English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I ask a lot of these questions. I seem to get a lot of people believing that if you are on that list, you must have done something gravely wrong and deserve to be on that list. Those people think that it is NOT possible that the list may be flawed.

A man must move from his house in Oviedo, Florida by July 1, 2007 because of a 25 year old conviction of exposing himself to a child. Sounds pretty bad – but if you look a little further – he was taking a leak on the side of the road and a child just happened to see him. Did he make a good and sound decision? Probably not; however, should he be put on a list that has over 500,000 people in the U.S. on it already. This list is becoming a JOKE. Over 90% of the people on that list did not physically touch a victim. Over 50% of people on that list had nothing to do with a child.

2007-03-16 04:01:39 · 13 answers · asked by Leroy Studying Law 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

That list was initially for people who physically molested a child. NOW, every time some sicko makes headline news in reference to a child, a NEW sex offender law is passed that tears away what the list was originally designed for.

Believe it or not… if a 17 year old has sex with a 15 year old… THE 17 YEAR OLD HAS TO REGISTER…

If you take a piss behind 7-11 at 1:00 in the morning and happen to be seen by a child (what was that child doing out at 1:00 in the morning?) … you have to register.

These are actual examples of people on the list. They did nothing more… nothing is hidden from the public… nothing was sealed… What you see there is what you get.

When you look at the one line conviction in the list… it says (respectively)

Lewd and lascivious with a child under 16 – for the 17 y.o. having sex with a 15 y.o.
Indecent exposure to a child under the age of 12 – for the guy taking a leak behind 7-11

2007-03-16 04:02:00 · update #1

Of course if you look at those one line descriptions… you will naturally assume the worst.

My question again is…

Is the sex offender registry becoming a joke?

2007-03-16 04:02:14 · update #2

13 answers

Somewhat,as a parent is nice to know when they are living close,but most don't read the whole entry for the crime. A teen having consentual sex with his girlfriend shouldn't be on the list.

2007-03-16 04:08:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

1

2016-06-03 23:14:39 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Yes it is becoming a joke. You make a good point.
The system was set up so that people could be aware of other people who have committed acts to children. But in todays socitity it doesnt really matter what you get into trouble for. But than you have a system where the courts do what they want and it doesnt matter the details of the crime.And If you look @ most laws you would find that they are a joke to begine with. The court system isnt about whats fair but how much $$$$$$$$$$$$$ can be made. The problom is that the courts have made the guidelines of a sex offender to broad and detailed that even as innocent as taking a piss turns into something out of the twilight zone.

2007-03-16 04:31:44 · answer #3 · answered by tommyhawk 2 · 2 0

I do beleive that it has become a joke because it has evolved into the many websites that will list the locations of RSOs and many dont list the crime. I have seen the hysteria in many forums because they have seen how many sex offenders are living near them and have no way to know if that person is a dangerous SO or just soemone who with the bad luck to end up on the list because of a mistake. And from the list so many more ridiculous laws have been passed further resticting the lives of RSOs.

2007-03-16 15:44:51 · answer #4 · answered by mom2twinboys 4 · 0 1

I don't think the list is flawed, it is our legal system. I have also heard of people mooning someone which can be prosecuted as a sex crime. We need more common sense in our government and legal system. I do believe most of these offenses should be charged, but maybe not as sex crimes. For anyone with children, the list is a great idea. I just think the list should identify the exact charge. Our legal system also needs to categorize some of the charges differently.

2007-03-16 04:13:47 · answer #5 · answered by ThePerfectStranger 6 · 0 0

I think its fine when it deals with people who do molest and rape children. It does go over the line when someone is arrested for public urination and is charged as an sex offender when there is no proof he was trying to expose himself to a child. If anything change the laws so people who keep getting arrested for molesting a child don't get out of prison. Easier than moving them around the state were they aren't near any schools.

2007-03-16 04:09:15 · answer #6 · answered by Virtual Crogs 2 · 0 0

Verifying criminal record database can really helps to find your required data online. It wont takes more than a few seconds to show any record you need. Moreover its an easy way to find out if someone has a criminal record.

Reports key features includes :
Arrest & convictions
Felonies & misdemeanor
Sex offenders
Mug shots
Criminal driving infractions
Court and probation records
And lot more.

Visit Here : http://CriminalRecords.InfoSearchDetective.com

100% Confidential & Super Fast Results!

2014-11-15 02:00:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i imagine that the list is starting to be a touch a funny tale. I actually have appeared at this list and a number of those human beings at the prompt are not even there because they commited an act that replaced into frequently even rape. a number of them are there because they have dated someone who's below 18. a number of them at the prompt are not there because of rape. Now if we are speaking about those who're infant rapers, yeah i imagine they should be positioned on. If we are speaking about adult men that date human beings below 18 (the superb line of the regulation reduce) that get charged and convicted then i do not truly imagine that they should be on the list until eventually the human beings were very youthful or the girls human beings were below say the age of 13 or soemthing like that. we've a itemizing of sex offenders. we ought to always have it seperated by ability of what forms of csc (criiminal sexual habit) that they were in contact with. infant rapers should be what the list is by and massive focussed on. little ones comprise all little ones below the age of 12 years old in my view. God Bless

2016-12-02 02:22:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I understand what you are saying, but why the heck do men feel the need to urinate in public? Women have to hold it until they find a restroom, men should too. As a mother, if my child was inadvertently exposed to some strange man's penis just because the guy couldn't wait to pee in bathroom , I would be upset.

2007-03-16 04:12:34 · answer #9 · answered by LaraSue 6 · 0 0

here what I think you would not be on that list if you did not do something to a child. what I do believe nothing is being done about sex offenders, they get probotion or something cause no one wants to testify and what happens you have sex offenders on the street. I know it happened to me and many others the system has failed us.

2007-03-16 04:09:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers