Comments on: A Better Sex Offender Registry

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

By: Tena Swain

Tena Swain — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:57:57 +0000

I agree with Mica 100 percent! My son was convicted of indecent libertires with a minor. Minor being 15, already sexually active since 14, and mother had her put on birth control because of a previous older boyfriend who was having sex with her. Only my son was the one convicted, not the other older guy. This was truly a act of vindictiveness. The parents are the ones who push to prosecute these young men, not the girls who were consenting to sex with them. Tru

By: Sex Offender Registry Gone Bad | The Phoenix Real Estate Guy

Sex Offender Registry Gone Bad | The Phoenix Real Estate Guy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:20:57 +0000

[...] people seem to appreciate the sex offender registries. (Though if you read the comments in this post I made last August, clearly not everyone is enamored with sex offender [...]

By: Mica

Mica — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:45:42 +0000

Yama: Did you read my other posts? Here in California, anyone who has committed anything considered “indecent” or “sexual” is placed on Megan’s List. Since this state has been registering people since 1947, there are lots of people and many whose offense was way back with nary an offense since. that means child molesters are listed and so is everyone else. Don’t tell me that registered sex offenders are all child molesters because I know that isn’t the case at all. I don’t know about Arizona, but I do know that under the Adam Walsh Act, all “sex” offenses will be registerable, even if they were 50 years ago, like in California. Patently ridiculous, because the intent of Megan’s Law is to protect the public from people who are likely to reoffend and create additional victims. But if their offense was decades ago, it’s hard to argue that they are still dangerous.

Secondly, it’s not a matter of “protecting” them (sex offenders) as being against a state or national registry which serves no other purpose than to villify a certain group of people based on past actions. Don’t try to argue that it protects society because it does not. No registry can, and even though society thinks it’s being protected, it’s not. It’s a false sense of security based on the idea that if you know where all the former offenders are, you can protect yourself.

Secondly, it brushes EVERY offender (whether they’re tier 1, 2 or 3 as some states do) with the same broad brush: molester! It fails to distinguish between those who would re offend and those who made a one time mistake. It makes society think every offender is just waiting to snatch some child (a very popular media image) when that isn’t the case at all.

Thirdly, it utterly fails to protect the innocent against more sexual attacks. Statistics by the U.S.Department of Justice show the greatest preponderance of fresh attacks are being committed by people NOT on the list. This is especially true for child victimizations, which are nine times out of 10 committed by a non registered person already around the child. This creates a situtation in which parents are anxiously scanning the Megan’s Law site for former offenders who live nearby, while Uncle Joe or the babysitter is victimizing the child.

Fourth, it stigmatizes low risk and no risk former offenders who are unable to become productive members of society,while the true predators are hidden from public view by the low risk and no risk. For example, in many states, there is little differentiation between the 19 year old who had sex with the 17 year old and the 35 year old who had sex with the 12 year old. They’re both child molestation.