Well I guess time will be the test of whether something like this can deliver a better result or not. As long as the first priority is ALWAYS protecting children from molestation, I can’t see anyone having a problem with this.

Interesting point about the overexposure of rural areas to sex offenders, but I guess it was bound to happen if the offenders were forced out of highly populated urban areas.

Interesting. But the fact is, virtually every study done to date, including one done by the Dept. of Justice has shown that 1: SO’s have the lowest recidivism rate (13.4% for sex crimes) of all convicted felon except murder. The average amongst felons is over 46% 2: Residency restrictions and work place restrictions have absolutely no effect on recidivism , and 3: While the statement is always, as John said “protecting children from molestation” or “If we protect only one child…” the fact is the public registries recklessly endanger the lives of not only the offender, but his children, family, friends and work place associates. Do you have any idea what it’s like to see a friends child come home from school beaten within an inch of hi life because his mother (or father) is on the registry for something that did not even evolve a child?

Of course we still have not addressed the fact that 95% of all child abuse cases involve someone in their home such as a parent, relative, guardian or trusted friend or associate. A child is 1900% more likely to be assaulted in his own home than by a stranger, much less a person on the registry. He is 10,000 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver. But attacking those issues is not as sexy and does not get the pandering politicians near enough sensationalist media exposure. Why address the real issues or really address child safety if it wont help get you elected?

Any sensible person will understand what a revolting crime this is. However, I don’t believe all sex offenders are child molesters. Right now I know a man falsely charged with two counts because he happened to be alone with a 13 year old girl. Regardless if he beats the charge, his life is forever ruined.
The local news stations ran a piece for several days claiming he confessed. He never did that. Now, people assume he is guilty, and he has never been to trial.
Of course his job is gone, he had to mortgage his house for legal fees and he is a pariah in the community.

This is such a serious offense, a man can never pay for his crime. Rather than put men back into society, it would be better to simply put them to death. Most will never again have a life. If not death, then prison camps for life, an island somewhere – any place except city neighborhoods.

Write all the “Tough On Crime” laws you want. They will not prevent anyone from committing a crime, if they are determined to do so. In fact, the harsh laws encourage the killing of a victim, because dead people cannot testify. Unless there is some kind of evidence to direct investigators to the Perp. So, how do you tell who might be dangerous? While nothing is 100 percent in this world, we must concentrate on the most dangerous.

1. The VIOLENT offender.

2. The REPEAT offender.

3. The offender who DID NOT KNOW their victim.

If you notice. The vast majority of these most heinous sexual assaults, fall into 1 or all three categories. We are wasting all the resources on the low to no risk while the predators are hiding in the registry.

This is so simple and so to the point! When people say, “Well, we can’t get rid of the register, what do you think we should do?” Answer, if we need a public register at all, and I truly don’t think the public has proven that they can handle it, then the only ones on it should be those that fell into the categories above!

The REAL danger to our society are the POLITICIANS who write all these laws while ignoring the Evidence Based Research” for VOTES! Oh yes, the entertainment news media who “EXPLOIT” and by doing so, also endanger our society for RATINGS. Nancy Grace, Bill O’Reilly and those of his kind.

Having a family member step over the line has catapalted this family into another world frame. In the area where we live, the crime must be publicized and the predator cannot occupy his own home. It is a degradation that does nothing to protect children in the community. We are as shocked as anyone at the behavior but the single occurence within the family has been followed up by short incarceration and intensive cognitive-behavioral training (at considerable expense). There is no consideration of circumstance, possibility of recidivism, age, health or history. We feel we no longer live in the land of the free. This is tragedy compounded.

In many sex offender cases the victim lives with or knows the offender, these cases should be managed in a way that take into account, the age of the victim, the circumstances of the case, the offenders history, and lastly likeliness to re-offend.

Cases involving predators offenders who stalk, kidnap, or engage luring, or similar activities should be managed in a different manner.

This would ensure proper use of protective resources and safeguard children more effectively. Any other answer is less based in protecting children and more in politics.

To say the public registry is for safety is a joke. S.O. registration provides the general public to ridicule an individual based upon a situation that no one knows details of. Laws and statutes read very boldly & distinctly the charge which the individual was accused of & leaves no room for interpretation. A rapist is a rapist, period. He/she did not get charged with a rape, he/she IS a rapist. The same can be said for someone who molests a child, he/she is perceived as actively molesting children. It goes without saying an individual should & will pay the consequences for their inappropriate actions, especially those who commit crimes against children or elderly. But what happens when you have the 19 year old who goes out with friends, meets a young lady, they have sex, then has him arrested for rape? His family disowns him for his alleged actions, he serves two years of probation time and no jail time, his victim continues to see and speak to him after the fact, his record is cleared of everything except an arrest and he is now required to register as a sex offender?

Let me tell you, as I am the example listed above. Lost or ruined opportunities are the normal expectation. I am college educated and highly qualified for good paying jobs yet I can’t maintain a job because of a registry website which implies I will sexually assault someone. I am left with almost no alternatives to make life good for myself because every time I start moving forward someone happens to find information on a registry and proceeds to ruin any chance of moving forward. I am ridiculed by peers even though they may know more details of the situation because the registry implied I am a convicted s.o. I am treated as an outlier everywhere I go in my town yet when I pass by the complaintant on the street she is more than willing to stop and chat. What does a person do then?

Protect our kids, elders, and all the in-between from such disgusting acts. But the lawmakers should consider not listing someone who now realizes he is not a rapist and has done everything possible to show he is a productive member of society, but society has dubbed him a title that he cannot escape because of a website meant to promote safety and reduce ricidivism.

I agree wholeheartedly with all of the above comments. I am engaged to a register SO. The state has made or lives miserable. Now they even say we are not allowed to have a normal church wedding because children will be attending. We are devoted Christians and wouldn’t feel right doing it any other way. I support my soon-to-be husband 100%. Yes he admits he was wrong in his actions, but it was with a teenager who was already sexually active and lived in his home. He isn’t a danger to anyone. I will just boldly and prayerful stand thru all of this in hopes that some day he will have a little bit of self dignity restored.

I could not agree more with the above comments on the need to re-think and re-calibrate the SOR. My son was convicted of a misdemeanor for having text exchanges with a law enforcement officer, posing as a sexually active 15 year old who initiated the contact in an adult chat room and persistently pursued the conversations. While I don’t approve of the conversations at all, I was still shocked to learn that even though he rejected a plea to travel and meet with “her” in person, told “her” the conversations were disgusting, and ended the thread — a law was broken. The officer called him and told him that even though he knew that my son would not have done anything, he had technically broken a law related to the use of the Internet and conversing with a minor.

He accepted a misdemeanor plea in order to avoid any media frenzy, and a public airing in court, standing before a judge who asked the prosecutor to reduce the charge or drop it because he did not deserve it, and when the prosecutor refused, stated that he hated the law and the consequence he would be required to impose.

My son, who was required as part of the process to undergo an array of psychological tests and passed them all, is now on the list for 10 years for making one bad decision even though he made all the right decisions when it counted most and is not a threat to anyone.

Though it has not been discussed here, another part of this hyped up issue is the free pass being given to law enforcement officers who are experts at luring over the Internet and protected by laws which disallow a defense based on entrapment regardless of how the conversation may have evolved. i always thought the courts were also there to protect us from the over-reach of law enforcement, especially when someone is aggressively lured into a criminal situation that he/she would otherwise commit.

I cannot help but wonder how many others out there are in this situation or will soon find themselves in it, their lives potentially destroyed for years while real threats to our communities and children are lost in the fog of numbers that don’t tell the real story.