# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-offender-list-notification-useless/558391)._