Comments on: A Better Sex Offender Registry

By: Mica

Mica — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:08:32 +0000

Bill: Because someone is against a failed policy, you think it must be because it touches me personally. Hardly. Secondly, getting charged with an infraction or a misdemeanor is one thing – and I, too, would expect the consequences – but to be put on a PUBLIC registry?? For doing something so minor? That’s a fascist state if it thinks people who pee in the park or teen boys who have sex with their underage girlfriends are predators and deserve to be on a public registry the rest of their lives. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? What is the public policy purpose in that? Read my other posts dating back three years to see where I stand. Megan’s List in Califronia didn’t save Chelsea King or Amber Dubois from John Gardner, even if he wasn’t registered locally, because he wasn’t sufficiently tracked. There are predators – and offenders. He’s a predator. Many, though it’s an unknown quantity, are not predators. Why doesn’t the state even list the date of the offense? It doesn’t bother, because if people were to know the date of the last offense they would know the list is overblown.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:39:32 +0000

Sorry to hear that… how old was your son? Was he a minor as well? Just because someone is sexually active, doesn’t mean you have to be active with them. Did you forget to teach this to your son?
Bill´s last blog ..Welcome

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:36:00 +0000

Actually, no I’ve never peed in a park (outside of a bathroom), mooned a sports opponent, OR had sex with an underage girlfriend. You see, all of those things are ILLEGAL, and I think you’ll find that the majority of us do NOT do illegal things.

However, if I HAD done it, I’d deserve to be charged with the crime. I’m betting you or somebody you know got charged with one, huh Mica?
Bill´s last blog ..Welcome

By: point

point — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:43:49 +0000

I’ve read all the comments and quite frankly, wouldn’t it to be wise to really examine the indivisual who commits the offense. It’s quite oveous the ones who reoffened would be the most threat. But what about the ones who where convicted of a one time offense. Lets say the person was convicted of a 1st. degree. But at the trial there had been no phisical evidence to prove it, even by a Doctor. That a first degree happened. Should that person be convicted of that. You see we all see just the cover of the book, but how many of us would open that book and read whats inside. I know there are many of books that have a title that has nothing to do what is going on in the book. Yes ther’ers alot of bad pepole out there. But they are not all bad ones, and I know of a person in this situation and even though it happened almost 20 years ago and this person has never been convicted of another crime, ther are alot of pepole who would stand next to this person. Like mental therapist and the parole officer. This person who went away spent the time going to school and working, this person completed every educational trade that was offered, kept the nose clean, went to church every weekend, and all that person wants to do is to keep functioning that way. This person would like to have a relationship but is not looking for one, but that person still looks toward life. Just because a person is LABELED does not mean they are no longer of use. I thought we did away with the scarlet letter, whats next,”BURN THEM AT THE STAKE”

By: Chase

Chase — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:40:13 +0000

You’re wrong about sex offender recidivism. Tracking studies have demonstrated time and again that other types of offenders (non-sex offenders) have higher recidivism (return to ANY type of crime) than SOs. Get your facts straight. Here’s one good quality study: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm

You may also want to check your male ego at the door and thinking you’re “saving” your wife and kids. Over 87% of victims of sex offenses KNOW the offender… and not by seeing his/her face on a registry.

By: AG@Broker Price Opinion

AG@Broker Price Opinion — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:51:44 +0000

Good to know. I'm glad this service is available.**AG´s last blog post..Comment from Katherine_B:

By: Tru

Tru — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:58:35 +0000

Mica, You are soooooo…… right! There is no way the National Sex Offender Registry can be of help or protect our children. It is up to the parents to educate your children about sex. It is also up to the parents to protect your children. In other words, I would not let my children go around or into someone’s home that I don’t know. I don’t care if his or her name is on the registry or not. I’m going to watch my own children, and I will not leave my childs safety in the hands of anything or anybody. Tru

By: Mica

Mica — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:14:48 +0000

Ruth – Your thesis for your comment on sex offenders is that you can’t believe how many excuses people are making for sex offenders, presumably by being critical of my and other comments who see the negatives in sex offender registries. As “proof,” you offer ONE case of some guy who apparently got off easy by a judge. However, one case doesn’t prove your thesis one bit. If you had done as much research as I have on this issue from reputable sources (government sites, public interest sites, etc.), you would see the entire picture, rather than this one case in which you know. You’d see that registries have not protected anyone, have not saved anyone, and have not made people use their common sense. Instead, it’s targeted a group of people (and their families and loved ones) who have committed offenses in the past (or who have been falsely accused in the past) and made them pay – over and over again. The recidivist stats cited by those who support registries are wrong, and are used to unjustifiably hold people accountable for crimes long since committed as if they would recommit them over and over again. Will some reoffend? Of course! Will most reoffend? Of course not! But the ASSUMPTION is that 100 percent will reoffend, thereby necessitating the registries to make the public vigilant against a future offender. The premise for 95% of those on the registries is wrong. Instead, it should post only those who have proven themselves to be a danger.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:56:04 +0000

I can’t believe how many excuses people are making for sex offenders. It seems to me that protecting the public is very important. My family knows a man who molested a metally changellenged child. He received only one year in jail and was released early due to “good behavior”. The state has put him in category 1 so he isn’t on the register. I guess someone thinks he won’t reoffend. Too bad his wife was able to hide from her family what was going on. He had been repeatedly accused by her younger sister. So now we know he’s done it at least twice but that info never made it to court. But his defense which worked for the judge was that he was drunk so not responsible for his actions!! His wife provides respite care for diabled children and their families will have no way to know what this man has done.

By: Tru

Tru — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:45:59 +0000

Mica, you are absolutely right! I wish everyone would take the time to do some of thier own research to learn more about the National Sex Offender Registry. There are thousands of people who have fallen victim to this registry and they need our help. Tru