I have a problem with the Sex Offender Registry

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not support a registry based on the idea that if they're dangerous enough to be on one, they should be (or still be) in prison instead of out and about.
 
Failing to register as a sex offender is becoming a felony in many states. Used to be a misdemeanor.
I'm glad its getting tougher.
Sex Offenders are more likely to re-offend that most other criminals. These are people who climax from torturing other people, mind you. Check the lists. Read their crimes. You won't find "public urination" as a predicate offense. You will find rape, aggravated sodomy, and child molestation.
BTW, lots of guys use the "peeing defense" when they're caught masturbating while leering through somebody's window at the woman or child inside. This defense happens so much its a classic. Works alot of the time if the prosecutor is green and didn't think to check the window sill for semen and run a DNA check, or look to see if their was a surveillance camera nearby.
Lots if public indecency and pandering arrests in public parks start with the "peeing defense", too. Then they find out the guy they were hitting on in the public park and displayed their erect penis to was a cop...and was wearing a wire...with a camera.
The "peeing defense" ends after that and the guy pleads.
So, this guy who was peeing in the bushes....just how well do you know him and what makes him happy? :scrutiny:
 
Last edited:
I do not support a registry based on the idea that if they're dangerous enough to be on one, they should be (or still be) in prison instead of out and about.

A persons time in prison is determined by the crime they committed. Unless they do something else in prison, they will typically be let out at the end of their sentence. They aren't administered some "dangerousness" test and kept in if they fail. Many criminals that are released have some type of parole requirements. I see the SOF as something along that line.
 
In Washington State, urinating in public was cited as "Lewd Conduct." I know, because I have a conviction for same on my record. Now, "Lewd Conduct" covers an entire range of behaviors more egregious than al fresco micturation.

Still, these nearly thirty years later, I've not been denied a security clearance, nor have I ever registered on any registry for sex offenders. The age of the conviction may have a lot to do with this.

As for the SOR, I have doubts both as to the motives of its advocates, and the efficacy of its execution.
 
How many times have I heard this exact complaint, or the one where "she was 16 and I was 18 and got back at me..." only to check them out and find out they were full of crap and usually arressted for rape or assault with a deadly weapon along with their sexual offender charges.

It's a good list and tells me who to keep my kids away from.
 
It is also worth pointing out that there is a big distinction between a sexual offender and a sexual predetor. I feel that sexual predetors (especially child molestors/ child rapists) don't need to be registered they need a bullet in the brain pan or in the very least a miserable life spent behind bars. Problem solved.
 
4v50 Gary,

The problem I think that is interesting about this, is while I agree with you, people are still being arrested and charged with indecent exposure for simple public urination. This entails a lot of trouble for the "urinator" and very well may involve legal proceedings and expenses (if he can afford it) in attorney fees to avoid the stigma of being a "sex offendor" listed for life.

I just listened to a caller on a radio show call in regarding this type of case the other night. College student was near a college campus, and while leaving a party walking to his dorm at night, stopped to let out some urine on a tree in a park. LEO driving by grabbed him, and arrested him and was processed as "indecent exposure". He learned that this is now a crime requiring registration on a sex offender list for the rest of his life! He was downright scared, and the radio show host (lawyer) only could advise to hope the DA will not charge, and if so he better get an attorney because public defenders in these kind of cases are weak. So inevitably, the poor suffer.

So yes, Mens Rea is a portion of any case against someone in this. However I will say that in today's climate, the usual over reaction spilling over to simple cases like this are causing pain and suffering needlessly.

4v50 Gary said:
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.
 
odysseus,

In the jurisdictions I've worked in, "public urination" is a different charge from "indecent exposure". They are not the same charge.
You might also want to check (actually research the law) in your area to see if indecent exposure really does qualify as a sex offense for registration purposes. I spent years prosecuting sex crimes. Never had somebody register for indecent exposure. By the way, we never prosecuted somebody for indecent exposure for public urination, either.
-David
 
50 Freak said:
I think it needs to be "scaled down".

I'll agree with your change if I can make a change to it as well; any Sex Offender released from prison who later commits a sex crime (recidivism), the releasing judge is automatically charged with reckless assault on the public with a dangerous weapon...

Deal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top