Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Super_C_Complex t1_j35ns9t wrote

There's actually very little evidence the sex offender registry does anything but stigmatize offenders, make it harder for them to find work, housing, and support, or prevent recidivism.

The list also includes offenses which are... Absurd. Such as interference with custody.

So, realistically, the guy on the registry is actually less likely to commit a sexual offense against your children than you.

Also the whole constitutionality of the statute is being challenged and possibly going to be struck down.

37

TrueLoveEditorial t1_j36g2m3 wrote

True. Streaking - as some college bros like to do on occasion - is classified as a sex offense.

12

MeEvilBob t1_j36x5zn wrote

Or in the case of a former coworker of mine, pissing on a dumpster behind a bar on his 21st birthday. A cop caught him and charged him with indecent exposure.

He didn't do anything to anybody, but that doesn't matter because anybody who sees that he's on the registry is going to assume he's a monster.

11

bitterbeerfaces t1_j3ad74e wrote

That does not happen in this state. Indecent exposure is NOT a ML triggering offense in Pa.

1

MeEvilBob t1_j3ahqir wrote

This didn't happen in PA, but it does happen, which was my point.

1

bitterbeerfaces t1_j36m1zx wrote

Not in Pennsylvania.

Yes there are charges on the registration that shouldn't be there. (Interference is a great example)

As for the constitutionality of it, they have been fighting it since the 1990s. It was unconstitutional for a bit around 2017, but the legislature changed the law. Could it change one day? Sure. But there is strong political support to keep it on both sides.

6

TrueLoveEditorial t1_j36mxgb wrote

Are you responding to my comment or the OP's?

1

bitterbeerfaces t1_j36o3ef wrote

Yours and comment above. Streaking, isn't a Adam Walsh offense in Pa.

Edit to add. Megan's law technically changed to Adam Walsh act in the early 2000's. The federal government required all states to update their sex offender registry laws.

3

TrueLoveEditorial t1_j36o8pk wrote

Then why do streakers get sent to sex offender's counseling as part of ARD?

1

bitterbeerfaces t1_j36osv1 wrote

That is up to the individual probation office. It's not legally required on the state level.

*Source: I am an advocate for victims of sexual offenses and work closely with state and county offices.

4

TrueLoveEditorial t1_j36oz24 wrote

That must be a new thing. My experience is from 2006 to 2009. (I wasn't the offender )

1

bitterbeerfaces t1_j36qb23 wrote

Not new and never was required on the state level. Yes, a probation or parole department absolutely could impose sex offender requirements on anyone they feel is a risk. But there is nothing in the law that states they must. This greatly varries from county to county.

Indecent exposure has never been a Megans/Adam Walsh trigger in Pa. If you know someone who is telling you that they were convicted of a streaking offense in Pennsylvania and as a result they were put on Megan's law, they are blowing smoke up your ass and there is more to the story.

Now if this guy was running naked while touching his penis or perhaps saying sexual things to strangers, then yes, that would end up with charges that would trigger Megan's law.

Here are the current trigger laws. https://www.meganslaw.psp.pa.gov/InformationalPages/CrimesCode

2

kidneycat t1_j363dmt wrote

Weird take. The guy convicted of two counts of assaulting a minor under the age of 13 is less likely to assault OPs kid than OP?

3

TrueLoveEditorial t1_j36fx80 wrote

The majority of crimes on children are committed by a family member or close friend of the family. Stranger Danger is overblown. Mom would be better off keeping a closer eye on Uncle Bob, who likes to tickle children past the time they say stop, or honorary grandma Millie, who invites kids over for "special time."

22

Super_C_Complex t1_j36i0ev wrote

> The guy convicted of two counts of assaulting a minor under the age of 13 is less likely to assault OPs kid than OP?

Statistically speaking, yes.

Statistics don't care about the individuals though.

14

bitterbeerfaces t1_j36p3j7 wrote

That would depend if the guy convicted of assault, went after strangers or children known to him. Also if the children he assaulted were related to him.

There are some very good (ie well researched and empirically supported) tools that are used to gauge the risk of sexual offending in the future. Static-99r and Abel screening are the two leading tools in this area.

8

losiduh t1_j36kkks wrote

Commonwealth v Torsilleri, if anyone wants to look it up

2

mama-moth OP t1_j374yum wrote

Yeah 2 counts of indecent assault on a child younger than 13 isn’t just a “oops I peed in public”. From my understanding when I read the law the minor would’ve had to come into contact with… bodily fluids in order for the neighbor to be charged with that.

They ought to be stigmatized & they should have a hard time finding housing & work. They should be put down. Dead sex offenders don’t reoffend.

−6

Super_C_Complex t1_j37c44v wrote

> They ought to be stigmatized & they should have a hard time finding housing & work.

That actually makes them more likely to reoffend.

> From my understanding when I read the law the minor would’ve had to come into contact with… bodily fluids in order for the neighbor to be charged with that

That's not necessarily the only way to be charged with indecent assault.

> They should be put down. Dead sex offenders don’t reoffend.

Most living ones don't either. But you seem falsely offended by this.

I'm sure you don't care that half your neighbors drive drunk through your neighborhood and that is more likely to cause harm to your kids.

What I'm saying is chill.

7

CharlySB t1_j38u75k wrote

Drunk drivers can go to fucking hell too iMO

3

Dr_Worm88 t1_j381or6 wrote

Congratulations you are part of the problem instead of a solution.

3

mama-moth OP t1_j3qluzt wrote

If you think letting them live is a problem & not the solution maybe you should be closely monitored… sounds like you’re a pedophile sympathizer.

−1

Dr_Worm88 t1_j3qnlu0 wrote

That’s not what I said but you lack critical thinking skills as shown in this thread.

1

Clippershipdread t1_j376q06 wrote

People are coming out of the woodwork to tell OP the guy is harmless. It’s insane. Reddit truly blows my mind.

−4

Super_C_Complex t1_j37c5s7 wrote

Not saying he is harmless just that the sex offender registry is pointless

6

Clippershipdread t1_j37cui8 wrote

That’s absurd. Shame on you. Pedo - apologist.

−4

Super_C_Complex t1_j37nfuf wrote

Is it? There is virtual zero evidence the registration requirements actually reduce recidivism, and zero evidence that people on the registry reoffend.

I'm not a pedo apologist, especially since you can get on the registry for showing your dick to seniors

2

Clippershipdread t1_j37ofw2 wrote

You say that as if showing your dick to seniors isn’t a serious sexual offense. I can’t take you seriously.

You’re telling me that you don’t want to be notified if a child rapist moved in next door to you and your child? That information is worthless to you?

And the offender list separates the degree of offender, as I’m sure you, know since you have such strong feeling on the matter.

Are you saying that you are against Megan’s Law and sex offender registries in general? Say it.

−5