I'm not sure who or what determined he was low risk. This man had convictions of indecent assault and battery on a child, thats hardly level 1, that should have labeled him a level 3.
That being said, public urination can bring about a label of level 1, so can a woman showing her chest in public (something done on almost ever television channel). . So perhaps what qualifies for level 1 should be reviewed. Level 1 shoild be reserved for crimes that do not have a direct intended victim, such as the above situations. This man should never have been allowed near kids after 1989.

There should not be a sex offender registry. If there is any risk of re-offending, a person should not be released. I know the prisons are overloaded, but isn't a 1% chance still too high?

Make it public- including "low risk". I don't want to hear any right to privacy baloney in cases like this. They lost their right to privacy when they invaded another's personal space.

The problem is that the classification process isn't automatic for certain crimes .
Section 178 of Chapter 6 of the General Laws provides for a board that makes the determination , and allows judicial appeal of the board's finding . The finding or plea of guilt in a crime such as this thing was convicted of should carry automatic classification as part of the penalty .

If even half of what I've heard about this man, and his wife, are true, they should be both locked up for the rest of their days. And even that's too good for them. They should actually be shackled together and tossed off a bridge.

The Sex Offender Registry, like so many other make-work jobs for bureaucrats, is useless. What are we to do after we find out we have a level 3 living in the neighborhood? Buy a gun? Lock up our kids?

Level 3 offenders should be set apart from the general population. Let them all live together on an island someplace where they can go after one another.

I'm all for public knowledge of all sex offenders. Further more, I see no reason why tattooing "Sex Offender" on the fore head of each of these animals isn't a good idea. These fine folks are barely human and should be slowly and painfully punished for a LONG, LONG time. Scum bag filth.

If charges are proven without a doubt, lethal injection would suffice in my opnion. Then there would be no need to be classified/registered at any level.

You can be a Level 1 if you had a girlfriend who was 15 and you were 16 and some parent gets pissed off - a lot of people get caught up in that web - calssified for relatively minor offenses - this is another example of a bad story making bad law. He was mis -classified obviously and he is a pig. But everyone should take a deep breath and think about the situation a bit before decisions are made. And the media needs to explain all sides instead of getting caught in the sordid story.

No matter what level you make one of these sick monsters, if they are out of jail, they are on the hunt for more children to violate. This sub human would have found a way to get a child alone and have his way. He should be castrated or put down like the rabid pig that he is.

There is no such thing as a "low risk" sex offender. Who made up such a ridiculous statement/label?

So peeing in the woods makes you a high risk to assault abuse or rape someone? I don't know one guy who hasn't gone outside at least once.

I think "low risk sex offender" is an oxymoron. If public urination is classified under sex offender then laws need to be changed. We had a level 3 sex offender living 2 houses over, across from my neighbor's daycare! And law enforcement said there was nothing they could do because he had rights too. I believe you lose those rights once you break the law!

I am of the firm belief that if you are ANY level of sex offender that your name should be plastered all over the place. Something has to be done to protect the children so that their lives are not ruined. Definitly the classification process needs to be overhauled but we have to keep these perverts away from our children.

Peeing in the woods and graphic pictures of children at an illegal day care are different. Why was this guy only level 1?

He should have never been classified as a level 1 offender. Frightening history, every official who looked at this guys case should be investigated. http://www.bostonherald.com/print/1061180137

there is one living in Norton housing only feet away from two schools !!!!that should be against the law!!

hi