There's even more sex offenders in the USA, I should delete my citizenship!

ArielB said:

They are probably basing it on the list of known sex offeners that have been convicted at one time or another.

I have just heard facebook may be closing down!

Ironically they are all Michael Jackson fans. lol

2freaky4church1 said:

HereToRockYourWorld said:

exactamundo.

2freaky4church1 said:

superspaceboy said:

So sex offenders are never allowed to be part of an online community?

some parents don't care what their kids see online....hell my mom had me on parental controls at 18 still geesh, but yeah very sad...

HereToRockYourWorld said:

I've thought this, too. It's not fair to compare that to someone who molests a 7 year old or violently rapes someone.

guitarslinger44 said:

We had a cop come to my school and do a big show for the kids about this... I think it scared the crap out of them. But we all felt like the school was doing the parents job for them.

Sweeny79 said:

yep!

Is anyone watching Dateline/NBC's "To Catch a Predator" now? It's amazing what these sick pr!cks will go through to have sex with kids. One idiot showed up in a stolen van.

I'd blow their family jewels off as soon as they walked through the door, but that's just me.

uPtoWnNY said:

I have watched the a couple times - just amazing on such a sad level really

HereToRockYourWorld said:

In some states, even a conviction for consensual adult sodomy can result in sex offender registration.

(Side note: despite the Lawrence v. Texas U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003, a few states are still convicting people under sodomy laws. In particular, I've read three North Carolina Court of Appeals decisions that upheld consensual adult sodomy convictions and specifically rejected the argument that Lawrence precluded such prosecutions.)

For various reasons, I don't support sex offender registries. One of them is the problem you raised; i.e., they're over-inclusive. Other issues:

• If the purpose of these registries is to protect the public from crime, then they're also under-inclusive. As an adult male with no children, I'm not terribly worried about a rapist or child molester living near me. My crime concerns are things such as assault or burglary, but there's no registry I can check to see if anyone living in or near my building has a history of such crimes.
  
• One common justification for sex offender registries is that people supposedly have a "right to know" if a sex offender is living near them. What's the basis for this alleged right? And if such a right exists, what else do I have a right to know about my neighbors?
  
• These crimes usually involve a perpetrator who knows his/her victim (e.g., family member or teacher), not a stranger.
  
• The notion that convicted sex offenders are likely to re-offend is questionable, at least in light of the data that I've seen.
  
• As we've seen on To Catch a Predator, plenty of potential offenders will travel many miles from home in order to commit a sex crime. Checking a database for sex offenders in your neighborhood won't turn up these people.
  
• There are various constitutional problems that I won't get into here. In general, courts haven't been too receptive to constitutional arguments against registration laws, but Hawaii's registry has been effectively shut down on due process grounds.
  

uPtoWnNY said:

I enjoy watching the show, but it's something of a guilty pleasure. There are many, many problems with the whole thing. These articles do a good job of exploring some of the issues:

• "'To Catch a Predator': T...edophiles"
  
• Tonight on Dateline This Man Will Die
  

One additional concern is that Chris Hansen seems to have no problem with leading the "predators" to believe he's a cop. If they ask, his usual answer is, "I'll get to that in a moment." Sure, he eventually comes clean and reveals, "I'm Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC," but only after he's extracted damaging and/or entertaining statements out of the "predator."

I haven't researched whether this is viable, but if I were defending one of the Dateline "predators," I'd consider the idea of trying to have Chris' interview thrown out on the theory that Chris is the functional equivalent of a police officer (he's working with the police and leading at least some of the defendants to believe that he is a police officer), and accordingly, the interview amounts to a custodial interrogation that requires a reading of Miranda rights. ("You have the right to remain silent.... You have the right to an attorney....") I can think of a few Supreme Court cases that would support this concept.