Sex predators will get to pick the therpy they choose

[68Charger]

I get the distinction you are drawing very clearly but I have hard time separating the fact that conspiracy to prison rape (or my over-the-top rebuttal example previously used) is a more or lesser crime than your two examples above. Again, I understand but I will not agree that one has more impact than the other in these examples we chose to use. I will state that I would not draw the same severity parallel between comparisons of conspiracy to commit sexual assault vs exposure to randomly pick another set of examples. My direct stance in the comparisons FWIW, I would place both conspiracy to commit forcible rape and one who was convicted of “fondling” in the registry. Make any sense?

I fully get what you're saying here- what I was really going for (and is probably your reason for believing that I "have a hard time separating") is that conspiracy, while easy to define in letter, in practice can be construed under may situations... actually having a dialog back and forth to conspire a rape I agree would fully be a registered offense.. but at what point does it become conspiracy? if someone who is related to a victim posts in a blog "I hope he gets a taste of his own medicine while in prison", and an inmate acts upon that (without asking the poster), and sends a letter back to the poster telling him "done, you're welcome" a case could be made, but did he really conspire to commit the crime? (I know you're going to call this a 1% example, just explaining where I was coming from originally)

I am fond of statistics, and numbers, and crisp edges, and black-n-white as you pointed out prior. Further, I’ll be even more critical than you were; I pulled them not from thin air but directly out of my ass-end, intentionally selecting the “extremes” (1% & 99%) at opposite ends of the scale in attempt to illustrate the ridiculousness in some post on this thread. Whipping-out one-off examples of failure here and there, legitimate or not, or stating “pissing in the alley” etc. as a justification for painting the entire solution as worthless is invalid. Cherry-picking samples laying at either end of the bell-curve to support a debate and using that tactic to broadly state “the registry data is no good, I won’t use it as result, therefore you should ignore it too…”

"there are lies, damned lies, and statistics" -Mark Twain
There are literally books written on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
That being stated, I'll concede to your point about "cherry picking" samples, but only as long as you stop inferring that I think the registry is invalid,worthless, or the like...

No, not “more”, just re-use of the same. You’re right, I don’t know what you are trying to accomplish in full but I’m not ignoring your comments (I’m actually affording very real review and consideration and I appreciate the discourse on topics that stir passion). My interpretation so far is that you are suggesting due to inherent flaws in the justice system, subjective severity segmentation that you and others personally disagree with and society’s [at the individual level] inability to parse and effectively use information that the “risk” is greater than the value of a registry. Do I have that right?

risk of what? and what is the real value, what does that average person DO with this data? Are you less inclined to trust people, now that you see there are 71 registered offenders within 5 miles? Do you ask your children to avoid the streets that have offenders on them? Do you tell them why? I'm really curious about this, because when I take a hard look at it, I don't change anything based upon the data in the registry, my kids are probably over-sheltered already. The only scenario is if someone did approach a child, I could look and see if they're on the registry- and if they are, a report to authorities would be in order. That scenario sounds like a .01% example to me (maybe because of the rural setting I live in).

Reasonable resumption on my part, somewhat justified in the context of this thread drift, I’ll retract that literal. Your welcome for the acknowledgement but let me share this 2-bit advice; “don’t presume that other’s [me in this case] are lacking the ability to assess the fallacy’s of our judicial system, a registry’s data integrity, or anything else for that matter, it’s just inaccurate and a disservice to do so.” >snip< it’s easy to fall prey to the “everyone’s an idiot or doesn’t get it mentality,” I find myself in that mode unfortunately on occasion but, rest assured many of us can decipher the granularity, purge the chaff and flow mentally with the nuances of a given subject, and that includes the pros and cons of using a registry.

While admittedly an odd place to quote from, there is some truth in it:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."
Agent K, Men in Black
The point being that while 1 person can process it, a group getting together may have a "lynch mob" mentality, and may gravitate towards a lowest common denominator. I also admit to have adopted the "people are stupid" mentality.. There were enough of them to get Obama in office... (ok, maybe you didn't have to be an idiot, just fooled)

Subjective, purely subjective territory but I understand your stake here. So I have to ask; “what’s dangerous? And who gets to decide?” Unfair questions with no answers that can be anchored and accepted across a 300M+ population.

Some have already decided "what's dangerous enough"- so we have a registry..but apparently the only type of crime that evokes enough emotion to allow it is sex offenders..

this has colored your judgment on the subject of a registry as whole, it is skewing your view, and it comes across very clearly in your commentary, your posts are steeped with it. That’s not a criticism of you as an individual, just sharing and suggesting that you occasionally “lift the veil” of that singular experience to prevent becoming to jaded on the whole. With more of my shitty advice just shared I have to say, I would do the exact same thing I’m sure if I were that close and I’d have a hard time recognizing and correcting that “skew” personally.

I'm sure you're right, that it has at least "colored" my judgment, and perhaps I'm a bit jaded- that can happen when you see those that are on the side of justice using dirty, dishonest tactics... I don't know if they believe "the ends justify the means", or if they're just trying to further their career by getting convictions of higher crimes. Overall, it leads to distrust in the system when abuses by those in power are observed. The average person observing that trial would think everything was above board, but the actions of the Prosecuting Attorney literally made my stomach turn.

I have very little interaction with the law, in the past 12 years I have been "sworn in" to court for only 2 purposes- once was an adoption, the other was this trial... so my perception is based on 50% of the time, the system was dishonest... I have to work at believing in the system with that kind of experience. It also means that just because someone is within the justice system, I don't automatically trust them- they have to earn it.