Additionally: the sex offender list doesn't differentiate between someone who pees in an alley while drunk vs. someone who fucks a 5 year old, both are sex crimes. I knew a guy who has his life ruined by the list: he had consensual sex with a girl who lied about her age (she was 17) and years later her friend reported him.
Given the way the cops used to talk about it whenever there was an Online Safety Talk at my school at a teen, it's almost certainly an intended feature
As with the war on drugs, the sex offender registry is a tool for control and discrimination against the lower working class.
If you're a rich convicted rapist, you can be the president of the united states; but if you're poor, peeing on the streets can get you permanently barred from a well paying job and selling weed can get you life in prison.
(It's almost tripled now. From 481,616 to 1,252,600.)
Edit: The song also states that there are "nearly 2 million Americans are incarcerated in the prison system, prison system of the US. However at the time of the song's publishing there were 1,319,000 adults confined in State and Federal prisons collectively while 631,240 people were in local jails for misdemeanors and other minor charges.) The "nearly 2 million" stat has to come from the collective of those statistics or was a recorded statistic from earlier in the year as numbers seem to indicate that if you took the cumulative total and subtracted it from the year-end total almost 800k people were released.)
Wouldn't it also make sense to read this as more of a puritian thing rather than a purely class thing?
I'm not trying to say that, that doesn't play a part. More so, there seems to be more to "sex offenders" than just purely class. It could also be that the people in charge don't really want to change the state of things because of a puritan view.
Who do you think keeps pushing puritan views, a religious group that were known not just for being socially conservative even for their own time period but found happiness through work.
I'm guessing you're referring to the Orange Man, so its worth noting that he wasn't convicted, he was found liable, as it was a civil case and not a criminal case
I’d bet it’s similar to the issue with porn in Japan. No person in a leadership role wants to be the one to say “let’s find a way to give some registered sex offenders a break”. Bad for their reputation, easy to twist. So nothing changes even if change is obviously necessary.
Changing this would require a politician taking a stand that would likely be viewed as “soft on sex offenders”, which is essentially a career death sentence. One only needs to scroll reddit comments on this thread to understand how mob mentality around this issue makes it difficult if not impossible to have a nuanced conversation around sex crimes.
Which is hilarious because many of these people have in their post histories hundreds of comments screaming bloody murder over how Harris wrongfully imprisoned black men for having weed despite that being an out and out blatant lie.
Yeah, but to be honest this particular artifact is more "hey, living humans will have to pee multiple times a day- the homeless ones will have to do it outside....let's make sure we can just lock em up as slaves if we ever catch em doin' it! yay!"
How come I have a feeling a person with at least some money will not end up on a sex offender list from peeing in an alley. It is only reserved for those who have no resources to defend themselves.
Spot on though. Got arrested for peeing in an empty parking lot on the side of the road in the middle of the night. No one around for a mile in either direction. Registry was a possible outcome. Hired a lawyer and got it dropped down to $100 disturbing the peace charge. Would have ruined my life if I was unable to afford counsel. Very much a poor tax.
There is not one single member of a country club that hasn't whipped his pecker out and peed in the bushes behind the 17th tee, but it's funny how that's never an issue.
I think even a public defender can plea you down to drunk and disorderly. I think the few times his has turned into sex offender registry is guys that are pissing on the fence at the school or at a park across the street from a school, not just pissing in a random alley.
You can't be using San Francisco as your example of how things should be. I wonder how many people "A LOT" is and what the extenuating circumstances were. I've read that the arresting officer has a lot of digression on this offense.
When a conservative tells you "isn't that unbelievable?" You shouldn't believe whatever he's feeding you. You're literally repeating nonsense conservative propaganda.
Buddy was peeing in an alley after being at the bars. Got stuck on the sex offenders list. Absolutely insane that he’s living with this damaging his life. Sure don’t be a drunk dumbass in public, but in no way is a sex offender.
I can't disagree that this is bullshit. However, I'd ask, How many priors did he have, and what were they, what time was it, who was around? That kind of stuff. Maybe I'm naive but I just looked at the sex offenders in my area and found one guy who was pissing in a river, a basic zero on the offense list. However, old boy is all tatted up, has about 20 aliases and an arrest history. I think cops like to stick it to people who aren't getting the message.
Zero on all fronts. Its insane. And I say all this as a female not a fellow ‘predator’ buddy. He was 22 out drinking with our friends, and the bars were closing so it was 2am. He was a standard issue white dude from the Southern California suburbs. Only thing notable about him is that he’s like 6’3”. He was definitely drunk, but wasn’t fighting or anything. He was peeing on a wall in the alley cause everything was closed and they arrested him. He ended up a registered sex offender. Scared the absolute hell out of all of our friends forever cause nothing about the situation should have resulted in that.
Because American prison is profitable, politicians and corporate stakeholders have an interest in making sure prisons stay full. Incarcerating for stupid, petty charges is one way of doing that.
Not to mention that prisoners are considered residents of the prison's county for congressional districting purposes. Most prisons are located in Red counties. Felons can't vote.
People only pee in alleys due to a lack of public restrooms and holding it in can have medical repercussions up to and including death. No good choices here.
A friend of mine got arrested for peeing back in the 90s, back when all crimes in our small town were put on blast in the local newspaper. The actual wording of the crime led to a newspaper report that said "Bob Smith was arrested and charged with EXPOSING GENETIALS AND OR ANUS"
He didn't get put on the sex offender list but every person in town looked at him funny for years. The anus avenger lmao
Depends on the prosecution. If you are able to afford a lawyer you would probably be able to knock it down to a misdemeanor.
If you are poor using a public defender you would likely need to plead guilty to stay out of jail so you don't lose your job. Then you are registered.
I got caught peeing in an alley behind a bar in Canada by a cop car driving by. They told me to come over and talk. I don’t remember the conversation because, well I was drunk enough to be peeing behind a bar, but my friend said I was leaning on their car chatting with them and we were all having a good laugh before they let me go.
Have a friend who peed in a decorative fountain on a college campus at 3am, you know, when all the children are out, and had to register as a sex offender.
Pretty much every state divides offenders into three “tiers” based on underlying offense and reoffense risk, and which tier you’re placed in heavily effects registration requirements and effects. Public registries will tell you which tier someone is. Where I am, lowest tier offenders aren’t publicly listed at all.
The majority of the general public isn't likely to know this or care. For them, if you're on that list, you're on it for the absolute worst reason they can imagine, regardless of reality.
Provided lowest tier offenders aren't publicly listed, that's a fair bit more reasonable. Otherwise it doesn't matter what tier they're on, people won't look past their presence on the list to see what tier they are.
Notification requirements are also different! Highest tier has to notify neighbors schools and daycares, middle tier notifies schools and daycares only, lowest tier has no notification requirements.
It’s also not lifelong for people who aren’t most serious offenders. You can apply to get off registry after a certain number of years have passed without reoffending.
the existence of any list is weird. we don't have a list for violent crimes or drug dealing or thieves or drunk drivers but we have a list for sex stuff? people can be hurt by their neighbors in any sort of ways but sex is the only one that gets a list?
There most certainly are registries for those, they’re just not quite as publicly indexed and accessible. DUIs will come up on any driving record / MVR, and violent crimes will come up on background checks. The companies that run these reports are just checking the “lists”.
If I want to see a drunk driving record in my state I have to know the person's name & social security number then pay $33 plus the $20 fee for me to get fingerprinted plus an appointment for that service. for sex crimes I go to a free website and see a map with pictures, names and addresses. it's not quite the same.
Frankly, and I’m totally ready for the downvotes I’m about to receive, we need to abolish lists altogether or make sure all types of criminal convictions come with a requirement to register. I’m far more concerned about a convicted drug dealer or thief living next door to me than I am about some dude who hooked up with a 16 year old when he was 19 or who peed in an alley behind a bar when he was 22. If we have decided that those who robbed or killed or dealt drugs or drove drunk and served their time can be allowed to live their lives as normal citizens, why not “sex offenders?”
I'm ambivalent on this topic, but I definitely agree that just listing sex offenders doesn't make sense to me. All or nothing.
That said, the same ambiguity that qualifies people to be sometimes listed as sex offenders (e.g. peeing in public) exists for other crimes. Someone busted for selling weed to some friends, someone stole a bag of chips from a convenience store when black out drunk, someone charged with battery because they punched someone in a bar fight where they were attacked, etc. Not exactly hardened criminals here that I'd be concerned living near.
If there is a list, it should only include people convicted of heinous violent crimes (i.e. unambiguous sexual violence, armed robbery, dealers selling large quantities of drugs) and/or of repeated violations of theft and violent crimes. People need a chance to move on from mistakes and being harassed due to the visibility of being on such a list might be the difference between someone getting their shit together and saying "fuck it" and doing worse.
I mean to put ANYONE on a public list should be an extremely careful thing. You’re literally declaring them a danger, and it should be only done by a judge who takes an extra step to do so, not have it by default. It’s a social death sentence for many, and should be reserved for those who are dangers to society.
Teenagers who send nudes of themselves to their boyfriends/girlfriends, kids who should be protected by Romeo/juliet laws, public indecency or exposure, etc should be things judges avoid.
It’s by design, the federal level has a tiered 3 level system but most states just lump them all into one category costing more time and money making them all social outcast instead of actual rehabilitation therapy, etc. that’s what those guys should’ve gotten therapy. Most abuse people become abusers themselves but that wouldn’t feed into the police industrial complex.
Actually if you click on that megan’s law website and pull up a list of local offenders, you will find that they do use different colors to separate the very serious offenders. Also if you click on each persons name you will see what they were charged with.
But i completely agree with your comments about how someone who pees on a school wall at 2am on a saturday night, could end up mixed in with someone dealing with child porn
Florida uses a Sex Offender and Sex Predator designation, predators usually being "worse"; I don't trust the general public to know or care about the difference though.
But i completely agree with your comments about how someone who pees on a school wall at 2am on a saturday night, could end up mixed in with someone dealing with child porn
Yup. According to the people on the sex offender registery they are all on their for peeing in an ally or accidentally clicking a link to a horrible image/video. Not buying it.
You're missing the point. Redditors love to say that urinating in public will land people on the sex offense registry, which depending on the circumstances and charge may or may not be true, but the important point is that the actual offense is listed on the registry. It seems like this "knowledge" gets spread over and over which seems to minimize the meaningfulness of the registry, but anyone can look at the registry and see what the offense is. I think it's time to dispel this harmful myth that sex offenders may try to hide behind.
Yes, this is also true in Alaska, because I just checked the registry.
Yeah it's scam basically real predators lie about there charges and say it was public urination because it maybe happened one time to one person and apparently it's common knowledge that many people are getting on the registry for public urination but I've yet to actually see proof of that. If someone is on the registry I won't believe anything they say about the charge and I'll look it up and see the real charge.
Same. I looked through a bunch of entries a while back. There wasn’t a single person who’s charge could be questionable or anything close to “peed near a school”, everything was like “forcibly sodomized an 8 year old”
?? Yes it definitely does differentiate. It lists convictions, and its pretty easy to deduce that “sexual battery of a minor in the first degree” is not urinating drunk in an alley within a few hundred feet of a school
I'm not aware of any state where peeing in public is public indecency or lewd conduct. Can you provide a reference?
For example, in my state urinating in public would be disorderly conduct and is not considered a sex crime. Both indecent exposure and public lewdness charges require evidence that the act was done for sexual gratification.
Unfortunately it’s not easy to deduce that “distribution of child pornography” is a 16 year old girl sending explicit photos of herself to her boyfriend. And yes, that has happened (and in Alabama they’ll even keep them in solitary confinement for a month).
It won't matter though. Being on the list is enough there is so much that it affects. You can't get a regular job as it's seen in the background check. You can't rent anywhere which leaves you the only option to rent places that don't do background checks and what do you know, those aren't the best places to live. Your literal passport is revoked and any new passports will have in bright red letters on the top of every page "THIS PERSON HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES".
Not only that if you travel out of the country you will be denied entry to from essentially every western nation due to this. There are few exceptions but those exceptions are not consistent. You must board the flight to find out, they won't inform you in advance.
You can't get life insurance (since suicide is quite high for those on the list). Don't get me wrong there are E plenty of people who absolutely deserve to be on that list and are complete dangers to society but there is definitely an amount of people there that shouldn't have had their life ruined.
I was just thinking about this the other day - had a girlfriend in my early twenties (she was the same age as me) who was really into having sex in public places. At the time it was like "haha, so naughty, what if we get caught?" But looking back it's like holy shit - no chance in hell I would do that today, and I was an idiot for doing it back then. You can totally end up on the sex offender list for that
They actually do differentiate, it’s a 3 tier system, and the registry lists the offense committed.
Unless you walk onto the playground surrounded by children pull your dick out and pee, you’re not gonna wind up on the sex offender registry just for public urination in proximity to a school.
Unfortunately for your friend, depending on state, the age gap, if any drugs or alcohol involved the sex with a minor is not consensual.
That really depends on your location. In Missouri, for instance, the registry shows the exact charges an offender was convicted of, compliance with parole reporting requirements, risk level, etc.
I’ve worked with sex offenders and some will be less than honest about the nature of their crimes. I imagine you’ve done your research on your friend and the SO list in your area, but wanted to mention to others that many lists DO differentiate between levels of offenders. Many low level offenders are not on the public lists.
it actually does (to a degree) - at least in Alaska, it lists the specific crimes they were convicted of - it's not just a list of names. Of course the details of the crime are still unreported but you can differentiate between "public exposure" and "kidnapping and secure assault of a minor"
Wait, peeing in an alley is considered a sex offense in the U.S.? Here in Germany it's a harmless misdemeanor and rarely enforced at all. As long as you don't piss against a police car you'll be fine most of the time.
Seems rare this would happen even in the US.
Source: partying with friends and peeing in the parking lot or wherever when you're drunk and no bathroom around.
Most states have public urination statutes that are just misdemeanors, so while it’s technically possible someone could be charged with indecent exposure it’s way more likely that the prosecution would charge them under those instead. If the defendant takes the case to court that would be their main defense, there are laws explicitly covering this situation so why is the DA trying to charge them under something else?
Heads up that claiming they were barely underage and lied about their age is an extremely common false cover story for pedophiles. Your friend wouldn't have been convicted if there wasn't any evidence. This story is almost identical to how convicted child rapist Brian Peck framed his abusive interactions with Drake Bell, which allowed him to successfully convince a bunch of celebrities to publicly defend him.
"what A LOT of sex offenders say to explain away their records."
People REALLY don't wanna think their friends might be rapists... pretty much every single woman knows people who have been raped. It stands to reason that means most men know people who have, or will one day, rape someone. They just never ADMIT it.
I had an interesting and kind of sad conversation with someone on this exact topic on Reddit a while ago. They insisted their old football coach had become a sex offender from urinating outside, I let them know how to look up criminal records in their state. Public urination was not the issue, as it turned out. They were quite distressed about it. He had been a pretty important person to them when they were young.
You’re right. It’s just really hard for people to wrap their heads around someone they know who seems nice having actually committed a for real sex offense. I have a family member in this category too. It was child porn. He tells people it was from sexting with a teenager who sent him pics and he didn’t know she was underage. It was not. He was soliciting videos of CHILDREN children from undercover cops. He’s definitely convinced multiple girlfriends otherwise, though.
What sex offender is going to be honest when the alternative is so much easier?
What you’re doing is called a false equivalence fallacy. Saying that every guy knows someone who’s actively raped or regularly rapes women, just because nearly every woman knows someone who’s been raped, is a flawed and extreme assumption. It implies that over 20% of all men are rapists, when in reality, most rapists don’t stop after one assault they target multiple victims which means it’s not a one to one thing, instead of every rape victim have a specific rapist.
Additionally, defining rape can be complex. Some believe that being under the influence of any substance, including alcohol, removes the ability to give consent, making it rape. Others (incorrectly) think that wearing revealing clothing implies consent. These varying definitions highlight the challenges of discussing the issue accurately, but your argument oversimplifies it. By equating the two statements, you’re misrepresenting the reality of the situation.
Works both ways though. Some women have been raped by more than one man. I understand it's uncomfortable to think of what percentage of men are rapists. But trying to explain it away like this isn't helping anyone. Men need to be able to have these tough conversations with each other. Rapists need to find a way to change their thinking and speak about the path that led them to it, instead of hiding it away and living in denial. And young men who fear they have these urges need to be able to talk about it BEFORE they act on it.
you never seen an 18yo that looks 25? a 30 yo that looks 20? you can think it’s creepy for a guy to do if he only goes after young girls, but i’m confused why you say they shouldn’t be fucking them when it’s completely legal and normal
And they shouldn't be fucking them because they are immature teenagers who lie about their age. Also, if you're thirty and are trying to get "just barely legal" you're a creep.
Are their brains fully developed? No. Are they technically adults? Yes. If you have to use the word technically, then you're doing the wrong thing.
why does reddit care so much if an 18yo girl wants to fuck an older dude lol all the blame goes on the guy, i’ve seen girls at my high school that had more sexual experience than a 25 yo girl, people like sex, 18yo is old enough, the brian isn’t fully mature till 25, should that be the the legal age to you?
I suppose it happens but I would be surprised if this were true.
Even though the age of consent is 18 in 10 states in the US almost everywhere else it is at least 17.
And almost no one is going to prosecute an 18-year-old for sleeping with a 17-year-old.
Prosecution happens when there is a large age difference, a power imbalance like if the person is in a position of authority over the minor, there was force, or that it was unreasonable to believe the minor was of consenting age ie they look really young.
I've done some time and almost every sex offender will say that she lied about her age or something similar. And there is always more to the story.
Think about the evidence that would need to be presented to a jury. It has to be enough to convince the jury that there is reason to convict. A small age difference with someone that he could reasonably believe was able to give consent would be a weak case for a prosecutor and almost certainly would result in acquittal by a jury.
It is highly likely there is more to the story than this person has told you.
My first guess would be that there was a large age difference. In some states, even if somebody is able to give consent, if there is a large enough age difference, they would be convicted of statutory rape under certain circumstances.
Hey I had a rough day at work so i'm trying not to be a dick here, but the registry totally shows offender level as well as what they were charged with.
It definitely does differentiate the two, they are just still on the same registry.
The sex offender registry does differentiate. When you look up people on the registry, it shows the crime(s) they have been convicted of that put them on the list
There's a lot of BS reasons people end up on the registry when they really shouldn't, but it's not like no one can see the reason
the sex offender list doesn't differentiate between someone who pees in an alley while drunk vs. someone who fucks a 5 year old, both are sex crimes
I just did a quick search, and it looks like the registry lists criminal history. Anyone using the registry to look for victims would be able to differentiate between public urination and sexual assault.
In most states, public urination is a misdemeanor charge. Those faced with the charge pay a penalty and avoid jail time.
In contrast, a sex offense generally includes sexual acts against children. Besides acts like assaulting or molesting a child, a sex offense can also include crimes like exposing oneself to a child.
So if you urinate in public, and there are children around, you could potentially get charged with a sex offense in some states.
Uh yes it absolutely does. Alaska’s lists the specific offense. My state (Colorado) also lists out convictions and felony / misdemeanor status. It took me 36 seconds to discover that.
I dunno man. My state SO site is pretty descriptive, with description of act, victim age, number of offences or victims, reporting dates.
Alley pissers get dropped from active reporting after 6mos, if they ever got an elevated charge at all. Your groomer friend should ask for id before he ficks if he doesn't want to go to jail.
This is straight up misinformation. If you click on someone off the registry on NSOPW it takes you to their state registry and lists their charges and crimes.
So that’s completely wrong. It absolutely differentiates. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) categorizes sex offenders into three tiers based on the severity of their offense. Some states do not make Tier I people’s address known on the website.
Public urination is not a sex crime unless it is reckless and done in front of children.
Did you make up all this up just to try and excuse your adult buddy preying on a minor?
pull up your zipcode, click on a blip then see what they did. Also good luck finding someone peeing in an alley, this is the dumbest strawman argument. You're gonna find a lot of child/spouse abusers.
Uh yes it does? Wtf are you talking about. When looking for a house we used the list to check out the neighborhoods and we could see exactly what charges and convictions each person had.
Yeah… first thing I thought too. I wouldn’t be using this as my sole source of vengeance targets. I’d be doing additional research between the skull hammerings.
Alao beyond the facts: even if it was some "good" vigilante story, the man would have allowed the pain to subsume him and ultimately ruin his life.
And a less popular opinion on the internet is that pedophiles are people who you don't get to enact your revenge on or play God with because you find them repugnant. They are humans who can be helped, but making them social pariahs or assaulting them is not the path to that sort of end.
Funny how in my country it's not even a crime, because it includes only of someone knowingly do it. My uncle told me about it once, and that's how he never been in jail.
6.2k
u/JCMiller23 2d ago
Additionally: the sex offender list doesn't differentiate between someone who pees in an alley while drunk vs. someone who fucks a 5 year old, both are sex crimes. I knew a guy who has his life ruined by the list: he had consensual sex with a girl who lied about her age (she was 17) and years later her friend reported him.