a nice twist on the sex offenders registry laws.

commit a robery with a child present... that constitutes false imprisonment of a minor.. and slaps you on the state's sex offender list
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories//2009/03/15/sex_offender_law_georgia.html

too bad they are trying to change the law to not include those cases...

How on earth is a robbery with a child present considered a sexual offense?

Yeah...I'd have to protest this one.

I could understand the endangerment of a child...but it has nothing to do with a sexual offense.

Maybe if the registry were a "child endangerment" or even "child predator"...but as long as it's a "sexual offender" list...it should not be included.

hopefully it would start to make perps think twice about ever EVER committing crimes.

LOL....and this is coming from Georgia...a state where you can marry your cousin.

Deank wrote:hopefully it would start to make perps think twice about ever EVER committing crimes.

No...it just belittles the victims who HAVE actually been assaulted sexually.

It makes the actual sex offender less "offensive" because everyone is getting charged with the crime instead of singling out those select few degenerates.

I'm not trying to condone committing crimes, and especially with children present...just trying to point out it's NOT a sexual offense...and should not be treated as such.

what is a sexual offense?

hell nowadays it can be considered sexual harrasement and assualt for whistling at a woman.


but back to the topic... what if the title was Dangerous offenders list.. and it followed the exact same rules as a sexual offender list?

then i'd be for it...as the rules would be applied differently.

I could understand if the criminal had been targeting a child in the attack...but just because one happens to be around does not make them a hazard to children directly...just to society in general.

the cases presented in the link are (of course) the extreme exception. Of a couple of guys who actually (may have) turned their lives around...or are trying to. And, fortunately for them, they did not actually kill anyone in the process of the crime...or I'd be arguing for a reason a bullet wasn't used instead of a sex offenders list.

My biggest concern with the sex offenders registry, is that it doesn't help the victims. Doesn't actually protect the public from the perceived targets...as too many resources are wasted tracking those who are NOT sexual predators, allowing those who are more freedom to recommit offenses.

A Dangerous Offenders list might require less tracking, and provide more versatility for training and employment...with better odds of rehabilitation (though still low)...because of the allowance of working in a wider range of positions.

Technically, a sexual offender would not be allowed to even work at McDonalds.
1) They are allowed to hire people under the age of 18.
2) Those with playgrounds host children's parties, or have children present.

A guy robbing a DQ is probably not much of a threat there...though I'm not sure I want him making my Big Mac. .

To hell with the list put them in jail or hang them in the case of children , hell take the time to be responable to the society you live in . There are far to many walking the streets cause people are to chicken s### to do something about it . If you want to have sex with a 4 yr old you are sick and should be dead . End of subject IMO .
If the peep commits a crime while the kid is with him , then he has endangered the child and should searve extra time . Not go on some list .

In the case in the article, it sounds like the guy has done his time. He's 36 and was convicted when he was 17. Putting him on a sexual offenders list is crap.

On the other hand, our Manitoba Child Abuse Registry is crap also. You need not even be charged let alone convicted and some bureaucrat can add you to the list. As far as working at McD's, I would hope that its their policy to check all employees through the registry.