Huh? That is your proof? Nobody prior to your post (quoted above) posted any facts about how why the Santa Barbara guy got put on the sex offenders registry. Only hearsay about how the law "works". Remember, we are talking about the incident in your first post.
How do you know the Santa Barbara guy didn't deliberately pee with underage girls watching? Or this was his third violation and he was on probation?
---------------
Ahh, he's talking about ARRESTS -- he did not name one single person CONVICTED and added to the SEXUAL OFFENDER'S REGISTRY for just peeing in public. He was a cop and arresting people is what he does.
Yes, urinating in public is against the law and there were likely convictions, however, no proof has been provided that a person busted on that one offense with a clear record and no minors present was added to a sexual offender's registry.
That one vague comment -- an anecdote -- is the ONLY thing in the article having to do with public urination -- the rest of the article has to do with housing sexual offenders -- and I agree, its a big problem.
And yes, making things more black and white in the language is also good.