September 20, 2017
Court News Latest News | Poll Questions | National Monument | Opioid Epidemic | Hurricane Jose

Comments for: For 2nd time, Maine supreme court to hear challenge to sex offender registry

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    If they have to register as sex offenders, then they have been tried and convicted. We are not talking about innocent people wrongfully identified. I believe the rights of the children to be safe are more important that the rights of the losers who violate the children’s rights to safety and security. In this case, the public has a right to know.

  • Anonymous

    What about 19 yr old men who had sex with their 14 or 15 yr old girlfriends?  Are they sex offenders?

    • Anonymous

      No because such relationships would be completely legal under Maine law. 14 is the age of consent in Maine as long as the actor is not more than 5 years older, so a 19yo could legally have sex with a 14yo as long as the 19yo was less than 5 years older. 16 is the absolute age of consent in Maine (that is, anyone of any age can legally have sex with someone who is 16).

      • Andy Dufresne

         thats good news! well on the 16 year old part :)

  • Anonymous

    The argument is always framed as one of the rights of the community to be safe verses the rights of the individual.  

    The problem with that argument is, that the law doesn’t distinguish between people who are dangerous and those that are not.  

    As long as the registry has people who can demonstrate that they are not dangerous, BUT for the lack of legal recourse, the registry is unconstitutional.

    It is self-evident you can’t protect yourself from people who are not dangerous.  The ONLY way to determine a person dangerous that passes constitutional muster is through a court of law and under accepted standards of proof, that is appealable.

    You don’t get to set up executive boards who use voodoo science and, and apply it to whomever you want.

    The State says the registry doesn’t have to be perfect in order to pass constitutional muster.

    Does that mean the registry doesn’t have to do anything in order to pass consitutional muster?  See, the State loves it when the question is framed as one of public safety verses individual rights.  That way it seems that registry is actually doing something.

    But the registry doesn’t.  It doesn’t reduce re-offense levels.  It doesn’t facilitate re-entry into the community.  It doesn’t force people to get help for any sexual problems they might have.  

    All the registry does is de-stabilizes a person and forces them into isolation.  

    The debate is not one of public safety verses individual rights.  The debate is about human rights!   No legislature can legislate someone dangerous.  Non-dangerous people cannot be included on a sex offender list.  There must be a process that is legally acceptable to determine someone dangerous.  There must be a process where someone can be determined not dangerous if he meets criteria.

    It is called, Due process of law.  It ensures fairness and justice.  Your registry doesn’t provide public safety.  It does exactly the opposite.  In fact, it is dangerous to be on a registry to the point that it becomes legally acceptable to avoid the registry.

    You people are living in a fantasy land where you can make up hate lists, systematically banish them from the community and allow law makers complete control over the list. 

    • Anonymous

      Agreed. I want to know which offender actually pose a threat or which offenders just got lumped in because of vague definitions.

    • I agree – I think that the public has the right to know about the sex offenders in their area, but to lump all offenders into one is not constitutional.

  • Anonymous

    These animals should either be put down or never allowed out of prison. Recidivism is about 60%, let’m rot.

  • Andy Dufresne

    in maine…why have a registry? its $500 bail first offense!

  • Anonymous

    I guess if you don’t like being on “The List” then keep your hands in your pockets, not someone elses’ pants.

  • Anonymous

    just hang them all and problem solved.

  • My opinion on the sex offender registry isn’t right it violates these people rights, they paid for their crime, Leave it at that , shouldn’t be a sex offender registry ! I know that children can be coached into LYING about these sort of things, The DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES ( CHILD PROTECTIVE ) can and do coach the children into saying that someone has done wrongful things to them when in fact it’s a LIE . So there shouldn’t be a sex offender registry,

    • Anonymous

      I don’t buy that. I did child protective work for almost 15 years in another state. I was a caseworker, not an investigator, but I had children who were molested and they would tell anyone who was willing to listen what happened without being asked anything. Child protective workers would rather not even hear what child molesters do, there is no reason they would coach children to lie. Moreover, the children’s  sexualized behavior would tell the story, especially with young children. I did know of adolescent females who would lie about someone sexually abusing them, for attention or to get back at someone for not letting them see their much older boyfriend. In those instances, though, they sounded more credible than they should have just because they had been molested at a younger age. Sexual abuse happens more often than you think.  The jails, psychiatric hospitals, treatment centers, homeless shelters, and streets are full of people molested as children.

You may also like