Talk:Sex offender registry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Sex offender registration)
Jump to: navigation, search

no title ?[edit]

You can also search for registered sex offenders in your area. The registry allows you to search by name, address, city, state, or zip code.

For the general public, this is true in some locations. In other locations, the police have access to sex offender registration information but the general public does not. Seksinfo 15:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a source for that quote at the end? It sounds implausible (ludicrous). Of course, some sex offenders pick up stranger victims in public. I have no idea if so-called 'predator-free zones' are a realistic way to address that, but the fact is that kidnapping and sex offenses are not mutually exclusive at all. 24.131.12.228 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

proposed merge[edit]

I'm OK with merging the two articles. The material in this article needs some cleaning. Herostratus 05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be either expanded to include non-US material or merged. I favor expansion but merge is better than leaving it alone. Dfpc 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Even better - collect all articles that deal with sexual and violent offender registration together into one category, then create a "base" article on offender registration and individual articles that are topic-specific. See the links in the See Also section for a partial list of affected articles. Dfpc 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles makes sense when one or both or the related articles are relatively short. But as I have noticed, when an article gets long, it tends to be split, with conspicuous links between them. Both these articles are quite long, and therefore belong separate. Of course, there is always room for expanding or otherwise improving any article. Shaliya waya 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Additional international material needed[edit]

I've recently added info about Canada's National Sex Offender Registry, but I'd like to see submissions concerning the NSORs that exist in Australia, Great Britain, Ireland, and South Africa. Further, the information that has already been posted should clarify which country's SORs the material is referring to. For example, only the USA has SORs that are searchable on the Internet. Canuck55 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The section Civil/Constitutional Rights Argument seems to be heavily biased. The sentence here I think best exemplifies it:

"Poltics and fear-mongering play heavily into the sex offender argument and the result is bad laws being passed though the intentions were noble."

Stuff like the above are too subjective to be proferred by an encyclopedia article as fact. Cornince 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

yes that should be removed, but that was probably written because of the lack of a criticism section 216.113.96.40 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Significant cleanup April 26, 2007, more work to be done[edit]

Added sections, tags, links, and some content. Still needs supporting links and more international content. Dfpc 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of expansion of sex offender registration laws[edit]

The article just barely touches of the controversy of legislatures expanding the criteria for who must register as a sex offender. Some states have expanded the criteria for who must register as a sex offender in such as way as to cause teens convicted of having sex with other teens or people cited for crimes not involving children to have to register as sex offender thus labeling them as dangers to children. Thus some have criticized the expansion of said laws and urged that crimes sex crimes not involving children be exempt from registration such as teen on teen sex, someone of college age convicted of having sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, people busted for public urination or a prank of flashing/public nudity. This article could use more information on the controversy. I did have some links to interesting newspaper articles on the subject which I will try to locate. If I can locate them I will see about adding something on the issue to the article. --Cab88 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Sources source: http://hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/us0907web.pdf Article is POV, but summarizes many things related to this with references. References are very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.116.38 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised that Patty Wetterling's criticism didn't appear in the article at all, and have added it to the "Past, Present, Future" section. Also, I noticed that said section needs some additional information (where is the Jessica Lunsford Act mentioned?) and maybe some rewriting. It is very clunky and not in chronological order.

teenage boys v/s girls[edit]

taking out the following statement

Teenage girls are charged with "sexual delinquency" more often than teenage boys are.[1]

The source is a paper on an obviously POV website of "Association of Libertarian Feminists" and the paper says exactly this much about the subject.

"Sexual delinquency" charges are brought against young girls far more often than against boys.

It doesn't have any statistical evidence or even a pointer to a particular reference. There is a list of reference readings of about 5-6 publications, which have equally POV titles and no URLs to go and read the text. If someone finds the source statistics for this statement, then he/she should put this statement back in with the better citation, hopefully making it more specific. As of my current knowledge, the only way it can go in is with a prelude like ... "A paper published by the Association of Libertarian Feminists claims that..." which then becomes rather useless for the article. --Spundun (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

References

demographics of sex offenders.[edit]

Took out the following statement from Sex offender registration#Effectiveness_and_Consequences

Although female sex offenders are often sensationalized in the news media, the vast majority of sex offenders registered are male.

The statement is unrelated to the section. The original poster(an IP address) of the text intended it as a discussion of the demographics of the offenders and also wrote it in a POV maner without citation here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_offender_registration&diff=20177433&oldid=17245344

Although a couple of women sex offenders have been sensationalized in the news lately, the vast majority of sex offenders registered are men (about 99%). Various races in various neighborhoods are represented by the registered offenders in the United States including blacks, whites, and Hispanics, but hardly any Arabians and very few Asians.

--Spundun (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC) There is also a note when talking about the effectiveness that says a citation is needed regarding the claim that most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. I know that on [1] it notes that 73% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by a non-stranger and it cites a study from the DOJ. The study it cites is fairly long so I haven't had a chance to read all of it and verify it though. O76923 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

how to utilise this my research on this subject ?[edit]

  • Eight attorneys general sent a letter to MySpace today, asking it to turn over the names of sex offenders who use the site.

The law enforcement officials from Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania also asked MySpace to provide details on what it has done to alert other MySpace users who have communicated with these offenders.


  • Free national US search for registered sex offenders.

Map registered sex offenders to see who lives in your area.

National Sex Offender Registry

  • CriminalCheck.com is the only that searches all states (and the District of Columbia) with one-click. ...

FREE National Sex Offender database site

What exactly are you trying to ask? Daivox (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

criticism[edit]

At first blush, this entire article, and most of the discussion, seems to be critical of the sex offender registries. Has anyone bothered to actually read the state laws in question?

Missouri law requires registration for felony sexual offenses, and misdemeanor sexual offenses which involved an offender over 21 and a child under the age of 14. No "teen on teen" sex, as the statutory sex offenses do not criminalize these acts; and no misdemeanor offenses which involved adult victims. "Mooning" is not a sex offense, as it does not involve intentional exposure of the genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification; and (therefore) would not be an offense which imposed registration or residency restrictions.

Sex offenders may not live within 1000' of a school or daycare facility; they may not be present on school grounds (without the permission of the superindendent) or a park with playground equipment.

If you believe these statutes violate anyone's civil liberties, you must surely agree that laws which ban felons from possessing firearms are also unconstitutional. Sutton39 (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

(Belated side comment) Yes, the US federal laws that ban felons convicted in state courts from possessing firearms are likely unconstitutional because the US Constitution does not provide the authority for the US Congress to pass such laws. Any authority not specifically granted to the US government via the constitution was explicitly reserved to the states. The states do have the authority to pass such laws, of course, unless limited by their own state constitutions. Etamni | ✉   20:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
I'm no amateur constitutional judge, but the article should contain some reference to how such laws are considered in the view of international human rights laws. For instance the European Court of Human Rights mentioned here.[2] Nemo 23:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some cases where people have ended up on the SOR for things like streaking, public urination and teen sex. Have you heard of the case a few months ago of Christian Adamek, an Alabama high school football star who committed suicide because he was going to be placed on the Alabama SOR for streaking on the field before the game? The British and Irish sex offender registries (which have no living restrictions and aren't even available to the general public) are a huge controversy in the European Union and Germany and Italy argue that the British and Irish registries are a human rights violation. If Britain and Ireland's SORs are such an international controversy, heaven only knows what foreign nations would think of our far tougher registries. Alas, do you think that dealing with a firearm ban is remotely the same as dealing with human zoning laws banning you and your family (yeah, the wife and kids of the RSO have to deal with the registry and living restrictions too, it's not just the sex offender who's suffering) from 99% of cities and dealing with neighbors who will pass your picture from the registry all over the neighborhood? Hell, the living restrictions pretty much force sex offenders to all live in the exact same area as each other, and I'd be willing to bet that forcing all of a local area's RSOs to live next door and across the street from each other would make them more likely to reoffend. You know, because once they all live across the street from each other, they can trade kiddy porn, talk about their sexual urges with each other, encourage each other to reoffend, etc. ---- Excellentman9999

Rewrite/clean up and split?[edit]

This article is kind of mess ATM. It might be good idea to write separate article for sex offender laws in US and clean up this one only to vaguely describe the systems used in different countries. If someone wants to do it, this is good review article comparing registries used in other countries with in depth evaluation of pros and cons of all aspects of US sex offender laws: Sex offender laws in the United States: smart policy or disproportionate sanctions?

I splitted the US section and copied the sections below it to Sex offender registries in the United States as they are cover almost entirely US registries. There is still some overlapping with the two articles that might need some cleaning up. ViperFace (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a good split -- the article was pretty lengthy and the split was at a logical place. I think the projects that have tagged this page would likely be interested in the new page, but will leave that decision to those associated with said projects. Etamni | ✉   02:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I was bit nervous since I have never splitted an article before. I added project tags from this page and also WikiProject Law- tag on the new talk page. Hopefully it gains some attention. I'll probably expand and clean up the new article at some point. ViperFace (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sex offender registry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Expiry[edit]

There are a couple of states mentioned that require "lifetime registry" requirements. However I thought sex offender registry listing was lifetime. Maybe a paragraph should be added to indicate if there is in fact an expiry period for at least certain listings. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex offender registry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

'When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court' NYT link[edit]

Here's a link to a recent, 2017-09-12, New York Times op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html

--196.251.88.15 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I just read the article and would like to comment: Content in the lead "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". Along with that is MOS:LEADCITE that sets the criteria for citations in the lead. It has become a defacto community standard to follow that content in the lead is only a summary of the content found in the body of the article that must follow policies and guidelines. This means that "if" citations are deemed important there should not be a need for citation overkill yet the fourth paragraph has a sentence with six listed references. I didn't look at the history but the barrage of references has usually been shown to be just refbombing and takes away from the look of the article. Otr500 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
On another note I was led to Sex offender registries in the United States and realized US state coverage is inadequate. Otr500 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)