[Emmett McCarthy]

I'd prefer to see the classification of "sex offenders" considerably narrowed so that it includes all of the dangerous people, but ONLY the dangerous people. I heard of a case recently where a teenage boy got caught taking a leak in public and is now required to register as a "sex offender" for the rest of his life. That kind of bull$##t makes the whole thing meaningless, for one thing, and criminalizes behavior which may be stupid and indiscreet, but which is essentially innocent.

[TWohlford]

"I'd prefer to see the classification of "sex offenders" considerably narrowed so that it includes all of the dangerous people, but ONLY the dangerous people." Bingo The Iowa case, as I recall, is from a person who did the crime at age 13, and was convicted at age 18. Now, he's a middle-aged family man who can't reside in his city of residence due to this 2000 foot rule. Mind you, that's not his HOUSE, but the entire CITY. Here in Michigan, we too have those non-dangerous cases classified as a "sex crime". Warning - do NOT take a leak on a tree at our NASCAR race, as you WILL be prosecuted as a sex criminal. This is one of those deals where you'd like to but realistically (and Constitutionally) that is not feasible.

[JohnBovenmyer]

so that it includes all of the dangerous people, but ONLY the dangerous people

The current classification is fatally flawed. It doesn't block the bent one from entering our state to campaign for his "wife" in the 2008 caucuses. If it could do that it might actually be good for the country. I would also like our Gov. to explain how all the "ex-"felon sex offenders can exercise the voting rights he restored them when they can't find anyplace to establish residence within the state. Or does this law will let them define an address for absentee voting purposes so long as they don't actually live there.