TELL US: Should Level 1 Sex Offender Information Be Public?

A Wakefield man and tutor who faces numerous child sex charges was a Level 1 sex offender.

Last Thursday afternoon, news spread quickly through the region about the indictment of a Wakefield couple for numerous charges stemming from an illegal day care operation where graphic child sexual abuse occurred.

, which offered tutoring and day care.

Burbine was a level 1 sex offender, which means he had been convicted of a sex-related crime but was deemed least likely to re-offend.

Sex offenders are classified according to the degree of dangerousness they pose to the public and their likelihood to re-offend. A Level 1 offender has been classified as a “low risk.” A Level 2 offender has been classified as a “moderate risk.” A Level 3 offender has been classified as a “high risk.”

Once an offender is classified as a Level 2 or a Level 3 Offender, his/her sex offender registry information will be available to the public. Level 1 information is not public.

Does this case affect how you feel about the Sex Offender Registry? Would releasing more information about all levels of sex offenders prove helpful? Or, do you think level 1 offenders don't deserve to have their information made public? Tell us in the comments.

Tom December 12, 2012 at 09:11 PM
There is not a problem with the registry. The problem is this person should not have been a level 1. He was previously charged with three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 and had several victims. he should not have been a level 1. He also was not to have contact with children which he violated. The day care also operated illegally. Putting level 1 offenders on the web is not a solution to this event. Sex Offenders must properly be classified and parents with choose licensed, legal day cares.
Extremely Disgruntled December 20, 2012 at 09:01 PM
Not every classification will be correct. Nothing man-made is perfect. This is one of the FEW times their was an error. I agree with Tom above, with one major exception, that there actually ARE problems with the registry in general. As a single instance of MANY problems, Ages of Consent vary from State to State. What is LEGAL in one State is ILLEGAL in another. Moving State to State then becomes a major problem. Another big problem as an example: Ohio has THREE illegal-only-in-Ohio Adult-with-Adult and fully-CONSENSUAL statutory crimes that are Level 3 offenses. That creates a diluted registry. Other states usually follow the conviction State's classifications. These Ohioans are listed for something LEGAL everywhere else in the world. They are not a threat to anyone. There are many other instances of many different registry problems, way too many to get into here. Proper Parental Diligence is still the best protection for all children. Relying on the Government to take care of that responsibility is asinine and lazy parenting.
Extremely Disgruntled December 20, 2012 at 09:22 PM
Correction to third sentence above, agreeing with Tom: "This is one of the FEW times their (lack of due diligence <of the sentencing Court,> that there) was an error (in properly classifying him in the first place.)"


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something