Was there a sex offender registry in 1971?

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
So the L.A. cops find this guy wamdering around in a hospital gown. They pick him up and run a check and find he hasn't registered as a sex offender for the last 36 years. The problem is that I do not remember there being a sex offender registry until the eighties or so. Was there a registry all the way back then? I lived in CA at that time and I don't remember there being one.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-offender21-2008jul21,0,7361867.story

Man in hospital gown arrested in Boyle Heights
Police returned him to County-USC Medical Center before finding he hadn't registered as a sex offender in 36 years, officer says.
By Ruben Vives, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 21, 2008

What began as just an odd sight in Boyle Heights -- a man walking down the sidewalk in a hospital gown -- ended with the man's arrest on suspicion of failing to register as a sex offender 36 years ago.

Officers from the Los Angeles Police Department's Hollenbeck Division were driving near Marengo and State streets Saturday afternoon when they spotted Charles Franklin McDuffy, 64, in a hospital gown. According to Officer Mike Lopez, McDuffy had left County-USC Medical Center after having spent three days there.

"He had been waiting for some kind of treatment and got fed up and walked out," Lopez said Sunday. The officers escorted McDuffy back to the hospital and did a routine background check. McDuffy's profile had been flagged, he said.

"There was a hit on the system," Lopez said. "It didn't give any details about what it was, so my partner went back to the station and did more research."

Lopez said they learned that McDuffy was convicted of a sexual assault in 1971 and had failed to register as a sex offender since 1972. By law, people convicted of sex crimes are required to register as sex offenders with local law enforcement agencies before being released back into the community.

"We had an individual who's been out and about for 36 years," Lopez said. "And now he's finally in custody."

Lopez said McDuffy received medical treatment and then was turned over to the Los Angeles County sheriff's infirmary. His bail was set at $20,000, according to authorities. Sex crime detectives are set to review McDuffy's case today for further investigation.

ruben.vives@latimes.com
Click to expand...
 
Inkara1 said:
The mighty Google finds the answer:

"DOJ's Sex Offender Tracking Program has been responsible for keeping track of registered sex offenders in California since registration began in 1947. California was the first state in the nation to enact a sex offender registration law."
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks. I heard this story and was curious as to how he could be arrested for a crime which may not have existed at the time he did it.
 
2minkey said:
well, jim, if the shoe fits...
Click to expand...

So you are accusing me of being a sex offender? How crass is that of you?

The first thing I would like to know is where in the fuck you got that shoe that you attribute to being my size. Perhaps it came out of your closet.
 
jimpeel said:
So you are accusing me of being a sex offender? How crass is that of you?

The first thing I would like to know is where in the fuck you got that shoe that you attribute to being my size. Perhaps it came out of your closet.
Click to expand...


Was there a registry all the way back then? I lived in CA at that time and I don't remember there being one.
Click to expand...
:alienhuh:*peepwall*
 
A.B.Normal said:
:alienhuh:*peepwall*
Click to expand...
I lived in CA until 1994 when I fled that hellhole of high taxes, unattainable housing, and liberal politics.

I really didn't think I would have to parse words when I stated that I lived in CA at the time this guy -- whom I do not know and have never known -- committed his crime -- of which I have no knowledge whatsoever -- and could not recall -- even though I had no real interest in same -- there being a law in place at that time -- 1972 -- under which a sex offender -- of which I am not one -- would have to register -- a process which I know nothing about -- with the authorities.

Any clearer, or s-h-o-u-l-d_I_s-p-e-l-l_o-u-t_e-v-e-r-y_w-o-r-d_s-o_e-v-e-n_a-n_i-d-i-o-t_c-a-n_u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d_w-h-a-t_I_a-m_t-r-y-i-n-g_t-o_ c-o-n-v-e-y?
 
A.B.Normal said:
lighten up :lloyd:
Click to expand...

Wasn't talkin' about you.

People here should be appreciative of the fact that someone would ask them a technical question fully expecting them to have the necessary intelligence to answer the query. Inkara1 proved that premise correct. It is the other responses that take away from that.
 
Perhaps folks are pulling your leg because they enjoy the results. Perhaps you should just ignore it? If there was any serious namecalling and I missed it you could simply report the post.
 
tonksy said:
Perhaps folks are pulling your leg because they enjoy the results. Perhaps you should just ignore it? If there was any serious namecalling and I missed it you could simply report the post.
Click to expand...

Then they should put a smiley to indicate it is in jest. The name calling is by implication and is not appreciated. It has happened several times here by a couple of posters.

Calling someone a jerk, douche bag, asshole, etc is one thing. Implying that they are a child molester / rapist is quite another. Not funny at any level.
 
jimpeel said:
Then they should put a smiley to indicate it is in jest. The name calling is by implication and is not appreciated. It has happened several times here by a couple of posters.

Calling someone a jerk, douche bag, asshole, etc is one thing. Implying that they are a child molester / rapist is quite another. Not funny at any level.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Let's not do it again, okay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top