Currently all sex criminals are listed in national and local databases. They cannot be removed from that list.
They are required to give notice when and where they move their homes.
Many may not think that part is controversial...
Streakers and flashers are listed as "sex criminals" and must do the same thing.
So, someone that streaks once in college while drunk and gets caught, they will be listed as a "sex offender" for the rest of their lives.
Is that right?
To make sure everyone knows, I have not done anything like that and am not one. I just wonder about the ethics of doing all of those things.
2007-11-29 03:03:51 · 9 answers · asked by Yun 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I am all for punishing the guilty and making sure they can't do something to someone ever again (which is why I would say that rape should be a capital offense).
I have to wonder about the justice of keeping people on a list of offenders for the rest of their lives. If they have served the time mandated by a jury of their peers, should we continue to punish them?
The justice system says that they've paid for their crime, but we keep them paying by making them state to all employers or register as a criminal.
Is that right?
2007-11-29 03:13:46 · update #1
I am not saying something about the person being drunk and not responsible.
I am asking if someone streaking should be put in the same classification as someone committing rape.
2007-11-29 03:24:45 · update #2
This is just one of the many laws that needs a revision with consideration to threat level of the act.
2007-11-29 13:34:19 · answer #1 · answered by sftbllr4lf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference between the mildest and most severe forms of what is considered "sex offenses" is absolutely massive.
Peeing in a dark alley vs. rape? Come on. I've urinated in "public" many times, but I don't think I'm a sex offender. It's absurd.
Another thing that happens is that people feel the need to find out where every sex offender in their neighborhood lives. They're all believed to be criminals and predators, when in reality, a lot of them probably never did anything bad to another person. It fosters a lot of unnecessary fear and distrust.
2007-11-29 03:08:52 · answer #2 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Here in Texas, a first conviction for indecent exposure will not get you on the registry, however, a second conviction will. It is for a period of ten years, not life.
However, any "Sexually violent crime" requires lifetime registration on a first adjudication (including deferred adjudication). This is fine with me, except that it includes a lot of statutory rape cases, e.g. a 20 year old with a horny 16 year old girl, where there was in fact no violence.
Tough issue.
2007-11-29 03:11:47 · answer #3 · answered by LoneStar 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The list should be for rapists, not statutory but real rapists. A 16 yr old has consensual sex with a 14 yr old and gets charged with statutory rape and is on the list. I dont advocate such relations but come on, it isnt the same as a forced rape by any means nor is streaking.
2007-11-29 03:07:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would answer your question, but some of the "factual" basis is wrong.
"They cannot be removed from that list", a registered sex offender can petion the court to have his/her name removed from the sex offenders registry (at least in my state). This is almost always granted in cases such as you mention (streakers etc).
Can't agree with your opinion that a "flasher" shouldn't be listed as a "sex criminal". Most stranger-rapists I have investigated have flashing/weanie wagging/indecent exposure histories.
2007-11-29 05:14:35 · answer #5 · answered by lpdhcdh 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One can not pick and choose who is on the list. Streakers in college are lumped with streakers that hit kindergarden recess. Just cause it is done in college and drunk doesnt mean that the perosn doesnt have it in them to do it to kids, in fact, they are more at risk. You have to understand that a crime is a crime, and it will be lumped together. If you do it, your on the list. Its too easy to stay off said list, and you will be checking that list to tell your kids what house to watch out for...
2007-11-29 03:20:10 · answer #6 · answered by cheechalini 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is right. Otherwise everyone will get the idea that one is not responsible for one's action because of being in a drunken state. There seem be no reduction in such offenses though the world seem to get better in educational ventures. And we have all along thought that will make man better. It has failed.
2007-11-29 03:21:22 · answer #7 · answered by wisma29 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sexual deviants are not going through phases. They do not commit their crimes out of necessity. They have a lifelong mental issue that will not be cured. All citizens deserved to be protected.
2007-11-29 03:21:16 · answer #8 · answered by California Street Cop 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, Sexual predators should be tracked, not streakers and those who urinate in public.
2007-11-29 03:07:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋