Critics call registry for sex offenders vague, unfair

[proud2BlibKansan]

State system makes no distinction between rapists and molesters and young men in a relationship
By Eric Weslander (Contact)
Sunday, August 27, 2006

The other day, Brad Totman says, his wife came home nearly in tears.

Some neighborhood children who play with the couple’s 3-year-old daughter had said they couldn’t play with her anymore because Totman might “touch them.”

The reason: Totman is a registered sex offender, and his picture recently had been published in the local paper in Pittsburg near his home in Mulberry. His crime, which happened in the late 1990s, was having consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 19.

That girl is now his wife, Kristal. They have been married three years.

more . . .
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug/27/critics_call_registry_sex_offenders_vague_unfair/?city_local

[Gormy Cuss]

1. ~

:popcorn:

[Bluzmann57]

2. The sex offender registry is a good idea

when used correctly. For baby rapers, and other scum of the earth types who shouldn't see freedom ever again, those freaks need to be tracked. But a case like the one described in the article it just isn't a good idea. If a guy takes a leak behind a garage, he can be labeled a "sex offender", at least in some states. Now how can someone like that be any danger to anyone? I agree, we must keep our children safe, but how much is too much?

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. The penalty for missing registration mandates

is often worse than the penalty for the offense they committed. That is overkill.

[Greyhound]

8. The very definition of "the slippery slope".

The majority of "registered sex offenders" are people like these, but we label them and ruin their lives with no thought, nor caring.

[Sadie5]

3. Some of it I find unfair

My daughter who is now 23 went all through school with a boy who has been in my home many times. His mistake was involving himself with a 17yo girl. She told him she was 18 and who really thinks to ask for ID, most Seniors are at least 18. If someone states they are 18, do you question them. They dated for some time before her parents saw reason to have him arrested. He is serving a year in a local prison. His life will be ruined forever over this, but the girl who is now 18 is waiting for him.

[jpgray]

4. Only when there's no hope (or not much) for rehabilitation

Some 19 year old who boinks a 17 year old (outside of the Romeo and Juliet laws) really doesn't deserve to be a social pariah for the rest of his or her life. Now a pathological pedophile I could understand, but I still don't like the idea of the list--it makes good political points (protecting the children and all) but it's far more likely statistically that a child abuser will be a relative or family friend than some random person. I'm not interested in being a pedophile rights advocate, but I wonder sometimes if the list really does its job, or if it's just a feel-good measure that also plays on people's urge to isolate and humiliate deviants for their entire lifetime.

[sandnsea]

5. Lots of feel good measures

That used to be a term applied to counseling and second chance programs, measures so people could feel good about trying to help others without suffering from the consequences of serial criminals. But I think a lot of these tough on crime measures are the same thing, people feel good about getting the bad guys, without thinking about whether any of it actually works or whether punitive attitudes fosters the crime they say they want to stop. Factor in the political manipulations of emotions on both sides of the crime question, and we've got a system that doesn't accomplish anything. Seems to me that's where most everything is these days, manipulated feel good politics that don't come anywhere near solving the very serious problems we're facing.

[pagerbear]

6. Can someone tell me why

...sex offenders should be singled out like this, as opposed to, say, cat burglars or drunk drivers?

**donning flame-retardant suit**

[TahitiNut]

9. All sex is bad. It's "orignal sin"! (How old was Eve?)

We're so infected with revenge, scape-goating, and blame-shifting that we don't give a rat's ass any more whether someone convicted of a "crime" actually poses a materially greater danger to the 'community' than some perceived 'average' citizen.

As a society, we've steadily increased the emotional component of "crimes" involving children and "crimes" involving sex. "Sex+Children" overloads our circuits and we go berzerk.

[Kickoutthejams23]

10. They do need to separate Pedophiles.

From people having consensual sex with teenagers. The high age of consent laws are relatively new (How old were your grandparents or great grandparents when they got married. Heck many of us on this board have parents that would be considered sex offenders now.

So you are fighting biological nature when you say a seventeen year old girl can't have sex with a twenty two year old man. In reality the law is quite silly.

As for true pedophiles the law is an unfortunate necessity.


(kind of off topic but this reminds me of the backlash against .08 DUI laws that seem to ensnare everyone but the actual drunks.)