• Yes they should because they did the wrong thing now have to pay

    Yes i think that sex offenders should be publicized because they did the wrong thing and got into some type of criminal trouble. They should not only be publicized but they should be broadcasted. They should be imbarresesd of what they did it is not right for someone to sexually assult,rape or what ever the case is it is never right. So yes they should be publicized for that

  • The system is flawed

    Yes, absolutely, sex offenders need to be registered. However, the first step is to overhaul the justice system to prevent violent offenders to have a chance for re-offending. The registration also needs to be streamlined and better regulated to ensure that it is not providing a false sense of security to communities by having lapses where violent offenders are concerned, while stigmatizing non-violent sexual offenders who truly did make a mistake and preventing them from leading productive lives.

  • Exposure hmm give em what they crave.

    Absolutely, should the rights of an immoral deviant be worth more than potentially saving someone the grief and horror of sexual assault? Hell no! People need to be informed in order to make sound decisions. The time of silenced victims and survivors has ended!! Just ask any church denomination, or Scout clubs. Sex offenders are worse than murders. They should be culled from our society.

  • You get what you deserve, oops!

    If you decide to sexually assault or rape someone of any gender, age, race, ethnicity, state of mind, you deserve to the ultimate and most severe punishment. Once you decide to invade someone else's privacy the line was crossed. You have ruined someones lives potentially. The death penalty would be my idea of a fit punishment.

    Of course there are flaws in the system such as the whole 18 year old's date minors and have sex. A parent finds out and bam!!! Your put on megan's law or convicted of a crime all because of a few months. This would be my only exception as to the question, "shoul sex offenders be publicized". But my answer is 100% yes

  • First off, there is a difference between dangerous sex offenders...

    And ones who were charged with something harmless. I think we can all agree that rapists and child molesters should be put in a different category than those who were charged with public urination.
    That being said, statistics reveal that rapists are more likely to become repeat offenders. And as we all know, rapists don't just walk around with post-it notes on their foreheads. It would be nice to stop a future crime from happening.
    And for those saying that keeping sex offenders on the registry ruins their lives? Are you kidding? I'm certain that being raped is more damaging than being held accountable for raping someone! Rape is a crime that gets severely underreported, and from there even fewer rapists get convicted, and fewer than that even go to jail (this is a factor in why rapists tend to be repeat offenders, because they feel like they can get away with it). If you don't hold them accountable, what kind of justice is that? Is labeling a rapist more immoral than the rape itself?

  • Not in a direct way but yes

    I think people who live in that area (especially those with children) should be allowed to be alerted with a message stating that a sex offender & or other criminal is in their local neighbourhood. This message must NOT detail where they are exactly and who they are but it gives potential victims the gift of foresight and they are free to move away if they wish to live in a safe area. If a sex offender is living in their street they should have the right to know that.

    This information needs to be publicized for the good of all those law abiding citizens. People have the right to know I think whilst I respect the privacy of those offenders who may be lynched otherwise. If people get attacked by somebody who lives nearby then at least they had the choice to move away when they can - not that it makes it any better. It's particularly important for mothers and children to grant this freedom of information as they are more vulnerable.

  • People vs people

    I say yes so people can watch out for offenders especially if your trying to get a baby sitter or move to a new area. I would not want to move right next door to a sex offender would you? I also don't want my kids do be under a supervision of one. I know i could just get a backround check but that takes awhile and can cost alot of money too.

  • No special treatment

    Saying yes is just an attempt to bring it to the middle of the yes, no battle of the opposites. All the offsenses should be publicized but publicized properly and in the right amount, while checking that there is no body attaining any illegal benifits. So sex offenders should be publicized too so that people have the access to the knowldge , but no special prefernces should be given to anything

  • Yes They Should

    If one is willing to do something like that, no tears will be shed over the idea of them simply publicized. Obviously, no actions should be allowed to be taken against the person, but a good, honest, hard-working family has the right to know that their new neighbor raped somebody before they let their children play in his yard.

  • The Registry is faulty

    The registry requires for people convicted of any sex crime to register, this could be a molester, or someone who lied about their age, it doesn't give supporting facts with each name and it makes it hard for any person on this registry to continue living after the punishment they have already recieved. These people have families that have to relocate simply because people make it hard for them to live in a neighborhood, or get a job in that town.

  • Ironic Victimization of Victims

    My main concern is that their are so many people that were 18 and had sex with someone under 18 and went to jail for it even if the "minor" was 17. Even though that for all intents and purposes the two people were peers, the older of the two now has to spend atleast 5 years in prison and the rest of his life with an unfair stigma. Same goes for sexting, it's ridiculous that the rationale is that were protecting minors from harm and abuse by arresting them, regestering them as a sex offender and all over a picture the minor took themselves. These are 2 demographics that got screwed.

  • Research Says No

    Making public the information about those who have committed sexual offenses is contraindicated by empirical evidence. It inhibits the former offender's ability to secure and hold a job, to attain decent housing, and to feed and support his children and his family. It works against public safety. Other than these factors, it places the former offender and his family at risk for harassment, physical violence, and even murder. Vigilantism is on the up-rise with a former offender and his wife having just been murdered last month for no reason other than that he was on the public registry.

    If we really want to do what will best benefit society, we will pass laws that are supported by facts and empirical evidence. Nothing about a public sex offender registry is.

  • No, hurts family members & ignores future abuse

    The public sex offender registry has:

    - Not reduced recidivism rates (still in the single digits.)
    - Ostracized, harmed and endangered innocent family members and children of offenders.
    - Not prevented sexual abuse perpetrated by people not on the registry (96%)
    - Taken billions of dollars in resources from other important forms of public safety.

    Hundreds of studies have found it to be ineffective. Not one study in existence has found the registry works the way it was intended. It's about shame and revenge, not prevention.

  • Definitions far too broad for this modern day witch hunt

    By today's standards, most people would be considered sex offenders. Offenders include statutory cases where the victim lied about their age, innocents who were convicted based on accusation and nothing more, non-violent offenders, possessors of pornography... The list goes on. Add to that the persecution that former offenders face from law enforcement, including false accusations, and our system is far too flawed to expose anyone.

  • No it's too broad

    The term"sex offender" is too broad and too easily attained. It's also far too easy to be falsely accused. There is no proof that it makes the public safer but far too much proof that those on it and their INNOCENT families have been the target of vigilante's. That shows that the public can't handle this information, and it should be kept for law enforcement only.

  • Wake Up People!

    DUI registry? No
    Domestic Violence registry? No
    Murder registry? No
    Bad Parenting registry? No
    Crooked Politician registry? No
    Crooked Police registry? No
    By all means ANY crime deserves justice however why is there a need to punish people twice for the same crime? Ok America lets even the planfield, put my ancestors slave masters family on the registry so I can find them. This is PURE slavery to me!

  • What for ?

    The list isn't even clear.
    When some site don't even show WHEN it happened. It could be 20 years ago
    Where Some site don't even show that a person was maybe 7 when he commited the crime there are young children age 7 on the list ..
    Why You can be on the list for peeing in public
    Who Why not drug dealer on the list ?

  • Too many so called "sex offenders" on the list that aren't even a dangerous to the community.

    Go do a search and you will find some list of "dangerous sex offender" as young as 7.
    Some state do not even post WHEN the crime happened
    Now it is a hit list for those that think GOD is telling them to KILL them all sex offenders.
    So the list needs to go or at least for the police eyes only!

  • It is punishment!

    Websites publish information about individuals merely accused of sex offenses as well as who no longer are required to register as sex offenders. They are also negligent in their reporting of information about those still on the registry and refuse to correct or eliminate that information unless or until the person pays a fee up to $500.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.