Sex Offender? Your life will be a living hell.

This is clearly a sensitive topic, and I would ask you continue to post with restraint and maturity.

npjnpj wrote: If children are involved, I don't give a damn about the offenders, I'm strictly on the children's protection side.

Absolutely, the real issue to ponder here is does this law actually do what it's intended to do.

I was on a jury in Georgia last year that involved a defendant that was 30 something and had what was three counts apparently "consensual" acts with a teenager over the course of a couple of days.  I will refrain from the details, fortunately for him, he took a plea on the day we had assembled for the trial, and the teenager was spared from having to testify.  If he had not done so, the judge said he was going to get a life sentence if we found him guilty and suspect we would have.  As it is, he's going away for 30 years and will be on the registry.  Is this guy going to be a threat to teenagers or younger when he gets out?  I don't know.  He's pretty much wrecked his life being a jerk anyway.  I don't know if being on a registry will protect children when he gets out or not or even if he would actually be a threat.  Seems like in this case it may be just piling on, but I think the judge made a good call.  Just glad I didn't have to make the call.

To sidetrack this discussion just a little, Georgia is one of three states that bans drinking alcohol sales in stores on Sunday, but allows it in bars and restaurants.  One of the reasons put forward by defenders of the band is that if it's lifted there will be more drunk drivers.  Seems to me that forcing drunks to go out and drink puts more out on the road than if they could get some on a Sunday and do it at home.  If you live in a county on the border there's a state close enough by where you can get it and bring it home on a Sunday. 
Actually if you listen to other arguments it's really just a thinly veiled attempt to have a personal religious belief codified into law and is a violation of church and state separation.  Of course given the current makeup of the US Supreme Court, highly unlikely it would be struck down if a challenge were to make it there.

Slartibartfast wrote: Georgia is one of three states that bans drinking alcohol sales in stores on Sunday, but allows it in bars and restaurants.

Hell yeah Indiana too!

^ Whatever happened to the constitutional rights? Someone commits a crime and is sentenced accordingly. Then, after spending decades in jail, these persons should not not be treated any differently than innocent people. *Unless* their psychological condition makes it highly likely that they commit violent crimes again (as it's the case with some sex offenders), in which case they should simply not be released from prison / custody. Any way you put it, to release them and subject them to lifelong harassment is *not* a civilized solution.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - February 20 2009 at 10:20

I still think he should have used a johnny or something. Just common sense really, I mean who would want to have a kid at 17? Not me for one thing, and most people I hear of have kids that young due to carelessness. On that note, he should have thought it through better. Having said that, the laws are completely ridiculous. I don't even think a prison sentence was worthy, let alone the further punishment. I think life has its way of punishing some people enough, and having to look after a kid at 17 with a 14 year old is pretty hardgoing enough. Not saying that kids are a punishment, but they would have definitely learned their lesson.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ Whatever happened to the constitutional rights? Someone commits a crime and is sentenced accordingly. Then, after spending decades in jail, these persons should not not be treated any differently than innocent people. *Unless* their psychological condition makes it highly likely that they commit violent crimes again (as it's the case with some sex offenders), in which case they should simply not be released from prison / custody. Any way you put it, to release them and subject them to lifelong harassment is *not* a civilized solution.

Exactly this.

The whole idea of prison is that, once you get out of it, you have paid your debt to society and are, for all intents and purposes, an innocent person.

Henry Plainview wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ Whatever happened to the constitutional rights? Someone commits a crime and is sentenced accordingly. Then, after spending decades in jail, these persons should not not be treated any differently than innocent people. *Unless* their psychological condition makes it highly likely that they commit violent crimes again (as it's the case with some sex offenders), in which case they should simply not be released from prison / custody. Any way you put it, to release them and subject them to lifelong harassment is *not* a civilized solution. The thing is, we don't know how to rehabilitate the real sex offenders. Even if statuatory rape and the other relatively minor offenses were struck from the registry, the laws are arguably excessive, as we don't impose such restrictions on murderers, but on the other hand, we can't "cure" them so we have no idea what they will do. Not that a law prohibiting them from going within 1,000 feet of a pool will actually prevent them from going to the pool to molest people, but I guess we are obligated to try.

That's the thing: If a person murders someone and gets out of prison, they aren't blacklisted from society, are they?

James wrote: I agree with Stonie on this. I am not condoning it, of course not.  However, people make mistakes.  Some people also want to sort their lives out after doing something like this. Are they not allowed that right in some cases?  The multi-offenders, sure, they deserve to be punished more.  It all depends on the individual case. Also some people get branded as sex offenders when they're not one, just because some 14 year old doesn't like you, or something.  It does happen. Mud sticks.

Absolutely.

I think there is a big difference between a child molester / murderer and two kids of 17 and 14 having sex. People should realize this can happen when people are young and discover their sexuality. There is absolutely no reason to ruin someones life forever because this happened.

Yeah, whatever happened to the idea of expunging the crimes of minors from the record (even if you could consider this a crime)?  Here's something I found interesting in the article:

Edited by The Doctor - February 20 2009 at 18:30