Comment Re:The point is... (Score 1) 459
A redundant post, at that.
You seem to have the common misconception that sex offender == pedophile.
As others have pointed out, even though convicted pedophiles should be registered sex offenders, registered sex offender != pedophile. a=>b does not mean b=>a.
Yes, there are plenty of "why didn't they keep the bastard locked up?" pedophiles out there in the sex offender registries. There are also plenty of "18 or even 17 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend" types on the lists. And people caught pissing in public. Which in my opinion should be a punishable offense. It should be a public health offense, not a sex offense.
Some of these people are the repeat offender types. Some are dangerous. Some are dangerous and probably will repeat. Some are harmless. Some will probably never commit a similar offense again. That's the problem. Just the mere fact that someone is on one of these lists does not give you enough information to know if they pose a danger to anyone.
We need to clean up the registries. Change the laws so that only dangerous types make it to the list. The definition of what offenses require registration is more broad than it needs to be. Unfortunately that is the sort of thing that requires case by case judgment. Many of the sex registry laws don't allow anyone to exercise any judgment, even judges.
You said that the evidence shows that there is no way to reprogram someone's sexual desires. I'll grant you that, for the sake of argument. But some of the things that get people on the lists are not the result of their sexual desires. Others are the result of their normal and healthy desires. A 17 year old that wants to have sex with another 17 year old when they are in love is not sick or perverted any more than a 30 year old that loves another 30 year old. (Some laws make it illegal for an adult to have sex with anyone under 18, but allow 16 or 17 year olds to be tried as adults.) I'd be more worried about how well adjusted a 18 year old is if they would prefer to have sex with someone old enough to be their grandparent instead of a 17 or 18 year old. That 18 year old isn't committing any crime, though. No registration required. He will appear on no lists.
Until we change the laws that put people on these registries some otherwise normal, non-dangerous, people will wind up on the lists and have their lives ruined. I'm not against using lists or registries. I just don't think that the current system is perfect.
Oh, and I make my living running background checks. Including sex offender registry searches. I've seen records that appear to be otherwise normal people that made a mistake and felt kind of bad about how my clients would use the information. I know they take a "better safe than sorry" attitude when there's any kind of criminal record hit. I've also seen records that made me think "I'm glad to have this job, that sick SOB shouldn't be allowed near anyone, but I'm especially glad he won't be allowed near children."
Anyway, that's my two cents.
