>That's one of the problems with the term "sex offender." There are still crimes on the books that can be enforced, even if they're consensual crimes, and it will get the person labeled a "sex offender." When people hear the term "sex offender," they think of rapists and child molesters. They don't think of a men who had consensual oral sex with his wife, and a jury decided to convict him because they could. Sodomy is still on the books in many states in the U.S., and includes oral and %#@&#! sex.

I heard that any position other than missionary is illegal in... Ohio? Someplace anyways. Not that it is enforced (can you imagine the FBI jumping out from under your bed to bust you ROFL!!!!!). But still, point is that IF these people are tried... They get their names on the public register do they not?

Hence... Consider the benefits / harms to the public register. Do the benefits outweigh the harms? I'm not sure that they do...

> I believe in free speech

Sure, I think that freedom of speech is important to, but I also think that there are limits. Hate speech is unacceptable IMO and thus there can often be a conflict. There can be a conflict between slander and liabel and freedom of speech as well... There can also be a conflict between privacy and freedome of speech. What to do when values conflict? Maybe one needs to weigh the benefits and the harms to decide what should be done...

> The same thing is true of pedophiles, rapists and predators. I don't want them living around me (but they do)...

A 16 year old (in NZ) who slept with a 15 year old (in NZ) would probably count as a pedophile. It would be considered that 15 is too young to be able to give informed consent (whether she thought she wanted to or not). Consider the bus driver... He would be classed as a pedophile on the public register. He married that girl the following year and they have been married for over thirty years. He hasn't had so much as a parking ticket since, and certainly hasn't had any crimes against persons. But he is on the public register. Would you not want him living in your back yard?

All I'm saying is that the public register doesn't tell you anything about
- The precise nature of the crimes
and even more to the point the public register doesn't tell you anything about
- Whether they are likely to reoffend.

Personally... If they aren't likely to reoffend then I don't have a problem with them living opposite their local preschool. I don't have a problem with them working as a teacher. I don't have a problem if they are unlikely to reoffend.

I worry that the public register gives people a false sense of security. There are plenty of people likely to offend who aren't on the public register and I'm sure there are plenty of people unlikely to offend who are on the public register.

> And this will enable them to keep doing what they're doing. I prefer them to be out in the open, where I can know where they are, and where they feel freer to take risks--that can get them caught.

So you think once an offender always an offender?

Why don't we just brand 'sexual offender' across their foreheads then it will save people having to bother looking at the public register.

Sigh.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

I do believe somebody or other said...

;-)