I feel we're not being fair with the sex offender registry. Let's have a registry for murder, arson, robbery...everything! That way we know where everyone is..and let's force them all to live a mile away from any school or park after they've served their time.
wait...where did everyone go?
Quote from: izmophonik on April 26, 2011, 01:43:32 PM
I feel we're not being fair with the sex offender registry. Let's have a registry for murder, arson, robbery...everything! That way we know where everyone is..and let's force them all to live a mile away from any school or park after they've served their time.
wait...where did everyone go?
Sorry, but sex crimes aren't like other crimes, especially when children are involved. I don't like people having to register for taking a wiz in public but for the real predators, I'm all for the current laws and too damn bad that it makes life hard on them. Boo hoo.
Quote from: swake on April 26, 2011, 01:55:47 PM
Sorry, but sex crimes aren't like other crimes, especially when children are involved. I don't like people having to register for taking a wiz in public but for the real predators, I'm all for the current laws and too damn bad that it makes life hard on them. Boo hoo.
Careful Swake, they might take your lifelong liberal card from you when you start spouting nonsense like that.
..Long story short.
- Brother meets girl online (he's 25 she's 20) ..we'll get to that part later.
- Relationship forms
- 6 months later they agree to meet and take a road trip together
- He drives to New York to meet her
- Road trip ensues
- Father calls cops 2 days later..reports daughter missing (she's actually 17)
- Brother has no clue.. police catch up with them in Ohio.
- She goes home to safety / He gets 10 years for kidnapping / she tries to vouch for the story in court for him
- Brother serves 10 years, realizes that he can't live ANYWHERE since 95% of Tulsa is off limits.
This is almost minority report stuff... I mean "let's put them here because we think they're going to do it again."
Quote from: swake on April 26, 2011, 01:55:47 PM
Sorry, but sex crimes aren't like other crimes, especially when children are involved. I don't like people having to register for taking a wiz in public but for the real predators, I'm all for the current laws and too damn bad that it makes life hard on them. Boo hoo.
You don't understand...you piss in public right now you are doomed for minimum 15 years. You can't buy a house, you can't rent anything, you can't get a job. Same goes for the guy who raped a 10 year old. What do you think about that?
Quote from: izmophonik on April 26, 2011, 01:59:15 PM
..Long story short.
- Brother meets girl online (he's 25 she's 20) ..we'll get to that part later.
- Relationship forms
- 6 months later they agree to meet and take a road trip together
- He drives to New York to meet her
- Road trip ensues
- Father calls cops 2 days later..reports daughter missing (she's actually 17)
- Brother has no clue.. police catch up with them in Ohio.
- She goes home to safety / He gets 10 years for kidnapping / she tries to vouch for the story in court for him
- Brother serves 10 years, realizes that he can't live ANYWHERE since 95% of Tulsa is off limits.
This is almost minority report stuff... I mean "let's put them here because we think they're going to do it again."
Age of consent in New York is 17
Quote from: swake on April 26, 2011, 02:04:08 PM
Age of consent in New York is 17
I think you're referring to consent to sex. This isn't a sex crime. It's about him taking her out of state.."kidnapping". Regardless, he's charged as a sex offender because of the age.
It's a constitutional issue. If the constitution doesn't protect these guys in this situation, it doesn't protect any of us.
I don't see anyone outraged at the murderer that lives next door that they don't about.
Lastly, all of the molesters that have raped BEFORE the Adam Walsh Act DO NOT have to register. Let your brains mash that one around for a while folks.
Quote from: izmophonik on April 26, 2011, 02:23:40 PM
It’s a constitutional issue. If the constitution doesn’t protect these guys in this situation, it doesn’t protect any of us.
I don't see anyone outraged at the murderer that lives next door that they don't about.
Lastly, all of the molesters that have raped BEFORE the Adam Walsh Act DO NOT have to register. Let your brains mash that one around for a while folks.
You don't have kids, do you?
Quote from: custosnox on April 26, 2011, 03:58:28 PM
You don't have kids, do you?
I have 4. But I allow logic to prevail vs. emotions.
Unlike all other crimes, sex crimes bring what amounts to a lifetime sentence. If someone commits a robbery, he goes to prison for a few years and then gets probation. A sex offender goes to prison, then gets probation, restrictions on where he can live, work, play, and probably even worship. His address and photo are displayed for all and sundry to see. In some cases, neighbors have to be notified that a convicted offender lives nearby.
My point is that the sex offender receives a punishment that outlasts his sentencing and probation. In the abstract, that's disturbing as we claim to eschew cruel and unusual punishment. Ideally, a sex offender would receive medical treatment to modify his behavior, but I suspect that such behavior is so deeply ingrained that it would take Orwellian methods to alter it. And that too is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
There's no easy, pat answer to this. On one hand, I want sex offenders to be treated fairly and justly under the law. On the other hand, I don't want one near my kids.
It's making the assumption that sex predators are not treatable and somehow the urge to commit all other types of criminal activity just vanishes like a fart in the wind when the offender leaves prison. If someone is deemed enough of a danger to have to wear a scarlet letter the rest of their natural life, then they very likely should not have been released from prison or treatment in the first place. Tattooing it on their forehead and making them live five miles from civilization still won't stop them from repeating the offense if they are that deeply disturbed.
Quote from: izmophonik on April 26, 2011, 02:23:40 PM
It's a constitutional issue. If the constitution doesn't protect these guys in this situation, it doesn't protect any of us.
I don't see anyone outraged at the murderer that lives next door that they don't about.
Lastly, all of the molesters that have raped BEFORE the Adam Walsh Act DO NOT have to register. Let your brains mash that one around for a while folks.
Do you have a link to support your claim that the sex registry is not constitutional? Probably not because numerous court have found otherwise. In those cases, courts generally view the registry process as not criminal punishment but rather a civil regulatory process. Just for those who want to know how some courts reach those conclusions, here are some factors they apply.
Quote
[1] Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, [2] whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, [3] whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, [4] whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence, [5] whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, [6] whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and [7] whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned are all relevant to the inquiry, and may often point in differing directions.
Kennedy v. Mendoza–Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963), accord,
Kellar v. Fayetteville Police Dept., 339 Ark. 274, 282-83, 5 S.W.3d 402, 407 (Ark. 1999). Here is a link to an Oklahoma appellate court opinion examining this issue in the context of an
ex post facto argument.
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461514
Quote from: Ed W on April 26, 2011, 05:37:13 PM
Unlike all other crimes, sex crimes bring what amounts to a lifetime sentence. If someone commits a robbery, he goes to prison for a few years and then gets probation. A sex offender goes to prison, then gets probation, restrictions on where he can live, work, play, and probably even worship. His address and photo are displayed for all and sundry to see. In some cases, neighbors have to be notified that a convicted offender lives nearby.
My point is that the sex offender receives a punishment that outlasts his sentencing and probation. In the abstract, that's disturbing as we claim to eschew cruel and unusual punishment. Ideally, a sex offender would receive medical treatment to modify his behavior, but I suspect that such behavior is so deeply ingrained that it would take Orwellian methods to alter it. And that too is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
There's no easy, pat answer to this. On one hand, I want sex offenders to be treated fairly and justly under the law. On the other hand, I don't want one near my kids.
Well said.
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2011, 06:43:28 PM
Do you have a link to support your claim that the sex registry is not constitutional? Probably not because numerous court have found otherwise. In those cases, courts generally view the registry process as not criminal punishment but rather a civil regulatory process. Just for those who want to know how some courts reach those conclusions, here are some factors they apply.
Kennedy v. Mendoza–Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963), accord, Kellar v. Fayetteville Police Dept., 339 Ark. 274, 282-83, 5 S.W.3d 402, 407 (Ark. 1999). Here is a link to an Oklahoma appellate court opinion examining this issue in the context of an ex post facto argument.
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461514
Actually I do.
SMITH et al. v. DOE et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 01-729. Argued November 13, 2002--Decided March 5, 2003
The Alaska Supreme Court found their registration law unconstitutional in July 2008. There are several challenges making its way to the Supreme Court. Of course these sort of issues take a very long time to get sorted out.
Also, IMHO these people have been denied his or her 5TH Amendment protection of due process against double jeopardy.
Having the sex registration across the board is really stupid. Having to register because you flashed your breasts at a marti gras event, or because you had to take a leak and wasn't a bathroom around is really idiotic. Similar situation when you have every reason to believe she is 18 (like the fact that you met in a bar) and can proof it, yet they concider it 2nd degree rape. It makes the idea of a sex registry overly broad and pretty much meaningless because you don't even know if the people on it did anything to really merit it, unless it is an obvious charge like lewd molestation on a minor.
As far as the idea that once they get out of jail they have served their time, does that mean that everything should carry a sentence of jail time? Or that every conviction should have only one part of the punishment? How is it different than being on probation and being ordered to do community service? It is all part of the sentencing, though registry should actually be sentenced and not automatic. This does not, however, make it double jeopardy. You are not being tried twice for the same crime, you have a sentence levied against you in the form of registration, as well as the time in jail.
Quote from: custosnox on April 27, 2011, 09:07:02 AM
Having the sex registration across the board is really stupid. Having to register because you flashed your breasts at a marti gras event, or because you had to take a leak and wasn't a bathroom around is really idiotic. Similar situation when you have every reason to believe she is 18 (like the fact that you met in a bar) and can proof it, yet they concider it 2nd degree rape. It makes the idea of a sex registry overly broad and pretty much meaningless because you don't even know if the people on it did anything to really merit it, unless it is an obvious charge like lewd molestation on a minor.
As far as the idea that once they get out of jail they have served their time, does that mean that everything should carry a sentence of jail time? Or that every conviction should have only one part of the punishment? How is it different than being on probation and being ordered to do community service? It is all part of the sentencing, though registry should actually be sentenced and not automatic. This does not, however, make it double jeopardy. You are not being tried twice for the same crime, you have a sentence levied against you in the form of registration, as well as the time in jail.
Ok, I agree you're not being tried twice. Also I agree that probation is a legitimate action to take post-sentence and that it does not fall into the Ex Post Facto clause. However, just like a tier system that exists now (btw, he is registering as a level 1, the lowest) that restricts your registration period. There needs to be a tier system that says Level 1 offenders CAN live closer to parks, schools whereas a Level 3 could not. Even though this system is ridiculous since a vast majority of offenders molest someone they know..not a random kid on at the local playground; that's besides the point.
Also, I think we're dangerously close to violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.
Quote from: izmophonik on April 27, 2011, 09:26:32 AM
Ok, I agree you're not being tried twice. Also I agree that probation is a legitimate action to take post-sentence and that it does not fall into the Ex Post Facto clause. However, just like a tier system that exists now (btw, he is registering as a level 1, the lowest) that restricts your registration period. There needs to be a tier system that says Level 1 offenders CAN live closer to parks, schools whereas a Level 3 could not. Even though this system is ridiculous since a vast majority of offenders molest someone they know..not a random kid on at the local playground; that's besides the point.
Also, I think we're dangerously close to violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.
Granted, most molestations are done by those that the kid knows, but how often is that person they know because they would stop at a neighber of the schools house on their way home everyday because the nice man always had treats and was nice to them?
I think being a "sex offender" should really depend on the details of the crime and be levied against on offender by court order. There should be language in place that says these crimes can carry the penalty of registration, restricted living and so forth. After all, just about every other crime carries a maximum punishment, not a "this is what every offender will be penalized".
The due process is the court hearing that originally charged, and found guilty, the person that was accused of the act.
Quote from: izmophonik on April 27, 2011, 09:26:32 AM
Ok, I agree you're not being tried twice. Also I agree that probation is a legitimate action to take post-sentence and that it does not fall into the Ex Post Facto clause. However, just like a tier system that exists now (btw, he is registering as a level 1, the lowest) that restricts your registration period. There needs to be a tier system that says Level 1 offenders CAN live closer to parks, schools whereas a Level 3 could not. Even though this system is ridiculous since a vast majority of offenders molest someone they know..not a random kid on at the local playground; that's besides the point.
Also, I think we're dangerously close to violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.
But his trial would have been his due process. I would assume he also utilized the appellate system as well. For some reason his story didn't resonate with a jury of his peers (assuming he went the jury trial route).
Quote from: izmophonik on April 27, 2011, 08:40:55 AM
Actually I do.
SMITH et al. v. DOE et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 01-729. Argued November 13, 2002--Decided March 5, 2003
The Alaska Supreme Court found their registration law unconstitutional in July 2008. There are several challenges making its way to the Supreme Court. Of course these sort of issues take a very long time to get sorted out.
Also, IMHO these people have been denied his or her 5TH Amendment protection of due process against double jeopardy.
I'm confused. In
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 104-06, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 1153-54, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003), The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuits decision that the sex offender registry was punishment. In doing so, the Court held:
The Court of Appeals' reliance on the wide dissemination of the information is also unavailing. The Ninth Circuit highlighted that the information was available "world-wide" and "
roadcas[t]" in an indiscriminate manner. 259 F.3d, at 992. As we have explained, however, the notification system is a passive one: An individual must seek access to the information. The Web site warns that the use of displayed information "to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution." http:// www.dps.state.ak.us/nSorcr/asp/ (as visited Jan. 17, 2003) (available in the Clerk of Court's case file). Given the general mobility of our population, for Alaska to make its registry system available and easily accessible throughout the State was not so excessive a regulatory requirement as to become a punishment. See D. Schram & **1154 C. Milloy, Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism 13 (1995) (38% of recidivist sex offenses in the State of Washington took place in jurisdictions other than where the previous offense was committed).
The excessiveness inquiry of our ex post facto jurisprudence is not an exercise in determining whether the legislature has made the best choice possible to address the problem it seeks to remedy. The question is whether the regulatory means chosen are reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective. The Act meets this standard.
The two remaining Mendoza-Martinez factors-whether the regulation comes into play only on a finding of scienter and whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime-are of little weight in this case. The regulatory scheme applies only to past conduct, which was, and is, a crime. This is a necessary beginning point, for recidivism is the statutory concern. The obligations the statute imposes are the responsibility of registration, a duty not predicated upon some present or repeated violation.
Our examination of the Act's effects leads to the determination that respondents cannot show, much less by the clearest proof, that the effects of the law negate Alaska's intention to establish a civil regulatory scheme. The Act is nonpunitive, and its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[
Emphasis added]. Is there another
Smith v. Doe case you are talking about because that is a very common case style? Or did you look at the Ninth Circuit's opinion?
Also, I would be interested in those other cases you were referring to.