To 02 harley who says "do the crime and do the time, whether it be prison, probation, or the sex offender registry." Again, you should be aware of the facts; many "sex offenders" are our young men who have committed noncontact, non violent offenses, and the consequences are all of the above- prison, probation AND the registry for 30 years to life. This draconian punishment does not fit the crime and serves to punish the individual and his family for life. These offenders have already paid their debts to society and deserve a second chance at life, and so do their families. The sad truth is that we cannot completely protect our children. Most contact sex offenses are committed by family members, their friends, and neighbors. Those who are put on the registry are the least likely to reoffend; studies show that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is very low. This fact is evidence that the registry is actually ineffective as a means of protecting children and does more harm than good.

I would like to know where various commenters with"known facts" about SO recidivism rates are getting their evidence; they are out of touch with the latest research on the effectiveness of the registry as far as protecting our children. Recidivism rates for sex offenders are extremely low, the lowest for any crimes committed, and most sex offenders are not pedofiles. Mr. Ferrucci's comment in the article is misleading as well; what about the public "having a right" to know about dangerous criminals like murderers, kidnappers, armed robbers, and those convicted of DUI manslaughter? Where will the registry end if we take that road? Many so-called sex offenders on the registry have committed noncontact,nonviolent offenses (possession of underage pornography) due to to youthful poor judgement and in fact are not dangerous to children, never were, and never will be.

There are currently more than 700,000 people on sex offender registries, with more added each week. Registrants include everyone from people who have urinated in public to sadistic rapists. It only makes sense that only the most dangerous offenders who are deemed likely to reoffend should be included in a public registry. The truth is that the vast majority of sex offenders never reoffend. Most sex offenses are committed by first-time offenders anyway, so there is no reason to register those who are not likely to reoffend.

It is an encouraging sign for all Americans that Kim Thatcher's proposed law to expand the Oregon sex offender registry has died. Perhaps there are reasonable, thinking lawmakers who are seriously considering the real fall-out for American families as a result of lumping all those labeled as sex offenders into one category. Tens of thousands of young men are currently incarcerated for first-time, nonviolent sex offenses, due to youthful poor judgment, not sexual deviancy. It is time to get away from knee-jerk reactions and to start reforming the seriously flawed sex offender registries. Research and statistics show that public sex offender registries and restrictions have not enhanced public safety at all, and in fact have contributed to increased crime. Former sex offenders and their families live under constant harassment and offenders often cannot obtain housing or employment.