If someone peeing in the bushes in a public park will get you on the sex offender registry, then sneaking into a little girls room to sniff their dirty underwear should definitely get a noose around your neck.

Eric,
Thank you for a voice of reason with a subject that hits us all deeply. Again, thank you.

Dan, I understand your frustration and concur with your thoughts but we must remember that it was frustration on the part of victim advocates that lead to the registries and restrictions that many RSO’s have to endure nowadays.

James…So Very On Point!

WOW!…I mean WOW!…You CAN’T make this stuff up…totally Surreal!

I advocate for the rehabilitation of this person..

All Non-Law Enforcement Peoples Will Never have a Wallet Big Enough to DEFEND THEMSELVES, while the Real Guilty Donut-Eating Scum NEVER ARE SERVED JUSTICE…ITS IS PERVERTED JUSTICE!

Thankfully, judges don’t have unfettered sentencing authority, but are limited by law. I don’t know Arizona law, but it might not be possible for a judge to order psych treatment for a misdemeanor trespass conviction. It also might have been precluded by the plea agreement.

I’m not trying to minimize this guy’s sliminess or that he was treated differently because he was LE. Many of us here had no prior record and are remorseful veterans but got no consideration. The system isn’t fair or rational, but it is what it is until we can change it. Veritas.

Judge should’ve ordered eval & treatment. Why can’t she?

Tossing his computer is certainly suspicious, but not evidence of a crime. Gymnastics videos aren’t illegal, nor is sniffing panties*

1) If any of us ever tossed anything electronic, we’d be up shit’s creek for abstraction or tampering with potential evidence. And I mean only when we are initially CHARGED with a crime.

2) Although gymnastics videos aren’t illegal, let’s look at this man’s actions of sniffing those panties and ask the question: Why was he so interested in having gymnastics videos of young girls on his computer? It’s one thing to look at them on YouTube. It’s another scenario to have DOWNLOADED them onto his computer from YouTube.

3) Refer to #2.

No one here is trying to be like those who come against us for being registered or what we did to get registered. What we’re saying is that he got a slap on the wrist for being a POTENTIAL threat to young girls. The courts, LE and the registry scheme like to play mind readers and ASSUME that if we did something ONCE, we’re gonna do it again. And they’d use something as harmless as sniffing panties to say that we will eventually progress into creepazoids who lurk in the shadows waiting for the opportunity to act out our apparent fantasies.
The court didn’t see this man’s actions the same way it would see any of our actions and gave him a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, some states make it a sex offense to urinate behind a bush. Go figure.

Agent’s actions were not exactly kosher, but I concur with Ed C. Let’s not advocate for every stupid act to be put on the registry.

The Arizona felony trespass statute requires that he was “unlawfully” in the residential structure. He was legitimately there with a realtor. How did he enter or stay unlawfully? The prosecution may have had a very weak case for a felony and without that a “sexual motivation” aggravating factor is irrelevant. Tossing his computer is certainly suspicious, but not evidence of a crime. Gymnastics videos aren’t illegal, nor is sniffing panties.

A judge can’t impose SO conditions for a non sex crime. I think the judge and prosecutor did about all that could have been done under the law. The alternative is for the legislature to increase the scope or number of registerable offenses. Do any of us want that??!! Let’s not poison our own well.