I am a registered sex offender in Georgia, but my offense did not involve any contact with children. How is HB1059, in particular 42-1-15 going to better protect the children in my community? Additional restrictions were place on violent predators with regard to where they may work. Why weren't the new living restrictions placed on only the violent predators? I can work at my current address all day and that is legal according to this bill, but I cannot live at that address? Talk about crazy. It's election year politics and that's all it is. Our legislatures want you parents to feel good about what they are doing when in reality they are only going to make it worse. Soon, you will have no idea where most sex offenders live because of this new law. Wouldn't you rather know where they live so you can take the necessary precautions as opposed to having no idea where they are? Obvious answer if you are honest with yourself.
2006-06-06 03:17:51 · 15 answers · asked by paying_my_debt 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I was communicating with a "girl" on the internet. She stated she was 19 years old. Somewhere in our communications I missed an e-mail in which she reportedly stated she was actually only 15 years old. We continued to communicate for approx. 1 more week at which time the "girl" stated she was 15 years old. At that time I told her we could no longer communicate and I did not return any of her numerous e-mails. I was arrested at my home about a week later and charged with violating The Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Act of 1999. She was sending e-mails fast and furious so I was simply answering the latest e-mail received from her. All of the e-mails were marked as "READ" then dumped in the trash. Because of this they claim I read the first e-mail in which she stated she was only 15. Not the case but very difficult to prove. Hence my guilty plea to avoid 10 years in prison. The "girl" was actually an undercover agent.
2006-06-06 04:15:01 · update #1
I know someone going through that right now. I think it's not that they are categorizing by "lesser" offenses... but the assumed potential for further action by an offender. They are playing a game of "possibility" and assumptions. I suppose that they assume given the chance all minor offenders will gradually escalate to some greater offense. Though, I could be wrong... but I think thats what they are thinking.
2006-06-06 03:21:55 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People don't stay at their houses. I think all the stuff about where are sex offenders is not going to be effective unless they have embedded chips or something. Then you could tell where they were. Sex offender does not always mean children. I'm assuming it could mean rape or perhaps even prostitution.
Sometimes people want something done to solve a problem even if that thing won't solve the problem. I think you should get involved in your community to educate people - go do talks and stuff and explain the situations to folks. Work with sex offenders to help them recover their lives. Eventually the chip thing will be in place and sex offenders will be tracked by GPS and then when they are in the grocery store everyone's cell phone will buzz or something. That doesn't sound too good either.
2006-06-06 03:23:48 · answer #2 · answered by Sufi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those laws make absolutely no sense to me. I want to know where the pedophiles are, and by that I do NOT mean an 18 year old that diddled a 16 year old 10 years ago, I want to know about the 30 year old that molested a 12 year old.
I want to know about the violent rapists, not really date rape.
Not that I am saying the later are not crimes they are, just that it is noise rather than signal.
Yeah, I do not understand the lumping of every "sex crime" category under the same label.
Other than that, sorry, can't be of help.
2006-06-06 03:26:40 · answer #3 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know if parents would take the job of supervising their children seriously, there would be no need for these laws. Actually, there is no need for them anyway since 90 to 95% of child molestation is committed by a person known to the family/child. This can be a relative, teacher, close friend, coach, scout leader, another child, babysitter, and police officer.
If people were smart enough to recgnize that the registries continue to grow, they would realize it is because of new offenses and NOT reoffenses.
Sex Offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism, with the exception of murder. Your child has a much higher rate of being harmed by a drug dealer/user, drunk driver, struck by lightening, playground accident, drowning, car accident and parental neglect or abuse than they have of being harmed by a rehabilitated former sex offender.
2006-06-07 02:30:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The treatment of sex offenders is like that of the suspected witches in new England. There is no practical gain in all the registering and living restrictions activity. It only serves the ego's of the politicians. They would be better off funding programs to teach children how to avoid being sexually abused. Parents need to understand their watching their children and people around them is more important than persecuting sex offenders. The ACLU has opted out in defending the rights of sex offenders but will go to the wall to defend alleged freedom of expression like those radicals in California.
2006-06-06 03:48:36 · answer #5 · answered by hardnose 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So what exactly is your question?????
I don't know why all are put into the same category, I do believe that is unfair, as some are just guys who slept with a girl who may have lied about her age and he is the one who pays the rest of his life... that is not right.. But I am not the one to change the laws, write the congressman of your area.... whatever it takes. I honestly don't know enough about this law to make any difinitive answer to any of it Sorry. I certainly hope that things work out better for you whatever it is that you have done... I also hope you never do it again.
2006-06-06 03:26:17 · answer #6 · answered by howlincoyote 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have to live somewhere obviously. I think sex offenders make life hard for their selves. But the new bill does have some holes in it. They still have to be logical when deciding what's best for a sex offender after they serve their time he can't just up and move like millionaires but they do need to be registered.
2006-06-06 03:42:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only sex offenders I feel bad for is an 19 year old kid who is dating a 17 year old girl, they love each other and he is a great guy, and that because of HER parents who did not approve, he got in trouble with the law. Then, he is labeled sex offender FOR LIFE, when he really hasn't done anything wrong. That is WRONG.
You are not telling us what you did... so I don't really feel bad for you.
2006-06-06 03:26:46 · answer #8 · answered by Kat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Move to Minnesota. We've got Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 ( the most likely to re-offend). So I guess you'd be a Level 1 pervert here.
2006-06-06 03:21:26 · answer #9 · answered by Jet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess you can say you will always be paying for your past mistakes.
Whether it's right or not is irelevant in the eyes of a parent as they believe ANY law causing ANY sex offender "problems" is a good law.
2006-06-06 03:23:16 · answer #10 · answered by Shep 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋