Happened to me. Went out with somebody who turned out to be a serial shop lifter who operated with a small gang of other shop lifters. Everything looked fine up front until they disappeared when we had plans without contact for days. Thought I was ghosted. Turns out they were arrested.
A friend went out with someone who destroyed his car after he broke up because she was violent twords him. He had to get a restraining order. A friend of his dug up a link to a FL police site. Turns out she did a little time down there for assaulting another woman, beating her with a coat rack during a fight. He never thought to look her up either and she seemed nice at first. Shit happens. Don't blame the victim for not being paranoid that everyone they're dating might be a criminal. Especially when there are damn good liars out there.
We moved out rather quickly after that. If we were in a situation where we had to rent again, and went with an individual renting their own house rather than a company, checking out the registry is on the checklist of things to do.
To expect them to be aware of multiple GIS layers is likely way out of their normal scope. Maybe it shouldn't be? But thats how things are now.
You, the client, should also do your own data collection from public and semi-public sources for things that are strictly outside MLS data capture.
With 40,000 couch sales, there would be roughly 120 sex offenders would have bought that couch. You can see what I mean about the registries being bloated.
Doesn't really narrow things down until you add the brick factory, but then they already had it down to 40 houses.
But it's a mistake to even assume the couch was bought by the same house as the offender. The offender could just be visiting, or the couch could have been moved to a different house since purchase (sold second hand, or the owner moved). And you are assuming the offender had been caught before, or was even on the sex offender registry for abusing children.
That’s insane.
But I used number of adults, not total population. Because most children aren't registered sex offenders, or buying expensive furniture.
It’s not a mistake, it’s a convenient assumption to make until it’s proven otherwise, especially when you have basically no other information to go on.
I have no doubt these investigators are intelligent enough to have considered that possibility.
It’s really rather sick and deranged though that this kind of dynamic of women with children associating with sex offenders is not exactly rare. Frankly, I hope the mother was also charged.
Would you want her charged if she didn't even know?
There is nothing in the article suggesting that the mother conspired with her boyfriend, or that she even knew he was a sex offender. I can imagine a scenario where the mother blames herself for not knowing and is utterly destroyed by misplaced guilt. Who knows what actually happened? The article wasn't about that.
Yes? There are laws against child endangerment for a reason, and giving someone unrestricted accsss to your child without performing a basic background check very much falls into that territory.
What do you think the reason is? The deterrence value is zero.
Yes. She is responsible for making sure her children is safe and well taken care of. I say this morally, not as a legal fact. She should know what they are up to, and she should notice if any of them are regularly abused over an interval of years.
Unpredictable random acts of violence happen. Would be lunacy to punish the parents for that. On the other end of the scale here we are talking about abuse ongoing for years. By someone who the mother brought into the child’s life. Somewhere between those two ends of the scale i run out of sympathy for the excuse of “she didn’t know”. Where exactly the bundary is I don’t know. What i know is that in the scenairo described in the article i strongly believe we are in the “she should have known” territory.
Think it through. Do you think that the kid who was praying for someone to come help her, and for whom the law enforcement officers were sufficiently concerned about that they started learning brick manufacturing, do you think that kid was not at least a little bit off? You know, just enough for their mum’s to become concerned and start looking for an explanation?
You call what i say monstrous cruelty. I tell you what i think is monstrous cruelty: no kid, ever, in the history of humankind has ever had the opportunity to consent to being born. Giving life to a kid is a choice. Especially in this day and age. By choosing to father a kid or give birth to a kid one becomes responsible for the wellbeing of said kid. How far and how deep that responsibility goes can be debated. I strongly believe that the parents (both the mom and the dad) is responsible who they bring into their young kid’s life. They are responsible for knowing what is going on with the kid. (Not necessarily every step and every breath of the kid, but you know the large stuff, like for example are they being sexually abused.) The parents are also responsible to have a relationship with their kids where they would be confided by their kids if something goes terribly wrong. So the kid would go ask them for help, before praying for some help comming from who knows where. These are basics. And these are separate but interlacing failures on the part of the mother. And that is why i think what she did (or didn’t do) is monstrously cruel.
Similar to this case, some people believe that such parents should be criminally liable, and that there cannot possibly be any extenuating circumstances — despite the correlation between the rise of back-seat children's car-seat laws and the prevalence of such deaths.
> Think it through.
I have. The article provides very little to go on, and it is not hard to imagine that an abuser who is clever enough to publish CSAM material online for years without getting caught is clever enough to keep the abuse hidden from the mother and manipulate a child into keeping their trauma secret.
> (Not necessarily every step and every breath of the kid, but you know the large stuff, like for example are they being sexually abused.)
There are vast numbers of parents who do not find out for years[2]:
73% of child victims do not tell anyone
about the abuse for at least a year.
45% of victims do not tell anyone for
at least 5 years. Some never disclose.
[1] https://mitchellhamline.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2012/...
[2] https://cachouston.org/prevention/child-sexual-abuse-facts/
My mother worked in mental healthcare and she's always told me that "the sisterhood" doesn't exist.
I cited a study about this elsethread[1]. And "Lucy" was young (no older than 12, possibly as young as 7) when the rapes began, which correlates with a reluctance to disclose.
It is possible that the mother knew, but it is far from certain. The article didn't provide that context, because it chronicled detective work that led through a different chain of clues to crack the case. An obsession over maternal guilt has arisen here in the comments that was not present in the article.
Because the article doesn't give detail, we don't know. The mother could have forcefully spurned explicit disclosures from her daughter. She could even have participated in the abuse.
But there's also a possibility that since the perp was clever enough to hide identifying details while publishing CSAM online that he was clever enough to hide abuse from those close by.
I would condemn participation but forgive ignorance. Other commenters here will never forgive the mother no matter what.
We know little of the mother's circumstances, and we know basically none of the father's. He may not even be alive. He could be an "absentee", or even an abuser himself — we have no information. But he might also be active in Lucy's life yet tragically unaware of his daughter's plight.
Serendipity and all that.
If anyone tells you that's why they're on the sex offender registry, it's extremely likely they're lying about it and you should really look them up.
Neighbors were annoyed at loud college parties at the school I went to, so local police waited in bushes to catch people peeing in them, arrested them, and one of the charges was indecent exposure.
Happened to one person I knew personally so it must have happened to several others at just this school.
My friend plead out to some lower charge or probably got a continuance, but it massively increased the leverage they had over him and the fees and fines they could collect, and it massively lowered the chance of him doing any pushback that could have lead to a jury trial, which at least as far as he understood at the time would have put him on the registry, and which is why they abused the law and charged people this way.
That isn’t the case here in Australia.
You can go to trial, but it will be a judge-only trial, and is typically conducted by the magistrate who saw you for your first appearance on the matter, in the magistrates court, which is the lowest court here.
I believe most of the colonies are approximately the same.
I’d imagine it would be cost prohibitive to take a peeing in the bushes charge to jury trial though?
Sounds like the sort of thing one would only do if they were aiming to set a precedent for some reason?
In some states, first offense non-violent felony convictions (e.g. exceeding the speed limit while fleeing police in a vehicle) can be expunged from your record when you turn 21 (if you were convicted and served out your sentence before turning 21). Otherwise felonies generally stay with you for life.
We have civil offenses, the most common example would be minor traffic offense (speeding but not recklessly, etc). These were criminal at one time, but arresting people for minor speeding was deemed inappropriate.
Then we have misdemeanors - everything from reckless driving through basic assault (no injuries, no weapon). Usually/always <1 year in prison as the max punishment. Some financial crimes. Usually don't appear on basic background checks, but might on details checks (like when working for a bank or the government).
Then there are felonies - assault with a weapon, major financial crimes, etc. Typically >1 year prison sentences. As noted, these can impact your rights as a citizen and they will appear on most background checks.
As I mentioned in another comment, district attorneys frequently charge as many individual crimes as possible as a tactic to get cooperation/plea from the accused.
For example, you get pulled over for DUI/drink-driving. You're blotto, and you get out of your car and try to walk away. Police tackle you. The chargeable offenses would be at least... - whatever initial infraction caused the traffic stop (speeding, swerving, whatever) - that was probably civil. - The DUI - a misdemeanor unless it was excessive or a repeat offense - "Fleeing and eluding" or equivalent for walking away - misdemeanor, usually. - Assaulting a law enforcement officer (by forcing the police to tackle you) - automatic felony in many states.
The DA will often accept a guilty plea on everything up to the felony assault, or reduce the assault from "against a LEO" to normal assault (non-felony) to clear their plate.
No idea if this is common in the rest of the anglo-sphere, or anywhere else.
I challenge you and anyone else reading this to find an example of someone who is on the sex offender registry due to public urination.
So he was naked in his own home?
#Land of the free
First level? Open and gross lewdness for the home owner.
Third level? Voyeurism for the person outside.
He is appealing his placement on the registry on three grounds:
1. He can't be guilty of a qualifying offense, because he has no prior conviction;
2. The officer who put him on the registry did so solely on the basis that his risk of reoffending was "moderate", when it was also necessary to find that he posed a "moderate" danger to the public;
3. He did not in fact pose a danger to the public.
And the judgment rules against him on argument 1 while ruling for him on arguments 2 and 3, nullifying his registration.
Given that this judgment overturns a judgment below, it is evidence that you can be placed on a public registry for purely spurious reasons. That's what happened originally, and it's what was affirmed in the judgment below.
The guy is not even alleged to have done anything other than exposing his genitals at any point.
I don't think this is socially acceptable behavior in 'normal' society. And in response to his deciding to visibly 'rub one off' (as I believe this term is what results in auto-flagging) towards his neighbor, his response is that she was a "trigger" for him. So he himself is already claiming that he can't control himself, which is more less the entire point of such registries. Imagine you have daughters, let alone a wife. Would you want to live across the street from such a person?
And again I'd emphasize he actually got removed from the registry. So imagine the sort of behavior required to stay on one. It's damn sure not just urinating in public or whatever.
You sometimes need to get familiar with the local legal jargon to interpret it correctly, for example where I live there is no crime "rape" it is recorded as "sexual battery," things like that. And don't assume something is not serious because it is "second degree" or whatever, look up the statutes or sentencing guidelines. I have to seek pretty hard to find anything that could even plausibly be something like an overcharged public urination.
The first one I found, I looked up the case, and the offense took place at 3:40 pm at a city bus stop two blocks from a high school. Pretty decent odds that guy tells all his friends he got booked for trying to take a piss. He might even say that on reddit and HN.
And you say it occurred in the middle of the afternoon at a city bus stop. Pretty hard to do anything serious there without a million people calling 911.
When I was in high school, our school police officer once gave our class a talk about how to stay off that list. He strongly warned us against sending nudes, because he claimed 18-year-olds getting nudes from their 17-year-old girlfriends was a common way for 18-year-olds to get on the registry.
So, no it's not a concrete example and it's not as non-sexual as public urination but it's still a thing cops are telling young adults to take seriously.
When minor offences can get people put on the register, this dilutes the meaning of being on the register.
Every actual sex offender will claim they're on there not because of the serious crimes they committed, but because they went nude on the wrong beach, or something similarly minor.
The ones I've seen have had details about the offense(s).
Having details would make it harder to play down the offenses. But only if someone bothers to check.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/sep/24/john-lydon-say...
“I’m very, very bitter that the likes of Savile and the rest of them were allowed to continue. I did my bit, I said what I had to. But they didn’t air that.”
Of course, the act of being nude in public can make many believe they have been assaulted when it's just nudity.
I listened to a podcast that talked about this encampment years ago. The people living there are quite literally trapped. They aren't allowed to move to another city because of their parole and the city they are in has no other location that isn't within some distance of schools, playgrounds, etc that they're forbidden from being near.
One person interviewed had some petty offense like peeing in public when drunk and talked about the violence and crime that occurred in the camp. Listening to him made me so angry at the injustice that people caught in edge cases are subjected to. He drinks too much, pees on the side of a building, and is now forced to live among rapists and predators.
The OP mentioned high school students in totally normal relationships being criminalized. Another example given in the podcast ep was teens sending nude selfies to their bf/gf that got charged and convicted for distributing csam. This is not how enforcement of these laws should work. I'm glad I grew up before smart phones cause I was really stupid when I was a teen.
Meanwhile, if you're a rich old white guy…
Arrested in Massachusetts in 1986, charged with two counts of open and gross lewdness, sentenced to two years.
As of [0] lived in Florida, and was in jail for violating probation on a charge of cocaine possession with the intent to sell.
From the article: Paul Mishkin, the Boston lawyer who represented Matamoros in 1986, could not recall details of the case this week, but said it was clear the judge considered the incident very serious.
“He [Matamoros] told his side of the story to the judge, but clearly there was evidence that made the judge disagree,” said Mishkin. “A two-year sentence in this incident is a fairly severe sentence. You’d have to think there’s evidence to support that.”
[0] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2007/03/21/long-ago-charge-t...
The registers are also massively bloated, some people get put on them for nothing more than public urination.
The only sex offenders who actually get regular checks that might identify this type of thing, are those on parole, or similar court ordered programs.