Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Megan's Laws - Out of Control?

135

Posts

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So I was at a party tonight where this topic came up briefly, turns out one of my best friends used to work in this policy area back home and was instrumental in stopping NZ adopting such a sex register. That is pretty cool I must say, to see that a friend has had a part to play in making the country slightly less messed up

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    Fubear wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    TRICorp wrote: »

    They also gave them ample warning. I belive the PD gave a public statement saying "yeah we know the run is going to happen and its fine, but if we see any junk/vag your getting arrested" Gstrings are cool though.

    That doesn't make it right. If i the police warn you that eating wheat on a sunday is a crime, that doesn't absolve them of the sin arresting you for it.

    Does breaking the law being a tradition make it less criminal?

    Legal and illegal don't always correspond with right and wrong, respectively.

    I love America! Nowhere else can public urination be construed as sexual. I thought that was strictly the realm of ze Germans.

    Running through town naked isn't public nudity and indecency?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    If Lady Godiva rode by an elementary school on a white horse, somehow I think the children inside would survive the experience.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Does breaking the law being a tradition make it less criminal?

    Short answer; yes.
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Fubear wrote: »

    Legal and illegal don't always correspond with right and wrong, respectively.



    Running through town naked isn't public nudity and indecency?

    Non-sequitors are relevant since when?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    If Lady Godiva rode by an elementary school on a white horse, somehow I think the children inside would survive the experience.

    And?

    tea-1.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    If Lady Godiva rode by an elementary school on a white horse, somehow I think the children inside would survive the experience.

    And?

    The punishment .... uh ... the punishment doesn't fit ... the crime? Is that right?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    If Lady Godiva rode by an elementary school on a white horse, somehow I think the children inside would survive the experience.

    I don't see where that applies.

    Lady Godiva was royalty. She could do whatever the hell she wanted.

    These people were breaking the law and were warned not to. It's not on the level of a sexual offense but it's still breaking the law.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    If Lady Godiva rode by an elementary school on a white horse, somehow I think the children inside would survive the experience.

    And?

    The punishment .... uh ... the punishment doesn't fit ... the crime? Is that right?

    Is your problem the punishment or the existence of a criminal statute at all which is against running around naked?

    tea-1.jpg
  • Mongrel IdiotMongrel Idiot Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Shit, if I'm not careful I'll wind up on those lists; I fairly regularly take a leak in a clump of trees when I'm biking home from the bar.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Shit, if I'm not careful I'll wind up on those lists; I fairly regularly take a leak in a clump of trees when I'm biking home from the bar.

    I used to be worried about that too... I'd drive to and from Burlington pretty frequently, and at that time of night, the rest areas (and most of the gas stations) were closed.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'm fairly sure everyone has peed on a bush or a tree a few times in their lives.

    It's just that now you can be branded a pedophile for it.

    Spoiler:
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Because when someone is peeing into a bush they aren't relieving themselves but instead hanging their penises out to catch children, like an angler fish.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    If I'd only known now what I'd known then, I wouldn't have read that line and created the subsequent mental image.

    I think my brain just vomited.

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • agoajagoaj Hey You Pichu I don't like your girlfriendRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Clearly we should expand these laws so that everyone is on the list.
    It's the only way to be sure.

    aqOYSK0.gif
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    If Lady Godiva rode by an elementary school on a white horse, somehow I think the children inside would survive the experience.

    And?

    The punishment .... uh ... the punishment doesn't fit ... the crime? Is that right?

    No it's not right in the least.

    The punishment for Public indecency is a fine. Probably in lieu of jail time. That's perfectly acceptable.


    What's wrong is some states making it a sex crime when sex isn't involved at all.

  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Does breaking the law being a tradition make it less criminal?

    Short answer; yes.

    The Pumpkin Run has been going on as long as I've been in Boulder and people have never been arrested for it until this year. So, in a sense, yes, the fact that it is a tradition and hasn't been punished before does make the whole thing kind of bullshit.

    Plus, I wouldn't consider what the BPD did ample warning. Their "ample warning" certainly wasn't ample enough as a friend of mine who has participated in the Pumpkin Run for many years was incredibly surprised to see cops at the end arresting people. I'm not sure how they distributed their "ample warning", but it didn't seem ample enough. Also, from what I read, the Chief of police said something along the lines that he wouldn't send officers out specifically to bust runners, but that any police officer would be obligated to cite for public indecency if they saw it and then, suddenly, more than two dozen police officers are camped out at the traditional end of the run.

    LASTLY, it is bullshit that a conviction would land these people on a list of sex offenders. The Pumpkin Run is intentionally done very late at night so that they only people who could possibly see it are adults. So, not only is there no sex involved, but there's probably no kids involved either.

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    If the FCC allowed nudity on basic cable TV, would America's views on nudity relax? TV is our great teacher, after all.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    If the FCC allowed nudity on basic cable TV, would America's views on nudity relax? TV is our great teacher, after all.

    Public baths might help, too. For example, Japan has public baths, and seems to lack any sense of decency.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    If the FCC allowed nudity on basic cable TV, would America's views on nudity relax? TV is our great teacher, after all.

    The FCC doesn't have any control over cable, just broadcast. That's all self-censorship.

    tea-1.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It isn't even a good idea to begin with, even if you restricted it to actual child predators.

    There are absolutely some good reasons to have some kind of a list for a certain set of offenses. We need to make it easy for schools to not end up hiring teachers, or even janitors, who just got out of jail for kidnapping and diddling children.

    The issue is that too many offenses count, and it is all incredibly public and permanent.

    georgersig.jpg
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User
    edited August 2009
    That would show up on a regular background check, anyway.

    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    That's just insulting, I think DBZ is bad but I'm not going to insinuate that it only appeals to people who are equal parts retards and psychopaths.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    That would show up on a regular background check, anyway.

    having some kind of registry makes it more difficult for folks to change their identites, because there is more of a trail.

    The current registry is ABSOLUTELY flawed in it's implimentation, I'm just disagreeing with the notion that there shouldn't ever be anything at all. I think that restricting hardened pedophiles from living across the street from a school is a good idea. However, like everyone else here, I think that opening a dude who pee'd on a tree to public vigilantism is not.

    georgersig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Well, lets reign in these offenses and draw some lines.

    Lady Godiva riding by on a white horse in the nude. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, stopping to pee in some tall grass. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, repeatedly plunging a dildo deep into her person in public. Sex offender list or no?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Presumably it is more difficult to get a felony off of a background check than just filing a name change. If a guy can do enough to change his identity that he won't show up as a felony convict at all, he probably isn't going to get found on the sex offender registry either.

    And, they're a terrible idea for all the reasons feral et al brought up at the start of the thread.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Well, lets reign in these offenses and draw some lines.

    Lady Godiva riding by on a white horse in the nude. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, stopping to pee in some tall grass. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, repeatedly plunging a dildo deep into her person in public. Sex offender list or no?

    What the hell is your obseesion with Lady Godiva?

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Well, lets reign in these offenses and draw some lines.

    Lady Godiva riding by on a white horse in the nude. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, stopping to pee in some tall grass. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, repeatedly plunging a dildo deep into her person in public. Sex offender list or no?

    ...um the last one? Its the only one that involves sex at all?

    Quire.jpg
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Well, lets reign in these offenses and draw some lines.

    Lady Godiva riding by on a white horse in the nude. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, stopping to pee in some tall grass. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, repeatedly plunging a dildo deep into her person in public. Sex offender list or no?

    ...um the last one? Its the only one that involves sex at all?
    If she did it specifically in front of children or something like that I'd support her going on a sex offender registry maybe, but even then it is kind of iffy.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Well, lets reign in these offenses and draw some lines.

    Lady Godiva riding by on a white horse in the nude. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, stopping to pee in some tall grass. Sex offender list or no?

    Lady Godiva, still nude, repeatedly plunging a dildo deep into her person in public. Sex offender list or no?

    ...um the last one? Its the only one that involves sex at all?
    If she did it specifically in front of children or something like that I'd support her going on a sex offender registry maybe, but even then it is kind of iffy.

    Well if the sex offender list is intended to be used for any type of sex crime then that's probably a sex crime, but if its intended to protect people from rapists and child molesters then while weird and inappropriate it is in no way dangerous to others. Either way the list has far exceeded its bounds.

    Quire.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Ok, so the feeling is public masturbation will put you on a sex offender list. See? That wasn't so hard. But I'm also trying to show how these kinds of lists can become so puffed up and out of control. So being nude in public isn't a sex crime but public masturbation is. So if a naked guy ran up to you on the street and demonstrated his best goatse maneuver, that wouldn't be a sex crime? He's being indecent, sure, but a fine feels too lenient if he's caught later. Maybe when you're a lawmaker and you sit down and try to dissect all this madness, it's easier just to ban all public nudity and assume they're nude for sexual reasons.

    What the hell is your obseesion with Lady Godiva?

    :winky:

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    But I'm also trying to show how these kinds of lists can become so puffed up and out of control.

    To whom?

    tea-1.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    But I'm also trying to show how these kinds of lists can become so puffed up and out of control.

    To whom?

    Sensible twenty-somethings, I'd assume.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    it's easier just to ban all public nudity and assume they're nude for sexual reasons.

    And all legislation should be based on doing whatever is easiest?

    let me remind you that there is no political draft. We do not have scared 18 year olds sitting in the legislative trenches, just trying to survive so they can go home to see their mothers. The folks doing this work not only VOLUNTEERED for it, but generally put in a whole lot of effort to make sure that they got the job and all other candidates didn't.

    I think they can manage to not just take the "easy" route through things.

    georgersig.jpg
  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    But I'm also trying to show how these kinds of lists can become so puffed up and out of control.

    To whom?

    Sensible twenty-somethings, I'd assume.

    I'm fairly sure that anybody with any lick of common sense, not just young people, would be outraged to hear about how many people are wrongfully put on the pedo list.

    Spoiler:
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Presumably it is more difficult to get a felony off of a background check than just filing a name change. If a guy can do enough to change his identity that he won't show up as a felony convict at all, he probably isn't going to get found on the sex offender registry either.

    And, they're a terrible idea for all the reasons feral et al brought up at the start of the thread.

    Feral's reasoning deals with the general, not the specific. Big picture, rather than little.

    It is also entirely sound. I agree that the sex offender registry, in it's current form, promotes recidivism, which is one of many reasons why it is bad.



    But that does not mean that ANY sex offender registry is bad, regardless of parameters. In my opinion, it's the parameters that are the issue. I believe that less offenses should count towards it, there should be some amount of recourse for being removed from it, and something (and I honestly don't know what at the moment) needs to be done for privacy concerns.

    There IS some amount of value in having a registry, though. When the costs of a thing outweigh its benefits, that doesn't mean that you should scrap it right off, it means you should try to rejigger it to either lower costs or raise benefits, if possible. High costs might make something a bad idea, in the end, but they do not negate the existence of the lower benefits.

    georgersig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Wait, can you even be removed from the sex offender list? People in this thread say you're branded for life.

    The way I see it, if a 19 year old is taking topless photos of his 17 year old girlfriend and is put on the sex offender list for possessing underage pornography, talk to a judge, do a little community service, and get a psych evaluation suggesting he's not a danger to people. Then he may be removed from the list. Is there a downside in doing that?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    What value? We don't need a murderer's registry, or a robber's registry, to help society deal with those people being reintroduced to society. It doesn't provide any information that you can't get from a standard background check. Sex offender registries aren't accomplishing anything other than ostracizing the offenders and providing a convenient political bogeyman.

    If we are so concerned that these people are going to imminently re-offend that we need a specific public list of their names, they should still be in prison (or mental institution, w/e.) There's no policy goal being accomplished here.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Wait, can you even be removed from the sex offender list? People in this thread say you're branded for life.

    The way I see it, if a 19 year old is taking topless photos of his 17 year old girlfriend and is put on the sex offender list for possessing underage pornography, talk to a judge, do a little community service, and get a psych evaluation suggesting he's not a danger to people. Then he may be removed from the list. Is there a downside in doing that?

    Actually, there have been arrests of 13 year olds for sleeping with 14 year old girls. The enforcement really is quite insane.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Well, that seems pretty ludicrous.Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    What value? We don't need a murderer's registry, or a robber's registry, to help society deal with those people being reintroduced to society. It doesn't provide any information that you can't get from a standard background check. Sex offender registries aren't accomplishing anything other than ostracizing the offenders and providing a convenient political bogeyman.

    If we are so concerned that these people are going to imminently re-offend that we need a specific public list of their names, they should still be in prison (or mental institution, w/e.) There's no policy goal being accomplished here.

    Sex offenders in many states have to report where they live and update it every time they move. That's more than a background check or a public list of names does. I guess the policy behind it is that the public (and law enforcement) want to know where these offenders are living.

    NOPE.
    Vd0n7Bk.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    What value? We don't need a murderer's registry, or a robber's registry, to help society deal with those people being reintroduced to society. It doesn't provide any information that you can't get from a standard background check. Sex offender registries aren't accomplishing anything other than ostracizing the offenders and providing a convenient political bogeyman.

    If we are so concerned that these people are going to imminently re-offend that we need a specific public list of their names, they should still be in prison (or mental institution, w/e.) There's no policy goal being accomplished here.

    Evander specifically said a private list.

    I'm not so sure that having a 'usual suspects' sort of database that only cops can see is that terrible an idea. Particularly if it is limited to truly violent crimes and is tied in with parole requirements &c. There are people who are more likely to re-offend and who should have tabs kept on them. With or without those bracelet things.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    You can apply to have you name removed. Honestly the sex offender register is so bloated with trivia that it really missed the point it was trying to accomplish (what is that point, please inform me cause I have not a clue).

    steam_sig.png
This discussion has been closed.