Sex Offenders in Georgia

[billvon 3,120]

>but I cannot understand why we don't keep the registry but
>simply limit sex offender status to those who have committed
>sexual assaults, child molestation...etc?

Politically? Because if you tried to do that, your political opponent would start an ad campaign saying "Senator Joe Smith is defending sex offenders, and wants to put them in your neighborhood."

Practically? "those who present a risk" is difficult to quantify. Is someone who killed a cop, but got a reduced sentence because they turned evidence on someone else, really less of a risk to a child than someone who had sex with a 16 year old girl that came on to him? If you're the parent of the 16 year old, perhaps.

The only way we have of quantifying it now is via our justice system, where a judge and a jury decide such matters. If someone presents that much of a risk, don't release him - but we have to use the system we have to decide who fits that mold. It's not perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far.

[Nightingale 0]

Well, in some jurisdictions there aren't degrees of indecent exposure. The guy streaking across the quad in front of a 17 year old college freshman and the guy who exposes himself deliberately to a four year old sometimes are convicted of the same crime. Is the first guy a sex offender? probably not. Is the second guy a sex offender? probably.

The only way I can think of to even things out is to have a special circumstance of "sex offense" and define it as "a sexually based willful act that has caused physical, mental, or emotional harm or distress upon the victim." That definition implies that (a) there must actually be a victim and (b) the actions of the offender harmed the victim in some way and (c) the crime must be sexually based and (d) the offender has to know what he's doing. In the first situation I described above, while the 17 year old witness could, in theory, be considered a victim, as long as no harm took place and the victim wasn't traumatized by the incident, it wouldn't be a sex offense, especially as frat boys streaking across a quad really has nothing to do with sex. So, even if this guy's convicted of indecent exposure, it wasn't a sex crime. In the second scenario, the four year old would be considered a victim, and was probably traumatized by the incident, and that kind of indecent exposure usually has sexual motivations, so it would be a sex offense and, once convicted, the defendant would be required to register.

The example someone else gave (Brie?) regarding a guy who bought porn with a 17 year old actress, if he knew the actress was 17, he should be convicted of purchasing and possession of contraband, or however the state has defined it. If the video was made in a country where 17 is a legal age to be in porn movies, you have no victim, so no sex offense. If the video was made in a jurisdiction where 17 year olds in porn movies is illegal, you do have a victim who was presumably harmed by the situation (a 17 year old couldn't consent), a knowing purchase of porn containing a minor, and a crime of a sexual nature, so it would be a sex offense. So, in this case "I didn't know she was 17" would actually be a defense, provided the prosecution can't prove otherwise.