do you really know your neighbor?

[ChriswUfGator]

yes, as with everything else there is an abuse of the system.  if you look up on the fdle website, honestly, do the majority of the ones that you pull up in the 32206 zip look like a teenage/20 year old guy that got caught in the wrong time, wrong place situation? 

To answer your question, he's already weeded the 189 registered sex offenders in 32206 down to 20 in making that list, and even then it still has at least 3 on it that are pretty obviously wrong place/time type of situations.

So yeah...I think your highlighted statement is pretty accurate...

wow, eliminated all those without predjudice knowing all the facts about all the remaining cases. it basically boiled down to no one above the age of 15 - 16 is raped / molested by anyone that is, what, younger than, lets say 30, it is always consentual.  strong work.  they are right, the jail is full of all innocent people. thank goodness we have fixed that little problem.  now on to world hunger.

No, just compare their birth dates to their sentencing dates as listed on the reports, and then add a year or two or three for the matter to work its way through the system, and you will come pretty darn close to figuring out the date of the alleged incident.

In each of those 3 cases, it seems the "offender" was very close in age to the alleged "molested child". And who said anything about 30 years old? One kid was like 22 at sentencing, another was 19 years old. The 19 year old would have been maybe 16'ish or 17'ish at the time of the incident, assuming it was reported the same day it occurred, which is unlikely. He was charged with having sex with a minor 15 years or younger, with no rape alleged. So yeah, pardon me for not viewing a 16 year old's having consensual sex with a 15 year old as a capital crime.

Ditto for the other kid. He was what? 22 or 23 at sentencing, so he was maybe 20'ish when the incident occurred, assuming it was reported same day. Which it wasn't. He was charged with having sex with a minor under age 18. So again, pardon me for not viewing a 20 year old's having sex with an 18 year old as some capital crime.

The actual child molesters on nvrenuf's list are obvious, with birthdates in the 40's or 50's and being convicted of sex with a minor under 12 or whatnot, on dates ranging from 1995 to 2008. Those are clear. But the three I pointed out really do appear to be "wrong place/time" situations. And as I said before, apparently the judge agreed with me, since their adjudications were withheld, which seems highly unlikely if they were both "sexual predators".

[cindi]

those 3 cases i can see, but to eliminate all but 20 off of the list and to broadly assume that due to the closeness in age and their given age it was consentual - i agree MOST of the time it probably was, but if you have a child (and yes by law 18) which way would you want to err. 

[Lunican]

16 freshly minted sexual offenders in Nassau county?

http://jacksonville.com/community/my_nassau_sun/2009-10-23/story/girls_gone_wild_shoot_in_yulee_leads_to_16_arrests

[nvrenuf]

Those 20 out of 189 were only in Hist Spr, if they lived outside I did not include them regardless of the offense.

[buckethead]

16 freshly minted sexual offenders in Nassau county?

http://jacksonville.com/community/my_nassau_sun/2009-10-23/story/girls_gone_wild_shoot_in_yulee_leads_to_16_arrests

One comment:

I feel safer now.

lol

[ChriswUfGator]

those 3 cases i can see, but to eliminate all but 20 off of the list and to broadly assume that due to the closeness in age and their given age it was consentual - i agree MOST of the time it probably was, but if you have a child (and yes by law 18) which way would you want to err. 

Well I agree with you, the other 17 of them on nvrenuf's list are probably actual sex offenders. When they're convicted at age 40 or 50 of having sex with a minor under 15 or whatnot, then there's no question it wasn't a couple of kids that got tripped up on one of the age "gotchas". There are probably still some number out of the remaining 17 that were false allegations, people who couldn't afford legal representation, etc., but you'd never know that without meeting them and researching it.

But my original point here is that far too many people on these sex offender registries really shouldn't be there in the first place. The laws in this state are arcane, subject to abuse, and change constantly. We have literally created an entire class of "sex offenders" straight out of thin air, whose only "crime" was having a birthday sooner than their girlfriend, or some stupid B.S. like peeing on a golf course, or sending a text message.

And you should remember, that list was weeded down from 189 people, and even then there are still 3 on it who probably were tripped up on one of the asinine age cutoffs. Just be careful painting people with so broad a brush. Especially in this case. Our society is lumping some teenager who sent a text message (god forbid!) in with people who actually are child molesters. There is no way from these "registries" to really know the difference.

Calling them all "baby-rapers" isn't doing anyone any favors.

[ChriswUfGator]

Those 20 out of 189 were only in Hist Spr, if they lived outside I did not include them regardless of the offense.

Well, ok, but what is the total number of registered offenders that you started with in Historic SPR then? If 189 are in 32206, assuming a moderately spread out distribution, you must have started with 40 or 50 to get down to 20, and even then I think 3 of the 20 are still probably situations where a couple of kids got tripped up by our asinine laws.

You gotta admit, there seem to be a lot of babies getting thrown out with bathwater with these laws and registries.

[cindi]

then it boils down to, which is worse, babies getting raped or "thrown out with bathwater".  i guess it all boils down to what level of sexual deviance you find socially acceptable and if it works for you that's fine.
again, some of the laws seem crazy - imho the solution isn't to just break the law because it is stupid but work toward getting it changed. 

[ChriswUfGator]

16 freshly minted sexual offenders in Nassau county?

http://jacksonville.com/community/my_nassau_sun/2009-10-23/story/girls_gone_wild_shoot_in_yulee_leads_to_16_arrests

Sadly, probably.

[ChriswUfGator]

then it boils down to, which is worse, babies getting raped or "thrown out with bathwater".  i guess it all boils down to what level of sexual deviance you find socially acceptable and if it works for you that's fine.
again, some of the laws seem crazy - imho the solution isn't to just break the law because it is stupid but work toward getting it changed. 

No, Cindi, you don't have the right to dictate that someone's constitutional rights are impinged by an unjust law simply because you personally find that to be more convenient than the alternative.

And even if I look at it from your viewpoint, then the current system is still woefully deficient, because you're running around in fear of these "sex offenders" on this "list", who really didn't do anything to begin with. A large number of them (probably the majority) aren't child molesters at all, they're just situations where a couple kids got caught up in the asinine age cutoffs, or some teenager sent a text message, or some guy peed on a golf course.

Surely you'd be better off if they just gave you a list of the ACTUAL child molesters, wouldn't you?

[cindi]

sorry, haven't impinged or dictated anyone's constitutional rights lately, although i do have drill today so i am kind of protecting your rights to b!tch about them.  i am not running around in fear of "sex offenders", but thanks for caring.  i think the actual "list" is labeled "sex offenders" not child molester. 
again, the list gives a "guideline".  i am sure that some take it as the "gospel" just as others dismiss the entire lists as just poor unjustly crucified people.  again, again, again, it is about getting out and knowing the people around you - BEFORE you hear it on the 6:00 news.

[ChriswUfGator]

sorry, haven't impinged or dictated anyone's constitutional rights lately, although i do have drill today so i am kind of protecting your rights to b!tch about them.  i am not running around in fear of "sex offenders", but thanks for caring.  i think the actual "list" is labeled "sex offenders" not child molester. 
again, the list gives a "guideline".  i am sure that some take it as the "gospel" just as others dismiss the entire lists as just poor unjustly crucified people.  again, again, again, it is about getting out and knowing the people around you - BEFORE you hear it on the 6:00 news.

I didn't hear such compassion for the wrongfully accused when you originally called those on the list "baby rapers".

And while I appreciate your military service, along with most folks, rubbing it in everyones' face in some effort to make your opinion count more than mine is tacky and gives your fellow service members a bad name. Kind of like going on a date and saying to anyone within earshot "yeeeeeeeeah I paid for the appetizer...I'm so getting laid tonight" while she's still sitting right there in front of you.

[cindi]

it doesn't make my opinion count more, and giving my fellow service members a bad name? - wow, nice, you really are a piece.

[buckethead]

So baby rapist was a poor choice of descriptors for the people branded as sexual offenders at large.

We seem to agree on that. This has turned into a pissing match and is going nowhere.

[cindi]

true that.