Sex Offenders Can Go To (their) Kids' School Events

[Guest antxav1]

not trying to offend anyone or stand up for anyone but. I was in the army and learned that without truth justice means nothing. so when you open your mouth to make a statement it should be factual. sex offenders including child molesters , pedophile, and rapists. as a whole have the lowest recidivism rate out of all crimes. the numbers say that the rate is about 3.75% and I dont have a problem with the registry i just think that if your are going to make one group register you should make them all. I mean dont I have a right to know when i am living next door to someone whos crime really does have a high re-offense rate? I dont want to live next door to a junkie or someone who is a B and E artist. lets get with the program is this witch hunt helping anyone or is it just creating an outlet for vigilante justice?

[Smith]

not trying to offend anyone or stand up for anyone but. I was in the army and learned that without truth justice means nothing. so when you open your mouth to make a statement it should be factual. sex offenders including child molesters , pedophile, and rapists. as a whole have the lowest recidivism rate out of all crimes. the numbers say that the rate is about 3.75% and I dont have a problem with the registry i just think that if your are going to make one group register you should make them all. I mean dont I have a right to know when i am living next door to someone whos crime really does have a high re-offense rate? I dont want to live next door to a junkie or someone who is a B and E artist. lets get with the program is this witch hunt helping anyone or is it just creating an outlet for vigilante justice?

Uh .... current states from the DOJ

For Prisoners released with selected characteristics:

• 53.0% were arrested for new crime within 3 years of release.
  
• 29.2% were adjudicated (or brought to court) for a new crime within 2 years.
  
• 11.9% were convicted for a new crime within one year.
  
• 3.8% were reincarcerated (i.e. placed in jail or prison) following a conviction on a new crime within 6 months.
  
• 17.1% were convicted of a new crime and placed in prison within 3 years.
  

[Jonnin]

I have no problem with the orig topic. I don't get the nutty stuff that goes on as soon as something is even remotely related to sex. Say the parent really is a bad person, makes kid porn or something. Does someone fear they are going to set up a studio right there in the middle of the school picnic and go at it? Or lure the kids off behind the trees, while the parents and teacers of the victim kids are doing... what exactly? If the parents and teachers are doing their jobs, the kids are together, watched, and safe at such an event with anyone who is not intent on using brute force to commit a crime. If some nut is willing to shoot all the adults to capture all the kids, thats a problem, but then again some of the parents should be armed, if not most of them, as part of being a responsible parent is to protect the family. Did you guys see that an ex porn star reading to kids caused a stir? Why, she was just reading a kiddie book to kids, no sex, she was not (un) dressed for sex/porn, just a person trying to do something nice. Its not like being in the same room with her is going to cause all the boys to go look at porn or all the girls to become prostitutes. I mean, I would rather my kids were read "the little engine that could" or whatever by a naked porn star than be subjected to singing songs of praise to Obama.....

[Dolomite_supafly]

Perhaps they need to categorize them like they do inmates. The most heinous offenders are not allowed to have any contact with children, must register, can only live in certain areas and are monitored through the use of bracelets. While others who meet the criteria for a minimum classification do not have the same restrictions. And allow them to have restrictions lifted based on their performance in society. But if they do offend again they go back to the original classification +1.

For multiple offenders or those who are the heinous type they need to do something more extreme. Perhaps mark them permanently on a hand. That way no matter who they come in contact with they are aware he has a proclivity for doing it. It makes it much easier to tell a child to stay away from the person with the "mark".

Personally I would take the most heinous offenders and sentence them to death. After all, those they vicitmized are sentenced to a life of misery in most cases.

I have seen some of these cases in the legal system. One in particular was a 50+ year old man who raped a 15 year old girl that was his neighbor. In the end he only spent 15 months in jail and openly admitted he raped the girl as he was being released. The girl will likely have problems for the rest of her life because of this.

Dolomite

[Guest pfries]

Perhaps they need to categorize them like they do inmates. The most heinous offenders are not allowed to have any contact with children, must register, can only live in certain areas and are monitored through the use of bracelets. While others who meet the criteria for a minimum classification do not have the same restrictions. And allow them to have restrictions lifted based on their performance in society. But if they do offend again they go back to the original classification +1.

For multiple offenders or those who are the heinous type they need to do something more extreme. Perhaps mark them permanently on a hand. That way no matter who they come in contact with they are aware he has a proclivity for doing it. It makes it much easier to tell a child to stay away from the person with the "mark".

Personally I would take the most heinous offenders and sentence them to death. After all, those they vicitmized are sentenced to a life of misery in most cases.

I have seen some of these cases in the legal system. One in particular was a 50+ year old man who raped a 15 year old girl that was his neighbor. In the end he only spent 15 months in jail and openly admitted he raped the girl as he was being released. The girl will likely have problems for the rest of her life because of this.

Dolomite

I like it,

Wish it was a feasible option, but I doubt we could get physically branding someone in any manner through legislation.

[Wyldk2]

They need to do something like that. Classify Sex offenders in different categories instead of grouping them all together. I mean even if you're caught peeing off the side of the road( out of public view) and a cop sees you, you can be classified as a sex offender. I mean if you have to go, you really have to take a chance. ( not that i've ever had that happen, But i've heard of it happening). There are a lot of people that are classified as sexual offenders for just simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The real bad one's they don't need to let out period. The ones that have turned their lives around, maybe with being supervised. Not a perfect system, but it needs to be changed. The whole Justice system needs to be changed period.

[Stegall Law Firm]

Just to clear something up, simply taking a leak is not going to put you on the sex offender registry. You have to have three convictions for public indecency to get hit with the list. Now if a person's gotten to that point then there's probably something wrong with them, and being on the list for 10 years is probably appropriate. But for first-time offenders, as long as the crime is not too egregious, they have a chance to get it off their record and minimize their time on the list. I'm talking about diversion. Generally the law gives you one free bite at the apple. Only one, but you do get that one. As long as it's not a violent, shocking kind of offense (or DUI). It really depends on the facts and circumstances, as well as the judge, the defense lawyer, and the prosecutor.

[Guest pfries]

Just to clear something up, simply taking a leak is not going to put you on the sex offender registry. You have to have three convictions for public indecency to get hit with the list. Now if a person's gotten to that point then there's probably something wrong with them, and being on the list for 10 years is probably appropriate. But for first-time offenders, as long as the crime is not too egregious, they have a chance to get it off their record and minimize their time on the list. I'm talking about diversion. Generally the law gives you one free bite at the apple. Only one, but you do get that one. As long as it's not a violent, shocking kind of offense (or DUI). It really depends on the facts and circumstances, as well as the judge, the defense lawyer, and the prosecutor.

As always relevant and good information, information I will hopefully never need for personal use, but it is always good to be informed.

Thank you