First of all, I would like to see one true example of a person getting on a sex registry for life for peeing in public. I'm just not buying it. It's not a sex crime, in the first place. And by the way, if you have ever lived anywhere where it's common for men to whip it out and whiz in public, you'd be grateful for anti-public urination laws. I don't see why not wanting to watch people urinate and not wanting to smell their urine makes me a puritan with hang ups.

When I was 11, a man followed me to where I had locked my bike and offered me money for sex. I was so upset that I couldn't even talk about it for a few days, when I finally told my mother, she cried that her daughters couldn't go to the mall without being approached by a pervert. I get very angry when I think about the 11 year old me. I SMILED at him, because I thought he needed help. For the first time I looked at my clothes and wondered if I looked slutty. Would I like a man like that to be publicly humiliated on a registry? Hell yes. I hope he is on one right now. My sister was flashed when she was 12. A friend's daughter was groped by her best friend's father when she was 12. They were devastated. Minor crimes being overreacted to by prudes afraid of male genitalia? Or adult bullies counting on underage girls being too frightened and ashamed to stop them from getting their thrills?

These "minor offenses" are major factors of quality of life for children and women. Most of us would rather live next door to a petty theif than a man who masturbates on his front porch while your daughter plays in the front yard. If your neighbor flashed you every morning, would you be so sanguine about these crimes? It's easy to be calm about something that hasn't affected you, but a creep who commits crimes deserves to be put in the on-line stocks. Include theives? Fine by me.

By the way, masturbating onto a couch in front of a woman who has said no to sex? There is something very disturbing about that. I wonder how the victim would describe the incident- evidently it disturbed her enough to confide in friends and pursue a criminal case. What sounds like a silly mistake to someone could have been a very scary not to mention disgusting event for the woman involved. Maybe she should have thanked him for j-ing off in front of her instead of raping her, but I don't think so.

Don't those census statistics classify as "single moms" many women who live with the fathers of their children w/ out formal marriage? That's not the same thing as hoards of kids living without dads in the picture.

I'm actually a huge fan of marriage, but abstinence programs? Please. We know that what works when it comes to unplanned pregnancies is education and reinforcing the concept that nowadays, children don't just happen to us. They are planned for and wanted. This is a concept a few women in this country, amazingly, haven't learned. I'd support an organization that's into that- I already do. Planned Parenthood.

Anybody can be falsely accused of any crime at any time by someone with a grudge. Does this mean that we are to belittle the effects of non-violent sex crimes- which are scary and disturbing- because some sociopath might lie or exaggerrate about a neighbor who leaves the blinds open by accident? Isn't whether a sex crime has been committed up to the finders of fact? And why not have public registries of violent and property crimes? The effect these perpetrators have on their victims and the community is long lasting, why not a long lasting public embarassment to match?

Friends and relatives who downplay the actions of convicted offenders don't have the same effect on me that they do on many people because I hear things like these all the time at my job. They are par for the course in criminal cases, and it is dangerous to give them much importance without hearing the other side of the story. Remember, people that DID hear the both sides of the story- the investigators, the prosecutors, and then perhaps a neutral jury or judge with the presumtion of innocence- decided that this person was an offender. People who dislike registries really dislike them because they distrust the judicial system and it's power to convict people. I happen to believe the judicial sytem gets it right most of the time.

Slavery would have been one. Women's worth as human beings and church members and gay people's right to love and marry are as well.

If shame isn't a deterrent, would its detractors prefer that this repeat offender be encarcerated for a long period of time for this non-violent sex crime? These crimes, while non-violent, can be threatening and scary and disturbing. They affect the quality of life as much as any property crime does. Yet some are more worried about whether it is "effective". I suspect that perhaps it will be for this particular person, who hasn't found any other punishment a good enough reason to stop terrorizing little girls. But I would like to point out that deterrence is only one factor to be taken into account when fashioning a sentence. Justice is another. A little humiliation for the awful experience his young victims won't forget.