Well, at least someone is thinking...

[angelicminx]

http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/072407whasmjdTopSexOffendersRuling.a9188446.html

 

[Selena_Kitt]

...will likely force the state supreme court to decide if the sex offender residency restriction law is constitutional. If the high court agrees with Judge Armstrong, registered sex offenders will likely be able to live wherever they want.


It will be interesting to see what the state supreme court does with it. I'd like to see it go national.

 

[cloudy]

*sigh*

That law is a great example of the witch hunt mentality that's so prevalent these days.

They enact a law as an excuse to go find all these "criminals," so they can charge them with yet another crime, when they've done nothing wrong but live where they were already living.

Good for that judge, but I fear that he'll be overruled.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Cloudy used the right words - Witch hunt. After the sex offender has served his sentence and released, can he be limited in where he can live? Frankly, I have long wondered about the Constitutionality of the whole Sex Offender Registry thing. Why not just brand them on the forehead with a big letter "S". Doesn't that amount to the same thing? Would that be Constitutional?

What this all comes down too is: This person committed a crime, served their sentence and someone is afraid he may committ another crime, so why not punish him now? That's fucked up.

The whole idea that a sex offender can't walk more than 1000 feet to potentially molest a child is ludicrous. People - Get a fucking life!

 

[3113]

Why not just brand them on the forehead with a big letter "S".

I think an "X" would be more apt, don't you? Or maybe the entire word? "Sex"?

Of course, getting back to the point, it's beginning to sound as if "sex offender" is the new way to scare people into puritanical behavior. Don't try anything outre, however innocent (like flashing your lover in public--or maybe, eventually, write porn?) or you'll end up on the registry and won't be able to live in certain places and be branded for the rest of your life.

And the insidious thing about this is that the folk emphasizing these laws make it *seem* like all sex offenders are pedophiles and they're just protecting the kids, so the panicked public agree with them on these draconian laws.

 

[3113]

Just to add...on the other hand, crime-and-punishment is out of wack anyway. If we do the psychological research on, say, rapists or pedophiles, and find that a stint in jail ain't gonna cure them, that they will do it again, then it's time to find a new way to handle such criminals.

In this particular instance, for example, the man is a rapist. Now, the law says you can't punish someone twice for the same crime. Fair enough. But shouldn't there be some other law related more to, say, Drunk Driving laws which relate to people who have a *problem*. That is, was this rape a crime, or is it a problem? A bartender isn't suppose to hand car keys to a drunk. And a pedophile certainly shouldn't be allowed near a school. And a rapist should be getting help for whatever urges drove them to rape.

A stint in jail may satisfy our desire to punish the criminal for the crime, but if it doesn't keep them from committing the crime again, then something has to be put in place.

On-the-other-hand, in regards to the "sex offender" label which includes stupid things like an 18-year-old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend--well, that shouldn't be punished at all, but I think mild punishment would be enough to make most young men/women realize that they should wait till their would-be lover is 18. No need to label them as a "sex offender" or give them a heavy punishment to push them into obeying that particular law.

 

[galaxygoddess]

there's the double edge sword of this.

Let's say they banish this law about the 1000 feet (1 mile = 5,280 feet keep that in mind) and suddenly you have some child molestors living next door to a school and low and behold, suddenly they repeat... possibly kill one, or even multiple kids... How would you feel about this law now?

Ok, other side, a 20 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. 100% consensual, they at least WAITED until she was 17, hell they had been dating since she was 14 (this is a real story) and NOW he's a sex offender and he get convicted. Should we repunish this man who barely even broke the law? I don't consider this an ACTUAL crime. I just don't.



Now, my view is this:

How hard is it to locate a house within 1000 feet of a school? 1/5 of a mile. That's some expensive property right there since it's highly desired by someone with kids. If the ONLY house available to a sex offender is THAT close to a school, is it so hard to go to a different town? How EASY is it to get a house THAT close to a school? Why would you want to live so close and pay a little bit more for the location unless you either had kids, or were REALLY desperate to get within range of your "target"?

In a different light, much the same as some other viewpoints... you can sexually assault anyone at anytime, anywhere in the world. Why does your location relative to a school have a damn thing to do with it? A LOT of sex offenders go FAR away from their home, ESPECIALLY if they've already been caught, if a report in YOUR area of a sexually abused child comes up, who'se going to be their first target for their "witch hunt"? Of course you're going to go prowl... a SMART (are they?) "repeat offender" would actually be DISCOURAGED by the closeness of the school.


And yet on a different argument, I think certain "beware of this guy"s should be posted, but it depends on the measure of his crime. I want to know if "A" sexually assualted a 4 year old, but I don't give a rats ass if "B" had consenual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend.

 

[galaxygoddess]

Just to add...on the other hand, crime-and-punishment is out of wack anyway. If we do the psychological research on, say, rapists or pedophiles, and find that a stint in jail ain't gonna cure them, that they will do it again, then it's time to find a new way to handle such criminals.

In this particular instance, for example, the man is a rapist. Now, the law says you can't punish someone twice for the same crime. Fair enough. But shouldn't there be some other law related more to, say, Drunk Driving laws which relate to people who have a *problem*. That is, was this rape a crime, or is it a problem? A bartender isn't suppose to hand car keys to a drunk. And a pedophile certainly shouldn't be allowed near a school. And a rapist should be getting help for whatever urges drove them to rape.

A stint in jail may satisfy our desire to punish the criminal for the crime, but if it doesn't keep them from committing the crime again, then something has to be put in place.

On-the-other-hand, in regards to the "sex offender" label which includes stupid things like an 18-year-old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend--well, that shouldn't be punished at all, but I think mild punishment would be enough to make most young men/women realize that they should wait till their would-be lover is 18. No need to label them as a "sex offender" or give them a heavy punishment to push them into obeying that particular law.

we were writing similar rants I see

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Now, the law says you can't punish someone twice for the same crime. Fair enough. But shouldn't there be some other law related more to, say, Drunk Driving laws which relate to people who have a *problem*. That is, was this rape a crime, or is it a problem?

A stint in jail may satisfy our desire to punish the criminal for the crime, but if it doesn't keep them from committing the crime again, then something has to be put in place.

I have to agree with the first paragraph above and disagree with the second.

You are correct. "Double Jeoprady" is not allowed under our legal system. You cannot try a person for the same crime twice and, by extension, punish that person for the same crime twice. Looking at Lindsey Lohan and the other "Pop-Tarts" who've been in trouble recently, their behavior is far more a problem than a crime, even though their behavior lead to criminal acts. The same argument could be made for rapists and other sex offenders - Their behavior is driven by some internal sickness.

On the other hand, a man walks into a bank wearing a ski mask, pulls out an assault rifle, robs the place, shoots the guard and several customers. That is a different situation. This is a well planned and thought out crime.

In both cases a jail/prison sentence will satisfy the LAW. Satisfaction of the public or even the victim has nothing to do with the court proceeding. Will the criminal committ more crimes? Statistically the answer is yes. Which one? We don't know. Do we continue to punish all of them? Is that the legal system this country is based on?

 

[3113]

I have to agree with the first paragraph above and disagree with the second.

...On the other hand, a man walks into a bank wearing a ski mask, pulls out an assault rifle, robs the place, shoots the guard and several customers. That is a different situation. This is a well planned and thought out crime.

I don't quite understand your point. If a sex offender is likely to repeat that offense even after serving time in jail then they clearly have a problem, however "planned" the crime. If they're going to rape again and again, then that indicates to me that they get a chemical thrill from their actions and, like an addict, won't stop until that thrill is taken away.

How does this relate to bank robbers doing, one presumes given the difficulty, a well planned, one-time heist with risks of getting shot, police pursuit, etc.??

I don't see the correlation between a planned bank robbery and a sex offense of any kind.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I think an "X" would be more apt, don't you? Or maybe the entire word? "Sex"?

Of course, getting back to the point, it's beginning to sound as if "sex offender" is the new way to scare people into puritanical behavior. Don't try anything outre, however innocent (like flashing your lover in public--or maybe, eventually, write porn?) or you'll end up on the registry and won't be able to live in certain places and be branded for the rest of your life.

And the insidious thing about this is that the folk emphasizing these laws make it *seem* like all sex offenders are pedophiles and they're just protecting the kids, so the panicked public agree with them on these draconian laws.

I thought you can only be on this offender list for violent or level 3 (pedophilia-type) crimes. The recidivism rate for these crimes is really high. I doubt that there's any room for this to become a witch hunt like, say, the "No Fly List" and all that crap.

Still, I'm less for branding for life and more for mandatory sentences for forcible rape and statutory rape.

 

[angelicminx]

there's the double edge sword of this.

Let's say they banish this law about the 1000 feet (1 mile = 5,280 feet keep that in mind) and suddenly you have some child molestors living next door to a school and low and behold, suddenly they repeat... possibly kill one, or even multiple kids... How would you feel about this law now?

Ok, other side, a 20 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. 100% consensual, they at least WAITED until she was 17, hell they had been dating since she was 14 (this is a real story) and NOW he's a sex offender and he get convicted. Should we repunish this man who barely even broke the law? I don't consider this an ACTUAL crime. I just don't.

Yes, it's a double edged sword. The law doesn't work, and only instills a false sense of security. The majority of pedophiles molest children they live with, are related to or otherwise know. Not all, I understand that, but most.

If we trim the sex offender registry to include only those that are truly a threat to children or are violent rapists, those that live near a school are going to know about 'that guy/ gal living next to the school' and know that he/she is indeed dangerous. Hopefully parents would educate their children accordingly.

On the other hand, what if the law only applied to people who have been convicted of felony child molestation? In that case, the law just might make more sense.

Now, my view is this:

How hard is it to locate a house within 1000 feet of a school? 1/5 of a mile. That's some expensive property right there since it's highly desired by someone with kids. If the ONLY house available to a sex offender is THAT close to a school, is it so hard to go to a different town? How EASY is it to get a house THAT close to a school? Why would you want to live so close and pay a little bit more for the location unless you either had kids, or were REALLY desperate to get within range of your "target"?

The law reads: A sex offender may not live within 1,000 feet of a school, childcare facility, ball field, or playground.

It is actually VERY difficult to find housing within those restrictions. Use mapquest for your own town sometime and find out.

Also, when this law went into effect, people who had purchased housing were forced to move. They were not near a school, but there was daycare within the limits. How easy would it be for you to sell your house and purchase another within a 30, 60 or 90 day period?

In one case, the sex offender was an 80 year old man who was confined to a bed in a nursing home. How easy is it to find another nursing home, that is affordable and falls within the guidelines? (The conviction was for a young family member, years before he was moved to the nursing home.) He was considered a pedophile, and rightly so, but he was bedridden and no danger to anyone. The sheriff's response was, "A sex offender is a sex offender, he has to move."

Also, it's up to the registered sex offender to KNOW when a daycare, school or any other off limits location opens. What happens when, after the sex offender moves to an area within the guidelines, a daycare (or other facility) opens within the 1/5 of a mile? They have to move. If they AREN'T aware that a daycare opens near them and don't move of their own accord, they will be arrested for 'failing to comply with sex offender laws' and face 5-20 years in prison. (Until last fall the maximum time was 5 years.)

In a different light, much the same as some other viewpoints... you can sexually assault anyone at anytime, anywhere in the world. Why does your location relative to a school have a damn thing to do with it? A LOT of sex offenders go FAR away from their home, ESPECIALLY if they've already been caught, if a report in YOUR area of a sexually abused child comes up, who'se going to be their first target for their "witch hunt"? Of course you're going to go prowl... a SMART (are they?) "repeat offender" would actually be DISCOURAGED by the closeness of the school.


And yet on a different argument, I think certain "beware of this guy"s should be posted, but it depends on the measure of his crime. I want to know if "A" sexually assualted a 4 year old, but I don't give a rats ass if "B" had consenual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend.

Exactly. What's going to stop someone determined to molest a child from driving to another neighborhood to find their victim?

A 'beware of this guy' is already performed in my neighborhood. Only for the ones who DID molest children and are considered pedophiles. (Yes, my neighborhood is a 'safe zone' for sex offenders. Until you get 1/2 a mile up the road.) I have seen the sex offender enforcement officer 4 times since I've lived here.

I've talked to the neighbors about this. Their response? "We should get the church across the street to open a daycare."

 

[rgraham666]

As a person long suffering from mental illness, and knowing what some of my neighbours think of me for being mentally ill, this law scares the living shit out of me.

 

[angelicminx]

I thought you can only be on this offender list for violent or level 3 (pedophilia-type) crimes. The recidivism rate for these crimes is really high. I doubt that there's any room for this to become a witch hunt like, say, the "No Fly List" and all that crap.

Still, I'm less for branding for life and more for mandatory sentences for forcible rape and statutory rape.

That's what a lot of people think, and what I used to think until I did some research.

The recidivism rate is actually quite low. In some cases less than 5.6%. The only thing I found lower was the rate for murder.

There's plenty of room for the witch hunt. It's already happening. All it takes is an accusation to brand you for life.

Did you know that NO ONE is considered 'No risk'? Spanking a child, holding their arm or hand when they don't want it held, picking up a screaming/ kicking child, or otherwise restraining a child can be and is considered sex abuse.

There was a man who was arrested, convicted and subsequently put on the registy because he restrained a child. If I recall, the story is, the child rode his bike in front of the man's car. The man stopped, got out of his car, asked the child his name and told him they were going to talk to the child's parents. The child refused. The man grabbed the child's arm and started walking toward the child's house.

 

[Liar]

Another red herring like the MySpace thing.

Amounts to less safety, if parents think their kids are safer because oh yay, the pedos have to walk a block or three.

But someone got to show they Think Of The Children. Expect someone to run for public ofice sometime soon.

 

[lisa123414]

Had a neighbor, unemployed, middle aged, seemed nice enough. He offered to babysit for me. I could have used the help. but was distrustful.
Another neigbor, and i have to say for her, that she was, financially in much worse condition than I, used to leave her kids with him. In her defense, she was a single mom with precious little to survive on, but she should not have taken the easy road. To make a long story short, he is now on the list. I dont think it will make him stop looking for opportunity, but i think he will have fewer opportunities. I am also sure that this guy will not stop.
Not sure, if I were the queen of the world, what I would do with these people. The mother in me shouts for chemical castration, so they won't get and act on their urges. The human in me wants to heal their pain. I have to say, the mother wins out, whatever it takes, to keep their sorry asses away from my kids.

- where I lived in college, we had a roomer who was bi-polar. One of the women in the house once said, "I don't want to live in the same place as a depressed maniac." Everyone else, really everyone, looked at her thinking she was an idiot. But it only takes one idiot to screw someone else up.

There are many types of mental illnesses, I imagine the shrinks might have some fun with me! But predators are a different type, we need to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

That's what a lot of people think, and what I used to think until I did some research.

The recidivism rate is actually quite low. In some cases less than 5.6%. The only thing I found lower was the rate for murder.

5.6% for sex offenses, or offenses in general? This suggests the rate is well over 5.6%.

There's plenty of room for the witch hunt. It's already happening. All it takes is an accusation to brand you for life.

Ok, I can believe that, for sure.

Did you know that NO ONE is considered 'No risk'? Spanking a child, holding their arm or hand when they don't want it held, picking up a screaming/ kicking child, or otherwise restraining a child can be and is considered sex abuse.

And if you lock yourself up in a basement to avoid being of risk, you get pegged as a potential Hannibal Lecter, lol.

There was a man who was arrested, convicted and subsequently put on the registy because he restrained a child. If I recall, the story is, the child rode his bike in front of the man's car. The man stopped, got out of his car, asked the child his name and told him they were going to talk to the child's parents. The child refused. The man grabbed the child's arm and started walking toward the child's house.

And he didn't appeal that?
That's flat out horrible. And an abuse of the law in the extreme.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

As a person long suffering from mental illness, and knowing what some of my neighbours think of me for being mentally ill, this law scares the living shit out of me.

Mental illness? You come across more sane than the average person.

 

[only_more_so]

*sigh*

That law is a great example of the witch hunt mentality that's so prevalent these days.

They enact a law as an excuse to go find all these "criminals," so they can charge them with yet another crime, when they've done nothing wrong but live where they were already living.

Good for that judge, but I fear that he'll be overruled.

Actually, I don't think he will be overruled. Reading the article it seemed to say that the rapist convicted before the enactment of the bill can live wherever he wants, but someone convicted after the enactment can be restricted.

In the former case it is punishing someone twice for a crime. In the later case it is a continuing punishment, much like someone who is on parole.

 

[rgraham666]

Mental illness? You come across more sane than the average person.

I don't take my sanity for granted.

 

[S-Des]

There's plenty of room for the witch hunt. It's already happening. All it takes is an accusation to brand you for life.

You mean something like this?

BOTTOM SMACKING MAY PUT BOYS IN JUVY
Thursday, July 26, 2007

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.

Now, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry in a case that poses a fundamental question: When is horseplay a crime?

Bradley Berry, the McMinnville district attorney, said his office "aggressively" pursues sex crimes that involve children. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."

Last year, in a previously undisclosed prosecution, he charged two other Patton Middle School boys with felony sex abuse for repeatedly slapping the bottom of a female student. Both pleaded guilty to harassment, which is a misdemeanor. Berry declined to discuss his cases against Mashburn and Cornelison.

 

[angelicminx]

LovingTongue= 5.6% for sex offenses, or offenses in general? This suggests the rate is well over 5.6%.

Pulling just a few stats from the page you referenced:

"Sex offenders have a relatively low recidivism rate in the first years after prison release. The results of studies seem to vary. On average, studies appear to indicate that sex offenders have between a 3 and 13% chance of committing a new sex offense. One source specifies the rate for new sex crimes is 13.7%, the rate for child molestation is 12.7%, the rate for child molestation within families is 8.4%, and the rate for rape 18.9%."

"Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders."

"In the entire State of North Carolina, there are only 71 recidivists shown on the registry, if incarcerated offenders are included. Per-county results for "Registered" status offenders compared against "Recidivist" status offenders on the North Carolina registry yield actual convicted recidivist percentages ranging from zero to fractions of one percent."

Not exactly the 'high rate of recidivism' that scare tactics would have people believe.



And if you lock yourself up in a basement to avoid being of risk, you get pegged as a potential Hannibal Lecter, lol.

True. I just thought that was interesting information. I was shocked when I was told, by a licensed psychologist 'educated in sex offender risk assessment'.


And he didn't appeal that?
That's flat out horrible. And an abuse of the law in the extreme.

Actually, in my understanding he did, and he lost. Shit like that happens all the time.

 

[angelicminx]

You mean something like this?

BOTTOM SMACKING MAY PUT BOYS IN JUVY
Thursday, July 26, 2007

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.

Now, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry in a case that poses a fundamental question: When is horseplay a crime?

Bradley Berry, the McMinnville district attorney, said his office "aggressively" pursues sex crimes that involve children. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."

Last year, in a previously undisclosed prosecution, he charged two other Patton Middle School boys with felony sex abuse for repeatedly slapping the bottom of a female student. Both pleaded guilty to harassment, which is a misdemeanor. Berry declined to discuss his cases against Mashburn and Cornelison.

Thanks, Des. I was looking for that and couldn't find it. There have also been recent cases of 6 year olds being put in juvie and on the registry for 'chasing and kissing' boys/ girls.

 

[Guest]

You mean something like this?

BOTTOM SMACKING MAY PUT BOYS IN JUVY
Thursday, July 26, 2007

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.

Now, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry in a case that poses a fundamental question: When is horseplay a crime?

Bradley Berry, the McMinnville district attorney, said his office "aggressively" pursues sex crimes that involve children. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."

Last year, in a previously undisclosed prosecution, he charged two other Patton Middle School boys with felony sex abuse for repeatedly slapping the bottom of a female student. Both pleaded guilty to harassment, which is a misdemeanor. Berry declined to discuss his cases against Mashburn and Cornelison.

Des, I take issue with the boys, though. And despite what the boys and their supporters keep saying, I have yet to hear a thing from the girls on this.

I've taught middle school and I'm well aware of the behavior of boys at this age.

Many schools present sexual harassment education as a mandatory part of orientation. The kids have to view it, discuss it, and are given a form to sign that says they will not engage in this.

At my daughter's school kids have 3 chances. If they are reported for the same type of behavior, if it is documented, witnessed without ceasing, after that it goes to the authorities. This is to protect the school, because parents are filing lawsuits against school districts and winning over this issue across the country.

Boys in middle school should not be slapping girls on their asses. Period. That isn't acceptable. What if it was your daughter?

This isn't locker room playing around with same-sex, these are a couple of dumb kids who are touching girls inappropriately.

Are they sexual predators? Of course not. But what they are doing is wrong and they should understand that fact.

I saw the mom of one of the kids sobbing about this on Good Morning America. I felt sorry for the kid, but angry with the mom and everyone else who, because of over-zealous prosecution of this, are finding ways to excuse the boy's behavior.

Because I don't think it should be excused. It's inappropriate touching and it's wrong.

 

[cloudy]

Des, I take issue with the boys, though. And despite what the boys and their supporters keep saying, I have yet to hear a thing from the girls on this.

I've taught middle school and I'm well aware of the behavior of boys at this age.

Many schools present sexual harassment education as a mandatory part of orientation. The kids have to view it, discuss it, and are given a form to sign that says they will not engage in this.

At my daughter's school kids have 3 chances. If they are reported for the same type of behavior, if it is documented, witnessed without ceasing, after that it goes to the authorities. This is to protect the school, because parents are filing lawsuits against school districts and winning over this issue across the country.

Boys in middle school should not be slapping girls on their asses. Period. That isn't acceptable. What if it was your daughter?

This isn't locker room playing around with same-sex, these are a couple of dumb kids who are touching girls inappropriately.

Are they sexual predators? Of course not. But what they are doing is wrong and they should understand that fact.

I saw the mom of one of the kids sobbing about this on Good Morning America. I felt sorry for the kid, but angry with the mom and everyone else who, because of over-zealous prosecution of this, are finding ways to excuse the boy's behavior.

Because I don't think it should be excused. It's inappropriate touching and it's wrong.

I agree completely, however I don't see how labeling these kids as sex offenders for the rest of their lives serves the interests of the community at all - if, indeed, that's what happens (I really don't know if it does or doesn't).