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

The Middlesex County District Attorney's office alleges that at least 13 children were abused while under the care of John Burbine, 49, at the Waterfall Education Center, 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. In Wakefield, at least one mom reported to Wakefield Patch that she tried to do a routine check on Burbine when she brought her child for tutoring at the former Waterfall Education Center a couple of years ago, but found nothing because of his Level 1 status.

Since then, lawmakers and public officials have begun to consider what, if any, reforms should be made to the sex offender notification system - especially in regard to dealing with information about Level 1 offenders.

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.”

Offenders classified as a Level 2 or a Level 3 offender have his or her sex offender registry information 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.

BSB December 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Yes, Level 1 sex offenders registry information should be available to the public. Chances are they were guilty of the offense but pleaded no contest and/or lesser charge. Therefore, receiving a lower level classification.
Paul December 10, 2012 at 01:00 PM
level 1 could be a guy leaving a party who relieves himself on a tree. The 'sex offender' staus should not follow him for the rest of his life. A sex offender who rapes or touches children is always a level 2 or 3 so it is a different type of offender. Rapists don't get off or get it lowered to level 1 for good behavior. BTW, I am married and have a two year old so of all people have a lot to say on this subject as I would be the first to go to prison for the rest of my life if I ever caught anyone touching my family and I do everything to protect them. A lot of the level 1's should not be sex offender status. Obviously this man (and woman) were beyond level 1 from the get go.
linda December 10, 2012 at 04:34 PM
the fact that he was "level 1" and subsequently has been charged with the most vile acts on a baby 8 days old and other toddlers indicates he was clearly mis-classified. as for relieving oneself on a tree leaving a party...really, the person could go before leaving or go to the closest gas station.. Yes there could be possible innocent situations and maybe they shouldn't be punished for life, but clearly this is/was not one of those times. Irregardless, parents have a right to know of any level if that person is going to be with or near children, never mind babysitting 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