It also begs the question "What is a sex offender?" There is a lot of sexual offenses that don't represent a danger to anyone. Sex toys will get you years of hard time, a felony record and registration as a sex offender in about half a dozen benighted pits like Texas and Alabama. Up until the SCOTUS ruled that it's none of the government's business what consenting adults do in private (we note that Scalia and Uncle Tom violently disagreed to the point of frothing at the mouth and predicted the fall of the Republic) there were plenty of things that were sex offenses like oral sex, sex between people who aren't married to each other, sex in anything except the missionary position, sex with the lights on (honest) in certain jurisdictions.
I know I committed dozens of felonies by those standards and should have been in jail for the rest of my life. (Any law enforcement officers from Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, and a couple other states feel free to contact me about extradition). Heck, if the evil "activist" Supreme Court hadn't trampled all over States' Rights in 1954 I'd be in doing time for miscegenation with a "mulatto, free Negro, ... or Chinaman" - okay Chinawoman - for having sex with my wife. Anyone wishing to argue that point and try to bring back those good old days is welcome to try and welcome to the heartfelt kick in the fork he will get as soon as my wife finds out about it.
Do any of these even remotely pose a danger to children? No.
Do any of these make a person a suspect when a child disappears? Hardly.
Does breaking down these people's doors when a child goes missing make the world a safer place in any possible way? Don't make me laugh.
It's typical "seagull legislation" on the part of someone who wants to Do Something about Immorality For the Children. [Seagull legislation: Swoop in. Make a lot of noise. Defecate all over everything. Leave the mess for someone else to clean up.]
Someone with an appreciation for unfashionable things like facts will tell you that the first place to look is a non-custodial parent. Warrantless searches of some Alabaman woman who owns a vibrator are not going to do anything except take police resources away from solving whatever crime may have been committed.
I know I committed dozens of felonies by those standards and should have been in jail for the rest of my life. (Any law enforcement officers from Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, and a couple other states feel free to contact me about extradition). Heck, if the evil "activist" Supreme Court hadn't trampled all over States' Rights in 1954 I'd be in doing time for miscegenation with a "mulatto, free Negro, ... or Chinaman" - okay Chinawoman - for having sex with my wife. Anyone wishing to argue that point and try to bring back those good old days is welcome to try and welcome to the heartfelt kick in the fork he will get as soon as my wife finds out about it.
Do any of these even remotely pose a danger to children? No.
Do any of these make a person a suspect when a child disappears? Hardly.
Does breaking down these people's doors when a child goes missing make the world a safer place in any possible way? Don't make me laugh.
It's typical "seagull legislation" on the part of someone who wants to Do Something about Immorality For the Children. [Seagull legislation: Swoop in. Make a lot of noise. Defecate all over everything. Leave the mess for someone else to clean up.]
Someone with an appreciation for unfashionable things like facts will tell you that the first place to look is a non-custodial parent. Warrantless searches of some Alabaman woman who owns a vibrator are not going to do anything except take police resources away from solving whatever crime may have been committed.