The problem is that you're not addressing 'adults with indecent behavior.' And even then, what is 'indecent behavior?' Pissing on a wall when you're drunk? Are you really and truly afraid of that person molesting your child? If so then you have serious issues...

> I hope to know about it. I don't care how minuscule the crime is, the possibility of repeat offenses or misbehavior is too high to risk it.

This right here says that you're not concerned with 'is the punishment too harsh.' "I don't care how minuscule the crime is," says that you don't give a shit about people that were too harshly punished. You would rather just brand people as 'good' or 'bad' and then avoid the 'bad' people. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. There are many shades of gray.

> any inappropriate behavior around children (impressionable, gullible, naive) should be punished.

The problem is that 'inappropriate' is subjective too. You're saying that the harshness of the punishment is subjective, so it can be ignored, but the 'inappropriateness' of the crime is paramount... only that's also a subjective measure.

> If a person shows that kind of poor judgment they should suffer the consequences of their actions.

So a person that pissed on a wall should have all of society treat him exactly the same as a person that spent a lifetime raping 7 year olds. Not only that, but someone that was 18 and had sex with someone that was 17 years old should be treated the same as someone that kidnaps 12 year olds and tortures them to death... You're a pretty vicious person.

{edit} Just to add, that someone that was convicted of raping a woman isn't necessarily a 'danger' to your child either. Even the people that 'deserve' to be on the sex offender list aren't necessarily all there for the same reason. {/edit}

I'm not sure but I thought sex offender registries displayed the cause of the crime, which will allow you to judge if it could really be a threat, it's implied to me that if they're on the list, that some sort of reason will be listed, if this is not the case, it definitely needs to be there if people are going to be put on it for "pissing on a wall".

Also, I addressed the issue with minors earlier, don't rehash it out of context, obviously there are flaws when an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old and gets put on the list, but like I said in other replies and posts, I'm not addressing that because it IS obviously flawed.

Just because I would like to know and believe I have a right to know, doesn't make me a vicious person, I've stated multiple times that I wouldn't keep my children in that situation, not that I would grab a pitchfork and be at their door screaming for blood and retribution, I wouldn't even have to confront them or make it known, I would just be leaving the situation, they can live their life.

>The problem is that 'inappropriate' is subjective too. You're saying that the harshness of the punishment is subjective, so it can be ignored, but the 'inappropriateness' of the crime is paramount... only that's also a subjective measure.

I'm pretty sure there is not a lot of gray area with the serious crimes. It's pretty easy to tell if someone acts inappropriately towards a minor, though I can see how even this can be abused, mainly by older looking teens lying about their age.

The law obviously has flaws, but without public records clearly stating the case and cause of them being registered to that list, I think it's still better to err on the side of caution when children are involved. Maybe it's because I'm a parent now and it's my responsibility to see to their well being and I want to be extra careful that I don't put them in a bad situation out of ignorance.

edit: Someone who was wholly convicted of rape, deserves to be on the list for the safety of single women who live alone, that is a fairly black and white situation depending on the ratio of false positives is now, with DNA testing it seems to be far less.

I purposely used an 18 year old because an 18 year old isn't a minor. But we have this 'hard line' where a person having sex with someone even a month younger than them qualifies the same as a 40 year old raping a 7 year old.

> edit: Someone who was wholly convicted of rape, deserves to be on the list for the safety of single women who live alone, that is a fairly black and white situation depending on the ratio of false positives is now, with DNA testing it seems to be far less.

My point wasn't that they don't deserve to be on the list. It was that even among people that deserve to be on the list, there is wide variation of motives and the demographic that they are dangerous too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/10/the_skinny/main359...

^^ Crap like this happens when people equate 'sex offender' with 'child molester.'

Maybe I subscribe to some of that fear honestly, I kept going back to in my head: "What if the list went away completely?" instead of realizing it's not an all or nothing thing, and really needs work to be able to function as it should instead of just adding more to it, thus increasing confusion and destroying innocent peoples lives.

I would delete or retract my posts, but I feel the discussion was educational so I might as well leave them alone, thanks for the insight, definitely gave me food for thought on my own behavior.

1) While you were arguing for the 'safety of your children,' you don't see that the only threat against your children is being abused by the neighbours. They could just as easily be abused by the state. Given your (hypothetical) 15-year old daughter posts nude pictures of herself on the Net (as it is pretty common, I hear) your (hypothetical) 18-year old son decides to have sex with a 16-year old class or school mate or any other relatively innocent action. You would consider the first a 'parenting problem' I guess, but not the police officer/judge. They would put your children on this list, and that's were their names will always be. Googleable, on the list. Is this protecting your children? Maybe they won't be raped, but they will carry a mark of shame — their entire life long.

2) As a European, I am so totally shocked at how Americans can villify people on the sole basis on their past. Say, a person has some sort of mental disorder, or any other kind of illness or social circumstance that played a large part of their decision in, say, raping a woman. They've been to jail now, they're on meds now, they're trying to immerse into society. Trying to be normal people. The sex-offender list is the best way to prohibit just that. They won't get a flat in a decent neighbourhood, they will have a hard time finding a job. But without these two premises, how they ever going to change? Living in a shoddy neighbourhood, working on a shoddy job, how are you going to not believe that you are a social outcast, that this society has done nothing for you, and you owe it nothing in return? In essence: this will make rehabilitation for them so much harder. Thus, instead of becoming functional members of society, they stay sick; maybe their mental disorder will grow worse, and then they're not a time bomb in your neighbourhood. They're off the leash in your entire town.

The key to safety is rehabilitation of ex-criminals, and making them feel like a member of society again. Not demonizing them and putting them on a social landfill.

Not to derail this, but just "I was convicted of a crime and did jail time" is enough to get this sort of treatment. Regardless of the crime.

If we are putting sex offender registries online, lets put all criminal registries online as well. I should know if I live next to people with drug habits, right?

"No way! Me too!!"

"Duuuude..."

Why stop at sex offenders? I want a table-driven foodar that detects individuals who meet my filtering criteria and alerts me of their proximity as soon as possible.

But yes, definitely ill-thought out by myself, and largely misunderstood the topic at hand, it's good though, I learned from it, and pyre made some very good points.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614

Major points:

-A lot of the people on these registers are not considered dangerous (people who had consensual sex as teenagers) -There's no evidence that these public registers reduce the risk. -They ruin the lives of many people.

Democracy is a good idea when everyone is educated. When they're not, well, welcome to America.

I don't care what the crime is, fix the law to judge youth's interaction with each other, but if you even expose yourself to a minor, you have shown horrible judgment and deserve the hassle. Again, this is why it's subjective, you see it as ruining that persons life, I see it as scarring a child or possibly worse for life.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I think the list is too big and has too much pointless things on it (like another poster's example of a drunk person relieving himself on a wall), but that's the judge's fault, not the lists fault, the list serves a very real purpose, though the ones passing judgment could use some common sense.

If they really have such a high chance of recidivism, then why would you offload that risk onto parents instead of the system? Why not keep them in prison forever, if they can't be successfully rehabilitated?

I don't understand the place for a grey area of "person X is so dangerous he should be ostracized and branded so that people can steer clear of him, but person X is not dangerous enough to imprison him."

(Also, we must have very different definitions of "evidence." When you cite a sex offender neighbor who hasn't apparently done you or your family any harm, but who you've put on a mental blacklist because of the registry, that does not sound like evidence that the registry is helping anyone.)

On the real hardcore criminals, I didn't say I didn't want them in prison, rape and harming a child are horrible, horrible things, if they're going to be released from prison though, they should suffer consequences of their actions, I don't care if they choose to move in near me, but I will be packing my bags if I deem the threat too high. Notice I didn't say I would be knocking on their door asking them to move, I would take action to get out of the bad situation myself, this doesn't affect them.

EDIT: Yes, I will mentally, and willingly blacklist someone if they're on a sex offenders list. If I know what the crime is, I can adjust this blacklisting accordingly, but there is no reason I should be care-free when I have children at home and know there is a possibility, no matter how small or "rehabilitated" the chances.

That's the whole point of the article. Common sense wen't out the window because there's an arms race among politicians; everybody wants to look tougher than the others on sex crimes, and nobody dares criticize the system because "the attack ads write themselves".

So we have tons of people who had consensual sex or urinated in public that can't live within "1000 yards of a school, park, library, bus stop, playground, etc" and can't find jobs. Not to mention that they become the victims of harassment and vigilantism.

I can see where I misunderstood the point being presented though.

It will take a miracle (and tons of political courage) just to get something a bit saner, so I don't see how a total 180 degrees could be even possible.

Have no fear, real violent sex offenders won't become popular any time soon.

Not necessarily. In some states, you are mandated to be added to the registry for certain crimes.

If you really believe that the sex offender list is too large, then what are you doing to rectify this? Are you calling/writing your local/state legislature? If not then you are willingly ostracizing a group of people based on a premise that you know is faulty (that everyone, or even most people on the sex offender list are dangerous) because you "don't have the time" to be bothered to help those people out. One of the evils that abounds in our society is the indifference of 'good men.'

I honestly have never looked in detail at the sex offenders list or the law surrounding it, I can say that when my brother told me about his neighbor I made the comment that I didn't feel we should judge him solely on that since it's easy to get convicted and put on that list wrongly, but that a little caution is in order to err on the side of safety.

And you're right, complaining about it on HN instead of writing the state officials is definitely not the productive way to handle it, but this is also the first time I've had to really THINK about the law in detail. I can see why the law would need to be adjusted to actually better protect people instead of blacklisting whenever remotely possible.

There's a constant climate of fear concerning sexual crimes, especially ones that involve children, that are making us do very irrational things to feel safer.

Also, I appreciate your commentary on your personal feelings about this issue. It's a complex issue and I think some of the down-votes might've been a bit too hasty.

That will be true in most cases, but not all. Some people revealed in a background check will pose a significant risk and indeed some criminals who would have appeared in a local register have reoffended (sex crimes and otherwise) and killed, raped, mutilated, etc..

If a check reveals no known risks, would that make you paranoid? I suspect not. If it reveals only one of your neighbours was convicted of a sexual offence, you check the court records and find that the offence was underage sex when they were a minor - wouldn't that assuage your fears somewhat?

Knowledge is power but you do have to use it wisely.