# Sex offender list notification USELESS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2010, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391 "2010-10-26T06:35:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/1 "2010-10-26T06:35:53Z")
Maybe borderline Pit, and probably covered before, but hey, timely for me. Got a school district notice in the mail today, that there are two “Level I” sex offenders residing in my school district. The letter is one piece of paper, one side of which is the letter from our superintendent, the other side of which is split between the mailing info and a request for money from “Parents For Megan’s Law” The superintendent notifies us of two offenders, for which we are given name, race, and date of birth; as well as a phone number for additional questions and the lame ass cover-my-ass statement about it being illegal to use this info to go vigilante on their asses. The postal page I have no gripe with obviously. The “Parents for Megan’s Law” I have several gripes with: 1. Why is a civilian political group given both coverage on a tax payer paid leaflet from the school, and also, 1/3 space to “donations greatly appreciated”? 2. Why does the letter include super specific private info like name and DOB, but not include actually useful info like "was convicted of multiple acts of violent rape " vs “was convicted of peeing in an alleyway by bored cops”. Seriously, there’s an important different there. 3. The letter side mentions “Level 1” sex offender", however the Megan’s Law quarter says “moderate or high risk sex offender” which implies more than one level. Hello, contradictory or confusing information!! What’s the scoop? 4. In the Megan’s Law quarter, “Parents For Megan’s Law” has the secondary title/purpose of “Helping to manage Megan’s Law & prevent childhood sexual abuse”. OK this implies that the law has the purpose of preventing CHILD abuse. Which implies that only offenses against CHILDREN should be eligible. But yet, anything vaguely body related is included? WTF? OK, Amber alert, Megans Law, MADD, thanks for helping the kids. But when you go past the bounds of helping the kids, and become SUPER BIG BROTHER, you’ve overstepped. Now step back. WAAAAAAY back. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/2 "2010-10-26T07:04:02Z")
OK I decided to actually write an email to the superintendent in whom the letter mailed to me was signed: > [@](#): > > Please do not send out Megan’s law mailers in such a manner again. It’s extremely irresponsible and also, completely useless, not to mention, somewhat offensive. > > 1. You give the following info: Name, DOB, and race. This is specific enough to be highly invasive of privacy, however it does not cover any material that is actually useful for parents. Such as - what is their primary offense (and do they live near me?) I could really give a damn about someone that happened to pee in an alleyway while the cops were low on quota tickets (or 18 year old boys who had sex with 17 year old girls they are dating when you ignore 18 year old girls who have sex with 17 year old boys). These sorts of people really do not not need to be on any lists. Give me a break. Now if they are multiple violent rapists especially against kids, then maybe that’s useful info. > > 2. 1/4 of your mailer is an advertisement from Parents For Megans Law asking for money. Seriously? Either this should be a free government service or else it should be illegal due to privacy concerns. In any case, it shouldn’t be under the purview of some private group asking for donations on a school letterhead. > > 3. The information is confusing and contradictory. Your letter says only “Level I sex offenders” (what does that even mean anyway) are notified however, the “Megans Law” advertisement says that “moderate or high” risk offenders are subject to notification. So.. which is it? > > 4. The general thinking here seems to be that crimes against children are of special concern, meaning that Amber alerts and Megan’s Law are given special consideration to… save the kids. Otherwise, all criminals whose sentences are ending would be broadcast to the community in which they move to after they are released. Given this premise, only those offenders whose crimes are actually… AGAINST CHILDREN… should be reported. General sex offenders are no more relevant to parents than other law breakers. Only sex offenders (or other crimes) against CHILDREN are really relevant to parents. Please refrain from using the “Oh my god someone might hurt a kid!!!” sentiment to overwhelm the entire legal system with burdens of violating the privacy of those who haven’t actually hurt any kids. > > Thanks! > J ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/3 "2010-10-26T09:16:10Z")
OMG. Are you ready for this? Looks like “Level 1” sex offenders are the least bad. Seriously. AND, in many places, may not be publicly outed by law. In Lynn, Massachusetts [Where the Sex Offender Registry Board determines that the risk of re-offense by an offender is low and the degree of dangerousness posed to the public by that offender is not such that a public safety interest is served by public availability, the Board shall give that offender a Level 1 designation. ``` Information on Level 1 offenders will not be available to the public. Neither the police nor the Board have authority to disseminate information to the general public identifying a Level 1 offender. Information identifying Level 1 offenders may only be given to the department of correction, any county correctional facility, the department of youth services, the department of social services, the parole Board, the department of probation and the department of mental health, all city and town police departments and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for law enforcement purposes.](http://www.lynnpolice.org/sex_offenders.htm) ``` In Clark Co, Washington: [Consistent standards for classifying sex/kidnap offenders into risk levels I, II, and III, have been developed in Clark County. Level I offenders are those sex/kidnap offenders who, based on currently known information, are a low risk to re-offend within the community at large. Level II offenders are those sex/kidnap offenders who, based on currently known information, are at moderate risk to re-offend within the community at large. Level III offenders and those sex/kidnap offenders who, based on currently known information, are rated most dangerous to the public and who are a high risk to re-offend within the community at large. The extent of information that may be generally released to the community takes into consideration the classification level of the sex/kidnap offender. Information on Level I sex/kidnap offenders is shared with other law enforcement agencies. Upon request, relevant, necessary, and accurate information may be released to members of the public. Sex/Kidnap Offender registration information on Level I sex/kidnap offenders may not be generally disseminated unless the level I offender is listed as a transient or has an active arrest warrant.]([http://www.co.clark.wa.us/sheriff/community/offenders.html](http://www.co.clark.wa.us/sheriff/community/offenders.html)) In Minneapolis, Minnesota: [A sex offender may be assigned a Risk Level of I, II, or III. An offender found to be a Risk Level I is considered the LEAST likely to re-offend and only local law enforcement and victims or witnesses are notified of the offenders release or relocation.](http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/crime-prevention/sex-offender.asp) I’d raise some holy hell, if it came from my school district. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/4 "2010-10-26T12:53:57Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > 1. Why does the letter include super specific private info like name and DOB, but not include actually useful info like "was convicted of multiple acts of violent rape " vs “was convicted of peeing in an alleyway by bored cops”. Seriously, there’s an important different there. There is, and I don’t mean this comment to derail your main point, but since you mention in jest something that a lot of people take seriously, I want to get the straight dope out there again. The idea that public urination can cause someone to be registered as a sex offender is greatly overblown. A paper issued by Human Rights Watch made that claim, it it has permeated the Internet; a dozen cites will confidently claim this is a danger. But when **GFactor** and I researched the issue, we discovered that it was very unlikely. In most states were HRW claimed it was a danger, the truth was that some other behavior was necessary, such as multiple convictions, was required. In short, it was highly unlikely that a simple public urination, with no other suspicious factors, would be the predicate offense for sex offender registration. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/5 "2010-10-26T15:15:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The idea that public urination can cause someone to be registered as a sex offender is greatly overblown. I checked the list of [registrable offenses](http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/nsor/sortab1.htm) and this seems to be true. I thought perhaps “sexual misconduct” but no, that apparently refers to low level non consensual sex, or sex with a dead person or animal. > [@WhyNot](#): > > OMG. Are you ready for this? Looks like “Level 1” sex offenders are the least bad. Seriously. AND, in many places, may not be publicly outed by law. Yep. The website says: > [@](#): > > Searching for Level 1 sex offenders (or those with a pending risk level): > DCJS is barred by law from posting information on Level 1 (low level) sex offenders, or those with a pending risk level, on this public site. However, while we cannot tell you if there are any Level 1 sex offenders or sex offenders with a pending risk level in your neighborhood or who they are, we can tell you if a particular individual is on the registry. Call us at 1-800-262-3257 with the name and at least one other identifier (an exact address, date of birth, driver’s license number, or a social security number) and we will tell you if that individual is a registered sex offender in New York. Also the letter from the school district says “Under the Freedom of Information Law, additional information about these specific matters can be obtained from the School District Office”. What additional information?? I just don’t get what the point of this is. “Hey! Just thought I’d let you know that there is this scary guy somewhere in your general vicinity. I can’t tell you exactly where. I can’t even tell you what he did. But at least you know his birthday!” ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/6 "2010-10-26T16:35:26Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > I just don’t get what the point of this is. “Hey! Just thought I’d let you know that there is this scary guy somewhere in your general vicinity. I can’t tell you exactly where. I can’t even tell you what he did. But at least you know his birthday!” Maybe they’re trying to boost the local bakeries. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/7 "2010-10-26T16:35:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In short, it was highly unlikely that a simple public urination, with no other suspicious factors, would be the predicate offense for sex offender registration. But not impossible, and given the fact that to many people “registered sex offender” = “raped and murdered 14 toddlers”, it’s always worth noting. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/8 "2010-10-26T17:00:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The idea that public urination can cause someone to be registered as a sex offender is greatly overblown. A paper issued by Human Rights Watch made that claim, it it has permeated the Internet; a dozen cites will confidently claim this is a danger. But when **GFactor** and I researched the issue, we discovered that it was very unlikely. In most states were HRW claimed it was a danger, the truth was that some other behavior was necessary, such as multiple convictions, was required. In short, it was highly unlikely that a simple public urination, with no other suspicious factors, would be the predicate offense for sex offender registration. In CA, there are a good number of Lawyers that advertise they specificaly defend against those charges. I asked MY lawyer, and he said he had never heard of anyone that \*had a lawyer \*being convicted and placed on the registry,but that ignorant naifs sometimes apparently plead guilty not knowing what they are agreeing to. > **[Indecent Exposure Lawyer in Riverside | Lewd Conduct](https://www.blumenthallawoffices.com/criminal-defense/sex-crimes/indecent-exposure-lewd-conduct/)** > > If you’re being charged with indecent exposure or lewd conduct, our Riverside indecent exposure attorneys at Blumenthal Law Offices can step in to defend you. > **[LawGuru Search - Legal Q&A Research](https://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-criminal-law/public-urination-fumc-received-urinating-462430468/a)** > > Search through 1.18+ million legal questions and answers with AI-powered summaries. Find relevant legal guidance across all practice areas and states. Here’s the law: [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=314-318.6](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=314-318.6) "\*314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either: ``` 1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any ``` public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or, ``` 2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself ``` or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, is guilty of a misdemeanor."\* and 314 is a registered offense: [http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/registration/offenses.aspx?lang=ENGLISH](http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/registration/offenses.aspx?lang=ENGLISH) Here’s a NH cite also: [http://www.eagletribune.com/nhnews/x1876416971/Lawmakers-Public-urination-shouldnt-lead-to-sex-offender-status](http://www.eagletribune.com/nhnews/x1876416971/Lawmakers-Public-urination-shouldnt-lead-to-sex-offender-status) And in CO, it recently was: [http://www.csindy.com/colorado/thats-a-relief/Content?oid=1685751](http://www.csindy.com/colorado/thats-a-relief/Content?oid=1685751) I have heard of the following: a stripper with a particulary nasty show gay guys having sex in their cars in a area where no one but cops and gay guys go. (this used to be very common) Gay guys cruising restrooms, even w/o any sexual conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/9 "2010-10-26T17:21:57Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I have heard of the following: > a stripper with a particulary nasty show > gay guys having sex in their cars in a area where no one but cops and gay guys go. (this used to be very common) > Gay guys cruising restrooms, even w/o any sexual conduct. Assuming without checking that all those are accurate, each is quite different from simple public urination. As to the law, the portion you quote proves the point nicely. It’s not enough to expose your genitals; you must do so both “willfully and lewdly.” I did this specific research with GFactor, but a quick check for California cases shows the instructive case of Chad Smith, who off all his cloths ona beachl his clothes, lay face up on a towel, and fell asleep. He was arrested for violation of this statute. He claimed that while he was admittedly nude, and wilfully so, his act was not _lewd_. He did not have an erection or direct attention to his genitals in any way. > [@In re Smith](#): > > We are referred to no case defining “lewdly” as used in section 314; but in the reported decisions upholding convictions of that offense against a claim of insufficient evidence, something more than mere nudity has usually been shown. (list of citations omitted) > . > . > . > From the foregoing definitions and cases the rule clearly emerges that a person does not expose his private parts “lewdly” within the meaning of section 314 unless his conduct is sexually motivated. Accordingly, a conviction of that offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront. Smith’s conviction was reversed. So, no: in California, it is impossible to violate 314 unless the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the exposure of genitals was intended to direct public attention to those genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/10 "2010-10-26T17:29:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Assuming without checking that all those are accurate, each is quite different from simple public urination. > > As to the law, the portion you quote proves the point nicely. It’s not enough to expose your genitals; you must do so both “willfully and lewdly.” > > I did this specific research with GFactor, but a quick check for California cases shows the instructive case of Chad Smith, who off all his cloths ona beachl his clothes, lay face up on a towel, and fell asleep. He was arrested for violation of this statute. He claimed that while he was admittedly nude, and wilfully so, his act was not _lewd_. He did not have an erection or direct attention to his genitals in any way. > > Smith’s conviction was reversed. > > So, no: in California, it is impossible to violate 314 unless the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the exposure of genitals was intended to direct public attention to those genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront. Like my lawyer said- it’s impossible \*if you hired a lawyer. \* But not if you’re scared & ignorant and the Police and the DA say you’ll get out without any jail time if you plead guilty, and you do so. Look at your example- he _was arrested, charged and convicted_, even though his conviction was reversed. Thus, your cite proves that it is possible to get at least arrested & charged for 314 without the “People proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the exposure of genitals was intended to direct public attention to those genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.” Can you show me any cites that show that dudes don’t \*plead guilty \*to 314 even for public urination? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/11 "2010-10-26T17:33:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In CA, there are a good number of Lawyers that advertise they specificaly defend against those charges. I asked MY lawyer, and he said he had never heard of anyone that \*had a lawyer \*being convicted and placed on the registry,but that ignorant naifs sometimes apparently plead guilty not knowing what they are agreeing to. I suppose it’s possible. As a general rule, judges do not have to inform those who plead guilty of the collateral consequences of their pleas, such as sex offender registration. However, a judge must inform the accused of each and every element that the state would have to prove. That is, before he can accept a guilty please, the judte must have a personal conversation with the accused, called a _colloquy_, and that conversation must include a statement that to find your guilty, the state would have to prove that you did this act both wilfully and lewdly. And the accused would have to agree that he did, and that he understands what that means. So every person with such a conviction, at the very least stood in front of a judge and agreed his conduct was intended for the purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/12 "2010-10-26T17:41:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Like my lawyer said- it’s impossible \*if you hired a lawyer. \* > > But not if you’re scared & ignorant and the Police and the DA say you’ll get out without any jail time if you plead guilty, and you do so. Look at your example- he _was arrested, charged and convicted_, even though his conviction was reversed. Thus, your cite proves that it is possible to get at least arrested & charged for 314 without the “People proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the exposure of genitals was intended to direct public attention to those genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.” Yes, but that was in 1970, when “We are referred to no case defining ‘lewdly’ as used in section 314…” was a true statement. Subsequent to Mr. Smith’s case, there WAS caselaw defining “lewdly” as used in section 314: In re Smith, 497 P. 2d 807 (Cal. 1972). And lying on a beach in public, naked, does give the police probable cause to arrest for that offense. So even today, someone could be arrested for the same conduct. But an arrest does not trigger the registration requirement. > [@](#): > > Can you show me any cites that show that dudes don’t \*plead guilty \*to 314 even for public urination? As I said above, I suppose it’s possible. But they would not simply say, “Yeah, I’m guilty.” To plead guilty, they must engage in a detailed conversation with a judge, in which he informs them of each element of the charge and asks if they understand that by pleading guilty, they are giving up their right to be tried by a jury, and that if they were tried, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their conduct was intended for sexual gratification. If they answer “Yes,” to that, it’s hard for me to work up much sympathy for them… especially since the judge ALSO tells them that they are giving up a right to be represented by a lawyer, and that if they can’t afford a lawyer the state will give them one for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/13 "2010-10-26T17:57:20Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > I just don’t get what the point of this is. “Hey! Just thought I’d let you know that there is this scary guy somewhere in your general vicinity. I can’t tell you exactly where. I can’t even tell you what he did. But at least you know his birthday!” Even if they said “This guy raped, killed and ate seven children. Here’s his address. Here’s his photo. You have been warned.”, what’s the point ? What are parents going to do with this information, other than form a pitchfork mob that is ? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/14 "2010-10-26T17:58:19Z")
Still you cite does show a dude who was indeed- arrested, charged and convicted- for _" willfully and lewdly… Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place"_ just for lying nude on a beach. He would have been required to register as a Sex Offender had his case not been appealed. You are correct about “\*colloquy, and that conversation must include a statement that to find your guilty, the state would have to prove that you did this act both wilfully and lewdly. And the accused would have to agree that he did, and that he understands what that means.” \*but if the ADA (who wants to be DA and showing he’s “tough on sexual offenders” is a good political ad) tells him all he has to do is say “Yes your Honor” and he gets to go home now, not missing any work, no jail time- and the Judge (who also wants to get elected on a “tough on sexual offenders” tag) goes along with it- the dude gets convicted and is a registered Sex offender- for life. The point is- there should be no possibily of that crime being a Sexual offense. Ever. It’s a bad law that allows that possibilty, even if the dude does make a foolish decision. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/15 "2010-10-26T18:40:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Still you cite does show a dude who was indeed- arrested, charged and convicted- for _" willfully and lewdly… Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place"_ just for lying nude on a beach. He would have been required to register as a Sex Offender had his case not been appealed. > > You are correct about “\*colloquy, and that conversation must include a statement that to find your guilty, the state would have to prove that you did this act both wilfully and lewdly. And the accused would have to agree that he did, and that he understands what that means.” \*but if the ADA (who wants to be DA and showing he’s “tough on sexual offenders” is a good political ad) tells him all he has to do is say “Yes your Honor” and he gets to go home now, not missing any work, no jail time- and the Judge (who also wants to get elected on a “tough on sexual offenders” tag) goes along with it- the dude gets convicted and is a registered Sex offender- for life. > > The point is- there should be no possibily of that crime being a Sexual offense. Ever. It’s a bad law that allows that possibilty, even if the dude does make a foolish decision. Not true. The law makes perfect sense: if you expose your genitals on purpose, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront, then it IS a sex offense, by definition. I don’t say your scenario is impossible, but again, if the guy is accused because he had to pee, and that’s all… then he has no business saying “Yes,” when the judge asks him if he did it for sexual arousal, gratification, or affront. The law isn’t broken; that’s why we have colloquies. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/16 "2010-10-26T18:48:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t say your scenario is impossible, but again, if the guy is accused because he had to pee, and that’s all… then he has no business saying “Yes,” when the judge asks him if he did it for sexual arousal, gratification, or affront. The law isn’t broken; that’s why we have colloquies. But the problem isn’t the defendant not knowing the elements, its the defendant not knowing hte consequences of the plea. The situation isn’t one where he is convinced by a prosecutor/cop he is guilty, and it is only when he is standing in front of the judge, and the judge explains the elements, that he realizes “Whoa now, nelly. I didn’t do this for sexual arousal, gratification or affront! I needed to pee! I’m not taking this plea!” Instead, it’s a situation where the person may well know that, but they are told by the cop/prosecutor “take a plea, and you can go home. If you don’t, we charging you with the next offense up. Who is anyone going to believe? You or me?” The person knows they are pleading to an offense they may well not have committed, but doing it because they think it ends everything, that they get to go home, and not aware they are making a decision that will follow them for the rest of their life. I don’t know if this happens in these type of offenses, but I know it happens all too often with guys who don’t make bail, and so are kept sitting around waiting for trial. They don’t care if they have a criminal record, and so will cop a misdemeanor plea for time served just to get home, despite knowing they are innocent. If a record doesn’t affect you, it’s a rational thing to do - go home now rather than wait three more months in jail for a trial, which you have a chance of losing, and even if you don’t, what benefit is there? All you have done is spent 3 more months behind bars. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/17 "2010-10-26T18:55:16Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I don’t know if this happens in these type of offenses, but I know it happens all too often with guys who don’t make bail, and so are kept sitting around waiting for trial. They don’t care if they have a criminal record, and so will cop a misdemeanor plea for time served just to get home, despite knowing they are innocent. If a record doesn’t affect you, it’s a rational thing to do - go home now rather than wait three more months in jail for a trial, which you have a chance of losing, and even if you don’t, what benefit is there? All you have done is spent 3 more months behind bars. Yes, I agree that’s a realistic fear. But the right to be represented by counsel attaches before we reach the stage of a judge accepting a plea. So what I’m not hearing the the realistic reason the guy decides to navigate these waters without a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/18 "2010-10-26T19:02:23Z")
But if he isn’t going to be sentenced to prison, is he automatically entitled to counsel? I honestly cannot remember when it the right is triggered for non-felonies. And yes, this is mixing it up from the prior hypothetical… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/19 "2010-10-26T19:06:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is, and I don’t mean this comment to derail your main point, but since you mention in jest something that a lot of people take seriously, I want to get the straight dope out there again. > > The idea that public urination can cause someone to be registered as a sex offender is greatly overblown. A paper issued by Human Rights Watch made that claim, it it has permeated the Internet; a dozen cites will confidently claim this is a danger. But when **GFactor** and I researched the issue, we discovered that it was very unlikely. In most states were HRW claimed it was a danger, the truth was that some other behavior was necessary, such as multiple convictions, was required. In short, it was highly unlikely that a simple public urination, with no other suspicious factors, would be the predicate offense for sex offender registration. Why should anything other than pedophilia and violent rape be on the list? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391/20 "2010-10-26T20:13:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not true. The law makes perfect sense: if you expose your genitals on purpose, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront, then it IS a sex offense, by definition.. The Laws wording makes sense, but there’s no sensible purpose to it. No one is harmed, and there is no need to track this person on a list- a list that includes public nudity but not murder, ADW, home robberies, grand larceny, and what not. Why is INDECENT EXPOSURE so much more dangerous to the public than a multiple homicide? Personally, in only a few cases can I see INDECENT EXPOSURE being a crime- but certainly not a crime that needs special tracking, over and above violent felonies. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391.md?page=2)