It's going to vary from state to state, sure, but still there's places where being caught urinating public could result in you being put on a registry for at least some period of time. And even off of that registry most job applications will require you to note if you've ever been convicted of a crime and that time as a "sex offender" would come up on a background search. Registry or no.
There needs to be a more universal system of seperating people who are true offenders and those people who simply have done a lot less.
Those men who were actually caught messing with children, sure, put them on a registry. Because they ARE the ones we need to look out for and need to keep our children from. But these "Megan's Law" registries don't do that. They lump everyone in the same category. "Sex Offender"
And it really needs to look at the difference between a 20-year-old man caught with a 17-year-old girl in a shared, serious, relationship and a 45-year-old man caught with an 8-year-old boy.
But as it is now both of those men are lumped in the same category and more or less treated exactly the same, at least in states that do not have "Romeo and Juliet Laws" that allow for near-age relationships to take place.
Posessing child pornography I'm on the fence on. On the one side it's that "outlet" that's maybe preventing that guy from going after a real child and the "damage" is already done in whomever took the photograph. The photo-taker we should be going after.
On the other hand, well, it's a child on the photograph.
There needs to be a more universal system of seperating people who are true offenders and those people who simply have done a lot less.
Those men who were actually caught messing with children, sure, put them on a registry. Because they ARE the ones we need to look out for and need to keep our children from. But these "Megan's Law" registries don't do that. They lump everyone in the same category. "Sex Offender"
And it really needs to look at the difference between a 20-year-old man caught with a 17-year-old girl in a shared, serious, relationship and a 45-year-old man caught with an 8-year-old boy.
But as it is now both of those men are lumped in the same category and more or less treated exactly the same, at least in states that do not have "Romeo and Juliet Laws" that allow for near-age relationships to take place.
Posessing child pornography I'm on the fence on. On the one side it's that "outlet" that's maybe preventing that guy from going after a real child and the "damage" is already done in whomever took the photograph. The photo-taker we should be going after.
On the other hand, well, it's a child on the photograph.
). But in America it seems bizarre and frankly outrageous that a prosecutor would do that.
