It’s no secret that I’m against sex offender registries. In fact, it’s one of the more controversial stands I’ve taken.

As a libertarian, I oppose sex offender registries because they intrinsically restrict freedom while not actually doing anything to protect anyone.

As a Christian, I oppose sex offender registries because they intrinsically assume nobody can change. I obviously believe that people can change through the power of Jesus Christ.

As a regular person with common sense, I already know that most sex crimes occur by someone who knows the victim. I also realize, using my brain, that these registries serve to increase paranoia. Additionally, the crimes listed on the registry may not correspond to what we think they do. We hear legal terms like “criminal sexual conduct” and we have no idea about the corresponding offense. I also know that people have no tolerance for anyone suspected of a sexual crime. They presume guilt because they don’t want to upset the person who is alleging the crime (see Duke lacrosse scandal). I’m not saying that all people on the sex offender registry are innocent. But, I at least reserve the option that some of them are due to our societal perception of sex crimes. And, that’s not all. There are people on the registry who have committed a “crime,” but the definition of crime is too strict (as I often point out). Here’s Lenore Skenazy’s take on the issue:

There are now commercially available mobile phone apps that map out their addresses. Looking at a map with lots of red dots makes people terrified of their neighbourhoods. It also ruins the lives of many of the ‘red dots’ – a lot of whom are no threat to children at all. They may be a 19-year-old who had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend (that’s considered statutory rape), or a guy who was convicted for peeing in public. So what we need is a law that identifies where DANGEROUS people are living, not just anyone who ran afoul of our increasingly draconian — and sometimes ridiculous — sex offender laws. Policy must change, and that begins (once again) with a reality check! (Source)

Instead of our society implying the common sense reasoning that I have detailed above, we continue to get more and more totalitarian about sex offender registries. Today, I found out that Louisiana passed a law mandating that all registered sex offenders have to list their status on social networking websites! Nevermind the fact that the Louisiana sex offender registry is already online. That’s not good enough for us anymore!  We need to see these people hanged.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the vast amassing of government for which it stands, one nation, under siege, with indignity and paranoia for all.

One of the points I like to make on this blog and in public talks is that our societal impetus to create laws for everything has actually led to more paranoia instead of the safety that we covet. Unfortunately, people are no safer with the accumulation of more laws, we just think we are safer and that all accidents can be prevented.  Along with that is the constant paranoia that happens when we see something slightly suspicious or dangerous.

Today’s example of that is a man who was forced out of a Barnes and Noble store because he was committing the horrible crime of shopping in the children’s section.

Omar Amin, 73, said store worker Todd Voris told him that a female shopper had complained about him being in the children’s area May 4 in the store at Shea Boulevard and Loop 101 in Scottsdale.

Amin, who was alone at the time, said he was in Barnes & Noble to buy books for his two grandchildren who live in Wisconsin.

“Men alone cannot be by themselves in the children’s area,” Amin said he was told, adding that Voris said other bookstores had encountered problems with child molesters.

Being a man while shopping for kids’ books isn’t, technically, a crime.  But, it is somehow suspicious enough for someone to complain to management?  And somehow the management agreed that this was suspicious enough to ask him to leave?

We should keep our kids safe, no doubt.  We should do so by teaching them the difference between normal and abnormal human interaction with people you don’t know.  Evidently, the woman who complained has never been taught the difference because I think encountering a person browsing books would fall under the “normal” category.  Did this man attempt to lure kids into a secluded area of the store (a restroom or something) with the book?  No.  Did this man touch any children in any way?  No.  Did this man even speak to a child?  No.

I’m tired of all of this paranoia in society.  Personally, I would find it refreshing to see a man in a children’s section of a book store.  Similarly, I would find it refreshing if men started teaching elementary school from time to time.  Our kids need adult interaction from men and women.  But, some people will always be against this because they see every man as a potential molester even though the news is riddled with stories of female teachers having inappropriate relationships with male students.  I’m tired of it.  I’m tired of our society giving up our freedoms for some nebulous feeling of safety.  It has to stop before we’re all suspects.

What do you think of when I use the term sex offender? I would guess that most people think of a child molester. We don’t think of there being any gray area in the world of sex crimes, and we nearly always associate it with abuse of a child. One of the more controversial things that I’ve discussed on this blog is the fact that I disagree with sex offender registries. They just serve to add paranoia to our lives by convincing us that our neighborhoods are unsafe. Plus, there are a bunch of people on it who pose no danger to society at all. For more detailed reasoning about why you should burn your sex offender map, click here.

Today, I will share with you a little interesting tidbit. Did you know that there are some people on sex offender registries because they committed adultery? That is, they cheated on their spouse in a consensual relationship with another adult. While I think that behavior is highly immoral, it certainly doesn’t post a threat to me or my young children.  The rulings on this are different in every state, but a man in West Virginia was finally removed from the sex offender registry after a judge agreed with him that it was not warranted. His crime of misdemeanor sexual misconduct (adultery) occurred in the late 1970s. The “crime” was de-criminalized in the 1980s. Yet, when West Virginia started tracking sex offenders (more than 20 years later), he was required to register or face imprisonment. While his removal from the registry is a small victory, there are still a lot of people on the registry that don’t belong there.

The fact is that the regular citizen doesn’t know what misdemeanor sexual misconduct is. We don’t read that term on our sex offender map and make a mental note that the labeled person is not a threat. We no longer let our kids walk to school past that house. We tell others to avoid it and watch out. We spoil our neighborhoods.

I’ve known marriages that have survived adultery. For all we know, this guy could still be married to his wife. They could be a happy little family. Anyway, it is not our place to judge him. Neither is it our place to tell me he can’t live next to a school or a childcare facility (as if that has anything to do with his crime). When there are restrictions like this on the sex offenders, no wonder we associate it with child abuse.

I have maintained for some time that part of the reason so many things are illegal and why the average citizen supports these laws is because, as a society, we are voyeuristic.  Let me give you an example.  The average person generally supports police stings to bust prostitutes and those that hire them because it makes for good television when an undercover cop gets involved.  We like to see the look on their faces when they are busted. We don’t stop to think about whether that law is just or whether it’s fair for the police to lie while regular citizens face huge penalties for lying to them — even if the “crime” they’re lying about isn’t considered a serious one.

These shows have been around for years.  If they were not supported by the general public, they wouldn’t be on television.  The police are always trying to make a good reputation for themselves in the community even if this requires a lot of PR work.  Obviously, they believe these shows are one example of them putting their best foot forward to catch the bad guys.

Voyeuristic shows like this tend to bring out the worst in humanity.  We are proud that we would never do something like that.  We take pleasure in another person’s pain.  We enjoy seeing them suffer through the ordeal.  We judge the criminal for being so immoral even though what we are doing is at least as bad…if not worse.

For these reasons, I avoid voyeuristic shows on principal.  This includes shows like Cheaters where no law is specifically being violated.  The show is set up to spy on people who are suspected of cheating on their significant others.  Besides the fact that it is probably staged, it is sick in the same way that the other shows are — it sets up a situation where we take pleasure in watching someone get in trouble.  As a society, if we enjoy watching people get in trouble, we will get to the point where we support every new law (as long as we don’t think it will affect us). 

Watching this kind of thing puts us in a position of looking down on someone else.  We put ourselves on a pedestal that we’re not the one getting busted.  We start to set up categories in our minds that people get filtered through.  With the number of laws on the books, we can do this for almost any scenario now.  We used to just have neighbors.  We didn’t know what their personal lives and habits were like unless or their interaction with law enforcement unless they murdered someone.  Now we have neighbors who cheat, neighbors who poach, neighbors who don’t file taxes, neighbors who fail to recycle their cat litter, neighbors who are registered sex offenders (sometimes for unjust reasons), neighbors who endanger animals, neighbors who smoke pot, etc.  We only have these categories for our neighbors because the laws exist.  And we generally take the side of the “authorities” because we are conditioned to trust them. 

All of this came up today because I read that Cheaters has opened an online store.  They now sell surveillance items for those people who suspect their lovers of cheating on them but are unable to get a spot on the show.  The interesting discussion on the referenced article is the fact that most of the items they sell may be illegal to use. 

I’ve discussed the TSA (transportation security administration) several times on this blog.  I cautioned you not to read a book about airplanes on a plane (unless you want to be humiliated), and I also discussed the absurdity of the rule about cell phones on planes.  There are many, many things that people get into trouble for concerning flying (mostly because of the bloated TSA agency).

This article discusses the idea of dismantling the entire thing and privatizing it.  For me, the interesting part of the article is when the creator of the TSA describes it as reactive. As you know, I enjoy ranting against reactionary laws.

Here’s something interesting:  I had my hip replaced in October 2001, just a little over a month after the September 11, 2001 incident.  Prior to that, I had a rod placed in the opposite leg, several other hip fixations, and even metal shavings in my face (part of the reconstructive plastic surgery).  Because of this, I was given a card from my doctor that indicated that I may set off metal detectors in airports as a result of my orthopedic modifications.  The first time I flew since then was about a year and a half ago.

With all of this fanfare about the TSA and how rigorous the screenings are, I fully expected to set off the alarm, show my card, and then undergo a serious search for explosives or something.  After all, why would they just trust the little card that my doctor gave me?  It seems pretty easy to counterfeit one of these cards.  So, I arrived at the airport with enough time to endure a sexual assault of some kind.  (Hopefully it wouldn’t be as bad as this woman with a hip replacement endured. Why aren’t some of these TSA agents on the sex offender registry?)  Anyway, much to my surprise I DIDN’T EVEN SET OFF THE METAL DETECTOR.

…that’s what this District Attorney wants. (Please note that the original URL is now a broken link.  The current link is related, but probably not as informative as the oringal one). In my book, I discuss this issue — how the punishments aren’t fitting the crimes these days.  In the article, the boy being charged is 17. The girl he kissed is 13.  She acknowledges that their kissing was consensual (he denies anything took place). But, even if it did happen, technically, she’s underage and he’s not.  The case was thrown out because it is obviously blown out of proportion, but the DA isn’t giving up.  Here is a quote from the article, which I find disturbing (O’Rourke is the defender):

O’Rourke said if the state is serious about the charge, the DA’s Office wants a conviction that would place his client on the sex offender registry, an outcome that would ban the boy from certain jobs and from living in parts of communities.

We need to stop criminalizing normal behavior.  Maybe it makes us uncomfortable, but this is pretty common behavior for teens.  As parents, if we don’t want it happening, there are other ways of addressing teenage behavior than to charge them with serious crimes. A boy who consensually kisses a slightly younger girl is not a child molester.