Great...we get a sexual offender at the Soccer Complex and the police won't tell us who he is

[waggy]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
I'm personally against sexual offender registries for first-time offenders (at least) because a lot of people are classified on that list that shouldn't be (IMHO, not the law's).

For example, a 17 and 18 year old sleep together. It was consentual, and both parties were of age of consent. However, minor's parents press charges against other party, regardless of their child's opinion. Bingo, sexual offender. But why? They've done "nothing wrong" if it was consentual. There are numerous such situations like that, that I completely disagree with.

yeap that is one of the biggest problems with it.

I agree with the sexual offender list. they just need to re-work it.

 

[moshquerade]

apparently, they legally can't tell you his name, but just check this site for offenders in your area and he should be there.


http://www.familywatchdog.us/

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: isekii

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I hate the sex offender registry. It is such BS.

are you on it ?

Good question. :laugh:

No, but I disagree with it on two points.

1) In effect, it is a lifelong punishment and inprisonment of every offender. Most states/counties restrict them from living near schools, bus stops, etc. This makes them pay for crimes long beyond the time they were supposed to spend in jail.

2) The severity of the crime is ignored. If a 22 year old guy is sleeping with a 16 year old, I would be concerned, but I honestly don't care unless there were odd circumstances (such as the 22 year old being the 16 year old's teacher, nonconsent, etc). Yet these are considered crimes and the people are put in the database for the rest of their lives.

Because of this, I completely ignore the list.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: isekii

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I hate the sex offender registry. It is such BS.

are you on it ?

Good question. :laugh:

No, but I disagree with it on two points.

1) In effect, it is a lifelong punishment and inprisonment of every offender. Most states/counties restrict them from living near schools, bus stops, etc. This makes them pay for crimes long beyond the time they were supposed to spend in jail.

2) The severity of the crime is ignored. If a 22 year old guy is sleeping with a 16 year old, I would be concerned, but I honestly don't care unless there were odd circumstances (such as the 22 year old being the 16 year old's teacher, nonconsent, etc). Yet these are considered crimes and the people are put in the database for the rest of their lives.

Because of this, I completely ignore the list.

the offender list i checked also detailed their crime so you know if it was "a 22 year old guy sleeping with a 16 y/o". It also listed whether there was any force used.

I think that helps you determine more who are the worst offenders, and if you want to discount that 22 year old you can.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Judging from the posts in this thread I can see why they don't give out the person's name. It would just lead to harassment and more violence.

And darn it all to heck if that information might also prevent a child from getting molested...

So why don't we just execute them on the first offense, then? That also "might prevent a child from getting molested."

See, now you are just being silly.

If a known sexual offender is hanging around a soccer field loaded with kids when he has no business being there...don't you think a good preventative measure is to let the parents know what this guy looks like beyond a vague description of "Medium build, bleached blond hair, about mid 30?s -40?s." Doesn't even tell us his approximate height or even his ethnicity.

If he's out of jail his debt to society is paid, giving out his name is just asking for him to be harassed and possibly beaten. This is exactly why I don't like the online listings. You're all fired up already and you don't even know if his crime was against children.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Judging from the posts in this thread I can see why they don't give out the person's name. It would just lead to harassment and more violence.

And darn it all to heck if that information might also prevent a child from getting molested...

So why don't we just execute them on the first offense, then? That also "might prevent a child from getting molested."

See, now you are just being silly.

If a known sexual offender is hanging around a soccer field loaded with kids when he has no business being there...don't you think a good preventative measure is to let the parents know what this guy looks like beyond a vague description of "Medium build, bleached blond hair, about mid 30?s -40?s." Doesn't even tell us his approximate height or even his ethnicity.

If he's out of jail his debt to society is paid, giving out his name is just asking for him to be harassed and possibly beaten. This is exactly why I don't like the online listings. You're all fired up already and you don't even know if his crime was against children.

The problem is is that child molestor's have a pretty high rate of commiting the same offenses again once they've been released.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Judging from the posts in this thread I can see why they don't give out the person's name. It would just lead to harassment and more violence.

And darn it all to heck if that information might also prevent a child from getting molested...

So why don't we just execute them on the first offense, then? That also "might prevent a child from getting molested."

See, now you are just being silly.

If a known sexual offender is hanging around a soccer field loaded with kids when he has no business being there...don't you think a good preventative measure is to let the parents know what this guy looks like beyond a vague description of "Medium build, bleached blond hair, about mid 30?s -40?s." Doesn't even tell us his approximate height or even his ethnicity.

If he's out of jail his debt to society is paid, giving out his name is just asking for him to be harassed and possibly beaten. This is exactly why I don't like the online listings. You're all fired up already and you don't even know if his crime was against children.

The problem is is that child molestor's have a pretty high rate of commiting the same offenses again once they've been released.

You know he's a child molestor?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
I'm personally against sexual offender registries for first-time offenders (at least) because a lot of people are classified on that list that shouldn't be (IMHO, not the law's).

For example, a 17 and 18 year old sleep together. It was consentual, and both parties were of age of consent. However, minor's parents press charges against other party, regardless of their child's opinion. Bingo, sexual offender. But why? They've done "nothing wrong" if it was consentual. There are numerous such situations like that, that I completely disagree with.

I agree. There needs to be some qualifications for making the sex offenders list based on the heinousness of the crime. Whether or not its a first conviction should be moot though. It should be based on what exactly the offender did and should only be if a conviction was made, not just an allegation or a trial. Somebody in the situation you described most definitely does NOT belong on a sex offender list with their face plastered all over the internet. There needs to be evidence of a premeditated or violent sexual act done with lewd or vicious intent.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Judging from the posts in this thread I can see why they don't give out the person's name. It would just lead to harassment and more violence.

And darn it all to heck if that information might also prevent a child from getting molested...

So why don't we just execute them on the first offense, then? That also "might prevent a child from getting molested."

See, now you are just being silly.

If a known sexual offender is hanging around a soccer field loaded with kids when he has no business being there...don't you think a good preventative measure is to let the parents know what this guy looks like beyond a vague description of "Medium build, bleached blond hair, about mid 30?s -40?s." Doesn't even tell us his approximate height or even his ethnicity.

If he's out of jail his debt to society is paid, giving out his name is just asking for him to be harassed and possibly beaten. This is exactly why I don't like the online listings. You're all fired up already and you don't even know if his crime was against children.

The problem is is that child molestor's have a pretty high rate of commiting the same offenses again once they've been released.

You know he's a child molestor?

Sexual offender...roaming around a soccer complex full of children when he has no business being there and has already been kicked out of the complex once...I'd say that the odds are pretty high.

Anyways, when my wife looked up the two guys that resembled the description given...one was convicted of attempting to entice a child and the other was convicted of child molestation.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: VanTheMan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Judging from the posts in this thread I can see why they don't give out the person's name. It would just lead to harassment and more violence.

And darn it all to heck if that information might also prevent a child from getting molested...

Yeah really. I guess it's better to make sure nothing bad happens to a known sexual predator than to look out for the well-being of children who might be kidnapped or molested... :disgust: I can understand trying to give someone a second chance at a normal life, but if the person is hanging around places where children are without a reason, then all bets are off.

I see a lot of condemning posts here by a bunch of people who don't even know what this "mystery sex offender" even did. I also think the police description given is intentionally vague enough to prevent any kind of predatory or vigilante justice against this person but does give enough detail to put parents and other people on the alert. I think you'd have a pretty good idea of who he was if you actually saw him based on the description given. But they don't want to blatantly give enough information to make it easy enough for some overly zealous types to go hunt him down and exact some kind of preemtory "justice" on him. . .assuming they even know what he was actually convicted of other than that he was previously ejected from the soccer complex for reasons unknown.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
I'm personally against sexual offender registries for first-time offenders (at least) because a lot of people are classified on that list that shouldn't be (IMHO, not the law's).

For example, a 17 and 18 year old sleep together. It was consentual, and both parties were of age of consent. However, minor's parents press charges against other party, regardless of their child's opinion. Bingo, sexual offender. But why? They've done "nothing wrong" if it was consentual. There are numerous such situations like that, that I completely disagree with.

I agree. There needs to be some qualifications for making the sex offenders list based on the heinousness of the crime. Whether or not its a first conviction should be moot though. It should be based on what exactly the offender did and should only be if a conviction was made, not just an allegation or a trial. Somebody in the situation you described most definitely does NOT belong on a sex offender list with their face plastered all over the internet. There needs to be evidence of a premeditated or violent sexual act done with lewd or vicious intent.

i do wish some of you would read my post.

on the government sex offender list i viewed it details their crime and if force was used.
therefore, if it is an 18 y/o sleeping with a 17 y/o who was charged cause the parents were pissed you can figure that out. (it lists the age(s) of the victim(s))

does that make the guy a "sex offender" in your book? i would think the details could vindicate him. i have a so-called sex offender on my road that is 21 and he did it with a 16 y/o... no force, no drugs involved (it tells you that about the crime). i really don't fear the guy at all, but i won't say he shouldn't be on the list. he knew he was taking that risk.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
I'm personally against sexual offender registries for first-time offenders (at least) because a lot of people are classified on that list that shouldn't be (IMHO, not the law's).

For example, a 17 and 18 year old sleep together. It was consentual, and both parties were of age of consent. However, minor's parents press charges against other party, regardless of their child's opinion. Bingo, sexual offender. But why? They've done "nothing wrong" if it was consentual. There are numerous such situations like that, that I completely disagree with.

I agree. There needs to be some qualifications for making the sex offenders list based on the heinousness of the crime. Whether or not its a first conviction should be moot though. It should be based on what exactly the offender did and should only be if a conviction was made, not just an allegation or a trial. Somebody in the situation you described most definitely does NOT belong on a sex offender list with their face plastered all over the internet. There needs to be evidence of a premeditated or violent sexual act done with lewd or vicious intent.

i do wish some of you would read my post.

on the government sex offender list i viewed it details their crime and if force was used.
therefore, if it is an 18 y/o sleeping with a 17 y/o who was charged cause the parents were pissed you can figure that out. (it lists the age(s) of the victim(s))

does that make the guy a "sex offender" in your book? i would think the details could vindicate him. i have a so-called sex offender on my road that is 21 and he did it with a 16 y/o... no force, no drugs involved (it tells you that about the crime). i really don't fear the guy at all, but i won't say he shouldn't be on the list. he knew he was taking that risk.

Maybe you should read my post again. NO it certainly does not make the 18 yr. old a sex offender. His/her name does not even belong on the list is my argument. The details need not be even explored because somebody in that situation does not even belong on the list. It just sullies this persons name for no real reason. Not everybody reads the facts. For many there is such a stigma attached to being "labeled" as something that they will completely ignore the circumstances surrounding the event.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
I'm personally against sexual offender registries for first-time offenders (at least) because a lot of people are classified on that list that shouldn't be (IMHO, not the law's).

For example, a 17 and 18 year old sleep together. It was consentual, and both parties were of age of consent. However, minor's parents press charges against other party, regardless of their child's opinion. Bingo, sexual offender. But why? They've done "nothing wrong" if it was consentual. There are numerous such situations like that, that I completely disagree with.

I agree. There needs to be some qualifications for making the sex offenders list based on the heinousness of the crime. Whether or not its a first conviction should be moot though. It should be based on what exactly the offender did and should only be if a conviction was made, not just an allegation or a trial. Somebody in the situation you described most definitely does NOT belong on a sex offender list with their face plastered all over the internet. There needs to be evidence of a premeditated or violent sexual act done with lewd or vicious intent.

i do wish some of you would read my post.

on the government sex offender list i viewed it details their crime and if force was used.
therefore, if it is an 18 y/o sleeping with a 17 y/o who was charged cause the parents were pissed you can figure that out. (it lists the age(s) of the victim(s))

does that make the guy a "sex offender" in your book? i would think the details could vindicate him. i have a so-called sex offender on my road that is 21 and he did it with a 16 y/o... no force, no drugs involved (it tells you that about the crime). i really don't fear the guy at all, but i won't say he shouldn't be on the list. he knew he was taking that risk.

Maybe you should read my post again. NO it certainly does not make the 18 yr. old a sex offender. His/her name does not even belong on the list is my argument. The details need not be even explored because somebody in that situation does not even belong on the list. It just sullies this persons name for no real reason. Not everybody reads the facts. For many there is such a stigma attached to being "labeled" as something that they will completely ignore the circumstances surrounding the event.

I totally read your post. I guess you didn't comprehend mine.

Yes, the 18 y/o IS a sex offender. In this country sexual intercourse with a minor is illegal. Like it or not - that's a fact. You can say you don't like that law, BUT you cannot say he isn't a sex offender under the law.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
I'm personally against sexual offender registries for first-time offenders (at least) because a lot of people are classified on that list that shouldn't be (IMHO, not the law's).

For example, a 17 and 18 year old sleep together. It was consentual, and both parties were of age of consent. However, minor's parents press charges against other party, regardless of their child's opinion. Bingo, sexual offender. But why? They've done "nothing wrong" if it was consentual. There are numerous such situations like that, that I completely disagree with.

I agree. There needs to be some qualifications for making the sex offenders list based on the heinousness of the crime. Whether or not its a first conviction should be moot though. It should be based on what exactly the offender did and should only be if a conviction was made, not just an allegation or a trial. Somebody in the situation you described most definitely does NOT belong on a sex offender list with their face plastered all over the internet. There needs to be evidence of a premeditated or violent sexual act done with lewd or vicious intent.

i do wish some of you would read my post.

on the government sex offender list i viewed it details their crime and if force was used.
therefore, if it is an 18 y/o sleeping with a 17 y/o who was charged cause the parents were pissed you can figure that out. (it lists the age(s) of the victim(s))

does that make the guy a "sex offender" in your book? i would think the details could vindicate him. i have a so-called sex offender on my road that is 21 and he did it with a 16 y/o... no force, no drugs involved (it tells you that about the crime). i really don't fear the guy at all, but i won't say he shouldn't be on the list. he knew he was taking that risk.

Maybe you should read my post again. NO it certainly does not make the 18 yr. old a sex offender. His/her name does not even belong on the list is my argument. The details need not be even explored because somebody in that situation does not even belong on the list. It just sullies this persons name for no real reason. Not everybody reads the facts. For many there is such a stigma attached to being "labeled" as something that they will completely ignore the circumstances surrounding the event.

I totally read your post. I guess you didn't comprehend mine.

Yes, the 18 y/o IS a sex offender. In this country sexual intercourse with a minor is illegal. Like it or not - that's a fact. You can say you don't like that law, BUT you cannot say he isn't a sex offender under the law.

It's odd that our hypothetical 18 y.o. will be labeled and followed around for life yet this is not the case for killers (once they're off parole anyway).

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
I'm personally against sexual offender registries for first-time offenders (at least) because a lot of people are classified on that list that shouldn't be (IMHO, not the law's).

For example, a 17 and 18 year old sleep together. It was consentual, and both parties were of age of consent. However, minor's parents press charges against other party, regardless of their child's opinion. Bingo, sexual offender. But why? They've done "nothing wrong" if it was consentual. There are numerous such situations like that, that I completely disagree with.

yip that happend to my friends son. he was 19 and she was 17, parents found out and he was tried, convicted and thrown in jail for 15 months. his life is ruined such a waste of tax payers dollars and a kids life.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
I'm personally against sexual offender registries for first-time offenders (at least) because a lot of people are classified on that list that shouldn't be (IMHO, not the law's).

For example, a 17 and 18 year old sleep together. It was consentual, and both parties were of age of consent. However, minor's parents press charges against other party, regardless of their child's opinion. Bingo, sexual offender. But why? They've done "nothing wrong" if it was consentual. There are numerous such situations like that, that I completely disagree with.

I agree. There needs to be some qualifications for making the sex offenders list based on the heinousness of the crime. Whether or not its a first conviction should be moot though. It should be based on what exactly the offender did and should only be if a conviction was made, not just an allegation or a trial. Somebody in the situation you described most definitely does NOT belong on a sex offender list with their face plastered all over the internet. There needs to be evidence of a premeditated or violent sexual act done with lewd or vicious intent.

i do wish some of you would read my post.

on the government sex offender list i viewed it details their crime and if force was used.
therefore, if it is an 18 y/o sleeping with a 17 y/o who was charged cause the parents were pissed you can figure that out. (it lists the age(s) of the victim(s))

does that make the guy a "sex offender" in your book? i would think the details could vindicate him. i have a so-called sex offender on my road that is 21 and he did it with a 16 y/o... no force, no drugs involved (it tells you that about the crime). i really don't fear the guy at all, but i won't say he shouldn't be on the list. he knew he was taking that risk.

Maybe you should read my post again. NO it certainly does not make the 18 yr. old a sex offender. His/her name does not even belong on the list is my argument. The details need not be even explored because somebody in that situation does not even belong on the list. It just sullies this persons name for no real reason. Not everybody reads the facts. For many there is such a stigma attached to being "labeled" as something that they will completely ignore the circumstances surrounding the event.

I totally read your post. I guess you didn't comprehend mine.

Yes, the 18 y/o IS a sex offender. In this country sexual intercourse with a minor is illegal. Like it or not - that's a fact. You can say you don't like that law, BUT you cannot say he isn't a sex offender under the law.

That's fine, technically he is a sex offender the way the law is now. I won't argue that. But the law needs to have a little wiggle room with respect to who's name belongs on "the list." That is my main point. The kid is now labeled for life for something that essentially amounts to jay-walking. That is not right. Had he violently raped the girl, that's another story. But it's probably just a case of the parents being angry that he deflowered their precious princess. So because of some vengeful parents, this kids life is ruined when their daughter was totally consentual and complicit in the act. But because of some arbitrary line in the sand between 17 years old and 18 years old, the boy is a criminal for life now.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

That's fine, technically he is a sex offender the way the law is now. I won't argue that. But the law needs to have a little wiggle room with respect to who's name belongs on "the list." That is my main point. The kid is now labeled for life for something that essentially amounts to jay-walking. That is not right. Had he violently raped the girl, that's another story. But it's probably just a case of the parents being angry that he deflowered their precious princess. So because of some vengeful parents, this kids life is ruined when their daughter was totally consentual and complicit in the act. But because of some arbitrary line in the sand between 17 years old and 18 years old, the boy is a criminal for life now.

I agree with you entirely, but not all sex offenders are on the list for life. Some are only on the list for 10 years.

 

[TravisT]

The man's name should be given up. This is potentially a safety issue for the citizens in that area.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: TravisT
The man's name should be given up. This is potentially a safety issue for the citizens in that area.

How about the convicted murders living around you? What about those convicted for robbery/burglery?

 

[TravisT]

Yeah, i'd personally like to know about them as well.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Yeah, i'd personally like to know about them as well.

Then why aren't you down at the police station demanding to know the names?

 

[Fingolfin269]

I should have read the entire thread so EDITED.

 

[TravisT]

I actually have viewed the sexual offenders list more than once within the last year for my area. There is no such thing for the things you describe that I know of. I would like to know, but i'm not demanding to know. I don't know exactly what your argument is, but why shouldn't the police give up this guys name and picture? They obviously felt it was important enough to make parents aware of, but yet didn't feel it was important to know if the man walking in the restroom behind your son was the predator or not. It doesn't make sense to me.

This is the same thing as the police officer coming to my house, telling me that I live within a mile of a convicted murder or thief but not telling me who, or where they are.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: TravisT
I actually have viewed the sexual offenders list more than once within the last year for my area. There is no such thing for the things you describe that I know of. I would like to know, but i'm not demanding to know. I don't know exactly what your argument is, but why shouldn't the police give up this guys name and picture? They obviously felt it was important enough to make parents aware of, but yet didn't feel it was important to know if the man walking in the restroom behind your son was the predator or not. It doesn't make sense to me.

This is the same thing as the police officer coming to my house, telling me that I live within a mile of a convicted murder or thief but not telling me who, or where they are.

There are a couple of points. The first is that the list only goes to promote fear by showing ever single person ever convicted of a sex crime living in the area. This includes an 18 year old consentually having sex with a 17 year old in 1990. While these lists may list the crime, these are often misinterpreted. The above could be labbeled "sexual assault of a minor." The actual details of the crime are not released. Again, this only promotes fear. Second, there is a double standard of sorts. People (including those in this thread) are up in arms over not knowing the identity, yet they completely ignore every other sort of crime that goes on around them. The only reason the police reported this is because of politics. If there was a sudden demand from the sheeple of America to know about convicted murderers, the the police would probably notify you about them.

To answer the other part of your question, the legal right of public sex offender databases and registration is already questionable (based on the fact that it punishes a person for a crime after they have served their sentence). Providing more information only provides additional ammo against the laws. It is also a liability issue. If the person were found killed the next day, the local PD would be partially liable.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I hate the sex offender registry. It is such BS.

It is BS for the most part...most of those on it seem to be kids that did something with another kid. What my guess is a jilted party decides to make it a legal issue.

Very few states, if any now; have automatic statutatory rape laws. In many like Florida, as long as one is 24 or under and the other is 16 or older it's fair game. In others as long as X amount of years is not between the minor and the adult it's fair.

However; it's pretty easy for another to claim they were raped. You end up on the sex offender list then.