Opinions please...

[Okla-homey]

Would you feel threatened if a "convicted sex offender" lived in your neighborhood, given his crime was "indecent exposure" arising from then untreated mental instability, which led to peeing whenever he felt the need while outdoors...in public.

Let's say the guy is now homeless, despite $600 a month income from Social Security. We have a statute that states "convicted sex offenders" can't reside within 2000 feet of schools, parks or churches --- which pretty much eliminates the entire city.

Let's say the guy is now medicated for his mental disorder and doesn't pee in public anymore, yet he still can't reside in the city limits because of the aforementioned statute.

Fair?

[StoopTroup]

Did Lid put you on retainer?

[Okla-homey]

Did Lid put you on retainer?

No. This is a freebie. You know, giving of yourself to actually help poor folks.

[yermom]

how about not charging public peeers with something that can list them as a sex offender?

showing your junk to kids? yeah, i probably don't want you in the neighborhood

showing your junk to a bush? i don't really care

seems it would be closer to littering to me, as far as "fairness"

[Curly Bill]

Someone peeing in public would not threaten me.

...nor would I consider someone peeing in public a "sex crime."

[NCSooner18]

I have apparently "threatened" myself more times than I can count.

[MojoRisen]

Yeah I would have to say I was quite guilty of that crime, just a little better of not getting caught. That is a BS lable for that hypothetical guy.

[Frozen Sooner]

Would you feel threatened if a "convicted sex offender" lived in your neighborhood, given his crime was "indecent exposure" arising from then untreated mental instability, which led to peeing whenever he felt the need while outdoors...in public.

Let's say the guy is now homeless, despite $600 a month income from Social Security. We have a statute that states "convicted sex offenders" can't reside within 2000 feet of schools, parks or churches --- which pretty much eliminates the entire city.

Let's say the guy is now medicated for his mental disorder and doesn't pee in public anymore, yet he still can't reside in the city limits because of the aforementioned statute.

Fair?

I assume the indecent exposure charge arose because someone saw him peeing?

If there was no sexual titillation involved and he's on medication that removes his uncontrollable urge to micturation then absolutely not. Plus, I'm not sure how keeping the guy from having a place to go pee keeps him from peeing in public.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Yes, taking a leak in public is a stretch to be considered a sex crime.

However, waving a hand and saying that because he has medication, bingo, problem solved, is not the magic answer to solve all his woes. To my knowledge, medication can't be forcibly administered. And people often fail to take their medication, whether it be because of convenience, financial difficulty, or simple disregard. So wouldn't the answer truly lie in refining and defining the crime and applicability to sex crime laws? Because until then, I can't help but think this ol' boy is just screwed. Psychological problem or not, you shouldn't have whipped out your johnson in public.

[OUHOMER]

NO, NOT FAIR AT ALL

[GrapevineSooner]

Not at all.

And TF, while I understand what you're saying, we sure as hell shouldn't lumping this guy in with actual pedophiles.

[Okla-homey]

Not at all.

And TF, while I understand what you're saying, we sure as hell shouldn't lumping this guy in with actual pedophiles.

That's my feeling, and that's the way I'll argue it, but I want to know what my fellow Okies think.

[Okla-homey]

I assume the indecent exposure charge arose because someone saw him peeing?



yeah, a cop.

[Frozen Sooner]

Fair enough. I guess that was a dumb question.

[Scott D]

The real problem is that if we went by a strict definition of sex offender, then 98% of people would have to be registered as a sex offender.

[yermom]

well, you'd have to be convicted :D

[John Kochtoston]

This is horribly unfair, and yet another example of a law passed with good intentions that gets stretched to absurdity by some in power.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

To me, it begs the question Homey, are there tiered offenses for indecent exposure in the applicable jurisdiction, or is it the one-time, one offense shot?

If that's the case, isn't it legally impossible to delineate between Joe Schmuck pissin' in a bush and the creepy guy down the street that waggles his meat in front of your old lady?

[StoopTroup]

Lets just say....the PMOY is squatting in a park peeing and you are about 20 feet behind her peeing on a tree....

I'm betting your the only one that gets taken to jail.

[olevetonahill]

Would you feel threatened if a "convicted sex offender" lived in your neighborhood, given his crime was "indecent exposure" arising from then untreated mental instability, which led to peeing whenever he felt the need while outdoors...in public.

Let's say the guy is now homeless, despite $600 a month income from Social Security. We have a statute that states "convicted sex offenders" can't reside within 2000 feet of schools, parks or churches --- which pretty much eliminates the entire city.

Let's say the guy is now medicated for his mental disorder and doesn't pee in public anymore, yet he still can't reside in the city limits because of the aforementioned statute.

Fair?

Being he has a mental/physical condition that caused this and he is now on medication to control this . He should not labeled a BE SEX OFFENDER.
The whole peeing in public and you are a SEX OFFENDER is bull shat.
Travel Ok. highways and try to find a Rest area or Public restroom available. Hell Ive seen Men and Women peeing on the side of the road .

[olevetonahill]

Sex offender
http://christianpolanco.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ist2_3433862-the-flasher.jpg


Not a sex offender
http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/wahlbergpee%281%29.jpg

[yermom]

it's all about intent

if you run off to somewhere you think no one can see you to do it, i'm guessing you aren't trying to get some kind of exhibitionist jollies

now if you are on the street facing traffic, that's something else

we haven't really heard the circumstances here. but apparently Norman PD doesn't agree with me...

[Okla-homey]

To me, it begs the question Homey, are there tiered offenses for indecent exposure in the applicable jurisdiction, or is it the one-time, one offense shot?

If that's the case, isn't it legally impossible to delineate between Joe Schmuck pissin' in a bush and the creepy guy down the street that waggles his meat in front of your old lady?

Good question TF. I'll try to answer it. The law of indecent exposure may not be complicated in nature, and the penalties for indecent exposure in Oklahoma are not as severe as they are for rape, sexual battery, sexual assault or any other "more serious" crimes. However, the long-term consequences of a conviction for this charge are just as serious as most sexual felonies.

Even though this conviction carries only a misdemeanor-level penalty, being convicted of indecent exposure in Oklahoma will change the rest of your life in a negative manner. The reason is that if you are convicted of this charge, you will have to register as a sex offender with the state.

Section 10-103(12) of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes: "Indecent exposure" means forcing or requiring a vulnerable adult to:

A. look upon the body or private parts of another person or upon sexual acts performed in the presence of the vulnerable adult, or
B. touch or feel the body or private parts of another.

Note that this statute only applies exposing oneself to adults, as this conduct with children is a much different and much more serious charge. Generally speaking, and unless extenuating circumstances apply, indecent exposure in Oklahoma is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison.

Also, "forcing or requiring a vulnerable adult" doesn't mean you did anything particularly egregious. You can be charged and convicted simply for unzipping in a place where another adult (usually a cop) can't really help but observe.

Think about that the next time you decide to take a leak where someone might see.

[JohnnyMack]

:eddie:

[stoopified]

One of the stupidest misapplication of the letter of the law I have ever heard of.I had to take my son to pee just off I-35 last month because he was about to wet his britches.We did go down an embankment where we were below road lvel but apparently my 5 year old and I are gulity of a sex crime.

[jkjsooner]

This is why I don't trust prosecutors and judges to use common sense in applying the law. All it takes is a couple of a-holes to ruin a guy's life.

[MojoRisen]

I would refuse to register and I would let them drag me in and punish me to the fullest extent of the law for Peeing in Public.

If this is true, I am going to have to lobby a bit. The poor guy must have been mentally ill a little bit not to get a lawyer to throw this right out of court.

Didn't Blake Griffen get caught peeing behind a bush? Indecent Exposure should be a seperate crime from peeing in public from a definittion standpoint. I am not buying peeing in public would make you have to register as a sex offender.

[Okla-homey]

If this is true, I am going to have to lobby a bit. The poor guy must have been mentally ill a little bit not to get a lawyer to throw this right out of court.


Public defender. Overworked, understaffed, "bigger fish to fry", etc., etc.

See, the thing is, I don't think you get hammered until it happens the second time.

Anyway, I'm happy to learn you folks feel the same way I do about this, to the extent that simply doing your bidness, albiet in a place you shouldn't, because you're...well...crazy, is not the same thing as dangling your johnson in front of some lady or ladies in order to get your freaky-freak jollies.

But that said, your , or lack of it, doesn't seem to matter.

Something else too, quite a few homeless folks have this rap on their sheet, because, you gotta pee somewhere. A fact that makes it harder for them to come out of homelessness since employers tend to take a dim view of hiring "sex offenders."

[Rogue]

Homey, we have some great folks in my area both part time and pro bono that do legal aid work. In addition to charges like this, several other types of misdemeanors keep homeless folks from getting jobs, drivers licenses, and on and on. Thanks to folks like you working for them to straighten these things out, there are many success stories instead.

Good on ya!

[badger]

Would you feel threatened if a "convicted sex offender" lived in your neighborhood

Of course! The name itself - 'sex offender' - leads me to automatically think about the pedophiles, rapists and every other 'sex offender' that has to take advantage of someone weaker than them in the most awful way known to people.

Which is why I don't think that people peeing in public (whether its a medical condition or just someone getting too drunk to know any better) should be labeled 'sex offenders.' They should classify stuff like that as merely 'indecent exposure' and not grouped with some of the monsters out there that physically hurt children and women.

Just MHO, that's all.

[Rogue]

Your client is more environmentally friendly than the prude who pees inside and flushes it. Toilets are the biggest fresh water wasters in most homes.
Just sayin'.

[TUSooner]

Being he has a mental/physical condition that caused this and he is now on medication to control this . He should not labeled a BE SEX OFFENDER.
The whole peeing in public and you are a SEX OFFENDER is bull shat.
Travel Ok. highways and try to find a Rest area or Public restroom available. Hell Ive seen Men and Women peeing on the side of the road .
What he said. Not fair.

[Scott D]

Of course! The name itself - 'sex offender' - leads me to automatically think about the pedophiles, rapists and every other 'sex offender' that has to take advantage of someone weaker than them in the most awful way known to people.

Which is why I don't think that people peeing in public (whether its a medical condition or just someone getting too drunk to know any better) should be labeled 'sex offenders.' They should classify stuff like that as merely 'indecent exposure' and not grouped with some of the monsters out there that physically hurt children and women.

Just MHO, that's all.

here's another thought. Following the letter of the law without using common sense, means that anyone who ever played a game of truth or dare as an adolescent/teenager should also be registered as a sex offender. anyone who may have engaged in sexual contact, no matter if it was with consent or not before the age of 18 male or female should probably also be registered as a sex offender.

[MojoRisen]

I am so registered, Spin the bottle no less, man i even have pictures of that!

[Scott D]

well like I said, I was splitting hairs and basing things all on technicalities. I personally dislike the ambiguous nature of qualifying sex offenders in it's current status. To me it's like the whole 'person of interest' deal. Either someone should be a suspect or someone that police want to question, it shouldn't be blended ambiguously as a 'person of interest'.

[The Remnant]

Sex offenders are NEVER rehabilitated. If you think not then you are a fool.

[The Remnant]

Moral relativism will be the death of us all. Most decisions that we make in life are not gray areas.

[olevetonahill]

I got a question?

A dude was convicted in 91 fer 5 counts of sex shat against a 14 year old (3 dismissed In the interest of Justice )
Dude did 8 years Hardtime time with 8 paroled .
Is he a Sex offender ?
Is he some one you want workin for yer HOA , taking care of the POOL areas where Kids are ?
Is he some one ya want working in any area that yer Kids or Grandkids Live and Play ?