the arrest date is 2 days after this thread was posted.

Adult arrests are public record here, and convicted sexual predators must be registered on the National Sex Offender Registry which is also public. Personally, I'm thankful for that. You can check a neighborhood before you buy or rent and avoid moving next door to a creep, or easily screen someone before hiring them to work with children or other situations where it would be crucial to NOT hire a sexual predator. It's also a great tool for those who meet people in person whom they only know online.

http://www.nsopw.gov/Core/Portal.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

1. I found out through someone on here.
2. Arrests are public record here. (which it should be noted that he hasn't been convicted as far as I know, so it's an alleged rape and sexual
3. It is a crazy country.

that is all

"unlawful sexual conduct with a minor."

well thats weird

the world is full of good , bad and ugly

Its for us to choose who we want to be and treat others the way we want others to treat us

spinchat is a place where we share experiences

Its a good place if you look it that way

Arent we Good people Tracy ?

well I think so :-P

is finally an issue we can agree upon.

I agree with most of this; however the original link I posted was not part of any sexual registry. It was strictly the inmate database from the County jail in which he is incarcerated. They do not limit the information based on crime. Regardless, I don't think arrests should be public record, because they occur prior to any sort of trial or conviction, nor should the mug shots of jail inmates be public record while they are awaiting trial. The only time I'm ok with the release of criminal records is post conviction. This should be even more blatantly obvious after the media influences over the general public in both the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony murder trials.

> 1) It makes no logical sense: either an individual poses a
> non-negligible risk and should not be allowed to live in
> the community in the first place or he doesn't and then
> his past is of no practical relevance to his neighbours.

Unfortunately, our system is FAR from perfect. Sentences are shortened, and rehab is lacking. Prisoners don't get released because they are rehabilitated, the get released because the prisons are crowded and they are a burden.

> 2) It's always a mistake to transfer law-enforcement
> capabilities to civilians who are
>
> a) untrained
>
> b) have a conflict of interest as it is their community
> that is involved and they are unable to approach these
> issues in the only way acceptable, that is
> '''dispassionately'''. Emotions make for good poetry but
> pitiful justice.

I agree, but deciding not to move next to a sex offender to feel more secure in your home, deciding not to hire a sex offender to babysit your kids is hardly taking the law into your own hands. There have been cases where sex offenders have been harassed even threatened because of it though, and that's where it crosses a line into vigilantism (in my opinion).

> 3) I strongly believe in the notion that once a prisoner
> has done his/her time and paid his/her dues, he/she should
> be returned to '''full''' citizenship, which would
> include not being subjected to special scrutiny be fellow
> residents.

I don't have that kind of empathy for sex offenders and murderers. They should never be released back into society to begin with.
Nonviolent criminals are a different story though. They should be able to resume their place in society.

> based on crime. Regardless, I don't think arrests should
> be public record, because they occur prior to any sort of
> trial or conviction, nor should the mug shots of jail
> inmates be public record while they are awaiting trial.
> The only time I'm ok with the release of criminal records
> is post conviction. This should be even more blatantly
> obvious after the media influences over the general public
> in both the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony murder trials.

Yeah... I should correct myself, because I agree that only conviction records should be public. If you're innocent until proven guilty, then society shouldn't be able to crucify your character before you even get to trial, and having a fair trail in front of a jury of your peers is difficult when society has already judged and convicted you in their minds.

> Adult arrests are public record here, and convicted sexual
> predators '''must''' be registered on the ''National Sex
> Offender Registry'' which is also public. Personally, I'm
> thankful for that. You can check a neighborhood before you
> buy or rent and avoid moving next door to a creep, or
> easily screen someone before hiring them to work with
> children or other situations where it would be crucial to
> NOT hire a sexual predator. It's also a great tool for
> those who meet people in person whom they only know
> online.

I understand it gives people a (false) feeling of safety but why, if you realy think this is a good thing, isn't there a National Offender Registry? I mean wouldn't you like to know where bruglars live, murderers, violent people, drunks, druggies, tax offenders, con artists etc etc live? O wait than no neighbourhood would be considered save.

What I udnerstand from reading a little on that national sex offender registry that it is controversial. Not only civil liberties are flushed down the drain but the lists are far from perfect. They have many mistakes in them, innoncent people are on those lists. People on the lists are sitting targets for idiots, there are many reports of people who are on the lists that are attacked.

And for what? For the false feeling of safety. Do you realy think you're safe by not buying a house in a neighbourhood where a swx offender lives? Do you realy think every offender is on that list? I guess when you have done your time in the US you haven't paid the price. To me this way of treating offenders is like a public hanging. The sad part is that it won't help anybody.

> I don't have that kind of empathy for sex offenders and
> murderers. They should never be released back into society
> to begin with.

It costs tax payers a shitload of money to keep such lowlifes alive in prison. It would be better to terminate their existence upon conviction.

> I understand it gives people a (false) feeling of safety
> but why, if you realy think this is a good thing, isn't
> there a National Offender Registry? I mean wouldn't you
> like to know where bruglars live, murderers, violent
> people, drunks, druggies, tax offenders, con artists etc
> etc live? O wait than no neighbourhood would be considered
> save.
>
> What I udnerstand from reading a little on that national
> sex offender registry that it is controversial. Not only
> civil liberties are flushed down the drain but the lists
> are far from perfect. They have many mistakes in them,
> innoncent people are on those lists. People on the lists
> are sitting targets for idiots, there are many reports of
> people who are on the lists that are attacked.

Yes it's controversial. I still support it. I think it's a very valuable tool. It's not a perfect tool and nothing can protect you and your kids 100%, as it doesn't tell the future and list people that will commit sex crimes in the future, it doesn't list those who haven't been caught yet (so there is not guarantee your babysitter or neighbor isn't a sex offender at heart) , and part of controversy (that you didn't mention): it doesn't discern between types of sex offenders. An 18 year old kid who has consensual sex with his 16 year old g/f and gets busted by her parents could end up on that list. This last thing (statutory rape) should be changed (in my opinion). Offenders like this generally have a normal psychology and are not habitual sexual predators.

> What I udnerstand from reading a little on that national
> sex offender registry that it is controversial. Not only
> civil liberties are flushed down the drain but the lists
> are far from perfect. They have many mistakes in them,
> innoncent people are on those lists. People on the lists
> are sitting targets for idiots, there are many reports of
> people who are on the lists that are attacked.

There have been cases of attacks on sex offenders because of the list, and on some in that category that I think should be excluded, but it's not as common as you may think. most people use the registry to screen babysitters, children's group leaders, and neighborhoods to avoid exposing their children and themselves to sexual predators.

> And for what? For the false feeling of safety. Do you
> realy think you're safe by not buying a house in a
> neighbourhood where a swx offender lives?

Safer.

Do you realy
> think every offender is on that list?

Nope.

I guess when you
> have done your time in the US you haven't paid the price.
> To me this way of treating offenders is like a public
> hanging. The sad part is that it won't help anybody.

Like I said, sexual predators should never re-enter society at all (IMO). This registry is a small consolation to me, but It's better than nothing.

> but why, if you realy think this is a good thing, isn't
> there a National Offender Registry? I mean wouldn't you
> like to know where bruglars live, murderers, violent
> people, drunks, druggies, tax offenders, con artists etc
> etc live? O wait than no neighbourhood would be considered
> save.

ALL criminal convictions are public record, but you have to pay for access to them and go through a process (as far as I know). Many employers do a criminal background check before hiring. This tool makes it easier for parents, regular people, and people hiring employees who will be working with kids to have access to the convicted sex offenders list.

it is not a question of sympathy with sex offenders. It is a question of whether we live in (literally) 'a state of law' and then everyone has to be treated equally before the law, even sex offenders and other criminals, or not.

Now, if we do want to live in such a state, everyone who has served the punishment that the judicial system allocated to them for their crimes, should be reinstated as a full citizen with full rights. This would mean that nobody could be held indefinitely unless by lawful means such as preventive custody which should only be used after careful deliberation of whether someone still poses a risk to scoiety.

If we don't want to live in a society governed by law, well, what else would we replace law with in this case?

> > And for what? For the false feeling of safety. Do you
> > realy think you're safe by not buying a house in a
> > neighbourhood where a swx offender lives?
>
> Safer.

You realy know so or do you think so? I guess people feel safer but has it been proven that since the lists people are safer? I doubt it...