Are sex offender laws getting TOO silly?

Question

Florida (the state that has the most rigid sex offender laws) put a new law on the table. This new law states that a sex offender who has a child (THEIR OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILD) - can NOT change their child’s diaper without somebody from ‘children and family services’ or somebody from law enforcement in the same room. If they are caught changing their child’s diaper without supervision, they will be arrested on a 3rd degree felony.

SO… if it is 9:00 at night, and a child’s diaper needs to be changed – they FIRST have to call some form of legal supervision. THEN… they have to WAIT until supervision arrives. THEN… and ONLY THEN can they change the diaper.

The law also states that if it is an emergency, they can rush the child to a nearby hospital to change the diaper – BUT they have to go to the nearest precinct and fill out paperwork right after the ‘incident’.

There are currently almost 32,000 registered sex offenders listed on the books. Imagine how BUSY law enforcement will be watching these people change diapers. This is getting TOO ridiculous.

This law hasn’t ‘officially’ passed yet, but if Florida does what it does best and overreact – it will be on the books in a couple of months.

REMEMBER... just because somebody is a registered sex offender does NOT mean they molested or touched a child.

Answer 1

i think maybe you should look at it from a different point of view. what if you or your child had been molested by that sex offender?

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Sex offender laws have gone to illogical extremes in many jurisdictions. Almost any time a law establishes "absolutes" it is a law worth revising. For example, a law that says all sex offenders must register, stay away from schools, have a special license plate, or get a wrist tattoo are faulty. The reason is that sex offender is too broad a term.

Let me cite an example. In a midwest state it is illegal for any person to have sex with any person other than their spouse. A thirteen year old girl was having sexual relations with a sixteen year old boy. In this case the GIRL was arrested (the boy was not charged) under the statute because the local prosecutor wanted to send a message that pre-marital sex was wrong and he considered the girl to be incorrigible. Under state law, this was a sex crime and the girl is now a sex offender.

In Texas (and most other states) prostitution and soliciting a prostitute are sex crimes. In fact, when I look on the Web to find the registered sex offenders in my neighborhood, most of them are on the list for prostitution related crimes. Is this what we're really trying to protect against?

The only listing that should be mandatory and available is one that lists pedophiles. Even there, the list should include by mandate only those who abuse pre-pubescent children. A nineteen year old high school senior who has sex with a 15 year old freshman is NOT a sex offender. Persons who abuse or have sex with pubescent adolescents should be listed and registered only if they are adults (in this case age 21 or older) and the alleged victim is at least 5 years younger.

Now, true pedophiles are not "curable" and, as far as I'm concerned, should be locked up forever. But, as a society, we need to narrow our focus to those who are really a threat to our children. The prostitute, John, and amorous adolescents are not the problem and should not be swept up with the true offenders.

Answer 4

Absolutely not. Sex offenders should be kept away from any child whether it be their own or another persons. I honestly think they should not be able to care for their own child without supervision. You may think this is extreme however if you have ever been molested you would understand. I fear having children b/c if they were ever molested I don't think I could live with myself. Having been through this myself I would say make the laws as strict as possible now so my children someday have a better chance at never having to go through this.

Answer 5

I think if you have registered as a sex offender- or have been imprisoned for it- you should have zero rights. While i think the law of needing a sitter so you can change your own child is a bit extreme, there are still those who do need it (only referring to those who were confirmed and convicted child molestors). those are the ones who should have zero contact with kids.

I am hard on sex offenders. I think they are all losers with no morals. Its not like it is hard to have a grown woman (or man) consent to having sex. Some just prefer to use power to take what isnt theirs to begin with,

I say cut it off or dig it out- if you were some 3rd world countries- the offending "member" would be separated from your body.


but yeah- needing a sitter to change a diaper is a bit extreme.

Answer 6

It may seem like a waste of time and law enforcement - but if it keeps sex offenders from abusing anymore children, then I'm for it. You may see it as an innocent diaper change - but you're not a deranged pervert. He might see it as an opportunity to get his sick perversions off.

I'm surprised the sex offender is allowed to live in the house with a minor child at all. If a young adult gets convicted of a sex crime, usually they are no longer allowed to live in the same house with a younger sibling.

Answer 7

I agree with you, this is the silliest I've heard yet. But I even have trouble with laws saying a sex offender cannot live within so many feet of a school.

First as you point out a sex offender may not be a child molester--these days a 19 year old male who plays around with a 17 year old girl can be made to register as a sex offender.

Second, if the offender is living just one foot outside the limit, will that make him/her any less able to molest a child? (example, cannot live within 3500 feet of a school or playground, so offender lives 3525 feet away, does the extra 25 feet create anymore safety?). Sex offenders are just as mobile as the rest of us.

Third, sex offenders (specifically child molesters) have a very high rate of recidivism. Chances are they will molest again given the chance...so, even though I am very much a civil libertarian, for this subclass of offenders (molesters) I think there can be no safety when the let back into society.

I think a practical way to deal with them is to take them out of the criminal law system altogether, and instead treat this as an illness and deal with it by civil commitment and psychiatry. In other words, you are not released until trained medical personnel belief that you are cured and it is safe to let you loose in society.

I do not favor the strange propositions that states are entertaining or use, whereby after serving a criminal sentence then you are civilly committed...that seems like punishment of an ill person then followed by treatment. And to do it after one has been convicted sounds like double jeopardy to me.

Also, castration, which seems to pop up from time to time is probably not going to work, it doesn't change the state of the mind which is where the problem resides--and for what other mental problem do we chop off parts of peoples' bodies to cure? The only other situation I've run across is lobotomy which doesn't work either (witness Rosemary Kennedy as one example). To the peson above who advocates sterilization--how does that help with the sick mind? How does it help with respect to the person who already has children? And, you should review the law on involuntary sterilizations as it related to mental patients, prisoners and welfare--this nation has a very sorry history in that regard.

For the person above who says she thinks that sex-offenders should have zero rights--hogwash! I'd like to see you in a position where you did something wrong and as a result had "zero rights" you'd be howling pretty quickly. The fact is that we have broadened the application of "sex offender" to so many situations that we are not talking aobut child molesters/pedophiles anymore when that appellation is used.
The fact is, as long as you treat it as a crime, there will be Constitutional Rights attached that you cannot and should not sidestep. As long as you keep talking about cutting off sexual organs, depriving people of the right to have children or access to their children you will have to and must deal with basic Constitutional Rights. And, those of you so quick to say they shouldn't apply in this area, you tread on very dangerous grounds because if they can be removed from one class of people, they can be removed for you too. As it is your rights are being whittled away daily right now and most of you cheer the process on, until the day it effects you directly and that day will be too late.

Sex offenders (subclass child molesters) have become a political football type issue and so we get demogoguery from politicians who are not equipped to deal with the issue and are not really interested in anything except pandering to an electorate that would probably prefer capital punishment for these offenders if the truth be told.

Answer 8

A Sex Offender should have no rights at all ,They gave those rights up when they harmed a child ,I don't think any laws we put on the books are going to protect our children till we have a Zero tolerance program where first time offense is automatically prison without chance of parole.

Answer 9

Hmm. Tell that to someone who's child has been raped or murdered in the state of Florida.

Do you have the actual text of the new law? Does this refer to all sex offenders or just pedophiles?

No, pedophiles should not be changing the diapers of any child, even their own. Pedophilia (a compulsion) and having children doesn't mix. It gives the offender a personal batch of victims for his use.

Answer 10

What they are in essence trying to do is take away the right of a sex offender to have children by placing a high burden upon them.

This probably gets overturned in the courts if it passes, cruel and unusual punishment or due process (assuming a crime before one is committed).

They should just require them to hire a nanny. Cheaper on the system and just as ridiculous.

BTW, I do feel that child molestors are scum, but that doesn't mean we don't follow our basic principles in punishing them.

Answer 11

The sex offender should have NO contact with any minor child in a private situation..... Let somebody else change the diaper.