That would have been great. They lived in Fairlie, TX, a town of about 80 people I would say. They all knew it was crap, so there wasn’t really anyone freaking out about the sign.
His wife planted irises around it. 
I spent some time, about two years, working in residential treatment with sex offenders. These were the genuine article, not people who got busted for public urination or the like. We spent literally hours a day “working on their issues.” All of them admitted guilt, but I never heard one express contrition. The only thing they were sorry about was getting caught.
Based on my experience with them, I’m not sure it’s ever safe to release a true sex offender back into the GP.
I used to have a therapist who expressed these same views. (She expressed her views on this because a lot of the reason I was seeing her was due to childhood sexual trauma).
If it’s true that it’s not ever safe to release a true sexual predator back into the GP, fine. Don’t release them. But don’t tell them they’ve paid their debt to society and then pull some bogus crap like the registry. Either it’s safe to release them (in which case, what’s the registry doing besides creating bureaucratic busy-work, and fucking up peoples’ lives), or it’s not safe and they need to be locked up forever.
Pick one. (that’s directed at the bureaucracy, not at you).
Well, if it’d been my decision, none of those clients would have ever been set free. Based on my experience with them, there was no way to make them “child safe.”
The details of their individual offenses were such that, even if they’d been castrated with a Bowie knife, they’d still have found some way to victimize kids. There’d still be violation with foreign objects. There’d still be digital penetration. There’d still be the taking of photographs and videos. One charmer, whom I’ll never forget, would still have been able to rent a retarded girl out to his friends and watch the “fun.”
The common wisdom is that many child molesters were victims of the same crime when they were children. My clients all claimed as much; though I’m disinclined to believe too much of what came out of their mouths. It’s a better fit to their observed patterns of behavior that they were trying to play the staff and the system by lying about their personal history. For a few, it was documented; for most it was unsubstantiatable.
Regardless, they were untrustworthy and should never have been released. These registries are worse than a joke. They are a sham designed to give the appearance of doing something positive, when in fact all they do is drive the shitbags further into the shadows and make it harder to eliminate them from the GP.
Obligatory article about castration:
I’m not a man but that made me squeal! AAAAHHH!!! Warning next time! :eek:
(Usually when castration is mentioned, it’s chemical)
Here’s the thing.
In Texas it’s possible to get on the sex offender registry for a number of behaviors that the average individual would not consider warranting such inclusion. Soliciting prostitution is a good example.
But it’s not possible to get on it for the kind of indecent exposure that comes from peeing by the side of the road. If he was charged with another offense, then he pled guilty to that other offense, which would have included a detailed conversation with the judge about what the state had to prove… to include elements of sexual intent or lasciviousness. It defies belief that he would have decided to enter a plea of guilty by agreeing that if the state went to trial they could prove sexual motivation for his crime.
Or he had a trial, at which time the state would have had to adduce the proof about sexual intent mentioned above… which, if his story were true, raises some serious questions about what they could have possibly offered as proof.
Because the actual facts of a conviction may be embarrassing, it may well be that your very truthful friend decided that this particular instance was not the right time for full disclosure.
But I can virtually guarantee you that if he was convicted for some offense in Texas that required registration as a sex offender, the predicate act was NOT taking a piss by the side of the road. It just didn’t happen that way.
In CA it is not uncommon to charge a man for Indecent exposure, (which leads to Registration) for public urination. In fact, there are a number of lawyers that include that very thing in their on line ads. No doubt, with any decent lawyer, you would not be convicted. But some dudes plead out without full knowledge- mainly because they are stupid and scared.
You can also be Registered for- streaking, being a stripper with a nasty show, giving your gay BF a BJ in a quiet secluded not-very-public place, and a number of other things.
In fact, few “Sex Offenders” are in any way dangerous. That’s too bad, as a Registration of the few dangerous pedophiles and violent rapists would be valuable. But as long as 90% or so of the list consists of dudes who are now more or less harmless, it’s useless and harmful and needs to be dropped.
I hear where you’re coming from Bricker, but as always this assumes that the guilty party is acting rationally and with full knowledge and understanding.
Much as the judge may have explained the situation, he may well have been scared, confused or just fixated on (to us) some unimportant detail that to him made all the difference.
Its very easy to sit here and say “its not rational behaviour”, when we know that in reality, all to often people don’t behave “rationally”. Just witness all the high speed police chases from people that are only driving on an expired license - in any risk / benefit analysis this doesn’t make sense, yet it still happens one whole hell of a lot.
California Penal Code 314(1) provides:
Note the word “lewdly.”
To convict someone under section 314(1), the finder of fact must find
(People v. Curry, 76 Cal.App.3d 181 (1977)).
That means if someone pleads guilty, they have to stand in front of a judge and say that they exposed their genitals for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification or to affront others.
It’s quite surprising that someone who only wanted to pee against the retaining wall would agree that he did it for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification or to affront others.
That’s why the judge carefully and slowly goes through each element of the offense. This is not a “decide in an instant, fight or flight” type situation. In the high-speed chase, the decision is made instantly. The plea is entered weeks or months after the event, when either represented by counsel or after yet another long and detailed conversation about the perils of self-representation.
I’ll concede it’s possible, but in that case I think much of the sympathy should evaporate: he’s on the sex offenders list because he stood in front of a judge and told the judge he exposed his penis to another person for the purpose of his own sexual gratification. The judge didn’t just take his word for it; he questioned him closely to be sure he understood the facts he was admitting to, and he insisted again that he exposed his penis to another person for the purpose of his own sexual gratification.
That does not surprise me one bit.
I honestly think we need to have special sections of mental hoisptials for the criminally insane for sex offenders. The majority of them are just too self centered/narcisstic to have the abilty to function in society without getting that “urge”