But Jacob, the problem is that the news media will announce this and the sheep (people) who listen/read it will come to the conclusion that ALL sex offenders will be barred from MTA. And if a registered person happens to be noticed for whatever reason inside of an MTA waiting for a train, whoever notices them will call the po-po and try to cause problems for the registrant.

This is not as easy as it sounds. We’ve got people on the registry for something they did as minors themselves with other minors. But the public looks at the current adult age of the registrant and lumps them in with everyone else who were adults when they committed their offenses.
People call the SOR the “pedophile list” for a reason – because they don’t know any better.

Judicial discretion seems WAY better than a mandate. Nearly all our complaints on this forum, are complaints about mandates.

I very much agree with you, Jacob. I believe the title above is misleading. This is not one of those one-size-fits-all solutions that helps a few and hurts everyone else. It is a narrowly-targeted and time-limited intervention to help handle a known, serious problem. No one will be subjected to lifelong humiliation under this policy. Think about it like classic probation. If you embezzle from a bank, it’s reasonable for a judge to tell you to do something else for a few years before going back and working for a bank again. People convicted of DUI regularly lose their driver’s license for six months or a year.

If anything, we should be supporting such measures, and work to get lifetime rules changed to time and scope-limited ones. Instead of lifetime internet identifier registration, require three-year registration for those who committed their crimes online. Instead of lifetime bars on “loitering”, impose them for limited times on those who committed their crimes through loitering, prowling, or stalking.

That’s why it’s only imposed on people who committed sex crimes IN TRANSIT, and only on some of them, and only for a limited time.

Nothing in this bill affects persons currently required to register. It’s a release condition available to a judge to impose (for a limited time) on someone who is being sentenced for a crime in transit. Someone who, for example, “got on the train during rush and rub up on a pretty girl til we nutted,” as someone nicely put it above, and is now being held to account. Will such a person ALSO be required to register for such a thing? Yes, but that’s a separate issue. Absolutely armed robbers can be barred by their judge from going certain places, doing certain things, if their judge perceives a risk.

Of course nearly ALL “sex crimes” are done by people that the “victim” knows – not those on the registry. These laws are “feel good” laws and easy to pass and give the illusion of being positive when they do NOTHING except deceive the public into thinking that they are actually needed.

When has reality or facts ever stood in the way of a politician (such as Senator Lauren Book)?

Just easy targets for politicians and law enforcement and make great headlines for the media to exploit and sensationalize!

The issue I see is.. one things to another. Pass this bills and they’ll push the envelope to even tighter restrictions. History has proven this in the case of person’s forced to register.

Keep educating ‘em, SarahF, on appropriate terminology. Ever notice how sometimes that alone changes the entire conversation? We all (including me) need to do more of that.

Child molestation ON THE SUBWAY would apply, yes.