National Sex Offender Registry

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
The case of William Elliott pretty much sums up the problem I have with public sex-offender registries:

Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness

Synopsis:

William Elliott was 20 when he had consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. The girlfriend's dad wasn't thrilled, and Elliott wound up on a sex offender registry.

Elliott would become the second victim of Stephen Marshall, a vigilante who killed 2 complete strangers by picking them, apparently at random, from said sex offender registry.
 

B_ExtremelyHateable

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
93
Location
Somewhere
Sexuality
No Response
I classify this as one of those things that you're happier not knowing. In the end, it doesn't matter. I mean live and let live. I mean we're on a message board where a lot of gay people log on. You think they would know about live and let live. I mean, I have better things to do than to worry about other people's crimes. In the military, having a sexual misconduct record is just as bad as being openly gay, trust me, I was discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The same thing would happen to you if you had a sex offense. So, in the end, we all have our faults. It's not our place to prosecute those who have already been prosecuted.
 

B_cigarbabe

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
3,872
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
183
Location
Boston,Mass.
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
My issue is that includes kids convicted of having sex with other kids, voyeurs, indecent exposures, and all sorts of people who I don't remotely consider true threats. I think it's largely a scare tactic promoted by the government to keep us scared.

It is a scare tactic. I'm all for protecting the kids, but are guys pissing outdoors drunk,kids having sex with another kid, two guys blowing one another in a park, who we really need to protect our kids from? No,no they aren't.
The sex offender registry doesn't always distinguish between these cases
and in this way, it doesn't do justice to those, not convicted of real sex with a minor,or other crimes against kids. Plus it forces theose registered to be lumped in with dangerous {to children} guys.
Where are these guys supposed to live? Nobody wants them "in my backyard",ok, now theyr'e homeless,let's suppose,are we safer because we deny them a place to live?
No.
If the law in your area states,as most do,"the offender cannot live within 500ft of a school",where will they go?
I for one would rather know that they live at -----st. then have them homeless, because I won't be reasonable,and think about which would be worse.
Which is worse to you?
cigarbabe:saevil:
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
If my kids were still small having a sex offender live nearby wouldn't alter the way I treated them, I still wouldn't let small kids go out without a trusted adult, let them hang out on the streets or in any other way not be in a position of safety. Knowing you're in an area which hasn't got any registered sex offenders doesn't relieve you of any parental responsibilities and I would hope parents wouldn't let their kids alone with anyone they didn't trust 100%.
 

IntoxicatingToxin

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
7,639
Media
0
Likes
246
Points
283
Location
Kansas City (Missouri, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
If my kids were still small having a sex offender live nearby wouldn't alter the way I treated them, I still wouldn't let small kids go out without a trusted adult, let them hang out on the streets or in any other way not be in a position of safety. Knowing you're in an area which hasn't got any registered sex offenders doesn't relieve you of any parental responsibilities and I would hope parents wouldn't let their kids alone with anyone they didn't trust 100%.

My son doesn't go outdoors by himself. But there is a guy listed as being a registered sex offender in my neighborhood. I didn't think to check how old he was, but he looked to be my age or younger. His crime was "possession of child pornography". I understand that this can be somewhat easily misconstrued. If a 16 year old girl sent him nudie pics online, and he was 18 at the time, that's not really all that bad... but it IS considered possession of child porn, I think. BUT... the thing is, a month or so ago when my son still had his mohawk, we went out for a walk. We walked the neighborhood, and at one point, some guy rode by on his bike and said to my son, "Hey dude, cool hair!" I now know that the guy that said this to my son is none other than the guy I saw online who is a registered offender for possessing child porn. I just found this online.

"Legislative Summary:

Missouri SB 1307 clearly defines child pornography and the possession of it. A person commits the crime of possession of child pornography if the individual possesses it and if that person knows what the contents are. A person caught with more than 20 items of child pornography is deemed to have knowledge of the contents of the items found on the computer. The act establishes affirmative defenses to the crime of possession of child pornography. They include taking deliberate steps to destroy the child pornography and preventing anyone except law enforcement agents to view it. The age of a child who looks to be under the age of eighteen is to be established, which includes using expert medical testimony. The child does not need to be identified or even appear at the proceedings. If found guilty of the possession of no more than 20 items of child pornography it is a Class C felony, and a Class B felony for more than 20 items."

That is a bit broad, but I'm still on alert with this guy. He might be harmless, he might not. I don't want to find out that he's not harmless the hard way.
 

B_ExtremelyHateable

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
40
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
93
Location
Somewhere
Sexuality
No Response
My son doesn't go outdoors by himself. But there is a guy listed as being a registered sex offender in my neighborhood. I didn't think to check how old he was, but he looked to be my age or younger. His crime was "possession of child pornography". I understand that this can be somewhat easily misconstrued. If a 16 year old girl sent him nudie pics online, and he was 18 at the time, that's not really all that bad... but it IS considered possession of child porn, I think. BUT... the thing is, a month or so ago when my son still had his mohawk, we went out for a walk. We walked the neighborhood, and at one point, some guy rode by on his bike and said to my son, "Hey dude, cool hair!" I now know that the guy that said this to my son is none other than the guy I saw online who is a registered offender for possessing child porn. I just found this online.

"Legislative Summary:

Missouri SB 1307 clearly defines child pornography and the possession of it. A person commits the crime of possession of child pornography if the individual possesses it and if that person knows what the contents are. A person caught with more than 20 items of child pornography is deemed to have knowledge of the contents of the items found on the computer. The act establishes affirmative defenses to the crime of possession of child pornography. They include taking deliberate steps to destroy the child pornography and preventing anyone except law enforcement agents to view it. The age of a child who looks to be under the age of eighteen is to be established, which includes using expert medical testimony. The child does not need to be identified or even appear at the proceedings. If found guilty of the possession of no more than 20 items of child pornography it is a Class C felony, and a Class B felony for more than 20 items."

That is a bit broad, but I'm still on alert with this guy. He might be harmless, he might not. I don't want to find out that he's not harmless the hard way.

That's what I'm talking about. He gives your kid a compliment, you automatically take it as hitting on him. Where does this sound familiar. Oh yeah, when gay people come out of the closet and tell their best friend that they like his clothes. Point Made.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I didn't give much mind to sex offenders, their registry, or their proximity until I tried to adopt a child. When county corrections deputies knocked on my door one day to announce a twice convicted child molester was being paroled into the house next to mine I got a lot more interested. Mind you, this is a neighborhood with two grade schools, three churches, two playgrounds and scores of elementary school kids close by.

I started looking at at the registry and was appalled. Besides the molester paroled next door, there were another dozen offenders residing within a mile of my suburban home. I had no idea there were so many.

Oh, and the molester? The deputies assured us he'd be monitored 24 hours for proximity to his parole home to make sure he was staying within the terms of his parole. Yet within a few weeks of his release petty thefts, break ins, and burglaries began happening in my neighborhood. Everyone was in a state of tension. Finally, one day a combat armed SWAT team of Sheriff's deputies sweeped through our neighborhood and caught the guy outside his parole boundaries and took him away for good.
 

IntoxicatingToxin

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
7,639
Media
0
Likes
246
Points
283
Location
Kansas City (Missouri, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
That's what I'm talking about. He gives your kid a compliment, you automatically take it as hitting on him. Where does this sound familiar. Oh yeah, when gay people come out of the closet and tell their best friend that they like his clothes. Point Made.

I never said that he was hitting on my son, did I? I don't assume he is a bad person... if you feel that way, then you obviously didn't read all of what I typed. But I can tell you this much... if I'm ever desperate for a babysitter, he is one person I will not ask. Doesn't mean I won't say hi to him if I see him again, but I'm not going to take those kinds of chances with my son. That is what the registry is for. Just so parents can be aware.
 

MidwestGal

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
927
Media
1
Likes
114
Points
513
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I'm glad lists like this exist for more than one reason. One as a parent, I can keep track of the sex offenders that live in the area. Two, that if I might accept a date from someone online I can check their name in the database, which I do with general state correctional records anyhow.

I think there are many cases that are right on the line such as two underaged people having consentual sex and one of their parents making sure the other kid gets in trouble. But in the case where the person is a sexual preditor, I feel it is in the communities best interest to know where these offenders reside so we can educate ourselves and our children about those who live in our area.

I know on our state sex offender list, it specifically indicates criteria and they are pretty specific in each case to put the age group. Even if, some people may be "rehabbed" I do feel as a parent that the community has a right to know that these people live in their neighborhood.

I honestly wish they had the data base to follow released murderers, even if the crime was done when they were a minor (but charged as an adult). Reason being, growing up in a small community. I had one of my classmates kill another classmate. To this day, it scares the crap out of me that this murderer, is living who knows among us, where except his parole officer.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Im surprised the number is that low

What the hell are you thinking extremelyhateable?
I think he's trying to say that not every "registered sex offender" is a child molester.

This is what TMM is talking about, she can't ignore this register as she has a child, and any parents first duty is to protect her child. It's Human Nature. And as their child's protector Parents have every right to have access to these registers.
And again, there's always the assumption that registered offender = child molester, and that's just not always the case.

Many laws are ridiculously vague on what qualifies as a "registerable offense." By the definitions on the books in many states, South Park qualifies as child pornography.

Truly dangerous predators do belong on an accessible register, but it's beyond ludicrous to have someone on there for simply peeing on a tree (yes, it's happened) or for having done a stick drawing that someone else would describe as "child porn."
 

Osiris

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Posts
2,666
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Location
Wherever the dolphins are going
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm glad lists like this exist for more than one reason. One as a parent, I can keep track of the sex offenders that live in the area. Two, that if I might accept a date from someone online I can check their name in the database, which I do with general state correctional records anyhow.

I think there are many cases that are right on the line such as two underaged people having consentual sex and one of their parents making sure the other kid gets in trouble. But in the case where the person is a sexual preditor, I feel it is in the communities best interest to know where these offenders reside so we can educate ourselves and our children about those who live in our area.

I know on our state sex offender list, it specifically indicates criteria and they are pretty specific in each case to put the age group. Even if, some people may be "rehabbed" I do feel as a parent that the community has a right to know that these people live in their neighborhood.

I honestly wish they had the data base to follow released murderers, even if the crime was done when they were a minor (but charged as an adult). Reason being, growing up in a small community. I had one of my classmates kill another classmate. To this day, it scares the crap out of me that this murderer, is living who knows among us, where except his parole officer.

Don't even get me started on this one. We are dealing with the fallout of some moron judge in Massachussetts releasing Tavares who moves out here and murders his young married neighbors over a $50 loan. This whack jobs father even has spoken out that he shouldn't have been released. the man stabbed his own mother to death.

Hugo also said everyone deserves a chance at redemption and I agree, but with a lot of these guys it is an illness more than it is a crime. A number of them really need psychiatric help rather than incarceration if they are going to get redemption.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Everyone deserves a chance for redemption.
I don't believe child molesters can be rehabilitated. Burglars and those convicted of grand theft auto, or DUI. Yes, they can and should be given a chance at rehabilitation.

The case of William Elliott pretty much sums up the problem I have with public sex-offender registries:
Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness Synopsis: William Elliott was 20 when he had consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. The girlfriend's dad wasn't thrilled, and Elliott wound up on a sex offender registry.

Elliott would become the second victim of Stephen Marshall, a vigilante who killed 2 complete strangers by picking them, apparently at random, from said sex offender registry.

Sex offender law in doubt
Opinion on ruling: Residency restrictions may be invalid, but sheriffs want clarification.
By Bill Rankin
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/27/07
The state attorney general's office said Monday it believes the residency restrictions for all of Georgia's registered sex offenders are no longer valid after last week's ruling by the state Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision, the court struck down the law prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of day care centers, schools, churches or other places children congregate. Because it deprives some offenders of their property rights, the law is unconstitutional, the court found.

Because the law addressed a challenge raised by a Clayton County homeowner who was told he had to move when a day care center was built within 1,000 feet of his house, some lawyers who examined the ruling questioned whether it applied to all 15,000 registered offenders —- including those who rent or live in places for free.

The state attorney general's office believes that it does and soon will send out a letter stating its position, spokesman Russ Willard said. "Our office is currently advising our clients how to proceed now that the Georgia Supreme Court has struck down the sex offender residency restrictions," he said.

Georgia sheriffs are eager for guidance.

DeKalb County Sheriff Thomas Brown said his office believes the ruling applies to all sex offenders, regardless of residential status.
Jefferson County Sheriff Charles Hutchins said he believes the law applies only to people with established residences.

If a sex offender already was living in a Jefferson County home and then a child care center is built nearby, the offender will not be asked to move, Lt. Robert Chalker said. "But if someone wants to move into a place within 1,000 feet of a church or a school, we would not allow that."
David Hudson, an Augusta lawyer who represents sheriffs in a class-action lawsuit brought against the sex-offender law in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, said he understands why there is some confusion about the court's ruling. But he believes the entire residency restriction provision was struck down.

Rep. Wendell Willard (R-Sandy Springs) said legislators will fix the residency requirement so it can be enforced.

"It was the appropriate approach to be taken by the court if they were going to strike it down," Willard said. "We can address it this coming session."

Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights, said some predatory sex offenders should not live near schools. But the law was used to evict hospice-care patients from nursing homes and forced people who engaged in consensual sex when they were teenagers to move from place to place, she said.

"We need to impose residency restrictions on certain offenders, but a one-size-fits-all law isn't the answer," Geraghty said.

Brown, the DeKalb sheriff, also has problems with the law. He said that when the Legislature reconvenes in January, he hopes lawmakers will pay more attention to law enforcement.

"It's not like we're soft on this issue, but we don't believe it should be so restrictive that it will force people underground into hiding as opposed to registering," Brown said. "We want to know where they are."

UPDATE: THE STORY SO FAR
> Previously: The Georgia Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision of a state law prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of day care centers, churches and other places where children congregate.
> The latest: The state attorney general's office said the ruling applies to all of the state's 15,000 registered sex offenders.
> What's next: State legislators who sponsored the law said they will try to fix it, so the residency restrictions can be enforced.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't know what it means where you live, but I got a definition of Virginia's version of that law here: Virginia Sex Crime Defense Lawyer Sexual Offense Attorney Internet Minor Child Pornography

The second-to-last section is about that.

okay thanks for clearing that up.

It's a felony, too. and still pretty vague. For soliciting unlawful activities from someone you have reason to believe is a minor. How do they prove belief? Or better, how do they prove "reason to believe." If you're talking to a police officer trying to entrap you online, shouldn't you have good reason to not believe that they are a minor... because... they aren't... and maybe you can tell that they're lying or maybe you know that just about everyone who uses the internet is full of shit. Just because someone says they are one thing in a chat room isn't a good "reason to believe" that they are that thing...

::shrug::

you'd have to be pretty retarded to get busted by most of these laws so I guess it's hard to feel bad for these guys even if the laws themselves are stupid.
 

new_n_curious

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Posts
259
Media
2
Likes
9
Points
163
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Female
Noncewatch is a probably the most informative website in the UK (unofficially) ceop is the official one though. As a mum and a british citizen I would like a list of all known Paedophiles. A very close relative of mine was repeatedly abused by a local man, we cant even find out when he is due to be released from jail!!!!!!

Shame that we cant have access to an official register that shows JUST paedophiles.