6 ms·

When I lived in Houston and was buying a house I used a website to look up sex offenders in the neighborhood. I remember seeing one guy who was in the sex offe

by sudonim 14y ago

When I lived in Houston and was buying a house I used a website to look up sex offenders in the neighborhood. I remember seeing one guy who was in the sex offender database because when he was 19, he had sex with a 17 year old. It made me feel a little uncomfortable. It struck me because I was in my mid 20s and I think we were around the same age at the time. Something is amiss in a system that punishes him for life and places him alongside men in their 40s convicted for touching toddlers.

nhebb 14y ago
The same situation happened to a family member of mine. He was 19 and his girlfriend was 17. Her dad got mad at him one night, called the cops, and had him arrested for statutory rape. He is now a registered sex offender. They went on dating and several years later got engaged. The relationship fell through, and they never did get married. But if they had, he would have been a registered sex offender for having sex with his wife. Granted, there's a timing issue, but it does show how tragically absurd some of these cases are.
- cantankerous 14y ago
  I'm not sure about your locale, but I know in my state you can petition the courts to have yourself removed from the sex offenders registry. It's a case-by-case thing, but it gives some hope to people like your family member, people who got busted for public urination, and other people who probably shouldn't be grouped in the same category as pedophiles.
  - koide 14y ago
    I'm sorry, but in the US public urination puts you on the sex offenders registry? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at those urolagnic law writers.
    - Johngibb 14y ago
      Peeing in a park where there could has been children can put you on the list, with the rationale being that while urinating in public you're also potentially exposing yourself to children. It's definitely outrageous that it's on the same scale, but it's not like peeing on a dark alleyway at 3 am will do it.
      - koide 14y ago
        I did some light research about the subject after I stopped laughing and crying. It seems like it depends on the state, there are 13 states that have the "public urination leads to sex offense" regulation. Of those only 2 states have the "near a minor" clause. So 11 states can put you there for peeing in public, no strings attached. On those, you would be at the mercy of the police officers that catch you. Also, I found out that the reason for the "public urination is a sex offense" is not urolagnia (at least it's not overt urolagnia), but a means to deter the flashers' defense "I was peeing, officer." Not sure it makes a lot of sense. Disclaimer: As I said, this was light research on the topic, so there might be errors. Sources were mostly Straightdope forums and the Wikipedia, IIRC.
        jahmed 14y ago
        I tend to agree with getting put on some kind of shame list if you get caught urinating in public though. If you're regularly getting caught pissing in bushes you are obviously really bad at not having people see you pissing in bushes.
        koide 14y ago
        I'm not opposed to what you say, the big problem I expect you agree with is mixing (and thus equating) the "urinators" with the rapists.
  - Torgo 14y ago
    While this helps, unfortunately there is a burgeoning business of websites that scrape offender lists and re-publish them, and will not remove your name unless you pay them money. There weas one a while back that would actually contact people on the list threatening to put up flyers in their neighborhood unless you paid. Note that this is regardless if your status on the official list has changed. There is no substitute for keeping people off these lists if they never should have been on them in the first place.
watty 14y ago
It's not like his crime was hidden, you read it yourself. The only thing the 19 year old and a 40 year old who touches toddlers is that they both committed a sexual crime. Even though they are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum it's still true.
- Falling3 14y ago
  No... one is abhorrent and takes a significant toll on someone too young to know what is even happening. The other is sex between to consenting, able-minded people. Conflating the two is dangerous, offensive, and just plain stupid.
  - watty 14y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. It's also possible for someone to map everyone with felonies, is this inherently wrong? Someone with marijuana possession is certainly not the same as a serial killer but the website isn't making that conclusion. If you disagree that having sex with a 16 year old as an 18 year old should be a sexual crime then perhaps you should fight the law itself.
- sophacles 14y ago
  The gp poster is one of a very enlightened few. There was a person in a similar situation in my area for a while. Someone found him on the registry, and he was subsequently banned from several organizations he was previously considered a valuable member of. By this time he was in his late 20s and talking to some of the shriller voices against them, I realized they didn't understand the difference between something he did at 19 and something he wouldn't do at 28. They just assumed he was after their 13 year old daughters and nothing else. Ruined a lot of his ability to participate in society. Similarly, there are many, many employers who will dismiss any chance for job based on mere presence on the list. No questions, no mitigating circumstance. This is a punishment that is life-long, goes far beyond the crime, and honestly, leaves little recourse for the offender to become a drain on society, or turn to further crimes just to get by. (blast me for being a stupid hippy liberal if you want, but explain how we expect someone to get a job if we deny them the ability to get a job without saying "just get a job").
parfe 14y ago
>I remember seeing one guy who was in the sex offender database because when he was 19, he had sex with a 17 year old. The age of consent in Texas is 17 with a 3 year Romeo and Juliet exception.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  The incident could have happened in another jurisdiction.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Interesting that Texas, arguably one of the most rigidly Christian states in the country with evidence of moral legislation, is actually reasonable in this regard. Rich makes a lot of assertions about fundamental Christians, but provides little evidence to back them up.
  - seanalltogether 14y ago
    It has more to do with old farming lifestyles and young marriages. Colorado and I believe Kansas have the same clauses.
    - wheels 14y ago
      That's false. Statutory rape does not apply to married couples, and minors can get married with parental consent and / or a court order. I'd also call bullshit on this anecdote and most of the ones in this thread: the most common age of consent in the US is 16, not 18 and specifically, in Texas, it's 17, meaning that there are two different ways that this particular story doesn't add up.
      - uxp 14y ago
        The act could have happened months before hand, just after the guy turned 19 and the girl was still 16, or in a jurisdiction that ignores the Romeo and Juliet clause. Or the entire thing could have happened years before when he was 17 and she was 15, with the parents only finding out about it after she turned 16 and the investigation another year later turned up evidence to support that theory. Also, the GP to this thread never stated that the guy would be a convicted statutory rapist for sleeping with his wife, but that he would have been a statutory rapist who's victim is the person who is now his wife. There's plenty of ways this could have worked to the guy's disadvantage. There's really only one way it can be false.
nostromo 14y ago
Overzealous prosecutors have also charged teens that "sext" other teens with possession of child pornography. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/sexting-surprise-teens-face-child-porn-charges/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_scien...) We've ended up in the odd place that a teen in possession of pictures of his or her own body is breaking an incredibly grim law.
- vacri 14y ago
  Ironically in some jurisdictions prostitution is illegal but making porn is legal, so in a reverse of your comment, an illegal act can become legal by simply filming it.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I don't think it's that simple. IANAL but AFAIK it works like this. Prostitution is illegal, therefor paying someone to have sex with you while filming it would also be illegal. In porn, two people have sex consensual sex with each other for free. A third party pays the couple for the rights to record the event and commercially exploit the recording (that in theory might have happened anyway).
    - 385668 14y ago
      Actually, the argument is that prostitution is illegal because it's immoral, and porn though effectively the same thing is also immoral but protected under the first amendment. Hiring a prostitute and recording it is legal so long as you intend to distribute it.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  How is that overzealous? That's exactly why the CP laws are crazy.
vasco 14y ago
I've heard a similar story about a guy who was drunk and pissed in a playground in the middle of the night.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ineedtosleep 14y ago
The Economist had an article about this a while back. Pretty eye opening when I first read it: http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 http://www.economist.com/node/14164614
logn 14y ago
(Regarding the US) I had a friend who went streaking on campus and was picked up by police. He got off of the charges on a technicality but almost was convicted. Had he been, he would have had to register as a sex offender. Same goes for public urination. We have a pretty insane system. I'm not sure the general public could ever follow a nuanced argument like this to understand it though. We usually legislate like fundamentalist mothers with an IQ of 80.
- HarryHirsch 14y ago
  Indeed. In a functional society the district attorney would decline to prosecute as there is no benefit to society in going after a public urinator, streaker, or sexting teenage couple. But here in the US a politician has to be "tough on crime" or work for the "benefit of the children".
  - 385668 14y ago
    True, however, most prosecutors are trying to get high conviction rates, and don't care about the good to society.
    - Zakharov 14y ago
      Wouldn't that deter prosecutors from going after relatively minor crimes that are less likely to lead to a conviction?
      - 385668 14y ago
        Not really, a plea bargain resulting in any punishment at all counts as a conviction for the prosecutor. A case like CP or cocaine possession which are in most jurisdictions basically straight liability crimes are very nearly guaranteed convictions. Plus, it never looks bad for a prosecutor to have convicted a child pornographer when it comes time to run for re-election. And not prosecuting such a case would lead to ads run against you saying that you're soft on child rapists.
darklajid 14y ago
Excuse me, I don't mean to accuse or judge. Why are you checking that database in the first place? In my world your access to this information is the reason for its right to exist in your social context. I doubt that it's possible to check these lists and criticize them at the same time. What lead you to check it out?
- lotharbot 14y ago
  > "I doubt that it's possible to check these lists and criticize them at the same time." It's quite reasonable to find value in the lists of dangerous sex offenders, while criticizing the inclusion of people for trivial offenses.
- Klinky 14y ago
  It is not strange for someone moving to an area to check out the sex offender registry here in the US, especially if someone has children. Anyone can check the registry out at anytime @ http://www.nsopw.gov http://www.nsopw.gov as well as other websites. There are legitimately dangerous people on the sex offender registry. There are also people who are on there due to dubious reasons, e.g. being drunk and peeing in public or having sex with their girlfriend while under a certain age.
  - darklajid 14y ago
    Okay, this 'not strange' is obviously something tied to local social norms and values, I guess. I retract the implied contradiction between checking the list and complaining about the content. That said, it probably is impossible to understand the reasons for its existence or the need to check out a neighborhood like this without growing up in a culture like that.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      How do you feel about skimming maps of criminal activity? I have, in the past, used maps of homicides/burglaries/assault to help determine where in town I'm going to live. That hardly seems strange in any way to me, and sexual predators is just another type of this kind of map.
alaaibrahim 14y ago
I'm sorry, I don't live in the US so maybe I don't really understand, but why do these websites even exist. If someone is a dangerous sex offender, he shouldn't even be in the streets. If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life?
- erichocean 14y ago
  If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life? In fact, he didn't "do the time", because part of the punishiment is a life-long listing in the sex offender registries. If you'd rather, you can think of it this way: sexual offenses in the US carry a mandatory life-sentence, with some of that sentence being time spent in jail.
  - Torgo 14y ago
    Last I knew, it was justified under public safety. People who had already been sentenced and served their time in the past had been listed on newly-created sex offender lists. Court ruled that it wasn't a punishment, so it couldn't be considered ex post facto punishment. Wikipedia indicates the case that decided this was Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).
  - alaaibrahim 14y ago
    Wow, you do take public urination seriously :)
tzs 14y ago
Texas changed that law last year. Now if one partner is under 17 and one over, but they are four years or less apart in age, and the younger partner is at least 15, then consensual sex between the two is legal. People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list.
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  > People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list. No, listing is permanent. The background check companies never remove anything from their databases. In fact having a court purge an old conviction may make your life worse, since there is no longer an official record of the insignificance of the crime, just a private database that says CRIMINAL, CRIMINAL!

by sudonim 14y ago

nhebb 14y ago

The same situation happened to a family member of mine. He was 19 and his girlfriend was 17. Her dad got mad at him one night, called the cops, and had him arrested for statutory rape. He is now a registered sex offender. They went on dating and several years later got engaged. The relationship fell through, and they never did get married. But if they had, he would have been a registered sex offender for having sex with his wife. Granted, there's a timing issue, but it does show how tragically absurd some of these cases are.

cantankerous 14y ago
I'm not sure about your locale, but I know in my state you can petition the courts to have yourself removed from the sex offenders registry. It's a case-by-case thing, but it gives some hope to people like your family member, people who got busted for public urination, and other people who probably shouldn't be grouped in the same category as pedophiles.
- koide 14y ago
  I'm sorry, but in the US public urination puts you on the sex offenders registry? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at those urolagnic law writers.
  - Johngibb 14y ago
    Peeing in a park where there could has been children can put you on the list, with the rationale being that while urinating in public you're also potentially exposing yourself to children. It's definitely outrageous that it's on the same scale, but it's not like peeing on a dark alleyway at 3 am will do it.
    - koide 14y ago
      I did some light research about the subject after I stopped laughing and crying. It seems like it depends on the state, there are 13 states that have the "public urination leads to sex offense" regulation. Of those only 2 states have the "near a minor" clause. So 11 states can put you there for peeing in public, no strings attached. On those, you would be at the mercy of the police officers that catch you. Also, I found out that the reason for the "public urination is a sex offense" is not urolagnia (at least it's not overt urolagnia), but a means to deter the flashers' defense "I was peeing, officer." Not sure it makes a lot of sense. Disclaimer: As I said, this was light research on the topic, so there might be errors. Sources were mostly Straightdope forums and the Wikipedia, IIRC.
      - jahmed 14y ago
        I tend to agree with getting put on some kind of shame list if you get caught urinating in public though. If you're regularly getting caught pissing in bushes you are obviously really bad at not having people see you pissing in bushes.
        koide 14y ago
        I'm not opposed to what you say, the big problem I expect you agree with is mixing (and thus equating) the "urinators" with the rapists.
- Torgo 14y ago
  While this helps, unfortunately there is a burgeoning business of websites that scrape offender lists and re-publish them, and will not remove your name unless you pay them money. There weas one a while back that would actually contact people on the list threatening to put up flyers in their neighborhood unless you paid. Note that this is regardless if your status on the official list has changed. There is no substitute for keeping people off these lists if they never should have been on them in the first place.

watty 14y ago

It's not like his crime was hidden, you read it yourself. The only thing the 19 year old and a 40 year old who touches toddlers is that they both committed a sexual crime. Even though they are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum it's still true.

Falling3 14y ago
No... one is abhorrent and takes a significant toll on someone too young to know what is even happening. The other is sex between to consenting, able-minded people. Conflating the two is dangerous, offensive, and just plain stupid.
- watty 14y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. It's also possible for someone to map everyone with felonies, is this inherently wrong? Someone with marijuana possession is certainly not the same as a serial killer but the website isn't making that conclusion. If you disagree that having sex with a 16 year old as an 18 year old should be a sexual crime then perhaps you should fight the law itself.
sophacles 14y ago
The gp poster is one of a very enlightened few. There was a person in a similar situation in my area for a while. Someone found him on the registry, and he was subsequently banned from several organizations he was previously considered a valuable member of. By this time he was in his late 20s and talking to some of the shriller voices against them, I realized they didn't understand the difference between something he did at 19 and something he wouldn't do at 28. They just assumed he was after their 13 year old daughters and nothing else. Ruined a lot of his ability to participate in society. Similarly, there are many, many employers who will dismiss any chance for job based on mere presence on the list. No questions, no mitigating circumstance. This is a punishment that is life-long, goes far beyond the crime, and honestly, leaves little recourse for the offender to become a drain on society, or turn to further crimes just to get by. (blast me for being a stupid hippy liberal if you want, but explain how we expect someone to get a job if we deny them the ability to get a job without saying "just get a job").

parfe 14y ago

>I remember seeing one guy who was in the sex offender database because when he was 19, he had sex with a 17 year old. The age of consent in Texas is 17 with a 3 year Romeo and Juliet exception.

dllthomas 14y ago
The incident could have happened in another jurisdiction.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Interesting that Texas, arguably one of the most rigidly Christian states in the country with evidence of moral legislation, is actually reasonable in this regard. Rich makes a lot of assertions about fundamental Christians, but provides little evidence to back them up.
- seanalltogether 14y ago
  It has more to do with old farming lifestyles and young marriages. Colorado and I believe Kansas have the same clauses.
  - wheels 14y ago
    That's false. Statutory rape does not apply to married couples, and minors can get married with parental consent and / or a court order. I'd also call bullshit on this anecdote and most of the ones in this thread: the most common age of consent in the US is 16, not 18 and specifically, in Texas, it's 17, meaning that there are two different ways that this particular story doesn't add up.
    - uxp 14y ago
      The act could have happened months before hand, just after the guy turned 19 and the girl was still 16, or in a jurisdiction that ignores the Romeo and Juliet clause. Or the entire thing could have happened years before when he was 17 and she was 15, with the parents only finding out about it after she turned 16 and the investigation another year later turned up evidence to support that theory. Also, the GP to this thread never stated that the guy would be a convicted statutory rapist for sleeping with his wife, but that he would have been a statutory rapist who's victim is the person who is now his wife. There's plenty of ways this could have worked to the guy's disadvantage. There's really only one way it can be false.

nostromo 14y ago

Overzealous prosecutors have also charged teens that "sext" other teens with possession of child pornography. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/sexting-surprise-teens-face-child-porn-charges/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_scien...) We've ended up in the odd place that a teen in possession of pictures of his or her own body is breaking an incredibly grim law.

vacri 14y ago
Ironically in some jurisdictions prostitution is illegal but making porn is legal, so in a reverse of your comment, an illegal act can become legal by simply filming it.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I don't think it's that simple. IANAL but AFAIK it works like this. Prostitution is illegal, therefor paying someone to have sex with you while filming it would also be illegal. In porn, two people have sex consensual sex with each other for free. A third party pays the couple for the rights to record the event and commercially exploit the recording (that in theory might have happened anyway).
  - 385668 14y ago
    Actually, the argument is that prostitution is illegal because it's immoral, and porn though effectively the same thing is also immoral but protected under the first amendment. Hiring a prostitute and recording it is legal so long as you intend to distribute it.
darkarmani 14y ago
How is that overzealous? That's exactly why the CP laws are crazy.

vasco 14y ago

I've heard a similar story about a guy who was drunk and pissed in a playground in the middle of the night.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ineedtosleep 14y ago

The Economist had an article about this a while back. Pretty eye opening when I first read it: http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

logn 14y ago

(Regarding the US) I had a friend who went streaking on campus and was picked up by police. He got off of the charges on a technicality but almost was convicted. Had he been, he would have had to register as a sex offender. Same goes for public urination. We have a pretty insane system. I'm not sure the general public could ever follow a nuanced argument like this to understand it though. We usually legislate like fundamentalist mothers with an IQ of 80.

HarryHirsch 14y ago
Indeed. In a functional society the district attorney would decline to prosecute as there is no benefit to society in going after a public urinator, streaker, or sexting teenage couple. But here in the US a politician has to be "tough on crime" or work for the "benefit of the children".
- 385668 14y ago
  True, however, most prosecutors are trying to get high conviction rates, and don't care about the good to society.
  - Zakharov 14y ago
    Wouldn't that deter prosecutors from going after relatively minor crimes that are less likely to lead to a conviction?
    - 385668 14y ago
      Not really, a plea bargain resulting in any punishment at all counts as a conviction for the prosecutor. A case like CP or cocaine possession which are in most jurisdictions basically straight liability crimes are very nearly guaranteed convictions. Plus, it never looks bad for a prosecutor to have convicted a child pornographer when it comes time to run for re-election. And not prosecuting such a case would lead to ads run against you saying that you're soft on child rapists.

darklajid 14y ago

Excuse me, I don't mean to accuse or judge. Why are you checking that database in the first place? In my world your access to this information is the reason for its right to exist in your social context. I doubt that it's possible to check these lists and criticize them at the same time. What lead you to check it out?

lotharbot 14y ago
> "I doubt that it's possible to check these lists and criticize them at the same time." It's quite reasonable to find value in the lists of dangerous sex offenders, while criticizing the inclusion of people for trivial offenses.
Klinky 14y ago
It is not strange for someone moving to an area to check out the sex offender registry here in the US, especially if someone has children. Anyone can check the registry out at anytime @ http://www.nsopw.gov http://www.nsopw.gov as well as other websites. There are legitimately dangerous people on the sex offender registry. There are also people who are on there due to dubious reasons, e.g. being drunk and peeing in public or having sex with their girlfriend while under a certain age.
- darklajid 14y ago
  Okay, this 'not strange' is obviously something tied to local social norms and values, I guess. I retract the implied contradiction between checking the list and complaining about the content. That said, it probably is impossible to understand the reasons for its existence or the need to check out a neighborhood like this without growing up in a culture like that.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    How do you feel about skimming maps of criminal activity? I have, in the past, used maps of homicides/burglaries/assault to help determine where in town I'm going to live. That hardly seems strange in any way to me, and sexual predators is just another type of this kind of map.

alaaibrahim 14y ago

I'm sorry, I don't live in the US so maybe I don't really understand, but why do these websites even exist. If someone is a dangerous sex offender, he shouldn't even be in the streets. If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life?

erichocean 14y ago
If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life? In fact, he didn't "do the time", because part of the punishiment is a life-long listing in the sex offender registries. If you'd rather, you can think of it this way: sexual offenses in the US carry a mandatory life-sentence, with some of that sentence being time spent in jail.
- Torgo 14y ago
  Last I knew, it was justified under public safety. People who had already been sentenced and served their time in the past had been listed on newly-created sex offender lists. Court ruled that it wasn't a punishment, so it couldn't be considered ex post facto punishment. Wikipedia indicates the case that decided this was Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).
- alaaibrahim 14y ago
  Wow, you do take public urination seriously :)

tzs 14y ago

Texas changed that law last year. Now if one partner is under 17 and one over, but they are four years or less apart in age, and the younger partner is at least 15, then consensual sex between the two is legal. People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list.

Daniel_Newby 14y ago
> People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list. No, listing is permanent. The background check companies never remove anything from their databases. In fact having a court purge an old conviction may make your life worse, since there is no longer an official record of the insignificance of the crime, just a private database that says CRIMINAL, CRIMINAL!