|
|
Forum: Polls
Thread (Discussion): Poll 1036 - Would you like the United States government to implement a national sex offender registry? - yes...
Message 127095
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Feb 09, 2004 10:50 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss Poll 1036 - Would you like the United States government to implement a national sex offender registry?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 127151 (In Reply to Message 127095)
What is a "National Registry"?
Posted by orolan
on Feb 11, 2004 02:24 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
If by National Registry we speak simply of a computer database, possibly linked to NCIC, that contains the name, address, physical description and criminal history of all sex offenders, that isn't too bad. But if that database is to be made available to the public via the Internet, some change is in order.
1) All city, county, state and private registries should be shut down.
2) No linking on other pages where a Zip Code is entered and you are taken directly to the offenders in that area. Links can only go to the main index page.
3) IP address verification to prove the person requesting the search is at least in the general geographic area of the search. Persons desiring info who are moving can ask for permission to search an area they don't live in or near after providing some form of validation.
4) As originally intended in the Wetterling Act and the Megan's Law amendment to that Act, only those offenders who are dangerous are to be registered. Violent offenders, multiple or repeat offenders, or those who have committed penetration acts (no matter how slight) against children under age 13) are automatically registered. All others are to be afforded an appealable hearing to determine that they are dangerous. The burden of proof will be on the state to prove dangerousness, and a conviction in and of itself will not meet the standard of proof. "Reasonable doubt" will govern, rather than the civil "preponderance of the evidence".
5) Registration of all probationers, parolees and others on some form of conditional release will be at the discretion of the various states, but shall only apply while the offender is under supervision. After supervision is completed, #4 governs.
6) A standardized form will be developed so all states report the same information in the same manner.
7) An offender's "residence" will be determined as the address on the person's DL or state ID card. Every registered offender will possess one or the other, and will obey the laws of the issuing state as to renewal and address changes.
8) The offender will verify their address annually, at the law enforcement agency of their choice. This agency need not be in the offender's home state, but the registration data will include the location of last verification and the offender will appear in any search of the Zip Code where he/she completed the verification.
9) Registration will be for life unless the offender receives a full pardon or expungement.
Shouldn't be any burden on the states that they don't already have. In fact, it will be less since they don't have to maintain a website or database of their own.
Thoughts?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127095)
Message 127248 (In Reply to Message 127151)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Feb 12, 2004 06:55 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
I agree with everything Orolan says.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127151)
Message 127369 (In Reply to Message 127151)
Orolan
Posted by dp1
on Feb 15, 2004 04:27 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
What's the deal with your number 2 & 3? Why the restrictions?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127151)
Message 127410 (In Reply to Message 127151)
Why should it be limited to sex offenders?
Posted by Navigatr1
on Feb 16, 2004 11:01 AM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Why should it be limited to sex offenders? Why not open up the whole NCIC database to anyone who wants to access it. I think this is the only fair way to implement a registry if we are going to have trial by registry. You could look up politicians running for office, those already in office, police officers, or anyone else in public service to see what they have been convicted of. People can then make a more informed decision on who they want to vote into office.
The tabloids would sure love full access to the NCIC database. But hey, it's for the protection of the public. No one has a right to privacy -- especially when it comes to public safety.
--Navigatr1
CopWatch.com News Moderator
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127151)
Message 127424 (In Reply to Message 127410)
Don't be absurd
Posted by marta
on Feb 17, 2004 12:55 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Sure, Navigatr, but if we're going to do that, then EVERY sex offender is going to be on the registry, including the 28 year old who has "consensual" sex with the 15 year old. If you get to expose your local politician for tax fraud, I get to see that my neighbor's husband has a serious problem with his peni. . . ., um- I meant, ego, should not be trusted to be alone with my daughters for even a second, and should be viewed with distrust and contempt by everyone in my family.
Sounds great! Let's lobby Congress now.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127410)
Message 127431 (In Reply to Message 127369)
2 & 3
Posted by orolan
on Feb 17, 2004 02:06 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The "deal" is that the SO's that live in your area, for an example, are on a registry to protect the public in your area. Right? After all, the folks in Seattle couldn't care less where John Q. Molester in Tampa lives or what he did and to whom. Ditto anybody in Nepal, Romania or Iceland. So limit the access to those who need it, which is the people in that same area. A person living in Australia reading my info on the Net is invading my privacy with absolutely NO justification whatsoever.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127369)
Message 127432 (In Reply to Message 127410)
NCIC
Posted by orolan
on Feb 17, 2004 02:09 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Why not open up the whole NCIC database
Unless I have missed something, NCIC contains data on persons with outstanding warrants, escapees, John Doe dead bodies, and most missing persons.
Conviction records for everybody are not on it. At least not according to the FBI.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127410)
Message 127433 (In Reply to Message 127424)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 17, 2004 02:12 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I wouldn't have a problem with the "marginal" sex offenders being on a registry if that same registry also included every other person in the country who had ever committed a crime of any sort or magnitude. At least the field would be level.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127424)
Message 127435 (In Reply to Message 127431)
Posted by steve
on Feb 17, 2004 03:16 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
On the flipside, is there really much to be gained by limiting access to those who live close to the registered offender? I doubt many from far away have an interest so what does barring them from accessing the records accomplish? Also, limiting access in this way would prevent people with legitimate interests in the information from getting it - parents, children and offenders are mobile.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127431)
Message 127440 (In Reply to Message 127431)
That's Ridiculous
Posted by dp1
on Feb 17, 2004 06:19 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
So if I was single looking for a date and found you on AOL, chatted and agreed to meet with you, then I wouldn't be able to look you up on the registry unless we were in the same state? That's outrageous. Inquiring minds have a need to know.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127431)
Message 127441 (In Reply to Message 127432)
NCIC
Posted by dp1
on Feb 17, 2004 06:24 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
It's not 100% accurate but it's the best we got. Not all 50 states contribute, yet, and not all dispositions are listed. But it sure does tell a lot....more than the average citizen would like it to I'm sure.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127432)
Message 127477 (In Reply to Message 127410)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Feb 17, 2004 03:39 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"Why should it be limited to sex offenders? Why not open up the whole NCIC database to anyone who wants to access it."
I agree. When I see the state represenative here this week thats what I'm going to ask him. Look at the Carli case and you'll see that these multiple repeat criminals are far more dangerous and likely to reoffend then some "romeo" from 30 years ago.
I want ALL felons on the registry.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127410)
Message 127478 (In Reply to Message 127424)
Marta question
Posted by Silverthorne
on Feb 17, 2004 03:40 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"Sure, Navigatr, but if we're going to do that, then EVERY sex offender is going to be on the registry, including the 28 year old who has "consensual" sex with the 15 year old. "
I can't think of a state where this type of sexual assault is NOT on the registry already? Do you have a specific example of one?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127424)
Message 127488 (In Reply to Message 127433)
Mimic
Posted by marta
on Feb 18, 2004 01:55 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I wouldn't have a problem with the "marginal" sex offenders being on a registry if that same registry also included every other person in the country who had ever committed a crime of any sort or magnitude. At least the field would be level.
Neither would I. I thought I was clear, but I guess not. To clarify: not only would I not have a problem with all criminals being placed on a registry, I am quite enthusiastic about it. We should make it law tomorrow. If it were broadly publicized, with the appropriate after-school specials and P.S.A.s, perhaps it would have a deterent effect and crime rates would spiral. At the very least, I could stear clear of the criminals and riffraff that, for chrissakes, can't manage to get it together enough to be good citizens.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127433)
Message 127517 (In Reply to Message 127435)
Steve
Posted by orolan
on Feb 18, 2004 07:47 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I doubt many from far away have an interest so what does barring them from accessing the records accomplish?
If they have no interest, why give them access? Quid pro quo.
prevent people with legitimate interests
Not hardly. The people with a legitimate interest are the people in the SO's area that want to protect themselves or their children. I'm not advocating they be barred access.
parents, children and offenders are mobile
So if I take a trip to San Francisco and hang out at the playground one afternoon it will be a matter of a few keystrokes and a parent who saw me will know I am an SO and not take their kid back the next day? With no idea what my name is or where I live they would spend the next 6 months looking at faces and wouldn't even touch the tip of the iceberg, considering the number of RSO's who aren't listed because they aren't Level 2 or 3 offenders.
Or maybe it's the parents and kids traveling? Plan out the trip, then sit down and print out flyers for every SO within x miles of every hotel, motel, amusement park or other attraction they plan on spending more than 5 minutes at? Perhaps the yonly need to know about the neighborhood Aunt Minnie lives in? Well then, Aunt Minnie can get it for them.
Sorry, but I still see no justification for worldwide "public notification".
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127435)
Message 127518 (In Reply to Message 127440)
DP1
Posted by orolan
on Feb 18, 2004 07:53 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
If you would agree to a face-to-face meeting with a total stranger from another state that you met in an AOL chat room, you're not too bright in the head. And if you decided he was a safe person to be with simply because his smiling face or name aren't on a registry, you've really gone off the deep end.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127440)
Message 127519 (In Reply to Message 127488)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 18, 2004 08:14 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
At the very least, I could stear clear of the criminals and riffraff that, for chrissakes, can't manage to get it together enough to be good citizens.
Right. Until you inadvertantly bounce a check and find yourself on that after-school special. Then your outrage will begin.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127488)
Message 127520 (In Reply to Message 127477)
Silver
Posted by orolan
on Feb 18, 2004 08:18 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Don't limit it to felons. Most states don't make DUI a felony until the 4th or 5th offense.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127477)
Message 127521 (In Reply to Message 127517)
Posted by steve
on Feb 18, 2004 08:25 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
If they have no interest, why give them access? Quid pro quo.
I said I doubt many have an interest. I didn't say none do. I'll give you some examples below. I'm still interested in an answer to my original question.
The people with a legitimate interest are the people in the SO's area that want to protect themselves or their children. I'm not advocating they be barred access.
Like I said, people are mobile.
Susie is organizing a family reunion. She has a list of names of distant relatives from out of state. She wants to know if any are registered sex offenders.
Billy and his friends play at the park. Billy tells his mom that a man has been there several days and a row and has been acting strange. Billy points him out to his mom. They live 40 miles from the state line and Billy's mom wants to see if he's listed as a registered sex offender on any of the county sites in the bordering state.
Linda met a man over the Internet. She hasn't met him yet and he lives in a bordering state. She wants to know if he's a registered sex offender.
Fred's ex-wife moved out of state. She has custody of the kids this summer. Fred wants to know if any registered sex offenders live in her apartment complex.
The Smiths are planning on renting a beach house this summer for their family. They're looking in an area that's a mix of year-round tenants and summer rentals. They want to know if any registered sex offenders live close to any of the units on their short list.
Gina wants to take guitar lessons. There are a few music shops in town that give private lesson's. Gina's dad has gotten names of some of the instructors. It's a medium sized city surrounded by a number of rural counties and a lot of workers in the city commute from rural areas. Gina's dad wants to check the county sheriff sites to see if any are registered sex offenders.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127517)
Message 127522 (In Reply to Message 127518)
Just An Example
Posted by dp1
on Feb 18, 2004 08:28 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
When people first start dating they are strangers no matter what the circumstances. My point is that if you meet someone from outside of your area regardless of the location you should have access to that information. People are mobile and meet strangers every day. Restricting access to public information is pointless no matter how you look at it in my opinion.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127518)
Message 127538 (In Reply to Message 127519)
Hysteria, all right, but yours, not mine.
Posted by marta
on Feb 19, 2004 01:40 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Right. Until you inadvertantly bounce a check and find yourself on that after-school special. Then your outrage will begin.
Bouncing a check is not a crime in my state: I would not be on a registry. IF bouncing a check became a crime in my state, OR if bouncing a check became a registerable act, you can rest assured that I would not bounce my THIRD check.
If bouncing a check was a registerable offense and I somehow managed to bounce one anyway, I'd be sheepish and embarassed, but NOT THAT MUCH, because I know the rough estimation most people have of this offense. If it and like information were used when I went to apply for a job, for school, or for a house . . . oh, wait, that kind of stuff IS used to screen out high risk individuals. I guess I'd better be careful about my finances, lest I become an pariah in the game of property and economics.
Why oh why can't some people manage to do this where their genitals are concerned?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127519)
Message 127547 (In Reply to Message 127410)
DUI death fueling calls for database
Posted by Navigatr1
on Feb 19, 2004 09:58 AM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Posted on Wed, Feb. 18, 2004
SAFETY
DUI death fueling calls for database
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/7977325.htm
By ROBIN FITZGERALD
GULFPORT - DUI fatality arrest
James T. Thomas Sr., 43, of Gulfport, remains in custody on charges resulting from the death of his daughter, Jade. The 9-year-old died in a crash Saturday night in Lafourche Parish, La. Details:
Charges: 10th offense driving while under the influence with child endangerment, negligent homicide, negligent injuring, driving with a suspended license and improper lane usage.
Detention: Bond at Lafourche Parish jail in Thibodaux, La., set at $350,000. However, he's being held without bond on a probation violation involving a drunken driving conviction.
- LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
A national registry could help identify repeat offenders such as a Gulfport man suspected of being intoxicated in a crash that killed his 9-year-old daughter.
Authorities believe that James T. Thomas Sr. has at least 11 drunken driving convictions in several states including Mississippi. Police, prosecutors and judges had no way of knowing about the other charges until Thomas wrecked his vehicle Saturday night in Lafourche Parish, La., killing his daughter, Jade, and injuring his 8-year-old son.
The FBI maintains a criminal records database for law enforcement agencies. However, the system, known as the National Crime Information Center, or NCIC, is used primarily in apprehending fugitives, locating missing persons and stolen property. NCIC is not a repository for lower-level charges, such as DUIs, which are classified as misdemeanors.
Police and public safety groups support the creation of a national database for DUIs, saying it would identify habitual offenders and lead to stiffer penalties.
On the other hand, states are reeling over federal intervention that threatens to withhold highway funding for those that don't lower their legal blood alcohol limit to .08 percent, said Beau Gex, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor.
Taylor was out of the country on business Tuesday.
"A national registry is a good idea," Gex said, "but unless all 50 states agreed to participate, it would be less effective. You would have to set standards and define how far back it would go."
U.S. Sen. Trent Lott and his spokesperson did not return calls for comment.
Police rely on state drivers' records and phone calls to other law enforcement agencies to identify prior DUI charges. In Mississippi, a third DUI arrest following two convictions in five years is a felony. In Louisiana, a third offense in a 10-year period is a felony.
In New Mexico, even the public has access to a statewide online drunken driver registry. The registry, unveiled in 2003, is similar to a sex offender registry, but drivers aren't required to register. DUI arrests and convictions are updated nightly, with records dating back to the 1970s.
New Mexico's system took three years to compile at a cost of $155,600, according to The Albuquerque Journal.
"A central repository for DUIs is the future of law enforcement," Barnes said. "We've got to be able to tap into other state's records."
Mothers Against Drunk Driving supports the idea of a national database to include records from arrest to disposition in court. It's only a matter of time before it's a reality, said Wendy Hamilton, MADD's national executive director.
"We've got to get a better handle on these individuals who drive drunk," she said. "It needs to be looked at seriously in every state, and some states need to do a better job at their own tracking. With technology, there's no reason why we can't make these records available nationwide. It's very frustrating for police and prosecutors. It could save lives."
Robin Fitzgerald can be reached at 896-2307 or at rfitzgerald@sunherald.com.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127410)
Message 127552 (In Reply to Message 127521)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 19, 2004 03:58 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I'm still interested in an answer to my original question
You actually had two, so I'll hit them both.
On the flipside, is there really much to be gained by limiting access to those who live close to the registered offender?
From my point of view protection of my privacy is "much". I just haven't seen where worlwide unlimited access to SO registries has a legitimate use that is more compelling than my privacy protection.
I doubt many from far away have an interest so what does barring them from accessing the records accomplish?
See above. And since there is a one in a billion chance that some lady in Nepal may want to peruse the SO database for my city we have to give her that right?
Susie is organizing a family reunion
So how about if Susie asks Aunt Minnie? And since many families may not have an Aunt Minnie who knows all the dirt on everybody, how about if Susie does something really radical and chooses family members she knows and trusts to take care of the kids during the reunion? Better than assuming that every attendee is an acceptable babysitter simply because their smiling face isn't on a registry, isn't it?
Billy and his friends play at the park
I assume Billy's Mom already checked out the registry for her own area and didn't find him there? So what's wrong with giving the local PD a call and asking them to check out a suspicious character hanging around the park? Far more effective since they can find out if he's an SO regardless of his registration status, isn't it?
Linda met a man over the Internet
All I have to say is that if registries exist so people can do idiotic things like this, we're in big trouble.
Fred's ex-wife moved out of state
For one, I would hope that she had the presence of mind to check the neighborhood out before setting up the summer visitation. So what's wrong with Fred simply asking her?
The Smiths are planning on renting a beach house
And the Smith's can quite easily ask the rental agency about SO's in the area. You can bet they know.
Gina wants to take guitar lessons
So what ever happened to checking references? If I call the references and get parents telling me "He's a good teacher, but he couldn't keep his hands off little Amy", do you think I'm going to hire him?
Every scenario you gave can quite easily and sometimes more effectively be handled without unlimited worldwide access to registries. In fact, the reliance on the registries in these scenarios is actually a false sense of security. An opinion that if a person isn't on the registry they must be safe is quite irresponsible if you ask me.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127521)
Message 127554 (In Reply to Message 127522)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 19, 2004 04:09 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Restricting access to public information is pointless no matter how you look at it in my opinion.
That's a pipedream.
Suppose I run a search in any area code for everybody named Smith. Suppose I then scroll through the list and pick one at random. Suppose I then call the police station in that area and give them the guy's name and address. Suppose I tell them I live 8 states away, and I just want to know if this guy has a criminal record and if so, for what. And of course they'll be more than happy to oblige, if I'll just get a pencil and paper and write it down. Right?
Wrong. The whole scenario will come to a screeching halt when I call the police station.
Criminal records are public information. But there is no free and unrestricted access to them.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127522)
Message 127557 (In Reply to Message 127538)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 19, 2004 04:20 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
So you would be embarrassed, and life goes on.
No big deal, except that for the rest of your life your name, photograph, address, phone number, vehicle make, model and license number and place of employment, all duly updated at least annually and for a nominal $50 required fee, are on the Net for anybody and everybody to read.
Some of us care a little more about our privacy.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127538)
Message 127558 (In Reply to Message 127547)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 19, 2004 04:23 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
"A national registry is a good idea," Gex said, "but unless all 50 states agreed to participate, it would be less effective. You would have to set standards and define how far back it would go."
Funny that nobody said this about the Wetterling Act or the Megan's Law amendment to that Act.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127547)
Message 127578 (In Reply to Message 127547)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Feb 20, 2004 05:36 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"In New Mexico, even the public has access to a statewide online drunken driver registry. The registry, unveiled in 2003, is similar to a sex offender registry, but drivers aren't required to register. DUI arrests and convictions are updated nightly, with records dating back to the 1970s. "
"Dont have to register???".
Oh I just bet the drunk drivers are lining up to register when they dont have to. Nice of them to put a registry with no teeth ...... UNLIKE the SO registry where failing to register is a felony.........
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127547)
Message 127585 (In Reply to Message 127557)
Yeah right!
Posted by marta
on Feb 20, 2004 03:49 PM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Some of us care a little more about our privacy.
First of all, the registries I've seen do not list the offender's phone number, vehicle information, or place of employment. Are you exaggerating for rhetorical effect, or does your state have some sort of super registry?
Second of all, even if just your name and photo were listed, anyone who wanted to find out the rest of the provided info by themselves could do so with little effort.
And last of all, I'm sure your extreme concern about your privacy has nothing to do with the fact that your picture and name are attached to the words "sex offender." Pul-leez.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127557)
Message 127590 (In Reply to Message 127585)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 20, 2004 07:53 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Are you exaggerating for rhetorical effect
Here's something from New Jersey:
"...the offender's age, race, sex, date of birth, height, weight, hair, eye color and any distinguishing scars or tattoos; a photograph of the offender and the date on which the photograph was entered into the registry; and the make, model, color, year and license plate number of any vehicle operated by the offender"
Don't have time to find the rest, but Georgia takes employment information. Perhaps the phone numbers aren't given. But just wait. They'll do that next.
And last of all, I'm sure your extreme concern about your privacy has nothing to do with the fact that your picture and name are attached to the words "sex offender." Pul-leez.
And your obvious indifference to privacy concerns is due strictly to the fact that yours isn't being invaded? Pul-leez
The information about moderate and high risk sex offenders which is authorized for disclosure in this web site includes: the offender's name and address, any aliases used by the offender; any Megan's Law sex offenses committed by the offender, including a brief description and the date and location of disposition of any such offense; a general description of the offender's modus operandi, if any; the determination of whether the risk of re-offense by the offender is moderate or high; the offender's age, race, sex, date of birth, height, weight, hair, eye color and any distinguishing scars or tattoos; a photograph of the offender and the date on which the photograph was entered into the registry; and the make, model, color, year and license plate number of any vehicle operated by the offender.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127585)
Message 127606 (In Reply to Message 127590)
Oversimplifying
Posted by marta
on Feb 21, 2004 01:43 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
And your obvious indifference to privacy concerns is due strictly to the fact that yours isn't being invaded? Pul-leez
People who certain offenses do not deserve absolute privacy. If I committed such an offense, the same would be true of me. My obvious indifference to such privacy concerns is due to the fact that I am 100% sure that I will never commit such an offense. I would never so disregard my place in the community. I would likewise never dismiss the protections the community affords me as a law-abiding citizen. I recognize that my privacy comes at a price of not being able to do whatever I want (i.e. break the law). I am especially conscientious about making sure I know what the law is before I take action, ESPECIALLY where the potential consequences are huge.
Incidentally, I've said before that, if your offense was strictly as you described it, I don't believe you should be on a registry at all. That does not, however, change the fact that registries could be useful where other offenders are concerned. That, or locking them up forever. They can choose between liberty and privacy.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127590)
Message 127622 (In Reply to Message 127606)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 21, 2004 03:57 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I am 100% sure that I will never commit such an offense.
Glad you feel that way, but that isn't the same as being charged with an offense. Remember, you have only to be accused.
As a female, the odds are very good that this will never happen to you.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127606)
Message 127664 (In Reply to Message 127622)
The poor caste of those cursed with penises
Posted by marta
on Feb 22, 2004 07:40 PM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Glad you feel that way, but that isn't the same as being charged with an offense. Remember, you have only to be accused.
As a female, the odds are very good that this will never happen to you.
You're more like H.Pierce than I thought.
You know, my boyfriend will NEVER be accused of a violent/sex crime. None of my boyfriends male friends will EVER be accused of such a crime. Likewise, my father has managed to make it through 50 years without being accused of a crime. And I am 100% confident that my son will NEVER be accused of such a crime. All of these persons cursed with penises have exactly a ZERO percent change of being accused of such a crime. Hmmm, can't be the vagina then, can it???? In fact there are all these people without vaginas walking around who have not been accused of such crimes. How can that possibly be?
I'd suggest you re-evaluate your thesis.
You know what's common to all of these men? They allow themselves to be beholden to women as much as women are beholden to them. I humbly suggest that you, H.Pierce, and most men convicted of sex crimes, have no idea what this really means.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127622)
Message 127719 (In Reply to Message 127664)
Posted by orolan
on Feb 24, 2004 12:07 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
And you are so naive that it is pathetic. The only way you can guarantee 100% that none of these men will ever be accused of any sort of sexual offense is if you kill them. Nothing in this world is 100%.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127664)
Message 127727 (In Reply to Message 127719)
Posted by marta
on Feb 24, 2004 02:19 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
And you are so naive that it is pathetic.
And your perspective is so obviously the product of bad parenting that you'd make a great poster-child for birth control.
Now that we're both done with our insults, let's talk probability.
The only way you can guarantee 100% that none of these men will ever be accused of any sort of sexual offense is if you kill them. Nothing in this world is 100%.
It is not true that nothing in this world is 100%. If I shot an fully operational 45 directly at my pinky toe at point blank range, there is a 100% chance that I will no longer have the pinky toe I once had. When you said that nothing in this world is 100%, you meant that a.) given what we're talking about, there's always a possibility that I could be wrong, and b.) I can't predict the future. I agree. My boyfriend or father being accused of a sex offense is possible, just like it's possible, if I flip a fair coin 1000 times, it will come up heads 1000 times in a row.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127719)
Message 127820 (In Reply to Message 127095)
I realy feal this should be done!!!
Posted by twisted420
on Feb 27, 2004 09:37 PM | Also by twisted420
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
i was raped a few years ago buy a very bad man but they would not proove the saverity of the who ordeal so he only got sex with a minor. I want to see this terrable man go to justice. I want him to hve to regester as a sex crimanal so others will know that he is and what he has done. So they can be informed and now to keep their young daughters away from him.
I think it would be better if people knew so then he wont do it again and it will make it more dificult if people knew for him to ever commite this hanus act again.
I know he has move out of state recently but now I think he should have to regester there as well because the people kneed to know So they can protect their children from him.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127095)
Message 128819 (In Reply to Message 127820)
Question for Twisted
Posted by Silverthorne
on Mar 18, 2004 02:02 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
If this man raped you and was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor why isn't he registered already?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127820)
Message 132863 (In Reply to Message 127410)
Posted by scarlett
on May 07, 2004 11:12 AM | Also by scarlett
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Excellently stated navigatr
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127410)
Message 136360 (In Reply to Message 127664)
Registry - the facts, not the hype
Posted by wifey
on Jun 21, 2004 04:41 PM | Also by wifey
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I have a few things to point out here:
Marta- to Orolan: I am 100% sure that I will never commit such an offense.
You may be sure YOU wouldn't DO anything sexually inappropriate, but you can't be certain that someone ELSE might not misread or misinterpret your action(s)... then - voila! you are falsely accused!
Orolan- to Marta:Glad you feel that way, but that isn't the same as being charged with an offense. Remember, you have only to be accused. As a female, the odds are very good that this will never happen to you..
There is a common misconception that is someone is accused, they MUST have done it. Also, there is a common delusion that "I will never be accused, because I would NEVER do such a horrid thing" THINK AGAIN!
If you do any research, you will soon find that there are LARGE NUMBERS of people FALSELY ACCUSED of sex crimes. It is a position that many cannot understand until *they or a loved one* are falsely accused. Most false accusations happen during a divorce/custody/breakup. The research and facts support this assertion.
Do you realize that if you were to pat the top of the head of some cute little tyke, right in front of the mom, and she didn't like that you touched her child AT all, even in the most innocent way - guess what?
According to the law - YOU ARE A CHILD MOLESTER!
Yes, that's right! No, I'm not just being dramatic - according to CA Penal Code, you don't have to touch an 'intimate' part of the body, and it could be through clothes (even a hat) and it doesn't have to be a 'sexual' type of touch. If you touched a child AT ALL, and are accused, you are considered GUILTY. All of the government's resources will go into proving that you are a dangerous pervert.
There is NOTHING YOU CAN SAY OR DO TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST ALLEGATIONS OF THIS NATURE - even if there were 15 people there watching you (i.e., WITNESSES) the prosecution would ask each one of them if they blinked or ever looked anywhere else but at you, even for a brief second. That is, of course, ridiculous (because, of course everyone blinks), but that will be submitted as PROOF since no one was watching you every single second.... and no one can PROVE THAT YOU DIDN'T... and no one will believe a word you say, but will use every word against you - they will twist the most innocent and innocuous comment as proof of your perversion (even things you've never heard of before!).
The burden of proof is so small as to be non-existent in child molest cases. The accusation alone will convict, even if the child's story is totally inconsistent, and in many cases, the child will repeatedly state that nothing happened, but the counselors and investigators will refuse to accept that and will vigorously go after the accused, taking the child's 'non-disclosure' (adamantly stating that nothing happened) to be proof that something DID happen [that must be that 'fuzzy logic' - cause it certainly doesn't make any sense!]. Even if the physical examination also shows that there is no evidence of a crime, THAT is submitted as proof as well.
Before the flaming begins-
The stated legislative intent behind Megan's Law (and it's ilk) was to register VIOLENT PREDATORS. Now, however, there are so many people on the registry who DON'T BELONG THERE, that its purpose is thwarted. And I can't find one case where sexual abuse was averted due to the registry...
US DOJ (Bureau of Justice Statistics) study shows that most SOs (who are guilty) are within a family or close 'zone of association' (family member [uncle, grandpa] teacher, coach, neighbor, family friend, church folks, etc.). Those people are NOT on the registry simply because they haven't been caught. Those very persons, once caught, are the LOWEST RISK OF REOFFENCE (~5% - that means 95% WILL NEVER REOFFEND!). They should NOT be on the registry (even if it isn't published on the 'net, just for law enforcement).There are people on the net for ridiculous things:
-a senior in high school is on the registry because as a senior prank he mooned his ass't principal from a car window while driving away.
-a 2 1/2 year old is on the state's internal registry (OK) for kissing another toddler
-many people are on the registry (everywhere) for taking a whiz outside (public exposure even if NO ONE SEES IT is a SEX crime (according to the Supreme Court)
We have lost our way. The public is so deluded into thinking that all SOs are drooling, evil perverts who should be locked away forever, rounded up and shot, put into internment camps - but the public is so blissfully ignorant - that is, until they are personally accused...
I know that is my family's situation. Now I have a different view, and I feel obligated to share it to help dispel some of the mis- and disinformation out there.
It's true that violent felons are on a registry, but the public doesn't have access to that. I think the registry is wrong and worthless as a deterrent because 'prison' has been around a long, long time, and it hasn't deterred many people, has it? If someone is truly pathalogical, then being on a registry isn't going to stop them from doing anything. It just gives the public a false sense of security, on the one hand, and whips them further to a frenzy on the other...
How 'bout those property values, eh? How would you like to try to sell your beautiful home when there is a SO in your neighborhood & it's public info... this registry was obviously not thought out very well..
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127664)
Message 136368 (In Reply to Message 136360)
Posted by steve
on Jun 21, 2004 06:50 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
If you do any research, you will soon find that there are LARGE NUMBERS of people FALSELY ACCUSED of sex crimes. It is a position that many cannot understand until *they or a loved one* are falsely accused. Most false accusations happen during a divorce/custody/breakup. The research and facts support this assertion.
wifey, would you mind posting URLs to any relevant references or studies? I think there's only one document in the Document Library about the topic and it's a small study and it looks at it from a different angle.. False Rape Allegations
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136360)
Message 139728 (In Reply to Message 136368)
Link to the reports, studies and white papers about sex offender recidivism
Posted by wifey
on Sep 14, 2004 07:52 AM | Also by wifey
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Steve, I invite you [and everyone] to visit http://www.sohopeful.org/intl/facts/studies_whitepapers.html to access these major studies, reports and white papers by the US & Canadian governments and notable treatment professionals. The facts speak for themselves.
wifey, would you mind posting URLs to any relevant references or studies? I think there's only one document in the Document Library about the topic and it's a small study and it looks at it from a different angle.. False Rape Allegations
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136368)
Message 147544 (In Reply to Message 127432)
Heres why not to open NCIC to the general public.
Posted by kb2005
on Mar 18, 2005 09:30 PM | Also by kb2005
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Missouri,
Country: United States |
First, those people who have access to NCIC records have to go to training to learn how to use it. I seriously doubt that every john or jane doe out there is going to want to pay several hundred dollars to learn to use something they will probably use only once or twice in their lives. Also there is personnal iformation on thiat site that people could use such as drivers lic numbers, social security numbers, birthdates, and alias names, as well as physical identifiers. I don't think the general public needs to have access to this information.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127432)
Message 147548 (In Reply to Message 127552)
[quote]An opinion that if a person isn't on the registry they must be safe is quite irresponsible if
Posted by kb2005
on Mar 18, 2005 09:59 PM | Also by kb2005
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Missouri,
Country: United States |
BINGO!!!!!!!! Finally someone with a little common sense. Just last week a member of the community,( a schoolbus driver) who lives two blocks from me, was arrested for manufacturing and distributing methamphetamines to minors on the bus, supplying alcohol to minors on the bus, and for sexual misconduct towards female minors on the bus. I live in a very good neighborhood, and my boyfriend whom i live with is a sheriffs deputy. If we would have checked that bus driver on the registry he would not have been there, does that mean he is a good or nice guy? NO!!!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127552)
Message 147674 (In Reply to Message 147548)
kb2005
Posted by orolan
on Mar 20, 2005 04:23 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Thanks for that confirmation.
There are FAR more people like that bus driver than there are RSO's.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (147548)
Message 147759 (In Reply to Message 136368)
New link for studies that show recidivism is VERY LOW
Posted by wifey
on Mar 21, 2005 03:48 AM | Also by wifey
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Just wanted to update you all - the studies, reports and white papers have been moved to here: http://www.sohopeful.org/forum/
The Resource Library is open to everyone. Please take the time to visit and educate yourself.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136368)
Message 147763 (In Reply to Message 127520)
DUI/DWI Recidivism rates
Posted by wifey
on Mar 21, 2005 04:04 AM | Also by wifey
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
It is noteworthy that the recidivism rates for DUI/DWI
1st offense............................ 50%
2nd offense............................70%
3rd offense.............................90%
Either way, these people are a MAJOR danger to the public... why is there no registry for them?
What about drug dealers? What's the rate that they return to their crimes? How many children's lives have been ruined by drugs?
How about child abusers? How come they are allowed to have more children? They aren't on a PUBLIC registry? Aren't they a danger to society? Their children are citizens, and members of society?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127520)
Message 147882 (In Reply to Message 127578)
I agree, needs teeth
Posted by Navigatr1
on Mar 23, 2005 05:35 AM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Silverthorne wrote:
Oh I just bet the drunk drivers are lining up to register when they dont have to. Nice of them to put a registry with no teeth ...... UNLIKE the SO registry where failing to register is a felony.........
I agree that it needs teeth. They need to make registration mandatory. Let's give a DUI offender 10 years for failure to register like some states do. We can also encode their driver's license with the fact that are a DUI offender just like Laura Ahearn is proposing for sex offenders. The police then can stop them at random, and analyze their blood alcohol level without probable cause. The mere fact that they were convicted of a DUI would be probable cause enough.
--Navigatr1
CopWatch.com News Moderator
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127578)
Message 147926 (In Reply to Message 127095)
Posted by monkey4u
on Mar 24, 2005 04:24 AM | Also by monkey4u
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Texas,
Country: United States |
yes
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127095)
Message 159849 (In Reply to Message 127095)
yes there should
Posted by craigd
on Aug 27, 2005 08:10 AM | Also by craigd
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Indiana,
Country: United States |
I do feel that there should be a national sex offender registry established. With this registry it needs to include all sex offenders, not just the ones who are considered dangerous, repeat offenders, or predators. These are the sickest criminals in the world and they should be having there names, faces, addresssess, etc... posted on the internet and in local law enforcement agencies buildings. The crime that they committed against there victim is not justified and they should be punished for the rest of there lives. These individuals cannot be changed. They will always have that urge or that feeling come back to them at some point and time. There is not a switch that can just be flipped that will turn these type of people back into normal individuals. They committed the most horrendious crime possible and they should pay for way they done.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127095)
Message 159896 (In Reply to Message 127521)
Steve
Posted by ann018
on Aug 27, 2005 10:14 PM | Also by ann018
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
With all of the examples you just gave, why would they also not want to know about people convicted of DUI's in Aunt Minnie's neighborhood, or the drug pusher, or the parent that has abused their children, or the young adult arrested and convicted of burglary, etc.
The original intent of Megan's Law, the Jacob Wetterling Act, etc. have been blown so far out of proportion and has now moved 180 degrees from it's original intent.
I cannot even begin to understand the 2500-foot proximity laws they are putting in place under the guise of the Jessica Lunsford Act. Unless, Jessica’s home was in front of a school bus stop, library, park, etc., which I cannot say it was since that has never been reported, had the 2500-foot law been in place it is probably the only one John Couey would not have been guilty of breaking. The same would apply to the man that murdered Sarah Lund.
I support everything that Orolan wrote in this thread. It is a common sense approach, not a feel good approach and would certainly be much more doable for the PO's and LE's. However, with that said I also feel it should apply to all felony convictions and not single out SO's alone...a repeat offender is a repeat offender regardless of the crime.
I hope I am alive long enough to see the mountain currently being built come tumbling down.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127521)
Message 159897 (In Reply to Message 147548)
kb2005
Posted by ann018
on Aug 27, 2005 10:27 PM | Also by ann018
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I agree with your post. However, it begs the question if he had not committed sexual misconduct wouldn't a parent still want to know what his crimes were? They involved our children for goodness sakes. Society has suddenly taken the approach that only an SO can hurt our children and put every other danger they face out there on the back burner. We want to give almost every other crime the benefit of the doubt, except someone who falls under one of the many crimes that can now have you convicted as an SO. If someone molests a child I agree with the full-punishment that can be given. However, there are a fair number of SO's that never touched a child, yet they are treated exactly the same.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (147548)
Message 159899 (In Reply to Message 127664)
Marta
Posted by ann018
on Aug 27, 2005 10:54 PM | Also by ann018
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
When I was your age I never would have thought my son would be an SO at the ripe old age of 23, but he is. He has not touched or molested a child or adult. However, with the Internet such as it is he did become involved with adult pornography around age 15. With the adult came child pornography. I know you are probably a good parent and I am not sitting in judgment (one large lesson I learned over the last 20 months), just as I was. I kept close tabs on my kids, knew their friends, where they were at all times. If they didn't follow the rules there was a consequence. Neither, son ever got into drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes. These were they types of things I knew to warn them about. Child porn never hit my radar. When I found the adult porn he had on a floppy disk, his computer access was removed for a month and when he got it back it was for 13 years or younger to prevent his access to this information. If he needed to do something for school I would kick the access back up, but stay in the room with him or keep checking back frequently. Once the school assignment was complete the access went back to 13 or younger. Like you I never would have had it not because it was illegal, but because of moral reasons and the knowledge that somewhere a child was harmed. However, to a 15 or 16 year old some of these pictures are their peers and I'm not sure an age threshold enters their minds. I also could not control what type of access or where his friends went on their computers. (His best buddies were both the sons of a deputy sheriff and had been friends since they were 3 years old.) They are curious and in puberty. I never want another family to go through what ours just did. Always keep a watchful eye, but don't ever think it can't happen to you. We are living proof it can. The word NEVER is no longer a part of my vocabulary.
All my best,
Ann
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127664)
Message 159901 (In Reply to Message 159849)
craigd
Posted by ann018
on Aug 28, 2005 02:00 AM | Also by ann018
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
The crime that they committed against their victim is not justified and they should be punished for the rest of their lives. These individuals cannot be changed. They will always have that urge or that feeling come back to them at some point and time.
I can only assume by your comments that you have had a personal experience with an SO. If you were hurt at some point I feel very badly for you and hope you have had a good support system. If that is not the case then I would suggest taking some time and doing research. It can be an eye opening experience.
Your misunderstanding is part of what is wrong today. Not every SO has as a physical victim (possession of child pornography sent freely and without asking via the Internet), while others it could be consensual between a 19 year old and his/her girlfriend under the age of consent. (Yes I can probably guarantee you the young man or woman that had consensual sex will probably get the urge again, at some point in their life, there is no denying that.) The person now an RSO for peeing public (falls under the category of indecent exposure) will probably have the urge to pee again and hopefully will do so in the privacy of a bathroom. However, you like the law makers of our country, the media, and now a large portion of society do not understand how little it can take to get you on a registry in some states, they only know how bad the crime can be to get you there. The above examples have and do happen.
Yes, Craig there are very bad people out there that cannot be changed and they may always fight the urge. Some will be able to find ways through therapy, family support and their own inner strength to not act on that urge. Many will win the battle, while others will not. However, ask any alcoholic or drug abuser if they are cured and never have to fight the urge to not fall prey to that same abusive behavior. Most will tell you it is a day-by-day struggle. In each of these individuals it could be something in their psychological makeup. Or could it possibly be the only life they knew as a child. Many child molesters were abused themselves as children, just as many alcoholics and drug abusers were raised in the same type of environment. What makes one-person move toward something they know is destructive or can hurt someone and another raised in the same environment move away is where the psychological portion plays a part. I am not making an excuse for them...there are people who can do very bad things in life. I do not oppose putting someone behind bars for 25 years that has molested a child 12 or younger and quite frankly if they molested anyone for that fact. However, I would have opposed putting John Couey away for life long before he murdered Jessica. He had shown a total disregard for himself, others and the law.
Until society quits lumping all SO's into the same barrel they will never be able to make a distinction between those that are dangerous and those that are highly unlikely to reoffend.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159849)
Message 159960 (In Reply to Message 159901)
correction
Posted by ann018
on Aug 28, 2005 04:43 PM | Also by ann018
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
However, I would have opposed putting John Couey away for life long before he murdered Jessica. He had shown a total disregard for himself, others and the law.
What I meant to say was - "I would NOT have opposed..."
I apolgoize for the error.
Ann
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159901)
Message 165596 (In Reply to Message 127095)
goverment offender registry
Posted by momhelpingbyherself
on Oct 27, 2005 02:53 PM | Also by momhelpingbyherself
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Kentucky,
Country: United States |
Yes i think that there should be a goverment offender registry. why not? they know everything anyway. why not know about all the SO's and the RSO's and such and where they live.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127095)
Message 167007 (In Reply to Message 127095)
NO
Posted by june5
on Nov 09, 2005 07:22 PM | Also by june5
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Someone posted here that sex offenses are "the most heinous imaginable". As a rape victim myself, I can't believe that people say this. When did MURDER become the least heinous? Seriously, alot of people have gone through even worse sex offenses than I have, but would anyone have wanted to be DEAD instead? I wouldn't. In MI, 2nd degree murder is typically a 20 year sentence. In the city where I live, one such man was recently released after serving his sentence. He ain't on any registry, as we all know.
If people really think the SO registry will keep their children safe, then I think we should all be pushing for a registry that wil list anyone ever convicted of any crime at all, even misdemeanors. The only way the SO registry will get struck down is if we include every crime known to man; it will effect so many people that soon everyone will be against it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127095)
Message 167009 (In Reply to Message 127538)
What state?
Posted by june5
on Nov 09, 2005 07:26 PM | Also by june5
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I was just wondering what state does not have a law against bouncing checks (uttering in publishing)?
I think you mean you could "bounce" a check, quickly make good on it, and you wouldn't be prosecuted. That is true. But, the store or whoever could press charges against you the very day they found out the check bounced, if they wanted to.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127538)
Message 167036 (In Reply to Message 167007)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 10, 2005 02:40 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
if we include every crime known to man; it will effect so many people that soon everyone will be against it.
Actually wouldn't take all of them. Just one more. Create a national DUI registry and the entire concept will dry up overnight.
Fact is, such a registry isn't possible, because the people making the laws don't want to see their smiling faces. Or their wife with her 3 DUIs. Or their son with his shoplifting charge. Or their campaign manager with his bad checks.
Understand?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167007)
Message 167038 (In Reply to Message 127095)
yes...
Posted by anti
on Nov 10, 2005 02:55 AM | Also by anti
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
for sure.......... actually it has already begun.....
anti
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (127095)
Thread
127095, admin, Feb 09, 2004 10:50 PM [Introduction]
127151, orolan, Feb 11, 2004 02:24 AM [What is a "National Registry"?]
127248, Silverthorne, Feb 12, 2004 06:55 AM
127369, dp1, Feb 15, 2004 04:27 PM [Orolan]
127431, orolan, Feb 17, 2004 02:06 AM [2 & 3]
127435, steve, Feb 17, 2004 03:16 AM
127517, orolan, Feb 18, 2004 07:47 PM [Steve]
127521, steve, Feb 18, 2004 08:25 PM
127552, orolan, Feb 19, 2004 03:58 PM
147548, kb2005, Mar 18, 2005 09:59 PM [[quote]An opinion that if...]
147674, orolan, Mar 20, 2005 04:23 AM [kb2005]
159897, ann018, Aug 27, 2005 10:27 PM [kb2005]
159896, ann018, Aug 27, 2005 10:14 PM [Steve]
127440, dp1, Feb 17, 2004 06:19 AM [That's Ridiculous]
127518, orolan, Feb 18, 2004 07:53 PM [DP1]
127522, dp1, Feb 18, 2004 08:28 PM [Just An Example]
127554, orolan, Feb 19, 2004 04:09 PM
127410, Navigatr1, Feb 16, 2004 11:01 AM [Why should it be limited to sex offenders?]
127424, marta, Feb 17, 2004 12:55 AM [Don't be absurd]
127433, orolan, Feb 17, 2004 02:12 AM
127488, marta, Feb 18, 2004 01:55 AM [Mimic]
127519, orolan, Feb 18, 2004 08:14 PM
127538, marta, Feb 19, 2004 01:40 AM [Hysteria, all right, but your...]
127557, orolan, Feb 19, 2004 04:20 PM
127585, marta, Feb 20, 2004 03:49 PM [Yeah right!]
127590, orolan, Feb 20, 2004 07:53 PM
127606, marta, Feb 21, 2004 01:43 AM [Oversimplifying]
127622, orolan, Feb 21, 2004 03:57 PM
127664, marta, Feb 22, 2004 07:40 PM [The poor c...]
127719, orolan, Feb 24, 2004 12:07 AM
127727, marta, Feb 24, 2004 02:19 AM
136360, wifey, Jun 21, 2004 04:41 PM [Registr...]
136368, steve, Jun 21, 2004 06:50 PM
139728, wifey, Sep 14, 2004 07:52 AM [L...]
147759, wifey, Mar 21, 2005 03:48 AM [N...]
159899, ann018, Aug 27, 2005 10:54 PM [Marta]
167009, june5, Nov 09, 2005 07:26 PM [What state?]
127478, Silverthorne, Feb 17, 2004 03:40 PM [Marta question]
127432, orolan, Feb 17, 2004 02:09 AM [NCIC]
127441, dp1, Feb 17, 2004 06:24 AM [NCIC]
147544, kb2005, Mar 18, 2005 09:30 PM [Heres why not to open NCIC to the gene...]
127477, Silverthorne, Feb 17, 2004 03:39 PM
127520, orolan, Feb 18, 2004 08:18 PM [Silver]
147763, wifey, Mar 21, 2005 04:04 AM [DUI/DWI Recidivism rates]
127547, Navigatr1, Feb 19, 2004 09:58 AM [DUI death fueling calls for database]
127558, orolan, Feb 19, 2004 04:23 PM
127578, Silverthorne, Feb 20, 2004 05:36 AM
147882, Navigatr1, Mar 23, 2005 05:35 AM [I agree, needs teeth]
127548, Rejected
132863, scarlett, May 07, 2004 11:12 AM
127820, twisted420, Feb 27, 2004 09:37 PM [I realy feal this should be done!!!]
128819, Silverthorne, Mar 18, 2004 02:02 AM [Question for Twisted]
147926, monkey4u, Mar 24, 2005 04:24 AM
159849, craigd, Aug 27, 2005 08:10 AM [yes there should]
159901, ann018, Aug 28, 2005 02:00 AM [craigd]
159960, ann018, Aug 28, 2005 04:43 PM [correction]
165596, momhelpingbyherself, Oct 27, 2005 02:53 PM [goverment offender registry]
167007, june5, Nov 09, 2005 07:22 PM [NO]
167036, orolan, Nov 10, 2005 02:40 AM
167038, anti, Nov 10, 2005 02:55 AM [yes...]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
| | |
