Couple found guilty of having sex on Florida beach

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm against the entire concept of an offender registry. But then again I've never given birth and therefore I'm denied all of the cosmic knowledge and shit that apparently you magically manifest when that happens. 

[grumbler]

There is a legit reason for a sex offender registry:  that certain types of sex offenders seemingly can't reform and so there is a public need to keep a closer eye on them.  First-time offenders (of any stripe) don't fit that pattern, so shouldn't go on it, because (as many have noted) it simply dilutes the effect and harms the purpose of the registry. 

Maybe the registry, even if only of repeat offenders, does more harm than good.  there's an argument to be made.  But there's no argument to be made, IMO, for putting people like this on an offender list, barring some bizarre 'feel good" element among some of the puritans.

But I think we all can guess from the story (if accurate) that the offense of this couple is that they didn't take a plea bargain.  Gotta hammer people who don't take plea bargains.

And the guy has been in prison for eight years, so hasn't "committed two felonies in three years" even if this act was a felony. 

[Valmy]

There is a legit reason for a sex offender registry:  that certain types of sex offenders seemingly can't reform and so there is a public need to keep a closer eye on them.

Yes. It should be for people who are dangerous. Not just anybody who ever committed a sex crime. It is considered part of the sentence rather than something done for public safety.  Like ooooh now you are fucked for life, what a deterrent!

Of course if somebody is so dangerous they should never be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment then why are they even being released from jail at all?

[Valmy]

Our lawmakers are not sane because our voters are not sane.  Let's stop with this vapid "politicians are dumb and stupid" bullshit.

This would be biting criticism if I was not also vocal about the voters so you are pissing in the wrong wind here. But in this case it is on the lawmakers. But there is nothing vapid about this, I have seen this issue play out for years. The voters lack the ability to influence policy issues this specific and I doubt they would be in favor of this sort of thing if they could.

Heaven forbid I ever hold the people writing the laws responsible for writing bad laws.

[DGuller]

Our lawmakers are not sane because our voters are not sane.  Let's stop with this vapid "politicians are dumb and stupid" bullshit.

This would be biting criticism if I was not also vocal about the voters so you are pissing in the wrong wind here. But in this case it is on the lawmakers. But there is nothing vapid about this, I have seen this issue play out for years. The voters lack the ability to influence policy issues this specific and I doubt they would be in favor of this sort of thing if they could.

Heaven forbid I ever hold the people writing the laws responsible for writing bad laws.

It's the voters who vote for "tough on crime" politicians, and who feel safe when hearing the phrase rather than curious about weather a punishment is still fitting the crime.

[Monoriu]

I am fine with a registry but so long as it only contains names of truly dangerous criminals, like rapists or child molesters etc.  Having consensual sex on a beach should get a fine or community service at most. 

[grumbler]

Of course if somebody is so dangerous they should never be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment then why are they even being released from jail at all?

Our justice system punishes past acts, not potential future ones.

[DGuller]

Of course if somebody is so dangerous they should never be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment then why are they even being released from jail at all?

Our justice system punishes past acts, not potential future ones.

And conveniently enough, our esteemed Supreme Court does not consider scarlet letters to be punishment, it's just a helpful information for the public.

[Valmy]

It's the voters who vote for "tough on crime" politicians, and who feel safe when hearing the phrase rather than curious about weather a punishment is still fitting the crime.

If there was a debate going around these days about being "tough on crime" with one party promising ever increasing draconian practices I would agree. But this debate is not really taking place right now. Moral and economic issues are what are moving the needle. If anything when the voters get a chance they tend to go softer on crime these days.

But even if this was not the case, and there was movement to hammer down crime, the Pols still deserve the blame. This was not the intention of the public, this is bad laws being written with unintended consequences. The intention, to keep habitual rapists from being able to be predatory to the public, is basically the good one. The devil, in this case, is in the details. The voters do not vote details, that is their representatives job.

[Martinus]

This is what happens when we hand political power over to the old people, instead of executing them en masse as I have been advising all along.

I don't think it is old people as much as people with children, to be honest. Old childless people (other than priests and the like) are usually pretty cool.

That is why I have been advocating all along that children should be raised in Platonesque Republic facilities away from their biological parents. Most of the evil in this world comes from parental instincts going awry, whether it is wealth concentration, censorship or inflation of college degrees.

[Eddie Teach]

Because orphanages work so well.

[Valmy]

I don't think it is old people as much as people with children, to be honest. Old childless people (other than priests and the like) are usually pretty cool.

Huh. Does that mean you are finally going to be cool when you get old?

[derspiess]

Old childless people (other than priests and the like) are usually pretty cool.

Often they are, unless they have little yappy dogs they refer to as "their kids". 

[Eddie Teach]

 

[Solmyr]

There is a legit reason for a sex offender registry:  that certain types of sex offenders seemingly can't reform and so there is a public need to keep a closer eye on them.

Yes. It should be for people who are dangerous. Not just anybody who ever committed a sex crime. It is considered part of the sentence rather than something done for public safety.  Like ooooh now you are fucked for life, what a deterrent!

Of course if somebody is so dangerous they should never be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment then why are they even being released from jail at all?

They should either be in jail or in a mental hospital. Registry serves no useful purpose.