• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why is there a sex offender database, but no violent or career criminal database?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
so if she's having consensual sex with her boyfriend, the boyfriend needs to be labeled a sex offender (but not the girl! of course not the girl! Heaven FORBID!) because the parents have the right to criminally prosecute in this case?

I agree with your second statement, though I suspect our perspectives lie on opposite sides of what is meant by "overhaul."

curious...
Click to expand...

When I said "in all seriousness" that should have been your first clue that I, you know, wasn't serious about the statement you highlighted (While skipping the line in the middle that stated "in all seriousness").

Only thing curious to me so far is your selective comprehension ability 😉
 
thecoolnessrune said:
When I said "in all seriousness" that should have been your first clue that I, you know, wasn't serious about the statement you highlighted (While skipping the line in the middle that stated "in all seriousness").

Only thing curious to me so far is your selective comprehension ability 😉
Click to expand...

or you could choose to actually answer the question...rather than back peddle. I'm not trying to bait you or anything. I'm just curious.

Some people honestly do believe that consensual sex among teens should qualify as a sex offense to appease the (as you describe) "butthurt parents."

It's not obvious if you are reflecting that argument honestly or ironically. It's a real topic, you know.
 
zinfamous said:
or you could choose to actually answer the question...rather than back peddle. I'm not trying to bait you or anything. I'm just curious.

Some people honestly do believe that consensual sex among teens should qualify as a sex offense to appease the (as you describe) "butthurt parents."

It's not obvious if you are reflecting that argument honestly or ironically. It's a real topic, you know.
Click to expand...

You cling to the term "backpeddle" anytime you're trying to mask your own. In no way was I backpeddling, instead I was having to point out to you that a line you intentionally skipped in your quote had everything to do with you misunderstanding what I wrote. That's not backpeddling, and its not my fault that you can't seem to comprehend that.

The question you posed towards has no place regarding anything I've said (the serious parts anyways), and in *your particular case* isn't even a serious question. You're either *are* baiting or feigning ignorance. You've followed posts by me in the past and this sort of question could be answered by yourself with very little thought involved.

Now that you (hopefully) understand what was said, maybe you can ask something more relavant if you even have a question to direct towards me?
 
zinfamous said:
The intent does not often reflect the reality. Such is the case with the sex offender list.
Click to expand...

Frivolous prosecution of teenage sex, for example, is a completely different discussion. A conviction is a conviction, and addition to the SO list is symptomatic, but it starts with a DA's choice to pursue ascenine convictions.

Removing the inclusion of teenage sex from qualification to the list won't remove DA's or communities with their heads up their @sses who want to put someone on trial for this.
 
Ah, so you do believe that consensual sex amongst teenagers constitutes a sex offense, and that a 17 year-old boy knocking boots with his girlfriend should be registered for life alongside pedophiles and rapists.

figures.


You refused to answer, and told me to base my interpretation of your post on your past posts. Based on past posts...that's really the only interpretation.

By the way, that is the only time that I have ever used the word back peddle. You can check on that if you feel so inclined.
 
jjsole said:
Frivolous prosecution of teenage sex, for example, is a completely different discussion. A conviction is a conviction, and addition to the SO list is symptomatic, but it starts with a DA's choice to pursue ascenine convictions.

Removing the inclusion of teenage sex from qualification to the list won't remove DA's or communities with their heads up their @sses who want to put someone on trial for this.
Click to expand...

well, that's still the issue. I agree with you on the intent, but until overzealous DA's and "butt hurt" parents learn to deal with reality (and perhaps personal failings if that's how they choose to see life), the registry is a farce.
 
zinfamous said:
Ah, so you do believe that consensual sex amongst teenagers constitutes a sex offense, and that a 17 year-old boy knocking boots with his girlfriend should be registered for life alongside pedophiles and rapists.

figures.


You refused to answer, and told me to base my interpretation of your post on your past posts. Based on past posts...that's really the only interpretation.

By the way, that is the only time that I have ever used the word back peddle. You can check on that if you feel so inclined.
Click to expand...

So you're simply that ignorant? Well I know then that you simply won't get it. You and everyone else can always make the interpretation you feel like. You can interpret my opinion based on my previous posts just like I can interpret that you have very poor comprehension abilities based on your analyzing of my posts.

I can interpret that you have no comprehension of what a term as simple as "backpeddle" means, and that in you messing it up here nearly guarantees any use previous or in the future can only be equally erroneous unless you show some ability of learning something from all this.
 
People who urinate in public when they're drunk get put on the sex offender list too. Same with teenagers who "sext".

My personal take is that if these people are so dangerous, they shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place. Deny their paroles and keep them in for as long as possible. But at the end of the time, they should be given a chance to set their life straight. They shouldn't have to worry about scared parents looking them up on the sex offenders list and coming and burning their house down. Or not even having a place to live because every affordable housing is too close to a school. Make it too difficult to fit into society and they never will. They'll lose touch with societal values and start to care less about what is right or wrong and maybe start to think that jail wasn't that bad and who cares if they end up there again.

If we're going to do the whole scarlet letter thing and brand some criminals for life, let's do it for ALL criminals. It's the hypocrisy of the issue that really irks me.
 
thecoolnessrune said:
So you're simply that ignorant? Well I know then that you simply won't get it. You and everyone else can always make the interpretation you feel like. You can interpret my opinion based on my previous posts just like I can interpret that you have very poor comprehension abilities based on your analyzing of my posts.

I can interpret that you have no comprehension of what a term as simple as "backpeddle" means, and that in you messing it up here nearly guarantees any use previous or in the future can only be equally erroneous unless you show some ability of learning something from all this.
Click to expand...

haha, OK. I'll just leave you alone. It's really kind of sad at this point. 🙁

free :beer: for you.
 
zinfamous said:
well, that's still the issue. I agree with you on the intent, but until overzealous DA's and "butt hurt" parents learn to deal with reality (and perhaps personal failings if that's how they choose to see life), the registry is a farce.
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't call it a farce as much as I'd call it 'flawed.' For an 18 year old convicted of having sex with his 17.5 year old girlfriend, to be grouped on the same list as a serial child molester, is tragic.

Perhaps they need multiple lists? Or 'grading' or 'tiering' of offenses? And/or of 'recentness'? I don't know, but it's certainly a worthy discussion.

Then again, not easy to approach public discussion because the same shallow ignoramouses(?) who want to pursue frivolous convictions will accuse anyone wanting to modify the list as wanting to 'protect' sexual offenders. 🙄

Overall tho, I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water...I believe in the original intent, and the value the list provides in alerting communities of convicted sexual predators, but agree that there is plenty of injustice that the current list parameters provides as well.
 
Last edited:
zinfamous said:
haha, OK. I'll just leave you alone. It's really kind of sad at this point. 🙁

free :beer: for you.
Click to expand...

You mean that you and me had yet another back-and-forth that in the end matters little to either of us? That your original question had nothing to do with anything I stated?

I mean, I'm all for conversation, but why not keep it relevant rather than asking silly questions for silly answers? You took a post, that had a beginning section of sarcasm (that was obviously lost on you), but rather than just comprehending a misunderstanding, you instead had to try to prove some merit by trolling, which is indeed, admittedly sad at this point.

Hey, if I had a beer I'd give you one, I have no problem with you when you're behaving, its just when you get to trolling that it tarnishes. I only got diet coke though (time to go shopping).. In the meantime will that work though? 😛
 
jjsole said:
Perhaps they need multiple lists? Or 'grading' or 'tiering' of offenses? And/or of 'recentness'? I don't know, but it's certainly a worthy discussion.
Click to expand...

There is some sort of "tiering" system and I had never heard of before the Lawrence Taylor/hooker hoopla the last few weeks. He's being charged with a "3rd Degree Sexual Assault". I never knew there were degrees.

I mean it makes sense...I just never heard of it before.
 
vi edit said:
There is some sort of "tiering" system and I had never heard of before the Lawrence Taylor/hooker hoopla the last few weeks. He's being charged with a "3rd Degree Sexual Assault". I never knew there were degrees.

I mean it makes sense...I just never heard of it before.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but where I was going with that is in the end, if convicted, he'll still be put on the same sexual offender list as a 3-time convicted child molester, regardless of what he's convicted of. My thought was, for example only, perhaps there should be a "3rd-degree" offender list and a "1st-degree" offender list.

I'm not necessarily suggesting this, just pondering ways to enhance the effectiveness of the list to serve it's intent, and mitigate injustice served to those who clearly don't deserve to be associated on the same list as sexual predators.
 
jjsole said:
Personally I wouldn't call it a farce as much as I'd call it 'flawed.' For an 18 year old convicted of having sex with his 17.5 year old girlfriend, to be grouped on the same list as a serial child molester, is tragic.

Perhaps they need multiple lists? Or 'grading' or 'tiering' of offenses? And/or of 'recentness'? I don't know, but it's certainly a worthy discussion.

Then again, not easy to approach public discussion because the same shallow ignoramouses(?) who want to pursue frivolous convictions will accuse anyone wanting to modify the list as wanting to 'protect' sexual offenders. 🙄

Overall tho, I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water...I believe in the original intent, and the value the list provides in alerting communities of convicted sexual predators, but agree that there is plenty of injustice that the current list parameters provides as well.
Click to expand...

yeah, flawed is probably a better word. But I don't see the need for separate lists, b/c frankly, I don't see any reason for consensual sex to land anyone on such a list.

I think this country needs a serious de-Puritanization.
 
jjsole said:
I agree with that, but where I was going with that is in the end, if convicted, he'll still be put on the same sexual offender list as a 3-time convicted child molester, regardless of what he's convicted of. My thought was, for example only, perhaps there should be a "3rd-degree" offender list and a "1st-degree" offender list.

I'm not necessarily suggesting this, just pondering ways to enhance the effectiveness of the list to serve it's intent, and mitigate injustice served to those who clearly don't deserve to be associated on the same list as sexual predators.
Click to expand...

Yeh, I just didn't continue out the rest of my thoughts. Yes, I agree that there needs to be rational, thought out classification system where certain situations have no place being on there (teenage statutory issues, sexting, public urination, ect) and save the importance of the list for true offenders (serial rapists, pedophiles, ect).

Of course that also assumes that there's a rational, thought out, and fair justice system....
 
zinfamous said:
yeah, flawed is probably a better word. But I don't see the need for separate lists, b/c frankly, I don't see any reason for consensual sex to land anyone on such a list.

I think this country needs a serious de-Puritanization.
Click to expand...

How about teachers having sex with students, some students in middle school? Even an unthreatening word like 'consensual' is vulnerable to oversimplification.
 
vi edit said:
Yeh, I just didn't continue out the rest of my thoughts. Yes, I agree that there needs to be rational, thought out classification system where certain situations have no place being on there (teenage statutory issues, sexting, public urination, ect) and save the importance of the list for true offenders (serial rapists, pedophiles, ect).

Of course that also assumes that there's a rational, thought out, and fair justice system....
Click to expand...

haha
 
jjsole said:
How about teachers having sex with students, some students in middle school? Even an unthreatening word like 'consensual' is vulnerable to oversimplification.
Click to expand...

true, true. I'm specifically thinking about the young BF/GF situations and pissed-off dad wrecking a young kid's future b/c his little girl was hitting skins.
 
A lot of the statutory rape laws have a "overlap" for people in the 18 and 17.5 cases. In some it is things like 16 years old(er) and 12 and younger, so a 15 and a 13 can get away with it, and 18 and 16 can do the same.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm
to know if you are breaking the law in your state.

But as a side note I agree with most of the statements here, where if they have a registry for sex-offenders but not the other violent/hate/whatever crimes. I also hate how the States put sex on a pedestal and somehow it is more guarded than any other thing. If a 16 year old were to murder someone, they would have a hearing to see if that 16 yr/old were aware of adult descisions, but when it comes to sex, they just give them the benfit of the doubt and slap the cuffs on the other person.
I also think they should give a little more detail that just yes or no or perhaps something they can do to expunge it. A friend's husband is a registered offender, and gets badgered all the time. The problem was he was caught having sex with his girlfriend of 3 years, the day after he turned 18, and two days before she turned 16. They are currently married with children now and have been for almost 15 years. Father in law admits he just wanted this boyfriend to go away and thought this would be the best way. Needless to say, awkward Christmases and holidays...
 
mugs said:
Because parents whose kids are victimized turn into activists, and one set of parents managed to get laws passed that require sex offender registries.
Click to expand...

In Reality:

hmm...people don't like sex offenders.

BooYah...That's like crazy talk...lets us make up some laws and shit!

?...wot?

BooYah...Day hate dis crap...we can push it up and put all these things below it. Day vote for it, they vote for it all.

?...wait, why can we just single issue vote?

GUNSHOTS!!@!@@
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top