I know there are many out there who don’t give a crap about what happens to sex offenders. It’s debatable whether or not a sex offender can be rehabilitated. What’s not debatable is how difficult it is to even start the process when you are so tightly restricted that simply finding a place to live is near impossible. So I think this is terrific news.
The Supreme Court of Georgia has ruled as unconstitutional the Georgia law that prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of child care facilities, schools, churches or other areas where children congregate.
Anthony Mann, a convicted child molester, sued the state Department of Corrections in Clayton County Superior Court, challenging the constitutionality of Section 42-1-15 of the Official Code of Georgia, which restricts where sex offenders can live and work.
When Mann and his wife purchased their current home in Hampton, GA, there were no prohibited facilities nearby, and he was in compliance with Georgia’s Sex Offenders Statute. Similarly, when Mann entered into a business agreement as half owner and operator of a barbecue restaurant in Lovejoy, GA, there were no facilities nearby where children would possibly congregate.
Subsequently, two different day care centers were built within 1,000 feet of his home and his business. His probation officer demanded that Mann physically remove himself from his business and his home or face arrest and revocation of his probation.
The Court ruled for Mann on the grounds that, given the strict nature of the law, Mann could be forced to uproot himself and his family at the whim of anyone who brought a child into his neighborhood.
I won’t rehash it all here, but if you want my opinion on sex offender registries, you can read them here and here. Here’s a guy on the list because he urinated in public 21 years ago.
I wasn’t sure what to file this under. Politics seems right because the only reason we have these registries in the first place is to make us feel good and to make politicians appear tough on crime.
capelza
The insanity of some of the people that have been tagged “sex offender’.
A girl I know, at 20 had a relationship with a 17 y/o boy and had a child. shewas convicted of a sex offense and now has to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. The worst part. She can not have custody of her child because she is…a registered sex offender. She gets to see the baby on supervised visits.
horatius
There are people on the Sex Offender Registry who has sex with girl-friends they married and later had kids with, when she was about two years younger and still a minor. And this person received death threats and had his house defaced. This dehumanization has to stop. Clearly, a case-by-case basis is the best approach to take in the case of the most maligned criminals in the US. Not all of them are as bad as the tag they are attached with.
Punchy
Bill O’ Reilly will hammer on this Court for months. This is like 20 new shows worth of material for him. The Governor of GA will go nuts, claiming children everywhere are only seconds from molestation. The entire GA SC are now, instantly, Liberal Activist Child-Molesting-Loving America-Hating Judges.
I suspect Malkin will soon be posting their full names and addys on her website.
Dreggas
This is what happens when people start letting their emotions dictate laws. Say the words sex offender and people don’t think about Joe who was 18 having “relations” with his future wife “Mary” who was 16, they think of online predators going after teh kidz!
Of course thanks to seedy ass shows like To Catch a predator which is nothing more than televized entrapment these kinds of things become more popular, they get ratings all the while ratcheting up the fear.
This is not to say predators don’t need to be stopped but welcome to what laws like this do to people who gave their consent.
In the case of the 16 yr old boys boffing their hot teacher, c’mon there were songs about that kind of thing, and the boys knew damn well what they were doing.
This has approached sheer idiocy all to stop something that rarely occurs….see Terror, war on, The.
Jake
Call me old fashioned, but I don’t like the idea of saying to an offender “Your debt to society is paid,” and then hitting them with a shitload of fine print.
If you think someone has committed a crime so henious that they must be punished for the rest of their lives, put that in the penal code keep them in prison.
Conversely, if you think we need to keep an eye on ex-cons because they are likely to do it again, apply the same rules to everyone who has been convicted of a crime. That might make more sense. I don’t have kids, but don’t I have the right to know if my new neighbor was ever in for murder, robbery, hate crimes, assault and battery? Recidivism [sic?] rates in this country suggest that I should.
Dug Jay
Probably true as who really gives a shit what happens to our children.
4tehlulz
I’m just wondering something about the people who come up with laws like this — how does this actually prevent a serious sex offender (as opposed to
Larry Craigthose put on the list for far more innocent infractions) from going out and doing it again? If someone is so restricted that they cannot live anywhere or work anywhere almost a quarter mile where a child could be, since that is practically anywhere, why should he try to refrain from molesting kids since he will almost invariably break the law anyway?IanY77
Quick question: I followed the link you provided to gayorbit, and then clicked the link they provided for MSNBC.com. The link was broken and I had no luck using the on site search engine. The article you quoted above says that the guy is a “convicted child molester”. If all the dude did was pee on the wall and got caught by a cop, yes, that is certainly outrageous, but if he was molesting kids, like the article seems to say, then yes, he does need to move when a day care centre, of all things, moves in next to him.
Is there any way to get clarification on his actual offenses?
Zifnab
“Sex Offender” is the new Scarlet Letter. I honestly am not sure what the term even means, from a legal standpoint, but apparently it translates to ‘unlimited prosecution through stigmatization’. Personally, the idea that you can punish a guy for the rest of his life AFTER he’s been released from prison – even for crimes as vile as rape – is completely ridiculous. Why let him out at all? Just make every sex crime a life sentence if you think the person is so dangerous.
Michael D.
IanY77L He was convicted of a sex offense by pulling out his weiner in public. That’s it.
ThymeZone
It’s a well established fact that …
… is a signal for homosexual sex, and/or a craving for a hot dog. Or a kosher hot dog, if the offender is Jewish.
ThymeZone
Parents who keep them close, I’d say, as opposed to parents who would let them roam the street unsupervised as long as all the sex fiends are identified and kept out of the neighborhood, and thereby make the mistake of thinking the kids are made safe by draconian, idiotic laws.
BIRDZILLA
If any child molester harms a child then those judges should be tossed in the klink with the sex offender for life
ThymeZone
It’s the Birdzilla Doctrine:
As long as there is crime, judges are responsible.
Grumpy Code Monkey
I do understand the recidivism argument, but as someone else mentioned above, the “right” answer is for the state to make sex offenses punishable by life in prison. Either that or bring on the registered murderers’ list, the registered bank robbers’ list, the registered counterfeiters’ list, and the registered jaywalkers’ list.
Libby Spencer
I did a lot of work with so called sex offenders when I was at the law firm and the majority of the people who get on the list are not a danger to society. The registry was the all time dumbest idea anybody came up with. All it does is create panic and encourage vigilanttes. You hear about some nutcase killing a registered offender all the time where it turns out the so called offender had sex with his girlfriend when they were teenagers and there was one case I read about a while back where a guy was convicted as a teenager of some kind of larcency that had nothing to do with sex and he ended on sex registry list when he got of jail.
The hell of it is that it also creates a false sense of security in that parents think they can check the list and keep their kids away from these perps and they’ll be safe but the majority of children are molested by someone they know, often a family member.
I’d agree it’s a good ruling. I’m glad to see it.
Cain
I totally want to be on the jaywalkers’ list.
cain
Konrad
And then we turn around and treat a youth as an adult because they killed someone and therefore need executing. Ironic?
While we can moan on about the easily identified absurd cases (pulling ones weiner out in public or ‘making love’ to someone just the other side of the arbitrary kiddie line there are folks out their preying on children and doing nasty things to them. There are also many who have gone down for multiple offenses. It is the fear of these folk that drive the lawmakers and the public who elect them. Do you want the guy who did the crime (three times) and served the time (three times) to live unknown to you right next door to your family? Difficult issues but whining about the extreme instances sounds so…wingnut?
Chris
I think the biggest problem with a show like “To Catch A Predator” is that while it ratchets up the fear of some wierdo your son or daughter met online coming over and molesting your kid, the truth is that most sex offenses against minors don’t come from guys like that — they’re usually relatives, or friends of the family. A lot harder to set up televised stings for, but still the lion’s share of most of these sorts of crimes.
capelza
Oh this drives me up a wall.
There’s a case where 3 little boys. two of them 9 and one 8..it was being discussed elsewhere and there were people who literally said they should get the death penalty or be locked away for life. And they meant it.
It is an incredible disconnect in this country. I mean staggering…
Jake
Fine, leave out the extreme instances. Put it in the penal code that a SO where a minor is the victim will result in an automatic life sentence. And while you’re at it, why shouldn’t we lock up people who’ve been in (three times) for assault and battery?
And so far as sex offenders are concerned, what about the ones who were arrested but weren’t convicted? Shouldn’t we keep tabs on them, just in case? No smoke without fire.
And then there are the SOs who haven’t been caught yet. Good Lord! That single man who moved in next door. He seems friendly but you never know! I guess…I guess… Parents will have to keep an eye on their kids and have that little talk about how the world isn’t such a nice place after all.
Phoebe
This is an unqualified good thing. I hope more and more light gets shined on the crazy and stupid sex offender laws. This is good news for Genarlow Wilson, too, right? Wasn’t that Georgia? Nobody who had consensual teen sex should ever be on a kiddie predator list. God I hope this is the beginning of the end for this crap. Most people don’t know about it. I like to think that when they find out, they are appalled.
Conservatively Liberal
A friend of ours is on the registered sex offender list in Washington State. His crime? Flashing a BA to a bus full of his fellow school kids when he was 16.
For that one juvenile stunt, he has had nothing but misery as an adult. He is happily married and has two kids, and he said that opened another whole can of worms for him.
Do the crime, do the time. Do the time, your debt is paid. If there is fine print, then the law is screwed or the debt was not paid. If the law is screwed, fix it. If the debt was not paid, adjust the penalty.
This netherworld of the sex offender registry is a waste. It does not protect children from offenders, it only offers a false sense of security. If you let your kids run around town, then YOU too are responsible when they are kidnapped, raped or assaulted in any way. Same if the kids are the ones who are breaking the law.
Far too many parents let their kids run around without any supervision. When it comes to strangers trying to assault your kids, if you are not watching them, then they are not safe.
And you are a negligent parent.
Dug Jay
Now this sounds like a REAL miscarriage of justice.
Libby Spencer
But the three time offender is the extreme. The majority of the people on the lists are not really pedophiles and the real perps are the ones that should be kept in prison but non-violent drug offenders under mandatory minimums get much longer sentences than sex crimes.
In MA they enacted a civil commitment process that kept the truly dangerous beyond their criminal sentences. I’d imagine other states have that as well or could enact a similar program.
Again, a list won’t keep your kid safe and it endangers you more by lulling you into a false state of security. I’ve read one in four kids are likely to get molested and it’s generally by someone they know, not the stranger next door.
Konrad
I guess you can’t plead the fifth for grand jury testimony.
Cinderella Ferret
I suspect a vienna sausage, and that would be criminal to prosecute! Hardly worth the taxpayers money. Maybe we could fine them by the inch. Or better yet, for every inch under 10 inches you get five years. This might deter the needle-dick bug fuckers, eh?
demimondian
The IHT misrepresents the case. Ashqar was convicted of filing a false document, not of failing to testify.
Incertus (Brian)
Perfectly said.
MobiusKlein
With all the rulings that allow a child to be tried as an adult, has anybody following that turned around and demanded all the other rights of a grownup?
If they are fit to be tried as an adult, then they are fit to vote, drive a car, drink alcohol, join the military, smoke cigs?
Re the original topic: I saw a map of places in San Francisco where it was legal for a Sex Offender to live.
Where in San Francisco
In a dense city, there is no place that far from a day care center, playground or school. And guess what – you have to move back to the county you came from, and San Francisco is a county of it’s own.
Oh, and the two places you can live? Next to the beach, and next to the ballpark, and we know kids never go there. What a stupid law, it does not even achieve what it claims.
The Other Steve
There was a guy on NPR one day a few years ago talking about these laws. He was an expert in this field, working with law enforcement on sex crimes cases.
He was opposed to the law. His reasoning was pretty simple. Because the laws make it so onerous to remain a “registered” sex offender, people instead drop off the map. They move, change names, and nobody knows who they are.
His other point, was most critical. He said in his experience 90% of these crimes are committed by first time offenders.
And they aren’t the neighbor.
They’re family members.
His argument was that people should just always be vigilant and watch their kids and pay attention.
The Other Steve
Speaking of sex offenders… Was searching google news trying to find out if there were any three time offenders released from jail. Somehow this one came up from a November 7th article.
Anyone want to make a guess as to what political party Klaudt belonged to?
jake
Shhh, TOS! People are still trying to pretend that 99.999% of all rapists lurk in bushes and drive around in conversion vans.
Punchy
What happens when the guy gets a job at, say, a mechanics shop. Relatively safe from kids, but now a van rolls up with a flat and 8 youngsters. Must he run away? Does his employer have to know about this? If so….good luck ever getting a job.
Konrad
I share many of the posters disdain for lists and any punishment exacted beyond the original sentance. I am also torn between by my impression of the recividist nature of sex crimes – the biological urge. Sure, we all have urges and our punishment is determined by how we respond and act upon our those urges. Along the lines of the modern conception that homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice, it is NOT something that you can be cured of, but rather it appears to be determined by our DNA, so to may be the urge to assault children sexually (nothing is attaching a label to 16 year olds for petting 14 year olds is indeed ridiculous but the urge a 50 year feels for sexually playing with 12 year olds (ummm, even priests have been known to do this) is something to be concerned about. What say y’all about the Catholic church’s response to their problems? Ignore it and pretend those folk did their time and hence should be not considered a threat anymore? Care to have that priest moved to your parish? Care to have that repeat offender residing next door?
Konrad
uggg, to be able to edit…
deleting ” (nothing is ” and capitalizing A in attaching helps make the whole thing more readable.
to = too
gotta stop tryng to squeeze a post in quickly…sorry!
jcricket
As someone else wrote, “perfectly said”.
We can either change the laws so that people who commit certain sex-related crimes are locked up for life (in one form or another), or when they are free, they are free (subject to same laws as you and me).
I understand it’s uncomfortable for many to think that there are “sex predators” in their midst. Of course the fact that something like 90% of sex crimes are committed by someone the victim knows (and knows well) escapes these people. Just like 97% of kidnappings.
While we’re all worried about random rapists, kidnappings and recidivism from convicted sex offenders, the priests, uncles and teachers are out there molesting with barely anyone noticing.
All things like registries do (as others have pointed out) is needlessly ruin the lives of rehabilitated people, foment panic and discord amongst the rest of us and do little or nothing to stop real offenders from offending again.
jake
What the fuck? Hey, how about this: If you can’t distinguish raping a kid from forming a relationship, you may well be poorly equipped to comment on criminal behavior.
Maybe the Conservopedia has a blog you’d enjoy. Fuck off.
Psycheout
Why are you soft on sexual predators, Mike? What have you got in your past that makes you sympathetic to their cause?
Fraud Guy
I commented about this at digby from another perspective, but want to reiterate what some other posters have said.
The vast majority of pedophiles are not strangers, but family members or friends of family. The heavier and heavier strictures laid on those who commit such crimes will make it more likely that offenders and their families will not report the incidents to avoid “further tragedy”.
The problem with this is that it will increase (not absolutely) the likelihood that the victim will not receive proper counseling (as in most states, psychiatric/psychological caregivers are required to report cases of abuse), and then may turn into offenders themselves, especially if they are young and try to act out what happened to them.
Offenders and victims who are properly treated and who continue their counseling are much less likely to re/offend, and may be less likely to offend than a general member of the population (because they are aware of their condition and its warning signs).
Of course it is a political issue, because there are two groups politicians can reliably attack without risk of being seen as offensive: terrorists, and pedophiles. As shown above, we know that many currently labeled as the latter can be helped without destroying their and their family’s lives.
Konrad
That just it – it is the priests, uncles, and teachers who we worry about. An incident happens, they move on – to the next parish, the next school district, the next nephew, and none are the wiser…
jcricket
And what happens to people who feel they are “branded” for life and have no hope? Are they more or less likely to commit another crime?
One of the reasons I oppose felon disenfranchisement is that it’s one more way people who commit felonies are prevented in their attempts to become more connected to society.
Now, sex offenses are “considered particularly heinous” (to quote a TV show), and considering the issues around recidivism we don’t necessarily want to give sex offenders unlimited license to be an “every day person”. But you know, life is complicated, and so is the law. And it’s unfortunate there’s no 100% perfect solution.
But much like the death penalty, our current system surrounding sex offenses is so helplessly flawed that you can’t think it’s just broken. It doesn’t accomplish what it sets out to, and it punishes people unnecessarily (e.g. the 16 year old kid who was convicted as an adult for having consensual sex with a 14 year old girlfriend).
jcricket
Jake – back off a little. In this case he wasn’t comparing (I don’t think) homosexuality and pedophilia.
But instead saying that your sexual proclivities are hard-wired. Much like “homosexuality” can’t be “cured”, pedophelia likely can’t be either. Whether it’s because of trauma, biology, circumstances or some combination, if molesting children is your sexuality, you may always be that way.
It’s depressing for me (and others) to think that, but it may indeed be the case. Perhaps it can be successfully repressed, but it may not really go away.
Konrad
jake,
I’ve tried to emphasize – how one deals with the urges is paramount — one may have many urges but whether one acts on them is a different story. Coveting ones nephew and acting on it is not the same as coveting the neighbors big screen TV and taking it.
Jess
Jake, I think you’re misunderstanding the (not entirely clear) point Konrad was making–it seems that pedophiles cannot change their sexual attraction to children any more than hetero- or homosexuals can change their sexual preferences. That does not make molesting children forgivable, or make pedophilia morally equivalent to homosexuality–that’s not what Konrad was saying. The point is that it’s much harder to control sexual behavior than many criminal behaviors, and so we need to take that into account when we’re trying to figure out what to do with people with socially unacceptable sexual desires. It may not be practical to expect all of them to control themselves, especially the more emotionally-damaged ones.
jake
If you hold that certain behaviors are hardwired into a person’s skull, what’s to stop a guy who keeps getting busted for fighting in bars from saying “I can’t help it, that’s the way I’m made”? What if he says he gets off on breaking bottles over people’s heads? Or what about rape when the offender only attacks other adults? I’m pretty sure the law doesn’t treat it the same because I’ve never heard of an ex-con being barred from coming with in 1000 feet of women. Do you think that’s different?
I’m being only semi-snarky. But it seems that all the rules change when criminal behavior involves unwilling genitals. So far as I’m concerned rape is related to sex in the same way robbery is related to sharing.
Jess
Wow–dog-pile on Jake!
Jess
Some people do seem to be incurably violent, and that’s why we have the three-strikes law in many states (maybe all of them now?). Some people can change, others cannot, and pedophiles are too often in the second category. But as it used to be for homosexuals, to be a pedophile is to be a criminal by nature, and such a person must spend their entire lives fighting their own nature and denying their sexuality. And, no, I’m not saying we should accept this sexuality, but that it’s not the same as dealing with a murderer or thief.
jake
Yeah, hop on.
Here’s one that was controversial back when I was in law school (Early Jurassic Period):
Women convicted of child abuse being forced to take contraceptives (Norplant) after they were released from prison.
Assuming the legislators who came up with this bullshit weren’t getting a kickback from the pharm. companies, the theory driving the decision is much the as the one behind SO registries. Mother abuses her kids, we’ll stop her from having more kids.
Good idea or bad?
(Remember: You could make a fairly convincing argument that she’s predisposed to abuse her children because she likely was abused as a child!)
jcricket
Again, often bad laws with unintended consequences were well-meaning. Too many people with a couple minor drug offenses get “put away for life” for their third offense.
Nevertheless, I’m all for real suggestions about how to put repeat sex offenders permanently out of society. I feel the same way about repeat violent criminals, etc. If they’re incurable, they need to be kept away from the rest of us.
On the other hand, I feel that even repeat drug-possession offenders should all be directed to rehab (out or in-patient). Locking them up does nothing to cure their drug addiction (usually the opposite) and just increases violence when they get out.
jake
So you’re for permanent incarceration. Fine, I think that’s more fair than subjecting some bastard to being driven from place to place and far better for society than creating a permanent sub-class that can be driven from place to place.
Punchy
They do, or try, all the time. The prob that I have with these laws is the post-sentence “sentence”. If the judge thinks these fuckers are too dangerous for the public, keep ’em the cooler. And have several classes of sex offenders. The Weiner Flashers need only keep 1000 feet away from Those Adverse to Weiners (insert softball team joke here)…
jake
I think a lot of this could be cleared up if someone seriously agitated to require people convicted of sexually assaulting an adult to keep clear of all other adults of the relevant gender. Given the statistics you’d need a couple of states to hold everyone.
Either that or people will just get sick of looking at the guys living under bridges.
Ranger3
One of the things that turned me off the Daily Kos community (other than the constant, non-stop demonization of the Evil White Male Oppressors) was their reaction to the Mark Foley scandal. They actually wanted to put him in jail.
Now for the 1,232st time I will state that I think that Foley’s actions were unethical and unprofessional. And I also think that what Foley did was uber creepy. But criminal? Well, maybe. But is anything it was misdemeanor type stuff. Seeing as he had no prior record I’d say he should have at worst been put on probation. But really, his having been forced to resign and publicly disgraced was punishment enough for sending kinky IMs to teenagers.
I think Bill Maher has it right, when it comes to sex… we are a nation of five year olds.
Ranger3
1,231st time. Although now I guess it’s 1,232nd time.
heh
Punchy
Wow, Jake. That’s insane. The government put them there.
Holy shit, that’s messed up.
Jess
No, I’m not. I don’t have an answer, but we won’t ever get to one if we don’t clearly define the problem.
Chuck Butcher
There’s a reason we have judges, having the judge decide who belongs on a list makes some sense, as does sentencing discression. So somebody on a SC realized that making a box small enough forces someone to not be able to get in.
Jess
Just found this in the comments on one of Michael’s links:
If this is true, then it casts a different light on the matter, although it still doesn’t address the problem of pedophiles.
jake
You’re making a very strange distinction between non-consensual behavior with a child and the same with an adult. Seriously, why are pedophiles different from adults who sexually assault adults?
We could also have a depressing discussion about the SOs who prey on the disabled/elderly because they can’t resist or communicate. And yes, some of these people will go to a great deal of trouble to get another job in another nursing home or hospice so they can start up again.
I don’t think that’s exhibition of hardwired sexuality, I think its someone taking advantage of a powerless victim, but it certainly looks like these people are compelled to keep groping grannies.
Michael D.
I just want to go on record as saying that pretty much everything Jake has written, I would have written myself.
No need for me to comment then, because it would just be redundant, repetitive, and overlapping.
jcricket
Right, it doesn’t address it, but it highlights that sex offender laws probably aren’t actually keeping anyone safe, and are needlessly freaking people out (those of us who now use a web site that shows on google maps where the nasty perverts live near you, in colorful icons), wasting taxpayer resources and unnecessarily hurting ex-convicts abilities to reintegrate into society.
It’s not perfect, but the Freakonomics book had a couple examples of this type of statistical thinking causing bad policy. Like the idea that everyone who is physically abused themselves become abusers. IIRC, the statistic is something like less than 20% of abusers are themselves abused.
Bad statistics accepted as fact have a way of making really bad policy.
ThymeZone
I agree with your theme, but just keep in mind that pedophilia is a preference, it’s not a behavior.
Abuse is behavior, and it is exhibited by some pedophiles, and by some heterosexual who are not pedophiles, and by some homosexuals who are not pedophiles.
The blurring of the language is a device used by the Sex Police to confuse and deflect. Pedophilia is not a crime and it is not a behavior. And of course, as stated by others here, most sexual abuse of children is by straight family members, not by gays and not by pedophiles.
jcricket
Mega dittos :-)
You also realize that if this standard were applied in general all the blogs could stop publishing now. Hmm, maybe that’s not such a bad idea.
Jess
Thanks, TZ–you expressed what I was getting at much more clearly.
This is what I’m objecting to–the one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. I’m not proposing any conclusions, because I don’t have them, but as I stated above the first step towards finding viable solutions is correctly identifying the problem. Pedophilia, violent rape, statutory rape, flashing, peeing in public, are different types of activities done from different kinds motives, and there isn’t a single solution that’s appropriate to all of them.
That’s all I’m trying to say. Not very well, apparently.
ThymeZone
This place will make you feel like you’re trying to decorate a cake, in the middle of a food fight.
Just stay on message. Sooner or later the ankle biters will move on the next ankle.
Jess
Nice!
jcricket
That’s being generous. It’s more like trying to perform surgery while someone jabs a dirty shiv in your back.
Bill
Concerning Registered Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
If it was me I would simply refuse to register until I was granted immunity from any prosecution concerning where I live. Based on my fifth amendment right to not be compelled to be a witness against myself.
The fifth amendment says that “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.
It is unconstitional to compel one to disclose his address as required in a sex offender registration if it will result in being prosecuted for living at that address.
Insist on immunity from prosecution before disclosing your address when registering as a sex offender.
Refuse to disclose your address until you have received immunity from prosecution for residing at that address.
Refuse based on your constitutional rights as provided in the fifth amendment against self incrimination.
It is a legal delemmna when you can be prosectuted for refusal to register and then be prosecuted when you do register because of where you live which is compelled to be disclosed in the registration. This is an unconstitutional catch 22.
jr
what if this happen to your love one don’t ever say it want happen you don’t know for sure.would you want this for them? Are you a born again child of God if so act like it forgive and be forgiven.the bible (Jesus words say if you want forgive I will not forgive you.)he that is with sin cast the first stone!
Angie
If we were just talking about actual child molesters, this law we are discussing would be great, but unfortunately we are not. Why the hell should people who have sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend or urinate in public be restricted from living or working somewhere. That is ridiculous. I think there should be restictions on who gets put on the list and someone should reevaluate what a “sex offender” is.