The article avers that the registry causes such crimes to go "underreported," yet we're tarring people with the label "sex offender" for life because of public urination, underage with someone about the same age, and sending nude selfies as teens.

Sounds like the laws need to be revisited.

On a related note, I was discussing yesterday the television show, "To Catch a Predator with Chris Hansen," in which undercover LEOs entice a sexual predator by posing as an underage person (usually female, but not always) online. After the online conversation gets lewd and the predator's intentions are made plain, they invite this person to over for a visit to the "child's" home, which is actually a sting house, where an actor who appears underage (but is not) meets them.

The actor finds an ostensible reason to leave the person alone in the room, and as soon as they leave, Chris Hansen comes in, and confronts the predator with the text messages they sent to the person posing as an underage child.

The predator then thinks he's free to go, but the cops are waiting for him outside where he's arrested.

One thing that bothers me about this whole operation is that we're arresting and imprisoning people for things they didn't actually do. Can you charge someone with propositioning a minor when they didn't actually do that, but only propositioned someone posing as a minor?

Yet, these people have had their lives ruined. Some have committed suicide.

On the one hand, it's fine with me if we get sexual predators out of commission, but punishing them for something they didn't actually do seems wrong to me.

These things are driven by naked politics, consequences be damned! They have to show they're doing SOMETHING to keep the children safe, no matter who it hurts! See, we are keeping the creeps away from your kids! No, they can't live anywhere near a church, or school, or public park. Or anywhere! We'll ship them off to prison colonies on Pluto! What, all he did was take a whiz behind a bush? Too bad, we have to protect the children! He was a child, too? But, but, the children! We're protecting the children from the children!

It's important to move through the world with contexts of understanding broader than entertainment, and specifically more informative than is television.

"Can you charge someone with propositioning a minor when they didn't actually do that, but only propositioned someone posing as a minor?"

Hmm. The law is pretty well established with regard to prostitution stings; cops can pose as hookers and bust would-be johns that proposition them. However, the cop cannot do anything to solicit the john; if they do, courts will often view that as entrapment. At times, it's well worth reviewing the concept of entrapment -- that is, tempting a person to commit a crime that they would not otherwise commit.

From what I understand, courts decide on entrapment based on the alleged perp's demonstrated inclination to commit the crime, or look for an opportunity to commit it, vs. the temptation vs. the severity of the crime. In the case of To Catch a Predator, I think that part of how that works is that they are trolling on chat rooms which are already known to be places where adults are looking for hookups for minors, so entrapment probably does not apply based on the perp's demonstrated intent in committing the crime (evidenced by the fact that he was in that chat room).

For statutory rape, it's complicated by the fact that most states have a strict-liability standard for that crime: if you are an adult and you have sex with someone underage, you are guilty of statutory rape even if you reasonably believed that your partner was of age. If you demonstrated by your actions that your intent was to have sex with a minor, I think it would be nearly impossible to raise an entrapment defense.

It is possible to go even more crazy. In England, a man can barely even visit a playground, even with his own children and sure better not take photos.

The law is very schizo on the age issue. The Left has forced schools to give out condoms in schools and encouraged free sex (making fun of "waiting for marriage") but at the same time 15 yr olds are a cause for their 17 yr old boyfriend to go to jail. In some states it is legal for 15 or 16 yr olds to marry but not have sex.

Back in the day, mass streaking on college campus' was rampant but could have led to mass sex-offender arrests. Gay parades and naked bike rides the same today. It all doesn't make sense.

I have a different perspective. First of all, I'm an attorney, and I have represented people accused of CSC (criminal sexual conduct) in Michigan, so I have some first hand experience of how the system works.

Second, one of my neighbors was prosecuted for CSC with teenage boys. After the police raided his home (rather spectacularly), I was asked by one of the Detroit TV stations if this surprised me. My immediate answer was "no, not really." I had always thought it strange that there were so many teenage boys hanging out at a single middle-aged man's home. He had all sorts of toys (ATVs, kayaks, muscle cars) to attract them, and you couldn't help but notice the traffic in and out. Once I had to call the police on some of his young "friends" because they were yelling obscenities and threatening each other in the middle of the street at 2:30 in the morning (it was a private condominium).

During the prosecution, the state showed how he had groomed kids through Boys Club and amateur athletic associations, and then seduced the more vulnerable. In retrospect, I could see all the warning signs that something was wrong, but I wasn't going to assume the worst about someone.
He plead to two counts of CSC 4th (sexual contact without penetration). Among the charges that were dropped were possession of child porn. That conviction got him on the Michigan registry, and that's where he belongs.

Why? Because he clearly had developed a modus operandi to get access to sexually vulnerable minors. While he may or may not genuinely feel remorse for his actions, his history shows a real risk to other teenage boys. Hopefully his new neighbors (he moved about a year after his conviction) are aware of his past, and can notfiy the police if they saw the same things I did.

On the more creepy side, I just looked up his current address, and he chose to move to a home less than a mile from one of the athletic facilities associated with his victims. You would think that he'd stay FAR away from anything connected to his offenses, but then again, I know from representing sexual offenders that many lack insight (to say the least). Although I've never spoken to my former neighbor about it, I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks he was "helping" these kids discover their sexuality, that they consented, and that he's been greatly wronged by a sexually censorious society. I've heard that nonsense before from unguarded clients before I tell them that's not a valid defense to the charge.

However, I basically agree with with Michigan Attorney General actually said. She did NOT question the validity of sex offender registries per se. She said that, as currently configured, Michigan's SORA as amended in 2006 and 2011 is unnecessarily burdensome and goes beyond what is legitimately needed to protect the public, and therefore should be seen as punishment, not crime prevention. In particular, she criticizes the parts of the law that restrict offenders residency and location, and the in-person reporting requirements As punishment, the SOR cannot be retroactively applied to crimes committed before the passage of the law.

For example, offenders can not live within a certain radius of a school. That sounds reasonable until you draw out the restricted area on a map and realize that there are few developed areas that meet the criteria. Most landlords aren't willing to rent to convicted sexual offenders. The practical result is that sex offenders congregate together in the limited housing available to them. If you doubt this, just check the SOR, and you'll find that many offenders live at the same address, or very near each other. Not a good way to create a sexually healthy environment.

Nessel argues (and I tend to agree) the law needs to require an individualized risk assessment for each offender to decide whether the person is placed on the registry. That way, my neighbor, who clearly engaged in predatory behavior, can be subject to more resrictions. But I think Nessel underestimates the difficulty of creating and using those risk assessments. Who wants to do the assessment? What social worker or criminoligist wants to rate a risk of recidivism and then be proven wrong by subsequent events? What elected judge will want to depend on that fallible assessment to decide who gets registered, only to have an unregistered offender reoffend? Does Nessel believe that registration should depend upon the discretion of a judge or parole officer? How consistent would that be in application?

So, yes, Nessel does argue that Michigan's SORA needs reform. She does not argue that sex offender registries are "societal show ponies".

SOR are revenge porn for revenge junkies.

I know one such person. She hungers to see people hurt, but there aren't many people you can openly advocate destroying. "Sex offenders" are about all you have left. So she reacts to reports and stories of them with out-of-proportion emotionality; just because she can.

Americans (and maybe others) have been trained to believe in "laws" even when they are wrong and harmful, and they enjoy seeing people hurt-- especially if they can imagine they deserve it. It's a sickness.

First, let me say that I have no doubt that sex offender registries are seriously flawed. I knew that ever since I heard, years ago, that a person can get forced onto such a registry just for peeing in an alley.

Anyway:

cc said: "The Left has forced schools to give out condoms in schools and encouraged free sex (making fun of 'waiting for marriage') but at the same time 15 yr olds are a cause for their 17 yr old boyfriend to go to jail. In some states it is legal for 15 or 16 yr olds to marry but not have sex."

If that last sentence is true, I'm all in favor of making it ILLEGAL for anyone to marry if that person is under, oh, maybe, 21.

Why? Because it doesn't strike me as very "pro-family values" to encourage anyone to marry at that age, even if it's "only" with parental permission. You can't join the Army at 15, even with parental permission.

(As Fran Lebowitz wrote, in "Tips for Teens": "If you reside in a state where you attain your legal majority while still in your teens, pretend that you don't. There isn't an adult alive who would want to be contractually bound by a decision he came to at the age of nineteen.")

You can't drive alone at 15 either.

Bottom line: Since no one is in favor of making anyone marry and then divorce, allowing marriage at an age before most people are even capable of graduating from college is hardly a way to help lower the divorce rate. Or, you might say, marriage and parenthood are no longer mandatory rites of passage to adulthood, so it's not fair to suggest that one has to prepare for them at an early age, the way they did over a century ago, when the global population was under 2 billion.

Also, I don't know of any school officials who make fun of "waiting for marriage." What IS ludicrous is the abstinence-only implication that one should have to wait until marriage or death, whichever comes first. Or that God will reward you for abstaining, with a dream spouse, when you turn 25 at the latest. (Why not say the same about the rewards of flossing or losing weight?) Or that condoms should not be made easily available when incurable STIs are very much a problem. Wanting to abstain until adulthood is a separate matter.

As old-fashioned liberal Wendy Kaminer wrote in the early 1990s:

"'What are the benefits of abstinence?' I asked a group of five women friends who came of age in the 1960s. They were momentarily stumped. Everyone readily recited the evils that abstinence avoided — disease, unwanted pregnancies, and considerable heartache — but we had trouble identifying the goods that it offered, even to young women in their late teens. Self-discipline was rejected; celibacy seemed more like self-denial. Finally someone pointed out that chastity might help some young women achieve autonomy. It allows them to focus on satisfying themselves instead of pleasing their boyfriends. It puts school before sex. But chastity is a path to autonomy only when it is divorced from romance.

"The sexual revolution didn't eliminate romance but did temper it a little, with experience, and the opportunity for autonomy without abstinence. At least, that's how it looks in retrospect..."

"Although I've never spoken to my former neighbor about it, I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks he was "helping" these kids discover their sexuality, that they consented, and that he's been greatly wronged by a sexually censorious society. I've heard that nonsense before from unguarded clients before I tell them that's not a valid defense to the charge."

Dale - Mrs. Radwaste was a nurse, and noticed that the "victims" of sexual activity varied considerably in affect: some were crushed by being taken advantage of, others walked out whistling, wondering why they were brought to the ER by police. This phenomenon obtained across all ages.
Further, families were often the victims' worst enemies; rather than offer support, they regarded their kin as forever soiled, and in some cases missed no opportunity to tell others the victim had been stained - often right there in the ER on the cell phone.

1) why is being sexually used considered something that can never be healed?
2) how is the victim served by outside forces insisting that this is worse than murder, and they just didn't know any better?

Nessel argues (and I tend to agree) the law needs to require an individualized risk assessment for each offender to decide whether the person is placed on the registry. That way, my neighbor, who clearly engaged in predatory behavior, can be subject to more resrictions. But I think Nessel underestimates the difficulty of creating and using those risk assessments. Who wants to do the assessment? What social worker or criminoligist wants to rate a risk of recidivism and then be proven wrong by subsequent events? What elected judge will want to depend on that fallible assessment to decide who gets registered, only to have an unregistered offender reoffend? Does Nessel believe that registration should depend upon the discretion of a judge or parole officer? How consistent would that be in application?

As you pointed out earlier, treating the sex offender registry as a punishment (and SCOTUS has already ruled that it is not), would prevent the registration of those who committed their crimes before the registry came into existence, as this would be an ex-post facto law.

Regarding the statement above, I think that would be placing undue responsibility on the personnel responsible for conducting the risk assessment. Yes, I see that there's the possibility that someone they classified as low-risk (and hence, giving them fewer restrictions) could fall back into recidivism.

But let's be honest. How effective is it really? Some sex offender has been restricted from living within 500 feet of a school, bus stop, church, playground, etc.

Is anyone on this blog really laboring under the delusion that that's going to stop someone who's determined to molest a child?

I owned a condo awhile back and was on the board when a question came up about whether we could prevent someone from living in one of the units if they were on the list.

We could prevent someone from renting a unit to some one on the list. We could otherwise not prevent someone on the list from living there unless some law prevented them. Note they could still own a unit as investment property.

A couple of the owners researched the issue. The entrance and mailboxes were in 1000ft of the closest corner of a school. We asked our lawyer...the brief answer (e.g. not paying him big bucks to issue an official opinion) was "That is a good question - specifics have not been ruled on"