Background Checks

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Well, I think that is the problem - people get rather simplistic with it - "All sex crimes should be the 'nuclear' option!" which is why you end up with situation where some guy has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and now he is a "sex offender".

Or someone gets drunk and grabs a waitresses boob and suddenly he is a registered sex offender.

I am now saying those things are not bad - but they aren't really what the sex offender registeries are for, or should be for, which is to protect people from a potential predator. As a general rule, we hold to the idea that once you serve your time, society has no right to ostracize you in an excessive way. We make an exception for sexual crimes due to recidivism rates and the danger they pose to children.

So when we toss a bunch of people in there who do not fit that profile, we are probably doing them a disservice, while at the same time diluting the power of the registery for those who do fir that profile.

And there is a clear correlation to background checks for officials. By casting the net ridiculously widely (ALL officials must be checked) while not showing any tangible benefit (officials are not really the threat to begin with in any statistically significant manner), we are making that same error, IMO.

Frankly, I agree with all of this. My point is that someone had mentioned that a child porn conviction did not necessarily put someone on the list. In my opinion, it should. Someone gets a kiddie porn conviction, stick him in the registry.

A young adult with an older teenager? No way. Or the kids getting sex-crime convictions for sexting on their cell phones? Stupid.

Certain crimes (kiddie porn, predatory rape) should be automatic registration upon release. Others (statutory rape) should allow for some discretion from the judge and/or jury.