Reply To: This time “No sex offenders allowed” could equal a death sentence

#70498
Avatar
Maestro

Sandy,
Thanks for the reply. My coin just dropped after I posted my comment and it just dawned on me that I had a friend who’s girlfriend’s dad was imprisoned in the 1980’s for about 5 yrs for molesting 2 of his early teenage nieces. He would buy them stuff for them to keep quiet. They finally exposed him when he denied buying them tickets to a concert.
I had gotten close with my friend’s GF’s family, including the dad before he was outed. When he was released from prison, he moved in with his oldest daughter (the one my friend was engaged to by that time) and as I remember, he was not restricted on where he could live and from being around his younger daughters. He and I even hung out at a stripper club about a month after his release.
I don’t remember him mentioning anything about parole or probation, so he may have done his full prison term. But their apartment was near a school and a park and there was no registry yet.
I lost touch with them as the years went on and lost all touch by the time the registry was enacted but I’m sure he was retroactively added to it.
I believe he has since passed away.
But the point being – he served his time and moved on with his life. No restrictions about where he can and cannot live and no restrictions about being around other kids other than his victims. What the hell happened? How did we go from that to this?

Incest and underage legal age teens with adults can always be illegal. But those types of issues are just not the same as the psychopath who raped and killed Megan Kanka. So therefore, I don’t see a good enough reason to put people like my friend’s former father-in-law on the registry.
If there needs to be a registry to satisfy people like the Kanka’s, then leave it for the absolute worst type of offender. And since the legal age changes from one state to another, as long as there is no blatant rape, no bribery, no drugs or alcohol involved to impair the younger person, then those types of crimes should not be something to be considered “threats” to anyone’s precious safety. And that’s just how I feel about it.
But when you or I try to explain what we mean, we’re told that we are “minimizing” the offense.
No, because I didn’t say it can’t still be an illegal act. It’s just not the same as what happened to the little children who got laws named after them.