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
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?
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.
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.
Cervetus on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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.
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.
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.
moniker on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
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).
Posts
Running through town naked isn't public nudity and indecency?
Short answer; yes.
Non-sequitors are relevant since when?
And?
The punishment .... uh ... the punishment doesn't fit ... the crime? Is that right?
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.
Is your problem the punishment or the existence of a criminal statute at all which is against running around naked?
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.
It's just that now you can be branded a pedophile for it.
I think my brain just vomited.
It's the only way to be sure.
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.
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.
Public baths might help, too. For example, Japan has public baths, and seems to lack any sense of decency.
The FCC doesn't have any control over cable, just broadcast. That's all self-censorship.
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.
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.
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?
And, they're a terrible idea for all the reasons feral et al brought up at the start of the thread.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
What the hell is your obseesion with Lady Godiva?
...um the last one? Its the only one that involves sex at all?
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.
:winky:
To whom?
Sensible twenty-somethings, I'd assume.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Actually, there have been arrests of 13 year olds for sleeping with 14 year old girls. The enforcement really is quite insane.
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.
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.