Eh. We don’t know that and neither do you. Few laws really require majority support. This is an issue that appeals to emotion - the pro-registry side does, and the anti side doesn’t. News coverage of sex offenses tends to be horrifying, and politicians won’t oppose RSO laws because there is so little to gain from voting against them. I know the majority doesn’t agree with me, but I don’t know that they disagree with me. If anything, a majority of people might support stronger penalties for sex offenders. The “majority” position is probably “these letters scare me.” The idea that if people didn’t like it, they’d have voted all the Reps. and DAs out of office is a dumb one (intentionally?). Forget the gerrymandering problem and the advantage incumbents have in all elections, I doubt that a lot of voters see this as a bigger issue than (for example) property taxes and trash pickup.
Yeah, that second video series isn’t worth buying at all. I’m never going to watch infomercials while drunk again. What was I thinking?
I don’t think most people agree with this kind of thing being on the sex-offender registry. But most people simply are too unaware of it and too stupid to recognize the problem. And it’d sure be an uphill battle for a politician to work to make a law fixing it; it’s not a message that fits into a ten-second sound bite. Sadly, even if it’s a simple issue, it’s probably too complicated for cable news shows. Things like this happen because politics panders to the stupidest common denominator; most people are willing to buy into this witch hunt, and the complexities of the situation aren’t addressed. And most folks simply don’t have the critical thinking skills to realize when they’re being talked down to or denied information.
I’m not saying he’s wrong, I just don’t see the relevance of the comment.
Depends.
D & R
While the registry is being misused, the problem started when some brainless twit decided the best course of action concerning a 10 year old girl being inquisitive and vindictive against a step-mother was to convict her of 1st and 2nd degree criminal sexual assault, and then whomever was supposed to defend this girl allowed her to plead guilty.
Some more detail:
This (and 18 months in an institution for child sexual offenders) just screams to me stepmother versus stepdaughter, with stepmom winning big. Granted, that’s a conclusion drawn from too little information (so I won’t rush strongly to its defense), but this girl seems to have matured nicely given her shitty treatment early in her life.
Huh? I was talking to GusNSpot, who has occasionally expressed a somewhat unhealthy enthusiasm for breaking the FUCK outta his eggs whenever he makes an omelette.
black, that was meant as a fer’instance, rather than my going back to reinterpret Gus’ post. I figure that he can do so, if he chooses.
And what’s unhealthy about making an enthusiastic omelet?
Yep, agreed with everything you said. It’s not so much that people are for it so much as they really don’t think about it, and are indeed uninformed. But I do have to wonder how many more of these abuses, if they come to light, that the public will stand.
And right on about politicians, too. Show me a politician willing to go to bat for sex offenders, and I’ll show you someone working in the private sector.
The problem with changing the requirements for the sex offender registry is that it is going to be very hard to determine where the lines should be drawn. What if this girl had spent time “grooming” her step brothers? Showing them porn, getting them familiar with sexual activity, expressly for her sexual pleasure? That’s a far cry from playing doctor and, IMHO would make her a strong candidate for the list. What about a guy who has consensual sex with a 16 year old girl, and then she gets mad at him because of some stupid reason and calls the cops? He’d make it on the list, but IMHO he shouldn’t. What about the guy who walks around naked with the windows open every morning while the kids are outside waiting for the school bus? He’s in his own house minding his own business, is he a sex offender? Then there’s the guy who grabbed the arm of a teenage girl who walked out in front of his car and nearly got killed, then flippantly blew him off; he was trying to get her to understand she could get killed doing stuff like that. Now he’s a registered sex offender because his crime was the physical assault of an underaged girl. Is that fair?
The only solution would be to put it into the hands of the judge. What if the man who raped your daughter gets The Honorable Mr. Penis Pump? What if your friend who peed in an alleyway gets Mr. HardAss? In reality it’s totally subjective. Would that really be more fair? So how do you begin to define what should be registered and what shouldn’t?
If we can’t figure out a fair way to do it, then the entire concept of the sex offender registry needs to be scrapped. If there’s no choice between no one being on it and thousands of innocent people being on it, then under the basic, foundational principles of our justice system, we have to get rid of it.
I don’t think it’s quite as all-or-nothing as that. I think combining judicial discretion with explicit guidelines could probably do an adequate job. What’s clear is that we’re not doing an adequate job as it is, and people are getting hurt because of it.
You know, part of me thinks that within 10 years, we’re all going to be on the registry. It will almost be a badge of honor. Teenagers will pee in public just to get on it.
[Syndrome]When everyone is on the registry, then no one will be on the registry[/Syndrome]
In the case of this metaphor, the presence broken eggs do not imply that somebody should go make an omlette.
I think I got that right, but how can I tell? 
They get me all hungry and wondering what’s in my fridge for a quick omelet when I get home, and now you tell me I shouldn’t be making an omelet?!
Level of Crime thay are convicted for, of course. Rape= list.
“Public Lewdness”= no list.
People convicted of “rape” (in my jurisdiction Criminal Sexual Conduct 1, 2, 3, 4th degree) include the otherwise consensual sex between a 16 year old and 15 year old (including anything ‘first base’), touching some one’s thigh, buttocks, breast or groin. also includes situations where both parties are drunk, one remembers consent, the other doesn’t.
public lewdness could potentially include the person who was exposing their genitals in front of a child intentionally.
point remains.
Isn’t there a clear difference between “forcible” and “statutory” rape? Isn’t that why thay have “Criminal Sexual Conduct 1, 2, 3, 4th degree”? So, we can make the cut off @ 3rd degree, or 2nd degree. perhaps.
And if some dude flapping his undersized weenie at a kid is such a horrible crime, then make it so- don’t lump it in with generalized “lewd conduct”.
not in the legislation of my state. 2nd degree involves physically touching the areas w/o penetration (plus other variables) so groping, for example. Groping a child is 2nd degree in my state, groping a teen if you’re their teacher is another example. 3rd degree involves penetration (plus other variables).
problem is - how do you draw the distinction legislatively between the guy who had to pee in the bushes and the kid startles him, vs. the predator who was about to physically assault the child?
How do you draw the distinction legilatively between the guy who accidentally hits a pedestrian while driving, and the guy who deliberately runs someone down in his car?
While I don’t disagree with you, DrDeth, what you are proposing is a lot of extra work for the various state legislatures. Not only that, but when State Senator Doodyhead tries to reform the registry so that Mr. Peesoutside doesn’t have to register, his across-the-aisle counterpart, Senator Poopcranium, is going to yell about Doodyhead going easy on sexual offenders. Details, shmetails. The public has shown time and again that catchy headlines and witty soundbites are far better at driving public opinion than well thought-out, nuanced positions.