.

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.

On 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.

BH December 13, 2012 at 04:11 PM
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.
Stephanie Radner December 13, 2012 at 04:35 PM
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?
Tina Silverio December 13, 2012 at 05:24 PM
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.
Bill Darcey December 13, 2012 at 05:27 PM
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 .
Emcee of Seekonk December 13, 2012 at 05:33 PM
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.
Mark McKay December 13, 2012 at 06:12 PM
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.
Daniel F. Devine December 13, 2012 at 09:33 PM
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.
Mark Barnett December 13, 2012 at 09:47 PM
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.
paul December 13, 2012 at 10:11 PM
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.
Roxanne Houghton December 13, 2012 at 10:32 PM
There is no such thing as a "low risk" sex offender. Who made up such a ridiculous statement/label?
BH December 14, 2012 at 03:43 AM
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.
Robin December 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM
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!
Carol Houghton December 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM
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.
Amy December 14, 2012 at 02:52 PM
Peeing in the woods and graphic pictures of children at an illegal day care are different. Why was this guy only level 1?
Abe Froman December 14, 2012 at 03:22 PM
Agree. 100%
Abe Froman December 14, 2012 at 03:43 PM
So let's say a guy goes out and has a few too many beers...he realizes that he's had too much to drink. Now he's trying to do the right thing here so he decides to walk home. Now this unfortunate fellow gets halfway home and just can't hold his bladder any longer. He steps off to the side of a dumpster in a parking lot, out of sight to the entire world except for the police officer who happened to be cruising by. Now this police officer had a particularly bad day and just didn't have the patience to deal with anything....throws the book at him and busts him for public Urination....yadda yadda yadda...this guy ends up being classified as a Level 1 Sex Offender. He should be labeled a sex offender to the public with no explanation attached and tattooed on the forehead with "Sex Offender"? Seems wrong to me. What about the 18 year old who gets busted for statatory when his 16 year old girlfriends mom gets all crazy and decides to mess his life up. I think a Tattoo in this case might be extreme. Don't get me wrong....I agree with your feeling....but not your blanket solution.
Reason December 14, 2012 at 03:54 PM
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
A.j. Blye December 14, 2012 at 04:42 PM
there is one living in Norton housing only feet away from two schools !!!!that should be against the law!!
Sunday Morning December 14, 2012 at 07:06 PM
hi

Boards

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