I'm going to go out on a limb here: the whole public sex offender registry is nothing but feel good nonsense that does absolutely nothing in curbing heinous sex crimes.

Jessica's law, which was passed after 9 year old Jessica Lunsford was raped and killed in 2005, is responsible for nearly 3000 people in California alone to have to find new homes or get sent back to prison.

Sex offenders are not just rapists and pedophiles: the vast majority of them have that label due to much lesser charges such as indecent exposure, prostitution, consensual sex under the legal age (Romeo and Juliet cases), mooning, and so on. Most of these people are not violent nor are likely to reoffend.

Here's the story.

Now, seeing that Jessica Lundsford was raped and killed by a offender already on the registry, it didn't do squat to save her life, did it? The law passed in her name bans convicted sex offenders from living x amount of feet from playgrounds and schools (in California it's 2000ft), yet she was abducted from her home by a neighbor. Where the hell is the logic in Jessica's law?

I found California's official sex offender registry on the internet - here is the "Facts About Sex Offenders" page:

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/facts.aspx?lang=ENGLISH

This absolutely kills me:

"Most child sexual abusers find their victims by frequenting such places as schoolyards and playgrounds.

False. Most child sexual abusers offend against children whom they know and with whom they have established a relationship. Many sexual assaults of adult women are considered "confidence rapes," in that the offender knows the victim and has used that familiarity to gain access to her."

So, on California's own sex offender site, they more or less state that Jessica's law is useless, yet they pass and enforce it anyway. Unfreakingbelievably contradictory and totally devoid of anything resembling logic. They did have some decent content there:

"To protect yourself from offenders, follow general safety guidelines, such as maintaining an awareness of your surroundings and trusting your instincts about people and situations. To protect your children, maintain open lines of communication with them—listen to your children; being available and taking time to really know your children builds feelings of safety and security."

The person who wrote that excellent paragraph probably got fired. After all, lists and exclusion zones do far more in protecting your kids than common sense does, right?  ::)

Ant

Ant,

Karma +1

Thanks for speaking up.  We are in an era of social intimidation of people who hold even a nuanced view of the issue, let alone a contrarian one.  It is witch hunt hysteria driving the discourse on "sex offenders."  The hysteria is generally about sex offenses against children; however, on finds in college towns, such as Amherst, similar hysteria about "date rape." 

It's a kind of blackmail.  You either agree with the most draconian punishments for sex offenders, or you sympathize with sex offenders--and might very well be one yourself.  Witch hunt mentality. 

The "Joe McCarthy" of sex offender hysteria is Bill O'Reilly.  He and his goons routinely intimidate judges and legislators who do not support "Jessica's Law" or rule leniantly in sex offender cases. 

If the courts find an offender guilty of rape or sexual molestation of a person under the age of 14, then I agree with the draconian measures.

In Massachusetts we had a case of a drunken man who urinated off his own front porch.  Neighbors saw him, called the cops, the man was arrested and forced to register a sex offender.  Ridiculous.  He was charged with open and gross lewdness, but the penis is a dual purpose organ, and what the man did was open and gross...grossness!

The Romeo and Juliet cases, such as a 24-year-old and a 16-year-old engaging in consensual sex must not require the 24-year-old to register as a sex offender the way he would if he had raped and 11-year-old. 

In other words, offender cases must be treated individually.  As Ant points out, the majority of molestation is intrafamilial.  If a father rapes his daughter, it does not necessarily mean he will abduct a random child when he gets out of prison.

Indeed, sex offenders are ending up homeless after their release from custody because the law makes the pariahs.  Homelessness, of course, only makes the desperate, angry, and more likely to commit crime.  Now they are drawing up terms that will effectively keep the offender incarcerated for the rest of his life. 

There are some offenders with incurable pathologies.  Unfortunately, these men (and a few women) must never again live a life free from close supervision.  This is a small minority of cases, however. 

I was going to comment on "date rape" hysteria, but that's really a different topic. 

We are in an era of social intimidation of people who hold even a nuanced view of the issue, let alone a contrarian one. 


I would think if that were true there'd be hoards of people quick to disagree with us, here. Judjing from the lack of replies on this thread, I have to conclude that no one cares about the issue or that it isn't an issue.

Ant

I would think if that were true there'd be hoards of people quick to disagree with us, here. Judjing from the lack of replies on this thread, I have to conclude that no one cares about the issue or that it isn't an issue.

Ant



Hey,they just don't want people to get the idea we're a bunch of perverts around here!
:D

Hey,they just don't want people to get the idea we're a bunch of perverts around here!
:D


We're not perverted.... here.  ;D ;D

Ant

:Applause:


I'm going to go out on a limb here: the whole public sex offender registry is nothing but feel good nonsense that does absolutely nothing in curbing heinous sex crimes.

Maybe not "absolutely nothing", but so close to nothing it's a disproportionate bit of OTT lawmaking founded in emotional knee-jerk reactions rather than anything resembling rational analysis.  (He says, to head of at the pass the one guy who'll come up with an anecdote about how his next-door neighbour's little girl was saved because they spotted the babysitter on the SO register)

I do hope the education campaigns for children on danger signs has helped reduce statistics on violence against children. 
(ie. Some sad-looking guy asks you to help him find his lost kitty-cat, get the hell away from him as fast you can!)

They didn't do that when I was a kid, and when I was seven, I wouldn't have known any better.
:o

Another way they wedge everybody with this issue is to say, "Well, would YOU want a convicted child rapist living nextdoor to YOUR children?"

I admit, that's a toughie!

Here's a thought for the day: if the people who died in the Twin Towers were all "sex offenders", would we be at war with Iraq? Probably not, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see "Thank you, Al-Qaida" bumper stickers instead of ribbons on people's cars.


Another way they wedge everybody with this issue is to say, "Well, would YOU want a convicted child rapist living nextdoor to YOUR children?"

I admit, that's a toughie!



The better question is "Would you like to pass enough laws so that child rapists disappear from the system and NO ONE knows where they are?"

That's precisely what is happening all over the country.

Ant

Here's a thought for the day: if the people who died in the Twin Towers were all "sex offenders", would we be at war with Iraq? Probably not, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see "Thank you, Al-Qaida" bumper stickers instead of ribbons on people's cars.

The better question is "Would you like to pass enough laws so that child rapists disappear from the system and NO ONE knows where they are?"

That's precisely what is happening all over the country.

Ant

There are degrees of punishment people are advocating for:
The extremists want capital punishment for first offenders.  Bill O'Reilly wants 25 years for a first offense (Jessica's Law).  Others see pedophilia as an incorrigable pathology and want sex offenders institutionalized for life after their prison sentences.  The moderates agree sex offenders will always be dangerous and want perpetual monitoring and restriction of sex offenders' movements (ankle bracelets, house arrest, etc.). 

I'm against capital punishment. Period.  I have no problem with Jessica's Law for aggravated rape and/or homicide of a child.  For lesser offenses, I'm not sure...

Report Faults Sex-Offender Laws .

This isn't any report, it's a two year study from the Human Rights Watch.

Ant

If I was Joe Sex Offender I would get a place 2001 feet from a school and a park!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/la.gif

If I was Joe Sex Offender I would get a place 2001 feet from a school and a park!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/la.gif


In many cities it isn't possible to live >2000 feet from a school, park or playground.

Ant

In many cities it isn't possible to live >2000 feet from a school, park or playground.

Ant

And in a lot parks there aren't any children.  Just a bunch of old winos milling around!
::)

It's the absurdity of the law.  OK, I find an apartment that's 3,000 feet from the park and the school...but they won't rent to convictd child molesters.  So finally I find a halfway house 3500 feet from the school and the park....so I just catch the 2:00 bus for five blocks so I can get dibs on my favorite bench and slobber over all them firm little boys!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif

Ant,

Karma +1

Thanks for speaking up.  We are in an era of social intimidation of people who hold even a nuanced view of the issue, let alone a contrarian one.  It is witch hunt hysteria driving the discourse on "sex offenders."  The hysteria is generally about sex offenses against children; however, on finds in college towns, such as Amherst, similar hysteria about "date rape." 




In Massachusetts we had a case of a drunken man who urinated off his own front porch.  Neighbors saw him, called the cops, the man was arrested and forced to register a sex offender.  Ridiculous.  He was charged with open and gross lewdness, but the penis is a dual purpose organ, and what the man did was open and gross...grossness!


I agree.The guy was apparently just taking a whiz.How can that be more of a sex offense than a welfare"mom" having more babies to "earn' more money from the government?

And in a lot parks there aren't any children.  Just a bunch of old winos milling around!
::)

It's the absurdity of the law.  OK, I find an apartment that's 3,000 feet from the park and the school...but they won't rent to convictd child molesters.  So finally I find a halfway house 3500 feet from the school and the park....so I just catch the 2:00 bus for five blocks so I can get dibs on my favorite bench and slobber over all them firm little boys!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif


Or worse, you actually find a job, find a place >2k' away from  restricted areas that will rent/sell to you, only to have the city build a park at the end of your neighborhood. Sex offenders are rarely "grandfathered", so you'd have to move again. It's total BS.


I agree.The guy was apparently just taking a whiz.How can that be more of a sex offense than a welfare"mom" having more babies to "earn' more money from the government?


In several cases, especially in 'Romeo & Juliet' cases, the "victim"* has refused to press charges, but the man was charged anyway because "it's a crime against the state, not the victim". I can't argue with that logic, mainly because there isn't any. If both are underage, then they are both the perpetrators of the crime, and the state is the victim? How is the state harmed? Can anyone explain that at all?

As Susan Powder used to say in her TV ads: "STOP THE INSANITY!"

Ant

On another forum, it's recently been pointed out to me that here in the UK it's legal to have sex with a 16- or 17-year old - but taking pictures of them constitutes "child pornography", and can land the photographer and anyone who looks at the pictures on the sex offender register.  If that's not screwy, I really don't know what is.

On another forum, it's recently been pointed out to me that here in the UK it's legal to have sex with a 16- or 17-year old - but taking pictures of them constitutes "child pornography", and can land the photographer and anyone who looks at the pictures on the sex offender register.  If that's not screwy, I really don't know what is.

"Screwy" is the right word here!
;)


I agree.The guy was apparently just taking a whiz.How can that be more of a sex offense than a welfare"mom" having more babies to "earn' more money from the government?

I can't say no welfare recipient ever bore a child for that purpose, but it didn't take a CPA to show you the cost-benefit analysis was a nonstarter!


Or worse, you actually find a job, find a place >2k' away from  restricted areas that will rent/sell to you, only to have the city build a park at the end of your neighborhood. Sex offenders are rarely "grandfathered", so you'd have to move again. It's total BS.

Sure, some property owner deeds to the city a weedy vacant lot strewn with beer cans and scrap iron so the city can call it a "park," and then the deputy shows up at they guy's front door the next day, "This is Deputy Fred come to put y'all out!"
::)

"Screwy" is the right word here!
;)
I can't say no welfare recipient ever bore a child for that purpose, but it didn't take a CPA to show you the cost-benefit analysis was a nonstarter!
Sure, some property owner deeds to the city a weedy vacant lot strewn with beer cans and scrap iron so the city can call it a "park," and then the deputy shows up at they guy's front door the next day, "This is Deputy Fred come to put y'all out!"
::)
Don't be too sure of the second.I mean people have more kids than they can afford,get welfare,and mysteriously have enough money for smokes and drugs and alchohol while the kids are undernourished and get no attention.

Don't be too sure of the second.I mean people have more kids than they can afford,get welfare,and mysteriously have enough money for smokes and drugs and alchohol while the kids are undernourished and get no attention.

That's just child abuse.  Crazy parents who don't receive welfare benefits do the same thing.

The cost of having another child outstripped the additional welfare benefits making the family poorer.  I use the past tense because welfare is "Transitional Assistance."  Much different today.  Rather than sending a poor person a check for nothing, the state helps the client transition--from penury to penury.  Anyway, I suppose some women did use that rationalization, but found themselves sorely mistaken. 
::)

Often times women on long-term welfare (5+ years) had so few resources, so little education, and such chaotic lives that they would not or could not take responsibility for family planning.  Sometimes there were psychiatric and substance abuse problems involved. Coercion and rape are also common among this population.  I don't mean to sound classist here, but few if any of us on this board really knows what it's like growing up in housing projects where violence and deprivation are the norm.  We grow up to be like the adults we see when we are growing up. 

False. Most child sexual abusers offend against children whom they know and with whom they have established a relationship. Many sexual assaults of adult women are considered "confidence rapes," in that the offender knows the victim and has used that familiarity to gain access to her."


That is correct, but while such laws affect all sex offenders, the real target is the violent offenders.

Most children are abused by people they know, and are not harmed (beyond the act itself).  Jessica's, Megan's, and the other laws are actually targeted at those that abduct, rape, and murder children they do not know.  And like many other horrible crimes, the perps normally escalate their crimes as time progresses.

Personally, I have no problem with such laws.  Keep these scumbags as far away from our children.

And the biggest problem is that it is impossible to actually see if these laws work.  You can't do a study and determine "100 children were not raped because of these laws".  But if it saves even one child, I deem them successful.

But if it saves even one child, I deem them successful.

Given there's no evidence that this law has saved even one child, how do you deem it?

I also feel a disquiet with "these scumbags" - the current sex offender/child protection register over here casts such a wide net that you can end up on it for what are little more than thought crimes (and I don't think it's much different over that side of the pond).  It's not as though everyone who's on these lists has actually done something to hurt children.  Treating them all as one class of "scumbag" isn't helpful.  Several people convicted of downloading child pornography here have managed to prove that they were victims of credit card fraud, doubly screwed by a system that seems to demand a lower standard of proof as soon as the "protect our children" mantra is invoked.

That is correct, but while such laws affect all sex offenders, the real target is the violent offenders.


True, but the amount of collateral damage is beyond ridiculous. It would be like us killing 10 civilians in Iraq for every 1 dangerous insurgent... oops, bad example. Violent offenders shouldn't be on the list, they should be in prison. The list is not necessary at all.

"And the biggest problem is that it is impossible to actually see if these laws work"

Like Phil said, there's no evidence the laws have saved even one child. There is evidence that kids have been harmed by these laws. There are kids on the SOR... I have to shake my head.

Ant

Like Phil said, there's no evidence the laws have saved even one child. There is evidence that kids have been harmed by these laws. There are kids on the SOR... I have to shake my head.


Laws like this are simply impossible to prove their effectiveness.  It is a classic example of "trying to prove a negative".

We saw the same thing decades ago when the speed limit was lowered to 55.  Promotors would claim hundreds (and thousands) of lives saved in lowering the limit.  But like so many other claims, it is all simply speculation.  Because if people are not killed, how do you prove what saved them?  Lower speeds, safer cars, better driver training?  And the same thing goes for "second hand smoke".  Anybody is free to throw some numbers together and speculate what the result is.

Personally, I have little concern for criminals, especially those that commit sex crimes.  I have no concern at all for those that commit such crimes against children.  I would have no problem if they were all marched into the wilderness of Alaska and forced to live in total isolation for the rest of their lives.  Scum like that should be removed from society to protect our children.

And yes, there are a lot of stories about injustice.  But don't forget, every jail is full of innocent people who were screwed by society, the judge, the cops, or their lawyer. 

Laws like this are simply impossible to prove their effectiveness.  It is a classic example of "trying to prove a negative".

We saw the same thing decades ago when the speed limit was lowered to 55.  Promotors would claim hundreds (and thousands) of lives saved in lowering the limit.  But like so many other claims, it is all simply speculation.  Because if people are not killed, how do you prove what saved them?  Lower speeds, safer cars, better driver training?  And the same thing goes for "second hand smoke".  Anybody is free to throw some numbers together and speculate what the result is.

Personally, I have little concern for criminals, especially those that commit sex crimes.  I have no concern at all for those that commit such crimes against children.  I would have no problem if they were all marched into the wilderness of Alaska and forced to live in total isolation for the rest of their lives.  Scum like that should be removed from society to protect our children.

And yes, there are a lot of stories about injustice.  But don't forget, every jail is full of innocent people who were screwed by society, the judge, the cops, or their lawyer. 


That reminds me of the two teenagers that had consentual sex, the boy ended up in prison and is now labeled a sex offender for commiting a crime against the state. *Shakes head*

Personally, I have little concern for criminals, especially those that commit sex crimes.  I have no concern at all for those that commit such crimes against children.  I would have no problem if they were all marched into the wilderness of Alaska and forced to live in total isolation for the rest of their lives.  Scum like that should be removed from society to protect our children.


Thing is though, Mushroom, there are offenders on the list who ARE kids. Kids who have played "doctor" are on the sex offender registry.  4 year olds who have hugged their preschool teachers "inappropriately" are on the registry. 15 year olds who have had sex with 15 year olds are on the registry. There's also people who have committed no sex crimes whatsoever, like a guy taking a leak off his back steps, who are on the registry. If you were to streak at a pro-game, you would be on the same list as people who raped 5 year olds. Prostitutes rarely, if ever, entertain children. I could go on...

I must say "criminals" is too much an all encompassing statement that means nothing - if you have ever gone 1 mph over the speed limit, techincally, you are a criminal, regardless of whether or not you were tried.

Let's say, hypothetically,  I want a registry of all those who have committed speeding/vehicle crimes (or, more appropriately, "offenses") - that way I can stay away from them on the roads, or get a alarm system for my car. After all, kids are killed on the road every year - I just want to "protect the children" (despite the fact I don't have any - it's totally irrelevant). Maybe we should make people who get caught speeding get license plates that say "I am dangerous on the road". That way we can create more paranoia and second class citizens, and feel better about our own altruistic and perfect lives. Maybe I can create a law that excludes reckless motorists from operating within 500 feet of me. Would I be safer? Possibly, but there's no guarantee a "safe" motorist wouldn't accidentally sideswipe me. Would I create an impossible scenario for those who have been convicted of a driving offense? Absolutely.

And that is what 2000' foot rules do: make it nearly impossible for "sex offenders" to live anywhere or lead productive lives, despite serving their time and/or probation/monitoring (not to mention paying taxes like the rest of us). What makes you think any sparsely populated state (such as Alaska) would want a colony of sex offenders living there?

Personally, I'd rather live in a place where you can take a leak off your back steps or walk around nude in your own home than in a society where the phrase "protecting the children" routinely trumps common sense.

Ant

On another forum, it's recently been pointed out to me that here in the UK it's legal to have sex with a 16- or 17-year old - but taking pictures of them constitutes "child pornography", and can land the photographer and anyone who looks at the pictures on the sex offender register.  If that's not screwy, I really don't know what is.


That I can *somewhat* see because state laws and federal laws differ. Age of consent in VA is 16 (I think), but federal law says you can't make porn until you're 18. So what is legal in VA may not be legal, say, in Washington state. If the age of consent in Washington is 18, viewing photos taken of 16 year olds nude in VA (which may be legal here, though I doubt it)  is against the law.

Okay, that wasn't a real good explanation...

I'm just waiting for my mom to be charged as a sex offender since she has photographs of me naked in the tub with Chicken Pox when I was five years old. Clearly, she is a dangerous pedophile and must be shipped to Bum****, Nowhere in order to "protect the children".  ::)

Ant

^ Wal-Mart has actually confiscated rolls of film and called the pigs on parents who did just that. 
Cop:  Mr. Smith, can you explain this photograph of your daughter?
Smith: What about it?
Cop: She has no shirt on!
Smith: Uh, yeah, she's three years old.
Cop: Oh, you sick, sick bastard, you better come downtown with us!

Nowadays chem cams are pretty much phased out for the casual user, but still, sheesh!

If they stopped throwing people in prison for petty drug offenses, maybe there would be more room for violent sex offenders.  There should be no parole or early release for those "scumbags."

I'm not saying we should condone child pornography, but a guy in Arizona got 400 years for a couple of KP pics on his computer.  You would get a shorter prison sentence for murdering a child!
:D

I'm not saying we should condone child pornography, but a guy in Arizona got 400 years for a couple of KP pics on his computer.  You would get a shorter prison sentence for murdering a child!

It is disproportionate... don't tell me, the sentencing guidelines are 3-6months per pixel?

One worry I have with the increase in prosecutions for child pornography on the PC is the lack of concern over how the images got there: one of my close neighbours (not entirely sure who, but they've got to be close) run an unsecured wireless network - even more so in London, where in one block of flats there's a choice of about half-a-dozen unsecured networks that come and go.  It wouldn't be rocket science to use somebody else's PC for storage of your pictures.. then who gets shafted when the cops find out?

I've also been told that in one case recently, possession of a cleanup tool was used as evidence of illegal activity... I mean, I've got a few (I know I have a work-related reason in that I on occasion handle classified material that gets well and truly scrubbed when it's finished with, but who's to say whether that would carry weight with a wholly non-technical jury?).


That reminds me of the two teenagers that had consentual sex, the boy ended up in prison and is now labeled a sex offender for commiting a crime against the state. *Shakes head*
Ah, but in the eyes of Mushroom, that makes him a scumbag and so he's gonna stay for the rest of his life...

That reminds me of the two teenagers that had consentual sex, the boy ended up in prison and is now labeled a sex offender for commiting a crime against the state. *Shakes head*


There is a case like that going on now.  I think the boy was 16, and the girl 15.  A new law had just been enacted, making any sexual contact with a minor under 16 a felony.  You had an overzealous prosecutor that took it to trial and the kid was convicted.'

Then comes the boneheaded Legislature.  They realize that they made a mistake, so they quickly changed the law to include a 3 year age difference clause.  This would make it legal for a 17 and 15 year old to have sex.  But they did not make the ammendment retroactive, so the conviction still stood.  The kid appealed, and it went to the State Supreme Court.

The court agreed that it was not fair, but there was nothing Unconstitutional in the verdict.  In the last year there have been several attempts to change the law to make the revision retroactive, or to get the kid a full pardon (he is 18 or 19 now).  But as anything in the Government it moves slow.


Ah, but in the eyes of Mushroom, that makes him a scumbag and so he's gonna stay for the rest of his life...


Not true.

I know that there are people shafted by the system.  But for every 1 of those that was really shafted, there are 10,000 who are guilty as sin and only claim to be shafted.  When I did my stint in the LA County Hilton, my "roommate" was awaiting trial for his 4th drug violation.  He was arrested less then 24 hours after being released from a 2 year sentence.  Oh he was remoursefull, but he was also angry because he was framed.

Mostly, I guess I am just jaded when it comes to criminals, because I have known so many of them over the years.  They were almost all innocent for some reaon or another.  And with few exceptions, convicted sex offenders knew exactly what they were doing when they were arrested.

Or do you really think that Hugh Grant and Eddie Murphy were giving those "ladies" a ride?

And with few exceptions, convicted sex offenders knew exactly what they were doing when they were arrested.

What Jack and I are saying is that what we're seeing with the recent legislation, and it looks very much like it's as bad on that side of the pond as it is on this, is that there has been a humungous increase in people classified as "sex offenders" who aren't what would immediately spring to mind when the words "sex offenders" are used - the 16-year-old who had consensual sex, for example (even if the law is being changed to stop it happening again); or anybody who takes a slightly suggestive photo of a 17-year-old.. or even anyone who downloads said 17yo's image - whether they realize she was under age or not.

I'm not going to argue that there are a considerable number of people who can quite honestly be described as "scumbags", but the net has been cast so wide now that there are relatively normal people who've never done anything sexually aggressive whatsoever now classed as sex offenders and treated in the same manner as the guys who've raped or worse.

I've also been told that in one case recently, possession of a cleanup tool was used as evidence of illegal activity...


I used to see this in the Lawrence, Mass., police blotter all the time:

Possession of burglary tools.

It depends on your town and your ethnic pursuasion.

For Harold G. Winthrop IV of Andover, they're hedgeclippers and boltcutters.
For Sixto Rivera nextdoor in Lawrence, they're "burglary tools."
::)

I'm going to go out on a limb here: the whole public sex offender registry is nothing but feel good nonsense that does absolutely nothing in curbing heinous sex crimes.

Yep.  Governments tend to do that... waste money and infringe on rights at the same time.

I used to see this in the Lawrence, Mass., police blotter all the time:

Possession of burglary tools.

It depends on your town and your ethnic pursuasion.

For Harold G. Winthrop IV of Andover, they're hedgeclippers and boltcutters.
For Sixto Rivera nextdoor in Lawrence, they're "burglary tools."
::)
Don't forget your criminal background....I'd be willing to bet that 80-90% of the time, Sixto has a prior conviction for burglary....

The thing with the sex-offender registry is that you can't pick and choose who goes on it.  You can't say "only those convicted of X or worse goes on it."  There are cases all of the time where an offender "pleads down" a charge to a lesser offense.  More often than not, it's so the victim doesn't have to testify.  For example, let's say that Joe Sicko is caught "taking care of business" while Little Johnny walks around in front of him in his tighty whities.  He's originally charged with a child-related sex charge, but the ends up being prosecuted for "indecent exposure" so Johnnie and his family don't have to go through a trial.  If you don't include lesser charges on the SOR, then Joe Sicko is free to live wherever he wants and "tcob" in the comfort of his living room while your daughter hangs upside down from the monkey bars in a dress at the park.  On the other hand, you can't base it on what they're charged with because you get overzealous prosecutors who trump up charges so Romeo is charged with a criminal sexual offense against a minor for having consensual sex with Juliet, who happens to be <16.

Don't forget your criminal background....I'd be willing to bet that 80-90% of the time, Sixto has a prior conviction for burglary....
Or at least for doing chores around the house!
::)

The thing with the sex-offender registry is that you can't pick and choose who goes on it. You can't say "only those convicted of X or worse goes on it." 
Uh, that's what they, in fact, do do!

There are cases all of the time where an offender "pleads down" a charge to a lesser offense.  More often than not, it's so the victim doesn't have to testify.  For example, let's say that Joe Sicko is caught "taking care of business" while Little Johnny walks around in front of him in his tighty whities.  He's originally charged with a child-related sex charge, but the ends up being prosecuted for "indecent exposure" so Johnnie and his family don't have to go through a trial.  If you don't include lesser charges on the SOR, then Joe Sicko is free to live wherever he wants and "tcob" in the comfort of his living room while your daughter hangs upside down from the monkey bars in a dress at the park. 
You make a good argument here.  As painful as it might be, I think it is crucial for little Johnnie to testify so the judge can put Joe Sicko away for a long, long time.  If I had a boy of my own and some pervo did that to him, I would hate for him to have to go through a scary court proceeding, but I would insist on it because his testimony might save another little boy or girl from being another victim of Joe Sicko. 

A guy who is "tcob" on a park bench in front of children should be arrested for indecent exposure and lewd conduct in front of minors.  The drunken idiot who peed off his porch at 11:00 p.m. should just be charged with indecent exposure as no tacitly lewd conduct occurred.  The latter should not be dumped on the sex offender list with child rapists.  If the pee man did that at 2:00 p.m. while kids were on the sidewalk but he didn't notice the kids because he was blotto, that's a gray area  I would say indecent exposure in front of children without lewd intent should be a more serious charge, but without lewd intent, I can't justify putting the creep on the sex offender list. 

As for Joe Sicko "tcob" in his lving room while your daughter is on the monkey bars--if he is in his own home and neither your child nor anyone else sees him, he has committed no crime.  Perhaps that is exactly what is happening when your daughter plays in the park.  Gross, huh?  I know.  What if Joe's Sicko behavior begins and ends with "tcob" while watching your daughter unseen in his home?  Who has he hurt?  Probably not something you want to think about too much.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/scared.gif

Or at least for doing chores around the house!
::)
Uh, that's what they, in fact, do do! Only by saying "if you're convicted of X, you're on the list."
You make a good argument here.  As painful as it might be, I think it is crucial for little Johnnie to testify so the judge can put Joe Sicko away for a long, long time.  If I had a boy of my own and some pervo did that to him, I would hate for him to have to go through a scary court proceeding, but I would insist on it because his testimony might save another little boy or girl from being another victim of Joe Sicko. 

A guy who is "tcob" on a park bench in front of children should be arrested for indecent exposure and lewd conduct in front of minors.  The drunken idiot who peed off his porch at 11:00 p.m. should just be charged with indecent exposure as no tacitly lewd conduct occurred.  The latter should not be dumped on the sex offender list with child rapists.  If the pee man did that at 2:00 p.m. while kids were on the sidewalk but he didn't notice the kids because he was blotto, that's a gray area  I would say indecent exposure in front of children without lewd intent should be a more serious charge, but without lewd intent, I can't justify putting the creep on the sex offender list. 

As for Joe Sicko "tcob" in his lving room while your daughter is on the monkey bars--if he is in his own home and neither your child nor anyone else sees him, he has committed no crime.  Perhaps that is exactly what is happening when your daughter plays in the park.  Gross, huh?  I know.  What if Joe's Sicko behavior begins and ends with "tcob" while watching your daughter unseen in his home?  Who has he hurt?  Probably not something you want to think about too much.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/scared.gif


I agree that Johnny should testify, but many parents don't.  I recently learned when my mom died a few weeks ago that kids need to talk about things to help them deal with a bad situation.

IF it began and ended there, I see your point, but research has shown that it often doesn't.  The recidivism rates for pedophiles is astonishing.  If it were up to me, if you're convicted of a forcible sex crime against a child (and I'm talking someone under about 13 or so, the Romeo & Juliets of the world should be excluded) you should have your genitals cut off and have to spend the rest of your life in jail, but that'll never happen....

Surely there's an argument to say that entry onto the SO register should be a condition of a plea bargain?  IOW, if you're trying to plead a sexual assault against a minor down to indecent exposure, then the prosecutor's side of the bargain says "OK, we're willing to accept indecent exposure, 4-6months and 5 years on the SO register (which includes details of the original offence + plea conditions)" - the whole point being that you don't want the register being cluttered up with names of people who are no risk, but it's got to have people who are, otherwise what's the point?