Convicted sex offenders challenge Nevada laws that lump them together, publicize their names

[tannybogus]

LAS VEGAS (AP) _ Eager to protect children from sexual predators, Nevada and other states across the nation are adopting laws that publicize the names of offenders on the Internet.
But sex offenders say they have rights, too, and argue it's wrong to lump those guilty of minor offenses with the worst offenders. Some are challenging the laws.
"People think that imposing these draconian retroactive laws are a way to keep their children safe," said Margaret McLetchie, an American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer.
McLetchie and Robert Langford, who represent 27 unnamed plaintiffs in a federal civil rights lawsuit, want to block two sex-offender laws from taking effect in Nevada.
The laws, which they say are unconstitutional, were tailored to meet standards under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed in 2006.
Nevada was among the first to pass the laws that would allow the state to post on the Internet the names, photos, home and work addresses and vehicle descriptions of offenders who've served probation or prison sentences on convictions as far back as 1956.
McLetchie said the measures mix serious sex offenders with people convicted of misdemeanors such as public nudity and could subject them to violence from neighbors who see their names and photos.
"These laws don't provide public safety, they only demonize a particular group," she said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-sex-offenders,1,3141660.story?page=1

This case is being watched closely. Several states do this. Check out your neighborhood on this site. http://www.familywatchdog.us/
There are a lot of sites like this. No sympathy for them, but nobody else is registered. People say they can't be changed.
A bitter battle.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. i agree. lumping in a 18 year old who had sex with a 16 year old

with a rapist is just wrong.

[liberalmuse]

3. Absolutely.

I had a co-worker who was obsessed with the sexual predator registry. She gave me a link and I was disturbed to find young men (I'm talking 18-22) accused of statutory rape because they had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend on the list next to someone accused of aggravated child rape. I'd say common sense should be required when compiling that list.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. I agree with the suit

The category is too broad, and too laden with connotations.

[libodem]

4. Some of these perps have been scooped up with a pretty wide net

I worked with a woman whose husband was considered a sex offender. While he was in High School he had sex with another teen-ager. The small town had just gone on a campaign to punish kids for fooling around. I don't remember all the particulars but he had his life ruined. I don't think he could find gainful employment for one thing. I think it's sick and wrong to prey on teen-aged girls but it's rather more disgusting to threaten a 7 year old with killing his family or pet if he won't submit to child rape. I don't know the details on something that has been going on in the valley about an employee with 'kitty porn' on the work computer. I've heard it's under-aged teen girls. Not saying that isn't yucky but again it's not graphic images of what I consider a 'little' kid. I think the crimes are worse for small children under say 10 or 11.

[warrior1]

5. See People v. Hofsheier

http://calapp.blogspot.com/2006/03/people-v-hofsheier-cal-supreme-ct.html

This is for CA.