KANSAS CITY, KS. — On Tuesday, the Kansas State Senate is set to hear a sex offender law in Topeka.
Kansas Senate Bill 385 would require people convicted of certain breach of privacy offenses, like peeping, to register as a sex offender.
This is something victims and advocates have been fight for after several peeping cases here in the Kansas City area.
Former Johnson County prosecutor Jason Covington has been working on these type of cases for years.
“No place was safe. It could be a retail establishment,” Covington said. “We saw people victimized in the gas station, in the bathroom, in their own home, in hotel rooms. You name it, it was happening there.”
Covington added that oftentimes a guilty verdict didn’t result in the justice victims wanted.
“I had several cases where we went to trial and we won,” he said. “The person was convicted but, we still had to go through this whole process to see if we could get them on the registry, which is separate and apart from the criminal findings.”
Senator Kellie Warren is sponsoring SB385, which is set to be heard by the judiciary committee on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m.
Here is a great opportunity for Missouri residents to make calls and send letters opposing adding yet more people on the registry
I thought people were complaining how the registry has reached outrageous numbers and is barely manageable. So, adding more offenses will reduce the number of people on the registry how? The registry is unconstitutional anyways, but adding more and more and more has almost become an unhealthy obsession.
One: how would the registry in this case help anyone when the crime is literally the opposite of enticing victims? The entire crime is revolved around remaining hidden.
Two: there’s sure is a whole lot of chatter about the registry being a key part of justice. Which is odd since its not supposed to be punishment.
The registry is already bloated with non-violent/non-contact offenses. Sure, lets add another. Might as well. That will REALLY save the day. What a bunch of geniuses these victims advocates are..
So the victims wanted to punish the guilty is what they’re saying by using a non-punishing tool? Informing society of already public info is one thing but when they caveat it as the article does, it’s plain as the Kansas landscape, it’s punishing people.