I have a problem with the Sex Offender Registry

Status
Not open for further replies.
5

50 Freak

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
952
A friend of mine told me a story about his brother and how he was out drinking with some buds one night and of course when you drink a lot, you have to pee a lot.

Well, they were walking and the urge to pee hit him. No bathrooms around so he went behind a bush to take a leak.....Next thing he knew red lights hit him and he was being arrested for indecent exposure...Which of course puts him on the Sex Offender Registry.

Now could this this scenario true? If so, I really have a problem with the Sex Offender Registry. I think that should be reserved for the "hardcore" child molesters, rapists etc. Not "peepers" (not that they are very welcomed in my neighborhood) and "exhibitionists" (I have no problems with them, if they are 18, hot and of the female kind) or minor "infractions". I know it will be hard to determine what qualifies as "minor", but here's my reasoning........

I live in a decent neighborhood. Average 2 bedroom house is $650,000+ (yes, this is CA) and rents are in high 1 thousands for a single bedroom apt.

I decided to check the Megans Sex Registry and ran a search of 1 mile radius from my address.....HOLY CRAP!!!! I guestimate about 75 - 100 sex offenders (and this is only felons that bothered to register). How the hell am I going to determine who I should keep my kids from? I can't keep them in all the time as that is what I'd like to do after seeing this. I think the Sex Registry is a "scare tactic" and not effective at keeping track of those capable of hurting our families.

I think it needs to be "scaled down".

Your thoughts.
 
A friend of mine told me a story about his brother
Click to expand...
I have heard this scenario a few times it usually begins with a statement similar to the one quoted above.

I can't keep them in all the time as that is what I'd like to do after seeing this.
Click to expand...
No you can't keep them in but you can keep them close until they are old enough to handle a potential situation the way you have taught them to and are comfortable enough with you to tell you when there is a possible situation brewing.

Good or bad it all goes back to parenting
 
I have heard this scenario a few times it usually begins with a statement similar to the one quoted above.
Click to expand...

I can assure you, my experence with such is with in my family, and is just about as stupid as being spotted in public taking a leak.

And no, it is not me, nor will I go into the story, but I will say I have huge issues with the sex offender registry and what can get you on it.
 
Liability??

I agree that the sex-offender registries are way too diluted with "minor" crimes such as indecent-exposure (aka public unrination) or johns who simply got busted picking up a prostitue.

I think the problem is the philosophy is that the lists are supposed to somehow prevent future sex-offenses. In that manner, all sorts of relatively minor crimes are interpreted as "gateways" to more heinous acts. The last thing the .gov wants is to be sued for not putting someone on the list for peeping who later becoms a violent rapist or child-molester.

Somewhere the intent of the offender needs to be taken into account. I.e. exposing one's self in public because they have to urinate usually does not have sexual intent compared to exposing one's self infront of a group of kindergartners. I just don't think the laws are structured in a way to differentiate between the two situations... in both cases it probably justs gets charged as indecent exposure. In order to avoid any potential charge of discrimination or possibility of missing a real pervert who pee's in public for gratification, all indecent exposure convictions get on the list.

Personally, I am against all of these registries to begin with. Already started down the slippery slope. Bloomberg is now trying for "gun-offender" registries. I'm truly supprised that some DA or Mayor hasn't tried for "gang-member" registries.

As far as sex crimes go, the penalties need to be re-vamped given the relatively high repeat offender rates. If these people aren't sufficiently reformed that they need to be on a list, we shouldn't be letting them out in the first place.

drc
 
This didn't happen to a brother of a friend of mine or a guy who works with my neighbor. I have been involved with SOR for a number of years. I ran investigations and we looked for unregistered offenders. IL, as every other state that I'm familiar with and have worked with, and over the years I've worked with a lot of different states, does not list indecent exposure as a sex offense covered by SOR Act.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/

This old wives tale of urinating in public automatically causing SOR has been going around since SOR was first talked about. I have yet to see any SOR listing for anyone for such an offense. I believe every state now has a computerized SO list so if anyone can come up with an offender's name then I'd be happy to look at it.
Urinating in public is not considered a sex act.
 
My understanding of section 314 of CA's penal code is there had to be a 'victim' who was offended and the exposure had to be willful, intentional, and designed to sexually gratify the offender. A drunk who had relieved himself and then forgot to zip himself up was arrested for public intoxication.

I suggest you visit the CA DOJ's website and read for yourself just who is in the registry and who appears in the Megan's Law website.

If the brother of your friend took the fall for section 314 and wasn't able to plea bargain it down to public intoxication, I suspect there is more to the story than the brother was willing to tell.
 
Start with a sex offender registry.

Follow it up with a dopehead registry.

Then an Islamic registry.

Pretty soon . . .
 
I know I will get busted for this, but here goes. I checked the CT offenders registry and don't recall any indecent exposure listing. I think the offender list is a good thing. If you take the philosophy of "be prepared and always have situational awareness", then identifying potential threats to your children or family can be crucial. Keeping my kids informed and aware of potential danger is part of being a parent. My wife and I used the registry to ID offenders in the vicinity of daycares. This was a factor in chosing the daycare facility for our son. As for "public relief", this is 2006 and not 1850. There is no excuse for this. If you are in the woods that's one thing, but the neighbors bushes don't count. :rolleyes:
 
We have talked about that in law class a lot. people are being put on the sex offender list becuase they are pulling over on the highway and going into the woods to take a leak. It's sad and stupid that they don't distinguish this from someone who touches children.
 
"We have talked about that in law class a lot. people are being put on the sex offender list becuase they are pulling over on the highway and going into the woods to take a leak. It's sad and stupid that they don't distinguish this from someone who touches children."

The thing is that they CAN make this distinction. They do not because the whole point of any health and safety legislation is to get more law in YOUR face and more coin into rhe realm. The gov't does not care about the health and safety of you or anyone else, especially your kids. It only cares about power and money. This sex-offender over reaction is a great way to make the rubes think they care.

rr
 
Every urban legend I ever heard (bed of snakes in lake, doberman with fingers in mouth, etc., etc., ad infinitum) was told to me as the absolute truth.

I don't believe the crap about somebody's peeing in the bushes getting them on the sex offenders registry. Damn a sex offender. I have no problem with registering, torturing, imprisoning for life, etc, etc., sexual predators.
 
A masterpiece of stupidity

Well, they were walking and the urge to pee hit him. No bathrooms around so he went behind a bush to take a leak.....Next thing he knew red lights hit him and he was being arrested for indecent exposure...Which of course puts him on the Sex Offender Registry.
Click to expand...
This is just stupid - cops arrest a guy for peeing in the bushes while real criminals are out and about comitting real crimes - nice.:barf: How many crack dealers, pimps, armed robbers, etc. walked free while this guy was being arrested and processed for "criminal urination?":fire:

If there is no bathroom close by and a person takes precautions so that others do not see him/her, people who have to pee outdoors should be left alone. I doubt that there's a one of us who haven't had such a situation.

Peeing should not be a crime, period.
 
I've heard that public urination will get you on the sor in Arizona and Michigan.I don't live in either state.I heard it from people who lived there.I wasn't planning on going there so I nver double checked to see if it is true.
 
as with any other 'reaction' legislation, there are unintended consequences. Guess a fellow should keep it in his jeans these days, eh? Frankly, I think we should kept the hard core offenders locked up forever after their 1st conviction. At least society would not be afflicted with the high incidence of recidivism that sex offenders seem to have.
 
One of my scouts could not get a required secret security clearance because when he graduated from high school, on graduation night, him and a few buddies streaked a bowling alley and got caught. This occured in 1970 in Houston,Tx.

He is listed as a sex offender, I had to send him back to the line companies. What a waste.:mad:
 
As far as I know as long as the guy was only peeing and not waving his Johnson rod around or anything, it is usually, public urination, which most towns have ordinances against, it is a ticket offense, not even a serious misdemeanor. Got a buddy who bounces at concerts at a large ampitheater nearby, they catch that sort of thing all the time from beered-up rowdies who don't want to wait in line.
 
Selling a vibrator in texas will get you put on the SOR.
Big difference between selling a sextoy and aggravated sexual assault.
 
Mens Rea, or mental state is everything.

If a guy had a lot of brewskis and had to relieve his bladder or explode, and stepped behind a bush since the former is more acceptable than the latter, it's not indecent exposure. First, he stepped behind the bushes to conceal his privates. Second, he is behind the bushes because of a need for the body to discharge unwanted fluids. Third, he had no intent to "expose" himself to a female (or whatever critter appeals to him sexually).

Can it become indecent exposure? Yes. One woman told me she was working in an office and saw some guy pissing. She called for him to stop and he was taken aback, surprised that he was seen. Instead of putting his privates away, he grinned at her, and flauntingly shook it before putting it away. At that point, his intent or mens rea had changed and thus his exposure was unlawful. Had he immediately put it away and scampered off, no exposure. That he grinned and flaunted it meant that the actus rea and mens rea coincided such that there is a crime.

BTW, there's a crime anyway in that he "littered" in public.

The People rest.
 
You know, when a sex offender gets out of prison, they ought to have to put a sign in their front yard that says SEX OFFENDER.

I don't give a rat's behind about their rights, but I'd like to know where I can get one of those signs.....

There's a bunch of kids I'd like to keep the heck out of my yard! :neener:
 
There's a bunch of kids I'd like to keep the heck out of my yard!
Click to expand...

I like that idea too. My house is on the way to the local school and hence my lawn is considered a trashcan for all the little punks that pass by everyday.

Anyways, you may get rid of the kids, but the parents (you know the peaceful MMM soccer moms:fire: :fire: ) will be at your door screaming for your head....after all it's for the children's safety you know.....
 
A lot of people are missing one big point:

The registry only accounts for offenders that are playing by the rules. If you don't want to appear on it, simply move and use a different name.

This guy lived next door to me and did not appear on the registry.

http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/0617/molester_ap.html
Police: Convicted molester kept log of 36,000 children's names and abuse acts


SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Police searching the home of a convicted child molester discovered handwritten lists of more than 36,000 children's names -- mostly boys -- and codes that appear to indicate how he abused them...
Click to expand...

The ones you need to worry about aren't going to pop up when you plug in your address. Plain and simple--it's a worthless tool.

Ty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
sex offenders question
Replies
2
Views
493
Ebbtide
E
Shipwreck
  • Locked
New Subdivisions Ban Sex Offenders From Moving In
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
razorburn
R
J
  • Locked
Sex offender gets his name wiped off state registry
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Gray Peterson
G
P
  • Locked
Sex offender registration - for a sheep-abuser???
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
4K
boogieshoes
B
roo_ster
  • Locked
The Sex-Offender Lobby
Replies
5
Views
531
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top