When I lived in Houston and was buying a house I used a website to look up sex offenders in the neighborhood.
I remember seeing one guy who was in the sex offender database because when he was 19, he had sex with a 17 year old. It made me feel a little uncomfortable. It struck me because I was in my mid 20s and I think we were around the same age at the time.
Something is amiss in a system that punishes him for life and places him alongside men in their 40s convicted for touching toddlers.
The same situation happened to a family member of mine. He was 19 and his girlfriend was 17. Her dad got mad at him one night, called the cops, and had him arrested for statutory rape. He is now a registered sex offender.
They went on dating and several years later got engaged. The relationship fell through, and they never did get married. But if they had, he would have been a registered sex offender for having sex with his wife. Granted, there's a timing issue, but it does show how tragically absurd some of these cases are.
I'm not sure about your locale, but I know in my state you can petition the courts to have yourself removed from the sex offenders registry. It's a case-by-case thing, but it gives some hope to people like your family member, people who got busted for public urination, and other people who probably shouldn't be grouped in the same category as pedophiles.
Peeing in a park where there could has been children can put you on the list, with the rationale being that while urinating in public you're also potentially exposing yourself to children. It's definitely outrageous that it's on the same scale, but it's not like peeing on a dark alleyway at 3 am will do it.
I did some light research about the subject after I stopped laughing and crying.
It seems like it depends on the state, there are 13 states that have the "public urination leads to sex offense" regulation. Of those only 2 states have the "near a minor" clause. So 11 states can put you there for peeing in public, no strings attached. On those, you would be at the mercy of the police officers that catch you.
Also, I found out that the reason for the "public urination is a sex offense" is not urolagnia (at least it's not overt urolagnia), but a means to deter the flashers' defense "I was peeing, officer." Not sure it makes a lot of sense.
Disclaimer: As I said, this was light research on the topic, so there might be errors. Sources were mostly Straightdope forums and the Wikipedia, IIRC.
I tend to agree with getting put on some kind of shame list if you get caught urinating in public though. If you're regularly getting caught pissing in bushes you are obviously really bad at not having people see you pissing in bushes.
While this helps, unfortunately there is a burgeoning business of websites that scrape offender lists and re-publish them, and will not remove your name unless you pay them money. There weas one a while back that would actually contact people on the list threatening to put up flyers in their neighborhood unless you paid. Note that this is regardless if your status on the official list has changed. There is no substitute for keeping people off these lists if they never should have been on them in the first place.
Ironically in some jurisdictions prostitution is illegal but making porn is legal, so in a reverse of your comment, an illegal act can become legal by simply filming it.
I don't think it's that simple.
IANAL but AFAIK it works like this.
Prostitution is illegal, therefor paying someone to have sex with you while filming it would also be illegal.
In porn, two people have sex consensual sex with each other for free. A third party pays the couple for the rights to record the event and commercially exploit the recording (that in theory might have happened anyway).
Actually, the argument is that prostitution is illegal because it's immoral, and porn though effectively the same thing is also immoral but protected under the first amendment. Hiring a prostitute and recording it is legal so long as you intend to distribute it.
(Regarding the US) I had a friend who went streaking on campus and was picked up by police. He got off of the charges on a technicality but almost was convicted. Had he been, he would have had to register as a sex offender. Same goes for public urination. We have a pretty insane system.
I'm not sure the general public could ever follow a nuanced argument like this to understand it though. We usually legislate like fundamentalist mothers with an IQ of 80.
Indeed. In a functional society the district attorney would decline to prosecute as there is no benefit to society in going after a public urinator, streaker, or sexting teenage couple. But here in the US a politician has to be "tough on crime" or work for the "benefit of the children".
Not really, a plea bargain resulting in any punishment at all counts as a conviction for the prosecutor. A case like CP or cocaine possession which are in most jurisdictions basically straight liability crimes are very nearly guaranteed convictions. Plus, it never looks bad for a prosecutor to have convicted a child pornographer when it comes time to run for re-election. And not prosecuting such a case would lead to ads run against you saying that you're soft on child rapists.
Interesting that Texas, arguably one of the most rigidly Christian states in the country with evidence of moral legislation, is actually reasonable in this regard.
Rich makes a lot of assertions about fundamental Christians, but provides little evidence to back them up.
That's false. Statutory rape does not apply to married couples, and minors can get married with parental consent and / or a court order.
I'd also call bullshit on this anecdote and most of the ones in this thread: the most common age of consent in the US is 16, not 18 and specifically, in Texas, it's 17, meaning that there are two different ways that this particular story doesn't add up.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the Federal rule sets the age at 18 for defining child pornography, and I believe that rule preempts state rules.
So even if it's legal to have sex with a 16-year-old in Texas (under State law), it's illegal to produce, possess or distribute pictures of that child (under Federal law).
The act could have happened months before hand, just after the guy turned 19 and the girl was still 16, or in a jurisdiction that ignores the Romeo and Juliet clause. Or the entire thing could have happened years before when he was 17 and she was 15, with the parents only finding out about it after she turned 16 and the investigation another year later turned up evidence to support that theory.
Also, the GP to this thread never stated that the guy would be a convicted statutory rapist for sleeping with his wife, but that he would have been a statutory rapist who's victim is the person who is now his wife.
There's plenty of ways this could have worked to the guy's disadvantage. There's really only one way it can be false.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to say this is used to cover young married couples, I meant to say that because these frontier states have histories of young marriages, that they have liberal laws in regards to age of consent.
I'm sorry, I don't live in the US so maybe I don't really understand, but why do these websites even exist.
If someone is a dangerous sex offender, he shouldn't even be in the streets. If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life?
If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life?
In fact, he didn't "do the time", because part of the punishiment is a life-long listing in the sex offender registries.
If you'd rather, you can think of it this way: sexual offenses in the US carry a mandatory life-sentence, with some of that sentence being time spent in jail.
Last I knew, it was justified under public safety. People who had already been sentenced and served their time in the past had been listed on newly-created sex offender lists. Court ruled that it wasn't a punishment, so it couldn't be considered ex post facto punishment. Wikipedia indicates the case that decided this was Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).
Why are you checking that database in the first place? In my world your access to this information is the reason for its right to exist in your social context. I doubt that it's possible to check these lists and criticize them at the same time. What lead you to check it out?
It is not strange for someone moving to an area to check out the sex offender registry here in the US, especially if someone has children. Anyone can check the registry out at anytime @ http://www.nsopw.gov as well as other websites. There are legitimately dangerous people on the sex offender registry. There are also people who are on there due to dubious reasons, e.g. being drunk and peeing in public or having sex with their girlfriend while under a certain age.
Okay, this 'not strange' is obviously something tied to local social norms and values, I guess.
I retract the implied contradiction between checking the list and complaining about the content. That said, it probably is impossible to understand the reasons for its existence or the need to check out a neighborhood like this without growing up in a culture like that.
There's a huge difference between looking at a map and seeing anonymous, aggregate stats on crimes and having a database of individuals who have committed those crimes.
For example, imagine Google Maps with overlays for different types of crime. Say I check the "Sexual Assault, Children" box and notice that the park two blocks west of the plasma bank has a much higher density of such crime than the park two blocks east. That's useful information, and you can inform your kids to be careful at the park or avoid it altogether.
What's not really useful is knowing that the dude five houses down from my potential new home purchase was convicted in 1995 for diddling his niece and for possession of kiddie porn in 2002, and was released in 2009 after 7 years in prison. It's pandering to the scare-news watching masses and causes undue harassment/problems of the man who has supposedly paid his price to society.
This society does not need a Scarlet Letter mentality.
How is someone to know how problematic the database is without looking at it first? His criticism would be much less warranted if he'd never look at the registry.
Texas changed that law last year. Now if one partner is under 17 and one over, but they are four years or less apart in age, and the younger partner is at least 15, then consensual sex between the two is legal.
People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list.
> People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list.
No, listing is permanent. The background check companies never remove anything from their databases. In fact having a court purge an old conviction may make your life worse, since there is no longer an official record of the insignificance of the crime, just a private database that says CRIMINAL, CRIMINAL!
It's not like his crime was hidden, you read it yourself. The only thing the 19 year old and a 40 year old who touches toddlers is that they both committed a sexual crime. Even though they are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum it's still true.
The gp poster is one of a very enlightened few. There was a person in a similar situation in my area for a while. Someone found him on the registry, and he was subsequently banned from several organizations he was previously considered a valuable member of. By this time he was in his late 20s and talking to some of the shriller voices against them, I realized they didn't understand the difference between something he did at 19 and something he wouldn't do at 28. They just assumed he was after their 13 year old daughters and nothing else. Ruined a lot of his ability to participate in society.
Similarly, there are many, many employers who will dismiss any chance for job based on mere presence on the list. No questions, no mitigating circumstance. This is a punishment that is life-long, goes far beyond the crime, and honestly, leaves little recourse for the offender to become a drain on society, or turn to further crimes just to get by. (blast me for being a stupid hippy liberal if you want, but explain how we expect someone to get a job if we deny them the ability to get a job without saying "just get a job").
I'm not sure I follow. It's also possible for someone to map everyone with felonies, is this inherently wrong? Someone with marijuana possession is certainly not the same as a serial killer but the website isn't making that conclusion.
If you disagree that having sex with a 16 year old as an 18 year old should be a sexual crime then perhaps you should fight the law itself.
I remember seeing one guy who was in the sex offender database because when he was 19, he had sex with a 17 year old. It made me feel a little uncomfortable. It struck me because I was in my mid 20s and I think we were around the same age at the time.
Something is amiss in a system that punishes him for life and places him alongside men in their 40s convicted for touching toddlers.