I can't find a link about this case. Maybe someone else can. Apparently, some guy named Goldman in Chicago is suing or something because he's a registered sex offender, and it's infringing on his rights.
From what I understand, he was charged with soliciting a minor, and I think his argument is that since it was over the Internet, and he never actually made contact with the minor, he shouldn't have to register as a sex offender?
And apparently, sex offenders can't participate in Halloween. Which he's also claiming is unfair because he has two daughters.
If anyone knows anything more about this or can find a link, please enlighten me.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Where'd you hear this? Nothing is turning up in my searches, either. Are you sure on the name and place?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
This is all I've come up with so far. A guy named Goldman, in Chicago, with two daughters, convicted of that offense.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
[ November 01, 2005, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Boon ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Boon, can you put a warning on that second link? There's some pretty nasty, virulent stuff.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I shouuld have guessed this would be in Elgin.
A lot of the screaming I heard about this was about the redtagging. Elgin police were running special units out to the homes of offenders that were registered in that town to ensure that they knew the rules - they can't put their porchlights on, can't answer the door at all, and have to be home by 6:00 on Halloween. This is to prevent any potential contact with children. When an officer was unable to speak with the offender directly, they were putting red tags on the doors, which seemed to be roughly akin to the brown and yellow post-its that UPS uses when they have a delivery that requires signature. Except they're red and bright and gee rather heavily covered in the media for a day or two prior...
So some registered offenders are upset about invasion of privacy. Some parents are upset because now we know (based on the red tags) that "there are offenders living in our neighborhood and why didn't the police tell me and why are they allowed here anyway".
My biggest beef with this whole thing is that there are obviously multiple levels of offense and someone who at 18 had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and got caught is being handled just as harshly as a serial pedophile rapist. Yes, we have two men on the registry in my town who are in that first category - and one woman listed as a sexual predator for pornography. {shudder}
And I need to stop now because there's been a lot of discussion of this exact topic in several of my groups and I have tended to get rather involved... not necessarily in a good, polite and productive way.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I get too involved in this kind of discussion myself. So I'm trying to restrain myself right now.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I saw it on the 10 o'clock news. It was like the first story after the new Law and Order: SVU.
I'm not sure what I think of it yet, though. I can't find that many details on the case and what exactly he did to be convicted.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
See my link.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Updated story on today's Tribune site. The Goldman that KQ found is in fact the same one. His lawyer is trying to get the registry requirement waived for his client because it "creates a badge of slavery". No explanation in the story I saw as to why they think he should be exempt, just that they do.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:A former CLTV sportscaster convicted of a sex offense was taken into custody this morning after he allegedly violated conditions of his probation by handing out candy to Halloween trick-or-treaters.
Now I wonder about his attorney's move last week to get him exempted from the registry requirements. He apparently thinks that the rules don't apply to him...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
An idiot, or making a "statement". In a really idiotic manner.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
He's going back to jail for violation of the terms of his parole on Halloween with credit for good behavior
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Hmmm. I'm not sure what to think about all this.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Not that this applies in this case, but I kind of think there should be some kind of like..graduated sex offender registry? Does that make sense? As in, I don't think people who are sex offenders because of statutory rape should necessarily be registered sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
Or something.
I don't know.
-pH
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Anybody see Criminal Minds last night? They said "stranger danger" was the worst thing that happened when it came to educating kids about pedophiles. I believe he said that we scared the kids about the 1% (of pervs) leaving them more vulnerable to the other 99%. Not that it's relevant to this conversation, but it seems more appropriate here than anywhere else.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm fairly unsympathetic to people who violate probation. It always sounds bad - "he's being sent to jail because he handed out Halloween candy" - but, really, it's hard to see how probation could be made to work without the big stick of jail time for even minor violations.
The most common thing I hear defense attorneys say in probation violation hearings is "give them a second chance."
Not committing a crime is the first chance.
Not going to jail and getting probation is the second chance.
This is the third chance.
From the latest article, this doesn't seem like the law prohibits all sex offenders from participating in Halloween. It sounds like this man's probation conditions were clear and explicit, and he violated them.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Weird. I keep trying to double post on purpose and it won't let me . . .
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I'm fairly unsympathetic to people who violate probation. It always sounds bad - "he's being sent to jail because he handed out Halloween candy" - but, really, it's hard to see how probation could be made to work without the big stick of jail time for even minor violations.
That's why I don't know quite how to feel about it. I feel the way they applied the law-- making a big fuss with the red tags, not allowing the girls' primary caregiver to participate in their Halloween, etc.-- was a bit over the top in most cases. HOWEVER. He knew it was against the rules, fair or not. He did it anyway. It was an idiotic thing to do; when you're on probation, and you break the rules, you should know that you're going to get into trouble. If he's such a, for lack of a better term, spoiled brat that he thinks that the whole system should make an exception for him and him alone, then he needs a wake-up call.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
My opinion of requiring sex offenders to register has changed alot since an 18 year old aquaintance of mine was busted for having sex with a less than 18 year old neighbor girl. By all reports, although she was younger than he was, she was quite sexual experienced and he was a virgin, she seduced him (although he was not opposed in the least), her mother walked in on them and now he is required to register as a pedophile.
This is the problem with mandatory sentencing laws. They always end up being unfair. What's more, when people find out that more or less normal 18 and 19 year olds are being registered as pedophiles, the sex offender registration becomes meaningless and no longer protects children from the really dangerous people out there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My opinion of requiring sex offenders to register has changed alot since an 18 year old aquaintance of mine was busted for having sex with a less than 18 year old neighbor girl. By all reports, although she was younger than he was, she was quite sexual experienced and he was a virgin, she seduced him (although he was not opposed in the least), her mother walked in on them and now he is required to register as a pedophile.
I agree that's ridiculous. In many states such a registration requirement would be temporary or non-existent.
The problem you point out about diluting effectiveness is very real. In Virginia, the list includes the crimes for which they were convicted, which helps some. But the mere size of the list can be a problem, too.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:They said "stranger danger" was the worst thing that happened when it came to educating kids about pedophiles. I believe he said that we scared the kids about the 1% (of pervs) leaving them more vulnerable to the other 99%.
As a side note, I agree with that. There's nothing all that dangerous about strangers - instead, it's people who know children well that are more often predatory.
It reminds me of college, when they used to spend a lot of time trying to make students, mainly girls, "aware" of the danger of rape. They'd advise stuff like "Don't go out alone at night" as if the big danger was some guy jumping out of the shadows. The net result was that girls would go to parties late, often get drunk, and then find some guy to walk her home afterwards. But what do you think was REALLY more common: Being raped by a guy jumping out of a bush? Or, being raped by the guy who just gained your trust by walking you home (while you were drunk and generally lacking your normal judgement)?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I absolutely agree with the idea of a "graduated scale" type system in this situation. The problem with that becomes, I think, where do you draw the lines and how strictly are those held.
Obviously this guy in particular is way over the line. He had an ongoing correspondence with this undercover officer (thinking he was talking to a 15 year old girl) for over a year. I believe he admitted to "knowing" that this was a minor child, but I'm too lazy to go looking up coverage of his trial. AND this guy's attorney went to court shortly before Halloween trying to get him exempted from the requirements of listing himself on the offender registry, then turns around and, knowing his parole prohibited him from participating in Halloween activities, was seen handing out candy throughout the evening. My suspicion is that the actions of his attorney alerted the court system and then the local police that something might be up.
I honestly do not remember ever hearing alerts on the news about registered offenders' homes being tagged prior to this just past Halloween. And the original stories I was hearing and reading were that police were making a concerted effort in the days leading up to Halloween to contact all registered offenders and remind them of the restrictions they were under for that particular day, which leads me to believe that it wasn't just Goldman who was todl he couldn't take part in trick-or-treat. The red tags were (according to the news) being used to alert neighbor families when police could not directly talk to the offender living in that house - so that parents knew to not go to that door, even if the porch lights were on and so on. Then all of a sudden we've got Goldberg's attorney claiming a "badge of slavery" and trying to get him released. If I were a judge, I'd certainly be suspicious.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Some excellent points have been raised in this thread.
I am not the least bit sympathetic about sexual offenders and I think we should always, always err on the side of caution where it comes to protecting children.
I've looked at my state's sexual offender list, and they almost always list the offense. Not in detail, but things like "sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12." So if all registries are like that, there is a way to tell the ones that have had contact with very young children from the ones that have had contact with older teens.
I completely agree with Dag about the third chance. He knew the terms of his parole and he willingly violated them. He earned his trip back to jail and has no reason to complain. The only one responsible for him being back in jail is himself.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I've looked at my state's sexual offender list, and they almost always list the offense. Not in detail, but things like "sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12." So if all registries are like that, there is a way to tell the ones that have had contact with very young children from the ones that have had contact with older teens.
But not all are like that. And you would not believe the discrimination that the registries often lead to-- often against people who made one mistake.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Then we should be advocating registries that contain more detail.
I don't mean to be offensive kq, and I sense there is a personal issue here with someone you know and I'm not asking you to reveal information you're uncomfortable sharing, but I don't have a problem with a person suffering discrimination because of one mistake if that mistake involves something so detrimental to children. Maybe it's my experience, having been through the horror that sexual abuse can bring not even to the victims but to everyone around them. I had to deal with survivor's guilt - I got messed up and had to deal with stuff for years even though I was never touched.
I believe in personal responsibility - people should pay for their mistakes. I've made mistakes in my life and suffered the consequences. Sex abuse and the sex offender laws get so much press I don't think anyone can claim ignorance of the law. If you break it, you must pay the price. And if that means some people who may have committed "minor" offenses (if there is such a thing when we're talking about sex abuse) so be it. Better they be uncomfortable and have to deal with some uncomfortableness than one child be abused if the registry could have prevented it. Having seen the horror and repurcussions of abuse first hand, I will personally advocate almost anything that protects kids from it. I'm not a vigilante, I'm not saying abusers should be castrated or killed or even locked up for life if they did just "make a mistake" as you put it. But the precautionary measures of the sex offender registry - I'm all for it. It gives parents information that helps them keep their kids safe and I'm not going to say that's a bad thing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I don't have a problem with a person suffering discrimination because of one mistake if that mistake involves something so detrimental to children.
What if the person was a minor at the time? And there is such a thing as a "minor" offense, IMO. And what if this person is not likely to re-offend? And what if they and their family suffer for the rest of their lives because of it?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I think that when we're talking about a couple teenagers (i.e. 16-17-18 and fairly close in age to each other) that get caught by their parents, the registry and all the associated stigma is too much. That's what I would consider a level 1 offense if I would categorize it under sex offender laws at all.
A level 2, to me, would be one adult and one under-age, with more than 2 years difference. So a 16 & 18 I think I'd still consider a level 1, but a 16 & 19, I'd escalate a bit. I don't think I'd require registry, but there should be some form of retribution to get the message through.
I'm not sure where the next boundary should be, but I think there should be another level here. Maybe up to 5-6 years' difference in ages and unrelated by blood, marriage or close routine contact (such as babysitter, teacher, etc)? I can see jail time and registry for this, but how to determine whether the offender is a high risk to repeat? And depending on the situation and what guidelines could be put into place, maybe only a limited time for the registry requirement. If they can prove over time that they're not going to repeat, maybe we can give them the chance to put it behind them and eventually live a normal life again without this hanging over their heads.
I'm not quite sure where I'd put someone like Goldman who was caught as a direct result of police action to prevent a real child from getting abused. Even though he didn't know it at the time, he wasn't talking to a 15 year old girl. However, if an Internet contact turned out to be an actual child and the adult was caught, I think I'd stick him (or her) in this next group:
Level 4 would be getting into the big guns. Adults abusing children that are more than, say, 10 years younger, children who they have an ongoing relationship with but not a blood relationship. Jail time and permanent registry mandatory, with periodic court review and possibly periodic undercover surveillance.
Level 5 would be repeat offenders, child porn collectors, people who abuse their own blood family. And these are the ones I'd like to see locked up and the key thrown into a vat of sulphuric acid.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, judge, police officer or even related in any face-to-face way to a known victim. So my thoughts probably mean little to nothing at all. But this is the kind of thing I'd like to see in place, if it were up to me to decide.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: What if the person was a minor at the time?
Considering the person that offended against my family members was a minor at the time it doesn't change my opinion.
quote: And there is such a thing as a "minor" offense, IMO.
We will have to agree to disagree here. You've seen one side, I've seen the other - what happens to the victims and their families years, no make that in our case even decades, later.
quote: And what if this person is not likely to re-offend?
The research on recidivism rates of sex offenders is against you there. Again, this is an area where I believe we err on the side of protecting the children.
quote: And what if they and their family suffer for the rest of their lives because of it?
But the victims and their families are suffering for the rest of their lives. What about that? Like I said before, if the registry makes an offender uncomfortable and he/she suffers for the rest of his life, then I'm okay with that. The victims are certainly suffering but more importantly, the registry helps protect other children.
It's easy to say hey, someone who made one mistake shouldn't suffer the rest of their lives for it but you know what? People make mistakes all the time that they suffer for the rest of their lives from. I made a decision at age 19 that has drastically affected the way my life went and I'm not whining that it shouldn't be the case because it was my decision, it was a bad one, and I take responsibility for it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Belle, there are cases that just don't happen like that. I'm going to restrain myself and excuse myself from this thread again.
The point is, when there is no exception in place, when there is only the mandatory, required rule, wrong things happen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote: And there is such a thing as a "minor" offense, IMO.
We will have to agree to disagree here. You've seen one side, I've seen the other - what happens to the victims and their families years, no make that in our case even decades, later.
I tend to side with Belle on this one.
The only type of minor offense I agree with is one where a relatively young adult has consensual sex with a sexually mature teenager, where no relationship of authority was present and no intoxicating substances were involved.
In some states, close-age statutory rape is considered a sex offense that requires lon-term registration, and I think that is inappropriate, both on proportionality and efficacy grounds (see Rabbit's post for efficacy reasons).
By the way, challenges to the constitutionality of sex-offender registration laws have cited graduated registration requirements as proof that the registry is punishment (which would violate double jeopardy for offenses committed prior to the passage of the registration acts). The challenge was unsuccessful, but it shows some of the legal minefields that have to be navigated.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I have a question. If say, two 15 year olds have consensual sex with each other, that's not illegal is it? Or would they both get in trouble.
Also, don't some states have laws that make exceptions for people within two years of each other? That seems like a smart idea to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Supreme Court has held it constitutional to charge the boy in that situation with a crime and not the girl. I don't know how many states still have laws about that, though.
Many states have age differences exceptions in the laws.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Better they be uncomfortable and have to deal with some uncomfortableness than one child be abused if the registry could have prevented it.
Why?
I don't think this is correct. We are a free society. The government's job is to provide a minimum level of security by punishing only the guilty, not to hurt largely innocent people in the name of absolute security. It is better to let guilty people off too easily in some cases, even if it might make us a bit less safe, than to unduly punish people whose crimes do not come near warranting that punishment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The government's job is to provide a minimum level of security by punishing only the guilty
Registration is not punishment. Moreover, non-juvenile convictions are public record.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But the victims and their families are suffering for the rest of their lives. What about that?
And when the minor is not and was not a victim?
A former coworker was arrested for stautory rape when he was 18 and his girlfriend was (I believe) 16. Her parents discovered it, and over her objections had him charged. They subsequently dropped the charges but were told that in these cases once the charge has been made it must go through. He pled guilty, thanks to poor advice from his lawyer who assured him it would work out. It worked out to 18 months in juvie, and a lifetime of being a sexual offender.
He is married to the girl now, they are in their mid-twenties, and they have a daughter. He cannot go near her day care and he won't be able to go near her school. He can't leave the county (except for scheduled work commutes) without clearing it first and was picked up at work by police once when he did. His daughter can't have friends over if he's there. His listing in the offender registry is simply "3rd Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct" and I believe that definition has changed since his offense, and that just makes him look worse now.
I simply do not see why spending man hours to ruin his life improves the safety of our children, not when a graduated code would reduce the problem. The existence of violent serial pedophiles is why I can't fully commit to being against the death penalty, but even cursory investigation could have determined that he was no threat to children.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:We are a free society. The government's job is to provide a minimum level of security by punishing only the guilty, not to hurt largely innocent people in the name of absolute security. It is better to let guilty people off too easily in some cases, even if it might make us a bit less safe, than to unduly punish people whose crimes do not come near warranting that punishment.
As Dag has said, it's not punishment. The person is free to do whatever he/she wishes, under the same rules and restrictions we have, the offender simply has to let people know where he/she lives. If there are other conditions, like not living near schools or anything, that's part of the punishment handed down by the courts, not part of the registry, if I am understanding it correctly.
quote:I simply do not see why spending man hours to ruin his life improves the safety of our children, not when a graduated code would reduce the problem. The existence of violent serial pedophiles is why I can't fully commit to being against the death penalty, but even cursory investigation could have determined that he was no threat to children.
But under the law he was still a statutory rapist. Personally, I'm not comfortable advocating a reduction in the penalty for any type of rape, especially statutory. If it means that some people like this person get charged that perhaps we don't think should have in retrospect, it still doesn't change one thing - no one held a gun to his head and forced him to commit statutory rape. He also had the ability to fight the charges and according to you he didn't. I am not one of those people who thinks legal adults should have the right to have sex with 16 year olds even if they are "in love." The fact that they later married didn't change the fact that she was underage at the time they had sex.
Some of the things your coworker is going through sound extreme, but I understand the reasons those restrictions are there. And, if I were a parent of one of his child's friends, there'd be no question of whether his parole allowed her to go over to the house or not - she would not go over there.
Then again, I'm extremely protective of my kids as far as letting them go into the care of other adults, particularly male adults, because I know that sex abuse can take place by people who aren't on the registry. That's why my kids are never allowed to spend the night at anyone else's house, except a very small list of people who are screened ahead of time. When I say very small I mean it - there is only one house my oldest daughter has ever been to and slept there without us (besides her grandparents house.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Just as a side note, in several states, 16 (or earlier) is the age of consent.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In which case it's not statutory rape, and the man, rightfully, would not be punished for it.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at our laws and decide if they're correct or not and maybe some changes do need to be made. What I'm uncomfortable with is saying that someone who committed an offense under the law shouldn't suffer the consequences, providing those consequences are themselves lawful - applied by the court, under the sentencing laws.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh, he was an idiot, no doubt. And he was urged to go back and try to get it off his record but he hasn't taken the steps necessary, and all that's his fault. No question that he broke the law.
But we do not treat all thefts the same. We do not treat all assault the same. We do not treat all white collar crime the same. But any and all sexual offenses that involve minors contain the same scarlet letter.
Why should policemen, the courts, and parole officers have to spend as much time and attention on him as they do a pedophile? He has no interest in little girls. He had an interest in one, when he was nearly a child himself, and they married as soon as they could. He is not a threat, but he will be treated as one for the rest of his life.
Even breaking it out into sexual offenders and sexual predators would help. I see a difference between someone who makes a dumb mistake and someone who preys on the young. Don't you? I don't think sexual offenders should be ignoredm but I also believe very strongly that more attention and manpower needs to be on the predators.
(Edited to add) This was written before I read your last post. I'm arguing something different now, I think. I think the laws should be changed, which isn't what you're talking about.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No, I don't have a problem with looking at the laws and saying "Hey, maybe this offense shouldn't require registry." We should never be above looking at our laws, and re-evaluating how they affect people and how they should be applied.
What I'm arguing against is the idea that the sexual registry is unfair, and that convicted sex offenders shouldn't have to register. Maybe I'm wrong but I think there are people who advocate getting rid of it entirely (maybe not anyone on this board has stated that specifically, but I know the argument is out there in the general population.) The idea that it makes it harder for them to find housing, or that communities might protest them moving in and such is in some way unfair to the convicted offender. I disagree - I think it's a protective measure and it's one we need.
And I think that if you commit a sexual offense, and you're convicted then you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You don't get to say "Hey, I was in love with her and it would never happen again with another 16 year old." Maybe that's true. But unfortunately the research on recidivism rates and the high number of victims most pedophiles rack up before they're caught just don't put me in the mind to accept that argument at face value alone. I would rather know where you live, and what your name is and what you look like.
I've shown my oldest child the sex offenders that live in our county. Not because she might recognize one, as if only those on the registry are a threat but to show her that people who commit these types of crimes don't have to wear ski masks or look like a monster - they look like normal people. They look like the folks you see in the grocery store or go to church with. She was appalled, especially at the list of crimes (and had to ask me what "sodomy against a child under the age of 12" meant and was sickened by the thought - as am I) I want her to know that unfortunately, there exist people who prey on kids and young girls and young teens like her.
quote: I see a difference between someone who makes a dumb mistake and someone who preys on the young. Don't you?
Of course! And in my mind the registry shouldn't be an issue for a pedophile that harms young kids because he would never, ever be let out of prison. I don't like the fact that people in my county are walking around that have forcibly sodomized 10 year olds. I don't think they should be walking around, I think they should be in prison. But if they are walking around, I darn sure want to know who they are and where they live.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
See, Belle, this is my problem-- I think that people who commit most of the offenses that require registration should be in jail for life. The whole "registration" thing doesn't sit well with me-- some people shouldn't be on it, and some shouldn't be in the general population.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Belle: research on pedophilia recidivism is just that -- research on pedophilia recidivism. Interest in a 16 year old is not pedophilia.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And I think that if you commit a sexual offense, and you're convicted then you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You don't get to say "Hey, I was in love with her and it would never happen again with another 16 year old." Maybe that's true. But unfortunately the research on recidivism rates and the high number of victims most pedophiles rack up before they're caught just don't put me in the mind to accept that argument at face value alone.
I'd argue that we should base our laws on what is fair, rather than on what puts us in the mind to accept or reject someone's capacity for reform. Otherwise we are running a sort of witch hunt, that destroys the lives of individuals in the name of supposed greater good. "You say you aren't a witch but because you act like a witch in certain ways, we'll burn you anyway, just to be safe." Replace "witch" with "pedophile" or with "terrorist" or with "drug dealer" and so on. If we are going to continue to essentially destroy the lives of people we think fit in these categories, I think we need a very high standard of evidence for proving they are the threat we think they are. We can't just say research on other people doesn't "put us in the mind" to believe they might be anything other than the monsterous threat we assume them to be. Sexual assault seriously damages lives, but the government can damage lives just as much if we err so far on the side of "afety that we no longer care about the well-being and circumstances of even the slightest offender.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think we need a very high standard of evidence for proving they are the threat we think they are.
Yes, we do. It's called "reasonable doubt."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd say there's definitely reasonable doubt that the average sex offender will commit the same crime again.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sure there is. But that's not the standard. The standard is, is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to apply criminal sanctions to this person. And that standard is applied in every criminal prosecution.
Sex offender registry is only applied to those who have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is proof enough that they are a threat to society.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Sex offender registry is only applied to those who have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well, I've hears fo some cases... Nevermind.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sex offender registry is only applied to those who have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is proof enough that they are a threat to society.
Bull. Guilty of breaking a law does not immediately equal ongoing threat to society. Go over a hill too fast and find yourself exceeding the speed limit by 6 miles an hour? Go ahead and turn yourself in, hand over your license. You can no longer be trusted, ever.
More to the point (and without the straw man), I was engaged in sexual relations with a minor when I was a minor. Then, for a period of six months, I was an adult while she was still a minor, which means I magically become a rapist. Fortunately my criminal status abruptly vanished again on her birthday. We had cake.
Whether our early sexual relationship was a wise move or not is certainly arguable, but it's illegality depended entirely on what state we were in at the time. In some places our similarity of age would not matter, in some it would. In some both of us could have been charged, although it's more likely that I would have gone to the slammer as I was male and older, but I can assure you it was a mutually desired relationship. Still is, and this March we will have been together 25 years and married 20.
But had we been caught and her mother pressed charges in a state where that could be done, I would be on that list. I was guilty. By your definition, I would be considered a threat to all of society. By Belle's lights I would be on a moral and legal par with someone who cruises schools looking for unprotected children. I would be, apparently, a dangerous and untrustworthy pedophile. Lock up your daughters!
As it happens Florida's age of consent is 16 as long as the older of the two isn't over 24. Had we lived in California I guess I'd have been a proven threat to society (18, no matter what) but here I was just an idiot kid. Amazing what a few state lines can do to your societal threat status.
We have chosen an arbitrary date of maturity that's not even consistent from state to state to establish the legality of an act that our bodies are desperate to commit. I don't dispute that age of consent laws are needed, but I want them in place to protect children from predatory adults and to discourage children from diddling each other. Not to scarlet-letter a love-addled teenager for life.
We should have more consistent similarity-of-age exemptions, more consistent considerations of adults having sex with minors over whom they have authority, and there should be a way to appeal a registry inclusion in cases of statutory rape that were not pedophiliac or predatory in nature.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Sex offender registry is only applied to those who have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is proof enough that they are a threat to society.
That doesn't follow.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Bull. Guilty of breaking a law does not immediately equal ongoing threat to society. Go over a hill too fast and find yourself exceeding the speed limit by 6 miles an hour? Go ahead and turn yourself in, hand over your license. You can no longer be trusted, ever.
First, speeding by 6 MPH isn't even a crime in most states; it's a violation.
Second, a person who has committed a crime has shown themselves unwilling to follow the law.
quote:Whether our early sexual relationship was a wise move or not is certainly arguable, but it's illegality depended entirely on what state we were in at the time. In some places our similarity of age would not matter, in some it would. In some both of us could have been charged, although it's more likely that I would have gone to the slammer as I was male and older, but I can assure you it was a mutually desired relationship. Still is, and this March we will have been together 25 years and married 20.
I've said again and again that such offenses shouldn't be included in the registry. *shrug*
That's not the purpose of the registries. The purpose is to provide information on those who have committed a particularly heinous set of crimes to the public, to allow the public to
quote:By your definition, I would be considered a threat to all of society. By Belle's lights I would be on a moral and legal par with someone who cruises schools looking for unprotected children. I would be, apparently, a dangerous and untrustworthy pedophile. Lock up your daughters!
No, because you hadn't been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And, again, I've never advocated putting such offenses in the registry and have spoken against it.
quote:We should have more consistent similarity-of-age exemptions, more consistent considerations of adults having sex with minors over whom they have authority, and there should be a way to appeal a registry inclusion in cases of statutory rape that were not pedophiliac or predatory in nature.
I agree that the offenses that warrant inclusion on the registry need to be reconsidered. What I vehemently disagree with is Tresopax's assertion that some individualized finding beyond mere guilt of one of the offenses on the registry list should be required to place an offender on the registry.
There are two separate questions here. First, which offenses should warrant addition to the registry? Second, what proof is necessary to place a person on the registry?
My response to Tres dealt solely with the second question. And I vehemently disagree with the assertion that proof beyond that necessary for conviction is required to justify adding someone to a registry.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My response was because your reply didn't include any of those qualifiers, and because the nature of guilt and threat are so nebulous in non-predatory cases. As stated, if I can commit an act in Florida and be a fine, upstanding individual when in California I'd be a lifelong threat to society, unfit around children, what has the court proved?
This entire area of law bugs me (you may have noticed), but then I'm also against every form of mandatory sentencing I've ever heard of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can't tell from your response. Do you advocate a registry for some set of offenses (you define that set)? And, if so, do you advocate automatic inclusion upon a finding of guilt for one of those offenses?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I advocate a registry for sexual offenses involving unwilling participants, predatory attacks or behavior, or sexual violence. Not for 18/17 relationships (unless they meet those standards) or, for example, the man who grabbed the arm of a girl who ran out in the road in front of his car and was declared a sex offemder.
I'd settle for making the registries more comprehensive (tell us the nature of the offense) and providing a way for individuals on the registry to apply to be removed if theire situation and behavior warrants it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So we don't disagree at all. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There are two separate questions here. First, which offenses should warrant addition to the registry? Second, what proof is necessary to place a person on the registry?
My response to Tres dealt solely with the second question. And I vehemently disagree with the assertion that proof beyond that necessary for conviction is required to justify adding someone to a registry.
But you did say that the registry is not punishment for the crime. It is information provided, knowing that it will probably help devastate the life of the sex offender, on the grounds that the sex offender is such a major threat that it justifies doing that damage to him. Thus, the evidence required for conviction and punishment is not what we are talking about - the question is about the evidence required to conclude he is still such a serious threat that it warrants doing such damage to him, GIVEN that he did commit the crime.
You seem to think that his conviction is evidence enough to warrant concluding he is still such a threat. I disagree, for the reasons illustrated by the circumstances given in this thread - where people have committed minor or one-time offenses that seem to offer no reason to suspect they will commit another crime.
Do you think that the fact that someone commits a crime that falls under the broad umbrella of sex offenses implies he must, beyond reasonable doubt, still be a threat? If not, how much damage, beyond the actual punishment for the crime, do you think it is right to do to someone because a past crime of his might or might not suggest he is still a threat?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But you DID say that the registry is not punishment for the crime. It is information provided, knowing that it will probably help devastate the life of the sex offender, on the grounds that the sex offender is such a major threat that it justifies doing that damage to him. Thus, the evidence required for conviction and punishment is not what we are talking about - the question is about the evidence required to conclude he is still such a serious threat that it warrants doing such damage to him, GIVEN that he did commit the crime.
Right. And punishment carries a far higher burden of proof than non-punitive protective measures. As it should - being thrown in prison is a greater infringement on liberty than being labeled a sex offender.
quote:You seem to think that his conviction is evidence enough to warrant concluding he is still such a threat. I disagree, for the reasons illustrated by the circumstances given in this thread - where people have committed minor or one-time offenses that seem to offer no reason to suspect they will commit another crime.
This indicates an incorrect answer to the first question, not an incorrect answer to the second one.
quote:Do you think that the fact that someone commits a crime that falls under the broad umbrella of sex offenses implies he must, beyond reasonable doubt, still be a threat?
Again, I've stated that some of the examples listed here should not be on the registry. It's worth noting that such broad registries are, at least for the moment, still the exception. Although I'm not sure by how much at this point.
Second, I don't buy the premise of your question. Someone who has been found to have committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is not entitled to that same high standard for future determinations of threat. By committing the offense, they have sacrificed certain presumptions - not the presumption of innocence of future crimes, but the presumption, much stronger than reasonable doubt for a person never convicted of a crime, that they are not a threat to society.
Frankly, I think someone who has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of one of the sex offenses worthy of registry (use Chris's standards) should be in the position of having to prove, say beyond a preponderance of the evidence, they are not a threat before they are allowed to rejoin society. They should then be registered and supervised for a time, then allowed to petition for removal.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And punishment carries a far higher burden of proof than non-punitive protective measures.
When I said "we need a very high standard of evidence for proving they are the threat we think they are" you said that standard was "reasonable doubt" - which is the same we use for criminal conviction.
quote:This indicates an incorrect answer to the first question, not an incorrect answer to the second one.
Perhaps so. Part of the problem may be the standard we tend to use to decide what crimes warrant being listed is "whatever MIGHT make someone a threat" rather than "whatever DEFINITELY makes someone a threat." Frankly, I think it would be best if we could set up sex crimes so the court can clearly distinguish between those who seem to be future threats and those that do not - which may or may not correspond to the nature and severity of the crime committed. The court should determine this on an individual basis - it should not be based on broad categories that ignore possible circumstances.
quote:Someone who has been found to have committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is not entitled to that same high standard for future determinations of threat.
I think someone who has served their punishment deserves the same high standard that we all get - taking into account his crime (just as anything you or I did in the past would be taken into account), but not assuming they are a threat based on that alone. If we are going to limit the standard they get, it should be considered a part of their punishment, and it should be for a limited time frame in accordance with the nature and severity of the crime.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When I said "we need a very high standard of evidence for proving they are the threat we think they are" you said that standard was "reasonable doubt" - which is the same we use for criminal conviction.
Yes, because I was positing that the conviction sufficed to prove threat to the level required.
quote:Frankly, I think it would be best if we could set up sex crimes so the court can clearly distinguish between those who seem to be future threats and those that do not - which may or may not correspond to the nature and severity of the crime committed. The court should determine this on an individual basis - it should not be based on broad categories that ignore possible circumstances.
Only if the burden of proof after conviction shifts to the defendant would I think this appropriate for certain offenses.
quote:I think someone who has served their punishment deserves the same high standard that we all get - taking into account his crime (just as anything you or I did in the past would be taken into account), but not assuming they are a threat based on that alone. If we are going to limit the standard they get, it should be considered a part of their punishment, and it should be for a limited time frame in accordance with the nature and severity of the crime.
Fine, but for forcible rape (a qualifier I shouldn't have to add) and any other sexual assault involving a child victim (with child defined appropriately to avoid Chris's situation), force, intimidation, or improper use of authority, I think the punishement should be lifetime - providing, of course, a chance for convicts to prove they are no longer a threat.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Dagonee: have you never read -- or seen, or heard the complete cast recording for -- Les Miserables?
My point of view is pretty simple: if they're not fit to be in society, they oughta be kept in jail. If you think they ought to be let out, then let them have a fresh start at life. No registries, no yellow tickets, no scarlet letters, no creating a class of people who aren't treated as people.
(The passage of Megan's Law in New York was a defining moment in my political life, making me realize that, yes, I was a liberal, and that somebody needed to fight against such unjust, inconsistent, and short-sighted legislation.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee: have you never read -- or seen, or heard the complete cast recording for -- Les Miserables?
Le Mis is a perfect example of an inappropriate answer to the first question I posed: which offenses make one dangerous to society. In Le Mis's case, the second question ought never to have been considered.
quote:My point of view is pretty simple: if they're not fit to be in society, they oughta be kept in jail. I
So, to you, it's a black or white determination? In jail, or full rights as a citizen?
We have probation and (in some states) parole precisely because we realize that a simple dichotomy such as that leads to injustice.
quote:(The passage of Megan's Law in New York was a defining moment in my political life, making me realize that, yes, I was a liberal, and that somebody needed to fight against such unjust, inconsistent, and short-sighted legislation.)
Good. I like the competition. Because as much as I see problems in the way such laws are implemented, I believe they provide absolutely essential information to parents who wish to protect their children.
So while I'll work to have them changed to be more fair and just, I'll also work to make sure they are not scrapped entirely.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Le Mis is a perfect example of an inappropriate answer to the first question I posed: which offenses make one dangerous to society. In Le Mis's case, the second question ought never to have been considered.
Granted, in Jean Valjean's case, the punishment was disproportionate to the crime, but that's not really the point at issue. The stigma made it impossible for him to return to society, to support himself, to do just about anything but turn to crime or violate his parole. It doesn't matter whether he "deserved" it or not; the practice just made matters worse all around.
quote:So, to you, it's a black or white determination? In jail, or full rights as a citizen?
We have probation and (in some states) parole precisely because we realize that a simple dichotomy such as that leads to injustice.
Probation and parole offer the option of getting out of prison before the end of one's assigned term; registries continue after it, and have often been applied retroactively. I also think one might make a distinction between discreetly checking in with authorities now and then and having one's past made public.
quote:Good. I like the competition. Because as much as I see problems in the way such laws are implemented, I believe they provide absolutely essential information to parents who wish to protect their children.
I don't even agree about that bit. It provides a focus for parents' paranoia, sure. But societally speaking, it's just a way of reinforcing the scapegoating of an allegedly subhuman class of people, rather than facing the fact that the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse does not come from strangers.
Unless you feel kids should never be allowed to be left alone with their parents, aunts, or uncles. Just to be safe. Statistics would be on your side...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Granted, in Jean Valjean's case, the punishment was disproportionate to the crime, but that's not really the point at issue. The stigma made it impossible for him to return to society, to support himself, to do just about anything but turn to crime or violate his parole. It doesn't matter whether he "deserved" it or not; the practice just made matters worse all around.
And the lifetime mark was not something made necessary by the threat level associated with his offense. It's still a question of which crimes deserve such registration, not a question of how registration should be implemented. And I contend that there's a lot of difference between stealing a loaf of bread and raping a 9-year old.
quote:Probation and parole offer the option of getting out of prison before the end of one's assigned term; registries continue after it, and have often been applied retroactively. I also think one might make a distinction between discreetly checking in with authorities now and then and having one's past made public.
Then we can make the sentence include lifetime probation with registration after imprisonment - that way, it's not extending past the sentence.
quote:I don't even agree about that bit. It provides a focus for parents' paranoia, sure. But societally speaking, it's just a way of reinforcing the scapegoating of an allegedly subhuman class of people, rather than facing the fact that the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse does not come from strangers.
You act as if we can't deal with both issues. Had Megan's parents known the history of the man next door, it is very likely she would be alive.
The risk being targeted with registration isn't "risk of molestation." It's "risk of molestation by that guy." Just because this doesn't help with another risk doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
quote:Unless you feel kids should never be allowed to be left alone with their parents, aunts, or uncles. Just to be safe. Statistics would be on your side...
Straw man. If no other information is available, then statistically a child is more likely to be molested by a family member or trusted associate.
If you know a convicted child molester lives next door, then the relative risks have shifted and he is the greatest threat to your child.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Granted, in Jean Valjean's case, the punishment was disproportionate to the crime, but that's not really the point at issue.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)