i thought the registry existed to keep kids safe. so that the public would know if some1 who is known to cause harm to children is in the area.
As I understand it the sex offender registry exists to keep adults safe (or at least, aware) as well, since all categories of sex offenders are on it including those who have only committed sex crimes against adults, it's not limited to a registry of convicted pedophiles. There appears to be some confusion over the purpose of the registry, some seem to be thinking that it was specifically designed to protect children from violent adults whether the violence has sexual connotations or not. While this is true in a few states it doesn't apply to most of them because only people who have been specifically convicted of sex related offenses can be added to the registry.
In its current format in many states the registry generates more confusion and false sentiment of either security or insecurity than anything else. On the registry are people who have raped kids yes, but there are also people who aren't dangerous whatsoever such as this young mother from California who ended up on the registry for having emailed a picture of her naked newborn to her own mother. Heck, my parents have naked baby pictures of me, then I guess they should be on the registry, and probably most of your folks as well, maybe even yourselves. Would this make the world safer for kids? No but it probably would make it pretty confusing, as if it wasn't already.
What I see in this thread is a desire to have a readily accessible document that would list all individuals with criminal records whose background suggest they could be a threat to children, sexually AND otherwise.
I'm all for it, as long as these registries tell the whole case narrative so that we can make up our minds regarding the level of threat represented by each and any individual on the registry's list. If I see the mention "Child *advertiser censored*" next to Mrs Kaputnick's name without any further details and that Mrs Kaputnick happens to be my daughter's 3rd grade teacher, I will organize a PTA riot and hopefully drive Mrs Kaputnick out of the education system as well as out of town if she knows what's good for her. However, if the registry states that Mrs Kaputnick was convicted of possession of a picture of her own baby in the tub I don't think I would be as vindictive, in fact I might organize a riot in front of the DA's office instead.
Is it our desire to see Mrs Kaputnick executed? I hope not. But there are sicko vigilante types out there who'd kill her on the spot given the chance. It happened in my state, some deranged teen from Canada came here with the intention of killing everyone whose name appeared on the state's sex offender list, which was only 34 at the time but still, as many targets. He managed to shoot and kill two men before police cornered him at which point he blew his brains out with his .45 pistol. Ouch.
Before you hail him as a hero take time to consider that one one of his victims was a gentle, well-liked 24-year-old guy whose name was on that list because he had slept with his girlfriend when she was 3 days shy of her 16th birthday, which is the legal age for sex in Liberal yet charmingly conservative Massachusetts which is where the event had taken place, and he was 19. Apparently a jealous rival teen who was after the same girl had ratted them out. In many states this would not have been a crime at all, this kid was no danger to children, yet he was presumed evil and unfit to live. I do not think our society can benefit from this kind of "justice". Amend the sex offender registry, include full narratives so that we know who's dangerous from those who shouldn't even be on the registry. What if your kid ends on the registry for an idiotic reason? Who's going to protect them from the self-appointed vigilantes who'll assume they must be guilty of the most despicable of crimes?
Since many of those wacko vigilantes are only after those whose names appear on the sex offender registry the least we can do is let the wacko know if one is worth going after or not and then let them go after those we couldn't care less what happens to... or secretly wish something bad comes upon. Obviously the wackos will eventually get caught but perhaps they'll have time to rid us of genuine vermin before that happens instead of blindly offing people among whom could be useful but unlucky individuals who have been maliciously prosecuted.
And then there are those people who are guilty of crimes other than sex crimes but nonetheless appear on the registry, sometimes under a fictitious charge because the crime they have committed doesn't fit the criteria for a sex crime. It is unfair to represent those individuals as bona fide sex offenders because it exposes them to reprisals from individuals that would otherwise not bother with them. I strongly believe in a justice system where convicted individuals must endure the consequences of their conduct in their social life even after they have paid their debt to society but I can't condone the misrepresentation of an individual's crime(s) that could lead to him/her being unofficially punished for crimes they haven't committed.
Apart from a sex offender registry that would contain full narratives, I would like to see is a violent offender registry distinct from the sex offender registry that would be just as available so that we can really see for ourselves who may be a threat to children, even among those criminals who normally would not qualify for the sex offender registry. In that violent offender registry I would like to see the names of those who have been convicted of any sort of physical violence against adult victims (other than sexual offenses) 3 or more times and the names of anyone who has been found guilty of violence against child victims (other than sexual) even if it occurred only once and even if the charge was related to a supposedly justified spanking. Any assault against an adult other than self-defense is illegal and so should be any assault against a child even under the guise of spanking. People who can't control their kids other than by hitting them should perhaps not have any. I would much rather have as a schoolteacher for my children a man who was once convicted of having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he himself was just a teen than a man who condones spanking.
The kidnapper would appear on that list and then if some wacko wants to off him for it that's his choice. One thing for sure no one on that list would be hired by schools and other such institutions.
Just my opinion of course