So does this make me Pro- Child molestor?

[Coder]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm still confused - so do you just want to change the requirements to be on the list or do you want to end supervision of sexual offenders (and/or other felons) altogether?

I'm sorry if that's not clear.. Of course I don't want to end supervision of sexual offenders (and/or others). I'm just saying that if the people who end up on that list have committed anything but pedophile-crimes, they will still be called pedophiles.

The list had good intent, but as it stands, too many non dangerous people are on that list, and they are suffering for it. That makes the list just as dangerous as some of the people on it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Coder

I'm sorry if that's not clear.. Of course I don't want to end supervision of sexual offenders (and/or others). I'm just saying that if the people who end up on that list have committed anything but pedophile-crimes, they will still be called pedophiles.

The list had good intent, but as it stands, too many non dangerous people are on that list, and they are suffering for it. That makes the list just as dangerous as some of the people on it.

I would be interested to see some actual data on how pervasive this is. I just looked over the city of Boston, college town, I imagine lots of pissing in public. There's not a ton of of hits overall (I'd say between 50 and 75) and not a one of them seems spurious. After seeing about 20 mugshots and reading their convictions, I'd also like a shower. Mostly rape, with a good amount of child rape, sexual abuse. A few whose only convictions were for "Open and Gross Lewdness" but each of those had at least three of these convictions. So, either they're flashers or have continuing bladder problems.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Coder

I hope that me not being from the US has anything to do with the point I'm trying to make. I would like to think it's more about common sense than nationality.

Common sense has a lot to do with this, but you can't discount nationality without using common sense. Different countries have different laws, and you can't just lump things together without taking that into consideration. Another thing to consider is population size.

Originally Posted by Coder

I think Mac Howard hit the issue of Megan's list right on. While the basic idea is a good one, the way it's used is counter productive.

I don't understand this at all. As a parent of four children, I will always err on the safe side to protect my kids. If that means judging someone because their name is on a sex offender list, so be it. They obviously did something that got them put on the list in the first place.

Oh, and for every person on the list who was "only" urinating in public (which I have never seen on the list FWIW), there are probably 20 others who did something horrible to a child.

Originally Posted by Coder

For the record, I consider drunk driving a much worse crime than public nudity.

Drunk driving is terrible, no argument there. I think as a society we are way too lenient on drunk drivers, especially repeat offenders. But what you are saying is laughable. We aren't talking about public nudity, we are talking about adults who molest/abuse/rape children. There is a big difference.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

We aren't talking about public nudity, we are talking about adults who molest/abuse/rape children. There is a big difference.

There was an example of this just a page back, hence my choice of crime.

Exactly what is "lewd behaviour"? Also, what about the 19-year old having sex with a 16-year old?

I would never defend a child molester; crimes against children are terrible. I'm just not sure what should constitute a crime.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Coder

There was an example of this just a page back, hence my choice of crime.

Exactly what is "lewd behaviour"? Also, what about the 19-year old having sex with a 16-year old?

I would never defend a child molester; crimes against children are terrible. I'm just not sure what should constitute a crime.

Fair enough, but that is just one example amongst thousands of names on the list. As I said earlier, I will err on the safe side when my children are involved. I mean, how hard is it to stay off a pedophile/sex offense list? I am not on it, nor do I know anyone who is.

Technically, the 16 year old is a minor, thus still a child. I understand that a 16 year old may know what he/she is doing, but until the laws change and the official age of adulthood is lowered, a 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old is still a crime. Is it a dumb law? Maybe. I don't know a lot of teenagers who know what they are doing when it comes to the opposite sex.

For the purpose of this argument, however, I am mostly referring to an adult molesting/abusing a younger child, like under the age of 13 or so.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

For the purpose of this argument, however, I am mostly referring to an adult molesting/abusing a younger child, like under the age of 13 or so.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think this thread would exist if Megan's list was only about those crimes. I don't think anyone would argue with what you're saying here.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Coder

There was an example of this just a page back, hence my choice of crime.

Exactly what is "lewd behaviour"? Also, what about the 19-year old having sex with a 16-year old?

I would never defend a child molester; crimes against children are terrible. I'm just not sure what should constitute a crime.

It's typically something like masturbating in public, exposing yourself to people (ala flasher), etc. For instance, Larry Craig was charged with it for trying to get a blowjob in the public restroom at the airport.

This doesn't necessarily put you on the sex offender list. Typically you need multiple instance of it or deemed as someone who is likely to continue to re-offend.