Proposed Ohio License Plate

[angelicminx]

Posting without comment at this time.

Ohio Sex Offender Plate


Thu Mar 1, 8:48 AM ET


CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Lawmakers in Ohio said on Wednesday they want to force convicted sex offenders to use a fluorescent-green license plate on their cars so they can be easily identified.

A Republican and a Democrat in the state legislature in Columbus have joined forces to propose the law, which echoes measures in several U.S. states that require convicted drunken drivers to use a yellow, pink or red plate on their cars.

"The fluorescent-green license plate will make the most egregious sex offenders easily identifiable," state Democratic Rep. Michael DeBose said in a statement.

Police said the green plates would allow them to track sex offenders, who are already required to register with the local sheriff's office and are prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

"It will give Ohio families a great peace of mind knowing that their children will be able to recognize where this danger exists," Summit County Sheriff Drew Alexander said.

Alexander joined the politicians at a news conference in Columbus, the state capital, to praise the proposed law.

Opponents of the proposed law argue the use of a special plate would stigmatize everyone who shared the offender's car -- including their spouse or children.

The proposed law will be debated in committee before a decision is made whether to put the proposal to a vote.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Making those cars instant targets for road-ragers looking for an object. Lynch mobs R us.


and a side issue... HOW is it possible that a convicted "egregious sex offender" would have a spouse or children in the same home with them? The mind boggles, the heart sinks.

 

[SesameStreet]

I'll have to think about this one. I am not so sure that I think placing these on cars is such a good idea. Couldn't one be faked and put on some innocent person's car in the middle of the night as a sick practical joke?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Methinks it 'tis nothing more than a "Scarlet Letter".

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Making those cars instant targets for road-ragers looking for an object. Lynch mobs R us.

You have a point, Stella. These people are awful - no doubt. But to expose them to the unbridled rage of the ignorant masses is, in many ways, just as bad. Here we have a sex offender registry for those who have been released from prison. Those listed are constantly taunted and abused by "Rightous Neighbors" who's only thought is to rid the block of these offenders. They've paid their debt to society. They may still be dangerous or not. But you can't brand them because the might do something wrong again. That's no different than branding everyone in the country because they "might" rob a 7-11 store.

 

[S-Des]

and a side issue... HOW is it possible that a convicted "egregious sex offender" would have a spouse or children in the same home with them? The mind boggles, the heart sinks.

The question is, what's egregious? If a high school senior (or college freshman) has sex with his high school sweetheart, he can be prosecuted (there are plenty of examples). There are thousands of he said-she said cases, where the actual truth will never be known. I agree that in cases of grown adults molesting pre-teen kids, it's questionable why anyone would want to spend their life with such a person, but in all the other cases, it's very likely someone will. It isn't right that they should suffer years or even decades after the fact.

Still, that's not my objection. It's wrong to single out one crime with constant legislation, trying to appease panicky voters. An "egregious sex offender" is somehow worse than a murderer, or someone who robs and beats women? It is just stupid and will lead to serious problems, not to mention causing otherwise law-abiding citizens to become law-breakers...I sure as hell wouldn't go out on the road with such a plate. I wouldn't care if I had to steal or forge one.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'll have to think about this one. I am not so sure that I think placing these on cars is such a good idea. Couldn't one be faked and put on some innocent person's car in the middle of the night as a sick practical joke?

That is a damn good point. All you'd need is a can of spraypaint, it wouldn't even have to be a perfect match.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The question is, what's egregious? If a high school senior (or college freshman) has sex with his high school sweetheart, he can be prosecuted (there are plenty of examples). There are thousands of he said-she said cases, where the actual truth will never be known. I agree that in cases of grown adults molesting pre-teen kids, it's questionable why anyone would want to spend their life with such a person, but in all the other cases, it's very likely someone will. It isn't right that they should suffer years or even decades after the fact.

Still, that's not my objection. It's wrong to single out one crime with constant legislation, trying to appease panicky voters. An "egregious sex offender" is somehow worse than a murderer, or someone who robs and beats women? It is just stupid and will lead to serious problems, not to mention causing otherwise law-abiding citizens to become law-breakers...I sure as hell wouldn't go out on the road with such a plate. I wouldn't care if I had to steal or forge one.

Good points!
There are some crimes that brand one as a 'sexual offender' that don't involve molestation or rape. Not sure, but is masturbating in an adult theater one of them? Soliciting a prostitute? Exposing oneself [not always of the trenchcoat variety]? Possessing Internet porn?

 

[Tom Collins]

Next comes a law requiring that they sew an insignia patch on all their clothing so that it's impossible for them to take a single step outside their door with announcing to the world that they've done something that's considered wrong. Pretty soon everyone ever convicted of anything will each have a special license plate and/or patches for their clothes. They already have to register and the whole neighborhood is informed about them when they move in. Will they next have to have a huge sign outside their homes to be certain that no one can possibly not know?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the real offenders ought to have it easy, or be able to move into a place without the neighbors being aware of their history, but how long is it before we actually start BRANDING people's fourheads with their criminal record?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This country is very quickly turning into a fascist state. Have people already forgotten Gremany in the 40s? It scares the shit out of me, and pisses me off.

 

[Tom Collins]

Good points!
There are some crimes that brand one as a 'sexual offender' that don't involve molestation or rape. Not sure, but is masturbating in an adult theater one of them? Soliciting a prostitute? Exposing oneself [not always of the trenchcoat variety]? Possessing Internet porn?

It depends on what state you're living in. In some states, yes to some of those, and in some, yes to all of them.

 

[angelicminx]

There has been a law proposed in Kentucky to have 'Registered Sex Offender' listed on a driver's license or state issued ID.


Also, a law was just passed by the senate to register any email, or IM address used by a registered sex offender. It hasn't been voted on by the house yet, as far as I know.

ETA: Senate Bill 65

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Next comes a law requiring that they sew an insignia patch on all their clothing so that it's impossible for them to take a single step outside their door with announcing to the world that they've done something that's considered wrong. Pretty soon everyone ever convicted of anything will each have a special license plate and/or patches for their clothes. They already have to register and the whole neighborhood is informed about them when they move in. Will they next have to have a huge sign outside their homes to be certain that no one can possibly not know?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the real offenders ought to have it easy, or be able to move into a place without the neighbors being aware of their history, but how long is it before we actually start BRANDING people's fourheads with their criminal record?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This country is very quickly turning into a fascist state. Have people already forgotten Gremany in the 40s? It scares the shit out of me, and pisses me off.

But Tom,
Isn't that what the Nazi's did to the Jews when they made them wear armbands and sew the Star of David on their jackets? This whole thing is much too similar for my taste.

I disagree with your last statement. The fascists have already taken over this country. Fasccists - are they far Right Wing or Far Left?

 

[darkerdreamer]

You have a point, Stella. These people are awful - no doubt. But to expose them to the unbridled rage of the ignorant masses is, in many ways, just as bad. Here we have a sex offender registry for those who have been released from prison. Those listed are constantly taunted and abused by "Rightous Neighbors" who's only thought is to rid the block of these offenders. They've paid their debt to society. They may still be dangerous or not. But you can't brand them because the might do something wrong again. That's no different than branding everyone in the country because they "might" rob a 7-11 store.

I agree almost completely with this post, except for the last line. It would be more like branding everyone who has already robbed a 7-11 because they might do it again. These people have already proven that they are capable of pretty terrible acts. However, who is to say if a person is reformed or not?

My $.02:

To instantly make these people targets after they have been 'rehabilitated' according to the state is counterintuitive. The state is essentially saying they have no faith in prison reform, and if such is the case, why release anyone ever? People need second chances, a person can turn a completely new leaf in a day.

-DD

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Making those cars instant targets for road-ragers looking for an object. Lynch mobs R us.

There's a part of me that says, 'would that really be such a bad thing?' Yeah, call me an ass, go ahead.

But there are people who want to know and I think they have a right to know when that sort of criminal is in their vacinity.

I also know the liberals are arguing their typical 'what if he didn't really do it?' They may have a point. The fact is, however that these are not suspected sex offenders, these are convicted sex offenders. They have been convicted by a jury of their peers. If they can prove they didn't do it, hey we'll give them a regular licence plate and a new car to put it on.

As for the lynch mobs and road rage threat, the sex offender will have the same protection his victim did. I think that's fair enough.

 

[mikey2much]

I can't wait for my green leaf

I agree with most of the posts to this thread, it makes me feel good to know that there are others out there that can see what is happening here.

I read about a guy in Va. who was hounded by these type of laws until he killed himself. Turns out he was legally retarted and had the mind of an 8 year old, his crime was exposing himself to a little girl, like an 8 year old.

When I get my green leaf on my tag I think that I will write over it "persuing happiness my way" But then again that dosen't hurt anybody.

 

[Tom Collins]

But Tom,
Isn't that what the Nazi's did to the Jews when they made them wear armbands and sew the Star of David on their jackets? This whole thing is much too similar for my taste.

I disagree with your last statement. The fascists have already taken over this country. Fasccists - are they far Right Wing or Far Left?

That's exactly the point that I was making. 10 more years like this and we'll be living in the American equivalent of 1930s and 40s Germany.

Fascists are far right. Communists are far left.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

That's exactly the point that I was making. 10 more years like this and we'll be living in the American equivalent of 1930s and 40s Germany.

Fascists are far right. Communists are far left.

No one can be farther right than GW

I can recall in my lifetime when wearing Green in Ireland was enough to have you inprisoned. I'm fortunatly Orange anyway, but I did have friends who were arrested for "the wearing of the green" as it was known. Things don't change much, I think. The perspective from personal experience finds the very idea of branding these people with different license plates abhorant and cruel.

 

[S-Des]

There's a part of me that says, 'would that really be such a bad thing?' Yeah, call me an ass, go ahead.

But there are people who want to know and I think they have a right to know when that sort of criminal is in their vacinity.

I also know the liberals are arguing their typical 'what if he didn't really do it?' They may have a point. The fact is, however that these are not suspected sex offenders, these are convicted sex offenders. They have been convicted by a jury of their peers. If they can prove they didn't do it, hey we'll give them a regular licence plate and a new car to put it on.

As for the lynch mobs and road rage threat, the sex offender will have the same protection his victim did. I think that's fair enough.

Swell, I've been called a NeoCon and a Liberal all in one day. How 'bout this, in Illinois we let 17 people off death row because they were innocent or the evidence was so shoddy that they never should have been there in the first place. We had a district that was so infamous for torture of suspects, that dozens of innocent people have been released after spending years in jail (and confessing to something they didn't do). Most rapes/molestations come down to he said/she said. There are numerous cases of fathers accused of molesting their children after enormous pressure being brought to bear by the bitter mother.

Forget the innocent. How about the fact that in one state you could be considered a dangerous felon, while in another you are just another ex-con trying to rebuild his life. Girls use fake IDs (or just lie about their age) to get into bars or when dating. If you have sex with one who's underage, your being deceived is irrelevant in the eyes of the law (even if you meet her in a bar). Guys who may have committed a crime of passion (like date rape) certainly can turn their lives around after they mature and realize the damage they have done. 20 years afterwards, will you have all the kids taunting their children because they have one of those license plates?

People do not have a RIGHT to know if someone living around them has done something dangerous. I'd like to know if my neighbors have drug or violence problems, do I get to find out about that? How about if they like looking at perverted porn or participate in "abnormal" sex? Maybe I should get to find out if they have very strong political opinions (since I shouldn't have to live next to someone who will annoy me endlessly with vegetarian slogans or global warming tirades). You have to be careful about the power you give the government. Some day it WILL be turned on you or someone you care about (but by then it will be too late).

 

[darkerdreamer]

I agree with most of the posts to this thread, it makes me feel good to know that there are others out there that can see what is happening here.

I read about a guy in Va. who was hounded by these type of laws until he killed himself. Turns out he was legally retarted and had the mind of an 8 year old, his crime was exposing himself to a little girl, like an 8 year old.

When I get my green leaf on my tag I think that I will write over it "persuing happiness my way" But then again that dosen't hurt anybody.

I heard about the incident you were talking about, it was tragic. No one would be mad at an 8-year-old boy for doing that, yet none of the neighbors or "concerned citizens" took into account his mental capacity before pulling out all the stops to picket and terrorize him. I'm sorry, but thats not a sex offender to me, thats someone with a legitimate medical condition that needed help, not persecution.

 

[emap]

I remember when registering sex offenders was new. There was a rather twisted fucked up thing that happened to one of the first to register in Arizona, he was convicted of statutory rape, she was 17 and her parents didn't like him, court had to proceed with case no matter what. She swore up and down she wanted him and so on so forth.

Anyway, when he got out of prison, he had to register, they sent out the announcements to everyone in the neighborhood. He moved back in with his mother to try and get a job and turn his life around, except he couldn't get a job, people would break his mothers car, dump gasoline on her yard and light it, salt the ground and a few other things, long story short, he and his mother were forced to move since she couldn't afford to repair all the damage caused by the neighborhood and the we can't do anything wrong and he already has people, and he couldn't get a job.

The biggest problem was it didn't say what he did, he was just a number sex offender, which happened to have rapists and pedophiles with the same number rating since she was underage.

Which brings to mind another fucked up thing, convicted felons, cannot own a gun, cannot vote, and cannot have a passport. OK, did I miss something there, I thought you do time you come out and you can start over, I mean prison is supposed to reform criminals and make them law abiding. Now with the limitations placed on convicted felons, they can't do anything besides work in a grocery store or a fast food place because they can't handle liquor for sale in a restaurant or bar, can't get a job in anything connected to the government, state or federal, and will have a problem getting a job in anything beyond janitor or fast food since everyone else won't hire criminal records very often. Of course heaven forbid they try and protect themselves, not like they can get a good paying job and live in a nice apartment in a nice section of town, they are forced to find a cheap ass place in the worst section of town where the cops might show up half an hour after you call 911. Not to mentioned you have to fight with the cockroaches for breakfast lunch and dinner, assuming you can afford one or all.

But hey we have everybodies rights in mind all the time, yep just look at what we do to convicted criminals after they are released.

 

[angelicminx]

Try this one on for size.

California
A man in his early 50's meets a woman in her late 40's who has two daughters and a son. One daughter is 20, the other is 13, the son around 17.

Now, let's say the 13-year-old has a 15-year-old friend who has a 15-month-old baby. Add in friends who engage in the use of drugs and exhibit a lack of parental supervision. Sound like a recipe for disaster yet? How about we up the stakes a little bit and make the mother an alcoholic? Okay, good.

Now, let's say the man moves into the home and begins to impose his own rules. Maybe he thinks, since he's already raised 4 or 5 of his own kids, he knows what's best. Maybe he's just a control freak. Doesn't really matter why.

Let's also add the element of the 20-year-old daughter living in an inherited house belonging to the mother and not paying any of the bills related to the house. Hmm, maybe the mother decides she wants to sell the house, for whatever reason, but the daughter won't move out. Would she ask for the man's help in evicting the daughter? She might. She knows the daughter is a heavy drug user, the daughter's boyfriend is a dealer and also lives in the house.

The man begins the process of eviction in late November, at the request of the woman.

In December, a police officer knocks on the door and tells the man he's there to investigate a charge of child molesting. The man lets the officer in and cooperates with the investigation, knowing he hadn't molested any child.

The officer asks questions regarding the 13-year-old and one of her friends. The accusation had been made that while the man didn't try to have sex with them, he did 'touch them inappropriately'.

The man sits and thinks. He tells of three instances he can recall:

In the summer, the 13-year-old stood in the doorway of a busy public gathering spot talking on the phone. The man moved past her, patted her on the butt and told her she couldn't stand there and needed to move.

At another time, he doesn't recall when, one of the friends told him he had a nice ass. His unthinking, quick response was to tell the girl she had a nice set of tits for her age.

And another time when the 13 year-old broke curfew. She tells him that he can't touch her, to which his response was to roll her over and spank her clothed butt 3-5 times.

The officer mentions a few specific instances in the report:

One of the girls stated she went to use the man's phone in the kitchen. She says the man followed her and had her raise her hands above her head, then told her she had nice breasts while he reached out to cup them.

One of the girls stated she saw the man place his hand near the 13-year-old's crotch while they were watching a movie. When the officer asked if the man said anything, the girl said he didn't, he just touched the 13 year-old then got up and left the room.

The girls stated that the man had shown them a bag with 4 or 5 dildos in it.

One of the girls stated the man had told her if she ever wanted to have 'real sex' to come see him.

One 17 year-old stated that the man had offered her sex for money.

The officer asked for the man's response to those claims, and the man vehemently denied the accusations. For one thing, he didn't have a telephone during the time frame mentioned. The officer asked if the man would take a polygraph test. The man said he would, provided his accusers did so as well.

In February, the man was arrested for the felony charge of child molestation and three counts of the misdemeanor charge of lewd acts with a minor. The man hired an attorney.

Now, I want you to keep in mind that 1.) There was no accusation of intercourse. 2.) There was no accusation of the man or the accusers being unclothed. 3.) There was no obvious intent of sexual gratification.

The man has a prior criminal history. 2nd degree armed robbery in his early 20's; felon in possession of a firearm, also in his early 20's; possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, also in his early 20's; minor traffic violations, etc., but nothing on his record within the last 10-15 years.

In California there is something called 'the three strike' rule. If someone with two prior felony convictions is on trial for a third, the sentence that may be imposed is 20 years to Life. This rule would apply in the man's case.

The man was given the opportunity to plead 'no contest' to two of the misdemeanor charges, with a sentence of 3 years probation. The man's attorney explained to him that in a child molesting case, the accused already has a 50% chance of losing the case. With this man's prior record he was facing a 60-70% chance of losing the case. The attorney advised the man to plead 'no contest' and take the deal. The man took the attorney's advice.

What the man failed to understand is, he would be required to register as a sex offender. He also didn't understand that in California, the registration is required for life. He would also be required to undergo adult sex offender treatment.

Fast forward 18 months. The man has completed his sex offender treatment. The psychologist writes a letter to the D.A. stating that the man poses a minimal risk of 're-offending' and in his opinion the man should not be required to register beyond the period of probation. The man goes back to court and is released from probation, 18 months early.

But, he's still required to register.

The man's attorney files a form and returns to court on the man's behalf. The man's conviction was 'set aside or dismissed'. That should get the man off the registry, right? The man's attorney tells him that a chamber deal was made that as long as the man lives in California he would have to register, but once he left the state, he wouldn't have to register anymore.

Now, the 13 year-old (now 15) comes forward and states that she lied. The D.A. tells her he can put her in jail for a very long time for perjury and asks her if she still wants to recant. The obvious answer is, 'no'.




What are your views on this case? No, it doesn't end there.

 

[rgraham666]

Minx, I'm thinking the whole thing is a major cluster fuck.

And a good demonstration that one has to be very, very careful when using tools. Which is what the law is. As the saying goes, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

And this poor bastard got hammered.

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Try this one on for size.

California
A man in his early 50's meets a woman in her late 40's who has two daughters and a son. One daughter is 20, the other is 13, the son around 17.

Now, let's say the 13-year-old has a 15-year-old friend ....

Now, let's say the man...

Let's also add the element of ...

So is this a true story? Or is this more 'What ifs'?

The surest way to completely fuck up a country's judicial system is to base laws on 'What if'. The law has to be clear and specific with no room for creative interpretation. Otherwise the entire police force, court system and congress itself is just running in circles chasing each other's tails while the lawyers sit back and laugh because it's nothing more than money in the bank to them.

 

[Liar]

Therer was a thread about this license plate thing a while ago. I say now what I'll say again:

It won't work. The only thing that will happen is that smart and resourceful sex offenders will get access to a car owned by someone else, and less resourceful sex offenders will get harassed (tires slashed, not allowed to park, general name calling etc.) when they try to conduct their day-to-day business like grocery shopping or going to work, to the extent that they stop using cars.

Some (but far from all) convicted offenders will get practical inconvenience as additional punishment to the time they served. And no child will be safer.

 

[S-Des]

Now, the 13 year-old (now 15) comes forward and states that she lied. The D.A. tells her he can put her in jail for a very long time for perjury and asks her if she still wants to recant. The obvious answer is, 'no'.

Jail for lying when she was 13? That is pretty typical of a sleazy DA. The case is a joke, but that's exactly what happens when you are trying so hard to appease people who want to be "protected" at all costs. California has a long history of questionable prosecutions (as do many states that want to appear tough on crime). It's pathetic, but a far more common story than people want to believe.