# State Senator Proposes Gun Offender Registry



## MJS (Feb 11, 2011)

Link



> Requiring gun offenders to register with local authorities would give police a potent new tool to combat violence, said state Sen. Martin Looney.
> Looney, a New Haven Democrat, testified in favor of the gun registry at a public hearing this morning before the legislature's public safety committee.
> The registry would be the first of its kind in the nation; several cities, including New York City and Baltimore, have established such programs but no state has done it, Looney said.
> 
> It would operate similarly to the sex offender registry: those convicted of major gun offenses would be required to register with local police.


 
Thoughts on this?  Personally, I think its a great idea.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 11, 2011)

MJS said:


> Link
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts on this?  Personally, I think its a great idea.



I'm not sure what the point would be?  If your already convicted of a gun crime then the police already know who you are and your not prob. allowed to own a gun anymore anyway.  Sounds more like a Look Im tough on crime law that really wont do anything but cause alot of paperwork for cops who already have enough to do.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 11, 2011)

An NCIC warning of previous firearms crimes would be nice. The only way I can find that out now is if I run a criminal history on you and I normally can't do that on routine contacts or car stops.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 11, 2011)

MJS said:


> Link
> 
> Thoughts on this?  Personally, I think its a great idea.



My initial thought would be that I would be against it, for a number of reasons. However, none of those reasons would be because I am pro-gun or pro-gun-crime; I'd like to say that up front.

There is a distinct different between a criminal history file and a registry.  When one is arrested, one's name goes into a national database that can be accessed by law enforcement and court-related officials through the nation (in most cases).  When one is convicted of a crime, that information goes in there too.  Some things may not show up, like field interview cards and parking tickets and so on - although they might show up in state-wide or local databases; but the big stuff does.

A 'registry' of this sort, however, requires that the person convicted go through the formality of registering their current location with local authorities, and that they continue to do so regardless of where they move to in the future.  Some registries require life-long registration; some require it for a period of time.

Generally these registries are available to the public and not just law-enforcement personnel.  Generally, they are established on a state-wide basis for sex offenders.  The concept behind them is that sex offenders are by nature highly at risk of offending again, and that citizens have the right to know if sex offenders are living in their neighborhoods.

Typically, such registries are supported by the public, and generally, they seem to do no harm to anyone.  It's hard to argue in support of sex offenders, after all.

However, there are sometimes situations which occur which to some may seem a miscarriage of justice.  For example, some 'sex offenders' have been young men who have had consensual sex with minors who were just a few months their junior - an 18 year-old man having sex with a 17 year-old girlfriend, and that sort of thing.  Or men who pay for a prostitute and get caught at it.  Hardly what I'd call 'dangerous criminals' that we need to monitor on an hourly basis for the rest of their lives, but they're often lumped in with the rapists and child molesters.  In fact, based on my local Michigan offender's list, most of the offenders that live in my neighborhood are guilty of just those sorts of offenses.  I'm not too worried that a guy who got busy with his underage girlfriend when they were both in their teens but he was 18 and she wasn't is going to be stalking kids on the local playground, are you?

As well, other laws based on the registries have been passed in some places.  From keeping track of where sex offenders live, there are some places that disallow them to live within certain distances of public places like schools.  While well-intentioned, in at least a couple states, it turns out that sex offenders have no choice but to live under bridges and in tents in the woods, because there IS no legal residence that passes the 'distance test' within a given city's jurisdiction.  Google for it if you don't believe me.  And as much as many might be happy to see sex offenders punished for the rest of their lives and would consider living under a bridge to be a good idea, one might also suggest that the desperate and homeless might be a tad more prone to committing crimes than one who has a job and a place to live.  Just saying.

And finally, in some noted cases, neighbors and others have taken the law into their own hands, burning down houses of known sex offenders, harassing them out of town, ensuring they get fired from their jobs, and so on.  In a well-known case here in Michigan a couple years ago, a man in his 30's who had been convicted of having sex with his underage girlfriend when he was 21 and she was 17 was tracked down (he had been reduced to living in his truck), lured to a garage with the promise of a construction job, murdered, and *had his head chopped off*.  That was to 'punish' him for being a sex offender.  Some punishment, eh?  Hey, any of you guys have sex at a young age, maybe when you were 18 or 19 and your girlfriend was 17?  Think you deserve to have your name on a list and have to report where you live for the rest of your life, to be hounded out of a job and have to live in your vehicle, and then 10 years after the offense to be killed and beheaded? I mean, if you think you deserve that, feel free to turn yourselves in.

So, getting back to a proposed gun-offense registry...I'd have to know some things.

First, what kind of crimes are sufficient to be put on this registry?  Are we talking about about someone who goes hunting without a license?  That's technically a 'gun crime', right?  Someone who is found to have a weapon in their vehicle during a stop for something else entirely?  Someone who rushes out of their house with a gun to defend their property and is arrested for having a gun in public if local laws don't allow that?  I'd really like to know what the minimum offense is.

Second, for how long would such a person be put on the list?  Is it for life?  Is it possible to get oneself removed from the list by petition or trial?  Can mistakes be rectified?

Third, who has access to this proposed registry? Are we talking the general public here?

Imagine a guy who has a CCW and it expires and he doesn't notice.  He gets pulled over for a speeding offense, tells the officer that he is armed (as he is required to), gives up his CCW, and the officer arrests him for CCW because the permit is expired.

Now, in addition to criminal charges, he finds himself on a list for life, one that his neighbors have access to on the internet.  As a 'gun criminal', some concerned neighbors take it upon themselves to notify his employer, and he loses his job.  Then they start protesting in the street in front of his house until he moves.  But wherever he goes, it starts up again.  In addition, some do-gooding legislators pass a state law that limits where he can live to not within 1,000 feet of a school, church, or public building.  And there are no buildings in his small town that don't fall within that limit.  So he finds himself and his family homeless, jobless, and camping under a bridge.

Justice has been served.  Right?

I suggest instead that if we want to protect society from gun criminals, lock them up.  If we don't intend to lock them up, then leave them alone.  We still have our criminal history records, which the police have access to, which lets them investigate crimes and determine suspects.  I do not see what public interest is served by making a list of local gun crime violators available to the general public in this manner.  Does the public have a right to know? Sure they do.  And it can be found through public records of convictions as well as through news stories.  It's not as convenient as browsing a database to see who lives on your street who has ever been convicted of a gun crime, but I'm not sure that making it more convenient is a public right in this case.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> An NCIC warning of previous firearms crimes would be nice. The only way I can find that out now is if I run a criminal history on you and I normally can't do that on routine contacts or car stops.



I think that would be due to local policy, then.  I was a licensed scope operator for NCIC as well as the Colorado version of same (CCIC) and I routinely ran qw and qh on drivers whom the officer had reason to want same.  No PC required, just a hunch.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 11, 2011)

I am not a big one on lists.
What are they proposing are the requirements for being put on one of these lists, and what exactly does that mean?
I dont really see a use for it that does not already have an answer.
my radar goes off anytime anyone starts talking about putting a list together of people associated with guns. I know they are wanting to associate this with gun offenders, but gun offenders in what way?
someone who simply uses a gun while committing a crime?
or anyone who commits a crime, who also happens to own a gun but may not have necessarily used it during that crime?....
or anyone who owns a gun who commits any infraction or worse?
no I see no reason for people to be making lists of people with guns, and if your a felon isnt it illegal to have a gun anyways?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 11, 2011)

I'm with you Bill, these registries are ********.  They are used to inflict punishment after a criminal sentence has been served, which should be unconstitutional IMO.  I'm not surprised to see the attempted expansion.  No one likes sex offenders, so they were first up.  Now that registries are a fact of life though, expect to see more and more categories of offense added.

It never made much sense to me anyway.  Murderers and arsonists can go on their merry way after the sentence is done, but public urinators must be monitored?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 11, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> It never made much sense to me anyway.  Murderers and arsonists can go on their merry way after the sentence is done, but public urinators must be monitored?



Well, the *official* reason that sex offenders are the ones for whom the registries have been established is that unlike murder and arson, sex offenders are not just criminals but have a mental perversion which will cause them to re-offend again and again.

I'm interested in the mentality that now thinks people who commit 'gun crimes' (whatever they are) have a mental perversion that will force them to offend with a gun again, and that they therefore deserve public scrutiny for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, the *official* reason that sex offenders are the ones for whom the registries have been established is that unlike murder and arson, sex offenders are not just criminals but have a mental perversion which will cause them to re-offend again and again.



Except it's demonstrably untrue.  Lifetime recidivism rates for all crimes is in the range of 60%, for sex crimes it's about 5-10% (can't remember the exact figure).  It's _almost _like politicians care more about "looking tough on crime" to the voters instead of making fact-based decisions.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 11, 2011)

Sex Crime recidivism rates all depend on what "sex crime" we are talking about. I think you will find that pedophiles and child rapists have a higher rate or re-offense than some guy who was 21 yo who got in trouble when his 16 yo girlfriends parents went to the police.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html



> Reliance on measures of recidivism as reflected through official criminal justice system data obviously omit offenses that are not cleared through an arrest or those that are never reported to the police. This distinction is critical in the measurement of recidivism of sex offenders. For a variety of reasons, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. The National Crime Victimization Surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics) conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32 percent (one out of three) of sexual assaults against persons 12 or older are reported to law enforcement. A three-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities. (No current studies indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual assault, although it is generally assumed that these assaults are equally underreported.) Many victims are afraid to report sexual assault to the police.


 


> Several studies support the hypothesis that sexual offense recidivism rates are underreported. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) compared official records of a sample of sex offenders with "unofficial" sources of data. They found that the number of subsequent sex offenses revealed through unofficial sources was 2.4 times higher than the number that was recorded in official reports. In addition, research using information generated through polygraph examinations on a sample of imprisoned sex offenders with fewer than two known victims (on average), found that these offenders actually had an average of 110 victims and 318 offenses (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000). Another polygraph study found a sample of imprisoned sex offenders to have extensive criminal histories, committing sex crimes for an average of 16 years before being caught (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons, 1999).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Sex Crime recidivism rates all depend on what "sex crime" we are talking about. I think you will find that pedophiles and child rapists have a higher rate or re-offense than some guy who was 21 yo who got in trouble when his 16 yo girlfriends parents went to the police.
> 
> http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html



Yes indeed.  Of course, many states treat all 'sex crimes' the same way in terms of requirements for registration, rules for where they may live, and so on.

I can certainly understand why the public would not want a pedophile living next door to them.  I have a more difficult time understanding why a guy who bought a hummer from a hooker at a business convention has to go live under a bridge for the rest of his life, or a guy who hooked up with his too-young girlfriend when she was a few months underage has to have his head cut off to 'teach him a lesson'.

There is no nuance to the registration laws that I'm aware of, leading to treating all 'sex crimes' the same way; and the same thing for 'gun crimes' would be different how?

Still gotta come down on the side against it.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 11, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not sure what the point would be?  If your already convicted of a gun crime then the police already know who you are and your not prob. allowed to own a gun anymore anyway.  Sounds more like a Look Im tough on crime law that really wont do anything but cause alot of paperwork for cops who already have enough to do.





Archangel M said:


> An NCIC warning of previous firearms crimes would be nice. The only way I can find that out now is if I run a criminal history on you and I normally can't do that on routine contacts or car stops.



I'd take it a step further and make it a violent offender flag, even if you restricted it to assault on an officer/resisting arrest and aggravated assault or felony assaults.

But, while I see the argument for a gun offender registry, I question the practicality of it.  Let's be real -- the sex offender registries don't do much from a LE perspective.  Failure to register or comply is rampant, and you get people up in arms over the "sex offender" living near the school who turns out to have been a college freshman dating a HS kid.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Imagine a guy who has a CCW and it expires and he doesn't notice.  He gets pulled over for a speeding offense, tells the officer that he is armed (as he is required to), gives up his CCW, and the officer arrests him for CCW because the permit is expired.



Or the guy in New Jersey who was trying to transport his guns from his parents's residence to his new home and got arrested and convicted of possessing unregistered guns not too long ago...

Or the guy who's legally transported and declared guns were in his luggage when he missed a connection, and he discovered himself arrested for a similar offense a few years ago...


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> An NCIC warning of previous firearms crimes would be nice. The only way I can find that out now is if I run a criminal history on you and I normally can't do that on routine contacts or car stops.


 There is a caution code for armed in NCIC or is that a stse thing?  We get caution codes for armed, past drug user, resist arrests, and assaults on police may be a few more I dont remember I have not run a name in a few years.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 11, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> But, while I see the argument for a gun offender registry, I question the practicality of it. Let's be real -- the sex offender registries don't do much from a LE perspective.


 The only thing the sex offender registry is used for is to check up on your neighbors.  I dont think Ive ever used it for anything police related other then serving warrants on people who failed to register


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 11, 2011)

A timely story about sex crimes - by minors.  At the moment, the popular teen fad of 'sexting' often results in lifetime requirements to register as a sex offender - for having sent a nude photo of oneself to a boy or girlfriend when one is oneself a juvenile.

http://reason.org/blog/show/some-sense-on-sexting


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 11, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Or the guy who's legally transported and declared guns were in his luggage when he missed a connection, and he discovered himself arrested for a similar offense a few years ago...




[tangent] I remember that. I found that "gotcha" game despicable. [/tangent]


----------



## MJS (Feb 12, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not sure what the point would be? If your already convicted of a gun crime then the police already know who you are and your not prob. allowed to own a gun anymore anyway. Sounds more like a Look Im tough on crime law that really wont do anything but cause alot of paperwork for cops who already have enough to do.


 
I'm only going to speak on my PD, as its possible that each PD could have differnet set ups.  The officers aren't going to know if someone has'has not been convicted of a gun crime unless a records check/criminal history is run.  Simply running someones name, say on a mv stop, will not tell me criminal history.  However, when I run someones name, I can tell if the person has any warrants, is a supervised person ( on probation) is a sex offender.  

I'd imagine with this set up that they're trying to pass, it'd be a simpler process than running the records check.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 12, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'm only going to speak on my PD, as its possible that each PD could have differnet set ups.  The officers aren't going to know if someone has'has not been convicted of a gun crime unless a records check/criminal history is run.  Simply running someones name, say on a mv stop, will not tell me criminal history.  However, when I run someones name, I can tell if the person has any warrants, is a supervised person ( on probation) is a sex offender.
> 
> I'd imagine with this set up that they're trying to pass, it'd be a simpler process than running the records check.


I was more saying most officers know who the real nasty criminals in there posts or areas unless you are always changing.  I know when I go in certain housing projects which guys are the shooters, dealers, fighters and runners.  If someone has committed something to get on the list then I would hope most officers already know him.  At least where I work they people never leave they stay in the same neighborhood there whole lives.  Unless they have warrants then they go hide a few blocks over because we will never find them there lol.  But for us when I run a name our dispatchers are supposed to check them thru our in house and county wide computer database and any gun crimes will pop up.  I also thought NCIC had caution codes for that stuff already. 
Either way it wont effect me since I wont be running the checks but it seems like just one more program that has no real effect on stopping crimes. I treat everyone as if they are armed anyway so me knowing they have prior gun charges wont change the way I do my job.  I was taught from day one every where you go there is a gun easily available to the bad guy if her wants it and its strapped to your hip.


----------



## MJS (Feb 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My initial thought would be that I would be against it, for a number of reasons. However, none of those reasons would be because I am pro-gun or pro-gun-crime; I'd like to say that up front.
> 
> There is a distinct different between a criminal history file and a registry. When one is arrested, one's name goes into a national database that can be accessed by law enforcement and court-related officials through the nation (in most cases). When one is convicted of a crime, that information goes in there too. Some things may not show up, like field interview cards and parking tickets and so on - although they might show up in state-wide or local databases; but the big stuff does.
> 
> ...


 
Hey Bill,

Nice detailed post as always.   I numbered a few things that I wanted to comment on. 

1) Going on what I've seen, the people on the sex offender list are the ones who've raped, molested kids, etc.  

2) I'm sure it happens, just like I'm sure that after 9-11, people took out anger on small stores run by Arabs.  I'm sure some people have played the role of Charles Bronson, ala Death Wish, but I dont think it happens as much as some may think.

3) That I'd imagine, would have to be deterined by the courts.  I'd say things such as armed robbery with a gun, killing someone with a gun..things of that nature.

4) Again, that'd have to be determined.  I'd imagine it'd depend on the crime.

5) According to the article, I believe it'd just be LE, but its possible it could be made public.

6) I doubt he'd be arrested.  That'd be no different than you DL being expired.  Everything checks out, and you're not a dick to the cop, I'd say a ticket would suffice.


----------



## MJS (Feb 12, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I am not a big one on lists.
> What are they proposing are the requirements for being put on one of these lists, and what exactly does that mean?
> I dont really see a use for it that does not already have an answer.
> my radar goes off anytime anyone starts talking about putting a list together of people associated with guns. I know they are wanting to associate this with gun offenders, but gun offenders in what way?
> ...


 
As I said to Bill, I'd imagine a list of crimes, circumstances, etc. would be determined.  If you did something to fit the bill, then you'd end up on the list.


----------



## MJS (Feb 12, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> There is a caution code for armed in NCIC or is that a stse thing? We get caution codes for armed, past drug user, resist arrests, and assaults on police may be a few more I dont remember I have not run a name in a few years.


 
Yes, I've seen those codes as well.  However, simply running the name, ie: on a mv stop, will not generate that info.  If they're say, a supervised person, when you run that info, yes, then it would show up.  But as I said, you gotta go the extra step.


----------



## MJS (Feb 12, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I was more saying most officers know who the real nasty criminals in there posts or areas unless you are always changing. I know when I go in certain housing projects which guys are the shooters, dealers, fighters and runners. If someone has committed something to get on the list then I would hope most officers already know him. At least where I work they people never leave they stay in the same neighborhood there whole lives. Unless they have warrants then they go hide a few blocks over because we will never find them there lol. But for us when I run a name our dispatchers are supposed to check them thru our in house and county wide computer database and any gun crimes will pop up. I also thought NCIC had caution codes for that stuff already.
> Either way it wont effect me since I wont be running the checks but it seems like just one more program that has no real effect on stopping crimes. I treat everyone as if they are armed anyway so me knowing they have prior gun charges wont change the way I do my job. I was taught from day one every where you go there is a gun easily available to the bad guy if her wants it and its strapped to your hip.


 
Ok, thanks for the clarification.   Yes, many times, another officer, who's listening to the radio, who hears someone on a stop with someone known for fighting, known for having/dealing drugs, weapons, fighting, etc., they usually make sure the officer thats out with that person, knows.  Thats good IMO...nothing wrong with officer safety.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 12, 2011)

MJS said:


> Yes, I've seen those codes as well.  However, simply running the name, ie: on a mv stop, will not generate that info.  If they're say, a supervised person, when you run that info, yes, then it would show up.  But as I said, you gotta go the extra step.


Maybe our dispatchers just run the name automatically because all we do is give name and dob and we are given driving records, wanted checks, and caution codes. I just figured everyone was like that if not they should be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 13, 2011)

MJS said:


> 1) Going on what I've seen, the people on the sex offender list are the ones who've raped, molested kids, etc.



I'm looking at the Michigan list right now; I put in my zip code and I see ...

http://www.mipsor.state.mi.us/

Just on my street - and I live in a good neighborhood - 4th degree sex assault, minor; and 1 indecent exposure.  By the way, public urination is arrested and tried as 'indecent exposure' in MI.  We've had that discussion before.



> 2) I'm sure it happens, just like I'm sure that after 9-11, people took out anger on small stores run by Arabs.  I'm sure some people have played the role of Charles Bronson, ala Death Wish, but I dont think it happens as much as some may think.
> 
> 3) That I'd imagine, would have to be deterined by the courts.  I'd say things such as armed robbery with a gun, killing someone with a gun..things of that nature.
> 
> ...



My point is this - you _can_ get arrested - perhaps if you're in a bad mood or the cop is, and the license is expired, and then you're a 'gun criminal'.

I just don't see the advantage of it.

Lists like this, started with the best of intentions, can too easily be abused.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 13, 2011)

MJS said:


> As I said to Bill, I'd imagine a list of crimes, circumstances, etc. would be determined.  If you did something to fit the bill, then you'd end up on the list.



And next election cycle, or the one after that, an anti-gun person gets elected, and the list gets enlarged a bit.  It's just another way to end up on someone's list.  No thanks.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 13, 2011)

MJS said:


> As I said to Bill, I'd imagine a list of crimes, circumstances, etc. would be determined.  If you did something to fit the bill, then you'd end up on the list.



And by the way, that's the same reason I don't have a CCW and never will.  Do not want to be on a list of known gun owners.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 13, 2011)

Seems to make about as much sense a sex offender registry, and is probably more useful from an LEO safety standpoint.

Not that I'm saying I think a sex offender registry makes all that much sense....


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Maybe our dispatchers just run the name automatically because all we do is give name and dob and we are given driving records, wanted checks, and caution codes. I just figured everyone was like that if not they should be.


 
Nope, we only do what they ask for.  Like I said, if someone runs a name/dob on a stop, and it shows the guy is on probation, yes, I go ahead and run the prob. info.  But if nothing comes up when I run the name, I dont dig further, as I said, unless they ask.  Sometimes you'll get 2-3 officers all running plates, stopping cars, all at the same time, so to do more than what they ask for, would take too much time.


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm looking at the Michigan list right now; I put in my zip code and I see ...
> 
> http://www.mipsor.state.mi.us/
> 
> Just on my street - and I live in a good neighborhood - 4th degree sex assault, minor; and 1 indecent exposure. By the way, public urination is arrested and tried as 'indecent exposure' in MI. We've had that discussion before.


 
I've taken a peek at the sex offender list, typed in my area, and saw a few, and like you, I live in a good area as well.





> My point is this - you _can_ get arrested - perhaps if you're in a bad mood or the cop is, and the license is expired, and then you're a 'gun criminal'.
> 
> I just don't see the advantage of it.
> 
> Lists like this, started with the best of intentions, can too easily be abused.


 
True, anything is possible.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> And next election cycle, or the one after that, an anti-gun person gets elected, and the list gets enlarged a bit. It's just another way to end up on someone's list. No thanks.


 
True, anything is possible.  IMO, I'd think that someone would only end up on the list if they were a badguy.  Any responsible, law abiding citizen shouldn't have anything to worry about.  Again, this is only my assumption.  I'm not claiming to say this is what would happen. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> And by the way, that's the same reason I don't have a CCW and never will. Do not want to be on a list of known gun owners.


 
My wife isn't a big gun fan, thus the reason I dont have one.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 13, 2011)

MJS said:


> Nope, we only do what they ask for.  Like I said, if someone runs a name/dob on a stop, and it shows the guy is on probation, yes, I go ahead and run the prob. info.  But if nothing comes up when I run the name, I dont dig further, as I said, unless they ask.  Sometimes you'll get 2-3 officers all running plates, stopping cars, all at the same time, so to do more than what they ask for, would take too much time.



I asked one of the dispatchers about this last night.  She said our system automatically runs all the info if you ask for it or not.  They run the name one time and it checks NCIC, in house, Drivers records, any caution codes, sex offender registry, parole and probation records all at once.


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I asked one of the dispatchers about this last night. She said our system automatically runs all the info if you ask for it or not. They run the name one time and it checks NCIC, in house, Drivers records, any caution codes, sex offender registry, parole and probation records all at once.


 
Ours pretty much does the same thing, minus the inhouse stuff.  Lets say I run John Smith, dob 1-3-1984.  If he's supervised, I'll get the code for supervised person next to his name.  If he has a warrant, I'll get that code as well.  Sex offender, I'll get that code.  If I see any of these codes, I'll dig further.  If the officer asks me to run the Op. thats all I do.  I have the ability to look at the persons MV history, but I dont unless I'm asked.  I also do not run what we call an SPRC (State Police Records Check) which will tell me if he's been arrested, unless I'm asked.  

Just to clarify, thats what I meant by digging further.  If the obvious is there, yes, I check.  Other stuff, only when asked.


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2011)

We have a gun file system, in which I can check anyone in the state, to see what type of gun(s) they own, make, model, etc.  This system however does not allow me to see whether or not these people have committed a crime.  

It would be nice, if, when running a name, op, etc., if a gun registry was in place, so that little number comes up next to their name, so the officer can be given a heads up.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 13, 2011)

MJS said:


> Nope, we only do what they ask for.  Like I said, if someone runs a name/dob on a stop, and it shows the guy is on probation, yes, I go ahead and run the prob. info.  But if nothing comes up when I run the name, I dont dig further, as I said, unless they ask.  Sometimes you'll get 2-3 officers all running plates, stopping cars, all at the same time, so to do more than what they ask for, would take too much time.


Whether we run 'em ourselves via CAD or dispatch runs 'em for us, it's rare for them to do more than a basic wants/driver license check via VCIN and NCIC.  If it's not going to pop up via those checks, we aren't likely to know.  We don't and cannot run criminal history checks on every stop...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 13, 2011)

MJS said:


> Any responsible, law abiding citizen shouldn't have anything to worry about.



That statement, no matter who utters it or for what reason, always makes me itchy.

Good intentions and what road is paved with them and all that.

Just a simple cost-benefit analysis though; what is it we gain in return for the expense?

And if we're going to simply make lists because they might be useful to law enforcement, why don't we have a national gun registry?  I mean, if you are a law-abiding citizen, you shouldn't have anything to worry about...


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Whether we run 'em ourselves via CAD or dispatch runs 'em for us, it's rare for them to do more than a basic wants/driver license check via VCIN and NCIC. If it's not going to pop up via those checks, we aren't likely to know. We don't and cannot run criminal history checks on every stop...


 

Exactly.  Thats the point I was trying to make before.   Like I said, sometimes, these guys really get going, pulling over car after car.  Sometimes there'll be 3 or 4 on a stop at the same time.  Way too much to run, other than basic stuff, unless asked for.


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That statement, no matter who utters it or for what reason, always makes me itchy.
> 
> Good intentions and what road is paved with them and all that.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry about that Bill.  I simply said earlier, that I thought this was a good idea.  First and foremost, my head was thinking for LE purposes only, but hey, if the state wants to make it public, like the sex offender registry, then fine, make it public.  All its going to do for the public, is allow a citizen to search and see if there're any gun offenders in their neighborhood.  LEOs...well, as I said, it'll be just one more piece of info when they're on a stop, running names, etc.  

I guess I'm still missing what the big deal is for the average law abiding citizen.  I mean, cops run radar all the time.  As long as I am within the legal posted speed limit for the road I'm driving on, I should have nothing to worry about.  I could own a gun, solely for the purpose of target practice and home protection.  As long as I dont start waving the gun around like a maniac and making threats or trying to rob someone, then I shouldn't have any issues.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 13, 2011)

MJS said:


> Sorry about that Bill.  I simply said earlier, that I thought this was a good idea.  First and foremost, my head was thinking for LE purposes only, but hey, if the state wants to make it public, like the sex offender registry, then fine, make it public.  All its going to do for the public, is allow a citizen to search and see if there're any gun offenders in their neighborhood.  LEOs...well, as I said, it'll be just one more piece of info when they're on a stop, running names, etc.
> 
> I guess I'm still missing what the big deal is for the average law abiding citizen.  I mean, cops run radar all the time.  As long as I am within the legal posted speed limit for the road I'm driving on, I should have nothing to worry about.  I could own a gun, solely for the purpose of target practice and home protection.  As long as I dont start waving the gun around like a maniac and making threats or trying to rob someone, then I shouldn't have any issues.



Shouldn't.

Pardon me for not trusting that bad things won't happen in the name of goodness.

As I pointed out earlier, all it will take is a couple sessions of left-wing majority in a state legislature, and that 'bad people only' list will mysteriously expand to include 'gun criminals' who have committed such heinous crimes as failing to keep their CCW up to date or been caught hunting with an expired deer tag or ... you name it.  I don't trust politicians, and I don't think the proposed benefit is worth the risk.  I'm no Manumauku but I'm still paranoid.

Sorry, I just don't go for 'trust us, we won't misuse this' kind of thing.  The police have enough information and enough power.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 14, 2011)

MJS said:


> Exactly.  Thats the point I was trying to make before.   Like I said, sometimes, these guys really get going, pulling over car after car.  Sometimes there'll be 3 or 4 on a stop at the same time.  Way too much to run, other than basic stuff, unless asked for.



Apparently it all in the system they use.  Ours runs everything automatically it take no other steps other then a soundex or name and DOB.  It a new system that apparently cost an obscene amount of money which makes me so happy that I'm taking Furlough days but they can spend all that cash on a computer system


----------



## MJS (Feb 14, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Shouldn't.
> 
> Pardon me for not trusting that bad things won't happen in the name of goodness.
> 
> ...


 
Points taken Bill, and I'll respect your opinion.   Who knows...if this were to actually happen, what you said could be a reality.  

While this is slightly off topic, let me ask you this:  do you feel that the current sex offender registry is running as it should?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 15, 2011)

MJS said:


> While this is slightly off topic, let me ask you this:  do you feel that the current sex offender registry is running as it should?



I am of mixed opinion.  I have a bit of a problem from a liberty standpoint with certain aspects of the way we treat those convicted of 'sex' offenses in the USA.  For example, long term or permanent civil confinement following a completed prison sentence for those judged to be 'sexual predators'.  On the one hand, I don't want sexual predators running around loose - society must be protected.  On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable with locking up people who have served their time.  Perhaps a better solution would be indeterminate prison sentences for some sex offenders, but locking up people who are technically no longer under the sentence of a court for the crime of which they were convicted strikes me as not American.

That flows down to the various sex-offender registries.  I have a number of problems with them, not the least of which they are too broad; they place people who pose absolutely no threat to the public safety in a category of second-class citizen, doomed to be punished for the rest of their lives for a transgression that can be as simple as public urination or paying for a hooker.  I can certainly understand why those convicted of sex crimes who are sexual predators - child molesters and rapists and so on - are a threat to public safety, perhaps forever, and I understand what makes it important that society have the ability to know if there are such people living in their neighborhoods.

However, whether the list contains real threats or people who took a drunken pee in an alley, I am also concerned that the various registration lists have gone from a means of keeping track of such people to a means of actual punishment; sometimes cruel and unusual punishment that never ends.  In Florida, as I recall, we have stories of people on the sex offenders registry who are actually forced by law to be homeless, living under bridges and in tent cities because there is no legal residence in their city in which they can live and comply with law restricting how close they can come to certain buildings and areas.  Was that really the purpose of the registration law - to force weenie waggers to go live under a bridge for the rest of their lives?  Yeah, weenie waggers are not nice people, they're disgusting, they are undeserving of sympathy; but really, even murderers get released from prison when they've served their time; weenie waggers can't even hold a job or live in a room with walls and a roof for the rest of their lives?

In other words, the various registration lists seem to go from being a tool for citizens to be aware of real threats to their safety to lists of people that it is OK to torture and torment to satisfy whatever popular political thought thinks is best, not to mention actions I have mentioned previously in this thread by vigilantes against those whom they wish to punish themselves.

No one wants to defend sex offenders.  No one wants to stand up and say they have rights.  To defend a sex offender is basically to invite criticism that one is 'soft on crime' or fond of sex offenders for whatever reason.  I get that.  But I *do* defend our legal  system, and I think in many ways these registries have gone far beyond what their intent was, and have strayed into really questionable behavior by vigilante citizens and lawmakers who want to propose popular laws that will get them reelected.

Long story short; I'm not basically against sex offender registries; but I do not believe they are being used in a useful or even a legal manner.  They capture too much and too many; they allow for infinite punishment and denial of basic human rights to those on such lists - which may reflect our common dislike of sex offenders, but which is really not legal - and they are open-ended; they are constantly open to revision and additional requirements being added to make the lives of those on the lists more onerous and difficult.  This doesn't protect public safety and really isn't even about public safety anymore; they're about public anger and retribution.

If we really want to bring back public stocks and lock sex offenders in them forever, then let's man up and do that; this registration list thing is just a modern way to lock a person in stocks forever and never let them out; nothing to do with public safety in the end analysis.


----------



## Hudson69 (Feb 15, 2011)

Why have anyone register weapons related crimes, it won't stop them from getting a firearm if they really want one and should they do that, commit a crime and be caught, it just makes them a special offender.  This is as long as the charging officer pulls a criminal history.  If the bandit has been adjudicated a felon then the firearm alone is another felony.  If drugs are involved then there is more.  

Registering is just one more way for the government to get into someone's privacy (even bandits have rights) and would be another drain on resources.

Why don't we just try and enforce the laws that are out there, actually lock up the bad guys who like guns (the way Sheriff Joe would) when they commit crimes, and carry on.  

I can see the value in having a RSO registry but that isn't going to stop an offender on the street from re-offending if they want to.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 15, 2011)

I would think that any criminal who wants to get around this will simply work on obtaining false identities, I mean really we have laws in place to deal with crimes, a gun offender registry.... seems to me that the bad guys who something like this would be created to keep tabs on would simply graduate to a new relatively minor set of crimes in identity fraud so that at first glimpse they would not be able to be associated with this..
seems to me like most other laws, and programs in place it would end up being a problem only for those that are trying to live within the law, and just be another minor hoop for real bad guys to get through.... all while costing taxpayers millions of dollars for another ineffective tool, that requires more government officials to run poorly, and more tax dollars to sustain on life support.... no thanks


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As well, other laws based on the registries have been passed in some places. From keeping track of where sex offenders live, there are some places that disallow them to live within certain distances of public places like schools. While well-intentioned, in at least a couple states, it turns out that sex offenders have no choice but to live under bridges and in tents in the woods, because there IS no legal residence that passes the 'distance test' within a given city's jurisdiction. Google for it if you don't believe me. And as much as many might be happy to see sex offenders punished for the rest of their lives and would consider living under a bridge to be a good idea, one might also suggest that the desperate and homeless might be a tad more prone to committing crimes than one who has a job and a place to live. Just saying.


 
Well said, Bill.  This issue in particular I am aware of, as San Francisco is the perfect example.  State law mandates a 2000 foot distance between where an offender lives, and the nearest school, playground, church, place where children congregate.  I believe there is one corner of one apartment building in the entire city that fits the bill.  Offenders are required to live within the county of their offense/conviction.  They cannot live outside the county.  Since San Francisco is both city and county, the option of moving to another community where there is more space, is non-existant.  So the offenders are forced to live on the street where they defeat the whole spirit of the law, because they are now untrackable by the registry and systems put in place to monitor them.  

another really screwey issue is that while they cannot live within 2000 feet of these locations, there is nothing preventing them from otherwise being close to these locations.  An offender can spend all day long at a playground, in a park, or hold a job next door to such a place, and nobody can stop him.  He just cannot sleep there or have a mailing address within that distance.  It's a pointless law, it doesn't protect anybody, and there are often a shortage of funds to have personnel to do the monitoring anyways.


----------



## MJS (Feb 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am of mixed opinion. I have a bit of a problem from a liberty standpoint with certain aspects of the way we treat those convicted of 'sex' offenses in the USA. For example, long term or permanent civil confinement following a completed prison sentence for those judged to be 'sexual predators'. On the one hand, I don't want sexual predators running around loose - society must be protected. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable with locking up people who have served their time. Perhaps a better solution would be indeterminate prison sentences for some sex offenders, but locking up people who are technically no longer under the sentence of a court for the crime of which they were convicted strikes me as not American.
> 
> That flows down to the various sex-offender registries. I have a number of problems with them, not the least of which they are too broad; they place people who pose absolutely no threat to the public safety in a category of second-class citizen, doomed to be punished for the rest of their lives for a transgression that can be as simple as public urination or paying for a hooker. I can certainly understand why those convicted of sex crimes who are sexual predators - child molesters and rapists and so on - are a threat to public safety, perhaps forever, and I understand what makes it important that society have the ability to know if there are such people living in their neighborhoods.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry for the late reply Bill.  RL stuff is taking a front seat to the forum.  Anyways...thanks for your reply.   I do see your points, and as I said, its very possible that what you say, could happen.  However, I wonder...the old saying, "Dont do the crime, if ya can't do the time" comes to mind here.  I do feel that someone guilty of a sexual offense, ie: rape, regardless of the age or sex of the victim, is a crime that needs to be punished by jail time.  Is it embarassing for someone to be on a list for sex offenders, and have that list avail. to the public?  Probably, but oh well.  Maybe these offenders will think twice about their actions.  Of course, that list could expire after a set time.  

I think that many times, there isn't a set protocol for who goes on the list, what they have to do to get on the list, etc.  Maybe there is, I really dont know, but if there isn't a protocol, lets get one.  And lets have a standard, set in stone procedure of who's in charge of the list, who goes on, for what time, etc.  I dont think that the list should be influenced by anyone.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2011)

MJS said:


> Sorry for the late reply Bill.  RL stuff is taking a front seat to the forum.  Anyways...thanks for your reply.   I do see your points, and as I said, its very possible that what you say, could happen.  However, I wonder...the old saying, "Dont do the crime, if ya can't do the time" comes to mind here.  I do feel that someone guilty of a sexual offense, ie: rape, regardless of the age or sex of the victim, is a crime that needs to be punished by jail time.  Is it embarassing for someone to be on a list for sex offenders, and have that list avail. to the public?  Probably, but oh well.  Maybe these offenders will think twice about their actions.  Of course, that list could expire after a set time.
> 
> I think that many times, there isn't a set protocol for who goes on the list, what they have to do to get on the list, etc.  Maybe there is, I really dont know, but if there isn't a protocol, lets get one.  And lets have a standard, set in stone procedure of who's in charge of the list, who goes on, for what time, etc.  I dont think that the list should be influenced by anyone.



I think you touched on one of my points; what is the list for?  You see it as acceptable that it causes 'embarrassment'.  Well, in my opinion, I don't much care if a rapist is embarrassed or not, like you; but I also don't think the purpose of such lists is to create a public stockade where we throw rotten vegetables at people convicted of crimes.  I think the list was supposed to be to keep track of serial offenders and sexual predators; not to make it easy to find and humiliate them.

If the list doesn't serve its purpose, then what is the purpose of it?  Seems to me that many consider it a way for the public to 'get back' at those whom they despise.  Nah, I'm not down with that.  If you want to sentence rapists and sexual predators to life in prison, then fine.  Letting them out and creating lists so they can be tortured forever by anyone with a grudge or an axe to grind?  Not so much.


----------



## MJS (Feb 17, 2011)

Hudson69 said:


> Why have anyone register weapons related crimes, it won't stop them from getting a firearm if they really want one and should they do that, commit a crime and be caught, it just makes them a special offender. This is as long as the charging officer pulls a criminal history. If the bandit has been adjudicated a felon then the firearm alone is another felony. If drugs are involved then there is more.


 
Thats a good point.  Just like a restraining/protective order doesnt ensure the protected person is really protected.  Just something that in the event its violated, the cops can tack on an extra charge.  Of course, in many cases, the protected person ends up dead.  So much for the order.  



> Registering is just one more way for the government to get into someone's privacy (even bandits have rights) and would be another drain on resources.


 
True, but IMO, I still feel that the average law abiding person should have nothing to worry about.  I've gone thru DUI check points, not sweating anything.  Why?  Because I dont drink and drive and keep everything on my car legit and up to date.  I'm not giving them a reason to stop me, yet I still pass thru.  Same with a cop running radar.  Go ahead and clock me....I've yet to get a speeding ticket.



> Why don't we just try and enforce the laws that are out there, actually lock up the bad guys who like guns (the way Sheriff Joe would) when they commit crimes, and carry on.


 
Amen!!!  This is a huge pet peeve of mine.  Maybe if the jails/prisons were more like Joes place, people would not want to return.  OTOH, the BHC (bleeding hearts club) thinks that Joes place is too harsh.  Again, dont do the crime, is ya cant do the time.  I like Joe, because while the BHC tries to find ways to show that Joe is too harsh, Joe gets just close enough to the line...but doesnt cross it. 



> I can see the value in having a RSO registry but that isn't going to stop an offender on the street from re-offending if they want to.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you want to sentence rapists and sexual predators to life in prison, then fine. Letting them out and creating lists so they can be tortured forever by anyone with a grudge or an axe to grind? Not so much.


 
bingo.


----------



## MJS (Feb 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think you touched on one of my points; what is the list for? You see it as acceptable that it causes 'embarrassment'. Well, in my opinion, I don't much care if a rapist is embarrassed or not, like you; but I also don't think the purpose of such lists is to create a public stockade where we throw rotten vegetables at people convicted of crimes. I think the list was supposed to be to keep track of serial offenders and sexual predators; not to make it easy to find and humiliate them.
> 
> If the list doesn't serve its purpose, then what is the purpose of it? Seems to me that many consider it a way for the public to 'get back' at those whom they despise. Nah, I'm not down with that. If you want to sentence rapists and sexual predators to life in prison, then fine. Letting them out and creating lists so they can be tortured forever by anyone with a grudge or an axe to grind? Not so much.


 
I'm not asking you to dig up a bunch of stats for me, but I think it'd be interesting to know exactly how many people, all over the US, actually read these offender lists, and actually seek out and do something to these offenders.  If an offender is in my area, fine.  No, I'm not going to picket and protest the guys house, crying for him to move out.  As long as he keeps to himself, fine.  But once he starts attacking kids in the area, etc., then yes, LE action should be taken.

Of course, I'm speaking for myself.  I'm sure there are nuts out there who have nothing better to do than sit on their ***, reading a SO list, and trying to light the guys house on fire.  No, Charles Bronson I'm not.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 17, 2011)

MJS said:


> I think that many times, there isn't a set protocol for who goes on the list, what they have to do to get on the list, etc. Maybe there is, I really dont know, but if there isn't a protocol, lets get one. And lets have a standard, set in stone procedure of who's in charge of the list, who goes on, for what time, etc. I dont think that the list should be influenced by anyone.


 
I am personally aware of some of the issues Bill has raised in this.  I do know of one young man who had a sexual relationship with his girlfriend, while they were both teenagers.  i don't know their exact ages, but there was a big enough difference that it caused a problem.  When the relationship went sour, she suddenly accused him of rape.  He now has that "sex offender" label for the rest of his life.

I know of another man who was caught by law enforcement urinating in a public park.  I believe there was nobody else around to be offended by it.  Guess what?  he was charged with indecent exposure and is now a registered sex offender.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 17, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'm not asking you to dig up a bunch of stats for me, but I think it'd be interesting to know exactly how many people, all over the US, actually read these offender lists, and actually seek out and do something to these offenders. If an offender is in my area, fine. No, I'm not going to picket and protest the guys house, crying for him to move out. As long as he keeps to himself, fine. But once he starts attacking kids in the area, etc., then yes, LE action should be taken.
> 
> Of course, I'm speaking for myself. I'm sure there are nuts out there who have nothing better to do than sit on their ***, reading a SO list, and trying to light the guys house on fire. No, Charles Bronson I'm not.


 
It happened out here a few years ago.  Sex offender was released from prison, was registered and had to be monitored.  He couldn't find anywhere to live, was rejected and kicked out everywhere he went.  I believe a priest gave him shelter in the parish, but somehow ended up at odds with the law over it, maybe because of the proximity of a school or something.  The guy was hounded until he committed suicide.

I just don't accept that that was the proper way to carry out justice.


----------



## MJS (Feb 18, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I am personally aware of some of the issues Bill has raised in this. I do know of one young man who had a sexual relationship with his girlfriend, while they were both teenagers. i don't know their exact ages, but there was a big enough difference that it caused a problem. When the relationship went sour, she suddenly accused him of rape. He now has that "sex offender" label for the rest of his life.
> 
> I know of another man who was caught by law enforcement urinating in a public park. I believe there was nobody else around to be offended by it. Guess what? he was charged with indecent exposure and is now a registered sex offender.


 
Points taken Mike.   The only thing I could say to this is it'd have to be on a state by state basis, just like all the other laws.  I've sent cops to calls for people urinating in public.  AFAIK, 1 of 2 things happens...the cops tell the guy to cut the ****, and move along before they get arrested or they give them a ticket.  I may be wrong, but I dont recall hearing about someone ending up on the SO list for pissing in public.  



Flying Crane said:


> It happened out here a few years ago. Sex offender was released from prison, was registered and had to be monitored. He couldn't find anywhere to live, was rejected and kicked out everywhere he went. I believe a priest gave him shelter in the parish, but somehow ended up at odds with the law over it, maybe because of the proximity of a school or something. The guy was hounded until he committed suicide.
> 
> I just don't accept that that was the proper way to carry out justice.


 
Like I said, I'm sure some cases of that stuff, unfortunately do happen.  I guess it'll vary from person to person, area to area.  Oh and for what its worth, I dont think that people should take the law into their own hands either.  Is beating the **** out of the guy, who lives 3 doors down, really making you a better person or solving the problem?  IMO, no.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

MJS said:


> Points taken Mike.   The only thing I could say to this is it'd have to be on a state by state basis, just like all the other laws.  I've sent cops to calls for people urinating in public.  AFAIK, 1 of 2 things happens...the cops tell the guy to cut the ****, and move along before they get arrested or they give them a ticket.  I may be wrong, but I dont recall hearing about someone ending up on the SO list for pissing in public.



In Michigan, minus any local law to the contrary, public urination is not indecent exposure.  However...

http://www.brucealanblock.com/pages/Sex_offenses.html



> The offenses automatically  	requiring registration are:
> 
> Accosting, Enticing or Soliciting a Child for Immoral Purposes.
> Child Sexually Abusive Activity or Material.
> ...



And in some Michigan cities, public urination is indeed prosecuted as 'indecent exposure'.  If there is no city statute to the contrary, then public urination may not be a 'sex crime'.  However, in Grand Rapids (one city I recall reading about), public urination is indeed a sex crime, and you *will* be placed on the sex offenders registry.

While most of the crimes on the list above are things I'd be concerned about, there are several (bolded) that I don't agree with.  Is a hooker a sex offender, or his or her customer?  I don't really see them as a threat to children in the neighborhood.

I mean, I just want to be clear here.  The public has a right to know that a guy who took a leak in the alley lives in their neighborhood, but a murderer out on parole they DO NOT need to know about?  I think a lot of people are really hung up on sex crimes.  Way overboard in my opinion.

But witness the 'it serves them right' comments or 'maybe they should have thought about that first' comments.  Yeah, perhaps.  So now it's OK to punish them for the rest of their lives?  Seems a bit extreme compared to murderers, is all I'm saying.

And imagine you got caught as a 18 year old with a hooker; and now you try to teach martial arts and guess what?  You're on the sex offender registry - the headlines scream it as soon as some parent does a search.  You're no more likely to molest their kid than the next decent guy, but you were with a hooker at a youthful age; or you got caught peeing in an alley (in Grand Rapids, at least).  Now you can't be a martial arts instructor; you might even go to jail for trying.  Does it 'serve you right'?  Does the punishment fit the crime?

I guess what I'm saying is that the sex offender registry has gone way beyond what it was intended to be.  You argue that it's a tool for law enforcement; OK, so why not restrict it to law enforcement access only?  Well, it seems a lot of people think that part of being a sex offender is being punished in perpetuity, so no.  That's why no one has a problem with the idea of sex offenders in Florida being forced to go live under a bridge; and no one much cares that at least some of them are guilty of such minor infractions as getting a hummer from a hooker.  

And a gun crime registry list is going to be better somehow?  Gun grabbers aren't going to get their hands on it and use it to persecute everyone who ever failed to dot an "i" or cross a "t" on their paperwork?  Imagine that.  Forgive me for not believing it for a second.


----------



## MJS (Feb 18, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In Michigan, minus any local law to the contrary, public urination is not indecent exposure. However...
> 
> http://www.brucealanblock.com/pages/Sex_offenses.html
> 
> ...


 
Hey Bill,

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that taking a leak in public wasnt a crime.  I said that depending on the act, it may/may not lead to an arrest, the SO list, etc.  Thanks for the link. 



> While most of the crimes on the list above are things I'd be concerned about, there are several (bolded) that I don't agree with. Is a hooker a sex offender, or his or her customer? I don't really see them as a threat to children in the neighborhood.


 
Agreed, and frankly, I dont think the billboard advertising the local strip club is a threat either, yet there're many parents who'd probably disagree.  



> I mean, I just want to be clear here. The public has a right to know that a guy who took a leak in the alley lives in their neighborhood, but a murderer out on parole they DO NOT need to know about? I think a lot of people are really hung up on sex crimes. Way overboard in my opinion.


 
This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn, as we went from guns to SO's but nonetheless, I do feel that it is a productive thread.   Back to this point...who said the public doesnt have a right to know?  The SO list is public, so what the hell...make the public aware of killers on parole, living in the area.  I think its important to know whats going on in the area/neighborhood.  



> But witness the 'it serves them right' comments or 'maybe they should have thought about that first' comments. Yeah, perhaps. So now it's OK to punish them for the rest of their lives? Seems a bit extreme compared to murderers, is all I'm saying.


 
Well, be that as it may, why should we protect the criminal from the crimes they commit?  Personally, when I read about 12 and 13yo punks beating the **** out of people, but oh wait...their names can't be published due to age...**** that!  Print their names!  Let everyone know what a piece of **** they are.  IMO, it seems to me that the law is more concerned with the badguy and his feelings.  People need to start taking responsibility for their actions.  I'm not saying that its ok for people to grab the torches and pitchforks and go on a witch hunt, but heres an interesting idea....did nobody notice the behavior of the SO prior to them getting so out of control, they land in jail and on the SO list?  Lets start getting these people some help, treatment, whatever, so maybe, just maybe, they'll change.  



> And imagine you got caught as a 18 year old with a hooker; and now you try to teach martial arts and guess what? You're on the sex offender registry - the headlines scream it as soon as some parent does a search. You're no more likely to molest their kid than the next decent guy, but you were with a hooker at a youthful age; or you got caught peeing in an alley (in Grand Rapids, at least). Now you can't be a martial arts instructor; you might even go to jail for trying. Does it 'serve you right'? Does the punishment fit the crime?


 
As I said, this probably isn't SO material, but hey, I know its not the popular phrase, but again, people need to think before they act.  If you **** up, accept it and deal with it.  



> I guess what I'm saying is that the sex offender registry has gone way beyond what it was intended to be. You argue that it's a tool for law enforcement; OK, so why not restrict it to law enforcement access only? Well, it seems a lot of people think that part of being a sex offender is being punished in perpetuity, so no. That's why no one has a problem with the idea of sex offenders in Florida being forced to go live under a bridge; and no one much cares that at least some of them are guilty of such minor infractions as getting a hummer from a hooker.


 
Hey Bill, I'm not disagreeing that it may be out of hand, but I'm not making the rules...the state is.  Apparently the state of Fl, is fine with SOs living in a box.  I never said that was ok.  



> And a gun crime registry list is going to be better somehow? Gun grabbers aren't going to get their hands on it and use it to persecute everyone who ever failed to dot an "i" or cross a "t" on their paperwork? Imagine that. Forgive me for not believing it for a second.


 
Again, the SO list, the GR list (gun reg) is no different than a protective/restraining order.  All it is is paper.  Its not some magical paper that'll protect the protectee.  Its a piece of paper.  All these things are, is tools to track offenders, nothing more, nothing less.  By no means am I suggesting they're magical solutions to a problem.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 18, 2011)

MJS said:


> Link
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts on this? Personally, I think its a great idea.


 
What exactly is the point? And who exactly is able to access the list? And what crimes will be included on it? And is there any evidence that, unlike the sex offenders registry, where sex offenders are uniquely predisposed to commit the same sex crimes over again, that this remotely has any actual validity?

Sounds more like the kind of asinine legislation some legislature pulls out of his orafice in order to 'appear' tough on crime.

I am increasingly cynical about newly proposed legislations, as should everyone be..........keep in mind the law of unintended consequences.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 18, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Except it's demonstrably untrue. Lifetime recidivism rates for all crimes is in the range of 60%, for sex crimes it's about 5-10% (can't remember the exact figure). It's _almost _like politicians care more about "looking tough on crime" to the voters instead of making fact-based decisions.


 
The problem with those statistics is what was included under the term 'sex crimes'.

The kind of sex crimes that are the reason those lists were created, child sexual predators, for example, have a far higher incidents of recidivism than 5-10%.

However, the problem is that EVERYTHING remotely sex related ended up on the list, and many of those other categories were one time incidents.


----------



## MJS (Feb 18, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> What exactly is the point?


 
I'm assuming it'd be along the lines of the SOR.  



> And who exactly is able to access the list?


 
I think we touched on this in another post on here.  It could a) be just LE only, b) anyone, just like the SOR list.  If it were to actually happen, I'd imagine that would be determined by the people in charge of the list.  



> And what crimes will be included on it?


 
Again, I think this was touched on earlier.  That would be determined.  



> And is there any evidence that, unlike the sex offenders registry, where sex offenders are uniquely predisposed to commit the same sex crimes over again, that this remotely has any actual validity?


 
Dont know...its only in the talking stages AFAIK, right now.  Again, all these lists are just like a protective order....basically useless. LOL.  Is the SOR some magical thing that prevents SOs from raping and molesting?  No of course not.  Do protective/Restraining orders contain some magic that keeps the crazy ex from stalking and killing the protected party? No of course not.  Will this gun reg. keep badguys from getting guns and robbing, killing, etc.?  No, of course not.  



> Sounds more like the kind of asinine legislation some legislature pulls out of his orafice in order to 'appear' tough on crime.


 
You're probably right.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 18, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'm assuming it'd be along the lines of the SOR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I don't trust legislatures further than I can throw them........I have zero doubt that the powers that be would find a way to turn this kind of legislation against law abiding citizens in some fashion.......knowing that their stated intent is really a bit moot.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 19, 2011)

MJS said:


> Hey Bill, I'm not disagreeing that it may be out of hand, but I'm not making the rules...the state is.  Apparently the state of Fl, is fine with SOs living in a box.  I never said that was ok.



I understand, but that's my point.  If the SO list is 'out of hand', how long do you think it will take for the GC list to get out of hand?  I would hazard a guess that there are people who are not fans of guns, who would use such a list to make certain that a) people get on it for any plausible reason whatsoever (just like the SO list has expanded) and b) that people who are on it are hounded to the ends of the earth.  They'll be calling employers to make sure that they know who their GC list employees are, putting up signs, picketing, and so on.  In my opinion, the same thing will end up happening - GC list members denied the right to live within X feet of a school or public building, forced to live under bridges, and so on.  Sure, there will be some 'bad guys' on the list who don't deserve our pity.  And the gun-grabbers will ensure that there are also a lot of people on it who commit any infraction at all that peripherally involves a gun.

So I remain against it.  We have enough bloody lists.  The police have all the authority and power that they need.  Enough.


----------

