re: The Danger and Power of the Sexual Offender Registry

The problem isn't with the registry. It is with the criminal code.

I mean you could maybe keep the registry if you just significantly cut down on what qualifies for registration. The problem has been that every politician wants to be "tough on crime." Which leads to ever expanding penalties in order to appease a public that doesn't really understand the system.

I've heard Mark Geragos talk about the registry recently on podcasts and he is of the opinion that landing on the registry is worse than a stretch of prison time and it is not even close. People on it can't get a job, have trouble finding a place to live, etc.

He basically describes it as a life sentence.

This is one of those things where good intentions go wrong and no one is willing to fix it.

I'm fine with clear cut, deviant, dangerous people get this hammer but too often people get caught up in the net that shouldn't be.

The two most glaring examples to me are teen on teen matters and public urination. I just did a quick google search and 13 states designate public urination as a crime that lands you on the registry.

No 18 or 19 year old should be ostracized from society for the rest of their life for activities with a 16 year old girl and no drunk guy trying to take a piss behind a tree should have his life ruined because he didn't have his head on a swivel.

Like others have said, though, it's a hard thing for an elected official to take this up.

Also, the OP case is insane. If the girl was in her underwear of some sort and not showing her breasts or private parts, how is that even a crime? If it was panties and a bra, that's no more revealing than a bikini.

As it stands, the real culprit is prosecutors. They are the only ones that have clear discretion to inject common sense into these things. They are the final filter.

Child porn doesn't require nudity (and even some nude children aren't child porn). The courts generally look at bra and panties as more risqué than swimsuit even if the coverage is the same because of the context.

I would like to hear the other side of the case in the OP.

The public urination and the new sextinf situations are probably the worst applications.

quote:

---

Also, the OP case is insane. If the girl was in her underwear of some sort and not showing her breasts or private parts, how is that even a crime? If it was panties and a bra, that's no more revealing than a bikini.

---

there are lots of new laws that essentially target grooming-type offenses and they're all scary as frick

you don't have to have sex or see nudity. dirty talk to minors alone can get you in a lot of trouble

quote:

---

Are we talking about an 18 yr. old that knew the online girlfriend was 13?

---

yeah it's fricked up and possibly criminal but not THAT criminal

quote:

---

Secondly, other responses stated related incidents of "adolescents" sexting and photos being sent between them, is that also illegal?

---

yes. a teen taking a nude picture of itself and sending it is distribution of child porn. anyone receiving it is guilty of possession/receiving child porn

SlowFlowPro, CorporateTiger,imjustafatkid

Thanks for the info. Glad I'm an old grandpa, because as horny as I was at 15-16, this would have been a major temptation!!

That's the kind of stuff that is completely devoid of logic. A 14 year old girl in a bikini at the beach can take a family picture with her mom and dad and post it to Instagram and it's fine. The same girl can take a picture of herself in a bra and panties which essentially the exact same garment and it's child porn.

I had no idea about that. I've always assumed there had to be some exposure of the breasts or privates to qualify.

That's crazy.