removal of the sex offender list (homework)

[duffman0286]

i much as i hate my topic im required to give a speech supporting the removal of the sex offender list and i really could use some help. Any one know of any cause where a sex offender was attacked? are there any personal rights violated by the use of this list. and any thing else you can think of to support this the removal. Please dont flame me this is just a topic given to me for a college public speaking class. Thanks

 

[Scutter01]

The scope of the sex offender list has grown far beyond the original intent and now includes anything even remotely involving genitalia, such as public urination.

 

[Benny]

17 year old guys that have sex with their 16 year old girlfriends can be lumped together with guys like this:

Fla. police: Toddler raped at SeaWorld - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

 

[vesan87]

There was a man in Ohio who after being seen on the sex offender registry become very popular across the internet for his unusual appearance. I believe there are some videos on youtube of people trying to call and harass him. snopes.com: Brian Peppers

 

[Benny]

 

[bassplayrguy]

Wow that's a touch assignment!! I can think of NO reason under the sun why the list should go away. I think a better arguement could be made for how some of the stupid things mentioned should not get your name added to it. Good luck with that one.

 

[duffman0286]

yeah its more than tough dont think the teacher cares for me much lol i like the public urination and harassment guys!!! but doesnt the list violate personal rights?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The scope of the sex offender list has grown far beyond the original intent and now includes anything even remotely involving genitalia, such as public urination.

Sorry Scutter, but I call BS. I have extensive knowledge of sex offender registries. There is not a single state in this nation where public urination is a crime that lands you on a sex offender registry.

17 year old guys that have sex with their 16 year old girlfriends can be lumped together with guys like this:

Fla. police: Toddler raped at SeaWorld - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

Again, I call BS. Age of consent in Indiana is 16. 17 year olds can have sex with 16 year olds. It's that way in most states in the nation. How do I know? I lobbied several states, including Indiana, to have their laws changed to account for Romeo and Juliet situations.

yeah its more than tough dont think the teacher cares for me much lol i like the public urination and harassment guys!!! but doesnt the list violate personal rights?

Convictions are a matter of public record. Every Federal Court, every State Appeals and Supreme Court have held there is no ex post facto issue nor is there any expected right to privacy for a convicted felon. Only a few state trial courts have held there is such rights. Every single case has been reversed on appeal.

The only reason to remove it is because it is much harder for a high school teacher to get a date because of the sex offender registry.

 

[22lr]

Some great studies have been done and show that most offenders will never repeat, and a lot of times the circumstances behind the case arnt really worthy of classifying someone one the same category of a serial child rapist (exaggerated to make a point).

Go to your universities library website (if they have one) and do a search for the subject in peer reviewed research articles. There is a lot of research that shows the registry as relatively ineffective. It isolates people and significantly impedes them finding a job. Which ties into the other following point that we all know a offender who cannot find a job is significantly more likely to offend.


Now on the other hand, newspaper articles are crap. You want a legit research article that has been peer reviewed and published in a prestigious journel. A bit harder to find, but you can get 60+ page articles that are chuck full of theoretical frame work, statistics and real world surveys/observations. Just take note that if it isnt a article that has been published in a journal its probably because its full of BS statistics and garbage study characteristics.

Personally, I think the registry is a great tool. But we seriously need to redefine who is on it.

 

[Scutter01]

Sorry Scutter, but I call BS. I have extensive knowledge of sex offender registries. There is not a single state in this nation where public urination is a crime that lands you on a sex offender registry

Perhaps not, but if they tack on "indecent exposure" as part of it, then yes. Regardless, my point was that the lists are over-broad and the problem is only becoming worse.

Lawmakers: Public urination shouldn't lead to sex offender status » New Hampshire archives » EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA

The digest - The Explorer: Pima Pinal (scroll down a bit...)

Nobody's Business: Florida Banishes Man for Public Urination

US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good | Human Rights Watch

 

[rockhopper46038]

You got a tough assignment. I think Scutter's argument that being caught urinating in public or "mooning" someone can both land you on the list for life, which shouldn't happen, is about as good as you're going to get. (I knew someone in college that this happened to; really bad juju.) The argument COULD be made that once a criminal (of any variety) has "paid their debt to society", that being further ostracized is a violation of their civil rights. That's about it...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Some great studies have been done and show that most offenders will never repeat, and a lot of times the circumstances behind the case arnt really worthy of classifying someone one the same category of a serial child rapist (exaggerated to make a point).

Go to your universities library website (if they have one) and do a search for the subject in peer reviewed research articles. There is a lot of research that shows the registry as relatively ineffective. It isolates people and significantly impedes them finding a job. Which ties into the other following point that we all know a offender who cannot find a job is significantly more likely to offend.


Now on the other hand, newspaper articles are crap. You want a legit research article that has been peer reviewed and published in a prestigious journel. A bit harder to find, but you can get 60+ page articles that are chuck full of theoretical frame work, statistics and real world surveys/observations. Just take note that if it isnt a article that has been published in a journal its probably because its full of BS statistics and garbage study characteristics.

Personally, I think the registry is a great tool. But we seriously need to redefine who is on it.

Which studies are you referring to? Every long term unbiased study I've read (and I've read them all) estimate between a 40 and 75% actual recidivism rate over an offender's lifetime. Colorado did one that showed 76% of offenders in a rehabilitation program recommitted a sex offense or was engaged in substantially high risk behavior within 18 months of release from prison.

Hansen and Prentky have done a number of lifetime studies.

You got a tough assignment. I think Scutter's argument that being caught urinating in public or "mooning" someone can both land you on the list for life, which shouldn't happen, is about as good as you're going to get. (I knew someone in college that this happened to; really bad juju.) The argument COULD be made that once a criminal (of any variety) has "paid their debt to society", that being further ostracized is a violation of their civil rights. That's about it...

Again, BS. You can not be added to any sex offender registry in the country for simple public urination or mooning.

The argument can NOT be made that once a criminal (of any variety) has "paid their debt to society", that being further ostracized is a violation of their civil rights. That argument has been made and found to be without merit.

 

[duffman0286]

this is great stuff guys!!!! and rock hopper im gonna steal your argument!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"Removal of the sex offender list"???

Do you mean how to remove an individual from the list, OR

do you mean repealing the sex offender statute?

Sorry, but your question is unhappily drafted.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Sorry SemperFi...it happened. In Terre Haute, no less. And yes, the final charge was public indecency, but it was because the person was urinating in an alley beside one of the bars there. You can believe what you want, but since I was the guy who bailed this guy out of jail, and was not more than 50 feet away when he was arrested (yes he was drunk, and yes he was pissing on the side of the bar, but that's ALL he was doing), I refute your BS call, and reiterate that it should not have resulted in a "sex offender" charge, but back in 1990 or 91 it did at least once in the state of Indiana.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Perhaps not, but if they tack on "indecent exposure" as part of it, then yes. Regardless, my point was that the lists are over-broad and the problem is only becoming worse.

Lawmakers: Public urination shouldn't lead to sex offender status » New Hampshire archives » EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA

Requires multiple convictions of indecent exposure in a 5 year period to qualify as a registerable offense.

The digest - The Explorer: Pima Pinal (scroll down a bit...)

Requires multiple convictions of indecent exposure in a 5 year period to qualify as a registerable offense.

Nobody's Business: Florida Banishes Man for Public Urination

You mean this guy with multiple convictions for Lewd and Lacivious behavior?

http://www.nsopw.gov/Core/ResultDetails.aspx?index=3&x=D9385AB4-2530-4019-A9A6-B2C0AF02FF62

US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good | Human Rights Watch

The HRW "study" was fabricated and most "facts" were contrived. I debated the author of that study at a number of national forums. They had one of the leading researchers for sex offender registries do a complete 180 in exchange for a $1.5MM research grant. I destroyed her and her report so badly that she stopped showing up.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Sorry SemperFi...it happened. In Terre Haute, no less. And yes, the final charge was public indecency, but it was because the person was urinating in an alley beside one of the bars there. You can believe what you want, but since I was the guy who bailed this guy out of jail, and was not more than 50 feet away when he was arrested (yes he was drunk, and yes he was pissing on the side of the bar, but that's ALL he was doing), I refute your BS call, and reiterate that it should not have resulted in a "sex offender" charge, but back in 1990 or 91 it did at least once in the state of Indiana.

Name?

 

[Scutter01]

The HRW "study" was fabricated and most "facts" were contrived. I debated the author of that study at a number of national forums. They had one of the leading researchers for sex offender registries do a complete 180 in exchange for a $1.5MM research grant. I destroyed her and her report so badly that she stopped showing up.

Ok, I accept your argument. However, I still feel the lists are becoming way too broad and covering things they were never meant to cover.

 

[Benny]

Again, I call BS. Age of consent in Indiana is 16. 17 year olds can have sex with 16 year olds. It's that way in most states in the nation. How do I know? I lobbied several states, including Indiana, to have their laws changed to account for Romeo and Juliet situations.

Um, OK...How about 16 year boy having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend being lumped in with that guy who raped a 2 year old?

 

[duffman0286]

"Removal of the sex offender list"???

Do you mean how to remove an individual from the list, OR

do you mean repealing the sex offender statute?

Sorry, but your question is unhappily drafted.

not so much the statute a crime is a crime but i told just the list its self which i believe means no longer publishing names and address of sex offender. However they did not go into much detail and this leaves alot of room to play.... such as restrictions of wear they can live and so on. So just about any counter argument to this is very useful. If you guys want to attack the statute we can do that to