Thanks. Great post. As always you give me something to think about and learn. On this topic my opinion is pretty well settled and I bet you would even agree with some of it.
I think we need to reevaluate how we classify, register and restrict these guys. Lifetime RSO status for a nineteen year old who had sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend seems a bit over the top, as does labeling as sex offenders middle school boys who peek up girls dresses or try to sneak a kiss (I have read news accounts of ridiculous crap like this), or the guy arrested for going to the bathroom outside. We have all seen stories like this, and uncommon or not (I have no idea) they diminish the value of these lists, thin the attention of law enforcement, place unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions on lower status RSOs, and all too often force RSOs into hiding -- which is exactly what we don't want.
Finally, there is again the very real question of how well they actually work. Obviously, they do sometimes, and this would be a very tricky question to answer as a crime prevented is (obviously) unreported.
However, an argument could certainly be made that these lists might provide a false sense of security to parents and serve to direct attention away from the very people MOST likely to harm their child -- that child's own family and friends. LE isn't fooled, they know where to look after the fact, but the ideal solution is to stop the crime before it occurs. That means educating the public that the greatest danger to any child is listed not in the RSO registry, but in the address book on the parent's phone.
Anyway, thanks again for your post.