Megan's Law Failed Us
 

While just perusing some bookmarked sites, the spouse decides to check out an online service that lists convicted sexual offenders by zip code. I'd done this in the past and nothing had come up. This time, something did....
One block from our house, directly across the street from where my and 11 other kids catch their school bus, lives a convicted child molester-his crimes were Wreckless Endangerment of a Child and Aggravated Sexual Assault. We can assume he didn't brush up against a 15 year old....
It is up to the county prosecutor's office to notify neighborhoods if a convicted sex offender moves in. We weren't. Neither was the preschool on our street. The Board of Education did not know this, the town's police department didn't either.
I called a neighbor, a mother of twins my kids used to play with. If anyone gets moving, it's Lisa. Before noon, the bus stop was moved to our own street, the police captain was contacting the prosecutor's office and my husband, who happens to be on very friendly terms with the mayor, notified him, who in turn is confering with the town attorney.
Parents, check out your neighborhoods. Megan's Law didn't mean squat to us. This is the link we used that revealed the scum: http://www.familywatchdog.us/

So, wow. My area is better than I thought it was, but I'm still shocked at the number. And it sickens me that a lot of them are too close to schools.

Thank you for posting this, I just noticed that the bus my son would ride to school (if he rode the bus) actually stops in front of an apt. building that a convicted child molester lives in. This guy sodomized an 8 y.o. girl and is listed as predatory by the state.

http://sexoffenders.oregon.gov/SorPu...LLETIN&I=19156

actually, no you can't. You don't know what the situation was, you don't know what the plea bargain involved. You can probably find out, because it's public record, but until you do, you really don't know if the guy's a danger or not.

Let's not forget that if a guy has sex with a 17 year old who claims she's 18, he's legally raped her, and if convicted, has to register as a child molesting sex offender. Even though there was no intent to commit the crime, he still has to have the sex offender stigma attached for the rest of his life.

Those charges could easily come from such a situation. Am I defending sex offenders? No, but I'm saying we shouldn't judge someone simply because they're registered as one. All that means is that they were CONVICTED of a sex offense. We don't know what that offense is. And it's possible they didn't do it at all - people get wrongfully convicted all the time.

hrm, i'm a driver for dominos, kinda interesting to see addresses that I've been to....

least I know who it's ok to punch in the face for stiffing me now at least.

Shit.

Thats all I can say. A number of my clients are sex offenders. Good luck to me being civil.

That is a great tool! I just found an ex's step-dad on there. I wish I could post that thing everywhere!

There's "Endangerment of a child" and then there's "Wreckless endangerment of a Child" coupled with "Aggravated Sexual Assault"...I understand what you're saying, but when you check the backgrounds of felons, there's degrees of severity-I truly doubt anyone would plea bargain to those and if so, then I really would assume the very worst since plea bargaining usually involves the lessening of charges. Registering as an offender is one thing-some 19 year olds have made news because they were charged with a sexual offense for having underage girlfriends.
Under Megan's Law, the immediate neighbors and police department are supposed to be made aware, as are any schools, although paroled felons are not supposed to live close to schools. Our police had no knowledge at all...someone dropped the ball on this and it was up to us to make the notifications.
I'm always told by friends that I'm too trusting...in this case I prefer to not trust at all.

Without knowing what state you're in (Megan's law is different in each state) I can't really comment too much on what you're saying.

However, endangerment of a child and reckless endangerment of a child does not necessarily refer to a sex act. If you pull your bike riding kid up hills with your car, you're committing reckless endangerment, even though it's not sexual. That charge may or may not be related to the sex issue.

The aggravated sexual assault charge is a lot more ambiguous. In some states aggravated = sexual assault with a weapon. some say it's aggravated if you injure the person while sexually assaulting them. In still others, it simply means sexual assault with penetration. If your state falls in the latter category, the guy could still be in the situation I described - had sex with a 17 year old who lied and said she was 19.

What I'm saying is that you're going off half cocked here. Of course, keep your kid away from the guy until you research more, but you should do more research to find out what's really going on.

As for Megan's law, it only compels the state to make public the information on registered sex offenders. It doesn't say HOW the states have to make them public. Some states choose to have the cops go door to door warning the neighbors. Others choose to simply create a website. Without knowing what state we're talking about here, you may or may not be correct that Megan's law failed you.

I live in NJ, where Megan's Law originated. The parolee is required to register with the police department(our town's police had no knowledge of him) and the police captain told my neighbor that the county prosecutor was supposed to also contact the police in addition to any schools in the vicinity. According to this, Klaaskids, that is not listed, but it's what we were told, so yes, Megan's Law failed us as no one bothered to find this out.
I'm not a vigilante, but I do believe, in instances such as these, it's better to err on the side of caution. Being lackadasical about something like this could be dangerous.

Although I agree that Megan's law could use some updating, I am NOT however happy with the way they courts continue to missuse the sex offender/ sexual predator listing. In Florida, if you pull over on the side of the road to take a leak, you can actually be CHARGED with a sex crime and placed on the states sexual offender's list. If your own kids are in the car, even if they don't see anything, you can be put on the sexual predators list, and have that brand for the rest of your life FOR TAKING A LEAK ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. Personally I think that is taking it too far. I would, and do ALWAYS keep track of our local predators list in our neighborhood, and sourounding areas, but I ALSO check online for the details of the offence. Court recodrs are public acess data, and anyone can check with the courts to get a copy to find out EXACTLY what happened. Some people just see the label and automatically just assume the person is just horrible. A perfect example, and if I can locate the story I will post it here: A 28 year old man was listed on the sexual predators list in Ocala, Florida, and had been since he was 19. When neighbors found out, they posted flyers all over the city, constantly harrased the police about him, wanting him to be kicked out of town. They harrassed his parents, that he lived with, and finally drove the guy to commit suicide. Now on the surface, many people would say good riddance, however dig a little deeper and you will find that he was mentally retarded, and was given the basic mental capacity of a 12 year old, when he was 28 years old. At 19, when he was charged, he was i BELIEVE at some kind of picnic, and was caught masturbating in the bushes by a 9 or 10 year old girl. He was arrested, and taken to court. Even though the state agreed that his mental capacity was near that of the little girl herself, they still were required to put him on the list. Now after that and the rest of his life he was a good citizen, and was never charged with ANY other crimes. BUT when we see that little sign "sexual predator/offender" everyone is quick to jump the gun, and not look at the details FIRST.

Now trust me, if a guy rapes an underage girl, I say give the parents about 20 minutes with him or her in a private room with no windows. So don't think for a second I am defending the sick ones, but always make sure you know the nature of the crime. Ngdawg, if the guy is guilty of the seriousness that it appears to be, I hope that you get the results that you are looking for! Good luck!

hrmm, that site listed to find offenders isn't even current. I checked that database with the states database and there were several missing on the family watchdog site. :shrug:

I agree that people need to find out the background of the crimes before they jump to conclusions. It's no secret how I feel about the sex offender registry or people on it. So I'll just avoid that argument as there are plenty of other threads where it is alive and well.

If you want to be careful and know what's going on, use the states database and use the courts public acccess data.

Sounds to me like the guy moved and didn't tell anyone. He broke the law. Are they going to charge him?

That is exactly what I'm arguing about here. While it's much easier to simply brand a guy a sicko simply because he's on the list, you need to know WHY he's on the list before you start persecuting him.

Deltona's example of how a neighborhood reacted is why notification needs fine-tuning; however, in my own case, the person's reasons for being listed as a sex offender are quite clear: Aggravated sexual assault and wreckless endangerment of a child. It's those two beginning words that more or less point to the severity of his actions.
As to the point made by Guccilvr that the site is not that recent-spouse checks it periodically and that is the first time anyone has shown up here; he could very well have moved (further checking this morning shows he's had about 6 addresses), but since it shows right now that he lives here, the police have to work with that until they learn otherwise.
I tried to access more information, but it seems that would only be available for the asking price of $34.95....

NG - I think the point here is that you don't know the circumstances of his conviction. You only know the charges that he plead to/was convicted of. I don't think that anyone (shakran, Deltona, myself) would tell you that further investigation is NOT warranted. We'd all agree that it's very possible that the guy is a predator and should be watched very carefully.

If I can speak for the others, I think that we all just want you to realize that it's also very possible he's not a danger and that the circumstances of the actions that led to his conviction are very unlikely to be repeated. What if he got drunk and crawled into the same bed as his child, thinking it was his own? I can imagine that act could lead to those charges, and a vindictive ex-wife might get a prosecutor interested. Couple that with an incompetent or overworked public defender, and you have a conviction and registration as a sex offender.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but it could have. You're not wrong to react to the prosecutor's inaction in failing to notify the proper people, but I think that crucifying the offender is a little premature. He may very well deserve it, but you need to be sure, and the records to do that are public and readily available. I urge you to find out, and if you've already been in contact with the police, they should be able to help you find out quickly and easily.

As I stated before, pleading to charges that include 'wreckless endangerment' and 'aggravated assault', would essentially mean he did worse, not less. (Of course, saying he pleaded is pure speculation). I don't know about other states, but generally, those words aren't bantered about here, and until known otherwise, suggest a degree of violence, not merely slipping into the wrong bed. Plus, they are not charges, they are what his conviction was.
The circumstances of his conviction are not known, but generally speaking, even with a 50/50 chance of recidivism, as a parent, am I willing to think along those lines? That it's quite possible he's 'reformed'? My answer has to be "no". He didn't steal a bracelet-he hurt a child.

Recidivism rates are quite low among sex offenders. However, as a parent I can understand where you are coming from completely. You want to do what you can to protect your child. I just don't want people creating a modern day witch hunt (worse than it already is) based on a label.

Wreckless endagerment could be that he was speeding in his car while a child was inside. As far as finding more information, there should be plenty of state run websites in NJ to find the court documents etc.

NG, I'm a parent too, and I'm by no means telling you that you'd shouldn't be afraid that this guy is the worst kind of sexual predator. It's entirely possible. However, you're jumping to conclusions and you're admitting as much. You don't know the circumstances and before you continue on your witch hunt, you need to make sure your prey is what you think it is.

In NJ, it depends on the the level of their conviction as to who is notified, you are only notified in person if they are Tier 3, and the schools are not notified until Tier 2

Not necessarilly. If I didn't do something, but the evidence against me makes me think I might get convicted, I might just plead to a lesser charge (aggravated sex assault instead of rape, for instance) so I don't have to spend so much time in jail.


1) Generally does not establish a definite in your case. 2) those words are used as a legal term, not as an embellishment.

Until known otherwise you should quite frankly leave him the hell alone. Go find out what he did. THEN persecute him if it's warranted.

oh and BTW aggravated sex assault in NJ could mean that when he was 17, he slept with his 16 year old 3rd cousin or with his step sister. Hardly something you have to worry about him raping your little kid over.

Suggest a POSSIBLE degree of violence. I've read your state's law. So should you.

So go find out why.


They could be. Go look it up.

Again, it depends on what he did.

If he's really a child molester I wouldn't take that chance either. But I'd find out if he was really a child molester first.

You don't know that. You're assuming that based on limited facts, even though you could very easily go find out the full story.

Why don't you want to do that?

I have been, had you read through....further information is only available if I'm willing to shell out $$$. So far, the court site for New Jersey that I found does not list criminal convictions.
You contradicted your own 'give him a chance' stance with the statement that pleading to something like aggravated sexual assault could be the lesser crime...so rape is not that bad anyway??? Oy...
This isn't a witch hunt-this is insuring that things are ok and my kids and others are safe. As a registered sex offender, he is supposed be known to the local police-being that he's had at least 6 addresses in 2 counties, he's had a lot of notifying to do.
If you want to think this is some kind of 'persecution', that's your right. Let's just hope your kids never have to catch their bus in front of a registered 'aggravated assault instead of rape' resident....
I wouldn't hire a babysitter who even had 'endangerment of a child' hanging over their heads; your implied suggestions that I trust that this guy is nothing more than misunderstood are noted. Ignored, but noted. My kids' welfare is paramount. I have no intentions of knocking on his door with a baseball bat in hand...I'm looking out for my family.

I can't give a link, obviously, to the particulars of this person, but his charges stemmed from two seperate incidents. In 2000, he was convicted of sexual assault on a juvenile female and in 2003, was convicted of exposing himself to two 'stranger women'.
So, still think he's safe? Just what is needed around this boring town-a flasher living across the street from a school bus stop(who also assaults).:rolleyes:

After searching around the state Judiciary site for NJ I did find this tidbit of information:

I didn't see anywhere to look up information in Promis Gavel online so if you want to find out the particulars, you need to go to the courthouse.

So get your neighborhood together and pay for the report.

read again. I also said if I didn't commit a crime but I think they might convict me anyway, I might plead to a lesser charge.

Saying megan's law failed you because he failed to follow it is crazy. Now, if they fail to prosecute him for not notifying them, THEN the law failed.

If he did, I'd find out what the nature of the incident was. Until I knew I'd drive him to school myself, but I'd leave the guy alone. Once I knew, if it was a real issue, I'd then start taking action. Not until. My kid would still be safe - that's MY job, not the government's.

And noted incorrectly. I'm not implying that you should trust him.

I'm saying you should find out what's going on before you start going after him.

I'm also saying that if the only time you don't trust someone around your kid is when the government tells you not to, then you need to wake up. There are plenty of untrustworthy people out there who aren't on any list. Don't trust ANYONE you don't know around your kids. Period. Frankly as far as kids go we should NOT be relying on Megan's law or the government to come tell us when bad people are around. We should be watching our kids regardless of whether the cop tells us there's definitely a bad person in the neighborhood.

Now you finally have the facts, and it's no longer a witch hunt. This is good progress.

I'm going to be blunt here. Exactly where in hell did you get the idea that I ever thought he was safe? Just because I advocated knowing your facts before going off half cocked does not mean I was defending this individual or that I thought he was trustworthy.

As the mother of two children who were sexually molested (the trial of the perpetrator ended just last May) I can say with some authority that you shouldn't rely on the terms used to legally describe the crime as a basis of determining the severity of the crime. These terms are used to describe a wide variety of activities with children of varying ages. shakran is absolutely right in what he is saying.

Still, I think you've done the right thing by notifying the authorities, ng, and as you've said, action is being taken. That's about all you can do. Apparently this man has served his time and deserves the right to live somewhere as anonymously as possible. You will just have to be more vigilant with your children. Sad fact of life.

I check the sexual offender rolls in my area quite often and there are literally hundreds of offenders living within a 10 mile radius of my home. MOST of these are men who have had consensual relationships with teenage girls - but you wouldn't know it just by reading their charges. Fortunately, the apartment complex where I live screens occupants and will not allow someone convicted of any sexual offense to reside there.

While I do the same, and look at our local list on a regular basis, I will say one thing about the above quote.... I don't care one hill of beans if it was consentual, lol, if the guy was say in his late 20's or older, and was doing it with ANY person under the age of 18, I wouldn't want them ANYWHERE near my kids.... Consentual or not, he CHOSE to have sex with a minor...sorry, in my book that is strike one, strike two, strike 3, GET OUT!.....lol

I agree absolutely. Only I believe there is a big difference in nature, psychologically speaking, between a man who has consensual sex with a 16-year-old and one molests a pre-pubescent child. One is definitely more of a danger to society than the other. And from my experience, I've become aware that our justice system doesn't exactly consider and reflect that difference, which is why dangerous people are so often let back out onto the street. That is my main concern. I think more attention should be given in our courtrooms to the differences between true pedophiles and what you might otherwise call child molesters. There is a much higher rate of recidivism amongst pedophiles, and worse, a tendency towards increasingly violent crimes against their victims.

There is also a large conceptual difference between a man who has sex with a 17 year old who claims she is 18 or 19, and a man who knowingly has sex with a child. The law treats them both the same - you statutorially raped her, you're a sex offender. But the criminal nature of these two situations are night and day different.

Interesting thread, and unfortunately I have to agree with those saying it went too much of a witch hunt much too quickly.

And interesting thing to note is that more men think that Megan's Law takes it too far or that the label is overused? Why? Because if a woman were to lie, decieve, or falsify records, we could easily end up a sex offender. And to be frank, the treatment and thoughts that people have in this thread towards people with that label scares me. Remind me to never piss off a woman.

All it would take is a woman to lie convincingly and consistently and I could be put in a jail for a long time, and come out labeled and stigmatized. That SCARES me.

And yet on the other hand, if a man were to do the same thing, it's unlikely that it would ever make it to trial. Even if it did, I have a hard time believing the woman would actually be convicted as a sex offender. She'd probably end up with house arrest like that teacher. Gender imbalance, anyone?

And as a side note, I don't think exposing oneself should be a crime. Sex, penetration, touching, etc.. that's entirely different. There are entire nude colonies, and the European world has an entirely different view than we do on nudity. I think our Protestant fear of nudity has gone a bit far. Someone sees my winky and I'm sexually offending them?

Mostly because sexual assault, rape, etc.. are never accidental. Nakedness can be entirely accidental. If I forget to close my blinds walking from my bathroom to my bedroom and a kid walks by, I hardly think I'm a sex offender.

You're right, of course. Here in Florida, where we've had several high-profile child murders recently, there has been increased attention given to sex crimes against children, which is a good thing, long overdue, and I'm grateful for it...but no additional measures have been enacted to make the judicial system more efficient and just and dealing with them. Therefore those accused of "statutory rape" (Florida doesn't even use that term) are often given sentences that one might deem too harsh given all the details and those who pose a true danger to our children are very often sentenced too leniently. Personally, I don't think a pedophile should be given three chances to molest children (to paraphrase DC above). I think we should be more focused on making clinical diagnoses of pedophilia early and dealing with it in a manner totally distinct from the judicial sphere of what is called in psychiatric circles "situational child molesters."

Step one should be the prohibition of ANY plea bargaining for clinically-diagnosed pedophiles. That is the number one factor that gives pedophiles the opportunity to recidivate. If pedophiles were more often sentenced for the crimes they actually committed, there would be far fewer of them on the streets.

Well, that teacher will have to register as a sex offender. That was part of her sentencing. And quite simply, women do not molest children as much as men do.

BUT, that said, on the sex offender rolls here in my neighborhood I was surprised to see how many women were actually on them.

I would really like to know how you and Shakran think getting information is a witch hunt. Do you have kids? Own a house? No one went after this guy, no one threatened to have him removed, beaten, etc. A bit of irony there that I go within the law and get what is put out there (more than our own police did, apparently), and get ostracized here for wanting to protect my kids and for being pissed that as a parent, I have to do it instead of the authorities, whose job it should have been.
Have you ever been the victim of a crime or been sexually assaulted? I have, my mother was at the age of 3(yes, child molesters were around way back then too) and my sister was an intended but lucky almost-victim back in 1964. There was no registries back then, either.
In this particular instance, someone was registered, on the national register as a two-time offender and, because no one went through the proper channels, a school bus stop was placed in front of his house, not cool at all, plus he managed to move one block from a preschool, which also was not informed and was supposed to be. Having information doesn't make something a witch hunt. Having to find the information by digging and digging because no one in the position to know what's happening, doesn't, is ridiculous. I tell my kids don't go there or don't do this because I want them safe, and every morning I was sending them off to stand in front of a twice-convicted felon's house. And a convicted flasher!! There's something to talk about in study hall.....
The fact of the matter is, women get victimized many many more times than men-rape is primarily a man overpowering woman crime. Women that use it to seek revenge are assholes-that's clear. But, while you can fear possibly getting charged erroneously with a crime of rape, etc., we fear getting raped, and possibly killed. That's the imbalance. (And more than one female teacher has gone to prison for seducing minors-think Mary Laterneau(sp).
Just as there are 'degrees' of sex crime charges, there are degrees of 'lewdness'. Peeing in an alley might get you a desk ticket. Standing on a corner flashing kids as they walk home from school will get you more. Of course, it depends on where you live and the courts, but generally, circumstances rule what the crime is or should be. Nudist colonies and lifestyles are a completely different animal altogether.
You wouldn't be. Cops don't do witch hunts either.

ngdawg (just out of curiosity...Im not coming down on you) Im wondering if you found out what tier he was when you got your information? If you look at the info I posted earlier, the schools (including preschools) are only notified at a specific level.

The state police registry didn't have one that I noticed (I was getting ready for work when I found the info). Probably with some more digging I could find out; plus I don't know if NJ considers two seperate convictions seperately or, by lumping them together, raises his level(which would be my guess, but I would need to find out). When I spoke to the preschool director, she made no distinction, saying only that they were 'supposed to be notified' if 'any' registered offender moves close by.
My own curiosity asks me why a preschool director doesn't make periodic checks herself...
Edit: He is listed as a tier2-Moderate. According to the NJSP site: If the risk level is moderate (Tier 2), in addition to law enforcement agencies, schools, licensed day care centers, summer camps, and registered community organizations are notified of sex offenders that they are likely to encounter because of the possibility that pedophiles and sexual predators will be drawn to these places.
It was up to this person to notify our local police of his residence and register with them, who, in turn, notify the above listed. This wasn't done. His failure to register is considered a 4th degree crime and law enforcement is under no compulsion to notify anyone if he or anyone who fails to register gets charged.

Wow, this thread has come further than I expected. With that, it's going to be hard for me not to just jump in and state how I feel about the sex offense registries etc.

I'm curious though to the statements about women/girls getting abused more than men. (or that men do more abusing than women). I have a contact with a person who works for the state and rehabilitates sex offenders. She says that while statistically men do more offending than women, the stats are skewed because of a double standard. A boy has sex with his female teacher and it's seen as a badge of honor. It never gets reported and the teacher gets her rocks off to little johnny's tutoring. I have a feeling that if all the instances of this were reported, we'd see quite a difference in the stats and that it would be closer to 50/50.

NC is going to a tiered system for their registries. However it still doesn't differenciate between the 18 yr old kid who slept with a 16 (and legal w/ consent) girl and the 40 year old who plead down to indecent liberties.

The other thing that I'm concered about is how Bush put the law out there that juvenille offenders have to register for 10, 25 and life. If a juvenille offends and isn't found to be mentally disabled, he shouldn't have to worry with such a long registry. Let him try to get his life back together. I think that for every 1 recidivist, there are 1,000's of non-recidivists, but naturally we only hear of the 1, and another witch hunt ensues.

I'm a parent. I understand the fears that parents have; but let's be honest. If someone wants your kid bad enough, no amount of registry or screening or law enforcement will stop them. It's scary, but it's true.

It's early, I'm sure I have plenty of misspellings in there and I apologize but.. as most know this is a subject that I can hash out all day.

This may be true among the subset of offenders who have sex with adolescents and teenagers, but certainly not true within the larger context of those who sexually offend against minors as a whole. Absolutely not. So I don't think your claim of being closer to 50/50 is qualifiable in any meaningful way.

That actually wasn't my statement. That came from a person who's been involved in the DOC and Rehabilitation arena for about 25 years.

Oopsy...sorry. Only I just don't see how that could be true. If so, there would be alot more evidence of this in our society outside of actual arrests and convictions. Such as the presence of child pornography aimed at women and the like. In this case I don't think attention is too unfairly slanted towards men because men are truly more often (than women) guilty of sex crimes against children, just as they are of sex crimes in general.

I have no doubt that men are more likely to commit such crimes. I just agree that if more was reported we'd see the stats change as far as women are concerned. It may not be 50/50, but I would guess it would be 30/70 (women/men), or possibly even higher.

Stats don't really mean much in this arena. For instance, one statistic shows that a sex offender (even the 18 year old lumped in) has had at least 7 victims prior to being caught. I'd venture to say (and so does the expert) that this is often way too high for most offenders. The true pedophiles would be the ones who have this stat while most "petty" offenders have one victim.

She has explained all the fetishes undeneath the paraphelia umbrella and most are quite healthy, it's just the phelias such as pedophelia that are dangerous. Pedophila is ranked as a fetish in the psych world and I do agree with your statement that more people once found of possessing child porn or committing an act, need to actually be evaluated for this fetish. If it is found to be a fetish then they should place them at a higher level of imprisonment etc.

I won't disagree with that. Sounds fair. And I do understand that there is a bias in regards to men having sex with teen girls that leads to instances of it being reported more often the same crime committed by women with teen boys. For that matter, I can't say for sure, but I have the impression that men having sex with teen boys carries more of a social stigma, as well.

Personally, while I don't think it is right, kids in their mid-to-late teens having sex with adults doesn't cause me that much psychic disturbance. I mean, there is only so much mental and physiological difference between a sixteen year old and an eighteen year old. I agree there should be laws against it, but it doesn't provoke the same outrage in me as it seems to do with many other people.

I agree with you completely, which is why I believe child molestation and pedophilia should be treated at least somewhat distinctly. For example, if the study that came up with the statistic you quoted above was based on data acquired from the cases of offenders across the board, then that 7 victims number, if narrowed down to actual pedophiles might become even higher. It's scary. And our rather puritanical approach of treating all of these cases as if they were committed by the same depraved mindset could conceivably be hurting the cause of really protecting our kids from those who would set out to hurt them rather than helping it.

You're right, pedophilia is categorized as a fetish, but it is a distinctly anti-social fetish and one that I believe should have more significance in our justice system. Glad we can agree on that. :)

I agree that juveniles should not be lifelong registrants in almost any circumstance. If their court records can be sealed, why should they then have to register the rest of their lives? As adult crimes are tiered, so should those in juvenile courts.
I think my stance has been really skewed to some here thinking I'm out to get some felon. My only concern is the welfare of my kids; by me being informed, they become informed. I'm not one of those 'because I say so' moms when it comes to something like this. My kids know the world isn't all lollipops and daisies; if I know there's a true hint of danger and where it might be, so will they so that they can act accordingly. I also know, as do they, that some piece of paper or formal act of law-abiding is not what is going to protect them-knowledge will, being aware will. They know why their bus stop was changed and know that sometimes, those that are supposed to act on their behalf, don't, so they need to practice common sense.
The tiered system is a bit better than just some across-the-board legislation, but it would be impossible to go with every case's circumstances and rule accordingly, so there has to be a system of labelling the crime by severity;
sexual assault is not the same as sexual battery, sexual battery is not the same as depraved indifference is not the same as lewdness, etc. "Sexual assault" might have gotten someone a tier2 (depending on the state), but, as in the case I brought up, we have two convictions, which might very well be the reasoning behind the status. I think there is a difference between the 18 year old lying down with a 15 year old girlfriend and a 40 year old doing the same thing; I'd suspect more respectable judges would as well.

http://www.affordablehousinginstitut...burn_small.jpg


And I believe that's all that needs to be said for the way the issue was handled. Reminds me of the Salem Witchcraft trials. "A witch! A witch!! May we burn her?"

Nothing says, "teach your children about the world" like instilling wonderful qualities such as jumping the gun, and most of all- going nuts and stirring everyone up into a frenzy before you even know what the hell is going on.

"Child molester" with unknown record of offense: 0
Angry mob looking for blood "to protect the kids": 1

And like others, I'd be the first one to lead the ass-kicking of a child molester- but that doesn't mean that I agree with this very poorly executed system of labeling people as sex offenders because their crime fits neatly in a pre-printed list.

The role of the police is to enforce the laws- it is in the judge, however, that we are supposed to expect correct and fair interpretation of the laws. No such thing is done in these cases. As has been pointed out, an 18 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend on the night of his birthday, and he's technically now able to prosecute as a sex offender for "raping" a minor. The day before, it was two minors having a romp before the parents came home, and now it's rape? No no.

It's a massively flawed system to label people who don't pose a danger to others, and irreversibly stigmatizes them as though they did, or do.

We all want to make the world safe and protect the innocent- but this is a gross overstepping of reality and necessity.

If you knew that a convicted burglar was living a few doors away, would you go to work each day and leave your door unlocked?
Do you park in town, cell phone on the front seat, cd's in plain view and leave the car doors unlocked, keys hanging from the ignition?
I was cautious before having any specific knowledge-don't answer the door or phone if I'm not there, etc. The 'system' of registration isn't perfect, nothing is. But it's obviously not perfect in either direction. The object of the OP is not an 'unknown' in terms of why he's supposed to register; to make assumptions that he was just a misunderstood youth could be a lot more detrimental than taking the information at face value. Your unlocked house may never be robbed, your unlocked car never stolen-if you want to play the game of chance, I can think of better ways to do it than with kids, though.
There are some that only go on witch hunts, wanting their neighborhoods to be some sort of heaven on earth and creating more of what would resemble the mob scene in Frankenstein than anything remotely resembling common sense and cautionary action.
Megan's Law failed both ways here. The sites linked throughout the thread are needed because of the failures and shortcomings and they are emphatic about their usage. We became aware of a 'possible' danger, not thinking there is a 100% chance of it. We took steps to further lower the odds by informing the Board of Ed and having the bus stop moved to our own street(which, really, should have been done in the beginning, regardless-the bus passes right by here anyway!) Yea, that's a witch hunt...:rolleyes:

We don't deserve our constitution anymore. We need to find a country that will use it and honor it and give it to them.

How so?
The Constitution isn't being tramped on....when you violate the rights of others, you lose a few yourself-that's the way of our judicial system. Felons can't own guns, vote, etc.
Nothing is foolproof and nothing is without shortcomings; if you don't break the laws, you're fine. I will admit, there are grey areas in all aspects, not to mention failings within judicial postionings-judges, lawyers, etc., are not gods and some are completely inept, but that's not the majority.
But laws protect the guilty too. Even if I wished to, I can't go to some felon's house and forceably get him out of town. I can't file imaginary charges (well, I could, but then I'd be a felon) on a whim just to be what some here have already labeled me as.
The subject has a right to live within the confines of his conditional release-in this case registering under Megan's Law. I have a right to protect my family-in this case keeping them informed about who lives nearby. He has no right to come after me and mine any more than I have the right to go after him and we both have the right to privacy. I don't see how this contradicts anything in the Constitution. (?)

What an asinine series of rhetorical questions- do you (all of you) let your young children wander around unsupervised? I certainly hope not.

If there were parents out there supervising the young ones as they should be anyway, this would be a moot issue.

I realize that this person's house may be near a bus stop, or between your home and the bus stop, but here's the thing... there are two ages of children: dumb and happy (not dumb as in stupid, just clueless to the perils of the world), and smart and cautious. When they're dumb and happy, you have to watch over them constantly, yes? If the kid can't comprehend something like staying away from strangers, screaming if a stranger approaches them, and to stay with their friends at the stop, then they're dumb and happy- if they are old enough to be taught and understand the dangers of the world and how to avoid them, then they're smart and cautious.

So I ask you all- who is letting all the dumb and happy kids out on their own (unsupervised) to the bus stop? This is an ageless distinction, based on the child's ability to learn about dangers and what to do about them (partially based on maturity as well). The second question, then, is who is trying to foam-pad the entire world for the smart and cautious kids?

If a predator grabs a dumb and happy kid, where the fuck was the parent? If a smart and cautious kid is grabbed, then either the parent has made a bad judgment on the readiness of the child to be let alone to the bus stop, or you've got a situation where the child was literally grabbed up whole and taken off, not lured away or coerced- and that's an example of an act so brazen that it could have happened anywhere, and at any time; thus making it a pointless issue to hawk over those who should be ok by themselves. Hell, anyone can get kidnapped, it happens all the time.

I can tell you for a fact that my mom walked my brother and I to the bus stop (or drove, if necessary) and stayed there to be sure everything was ok until we got on... until our ages and maturity were such that we'd become smart and cautious and could be considered safe to travel by ourselves. I was born in 1981 to give perspective, and I was raised in a relatively small, peaceful town. In all reality, there was no threat at all- but she was there while we were dumb and happy children. For a while there, she even coordinated with another 2 or 3 parents on the street to take turns taking all the kids to the bus stop and watching over, so they didn't all have to go every day. It brings me back to something I seem to have to say all the time:

Where are all the fucking parents?

Moving a bus stop away from directly in front of his house isn't a bad idea, I don't disagree there- but you all make it sound like all of your children are out there alone with the alleged child predator (alleged because you have no idea what he actually did), and my question back to you all then would be- when your child is so alone and at the mercy of all these predators, where the hell are you? I understand people have jobs, people are busy and whatnot- but a job is not an excuse to not put the safety of your children FIRST.

And just to clarify- pulling favors of people who know people, and making calls to get a bus stop moved, and slandering a person violently before you even know what you're talking about are NOT protecting your child- you're just using a "padded room" maneuver. It is so named because all you're doing is attempting to put your kid in a zone where you believe they're safe enough to stay without you watching, so you can go back to ignoring them for a while.

I can't see an excuse for not watching your children while they're too young for them to be unsafe by themselves. Tell me, dear parents, what exactly is more important than the safety of your children- which you all say you cherish so dearly- that you cannot provide them the safety of your company? Hmm? Because that's what the whole thread is about. It's a simple question, so let's see the song and dance that ensues.

I'm not sure why you are being so hostile. It is impossible to be physically present with our children 24 hours a day, seven days a week once they become a certain age and have lives outside of the home. I think we have a reasonably legitimate right to make the environments we live in with our children as secure as possible without infringing on anyone else's rights. I can't recall reading anything NG has said that implied this young man's rights have been been infringed upon. You seem to be disputing that she should have reacted to the news in a negative or concerned way at all. I don't get why you are so angry about that.

That said, most cases of child molestation are perpetrated by someone the child knows. Tell me how we are to keep our children safe from people we believe they are safe around? How are we to keep our children safe if we learn to trust someone whose past we DON'T know about? Personally, as a parent, I'm a little offended by your remarks. Who the hell do you think you are?

My kids are 14 1/2. There comes a time when you cannot hover over them like a London fog. In this instance, the bus stop is now within sight-it wasn't before. I'm still what I would consider over-protective-I don't allow them to walk to the shopping center 5 blocks away and my daughter, if she is walking to the library, must do it with friends, not alone.
Myself as a child, I walked to school a half mile away from first to seventh grade; 8th grade was a bus, 2 blocks from home and every morning some creepy guy in an old Fairlane would cruise by very slowly, staring at us...
As MM said, many if not the majority, of child molesters, know their victims. Megan Kanka was killed by a neighbor with the ploy of getting her to come see his new puppy. A boy in Jackson, NJ was sodomized, killed and stuffed in a suitcase by a 16 year old neighbor when he went to the house selling magazines for school; a girl in Florida was killed by a friend of the family-she was seen on a video walking with him; a NJ teenager was killed by her best friend's stepfather after he offered her a ride home and she refused his 'advances'.
Were all these parents negligent? I truly doubt it. I don't want 'dumb and happy' kids, so they know the 'rules', they know the possibility of dangers; even when little(before kindergarten), I'd sit down, play with them and play-act dangers using their Little Tikes doll house(ok, that sounds strange, but I did). Watching over them is not enough; some things need to be drilled into them as well so that, when those moments of independence come, they come with knowledge.

First, i'm not being hostile. You're reading a charged piece and assigning hostlity to it because it disagrees with your opinions. If you happened to agree with me, you'd see my lament for better parenting in this country, not yelling. Second, I am hardly the only person crying foul on the rights of the person in question.

Right, but that's not what we're talking about in this thread- I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Personally, as a person who isn't a parent, I'm just wondering with great frustration where all the parents have gone- and it offends me on a daily basis to see the kids that the parents of America are raising today. I think (know) that I am a person with opinions. You don't agree, therefore you feel offended because you believe i'm aiming my dissatisfaction at you, as though you are the one i'm calling into question. Those with whom I have an issue (on the grand scale of all parents) know who they are to be mad at my questions. If you're the good mother you say you are, and I have no doubts about that whatsoever, nor would I make such an assertion about any person, then you have nothing to be offended about because my questions don't affect your good parenting.

If I may be so bold (and kinda hijack my own thread here), I am going to make some conjectures as to why you come off as 'hostile':

What an asinine series of rhetorical questions...
No, they aren't, they're all part and parcel of tasks designed to be safer than you would be otherwise.
If a predator grabs a dumb and happy kid, where the fuck was the parent? If a smart and cautious kid is grabbed, then either the parent has made a bad judgment on the readiness of the child to be let alone to the bus stop, or you've got a situation where the child was literally grabbed up whole and taken off, not lured away or coerced- and that's an example of an act so brazen that it could have happened anywhere, and at any time; thus making it a pointless issue to hawk over those who should be ok by themselves. Hell, anyone can get kidnapped, it happens all the time.
Yes it does and my mother, who was abducted in 1933, was done so out of her stroller as her mom sat inside visiting a friend-it was 1933-people left their kids outside the door. Of course, most don't do that now. We have fences and deadbolts on our doors and leashes for our toddlers. I have seen kids about first grade age walking alone to school across our busy 3 lane main road and think 'How stupid can parents be?' So, yes they're just as out and about as the bad guys. The problem here is, your statements seem to say they're out there even more.(Perhaps, not saying 'where the fuck...' might help?)
I understand people have jobs, people are busy and whatnot- but a job is not an excuse to not put the safety of your children FIRST. Personally, I know of no parent who would.
Tell me, dear parents, what exactly is more important than the safety of your children- which you all say you cherish so dearly- that you cannot provide them the safety of your company? Hmm? Because that's what the whole thread is about. It's a simple question, so let's see the song and dance that ensues.
This, as worded, is offensive because it's finger-pointing at those of us who are in this discussion.
I don't take offense; I've been extremely protective and involved with my kids and I have no doubt MM is as is almost everybody I've come across here and in real life. It's how you word your statements; I understand the gist behind them, but they're confrontational.
/end threadjack

I don't see a lament for better parenting. I see accusations and the scapegoating of parents for child molestation. Do you suppose children weren't molested back when "parents were better"? Well, yes, of course they were, only people didn't talk about it like they do today. I agree that this man has rights, but can you explain to me more specifically how his rights have been infringed upon? By moving the bus stop? By informing the pre-school up the street? How? Or is it simply that NG exhibited alarm at discovering he was there? Because that's what it seems like.


Yes, it is. Because it is quite conceivable that this person in NG's neighborhood could befriend her family without them knowing about his past. Becoming someone they know. Making the point that this man's past is NG's business and the business of everyone else in their neighborhood.

I understand your frustration about many parents these days, but I really don't think it has much bearing on this subject. And as for "your aiming your dissatisfaction" at me, I have already divulged on this thread that I have had a very intimate, personal experience with child molestation and perhaps your use of the term "all of you" gave me the impression you were talking to "us," the parents participating on this thread. And for your information, yes I am a very good, very protective, very involved parent and my children were molested. Your argument is better suited to discussions about juvenile delinquency.

Right, it's also conceivable that he dies tomorrow in a car accident, or he discovers the cure for cancer, or he dies old and lonely, or he gets a new job and moves away. We can sit here and play "what if" all day; that doesn't make any imaginary scenario we can come up with relevant to the discussion.

The point of the thread was that a law in place to warn parents of sex offenders didn't work and people in her community were unaware of his status as a "sex offender". It quickly turned into a discussion on the "witch hunt"-type way it was handled without any knowledge of the man's crime, and how many of you wish to immediately trample him and his rights when you don't even know what you're talking about- because you have no idea what he did.

THAT is the thread in which we find ourselves. My contribution was along that vein. I started talking about unattended children when it was asked quite ridiculously if I would go out and leave my front door wide open. My return to that question was direct and equally obvious- would you leave your child unattended? The answer again, obviously, being, "of course not". I then went on to discuss my dissatisfaction with the fact that many parents do ignore their children all too much, and do not watch their children like they should be.

How any of you, who are not bad parents, got the idea in your head that I was talking about you, or to you, is beyond me. I very clearly was talking about and to- bad parents.

Don't take things personally that aren't personal to you, and don't yell at me for pointing fingers that aren't in any way pointed at you. I never said or suggested or infered that anyone here is a bad parent.

Back to the topic at hand- I'm curious to see what he's actually done, knowing the way he's being blindly regarded as an active child predator.

It appears to me that only what is deemed relevant to you is relevant to the discussion. It is perfectly relevant for you to go off on a tangent about some negligent parents whose children may or may not be molested by some unknown stranger? But my point that knowing who might be a danger to your kids without infringing on their rights is totally irrelevant? And for that matter, you still have not pointed out how this person's rights have been infringed upon. And you can't, because they haven't and you are doing the same thing to NG as you accuse her of doing to this man.

And if you want to avoid people misunderstanding who your accusations are actually aimed at, YOU might want to employ more appropriate pronouns.

Gonna have to go line for line on this.

There are not "some", there are "many" negligent parents, and there are more than enough children being molested, for it to be anything but a hypothetical to worry about them being molested. Negligent parent = easy target of a child = greater molestation possibility. It's not a difficult concept.

You use the word "might", and still think that's a good point? Or a point at all?

I didn't speculate that molestations happen, I didn't guess or theorize that neglected children are at a higher risk- those are known issues that are already happening, have always happened, and unfortunately will continue to happen despite our best efforts to the contrary. What you did was to create a fantasy world in which this one man is all manner of different threats you've invented for him that you have yet to verify on any level whatsoever are even plausible- not even including what he HAS done, let alone what he "might" do.

First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I'm doing the same thing to NG as she's doing to the guy. In what way could I possibly be infringing on NG's rights, judging her before knowing the facts, or anything else? This is probably the most made-up and baseless part of this thread so far.

Second, no one else who has said what I said (many of them saying so before me), have written that she's already trampling his rights. What was said is that by engaging in what became called a "witch hunt", she will be- mostly because there's nothing to tell us exactly what he did. I'm not sure how you misread every one of us who said the same thing: "by doing x, you're trampling on his rights without even knowing what he did". No one, especially me, has insisted she's already infringing on his rights- we've all said her future plans smelled of "witch hunt", which would be.

I see only one or two people who "misunderstand" my "pronouns", both of whom have every bias in the world to be misreading what I write (with or without intent to do so). I have a hard time believing that I've suddenly forgotten how to form a cogent sentence using the correct articulations. I said many times that only those guilty of that which I lament should feel that I am directing those comments to them, and my wording has been faithful in that purpose. I can't help it that you manage to be a good parent and still feel like I'm pointing the finger at you anyway... maybe you feel the guilt anyway because somewhere deep, deep, deep down inside you feel that there's something you could have done to prevent what happened, and some teeny tiny part of you vainly clings to the thought that you could have done something, but didn't... or could have seen it coming, and didn't. I don't believe for a second that you're anything but a great mother, and I don't believe that any other person here does either. This is not an attack on you- please stop seeing it that way. Seriously.

And 'not for nothing', but you're totally ignoring the fact that you're intimately connected to this topic on a very personal level- with all due respect, I have to point out that you may have lost a little perspective on the issue because you're too close, and you're reading into my words whatever you like (subconsciously) because you (subconsciously) "want" to feel victimized. I hate to break out the psychology of it, but there it is. People who are victimized look to be victims again- the worse the victimization, the worse the effect afterwards. It's the same reason that people who are raised in an abusive home grow up to pair with abusive partners. It's a cycle of victimization, and you're at least partly stuck in one, yourself.

I am not making a victim of you- please do not be a victim to me. This was not meant to insult, only to help. PM me if you like.

- analog.

It is a hypothetical. Just as the fact that someone who has molested once may molest again is a hypothetical. One is not a more likely hypothetical than the other. You can split hairs on this all day if you want to. I don't understand why you're doing it, but eh...


So your hypothetical is that:

negligent parent = molested child
or
negligent parent might = molested child.

Choose wisely.

I created a fantasy world? Please, show me where I created a fantasy world making this guy out to be a threat.

Well, I've gone back and taken a cursory look, but I don't see anything resembling a witchhunt. City officials have been contacted, a bus stop moved, a pre-school notified. Sorry but I haven't noticed anyone else on this thread take their concerns quite so far as you and as far as I'm concerned your level of feverish outrage directed towards NG over this is as alarmist and reactionary as anything else on this thread.


The bolded part of this pre-school analytical hogwash is the only shred with any basis in reality. Only they are not deep at all, and they are one thing that all parents of molested children have in common. Vive la analog. C'est brilliance!

You understand very little.

*edit* And I'd just like to add that not only am I not a victim, but more importantly neither are my children. Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps you understimate my kids and I, because of course, you don't know us. But just for future reference, minimizing people's real experiences down to superficial psychoanalytical precepts on a message board is pretty obnoxious. And to be completely honest with you, I think my efforts to become well-informed on this issue because of my personal involvement with it makes me more than qualified to have opinions on it.

To be sure, I am not the one making hysterical statements and drawing far-flung conclusions here. If someone else thinks so, I'd like them to chime in and point them out to me. I have discussed this issue and related issues on this thread in a very calm and unhysterical manner. Don't believe me? Go back and look. My problem has been your tone, and, apparently, my interpretation of your use of the pronoun "you." If I were calling for NG to go further and attempt to have him removed from the neighborhood or otherwise disrupt this guy's life you might have a point. But I'm not. I haven't. I won't. You see, because I know enough about it to see this from BOTH sides of the issue. How about you? I think it's obvious you don't.

I think everyone needs to go back and read the initial post. The whole point was that the system failed by not notifying the proper authorities. NG has every right to be concerned, and she's well within her rights to make sure that she and her kids avoid this guy, regardless of the actual circumstances of his crime. If she starts handing out flyers about the fact that he's a registered sex offender without knowing the facts behind his conviction, that's something altogether different, but I don't see anything along those lines. She's talked to the authorities and some friends and neighbors, and she's again well within her rights to do so. Finding out exactly what he did seems like the next logical step (to me at least) towards figuring out if he's an actual threat or not, but that's her step to make.

There's no witch hunt in progress, although it could certainly turn into that if NG declines to do the responsible thing.

What's the material difference between handing out flyers to the neighbors and talking to them in person? The information still gets passed along. NG took on a large responsibility here -one no one should take on without a solid grounding in facts. She took responsibility for alerting the neighbors that someone on the sex offender list lived near them. If one of the neighbors then started harassing this guy, she'd be responsible for kicking that off. That's why many of us in this thread advocate actually finding out WHY he is on the list, BEFORE we go running to tell the neighbors.

If you'd read what I've written in this post and earlier, I'm advocating exactly that.

If the neighbor harrasses the guy without any involvement by NG, how is she responsble for that? If she introduces a couple to each other and the guy ends up beating the woman, is NG responsible in any real sense? If she lets people know that a politician is moving in down the street and neighbors start protesting outside that front door, how is she responsible? The point is that other people are responsible for their own actions, and NG is responsible for her own. She's no more responsible for harrassment by someone else than I am for your actions.

As long as she's just notifying neighbors of what's she found, she's well within her rights.

As far as talking to neighbors vs. distributing flyers, one is a form of private speech and the other is a form of public speech. One is a conversation, and the other one is harrassment.

I suggest that everyone go back and read the original post before commenting any further. This thread has warped waaaay of the original post, even more so than usual. I'm as responsible for that as anyone else, but there are lots of erronious assumptions made.

I think this post effectively closes the matter on this issue. If anyone can find a square inch of ground with which to dispute this rationally I'll eat my hat. That is, if I had a hat.

You may wish to go buy one ;)

I didn't say she was responsible - i.e. liable - for the neighbor's actions, but the fact remains that the actions would not have taken place had she not run around the neighborhood telling everyone about the sex offender who may or may not be a real sex offender.

Well, if she knows there's a good probability that the guy will beat the woman, and she plays matchmaker anyway, then absolutely. She may not be criminally responsible, but to start the ball rolling on a situation that you know could turn out badly is at best unethical.

Totally invalid point. Politicians are public figures. Part of the understanding when you become a politician is that you're going to be beset by protestors if you're at all visible. Plus, the media follows politicians around constantly - she wouldn't HAVE to tell the neighbors, it'd be on the 5:00 news.

Yes, and the responsible thing to do is to go find out what the guy did before going off half cocked.

If you, based on shaky evidence, kickstarted my actions, you would bear at the least some moral culpability. Again, you might not be legally charged with anything, but that doesn't mean what you did was right.

I agree - however just because you are within your rights when you do something does not mean it's right to do it.

You're grasping at straws here I'm afraid. The information vehicle doesn't matter if the end result is the same. The end result of stuffing the neighborhood's mailboxes with fliers is that everyone in the neighborhood knows that a guy on the sex offender list lives among them. The end result of privately talking to everyone in the neighborhood is that everyone in the neighborhood knows that a guy on the sex offender list lives among them. The results are the same. I frankly don't care what method she used to achieve those results - it simply doesn't matter.

No one is protesting the manner in which she communicated her shaky information, we are protesting the fact that she communicated it at all.

We protest that because she communicated that information without having enough information for anyone to make an informed conclusion. All she had to do was find out what the guy did. Raped a 6 year old? Fine, distribute flyers, go door to door, get a PA system and drive the streets repeating the message. I don't care. The guy deserves it.

But what if the scenario mentioned earlier happened? He'd just turned 18, had sex with his girlfriend who turns 18 in 2 weeks, her parents didn't like it, got him convicted of statutory rape. He's on the sex offender list but sure as hell he doesn't belong there, and nothing in that conviction would indicate that the neighbors need to be any more worried about him than with any other person that your children might come in contact with.

Running around to the neighbors exclaiming breathlessly that you have a SEX OFFENDER living RIGHT OVER THERE!!!!! would in that situation at best cause the guy undue and undeserved embarassment, and at worst could result in him being harassed or attacked. And ALL of it would be preventable if the dispenser of this information had just found out what the hell was going on before she ran around spreading partial facts.

I am following along here with interest, shakran. ;)

But just for the record, I looked it up and the age of consent in NJ is 16.

Then change the ages to 16 and 15 respectively ;) It doesn't really matter, the argument remains the same. Feel free to alter the numbers to fit the laws in your state.

I did what I thought was responsible-without provoking or directly going after anyone, I checked status, convictions, etc. I told my kids and one neighbor with kids that the bus stop was in front of a convicted sex offender's home (and the fact he apparently was convicted of 'exposure', which just ain't cool when there's a school bus stop and a daycare next to his house). His status clearly states he's a tier2, meaning all authorities (police, schools, etc) had to know of his residence, which they did not, but do now. Residents are not required to be notified. (I did not point the man out to my kids, only told them that a felon was next to their stop, so we had it moved and reiterated their need(and the rules) to always be aware.)
However.....I made a mistake in thinking that this other mother would be as 'discreet' and within guidelines. Saturday, an 'anonymous' mailing came with this man's rap sheet and mugshot in it and his address highlighted. What's truly bothering me is that, on our street, there are only maybe 3 or 4houses with kids, only one with an infant and I don't really know these people. For all I know, some could be his family and for all she knows as well. The majority of the homeowners here are older, some elderly and certainly are under little or no threat at all and don't have to be any more cautious than normal. By sending out these flyers, Lisa essentially broke the law and may well have caused the very witch hunt I was trying to avoid.
I always and will always hold to the notion that 'knowledge is power', but some people just don't know how to use it. *sigh*

Shakran, as tempted as I am to go through your post line by line, I'm not going to. What I am going to do is try to sum up your point as I interpret it - don't do anything at all including discussing it with any one at all until you find out the facts. Is that correct?

The indisputable fact at the center of this discussion is that the guy is a sex offender. He's on the registry, and that's the sole basis of the definition as we're using. That also means her information isn't "shaky". Exactly what sex crimes he committed was only answered in NG's last post (flashing), and until now we haven't had any idea whether or not he's a threat. Even now, we still don't really know.

If I've gotten your point correctly, you would disallow any neighbors asking if they knew anything about the sex offender that just moved in down the street. You would also disallow one neighbor letting another know that there was a potential threat. That seems counterintuitve to me, so I hope I've gotten your point wrong.

Just so you know, I'm going to keep talking to my friends and neighbors about anything I want. You just let me know if you object to that.

In today's information age, when finding out that information is a mouse click away, you should absolutely find it out before you go running around telling people about it. Protect your children, but don't unfairly paint your neighbor as evil until you KNOW he's evil.


Let's say for the sake of argument that we also have a murder offender list. Anyone ever convicted of killing anyone else is automatically put on that list. You get drunk one night and run someone over. Involuntary manslaughter, you're on the list. You finally get out of jail, move into a neighborhood, and suddenly you have a neighbor running around saying you're a murderer. They're all buying guns and trying to get you kicked out of the neighborhood because they ASSUME you killed someone in cold blood, simply because you're on that list. Are you seeing yet where that list might not exactly contain all the facts that you should have before you start persecuting someone? And in the situation I described frankly you committed a worse crime than the just-turned-adult having sex with the not-yet-adult girlfriend.


Exactly my point. So don't treat him like any more of a threat than ANY unknown person is. Frankly the sex offender list can be a bad idea for parents - - Oh my next door neighbor isn't on the list, he must be a wonderful guy. I'll just go watch the soaps while the kid plays outside.

And yet you advocate stirring up the neighborhood over an unknown?

They're allowed to say anything they want, no matter how morally reprehensible it is.

Before the internet you might have a point. Used to be it took several weeks to find out convictions information on someone. If that were the case, sure, let people know the guy might be a threat. But from the time you find out he's on the sex offender list it will take a maximum of 10 minutes to find out the details of his conviction. Are you saying that the situation is potentially so dire that you can't wait TEN MINUTES before shouting the news to the neighbors? Gimme a break!

Yet it took NG 5 days (or so, I didn't bother counting) to find out what the offense was. I have a sex offender living on the next block down from me, and I ended up having to call my alderman's office to get help finding out if he was a threat or not. Maybe it's easy for you to find this kind of information in 10 minutes, but it took me over a week a couple of years ago.

I think that you're mistaken about what I'm saying - again. I am not advocating for a posse - at all. I am not advocating for anyone handing out flyers - at all.

I am advocating talking to your neighbors. They may know something. They may not. The gist of what you're telling me is that talking to my neighbors is a bad thing, and I'll never accept that.

Again, I'm only responsible for me legally or morally. If I tell someone something and they chose to do something reprehensible with that, I'm morally culpable if I could foresee the result as a possibility. If I tell my homophobic neighbor that a gay couple is moving in down the street, I'm morally culpable if he does something, but if I tell my other, tolerant neighbor what have I done wrong? What if I don't know how they stand on the issue?

How about if I notice one neighbor has left the gate to his pool open when he left town. With your logic it's a bad idea to call my other neighbor with young children to alert them to the potential threat. It's certainly not an immenent one, and there's no guarantee that any kid will wander through the gate or one that the kid will get in the pool if they do or one that they'll drown if they do get wet.

Shakran, go back to the beginning and reread everything. Please point out where I wanted to form a mob. All I see is discussion among friends and neighbors. Are you telling me that this guy's privacy is automatically the elephant in the room that no one ever mentions? Gimme a break!

Again, I'll keep talking to my friends and neighbors about anything I want and that they'll listen to. Let me know when you figure out how that's a bad thing.

No, took me one day. I work, can't post 24/7:)
He has two convictions(I posted them early on): first one, in 2000, Wreckless endangerment of a minor-sexual assault. Second, in 2003, Indecent Exposure to stranger women.

Ok. So here's the deal. They guy has convictions. He's on the sex offender list. Now the police are aware of things. That's enough right there. If he was deemed to be a predator, then he'd be listed as such and would be tier 3 (at least I hope NJ is smart enough to recognize that). There is no need to go any further with mailings as Lisa did. There has to be a point in time when the guy can live his own life and do what he should do. I think it would be rather difficult to try and become a model member of society if everyone just looks at his past and doesn't allow him to live peacefully. If people continue on the media fed witch hunts guess what? The predatory sex offenders are going to go underground and the problem will be alot worse than it is now. Sure watch your kids and keep an eye out but let the guy live his life. Like I've said before, for every 1 sex offender you hear about on the news, there's countless of them holding down good jobs and trying to make a better life for themselves just like the non-sex offender world.

Which, with the help of Shanifaye and Guccilvr, I did very quickly. I had the information of the charges that put him on the registry before they pointed me to where details could be had, but no one went off half-cocked.
It'd be a little more prudent to the discussion if you would not keep going back to this comparative scenario for a couple of reasons: 1) anyone coming into the discussion would get some dumb idea that I'm distressed over a horny kid who couldn't keep it zipped and 2) it's not the point at all.
All this back and forth and you keep insinuating that the subject of the OP's status was conjecture on my part. In this particular instance, we have two convictions of a sexual/lewdness nature; whether he's a known threat or not, I play to the side of caution and that includes what's unknown in my corner of the world.
If the one neighbor I informed goes on some vigilante tirade, it's her choice and ultimately, her own consequence to bear. Hindsight is 20/20 and I'd have been better off calling the police dept. myself to acquire information, but I knew her brother was on the force and erroneously felt she'd handle what was told in a mature, lawful way. I think she crossed a line sending out the flyers but even there I might be wrong; however, according to the NJSP site, it was not her job to do and violated the intended use of the site. But again, that was her choice, not mine and ultimately, it becomes her consequence.

Yeah. Ok. :lol: :thumbsup:

Psychoanalysis of a real experience does not minimize anything, nor is it a superficial gesture. Don't attempt to insult me by saying it's obnoxious.

I didn't say you were unqualified. If you're not going to bother reading and comprehending what I write, I don't see why you then bother to attempt to answer back.

Words.

Have fun with the rest of this thread. :)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that then. I personally would not have run to the neighbors until I knew what I was talking about.

This is the first time I've brought it up.

It's not my fault if they don't inform themselves of the facts before they make assumptions over what you're distressed about. Hell, that's the whole point we're trying to make to you here, is don't go off half cocked before you know the facts.

Yes, it is.

I applaud that. Watch your kids carefully, and not just because someone's on some stupid list. Every offender on that list had a first offense before which he wasn't on that list.

However, you also admit in that statement that you didn't know the nature of those convictions. Finding them out before getting the neighbors involved would have been the prudent thing to do.

You can't assume that with hot button issues. People have a visceral reaction to sexual predators, and if they even THINK someone is a predator, they're liable to do unfortunate things. Now, don't get me wrong. If he's REALLY a sexual predator, then he brought everything on himself. But don't start that ball rolling unless there's a need.

Agreed.

True, but had you found out the facts and then gone through proper channels, it never would have happened.

I had the convictions/charges in front of me along with name and address. I went to one person with close personal ties to people of authority. I did not 'run to the neighbors'. From the first post: One block from our house, directly across the street from where my and 11 other kids catch their school bus, lives a convicted child molester-his crimes were Wreckless Endangerment of a Child and Aggravated Sexual Assault. In my 6th post, I stated his tier status and the years and details of his convictions.

No, it's not. Four times in 27 total posts. That's as far as I went, though. Might have been more...just wanted to show you that you are indeed using one constant unrelated scenario to prove your point.


And, except for not being able to find his tier status immediately, I did not go 'off half-cocked'.


Now who is going off half-cocked? You were given the exact nature and status of someone's profile and still use some ridiculous analogy to prove...what? That the NJSP could possibly be, as you keep pointing out, 'going off half-cocked'? You have the same information I do, but choose to use the same excuses to make your point, when it's simply not prudent.


I never said I didn't know what his crimes were; I knew what they were from the start-it was his tier status that needed to be dug up. You came here guns blazing accusing me of going on some witch hunt. Please read and tell me where I said I don't know what he did.


I'd like to reverse that and say don't assume he just didn't know his girlfriend was only 16. It goes both ways and excuse me if I have a vested interest in my children's safety and choose to put that first instead of making assumptions that all is well, really.

I went where I had to go to find out what I needed, again, facts in hand save his tier status. The person that did not go through 'proper channels' was the perpetrator. The person I first contacted is married to a town employe and the sister of a town cop, a friend of the police captain, none of whom was aware of the existence of the subject. Should I myself have contacted the captain? Hindsight says yes, but at the time, shortcuts to quick resolution said yes. That is not 'going off half-cocked'; not perfection in resolving either, but certainly not the badly performed melodrama you've made it out to be.

Erm. . .nowhere in the example you posted did I mention a murder-offender list. .
To be completely honest, I have no idea what you're referring to here. I can't see how this relates to the part of my post that you quoted. I was given the exact nature and status of the person's profile AFTER you had already started this thread and AFTER it had already been pointed out to you that you should find out what he did. I was then speaking in general terms - not specifically to you - that going off half cocked in situations like this is not a good idea for ANYONE to do, not just you.


Really? Then what, specifically, did he do, and who did he do it to? Did she consent to it? Did he know her? Was the conviction the result of a plea bargain?

Actually, Analog accused you of going on a witch hunt. I said, after you finally found out some more information, that it's no LONGER a witch hunt.

Hope you have a while. . .


if you have to assume something you don't know it.

Again, assuming means you don't know.

"more or less point to" does not mean you know what happened.

Here you say that while you don't have the information, you know where you can get it but are unwilling to pay for it.

Generally suggesting something is not the same as proving it, and it means you still don't know what the hell he did.

How much more clear do you have to make it before you convince yourself that you didn't know what he did?

I didn't. I said I didn't know what he did, and neither did you. I said find OUT what he did before you react to it.

I have a vested interest in my child's safety too and that means I don't need some damn sex offender list, because I watch him around other people no matter WHAT I do or do not know about those people. If I received partial, incomplete, shoddy information on the criminal history of someone in my neighborhood, you'd better damn well believe I'd take it VERY seriously - - and would then find out what the hell he did so that I would know how best to address the situation. But really, the situation with the kid wouldn't change - I wouldn't have trusted the guy even if he wasn't on some list.

I'm confused on how you seem to think that going to your neighbor in order to get an answer from the cops would be faster than going straight to the cops. The truth of the matter is that you acted without considering what your best options were. That's fine - hell we all do that. Just admit it and try to do better next time.

Tell me where there's a victim's registry and I'll get right on it. Until then, the information released by the NJSP was as thorough as the law allows. What the crimes were/are are clear enough to pose the remotest threat to the public. My assumptions that they were not of your continually pointed out 'sex with a consenting girl under 18' is certainly closer to what the details point to and, less than 24 hours later, his status confirms, best as can be allowed under law. You yourself are making assumptions that I 'assumed' with nothing in front of me. That's a stupid way to handle things, IMO. No final conclusions have been or were drawn, but acting upon what I had and have was important to rectify mistakes made by the subject and by the authorities as quickly and as safely as could be done without undue harm to anyone-which is what happened.
Yes, I could pay $35.95 and get his phone number, his past addresses, his employment records, where he served time, etc. I wasn't willing to do that, Shanifaye told me what to look for, I found it. Got a problem with that, Pookie?:)
I pointed out your consistent use of a trivial scenario as quoted in post 67 in the last line. Please do try to read through, dear, so I don't have to keep repeating...:)
Someone, possibly you (It's late and I don't feel like opening another window again, still...) made the erroneous remark that someone would plea bargain UP...that's what that is in reference to. If someone is going to pea-bargain to an endangering a minor with sexual assault, the assumption could be made their original charges were much worse. If that wasn't clear, sorry. It's a response to a post, not a specific conjecture.

I'm done answering you. You have a distinct need to pick apart, make inconsequential analogies and basically put me on the defensive for protecting my family as if some grievous harm had come to this poor misunderstood man as a result of my perceived vigilanteism. You'd make a good defense lawyer at a rape trial....

Congratulations - -for the first time on TFP, you've actually managed to make me personally pissed at something I read here, which is why I'm about to be a hell of a lot more blunt than even I usually am.

Quite frankly I resent the hell out of just about everything you said. Because I refuse to go off half cocked and paint someone as pure evil before I KNOW they're pure evil, you act like I'm putting you on the defensive. I protect my family too, but to be brutally blunt, I do it more intelligently.

You can play the pookie and the dear games all you want, but your condescending tone does not erase the idiocy you pulled in this situation. Face facts, "dear," you messed up. You should have called the cops and asked them about this guy before you went to the nutty neighbor who decided to conduct a one woman war against the man before either one of you knew what the hell he did. You've even admitted that you should have done that, yet somehow I am still wrong in all this. That's absurd.

Yes, I do consistantly use alternative scenarios to try and explain basic concepts to people who just plain don't get it, and I will continue doing so. It seems to work, at least most of the time.

Shanifaye should have had the opportunity to tell you what to look for BEFORE you turned the neighbor loose on this guy. We are fortunate in this situation that the neighbor turned out to be a matter of genuine concern. You particularly are fortunate because if he HADN'T been a person of concern or (as has happened many, MANY times) had been on the list mistakenly due to a clerical error, he could have sued the holy crap out of you and your whackjob neighbor, and you both would have deserved it.

If I found out that there was a convicted sex offender living across the street, I would immediately assume he was dangerous. He is more of a threat than any "unknown" person, regardless of the specifics of his crime. Past criminal behavior, whatever it may be is a good predictor of future criminal behavior. I will always protect the interests of my family over the interests of an unknown convicted sex offender.

After immediately assuming that he is a threat, I would try to find out more about the particulars of his offense. I would adjust my outlook from there.

I don't see any problem with going to a neighbor to discuss the situation. I might ask the advice of a friend before I went to the police. No angry mob was formed as a consequence. There was no lynching. His conviction is a matter of public record. I think that it is reasonable to discuss it in public.

If someone I meet is a convicted felon, regardless of the specifics, I will be hesitant around them. Even if I found out later that they were convicted of having sexual intercourse with their 17 year old girlfriend at age eighteen, I would still feel justified with my initial hesitation. (Though my opinion of them would change for the better).

That said, the sex offender registry system seems seriously flawed. I know that in many communities, it is impossible for a convicted sex offender to find a place to live- all apartments are too close to an "off limits" area. If convicted and released sex offenders are so dangerous, perhaps we need to improve their rehabilitation. I also know of people who must register because of a streaking incident in college. Being a registered sex offender for such an offense is absurd. Knowing this, I would still assume that an unknown sex offender is dangerous before knowing more about him (or her).

Absolutely.

And watch that "crap" word... apparently using a naughty word makes a person "hostile". ;)

Shut the fuck up. ;)

this message is delivered with affection and with tongue firmly lodged in cheek

as you were...

I take it back. You're just an asshole. I could be obnoxious and make some psychological analyses based on real experience, too. But that's just not my way.

Have a nice day.

Sued for what? Moving a bus stop? Yea, that'll show me...:rolleyes:
It wasn't what words you used, it's how they're applied and the perceived tone.
Careful there, assumption apparently is a tier3 crime....:rolleyes:
If my kids were in the path of an oncoming car, I don't think I'd try to analyze how fast it was going, who the driver is, what the make is, before getting them out of harm's way. First, I'd get them out of there.
The so-called 'whacked out neighbor' did what I should have done-went to the authorities. In doing so, an overlooked mistake was rectified. Granted, anonymously sent rap sheets were mailed, but for all I know, she might have been advised to do so-I only know by reading the NJSP guidelines on their registry site that the information posted was not to be used that way, so I didn't do it. Hell, for all I know, she didn't mail them either, maybe someone else did.
To make accusations against me, regarding some imagined vigilanteism and lack of 'intelligence' is just ridiculous in light of what had happened and went completely offcourse. The simple matter is, Megan's Law, as you and I and others have stated, is flawed, but it's the way the law is, it's there for public protection and, as long as anyone stays within the somewhat skewed parameters of it, rights are not infringed. Taking the 'side' of a felon, coming down on anyone who would dare to act on their family's behalf is incredulous to me, specially when the constant idea that the action was 'half-cocked', etc. is pushed and that hasn't been the case here.
Is it better to not have a registry? Is the unknown just as 'dangerous'? To the second, I'd say yes and have acted accordingly in regards to teaching my kids. To the first, though, just like we have to assume until more information is available that the offender is not some misunderstood boyfriend of a 16 year-old, the authorities that control the online registry have to assume that those who use it are responsible adults. My responsibility has not been compromised just so I could go 'whacko' on anyone. I have no control over anyone else who gets the same information.

There's no such thing as a perfect law, a perfect system, a perfect parent. I'm sick of the back and forth in this thread and think this thread should go back to the OP and perhaps go forward in how to make the law and/or registry system better. The "you should have done this/I didn't do anything wrong" argument is stale and old. Let's move on to something more productive shall we?

I've already said my piece a while back about how I think the system could more effectively prosecute and penalize cases of sex crime against children. If there was more attention paid to the difference between predators and situational offenders perhaps a registry wouldn't even be necessary. The catch-all system of categorizing all crimes that involve some form of nudity as the same, or even similar in nature is, I believe, hurting the cause of protecting the public from dangerous people more than helping it.

And any system that requires convicted felons to be honorable and report their movements is not likely to be a reliable method of tracking dangerous people, anyway. Obviously those who want to stay out of trouble and are most likely to do so are going to be the ones on it. Those who either don't give a shit or want to be off it because they don't intend to stay out of trouble won't.

Here we agree and that's why I feel sex offender lists should not be necessary. In addition to the reason I listed above that parents shouldn't trust ANYONE with their kids, whether they're on some list or not, there's another reason that hopefully everyone here will see the validity of.

Sex offenders shouldn't be on a list because they should never get out of jail. I've always felt that, especially if you rape someone or sexually abuse a child, that should be it. You're done. Life in prison, no parole. What's the justification for risking a re-offense? And of course if we put them in jail for life, we don't need a list in the first place.

I'm assuming that by saying that sex offenders should never get out of jail, you mean the actual predators, not the 18 year old who slept with a girlfriend. Correct??

This is a pretty tricky situation, and while I feel that if you rape a child, you need serious help, I'm not so quick to jump on a bandwagon of life in prison. There has to be some validity to the rehabilitation process. If a person, let's say, goes to the club and some girl is there who looks 18 (we all see 'em every day) but in actuallity is only 15, goes home with the guy and say, only has oral sex. Does that person really deserve to be on the sex offender list? Regardless of the man's age (while he should have asked for I.D. first naturally) did he committ the crime or did he just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with a girl who's hormones were raging?

These type of scenarios are why the Sex Offender Registries/laws are so muddled. That person if found guilty or via plea bargin, would then be on the same list as the boogey man who seeks out and coerces children and sodomizes them. This makes no sense. A person can plead or be found guilty (and yes there are plenty of people who plead guilty to things even if they didn't do it in fear of wrongfull conviction) of indecent liberties and share the same fate, if not worse, than the boogey man.

How do we change this? A tierd system is a good start but obviously has some flaws. If the person had no predatory sense in the matter and the state still thinks the person is guilty of a sex crime then tier one it is.. but let's only put him on the registry for let's say.. 3 years. Not 10 or life (in some states).

If a person uses force, coercion, or the victim is indeed a child, then it's tier2.
Put the person on the list, throw them in prison for 25 to life (depending on the circumstance) and if they make it out, notify neighborhoods, schools, daycares etc.

No need for a tier 3.

No matter what system comes or goes, shakran is right in saying that you have to watch your kids with anyone. There was a point in time when even the most vile sex offender wasn't on a list.

The lists exist. That's an indisputable fact. Whether or not they should exist is a semantic arguement at this point. Whether or not sex crimes should result in life imprisonment is a semantic arguement as well since we all know that no state is ready to move in that direction at this point.

The question, as I see it, is what to do if a sex offender moves onto your block or in front of your bus stop. Obviously, the first step is to rachet up your vigilence when it comes to your kids and yourself (whether your male, female or something in between), especially when there is the greatest chance of coming into contact with that individual. Second, educate yourself on what the person did, not only the offense they were convicted of but the actual circumstances of the crime. Obviously, an 18-year old convicted of consensual sex with a 15-year old as a part of a long-term relationship is less of an immediate threat than someone who likes to rape old ladies (especially if you happen to be an old lady). Third, discuss what extra security precautions need to be taken with your family and neighbors.

I'm sure someone will flame me for these statements, since that seems to be the trend in this thread. So, flame away at rational thought.

Quite. Some states have the right idea, btw, regarding the 18 year old who sleeps with his girlfriend. It's only statutory rape if there's X number of years (usually 3 or 4) of age difference between them.

In other words, the 18 year old can sleep with the 17 year old girlfriend, but the 25 year old cannot.

I have no doubt that some, given proper therapy, can rehabilitate to the point that they will never re-offend. However, it's impossible to tell who those people will be, and I am unwilling to risk the safety of innocent potential victims by giving a rapist the chance.

Depends. Did she pass herself off as being of-age? Frankly if I were the type to sleep with a girl on the first date (never was), I would check ID.

Several venues to this. Of course while you and I suggest he should check ID's, she could have a fake (how else could she have gotten into the club, really) and I dunno about you but unless it's a really crappy job, I probably couldn't tell a fake from a real ID.

That said, the fact that the girl is at the club having entered under a fake ID is evidence that she is willing to lie about her age to get what she wants. And it's circumstantial evidence that her ID is probably pretty convincing because bouncers are generally pretty good at seeing through those.

In that case, I don't believe statutory rape should be applicable, because the man has no reasonable way of knowing that she's under age. Being manipulated by a jackass girl into thinking you're sleeping with an attractive adult should not be a sex crime.

On the other hand, many guys could reduce the chances of this happening significantly if they'd just keep it in their pants until they got to know the girl. After all, if you wait to have sex until you know more about her, it's gonna be pretty hard for her to hide the fact that she's a sophomore in high school living with her parents.

I'd go farther than that. Do exactly what you said for tier 1. Tier 2 never leaves jail. Period. They screwed up, they knew they were screwing up, and I'm not willing to put innocent people at risk in some grand experiment to see if we can stop him from doing it again.

Actually Florida has already moved in that direction. We now have tough mandatory sentencing laws (25 years to life) for people convicted of certain sex crimes on children under the age of eleven. As well as GPS tracking of these felons once they are out. Personally, I don't think this kind of umbrella legislation is particulary effective. Especially when taking into account that MOST sex offenders plea bargain and can easily avoid the crimes that carry mandatory sentencing. Pieces of legislation like this are essentially salves for the public to make us feel like they are doing something real to remove dangerous people from the streets. Once the attorneys start bargaining though, tough laws suddenly become very flexible.

And just in case anyone is wondering about my bias in this situation because of my "personal" experience: for the record, I don't feel like justice was meted out too leniently in our case. The charges were reduced in a plea bargain but the sentence was still very tough.

The other question and perhaps one of the most important, is at what age does a male or female really come into the correct sexual thought?? Some would argue that a 15 year old is quite capable of handling a sexual situation and therefore statutory rape should be out of the question completely. I don't know enough about psychology to really put an opinon here.

This needs to be a pretty solid fact before states go making different age of consents (which should be universal IMO). Sure it's pretty creepy for a 40 year old to sleep with a 15 year old but if it was consenual, and it's proven that at whatever age, sexual development is there is it really a crime? I guess that's not really up to me.

About the club situation, we all know that people screw on first dates, first five minutes, whatever. It's not going to stop. So the I.D. thing really doesn't come into play as I had orginally thought.

This won't happen.

This is easy. Arm yourself with information and inform your kids to be more careful. They don't have to know the details (unless it's found to be a predator). Let the person live his/her life but just keep a watchful eye out. This should be true of anyone around your kids. Not just the offenders.

I agree that this issue should be further examined and examined outside of the realm of child molestation. There is SO much of this going on that it muddles our determination of what a child molester is - both in the justice system and in the public eye.

How ironic that you, in essence, agree with the steps I'd taken....
I've always been vigilant with my kids' safety,ie; when a single older man bought the house next door, they were told in no uncertain terms to stay out of his house, don't speak to him without one of us present. I'd rather be accused of being a little over the top than to be accused of being indifferent.
At the same time, I gradually taught them how to be alone in the house, starting at age 9, for 15 minutes and, with trust and maturity, increasing that.
That being said, no one is 100% safe at any time and no one is trustworthy 100% of the time. Fallacies are just as much a fact of life as the list, which we all agree is not infallible. The 3 tier system isn't precise enough. The subject of the OP was a tier2(moderate risk)...but what else is? It's been said in the past that by the time someone is caught, he has already committed the crime numerous times; yet, if he's caught, plea bargains and gets out in 3 years, is he not the threat he was before getting caught? I'd say he is, but he'd be a tier2 just because....and he'd be a tier2 possibly with that dumb kid who couldn't control himself with a mature-looking 14 year old.
One thing also that I noticed about the registry-the years of the offenses are given, but not the time served, whether he's paroled or on probation, etc. You get aliases, address, tier rating and the crime(s). Now, granted, there are sites that charge money, but since I didn't pay, I have no idea if they delve further.
I agree that the registry should be a part of the sentence, not a lifetime thing. Keep it clean for 7 years or 10 and you're off the hook. Juvenile offenders should not be required at age 30 to still be registered unless they're repeat offenders. And hell, why are repeat offenders even out?
I'm not a firm believer in a piece of paper or some 'requirement' of law being enough, at any rate. I think it's up to parents and individuals to keep their awareness, their wits and their vigilance to make themselves safer, not rely on something that obviously has so many pitfalls.

You should be able to go to your states DOC site and do a prisoner lookup which will tell you parole status. You could probably also go to the courthouse closest to you and check the system I told you about earlier and it should have that information.

Also, the registry in NC gives the time sentenced, time served, time released and current address.

Right now NC has the 10 year registry but they've just recently made it to where you cannot get off of the registry unless you petition the Superior Court (in your county of course) for a motion to be removed. You can file this petition as many times as you like. While I don't really like this idea , in theory, it could help keep a better track of those who would most likely re-offend. By going in front of a judge after 10 years, you can look at the track record of the person and of course the Probation/Parole officers as well as Mental Councelors would have to give you a good report for the judge to remove you from the list.

One thing they haven't done is make sex offenders place those words onto their drivers license's yet. I hope they don't. That's just way over the top to me. Wisconsin does this but they have an extremely high number of sex offenders. IIRC, Ohio makes you have a pink license plate if you are a sex offender. I don't see what good this possibly does as it can only increase vigilante justice. The argument is it's easier to tell if a sex offender is where he shouldn't be. Umm wrong, it's not hard to put a different plate on the car or just drive a different car.

The GA registry give the information as well

if you go here for NJ

https://www6.state.nj.us/LPS_spoff/geographicsearch.jsp

it seems to give more information on an individual than the site that was originally posted, it also lists the tier level and more of a description of the vicitm (age range and sex) and what the person did

I had seen that site before but forgot to post it. Good lookout Shani.

After perusing some of the profiles listed on that site. To me it looks like NJ hands down too many Tier-2 judgements. There were tier 2's that had used guns and physical force to assault. In NC or FL they would be tier-3 easily.

This shows how flawed the system really is. Now I haven't gone and read all the by-laws of NJ (I browsed the site the other day defining the laws) and some are quite different that here, but alot of them follow the same vein. I think the first step in getting this corrected would be to find out the age that is capable of sexual relations and then making a universal law set for sex crimes. Then we can get a better grasp of what pedophilia is and what the other dangerous fetishes are. Once we can more easily determine these, it would be easier to set people up in a tierd system and sentence easier as well.

That's the site I got the tier level from...only lists victims as, for first offense,
'under 18, 'female' and the second, 'adult', female' and dates of 'dispostion', along with the usual address, aliases, etc. He's listed twice-I reckon because he has two offenses? Wow...there's 5 mug shots...is that required every time he registers? There's no information posted about parole/probation stats that I can see(sorry, but I simply will not actually post the page) so, if there's more, I don't see how to access it.
Interestingly, the Klasskids site directs one to the state police site which then directs to this one...I have a sneaking suspicion that, had I paid that $35 for 'detailed information', I'd have gotten just this.
I agree. NJ is a bit inconsistent, but I'd assume most states are. It goes back to what I'd said earlier: If he's a tier2 and there's only 3 categories, where is the line drawn? His offenses are 'wreckless endangerment of a child'(assault of a juvenile acquaintance) and 'aggravated sexual contact(exposure to two stranger women; I have no idea what that could mean) and he's listed as a 'moderate threat'. Now, while I'd go with a 'moderate threat, tier2' to gauge my own level of safety with my family, why is he?
NJ is having a field day right now with busting people with child pornography on their computers to the point of recently having a massive 'round-up' across the state. Whether some plead out or get convicted, are they all now tier2 registrants? What if some clicked on a porn site not realizing there were kids used? Now that history teacher or coach is a sexual predator just one 'tier' away from being a threat to society.

my guess by looking at some of the people on that site is the person was between 13-18, as I saw some that had "under 13" as the age of the person

...or, that would be 13-16 since the age of consent in NJ is 16.

I wouldnt see how that would have bearing on an assualt, otherwise it would say Under 16, not under 18

Or perhaps, once the crime is committed, anything under 18 is considered a child? If there's consent, it's not a crime, but if there's no consent, anyone under 18 is then listed as a minor? Too many grey areas....

This is where the SBI comes into play. The SBI can track the use of the site as well as how often you viewed, how long you stayed on each site and if you saved any pictures or shared them.

When I was reading NJ's sex crime laws alot of the endangerment to children laws were about child porn. Be it possessing or making.

To me, if you are convicted of forcible sexual assault then it's tier 3. You used a weapon or your power to get a piece of ass. That's what prisoners do.. do it there.

I saw a guy who had sexually assaulted a 3 year old child of a girlfriend. These are the people who need to be seriously evaluated. We know that while the AOC is 16, and since I argue that perhaps it should be much lower, that a 3 year old has no way of knowing what's going on. That's pedophilia and while it may not have been predatory, it's still an infant and that needs to be treated as pedophilia. When we have people who 'sexually assaulted' an under 18 victim and place them on this same registry as actual pedophiles it creates the problem we have now. People hear sex offender and automatically assume pedophile. There has to be distinctions.

I was watching Nancy Grace for about 5 minutes last night (sorry I hate her and think she does more harm than good with her show) and some boy was abducted. Before she even said anything about the parents could have done it or random people, she started flashing names of sex offenders in the county and saying that it was probably a sex offender. Come on, seriously. Don't start a witch hunt until we have some facts. The police will automatically check the status of the registered offenders when an abduction occurs. We don't need everyone to start harassing someone who was at a 3rd shift job just because he's on a silly list.

God I hate her.

I agree about Nancy Grace. She's what's wrong with this system-a personal crusader/sole witchhunter with a mic and camera crew. Her bio is interesting (I believe it includes a fiance being murdered), but she uses her issues as her catalyst for thinking she's in the right. She could take some class lessons from John Walsh, who certainly has more of an axe to grind.
Ever watch those Dateline shows on CNBC that entraps guys who think they're going to have a 'fun time' with a teenager they stalked on the net?
After the guy(s) is confronted and tries to make haste out of there, he's surrounded by cops, guns drawn. There's been complaints from some of the neighborhoods used in these stings that their local police departments are being over-utilized in them and from what I've seen on these shows, it's true.
Do we really need 6 cops with guns out to take down one man?
I think that this, and Nancy (un)Grace feed into basic fears of parents, perhaps thinking that they somehow are SO much smarter than we are in safeguarding our kids. Granted, there are stupid parents, stupid kids, etc., but this fearmongering witchhunting serves little or no purpose. I got my information, I told the kids to be a bit more wary (not that they weren't already) and nothing in our lives has changed. I just think there's better ways of going about it and Nancy Grace ain't it.

Oopsy. No, it wouldn't. But I thought we were referring to the registries as a whole. Not just those accused of forcible offenses.

This is not necessarily a non-predatory situation. Pedophiles will commonly enter into relationships with women in order to get to their children. Sounds crazy but it's true. And, I'm not going overboard because I happen to have read Lolita, lol. Which is actually a pretty apt piece of fiction in examining the mindset we are talking about.



I'm glad to see you say that, because I can't stand her, either.

Correct. Most pedophiles groom their victims. Some do what they say. But if they only get with a woman or man to get to their children.. isn't that still predatory?? I mean they are using their position to then get to the child.

Predator doesn't = kidnap random kid and assault

edit: this is why we see most pedophiles or offenders often offend with someone they know or are close to.

Oh no. I agree that it is predatory. Legally "predatory" status is not equated with forcible assault, but rather a tendency to re-offend in a deliberate way. We are in agreement on this.