I see what you did thar, subby

The whole idea of sex offender registries is just bad. They have served their time. Just bring back the pillory.

So people arrested for public urination, consensual sex between a 17 and an 18 year old that the girl's parents got mad about, streaking at football games, or indecent exposure are finally allowed to get off the list that's intended to warn people about 50 year olds who rape 5 year olds?

Good news indeed. Now can we stop farking putting them on in the first place?

Among the guidelines, the offender must been convicted between January 1, 1982 and June 30, 1992, and must have been discharged from the correctional system before September 1, 1998.

Those guidelines sound rather arbitrary. Are their reasons for them, or did some state senator's fundraiser fondle someone in 1987?

Stroke of genius, subby

Too late, subby:



*waits patiently for Batman/Jamie Lynn Spears gif.

/not GIS THAT at work
//GIS Randy Marsh for above pic
///It was a ghost!
////slashies!

Wendy's Chili: Among the guidelines, the offender must been convicted between January 1, 1982 and June 30, 1992, and must have been discharged from the correctional system before September 1, 1998.

Those guidelines sound rather arbitrary. Are their there reasons for them, or did some state senator's fundraiser fondle someone in 1987?

Duh.

cptjeff: So people arrested for public urination, consensual sex between a 17 and an 18 year old that the girl's parents got mad about, streaking at football games, or indecent exposure are finally allowed to get off the list that's intended to warn people about 50 year olds who rape 5 year olds?

Good news indeed. Now can we stop farking putting them on in the first place?

It wasn't really a rape-rape, amiright?

Earl of Chives: cptjeff: So people arrested for public urination, consensual sex between a 17 and an 18 year old that the girl's parents got mad about, streaking at football games, or indecent exposure are finally allowed to get off the list that's intended to warn people about 50 year olds who rape 5 year olds?

Good news indeed. Now can we stop farking putting them on in the first place?

It wasn't really a rape-rape, amiright?

You said "rape" twice.

If you want me baby here I am.

All I have to say is that news reporter looks like she's being farked in the bum in the first still image.

Tatsuhiko: All I have to say is that news reporter looks like she's being farked in the bum in the first still image.

Thats her O face

Maine's NAMBLA chapter celebrates:

The video preview is oddly appropriate:

I love a happy ending.

Really the whole page is unfortunate...

Fish in a Barrel: The video preview is oddly appropriate:

Came here to say this. It's just too perfect

cptjeff: So people arrested for public urination, consensual sex between a 17 and an 18 year old that the girl's parents got mad about, streaking at football games, or indecent exposure are finally allowed to get off the list that's intended to warn people about 50 year olds who rape 5 year olds?

THIS.

Don't forget mooning.

"Discharged"

Heh ...

Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: Tatsuhiko: All I have to say is that news reporter looks like she's being farked in the bum in the first still image.

Thats her O Ok poop is going in face

ftfy

I must admit that I never really saw the use of the whole sex-offender list thing in general.

There are certainly types of crimes with higher risks of reoffending, so it can't be about that. Far more children are sexually abuse by memebers of their immediate family and their close friends than they are by random strangers.

I often feel that the main reason for these lists is not to actually accomplish anything worthwhile, but merly to enable everyone to feel goof about themselves. People feel good because they do something to protect kids. It might be something easy and more or less useless but they did something. People feel good because it gives them somebody to look down upon and thus feel better about themselves. You might be a total farkup, a looser and a petty criminal, but at least you are not one of those sub-human animals.

It also gives governments someone to target that nobody will speak up for. Even after 9/11 people spoke out against curtailing rights or freedoms of muslims, but few really feel the need to stand up for 'sexual predators'. Of course the government will first come for those who nobody will speak up for, they no that you will remain silent when they come for the childmolestors. Then they will slowly wideon the net to include broader and broader definitions of sexual-misconduct until they will finally come for you and you realize that there is nobody left to speak out for you. They don't necessarily have to put you in camps, but could merly want to curtail yours and everyone elses rights a bit. It also always helps if the laws are so broad that nobody can be entirely sure that they are still innocent.

Came for the thread where the fark libertarians do their usual "farking kids is no different than pissing on the street" advocacy, left amused.

Loki-L: I must admit that I never really saw the use of the whole sex-offender list thing in general.

There are certainly types of crimes with higher risks of reoffending, so it can't be about that. Far more children are sexually abuse by memebers of their immediate family and their close friends than they are by random strangers.

I often feel that the main reason for these lists is not to actually accomplish anything worthwhile, but merly to enable everyone to feel goof about themselves. People feel good because they do something to protect kids. It might be something easy and more or less useless but they did something. People feel good because it gives them somebody to look down upon and thus feel better about themselves. You might be a total farkup, a looser and a petty criminal, but at least you are not one of those sub-human animals.

It also gives governments someone to target that nobody will speak up for. Even after 9/11 people spoke out against curtailing rights or freedoms of muslims, but few really feel the need to stand up for 'sexual predators'. Of course the government will first come for those who nobody will speak up for, they no that you will remain silent when they come for the childmolestors. Then they will slowly wideon the net to include broader and broader definitions of sexual-misconduct until they will finally come for you and you realize that there is nobody left to speak out for you. They don't necessarily have to put you in camps, but could merly want to curtail yours and everyone elses rights a bit. It also always helps if the laws are so broad that nobody can be entirely sure that they are still innocent.


It's "The Day Without Farking Coffee" here at work, get used to it when this horror happens.

/grump
//harrumph!

Loki-L: I must admit that I never really saw the use of the whole sex-offender list thing in general.

I had a friend who was under indictment for some things that would have landed him on the sex-offender list.

He committed suicide sometime between May 9th-12th. He told me that it wasn't the time in jail, he was facing 3 years, and was going to plead guilty on the 12th. It was the registry. The way the laws are written, you cant live anywhere, work anywhere. It may as well be the scarlet letter.

HawgWild: *waits patiently for Batman/Jamie Lynn Spears gif.

Ah, thats the girl in that pic!

What is the story behind that?

Fish in a Barrel: The video preview is oddly appropriate:



Approves

The only reason sex offender registries haven't been struck down as "cruel and unusual punishment" is that no lawyer is willing to become known as "the guy/gal who protected pedophiles."

Wendy's Chili: Among the guidelines, the offender must been convicted between January 1, 1982 and June 30, 1992, and must have been discharged from the correctional system before September 1, 1998.

Those guidelines sound rather arbitrary. Are their reasons for them, or did some state senator's fundraiser fondle someone in 1987?

I get the impression you think sex laws don't come up with arbitrary numbers.

/Cause people totally change when they turn 18.

Is it time to panic?

Remember this is Maine and the "People's Veto".

Hope you'll be happy with the wall-to-wall ads for "Yes On Question Eleventeen", where two soccer moms worry that sex offenders will be teaching their kids.

I'd give her my fox.

LandOfChocolate: HawgWild: *waits patiently for Batman/Jamie Lynn Spears gif.

Ah, thats the girl in that pic!

What is the story behind that?

Don't know. Someone spliced "Batman on Drugs" with the shot of her catching some goo in the eye.

Pretty funny.

Wendy's Chili: Among the guidelines, the offender must been convicted between January 1, 1982 and June 30, 1992, and must have been discharged from the correctional system before September 1, 1998.

Those guidelines sound rather arbitrary. Are their reasons for them, or did some state senator's fundraiser fondle someone in 1987?

They keep "evolving" the way the registry works as they go along.
You used to be sentenced explicitly to ten years or whatever on the list, after you got out of jail. Then a lot of guys got reverse-grandfathered when the legislature decided to change the law to once registered, always registered.
So now we have court cases where some old dude moves to a new apartment, gets arrested, and contests whether he was supposed to be reporting his whereabouts in perpetuity or not.

Kesherz: The only reason sex offender registries haven't been struck down as "cruel and unusual punishment" is that no lawyer is willing to become known as "the guy/gal who protected pedophiles."

I'm gonna have to ask for a citation regarding...well let's just call it your anecdotal statement for now.

As difficult as it is to believe, the Maine sex offender registry contains the names of actual rapists and pedophiles, not guys taking a leak on the side of 95, college students streaking or 19 year olds who got caught boffing their 17 year old girlfriend. Sixteen is the age of consent....or fourteen in certain circumstances....and twelve for marriage or some crazy thing like that.

somedumbredhead: As difficult as it is to believe, the Maine sex offender registry contains the names of actual rapists and pedophiles, not guys taking a leak on the side of 95, college students streaking or 19 year olds who got caught boffing their 17 year old girlfriend. Sixteen is the age of consent....or fourteen in certain circumstances....and twelve for marriage or some crazy thing like that.

Let me guess... you just pulled all that out of your anus?

Prove it or shut up.

What kind of sex crime cannot come with a sentence of more than one year? Peeing in public? No one should be on the registry in the first place unless he or she did something to warrant a sentence of more than one year.

HawgWild: *waits patiently for Batman/Jamie Lynn Spears gif.

Fine. I'll do it if nobody else will.

Latinwolf: Came for the thread where the fark libertarians do their usual "farking kids is no different than pissing on the street" advocacy, left amused.

This. Every time there is a thread about pedos, sex offnder registries, Dateline, child pron, or age-of-consent laws, I get creeped out and seriously consider leaving Fark permanently.

Kesherz: The only reason sex offender registries haven't been struck down as "cruel and unusual punishment" is that no lawyer is willing to become known as "the guy/gal who protected pedophiles."

Pretty much

physt Quote 2009-12-01 03:02:59 PM
somedumbredhead: As difficult as it is to believe, the Maine sex offender registry contains the names of actual rapists and pedophiles, not guys taking a leak on the side of 95, college students streaking or 19 year olds who got caught boffing their 17 year old girlfriend. Sixteen is the age of consent....or fourteen in certain circumstances....and twelve for marriage or some crazy thing like that.

Let me guess... you just pulled all that out of your anus?

Prove it or shut up.

I take it that you don't work in the Maine legal system.

meat0918: The whole idea of sex offender registries is just bad. They have served their time. Just bring back the pillory.

Fano: Kesherz: The only reason sex offender registries haven't been struck down as "cruel and unusual punishment" is that no lawyer is willing to become known as "the guy/gal who protected pedophiles."

Pretty much

I think the real problem people have with these laws is not the general principle of a sex offender registry, but rather in the way that it is done, specifically the automatic registering of someone who wasn't really a threat to the public to begin with (teens sending pics of themselves to boyfriend/girlfriend, 18yo who has sex with 16yo BF/GF, people convicted of ludeness etc)

What would realistically propose is that things like Meagan's Law be amended to make listing in a registry an option available to the judge and jury in a case. This would allow the people most familiar with the individual in question to determine if they are a sufficient threat to the public to merit their continued monitoring following their release from prison.

Fano: Kesherz: The only reason sex offender registries haven't been struck down as "cruel and unusual punishment" is that no lawyer is willing to become known as "the guy/gal who protected pedophiles."

Pretty much


You would be wrong as well. How does your thought process work? Do you just guess these lawsuits don't happened and so you then feel that somehow gets transferred into reality? Seriously, what's the basis for your logic?

Anyway, these cases are brought before the courts all the time on the state level and even a few times to the Supreme Court. Here are a few rulings that upheld offender registries:

Smith_v._Doe (new window) Connecticut_Dept._of_Public_Safety_v._Doe (new window)

The most successful challenge to sex offender laws happened in Missouri, but that dealt with retroactive registration and exempted offenders from registering if their crimes occurred prior to January 1, 1995 but even the Missouri Supreme Court threw that out last spring.

Sex Offender Registry Fact Sheet (new window)

cptjeff: So people arrested for public urination, consensual sex between a 17 and an 18 year old that the girl's parents got mad about, streaking at football games, or indecent exposure are finally allowed to get off the list that's intended to warn people about 50 year olds who rape 5 year olds?

Good news indeed. Now can we stop farking putting them on in the first place?

That was really what I was hoping. Turns out it's something completely asinine. Picking arbitrary dates to determine who should be taken off the registry? Dumb da dumb dumb dumb

Where's my murder offender registry??

Ooo!! How about a bad driver registry?? Road rage registry? Stupid government policy registry?

Vanetia: cptjeff: So people arrested for public urination, consensual sex between a 17 and an 18 year old that the girl's parents got mad about, streaking at football games, or indecent exposure are finally allowed to get off the list that's intended to warn people about 50 year olds who rape 5 year olds?

Good news indeed. Now can we stop farking putting them on in the first place?

That was really what I was hoping. Turns out it's something completely asinine. Picking arbitrary dates to determine who should be taken off the registry? Dumb da dumb dumb dumb

The random dates are stupid. The key to who gets off is that it's minor offenses with prison terms of less then one year only- basically, the minor things that should never have gotten them on in the first place.Tommy Moo: Latinwolf: Came for the thread where the fark libertarians do their usual "farking kids is no different than pissing on the street" advocacy, left amused.

This. Every time there is a thread about pedos, sex offnder registries, Dateline, child pron, or age-of-consent laws, I get creeped out and seriously consider leaving Fark permanently.

Good for you. Try reading the reasoning. Does it really make sense for a guy who's arrested for mooning somebody to be on the same list and have to suffer the same lifelong penalties as the guy who raped and murdered 10 children? Does that really make sense to you? Does it make sense to you that there are cities where it is literally illegal for 'sex offenders' to live anywhere but under one particular bridge due to distance from school restrictions, even after they have fully served their prison sentence and are theoretically reformed?

You might be surprised to learn that people might have the opinion that such things are miscarriages of justice. If want to leave fark becuase of that, go right on ahead. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

hetheeme: meat0918: The whole idea of sex offender registries is just bad. They have served their time. Just bring back the pillory.

Fano: Kesherz: The only reason sex offender registries haven't been struck down as "cruel and unusual punishment" is that no lawyer is willing to become known as "the guy/gal who protected pedophiles."

Pretty much

I think the real problem people have with these laws is not the general principle of a sex offender registry, but rather in the way that it is done, specifically the automatic registering of someone who wasn't really a threat to the public to begin with (teens sending pics of themselves to boyfriend/girlfriend, 18yo who has sex with 16yo BF/GF, people convicted of ludeness etc)

What would realistically propose is that things like Meagan's Law be amended to make listing in a registry an option available to the judge and jury in a case. This would allow the people most familiar with the individual in question to determine if they are a sufficient threat to the public to merit their continued monitoring following their release from prison.

Additionally, I could see an actual, detailed description of the crime, along with some sort of degree of severity be included. I know the idea fell flat when it came to national security but a "color code" or something. "Green" if all you did was flash your junk at some cranky old lady. "Red" if you're some 50 year old creep who diddled a 12 year old.

An arbitrary, is-or-isn't line may be something the government loves but hardly serves justice very well.

Really? I'm the first one to post this? I'm shocked Fark...

/hotlinked

cptjeff: Vanetia: cptjeff: So people arrested for public urination, consensual sex between a 17 and an 18 year old that the girl's parents got mad about, streaking at football games, or indecent exposure are finally allowed to get off the list that's intended to warn people about 50 year olds who rape 5 year olds?

Good news indeed. Now can we stop farking putting them on in the first place?

That was really what I was hoping. Turns out it's something completely asinine. Picking arbitrary dates to determine who should be taken off the registry? Dumb da dumb dumb dumb

The random dates are stupid. The key to who gets off is that it's minor offenses with prison terms of less then one year only- basically, the minor things that should never have gotten them on in the first place.Tommy Moo: Latinwolf: Came for the thread where the fark libertarians do their usual "farking kids is no different than pissing on the street" advocacy, left amused.

This. Every time there is a thread about pedos, sex offnder registries, Dateline, child pron, or age-of-consent laws, I get creeped out and seriously consider leaving Fark permanently.

Good for you. Try reading the reasoning. Does it really make sense for a guy who's arrested for mooning somebody to be on the same list and have to suffer the same lifelong penalties as the guy who raped and murdered 10 children? Does that really make sense to you? Does it make sense to you that there are cities where it is literally illegal for 'sex offenders' to live anywhere but under one particular bridge due to distance from school restrictions, even after they have fully served their prison sentence and are theoretically reformed?

You might be surprised to learn that people might have the opinion that such things are miscarriages of justice. If want to leave fark becuase of that, go right on ahead. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The old lets get rid of the list entirely instead of just modifying it to take out those "who piss in the street" or "those that just mooned people" excuse we keep hearing from Libertarian types.