Sex offender? No World of Warcraft for you!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
We can start very simply and easily by abolishing pre-crime and non-crime where no person or property is harmed

I can generally agree to this.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
and ending nonsense like registries and complete atrocities like capitol punishment.

I'm also anti-capital punishment...and while I support the sex offender registry concept, I have no problem with limiting the duration of the registration process and reconsidering what crimes make your registration a requirement.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Registries are abhorrent.

I think most parents of small children would disagree with you.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The debt is paid isnt it?

That is a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If we dont really want them to return to society then why arent we just honest about and lock them all up for life?

So making someone register is too harsh, but locking them up for life isn't?

Odd logic.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I am in full support of tearing this mess of a "justice" system down and starting over.

I'm not a revolutionary.

Guess we wont fully agree here.

Should the concerns mentioned here be fixed? Certainly. But none are justification to give these scum a pass imo.

Originally posted by loam

I think most parents of small children would disagree with you.

Apparently they do. Why do they?

A registry of offenders, much like a registry of guns, cannot do anything to protect their children.

The absolute best a registry can do is give investigators a potential starting point assuming no other evidence exists.

I often wonder, when the news shows a story of a missing child, how much time is wasted by police knocking on every offenders door in the tri-state area while the actual perpetrator is taking his time doing whatever it is he does.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by loam

I think most parents of small children would disagree with you.

Apparently they do. Why do they?

A registry of offenders, much like a registry of guns, cannot do anything to protect their children.

The absolute best a registry can do is give investigators a potential starting point assuming no other evidence exists.

I often wonder, when the news shows a story of a missing child, how much time is wasted by police knocking on every offenders door in the tri-state area while the actual perpetrator is taking his time doing whatever it is he does.

It is extremely hard to argue with that logic. Registry's would seem to be relevant for situations like if your moving to a new neighborhood and had children, you would want to know if you were moving next door to a convicted child molester but I don't know how many other practical scenarios I can come up with.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Apparently they do. Why do they?

Notice is better than nothing imo.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I often wonder, when the news shows a story of a missing child, how much time is wasted by police knocking on every offenders door in the tri-state area while the actual perpetrator is taking his time doing whatever it is he does.

That's your argument against registries?

reply to post by Helious

Originally posted by Helious
Registry's would seem to be relevant for situations like if your moving to a new neighborhood and had children, you would want to know if you were moving next door to a convicted child molester but I don't know how many other practical scenarios I can come up with.

That one is good enough all by itself.

Whether you buy or rent, neither is a small life event and both keep you in place for some period of time.

As a parent, I want to know where these guys are. Plain and simple.

reply to post by loam


No. My argument against registries gets into human rights.

I'm just wondering what good they are to begin with.

Show me how a registry will keep my kids safe?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


See my previous post.

You're about to plunk down your hard earned cash on a place to live. Two choices. One with a Sex Offender living a few doors away...another without.

What choice will you be making?

reply to post by loam


That doesnt illustrate safety unless we are to assume recidivism is a guarantee. If it is then why are they not still in prison?

At best that just a scheme to manipulate property values.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Safety and diminished risk are two different concepts.

I should have a right to choose the latter in pursuit of the former within reasonable limits.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
At best that just a scheme to manipulate property values.

Or properly value them.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Safety and diminished risk are two different concepts.

I should have a right to choose the latter in pursuit of the former within reasonable limits.

If that's what you want then you should lock your kids away from friends and family. Only about 10% of assaults of children are done by strangers.

Statistically you are a greater threat to your kids than any other random out there. Even one who is on the registry.

There is evidence that housing restrictions make the alleged problem much worse forcing registered offenders to stay off the registry just so they can have a place to live.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Only about 10% of assaults of children are done by strangers.

No doubt. But the fact of one peril does not eliminate the need to ward against other perils.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
There is evidence that housing restrictions make the alleged problem much worse forcing registered offenders to stay off the registry just so they can have a place to live.

Not sure what you're saying here.

-More ridiculous regulation.

here is an idea- Watch your kids online. Young children shouldnt be playing these games regardless- And AOC ( a game mentioned) contains nudity and graphic violence and is hardly the virtual playground of "children".
The average age of a gamer is now in the 30s - Time we place som e responsibility on parents to police their own children's activities - Online or other.

saying 99% of the people on the list belong there is just dumb. lemme give you a little story involving a close friend of mine.

the year is 2008 we were juniors in highschool, my friend is 17 and his girlfriend at the time is couple months from being 16. her parents are right wing religious nuts who think their daughter shouldn't even look at guys, they find out that my friends turning 18 soon and decide that they want to ruin his life. the day that he turned 18 they called the cops on him and told them that he was brainwashing and raping their daughter so the police did what they were told and arrested him. he is now 21 and is engaged to the girl yet he is still considered a child sex offender and will likely never get a decent job for the rest of his life.

does this seem fair? obviously not. the law is broken but nobody wants to fix it because it would be too much trouble for them. There are stories like this all across the country. Did you know that if a 15 year old girl texts a nude picture of herself she will forever be considered a sex offender?

Originally posted by loam

Not sure what you're saying here.

The registries, accompanied by housing limitations for those on said registries, have inadvertently given rise to a culture of deception and intentional registry avoidance that brings in issues such as fraud, identity theft, tax avoidance, participation in black market income generation.

So some guy who may otherwise be harmless and "law-abiding" gets hit with some statutory charge, put on the registry, now cannot find work or housing actually sees incentives in illicit activity that wouldnt exist if it werent for the registry.

Just as sending some pot smoker to prison will make a meaner criminal sticking folks on a registry does likewise.

In this misguided attempt to make our kids "safe" we contribute to an unsafe environment for all.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


No doubt.

But don't keep me in the dark about what information I may consider as a parent.

When choosing a place to live, I want to know if one of these guys lives next door.

reply to post by MastaShake


Still the 1%.

Is your example just? No.

And while I say fix that, I don't think that means the rest is meaningless.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

No doubt.

But don't keep me in the dark about what information I may consider as a parent.

When choosing a place to live, I want to know if one of these guys lives next door.

-Sure =)

My comment was only regarding allowing them to play WOW (and other MMO's)- The "registration" I agree with but think there needs to be actual details of what their "crime" was.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The registries, accompanied by housing limitations for those on said registries, have inadvertently given rise to a culture of deception and intentional registry avoidance that brings in issues such as fraud, identity theft, tax avoidance, participation in black market income generation.

Hogwash.

I've been following this subject closely since the introduction of Megan's law and long before it had any actual impact on the housing issue for offenders.

The culture you describe above was alive and well long before the registries...

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
So some guy who may otherwise be harmless and "law-abiding" gets hit with some statutory charge, put on the registry, now cannot find work or housing actually sees incentives in illicit activity that wouldnt exist if it werent for the registry.

Just as sending some pot smoker to prison will make a meaner criminal sticking folks on a registry does likewise.

Issues I support addressing......without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
The "registration" I agree with but think there needs to be actual details of what their "crime" was.

It differs in each state, but most do identify the offense.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
The "registration" I agree with but think there needs to be actual details of what their "crime" was.

It differs in each state, but most do identify the offense.

Yeah, not here. I looked it up a few times and it was very, very vague. There is a huge difference between a forcible rape (or true molestation) versus a statutory offence when one teenager is branded a sex offender for having consensual sex with another teenager.

There was recently (last year) some charges against a girl who texted some nude pics- She was charged with distributing child porn and the receivers were charged with possessing it. These were all high school kids.

BUT, if it was properly implemented here and gave real valid information- I am all for it. I no longer have kids living at home as they are grown and I still would avoid living next to a person like that for a variety of reasons.