I'd sooner chew on a dead rat that defend a sex offender, but this whole registry thing doesn't exactly pass the smell test for constitutionality.

If a person has paid their debt to society, why are they still being punished? Doubtless, some will respond with outraged cries of the need to protect their children. First, you should be protecting your children from strangers anyway. We didn't have the sex offender registry when I was a child. And I was what we would now call a "free-range kid," but back it was called "being a normal child." Somehow, I had the common sense not to be enticed by strangers, and I managed to avoid being sexually molested by one. And I don't believe pedophilia has reached epidemic proportions since then.

Moreover, everyone's criminal history is available on the internet. The sex offender registry isn't providing anyone with "new" information. Merely formatting the information that is already out there.

And I have serious doubts as to whether requiring people to live outside a given range of certain areas -- churches, schools, playgrounds, bus stops, etc. -- is really doing any good anyway. Is it really about protecting children, or just forcing the undesirables out of your neighborhood?

"... sex offenders may respond to registration and notifica- tion by seeking out victims who are not protected by these laws."

So I should be concerned about forcing a predator to change his predatory tatctics?

"But even if registration and notification laws succeed at reducing the relative incidence of crimes ..."

So even IF they succeed they are a BAD thing because blah blah blah. Bias anyone? If there is a success it's a success. (Is there a contest for being MORE successful? A pretty ribbon?)

Register or we can take into account the ages of the criminal and their victims and execute those that are determined to be sufficiently awful (victims who are defenseless for example).

I understand it may be a 'sickness' but I don't have (and would not) to treat those that rape a 5 year old.

I'd sooner chew on a dead rat that defend a sex offender, but this whole registry thing doesn't exactly pass the smell test for constitutionality.

Very interesting point, Patrick. Can you explain this further?

Sex is more important than murder in the United States. You're not required to register for life if you premeditated murder.
And the public does not care about the plight of the occasional teenager being caught up in this web because, bad parenting.

Ask people you know. Can they define, "crime"? Most cannot. They immediately give an example of one they have noticed , rather than the definition.

There is always apathy for correcting an issue that most people think does not apply to them, and this hysteria is only reinforced daily by multiple media reports of the same incident, routinely ignoring that the biggest threat to children is family members.

-------

I have not looked this up, but it stands to reason that sex offender registries are completely constitutional because they are in widespread use. Someone who insists that TSA patdowns are settled law, forget about it, might not have more to say if they wish to be consistent.
That person would not be me, as a registry represents a penalty for life without possibility of parole, assessed on the offender without individual consideration. The general assumption is that a sex offender never changes, which I do not believe has been demonstrated. Further, the registry requirement is also affixed to those who possess pictures, which have never been shown to demonstrate either intent or an actual offense. Attorney General Ed Meese, during the Reagan administration, was directed to find a link between pornography and rape. He and his agency could not.

Oh great! I open up a new tab to read the comments and all these "Spice up your Sex Life" ads are displayed.

One even claims to offer "quality sex toys"! Just what is "quality"? Are there sex toys that break or wear out? While using them?!

Anyway, back on topic. I don't think sex registries do much good because from what I've read in the past, most victims know their attackers. Stranger danger, while scary, is very remote.

Even the most notorious cases aren't exactly stranger danger.

Case in point, I read the two books written by the three women (two were only 14-15 years old when kidnapped) held captive for over 10 years in Cleveland, OH. Hope and Finding Me.

All three women mention the fact that their kidnapper wasn't a total stranger to them. All three were friends with or knew one of his daughters. So, when he offered them a ride he wasn't a stranger; he was the father of one of their friends/classmates.

Further, he had never been caught or arrested for any sex crime. Beating the crap out of his ex wife, yep, he beat her so bad that she ended up in the hospital with broken bones on more than one occasion; but, no sex crimes. So, he would not have been on any sex crimes registry.

Another point is that in my area within the last 10 years we have had, on 3 occasions, vigilantes take matters into their own hands to "protect" the community by throwing Molotov cocktails through the windows, or at the front porch, of homes where sex offenders are listed as living.

In two of those cases they f&cking missed! The one case the criminal (yes, I call him a criminal instead of a community protector because that is a more accurate description) hit the wrong house. The property had two houses; the main house where the landlord lived and a garage in the back which had an upstairs apartment where the sex offender lived. Guess which house was attacked?

In the second case, it was a similar situation. The house attacked was the home of the sex offender's aunt. He lived in a basement apartment. In both cases, the landlord and the aunt knew of the sex offender's history; but, were willing to help them get back into society after prison. And, look how they were repaid!

So, here's where I do not like sex offender registries. I live in an apartment. I've had pizza deliverers ring my doorbell when they were looking for my neighbor. So, someone who is clearly looking for an address to make a delivery AND get paid will get the door wrong; It is likely that a vigilante, who isn't going to be as careful to check for the correct address as the pizza delivery guy, might end up throwing a rock or worse through my front window!

So, not only do they make the sex offender more likely to offend again; the registries also make it more dangerous for those who live near the offender.

I think such registries would fail an Eight Amendment test as unusual punishment.

Particularly if the person challenging such lists was put on them because they were a teenager engaging in consensual behaviour, even tho it was illicit by color law.

Now, if you want to say those offenses should result in life in prison, that's a discussion I'm willing to have.

"Sex offender" is a term that is now so broadly defined that it has descended into meaninglessness. This is sad, because there are sex offenders out there, and the consequences of their actions are anything but meaningless. 'Sex Offender' is the modern scarlet letter, and in my opinion is the result of a toxic combination of sex-negative feminism- which seeks to empower women by granting them victim status- and the fear of legal liability, where authorities have to do something-anything- to cover their butts against lawsuits. Now, a 15 year old girl who is in an ill-advised relationship with a 20 year old guy has nowhere to turn for advice, because so many of the adults in her life are 'mandatory reporters', and she is smart enough to know that her boyfriend is not a rapist.

Amy: Very interesting point, Patrick. Can you explain this [how the sex offender registry doesn't pass the smell test for constitutionality] further?

I'm not exactly feeling sorry for them. In Florida, a guy I briefly lived with about 15 years ago recently was sentenced to life for inducing an eight-year-old girl to perform oral sex on him repeatedly over a period of about a month. I was stunned to find this out. In Florida, sex with a minor under 12 is a capital offense. I had no idea of his predatory nature back then. I'm glad he will never breathe free air again.

But it depends on how you look at it. The states insist that the registry is administrative, not punitive. The ACLU would argue otherwise, and they raise some valid points. For instance, you are required to register four times a year, and you're expected to pay for registering.

It's continuing punishment after the sentence has been served. And you will do this for the rest of your life.

And as one of your sources implies above, it makes it hard for offenders who have served their sentences to reintegrate into society. If I committed armed robbery, I wouldn't be expected to register anywhere after my sentence was served. I wouldn't be told where I could and couldn't live. In effect, I would have a fresh start. Yes, that conviction on my record would probably make things difficult for me, when finding a job, but at least I don't have the added problems and registry and having 90% of the community being off-limits to me when trying to find a place to live. And again, you will live this way for the rest of your life, long after your sentence has been served. Either impose life sentences or let these people serve their sentences and get on with their lives without interference.

By making these people social pariahs, they're actually encouraging recidivism. They're not protecting children, they're actually placing them in more danger.

I remember when the original police notification requirements were introduced, and they made sense. Research has shown a high recidivism rate among pedophiles - true pedophiles, not people who have sex with sexually mature statutory minors.

The reporting requirement compelled people convicted of these crimes to report their residence to local police on an ongoing basis.

Then politicians and activists caught onto the idea and made the reporting public, and then they dramatically expanded the range of crimes included in these reports.

This seems to be another situation in which opportunistic politicians, feminists and extreme religious conservatives have conspired to exploit fears of sex crimes.

The same dynamic was apparent during the child sexual abuse hysteria of the late 80's and early 90's - and today with the attempt to portray all sex work as sex 'trafficking' and slavery.

Here's an article with some explanation...

Doubtless, some will respond with outraged cries of the need to protect their children. ~ Patrick at March 20, 2016 12:57 AM

Isn't that always the argument for creeping totalitarianism? Protect the children!

...but this whole registry thing doesn't exactly pass the smell test for constitutionality.

You're not required to register for life if you premeditated murder. ~ Radwaste at March 20, 2016 9:00 AM

I don't know. We don't allow convicted felons to own guns or vote, both Constitutional rights unalterable by the government. Those restrictions have been upheld by the courts.

Sex offender" is a term that is now so broadly defined that it has descended into meaninglessness.

That's the real problem. We've criminalized ordinary behavior.

"We don't allow convicted felons to own guns or vote, both Constitutional rights unalterable by the government. Those restrictions have been upheld by the courts."

They're not unalterable. They are removed under the concept of due process specifically enumerated in the Fifth Amendment - and both firearms possession AND voting rights can be returned to the convicted felon after enough time is passed; there is a procedure for doing that.

Conan: I don't know. We don't allow convicted felons to own guns or vote, both Constitutional rights unalterable by the government. Those restrictions have been upheld by the courts.

I didn't know that was true in every state. I know that convicted felons couldn't vote in Florida, but I was unaware that that was true in all states.

By the way, voting is actually not a constitutional right. At least not a right granted by the U.S. Constitution. (See SCOTUS decision Minor v. Happersett, in which suffragette Virginia Minor argued that the 14th Amendment, specifically the Privileges and Immunities clause, gave her the right to vote. SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution doesn't give the right to vote to anyone; that is the prerogative of the states.)

When arguing that punishment should not be maintained beyond the prison sentence, I was reminded of Michael Vick, who, despite having served his prison term, was sentenced to never being allowed to own a dog again. Which is another argument against my own assertion.

But then again, Michael Vick, as far as I know, has not been required to register anywhere or being required to pay for the "privilege," nor is he being told where he can't live. If I could make him pay for something forever, I would require him to donate to animal shelters.

I didn't know that was true in every state.

Based on what Raddy said, it may not be true in every state; or it may be different enough that it cannot be said as a blanket statement. I'd have to do some research.

My broad argument was that we do limit the social activities of people who have been convicted of a crime even after they've served their sentence - in the interest of protecting society.

I disagree with the sex offender registry as it exists today because the "crimes" that will get one put on it are so broadly defined the list includes too many who do not, in any sense, constitute a continued threat to society.

The recidivism rate of pedophiles is high, such that tracking the movement and limiting get activities of those convicted of pedophilia makes sense. Tracking those those who had an underage girlfriend at 17 does not.

However, as Amy's author points out, these limitations can lead to isolating them and can trigger their recidivism.

With luck, someday we'll find a means of rehabilitating pedophiles. Until then, we don't have any good choices in dealing with the ones who act on their predilections. People sometimes forget that civilization was established to protect the species and can be as cruel (or crueler) than the dangers against which it was established

The recidivism rate of pedophiles is high, such that tracking the movement and limiting get activities of those convicted of pedophilia makes sense. Tracking those those who had an underage girlfriend at 17 does not.

I've heard from a friend of mine who is on the sex offender registry (for reasons that are highly dubious, if it happened as he claimed), that's it's actually pretty lucrative for the state, given the amount of money he claims he has to spend.

So, it's in the state's best interest to put as many people on the registry as possible. Once you fall into the system, you become a cash cow for the state. At least, it's that way in Florida.

Lets see, there was a guy who slammed on the brakes of his car and pulled a girl out of traffic who is now a sex offender for unlawful restraint of a minor

There was a guy who was convicted of flashing a child. Seems he was in his own bathroom, the child never saw him, but his mother did while they were trespassing on his property to make a short cut to a bus stop.

There was a 7yr old boy in Utah charged with indecent contact with a minor when his 15yr old baby sitter she molested him

Then there was a construction worker taking a leak in the boys bathroom that was closed to the kids for some work, when a girl walked in saw him standing at the urinal, didnt see any skin and leaft without him noticing he was arrested and charged with sex crimes against a child.

you know, i'd respect hacking groups like anonymous if theyd'd deal with issues like these by putting politicians and their kids on these offender lists

"Particularly if the person challenging such lists was put on them because they were a teenager engaging in consensual behaviour, even tho it was illicit by color law."

I'm surprised (or maybe not) that the ACLU hasn't already found someone put on the registry for something like public urination, and made a test case of it.

Don't hold your breath Cousin Dave. Despite what they claim the ACLU is and always has been a far left advocacy group. They have no interest in ticking off the feminist puritans who want to criminalize completely non-offensive behavior because 'men=evil'. Instead they'll focus on some minor town with something that looks vaguely like a cross on it's seal. Because . . . oppression!

I know, Ben... the ACLU has always gotten far more credit than it ever really deserved. When I was in grade school, they held out the ACLU to us as the Defenders of Truth and Justice. As I got older, I realized that in many cases it wasn't so. I think my opinion of them really changed with the Skokie case. I came to realize that they weren't defending the Skokie Nazis because they were standing up for a high-minded constitutional principle. Rather, they were working in league with leftists to keep the Skokie matter in the newspapers so the Left could equivocate Nazism with mainstream conservatism. And it worked; I noted at the time how a lot of people my age thought of the skinheads and the KKK as representative. Even though I didn't think of myself as conservative or libertarian at the time, I realized it was character assassination.

"Sure, yes, they broke a law (like by being, oh, 16, and having sex with a 15 and a half year old girlfriend in a state where 16 is the age of consent).
But kids who do this are not dangerous predators. They were just horny teenagers who got chronologically caught up."

What they are, as far as these haters and perverts are concerned, is expendable.