to work as pharmacists who have drug dealing convictions are still going to have that criminal record be accessible to regulatory authorities as needed.

For those people who say that you just have to know if your neighbors have a criminal record - why don’t you actually, y’know, get to know your neighbors and see how they think and behave, and whether they seem to live an honest life or seem to be shifty, of loose morals, or perverted? Convictions are past-tense. People live in the present tense.

[BobLibDem]

@aldiboronti

OK, let’s say you have young children. You wouldn’t want to be advised that a serial child molester had just moved in next door? Registries, imperfect as they are, help to keep kids safer.

I don’t have young children, but even when I did I wouldn’t think it correct to punish people after they have paid their debt to society.

[Morgenstern]

@Bricker

…

However, it’s important to point out that public urination is not against the law. The law is violated when a person knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person. In other words, a person urinating in public has some choice to make about how he positions himself. Standing against a tree peeing, so that one’s back is generally visible, is not a violation of 750.335a. The genitals must be visible.

Which then explains why the Tailhook Association never held conventions in Michigan. Ball-walking would have been a real problem there.

[CoastalMaineiac]

@aldiboronti

Registries, imperfect as they are, help to keep kids safer.

Cite?

[andros]

@robert_columbia

why don’t you actually, y’know, get to know your neighbors and see how they think and behave, and whether they seem to live an honest life or seem to be shifty, of loose morals, or perverted?

“Gosh, he seemed like such a nice guy.”

[Annie-Xmas]

The Sex Offender Next Door, the subject of a NY Times Sunday magazine front cover story.

Of course, by the time the story came out, everyone in Englewood knew about Charles Williams, living at 45 East Forest Avenue. News travels fast in this town. Particularly when the Guardian Angels hand out fliers and Geraldo does a show on the subject.

ETA:
[Quote=robert_columbia]

why don’t you actually, y’know, get to know your neighbors and see how they think and behave, and whether they seem to live an honest life or seem to be shifty, of loose morals, or perverted?
[/quote]

Yeah, right. Cause everyone who asks shifty is guilty, and all people of loose morals and/or who are perverted can be identified just by looking at them. What sort of a la-la land is he living in?

[nate]

As a parent of small children, I DO want to know if one of my neighbors has been convicted of some sexual crime against pre-pubescent kids, regardless if they’ve paid their debt to society. If that person is for some reason sexually attracted or whatever to pre-pubescent boys or girls, that capability doesn’t just magically disappear when they get out of prison. Actually, even though I would hate either situation, I’d feel much my kids were much safer living next to a convicted murderer than a child molester.

That said, I didn’t feel as strongly about this before I had kids of my own. And, I don’t believe public pissers/exposures should have to be on this registry.

[Incubus]

@nate

As a parent of small children, I DO want to know if one of my neighbors has been convicted of some sexual crime against pre-pubescent kids, regardless if they’ve paid their debt to society. If that person is for some reason sexually attracted or whatever to pre-pubescent boys or girls, that capability doesn’t just magically disappear when they get out of prison. Actually, even though I would hate either situation, I’d feel much my kids were much safer living next to a convicted murderer than a child molester.

That said, I didn’t feel as strongly about this before I had kids of my own. And, I don’t believe public pissers/exposures should have to be on this registry.

I don’t have kids of my own but I feel strongly about it. Probably because people are much more likely to circle the wagons when it comes to child molestors.

If a man robbed a bank, I find it much, much less likely his friends and family are going to come out of the woodwork with rationalisations like, “He didn’t know what he was doing” “He was desperate” “The bank is making it up, they’re just trying to railroad him”. But when a child gets molested or a woman gets raped, people will do this rationalizing and victim blaming up the wazoo. I would argue that sex offender registries prevent sex offenders from hiding in plain sight.

I don’t agree that someone should be on the sex offender registry for minor stuff like public urination; there should definitely be a distinction between the severity of the crime. After all, we define the severity of other crimes as such- misdemeanors and felonies. Rape, kidnapping, and molestation should definitely be in a different category than walking past your bedroom window naked.

[Mijin]

@Incubus

But when a child gets molested or a woman gets raped, people will do this rationalizing and victim blaming up the wazoo.

Well, in the case of child molestation I can’t recall a single time I’ve heard such rationalization / victim blaming. Do you have an example?

(Unless “child molestation” in your book is broad enough that it includes statutory rapes on the borderline e.g. 17 year old girl having consensual sex with a 21 year old guy. But I don’t think most people would agree with such a broad definition).

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Mijin

Well, in the case of child molestation I can’t recall a single time I’ve heard such rationalization / victim blaming. Do you have an example?

(Unless “child molestation” in your book is broad enough that it includes statutory rapes on the borderline e.g. 17 year old girl having consensual sex with a 21 year old guy. But I don’t think most people would agree with such a broad definition).

What about such cases as Mandy Smith with Bill Wyman, or the Roman Polanski case. Both “girls” were around 13 or 14. Certainly with the Polanski case the girls mother recieved a lot of blame. In my opinion its a fine line between blaming the mother and the girl herself.

Personally, I think victims can be blamed, certainly those of around that age range. Not everyone matures sexually at the same rate. Some teenagers grow up a lot faster than others. This is not to exonerate the mature male “partners” here. At best they are sleazeballs, at worst something far more sinister.

Just as an aside with the public urination. I’d be pissed(pardon the pun) at being on the sex offenders register for peeing at night in a disctreet location. However, if I were caught for the 3rd time peeing 20 yards away from a school or public walkway then I probably deserve such punishment. I assume guys who get off on exposing themselves can do so in all sorts of creative ways.

[Urbanredneck]

@nate

As a parent of small children, I DO want to know if one of my neighbors has been convicted of some sexual crime against pre-pubescent kids, regardless if they’ve paid their debt to society. If that person is for some reason sexually attracted or whatever to pre-pubescent boys or girls, that capability doesn’t just magically disappear when they get out of prison. Actually, even though I would hate either situation, I’d feel much my kids were much safer living next to a convicted murderer than a child molester.

That said, I didn’t feel as strongly about this before I had kids of my own. And, I don’t believe public pissers/exposures should have to be on this registry.

Well now think about that.

Lets say you bought your house, moved in, and then someones uncle or brother who just completed his 10 years in jail for “something” moves in next door.

Ok, you hate it and decide to sell your house and move. Awww… but all the potential buyers find out about the guy by going online and theirs no way they are going to buy your house. And yes, you must by law disclose this.

So then, who is being punished now?

[Urbanredneck]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

What about such cases as Mandy Smith with Bill Wyman, or the Roman Polanski case. Both “girls” were around 13 or 14. Certainly with the Polanski case the girls mother recieved a lot of blame. In my opinion its a fine line between blaming the mother and the girl herself.

.

You mention teens.

Do you know some kids have been convicted and put on the registry for sharing nude pics of the boy/girl friends? Well they are underage! Part of the “sexting” stuff.

[Blaster_Master]

I would agree with the sentiment upthread that if we are to have these registries, they should be much more restrictive in nature. I think the idea behind them is that the people on them potentially pose a threat and, thus, their community needs to be made aware of them. But as it stands, looking at my state’s, there’s several sex offenders within walking distance of my home, and I seriously doubt I could find a place to live anywhere nearby where I wouldn’t have at least a few that close.

As a result, I think the registry ends up being worthless. First, even if everyone within a few houses or apartments aren’t sex offenders, what’s to keep one from going to an area where he might thing there’s plenty of women or children? So I’m not really sure how it makes anyone any safer.

Second, from a morality of punishment perspective, I don’t understand why a sex offender is branded for life, but other heinous crimes that society really hates aren’t also forced to registry on a similar list. Why isn’t there a violent crime registry, where those convicted of assault, manslaughter, murder, etc must register? If if so, should someone be forced to register because of domestic violence or a bar brawl? What about those who engage in other dangerous behavior, like driving while intoxicated? Personally, if I had kids, I think they’d be in greater danger if there’s the potential for drunk drivers in the neighborhood than a registered sex offender.

Either way, I think if someone hasn’t paid their debt or is still dangerous, we shouldn’t be setting them free and we should make the penalties harsher. I think part of the problem is that a lot of these other crimes have pretty stiff penalties, but a lot of the sex related ones aren’t harsh enough, so we add these other provisions. For instance, a former coworker was convicted of soliciting children online and peddling child porn. His sentence was 18 months and he got out after 9 months if I remember correctly. Sure, he was forced to register as a sex offender, but I also imagine most people would say he got off fairly light.

Third, it really doesn’t add any safety to things like child care or adoption. These sorts of things have background checks, and criminal convictions show up in those. If they just flat refuse to allow any registered sex offender, it seems rather unfair. What if someone was forced to register for something he did 20 years ago, but has stayed clean since then? Is he still a danger?

Fourth, it ultimately hurts us. If there’s a sex offender in your neighborhood, it drives down the market value of all the homes nearby. And one might be frightened of a particular sex offender, probably assuming that person was convicted of rape or child molestation, when it could just be he got drunk and streaked at a sporting event, was convicted of statutory rape when he was 19, or whatever. I’m sure if I did a full background check on everyone in my neighborhood, I’d probably find plenty of scary things that people have done but I wouldn’t otherwise know about because they’re not required to register.

[Mighty_Mouse]

When we were looking for a nanny for our daughter, one of the most promising candidates was a woman who used to have an in-home day care center. Her background check came back clean. Her references were great. Quite coincidentally one of my co-workers went to the same church as her, and knew some other church members who had sent kids to that service. Her adult son who lived with her was on the sex offenders registry, for exposing himself to children. According to the sob story the mother fed us he was banged up unfairly for public urination. The real story was that he beat up one of the pre-schoolers for wetting himself, and then pissed on him. Not what you imagine when you hear the term “public urination”. You think of at worst a drunk teenager wizzing on the front lawn at a party. The underlying juvenile assault conviction was sealed. Even if we were did a background check on him, which we couldn’t legally anyway, we would have found nothing. This was the reason she no longer had an in-home day care.

I wonder how many of the seemingly benign offences are actually much worse when seen in the full context, particularly for juveniles.

I’m the prototypical bleeding heart liberal, especially on law and order issues. But this certainly gave me pause.

[robert_columbia]

@Blaster_Master

…Third, it really doesn’t add any safety to things like child care or adoption. These sorts of things have background checks, and criminal convictions show up in those. If they just flat refuse to allow any registered sex offender, it seems rather unfair. What if someone was forced to register for something he did 20 years ago, but has stayed clean since then? Is he still a danger?..

Another problem is wrongful convictions. While some people end up exonerated, I’m sure there are quite a few more who have wrongful convictions from 10, 20, 30, or more years ago and where they can’t afford the costs to fight for a retrial or they are unable to locate enough still-extant admissible evidence to do so. Shouldn’t we allow those people (who, after all, are probably lower risk since they didn’t commit the offense to begin with) to prove their lack of danger through consistent, honest, and upright living? E.g. “It doesn’t really matter a lot what I was convicted of 30 years ago. Look at who I am and how I live. Some people are wrongfully convicted, some people actually did it but they change their life around to avoid going back to jail. What matters is that that prior conviction doesn’t represent who I am today.”

[robert_columbia]

@aldiboronti

OK, let’s say you have young children. You wouldn’t want to be advised that a serial child molester had just moved in next door? Registries, imperfect as they are, help to keep kids safer.

This idea is thrown around a lot, but let me ask. Suppose you find out that a serial child molester has moved in next door. What, specifically, do you do about it? Move? Buy a gun? Tell your kids to walk on the opposite side of the street? In other words, how does knowing the record of your neighbor actually help you protect children?

[Urbanredneck]

I’d like to see a registry of people who have been charged with embezzling the elderly and they wouldnt be allowed to live near any.

[Joey_P]

@Czarcasm

Are places provided for the homeless to urinate?

Library*, courthouse, gas station or store with a staff that’s okay with it (though they don’t have to allow it), soup kitchen when it’s open, homeless shelter,. I could be wrong, but those all see like viable options. Basically, a public (government owned) building should allow them, at the very least, to get in, use the bathroom, and leave, without too much trouble. Even a church may allow them quick access to the facilities provided they don’t make a mess or disrupt anything.
Of course, I’d imagine both a store and a church would cut them off it became THE place for the city’s homeless to use the bathroom.

*One of the complaints I often hear from librarians is about the homeless people that are always hanging around because it’s a nice quiet place where they can get out of the weather (and presumably use the bathroom).

Of course, this is based on my experience in Milwaukee where the homeless problem isn’t as bad as it is in other cities. That is, I don’t see droves of homeless people and the random people I see urinating on the sidewalk are usually drunk people that have homes and just don’t want to wait until they get there.

[Balou]

@Grumman

What is the point of charging a rapist with a crime if you would refuse to do anything that might prevent them raping anyone in the future, out of fear that people will refuse to subject the rapist to such countermeasures?

Well this is why there should be some kind of rehabilitation process in prison. But also, I suppose, the value giving someone a second chance.

[Incubus]

@robert_columbia

This idea is thrown around a lot, but let me ask. Suppose you find out that a serial child molester has moved in next door. What, specifically, do you do about it? Move? Buy a gun? Tell your kids to walk on the opposite side of the street? In other words, how does knowing the record of your neighbor actually help you protect children?

Simple. You tell your kids that the neighbor abused children in the past, and to avoid that person, never go to that person’s house and call the police if they do anything suspicious. You make it a point to never leave you kid alone with them.

If there was no sex offender registry, you’d have to rely more on intuition and broader safety measures, but since child molesters are particularly good at building rapport with the community and grooming children they can slip under the radar.