YOUR TURN: 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.

Stacy L. Smith December 07, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Yes. No matter what the risk, if someone is considered a sex offender then their status should be made public. Particularly when children are involved.
Josh Chace December 07, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Regardless of what arbitrary "level" offender they are, they should never EVER be in a position where children are involved. Ever. It's like letting a convicted arsonist work in a match factory. I can't believe he would even be considered for a position like this. Where was the background check?
Michelle Mady December 08, 2012 at 01:48 PM
It was an illegal center. There was no background check. It was him and his wife- who would check him??? The state cannot regulate something that's being done illegally. They went around and basically babysat. Parents probably assumed they were checked because they named their service making it look like they were established.
Nate December 08, 2012 at 06:14 PM
It isn't as simple as "it was an illegal center." Please don't dismiss the issue summarily in this manner.They were very calculating in how they set up their business and only got caught for the "Illegal day care center" when they expanded to group care and day camp at their site. The loophole is that if you go to someones house and baby sit there, you apparently do not need a license. The tutoring center didn't require a license other than the teaching certification and some sort of tutoring certificate. The travesty is that parents who did a check by looking at the sex offender registry, etc. saw NOTHING indicating that he had a history of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14. The wife would slide him in at the last minute if there was a sick call or scheduling issue and if parents asked, she said he had no issues. Even if you checked the sex offender registry, because he was a level 1, he didn't show up. That is the issue that needs to be fixed.
Rfs January 16, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Lets keep protecting these Monsters. Lets make sure we disturb their life. I can't believe this is even a question. I think they should have a huge S.A BRANDED on their forehead and when they go to prison put them with the general population instead of protecting them. Think about the children and if it was your child. A life of darkness and theropy awaits most of them


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