posted April 26, 2015 11:52 PM            

quote:

---

She said it isn't fair when there are or could be so many predators running around who aren't caught.

---

*That* was her reason?
That's a pretty... odd... reason :\

People generally disagree with this because within the criminal justice system an offender (a sex offender or a person who committed any kind of crime) - was already convicted and sentenced at trial.
So they were presumably already punished for their crime. The sentence handed down was their punishment.

Hence, stigmatizing them by asking them to identify as a "sex offender" for the rest of their lives - is an added, extra punishment - and that is (arguably) unfair.

Basically, it's contentious to punish an offender twice over for the same crime.

posted April 26, 2015 11:55 PM            

quote:

---

I feel pretty firm in my stance but I'd like to start a topic on it to see if anyone has an opposite opinion so I can understand better.

---

There are probably cases in which you would also find it unnecessary to stigmatise the offender.

posted April 27, 2015 12:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
*That* was her reason?
That's a pretty... odd... reason :\

People generally disagree with this because within the criminal justice system an offender (a sex offender or a person who committed any kind of crime) - was already convicted and sentenced at trial.
So they were presumably already punished for their crime. The sentence handed down was their punishment.

Hence, stigmatizing them by asking them to identify as a "sex offender" for the rest of their lives - is an added, extra punishment - and that is (arguably) unfair.

Basically, it's contentious to punish an offender twice over for the same crime.

---

I thought so too! Frankly I'm torn. On one hand I can see how their license displaying "Sex Offender" doesn't benefit anyone in everyday life like when they're buying groceries or going to the bank. On the other, what if it does benefit in some way by serving as a warning (I then ask myself "Warning to who?")

Secondly, there are repeat offenders who receive that label as their 3rd strike in many states. They deserve to be "embarrassed" the rest of their lives, I don't really care about their feelings and privacy because they knowingly violated someone else when they knew it was wrong. You know right from wrong by the time you reach that point.

posted April 27, 2015 01:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valentine:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[B]Odette,
That's how I feel about it and furthermore I don't think that any person with a criminal background should have to carry it on their records. If a person does their jail time, probation, community service etc.they shouldn't have to be punished by society for the rest of their lives.

Ordinarily yes, Sex offenders should, as far as I know there is no cure for them.

---

posted April 27, 2015 01:19 AM            

Good people do bad things all the time and shouldn't have to live in purgatory for it which is exactly how it can be for them, soooo Idk! There must be a better way, right?! With that said, I think there are cases where people should have to identify with their crime... Even if only for a probationary period. It will be interesting to see how this thread unfolds.

posted April 27, 2015 01:38 AM            

In a way she's right about how many aren't on it (and there are also those who shouldn't be on it) the bulk of sexual exploitation and predation are going to come from within the family (or others who have a reason to be with them such as coaches, scout leaders, clergy, etc). Because of the social dynamics involved this is the least likely to be suspected AND the least likely to be prosecuted in any way when caught (especially if within the family). In such cases the sexual offender d-base isn't of much use...and yet it can still be useful (a bartender found a drunk talking about how ten year old girls--and ONLY ten year olds--were constantly seducing him was on the d-base). Nevertheless, it does give a false sense of security to many, as well as being absurdly easy to get on in ways that I hope were never intended.

Furthermore, if families were typically different then that would do far more to combat the abuse even by strangers. Most who target children from outside the home look for signs that they can exploit (the child who is abused, family with their own secrets, a child who feels lonely and unloved, etc).

I personally am against the d-base. My reasons are how easy it is to get on that should not be the case (and it's not unknown for cops to sexually predate on dancers and the like if they don't want to get put on the d-base as too many convictions of prostitution can put them on it, so in that case it serves sexual predators, though I expect it's rare that it gets abused in such a way, and such cops probably wouldn't be stopped by getting rid of the d-base), especially in how kids can be "perpetrators and victims" (so if two underage teens have sex then both can be listed as sex offender for the rest of their lives for consensual sex between each other, since legally kids that age can't give consent and thus any sexual conduct is automatically a sex crime). See, I want it as a tool to protect kids (and the rest of the community), but the MAJORITY want it to use as an electronic scarlet letter to hang on people for offending their morals (and thus feeling better about their own sexual sins), and sticking kids on it is NOT protecting them, but quite the opposite. (And that's just one way people who don't belong on it get put there.)

I'd also point out that if kids are considered capable of accepting adult consequences then there is no ethical reason to deprive them of rights. They should have the right to sign contracts, gain driver license, get any job, join the military, buy a gun, vote, have sex with adults, star in porn, and most of all not go to school (and certainly not ask for permission to go to the restroom). The idea of depriving them of rights is because--generally speaking--they lack the maturity to make responsible decisions and are easily taken advantage of. I personally am of the school of thought that for whatever reason the majority of kids do lack the maturity and thus favor depriving them of rights of the age of majority but that also means that sticking them on the d-base even for actual predatory behavior (let alone what was consensual and where they're listed as both "victim and offender") should also not be allowed. But it is, and that is the biggest reason (among others) that I want to see it abolished.

Nice idea, though. But society just isn't ready for something like that as generally speaking we're too spiteful, stupid, and more concerned with punishment and sexual behavior (including that regarding nudity of any kind) rather than protecting people from genuine predators. And frankly, if a person is proved to be an incurable predator (which should be made difficult to prove so that overzealous prosecutors hoping to punish to gain votes when they run for election can't stick it to people more interested in their own power rather than any notion of truth or justice, and I'd like to see prosecutors who did so charged with crimes as well, including murder or attempted murder where they used unethical means to get someone convicted of a capital crime just to pad their trophies for political gain or even fun), then they shouldn't be allowed outside an institution anyway.

Bottom line is I favor the elimination of the d-base as well as making it harder to convict, yet at the same time much harsher penal penalties and the like when they can be convicted (among other things).

posted April 27, 2015 01:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannaramaa:
I just looked up my state's legislative laws and how they differentiate between the Level 3 sex offenders. Statutory rape and habitual, aggravated offenders are both Level 3s however, only habitual and aggravated offenders are required to have licenses bearing "Sex Offender" across them. How can anyone argue they shouldn't have it now?

---

posted April 27, 2015 02:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I don't think the "level 3s" should be free to roam in the first place and thus it becomes irrelevant.

---

posted April 27, 2015 03:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannaramaa:
^^ Assuming Tennessee's law is the same as Oklahoma's.

Also he may be put on there but I doubt it's for a lifetime. You'd have to check TN legislation on that.

---

posted April 27, 2015 05:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
Did you know that in the state of Tennessee anyone that is 18 and has had sex with anyone a day under 18 has committed a crime. That's crazy.... So an 18 year old guy that has a 17 year old girlfriend and has sex with her could be sent to jail and be labeled a sex offender? Do you really think that's right?

---

That's a gray area, but I was focusing on the repeated pattern of violent assault. Somehow I missed the "statutory rape" and I would typically exclude that (I'm also uncomfortable with a first time conviction leading to that if there's even the slightest doubt as the innocent do get convicted because of human flaws involved). Not to say "it should be legal" but I wouldn't include them (on that alone) among level 3s, especially if the offender is a teenager. And especially in cases (which have happened) where they started out legal and then one turned 18 instantly making it illegal.

posted April 27, 2015 08:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
[B]It probably comes down to her idea of the justice system being one of rehabilitation rather than punishment. Normally I'd agree with her but that overlooks the possibility of repeat offenders which are rampant in this case.

---

Yeah, I disagree prisons are set up to rehabilitate. If anything they learn how to be better criminals and it becomes a source of security for them when you think about it. On top of it, think of all the prisoners who work inside, because the state is teaching them about “responsibility” when really it’s about the owner of the prison (speaking of private prisons here, btw) making money.

quote:

---

In a way she's right about how many aren't on it (and there are also those who shouldn't be on it) the bulk of sexual exploitation and predation are going to come from within the family (or others who have a reason to be with them such as coaches, scout leaders, clergy, etc). Because of the social dynamics involved this is the least likely to be suspected AND the least likely to be prosecuted in any way when caught (especially if within the family). In such cases the sexual offender d-base isn't of much use...

---

Of course it’s not going to be useful looking for people who aren’t on it??? I still don’t understand how those who are not on affect the consequences for people who have gotten caught. When I speak of people who’s licenses are labeled “Sex Offender” we are talking about those who are habitual and aggravated in their assaults, not the disapproving parents who pressed charges against their daughter’s boyfriend or someone who peed on the side of the road (who by the way may be labeled a sex offender but they wouldn’t get it stamped on their license.)

quote:

---

(and it's not unknown for cops to sexually predate on dancers and the like if they don't want to get put on the d-base as too many convictions of prostitution can put them on it, so in that case it serves sexual predators, though I expect it's rare that it gets abused in such a way, and such cops probably wouldn't be stopped by getting rid of the d-base)

---

quote:

---

especially in how kids can be "perpetrators and victims" (so if two underage teens have sex then both can be listed as sex offender for the rest of their lives for consensual sex between each other, since legally kids that age can't give consent and thus any sexual conduct is automatically a sex crime).

---

quote:

---

See, I want it as a tool to protect kids (and the rest of the community), but the MAJORITY want it to use as an electronic scarlet letter to hang on people for offending their morals (and thus feeling better about their own sexual sins), and sticking kids on it is NOT protecting them, but quite the opposite. (And that's just one way people who don't belong on it get put there.)

---

Lol, I am not advocating for this particular practice because any personal guilt I feel about my sexual practices. I looked up sex offenders in my area last night and out of the five I looked (there were more but I was looking in my area specifically) 4 were grown men. No kids, AND I wonder if they would even make the database if they're not at least 18 years old. What database are you looking at that even lists kids? They won't even release the names in a news article concerning minors...unless you're speaking of a teen boy that got charged with distributing child pornography after he sent pictures of his ex-girlfriend in a mass e-mail and she killed herself as a result of it. If so, you're saying you don't think he should be branded as a sex offender?

posted April 27, 2015 09:43 PM            

quote:

---

I've never heard of that happening, is there a famous story somewhere I can read?

---

quote:

---

Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.

The Ogden, Utah, girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.

---

In this case they don't talk about the registry but I do believe it's a matter of course. I just grabbed something from a quick search, a lot of these news stories are needles in a haystack and they also disappear after awhile, but as this one has gone to the state supreme court it's more noteworthy.

The real problem is how permanent it is.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/living/juvenile-sex-offenders-rights/index.html

quote:

---

For the offense of inappropriately touching his 8-year-old sister when he was 12, Gravens, 26, has spent almost half his life as a registered sex offender

---

posted April 27, 2015 09:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannaramaa:
unless you're speaking of a teen boy that got charged with distributing child pornography after he sent pictures of his ex-girlfriend in a mass e-mail and she killed herself as a result of it. If so, you're saying you don't think he should be branded as a sex offender?

---

No, he shouldn't. Liable for what he did, yes, permanently registered, no. What he did doesn't make him a permanent threat to the community (unless the community chooses to make him one) and was based more on immaturity than predation or exploitation which is what the registry is supposed to be for. Therefore it's counterproductive to put him on it doing more harm than good to him, to society, and helping hide the real predators (and by laying all the blame on him it also serves as a convenient scapegoat for the school who was likely exceedingly cruel to her and the bullying that was overlooked for convenience and the apathy of adults). And given that kids do stupid things without a thought to consequences all the time I don't even see it discouraging other kids from repeating it anymore than I see this discouraging girls from sending nude pix of themselves.

posted April 27, 2015 10:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
No, he shouldn't. Liable for what he did, yes, permanently registered, no. What he did doesn't make him a permanent threat to the community (unless the community chooses to make him one) and was based more on immaturity than predation or exploitation which is what the registry is supposed to be for. Therefore it's counterproductive to put him on it doing more harm than good to him, to society, and helping hide the real predators (and by laying all the blame on him it also serves as a convenient scapegoat for the school who was likely exceedingly cruel to her and the bullying that was overlooked for convenience and the apathy of adults). And given that kids do stupid things without a thought to consequences all the time I don't even see it discouraging other kids from repeating it anymore than I see this discouraging girls from sending nude pix of themselves.

Now if his parents did that, sure, put them on the list.

---

posted April 27, 2015 10:20 PM            

And they're kids. I've already explained why I don't think they can be held to the same standards as adults but I'll repeat if you like. I'll add that their behavior as kids don't necessarily reflect their behavior as adults. A great many adults look back on the stupid and sometimes mind boggling cruel things they did as kids and shudder as that's not who they were as adults or sometimes was the exception rather than the rule even as kids.