text: You raise a really interesting question.  It does seem a bit unfair that offenders, repeat or otherwise, of other crimes aren't required to register but sex offenders are.  Quite frankly, I am surprised that someone hasn't tried to raise this issue already in the courts.  \n\n     I definitely see your point and I do sympathize; however, I can't say I agree whole hartedly.  I think it is a good law  per se  even if it is somewhat discriminatory.  What I don't like is the states that require the offender to register for life after the first offense.  Reason being, there are some who are falsely accused and convicted of a crime they didn't commit and end up having to pay for it for the rest of their life.  Now if they are accused and convicted a second time that is different.  I also think the laws should be more specific as to which types of sex offenders should have to register rather than all of them.  For example, in some states indecent exposure is a sex offense and those convicted have to register.  If it is someone who is exposing themselves in a park i.e. a flasher then perhaps they should have to register.  But, a young kid who moons someone, gets arrested for indecent exposure, and has to register as a sex offender is going bit far.\n\n     I guess what the real problem is, there is no way to address this issue that is completely fair to all.  But, by the same token, that doesn't mean it should be done away with either.