• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sex Offender registries

Re: LeTourneau

nightwind said:
So, if it is a woman who is the molester, it is a romance? If it is a man who is the molester, he is an evil pedofile, who should be put on the list?
Click to expand...

Gender has nothing to do with it. The problem is context. In most states all who are convicted of a sexual crime are put on the list. Some "sexual crimes" are scarier than others. Consider something like "third degree sexual abuse," a misdemeanor here, where a 20 year old is making out with his 15 year old girlfriend. He's on the list with the 40 year old guy that violently raped a 4 year old.

In the past 10 years or so, the state has started using multiple counts and consecutive sentences so that anyone convicted of the more awful child sex crimes get what are for all practical purposes life sentences. The list isn't really an issue then.
 
Suddenly said:
These things differ from state to state, but typically these sanctions do have a set time (or for life) and operate as mandatory penalties as a result of the underlying conviction. The conviction is appealable and can be attacked by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This is all done through the justice system.
Click to expand...

But can you appeal the listing separate of the rest of the sentencing itself? Can you argue that he should serve the 5 years, but shouldn't be placed on the list afterwards?
 
Shanek:

Our Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. If someone has served out whatever sentencing imposed upon them by the justice system, then that's that.
Click to expand...

A few years ago there was a story about a man that raped a teenage girl, hacked off her arms, and left her lying in a ditch to bleed to death. She survived. When he was eligible for parole, they couldn’t find any place to send him since no community would allow him to move in. Last I heard he was living in a trailer on the prison grounds.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why they didn't just take him out and decently shoot him in the first place. But if he was moving in next door to you, wouldn’t you think you had a right to know about his past?
 
shanek said:


But can you appeal the listing separate of the rest of the sentencing itself? Can you argue that he should serve the 5 years, but shouldn't be placed on the list afterwards?
Click to expand...

Not if the listing is mandatory, as in "required." If one doesn't want on the list, one needs to not get convicted. I'm sure one could argue they shouldn't be on the list, but since it is mandatory upon conviction, the judge has no discretion, so it would be a worthless argument to everyone not billing by the hour.
 
espritch said:


Well that should be proof enough that there is no kind and loving God that looks out for children.
Click to expand...

Every xtian presented with that sentance would argue with it.
 
Every xtian presented with that sentance would argue with it.
Click to expand...

No doubt.

"God stopped his hart to save him from further suffering and now he's smiling up in heaven with Jesus."

It's a friggin miracle.
 
shanek said:


We are??? Must've missed a meeting...

This isn't something done by "society." It's something done by government. It's time people started realizing the difference between those two entities.
Click to expand...

If the populace does nothing about what the government does, they are providing tacit agreement with the actions in question. There was, as I recall, tremendous public support for Megan's law. I also recall a poll which indicated that over fifty percent of Americans would not mind surrendering a few civil rights in exchange for a safer society. I don't happen to feel that way but a lot of people do.

Glory
 
Re: LeTourneau

nightwind said:
So, it has been suggested that Ms. LeTourneaus case is different, and might should not be put on the list.
If Ms. LeTourneau, had of been a Mr. LeTourneau, should he have been put on the list?
So, if it is a woman who is the molester, it is a romance? If it is a man who is the molester, he is an evil pedofile, who should be put on the list?
Click to expand...

Who said that the Letourneau case was different because of her gender? For that matter, different from what exactly? I said that I knew of no reason why she should be suspected of posing a threat to society. I did not say why I thought that.

The reason is that her "victim" was not a child. He was not an adult, perhaps, but he was not a child. There was also no indication that Ms. Letourneau would do it again with another minor. It seems in every way to be an isolated incident. Thus, I do not think she belongs on the list. I am quite confident that there are several men on the list who do not belong there for simmilar reasons.

Glory
 
espritch said:


Well that should be proof enough that there is no kind and loving God that looks out for children.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Why did you post it? I am afraid I fail to see how it adds anything to the discussion. Essentially, you have dropped an emotional, inflammatory bomb on the discussion which makes it impossible to continue looking at the issue logically and objectively. Plus, I really didn't need to know about that particular incident and desperately wish that I didn't. Now I have that lovely image to take to bed with me all because I responded to thread which, up until now, had been about civil rights.

Glory
 
A sex offender registry is a statement of fact: these people are convicted sex offenders. If the truth stigmatizes them, that's their problem. Society's problem is to defend the victims - especially in the case of child molesters where the victims are those least able to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
It is not the job of the general public to carry out criminal sentencing. Putting released convicts names on a list for the public to watch out for is criminally stupid.

People convicted of these horrible crimes should be sentenced appropriately. Appropriately might include throwing away the key.

Creating a sex offender registry is a cheap, ineffective, political feel-good solution to a complicated and ugly problem.
 
Suddenly said:
Not if the listing is mandatory, as in "required." If one doesn't want on the list, one needs to not get convicted.
Click to expand...

And that is the point. Discretion should be given in sentencing for such an invasion of privacy.
 
Glory said:
If the populace does nothing about what the government does, they are providing tacit agreement with the actions in question.
Click to expand...

And how are people "doing nothing"? There are a lot of groups trying to get this overturned.

I also recall a poll which indicated that over fifty percent of Americans would not mind surrendering a few civil rights in exchange for a safer society.
Click to expand...

Those people have absolutely no right to force that choice on me.
 
Glory said:


I also recall a poll which indicated that over fifty percent of Americans would not mind surrendering a few civil rights in exchange for a safer society.

Glory
Click to expand...

that's just frightening.
 
fishbob said:
It is not the job of the general public to carry out criminal sentencing. Putting released convicts names on a list for the public to watch out for is criminally stupid.

People convicted of these horrible crimes should be sentenced appropriately. Appropriately might include throwing away the key.

Creating a sex offender registry is a cheap, ineffective, political feel-good solution to a complicated and ugly problem.
Click to expand...
Very well said.

I have a friend who represents a kid who is looking at a lifetime of being a registered sex offender for the following:

The kid was 17, and sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend. Her parents didn't like him, so they called the cops and said that he had kidnapped her. The cops showed up at his place, and arrested him. When they talked to the girl, and realized he didn't kidnap her, they decided to threaten him with statutory rape (of which he was innocent under Texas law). Not knowing this, he offered to show the cops a videotape they had made of their quite consensual sex, to prove it wasn't rape.

So, the Harris Country Prosecutor decides that the kidnapping won't stick, the statutory rape won't stick, but we've got to convice him of something (this being Texas, after all), so they charge him with possession of child pornography. They offer a deal where he doesn't have to serve time, but has to plea to an offense that carries sex offender status, knowing that they are going to ruin this kid's life, just so they can pad their statistics.
 
Michael Redman said:

The kid was 17, and sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend. Her parents didn't like him, so they called the cops and said that he had kidnapped her. The cops showed up at his place, and arrested him. When they talked to the girl, and realized he didn't kidnap her, they decided to threaten him with statutory rape (of which he was innocent under Texas law). Not knowing this, he offered to show the cops a videotape they had made of their quite consensual sex, to prove it wasn't rape.

So, the Harris Country Prosecutor decides that the kidnapping won't stick, the statutory rape won't stick, but we've got to convice him of something (this being Texas, after all), so they charge him with possession of child pornography. They offer a deal where he doesn't have to serve time, but has to plea to an offense that carries sex offender status, knowing that they are going to ruin this kid's life, just so they can pad their statistics.
Click to expand...

:mad: :mad:

That pisses me off.
 
Glory said:
Sex offenders are different from other criminals. The rate of recidivism is very high amongst sex offenders
Click to expand...
Is it? That's what I've heard, and that's what I read in "Dear Abby" and such, even to the point that the recidivism rate is 100%. But what ARE the actual numbers? How do we know what they are? Is there anything published anywhere?

I'm troubled by this. If the recidivism rate IS in fact 100%, isn't that a reasonable argument for lifetime incarceration? Either we're knowingly letting dangerous people out on the streets, or we're treating them as being more dangerous than violent criminals. Shouldn't someone who's been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon be treated more harshly than someone who flashed his genitalia to a teenager? I realize that a lot of sex crimes are FAR worse than that, but I'm just pointing up the possible terrible contradiction.
 
shanek said:


And that is the point. Discretion should be given in sentencing for such an invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...

Would you argue that there should be discretion as to whether someone gets thrown in jail for a particular crime as well?

What I'm getting at is whether you object to this aspect for some particular reason related to the list, or is it that you object to mandatory sentences per se? I would contend that having one's name on such a list would be less a "invasion of privacy" than being in prison, with the loss of privacy and freedoms inherent to that.
 
Suddenly said:
What I'm getting at is whether you object to this aspect for some particular reason related to the list, or is it that you object to mandatory sentences per se?
Click to expand...

I am against mandatory sentences actually, but even apart from that, I'm mostly arguing against extremes. There isn't a mandatory sentence of being on the list for, say, three years...you're either on the list forever or you're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom