Question about Sex Offender Laws??? (Anyone can answer)?

Question

Now, I have a question about Sex Offender Laws. (My sister and I argue about this all the time. I respect his opinion but I don't think that he respects mine, but we love each other just the same). lol Don't you think that it is unfair to require sex offenders to register even after they have payed their debt to society and have served time? Now, I know that many of you will point out that sex offenders have an illness and they are likely to repeat the offenses. (I agree with both) However, I think that bank robbers, people who assault others with deadly weapons and etc are also mentally ill. These population are also known to be repeat offenders but they dont register in a specailized database. (If we make a rule for one crime, we need to be consistent across the board and have this same standard for other crimes) I know we want to protect the innoscent & least amongst us (children) but doesn't it bother you that people who batter children are not treated with the same indignation?

Answer 1

You raise a really interesting question. It does seem a bit unfair that offenders, repeat or otherwise, of other crimes aren't required to register but sex offenders are. Quite frankly, I am surprised that someone hasn't tried to raise this issue already in the courts.

I definitely see your point and I do sympathize; however, I can't say I agree whole hartedly. I think it is a good law per se even if it is somewhat discriminatory. What I don't like is the states that require the offender to register for life after the first offense. Reason being, there are some who are falsely accused and convicted of a crime they didn't commit and end up having to pay for it for the rest of their life. Now if they are accused and convicted a second time that is different. I also think the laws should be more specific as to which types of sex offenders should have to register rather than all of them. For example, in some states indecent exposure is a sex offense and those convicted have to register. If it is someone who is exposing themselves in a park i.e. a flasher then perhaps they should have to register. But, a young kid who moons someone, gets arrested for indecent exposure, and has to register as a sex offender is going bit far.

I guess what the real problem is, there is no way to address this issue that is completely fair to all. But, by the same token, that doesn't mean it should be done away with either.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Not all bank robbers and aggravated assaulters are "mentally ill," for starters. Their sentences get longer with each repeated offense. Robbery starts at 3-15 years to serve, in my state, and add a gun it goes to 8-12 (these are first offense).

I have NO problems with the sexual offender registry, except, as another answerer pointed out, there is not differential treatment for statutory rape convicts, and I think that waters down the intent of the registry, which is to protect children. Statutory rapists, in my state, are separated from their victim by a mere 4 years. An 18 year old idiot should be treated very differently than someone who molests a 5 year old.

Answer 4

It's neither fair nor unfair. You might argue that part of the condition for their release (rather than being locked up for life) is the inconvenience of having to register. This is no different than other conditions that might be imposed on a parolee.

I personally believe if the crime was against a minor and involved force then they should be kept in prison for life. Almost all are recidivists - they will repeat.

I allow for the fact that an 18 year old may have sex with a willing 15 year old, which is statutory rape; and that this type of offense is less likely to be repeated. In which case, I would not require such offenders to register.

Answer 5

We should be consistent across the board? Like legalizing abortions yet if someone murders a pregnant woman and her fetus dies he/she is charged with 2 murders? What kind of sense does that make? I'm not defending murderers but it seems very hypocritical to me. As a parent, I agree with your sister. I would only bend on this to say that people guilty of sex crimes against children should be the ones to register as a sex offender for life while a one time offender of an adult can be decided by a judge on a case by case basis as to whether they must register. While a guy who knocks over a service station or gets stoned and steals a car may be able to be reformed through the system, I have a hard time believing that a man or woman who molests a child can be truly reformed. Anyone willing to go to the sick length of sexually abusing a child should have to be branded for life. I do not believe someone could go that distance and EVER be fully reformed.

Answer 6

sex offenders have a higher rescidivism rate than any other offender, so there is a higher chance that they will reoffend than other criminals. Also, sex offenses are considered "worse" crimes than others, because of the victims.

In addition, the rule was enacted because people voted for it. People dont care as much if a bank robber is living in their area, but if you have kids, you definitely want to know if there is a child molester. Therefore, they lobbied for the law, and it went through.

Answer 7

To some extent for some sex offenders it can be unfair. But statistically, once a ex offender starts they kind of can't stop until caught or die and something like that. So like always, the few can give the rest a bad name.

Answer 8

First of all, once you have molested or assaulted a child you don't just get to go back to life as usual. The child will be affected the rest of his/her life - why should you be different? Second of all, if you molest a child, protecting the people around you becomes more important than your right to live a free life. Lastly, I don't think most pedophiles get enough prison time to "pay their debt to society." Just because a judge sentenced you to not enough time and then you got out early for some dumb reason doesn't mean you have "paid your debt."

Answer 9

Your concerns about fairness are misplaced.

The registries are out of concern for future victims. The future victims of bank robbers can buy security cameras and bulletproof glass and hire guards. The future victims of sex offenses are by definition helpless, otherwise they wouldn't be at risk of being victims.

I'm not interested in being fair to sex offenders.

Answer 10

I think sex offenders should be put out there for everyone to see and watch out for....I totally agree with you that all offenders(other than spdng tickets) should also be registered and made public...I think you should send this to your local politician...It's plain, down to earth and needs to be read by all....thanks ...good luck...