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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
