6 ms·

This is a poor reply. There are 50 states, each with their own policies. Your state may have better policies, but you can't make a national argument by generali

by graeme 10y ago

This is a poor reply. There are 50 states, each with their own policies. Your state may have better policies, but you can't make a national argument by generalizing from your state alone. And you're cherry picking a single example. The point is not that Mario is blameless – is that they effectively have a life sentence for a crime which did not carry a life sentence. And relatively benign offences like public urination can carry a life destroying sentence too. You didn't even address the misdemanour element.

nosegoes 10y ago
Cite an example of someone actually being put on the sex offender registry for benign public urination? I've read that this was a myth perpetuated by people masturbating who claim to have been "just peeing" EDIT: Less 500 people in a population of 150,000 could even possibly be on the registry for peeing http://www.familywatchdog.us/BlogView.asp?ID=1 http://www.familywatchdog.us/BlogView.asp?ID=1
bargl 10y ago
I can't reply to nosegoes directly so I'm replying to you in the hope that he'll see it. http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now http://web.archive.org/web/20070315180914/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17589219/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070315180914/http://www.msnbc.m... There is your example for public urination. I found other comments and stuff about people fighting to get these crimes reduced to disorderly conduct, but I figured they wouldn't hold weight for you so I dug a little deeper.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  Juan Matamoros had been charged with two counts of Lewd and Lavacious behavior at the time of that article being written. Pretty highly unlikely that they were both from the single incident of public urniation. When you're publicly exposing yourself repeatedly, maybe you should be a sex offender? Man of the cases on solresearch mention that the people have been removed from the registry. Which I know has happened to one person who has serially had relationships with his underage students, starting at or before 16. He is no longer on the sex offender registry list because he convinced a judge that it was fine in his culture, and he didn't see the big deal. Anecdote, sure, but people act like the sex offender registry is something that brands you forever, which just isn't the case. And ignoring that the registry has been wildly successful at reducing child sexual abuse is a huge oversight. These edge cases, who in many cases have legal recourse, outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims?
  - bargl 10y ago
    I want to set the tone by saying, I can tell you feel strongly about this so I want you to know that most people here (IMO) don't think the registry is a bad idea, they just see poor implementation in places and think that updating the rules surrounding it is an obvious step toward improving justice. EDIT: >> Juan Matamoros had been charged with two counts of Lewd and Lavacious behavior at the time of that article being written. Pretty highly unlikely that they were both from the single incident of public urniation. When you're publicly exposing yourself repeatedly, maybe you should be a sex offender? Wrong, it appears to be pretty likely actually. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDER21_1_matamoros-deltona-incident http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDE... "Haverhill police arrested Matamoros the next morning, charging him with two counts of "open and gross lewdness," a charge used when a suspect exposes or touches himself with the intent to shock or scare people." Looks like he was charged with two counts for the one incident. >> And ignoring that the registry has been wildly successful at reducing child sexual abuse is a huge oversight. These edge cases, who in many cases have legal recourse, outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims? Resources? Sounds like a WAG on your part... But lets assume it's true. Just because I can defend one portion of this article does not in any way mean I fully agree with it. A registry is a GREAT idea in my mind. I want to know about people who should be on there. I take issue with stale laws and what I consider lazy legislation that allows for stupid situations where it is possible for someone to be placed on the sex offender list because they urinated in public. It also dilutes the efficacy of the registry by including people who really shouldn't be on there >> outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims In what world does it have to be binary? I want the law to make sense! I expect that our regulators find issues like this and close loopholes. Yes I expect that we can keep people who deserve to be on the registry on there, while removing idiotic loopholes that place people on the registry needlessly. Lets agree that 1) the registry needs to be there 2) it has a net positive effect 3) we must protect people from rape and sexual assault I propose 4) pissing in the street not 2 or 3 (we may not agree on this one) 5) laws need to be updated and include common sense when a "bug" is found, this one is no different Please see my other comment for more context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12038643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12038643 P.S. in my quick google search I found another anecdote by a man who had to pay 14K in lawyer fees to get his charges dropped to disorderly conduct. That's ridiculous to me! It seems like such a simple thing to fix.

by graeme 10y ago

nosegoes 10y ago

Cite an example of someone actually being put on the sex offender registry for benign public urination? I've read that this was a myth perpetuated by people masturbating who claim to have been "just peeing" EDIT: Less 500 people in a population of 150,000 could even possibly be on the registry for peeing http://www.familywatchdog.us/BlogView.asp?ID=1 http://www.familywatchdog.us/BlogView.asp?ID=1

bargl 10y ago

I can't reply to nosegoes directly so I'm replying to you in the hope that he'll see it. http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now http://www.solresearch.org/report/Look_Whos_on_Registry_Now http://web.archive.org/web/20070315180914/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17589219/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070315180914/http://www.msnbc.m... There is your example for public urination. I found other comments and stuff about people fighting to get these crimes reduced to disorderly conduct, but I figured they wouldn't hold weight for you so I dug a little deeper.

nostrebored 10y ago
Juan Matamoros had been charged with two counts of Lewd and Lavacious behavior at the time of that article being written. Pretty highly unlikely that they were both from the single incident of public urniation. When you're publicly exposing yourself repeatedly, maybe you should be a sex offender? Man of the cases on solresearch mention that the people have been removed from the registry. Which I know has happened to one person who has serially had relationships with his underage students, starting at or before 16. He is no longer on the sex offender registry list because he convinced a judge that it was fine in his culture, and he didn't see the big deal. Anecdote, sure, but people act like the sex offender registry is something that brands you forever, which just isn't the case. And ignoring that the registry has been wildly successful at reducing child sexual abuse is a huge oversight. These edge cases, who in many cases have legal recourse, outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims?
- bargl 10y ago
  I want to set the tone by saying, I can tell you feel strongly about this so I want you to know that most people here (IMO) don't think the registry is a bad idea, they just see poor implementation in places and think that updating the rules surrounding it is an obvious step toward improving justice. EDIT: >> Juan Matamoros had been charged with two counts of Lewd and Lavacious behavior at the time of that article being written. Pretty highly unlikely that they were both from the single incident of public urniation. When you're publicly exposing yourself repeatedly, maybe you should be a sex offender? Wrong, it appears to be pretty likely actually. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDER21_1_matamoros-deltona-incident http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDE... "Haverhill police arrested Matamoros the next morning, charging him with two counts of "open and gross lewdness," a charge used when a suspect exposes or touches himself with the intent to shock or scare people." Looks like he was charged with two counts for the one incident. >> And ignoring that the registry has been wildly successful at reducing child sexual abuse is a huge oversight. These edge cases, who in many cases have legal recourse, outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims? Resources? Sounds like a WAG on your part... But lets assume it's true. Just because I can defend one portion of this article does not in any way mean I fully agree with it. A registry is a GREAT idea in my mind. I want to know about people who should be on there. I take issue with stale laws and what I consider lazy legislation that allows for stupid situations where it is possible for someone to be placed on the sex offender list because they urinated in public. It also dilutes the efficacy of the registry by including people who really shouldn't be on there >> outweigh the lives of rape and sexual assault victims In what world does it have to be binary? I want the law to make sense! I expect that our regulators find issues like this and close loopholes. Yes I expect that we can keep people who deserve to be on the registry on there, while removing idiotic loopholes that place people on the registry needlessly. Lets agree that 1) the registry needs to be there 2) it has a net positive effect 3) we must protect people from rape and sexual assault I propose 4) pissing in the street not 2 or 3 (we may not agree on this one) 5) laws need to be updated and include common sense when a "bug" is found, this one is no different Please see my other comment for more context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12038643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12038643 P.S. in my quick google search I found another anecdote by a man who had to pay 14K in lawyer fees to get his charges dropped to disorderly conduct. That's ridiculous to me! It seems like such a simple thing to fix.