THIS...

Well, I'm not a mother, but I can certainly see where you're coming from. I must must MUST reiterate: I DON'T APPROVE OF SEX CRIMES. I can't. It's wrong. What's wrong can't become magically right. However, I also see that the way we handle sex crimes is (A) not aimed at stopping new sex crimes and (B) shows an increasingly unacceptable set of consequences that were not considered or fully realized before the law went into effect. The law is a living thing, constantly being refined, and sex crime laws are in desperate need of refining.

That's where I come in. I demand changing the law to what will minimize new crimes, and in the end that's the premise under which those laws are sold to all of the mothers on this board. The biggest problem I see is that you're being sold laws on the basis of controlling people who've already offended or discouraging through threat of punishment for those who haven't. The focus needs shifting to how to minimize (because you'll never 100% eliminate) the number of NEW perpetrations of sex crimes. It's really a societal problem and goes very deep, with many facets on the same stone: increased sexualization of younger and younger girls, higher sexual tittilation (advertising, etc.) of the society combined with laws preventing release of that increased desire (it's technically illegal to call an escort or go to a "massage parlor") and more.

MY GOAL: To minimize the count of new sex crimes. Period. If that means giving a child molester a chance at rebuilding a stable life instead of forcing him out of his home every time a nearby state boosts the residency limits, so be it.

I don't care HOW we stop new sex crimes from occurring, as long as it works better than any other options and doesn't infringe on basic human rights.

 

Please think

I'm new here and have read through alot of these threads and I don't think the majority of people are thinking. This guy, isn't in my opinion defending any sex crines or criminals. He is saying something different. He is saying something that many people encluding myself are very concerned about and that is protecting EVERY individuals rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That may be very heady to some here as most people trust our polititians and elected officials to guard them for us and if the truth be known, there are being eroded by polititions and those in power.

Here is something I saved and thought very interesting






The Kidnapping Hysteria
by John Stossel (more by this author)
Posted 03/28/2007 ET

If you have kids, you are probably worried about them being kidnapped. Your kids are probably worried about it, too. How could they not be after seeing all the publicity about abducted children?

In television public-service announcements the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children warns, "Every day 2,000 children are reported missing." Center president Ernie Allen told me, "Our goal is to reach into every home and to generate that key lead that leads to the recovery of a child. We need to send a message to the American public that this is serious."
That's a noble goal, but there is a downside. Kids tell me that all the talk on television about kidnapping worries them. Dozens of 7-to-12-year-olds I interviewed for "20/20" said abduction was their biggest fear. One little boy said he worries every night "because I'm asleep and I don't know what's gonna happen."
Scaring kids might be justified if abductions were common. But the media make the problem look far bigger than it is. The stereotypical kidnapping, where a child is abducted by a stranger and murdered, ransomed, or kept for a significant period of time, rarely happens. In fact, there are only 100 or so such cases every year.
Those abductions are tragic, but kids are more likely to be caught up in a tornado. Maybe we should have warnings about that, with lots of pictures to put everyone on edge.
The Center for Missing Children is a piece of the Fear Industrial Complex. It raises money by scaring us.
Businesses also profit from our fear. Brinks Security pushes apprehension about child abduction in commercials for home security systems. One terrifying ad is reminiscent of classic horror movies.
And we in the media profit from fear.
"For the media, child kidnapping is a gold mine," says David Glassner, author of the Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things. "It can go on for weeks. It's not a one-shot thing. The child is still gone, you can keep following it. Is there a new lead? Then finally, if they're discovered, that's the grand finale."
Nancy Grace has become a CNN superstar by featuring grisly crimes including child kidnappings, complete with an upbeat soundtrack. And NBC's "To Catch a Predator" has become a call to arms for parents by making it seem as if nearly everyone online is out to sexually solicit your kids.
The media have parents scared stiff, says Dan McGinn, who runs focus groups. Some parents won't let their kids out of their sight.

"When they talk about their kids and the risk of kidnapping, the numbers become irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's 100 kids in the United States or 10,000. They really believe 'it's my child and I could minimize that risk,'" McGinn told us.
During a focus group McGinn assembled for "20/20," parents said things like, "I won't let [my son] go to the restroom by himself" and "I do not let [my kids] go out by themselves in the yard, not even the front yard."
All this worry can't be good for our kids. One child told me, "Anyone could just grab me at any time. A lot more kids are getting kidnapped."
But more kids are not getting kidnapped.

Ernie Allen concedes the point. "The numbers of non-family abductions have been remarkably constant over the years."

But if that's true, isn't his organization needlessly scaring parents and children to death?
"We're trying very hard not to scare people."
But a child is much more likely to be hurt running into the street than kidnapped by a stranger.
"We don't want you to feel like you have to lock your child into a room and never let them out of your sight, " Allen says.
But his message certainly encourages people to do that.
That's a shame. Kids would benefit from being allowed to play in the yard or walk to school by themselves. They should be more vigilant about reckless drivers than potential kidnappers. They would learn to worry about the real risks.


Mr. Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel -- Why Everything You Know is Wrong".

Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2007 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

 

All you hear from SOME victim advocate groups and individuals(Oprah) is how you CANNOT HEAL! BULL! I am here to tell you you can HEAL. You can go on and live a productive, happy life.
Look, all I am saying is all you hear is that you are scared for life, you WILL NOT heal. I cannot describe to you all the healing of forgiveness. The 'cycle" is broken in my family

 

THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!

EVERYWHERE that a "victim" looks, they're told, "THE VICTIM HAS TO LIVE WITH IT FOREVER!"

In essence, that prophecy becomes self-fulfilling as it is repeated over and over and becomes the "sexual abuse mantra."

Perhaps by claiming that the victim is forever a victim, we are actually bringing that about, and we don't even think about it. I never looked at it that way before, oddly enough.

 

Hi all - I'm new here. This has been an interesting conversation, and I don't know where to begin with my comments. Somebody noted that these are "parents" here. Well, as parents, we all want to protect our children. However, I have mostly seen parents spewing hatred with little interest in actually trying to figure out what works. AngryOffender has presented some ideas of what might work BETTER have been slammed and accused of being Simply "locking up" all those designated as sex offenders is not going to stop the 90%+ offenses committed by offenders not previously convicted.

Somebody asked (finally) what we could do better. The critical piece is to accurately assess those designated as sex offenders and use that information when implementing consequences, restrictions, registries, and community notification. There appears to be some agreement here that a 17-18 year old (or younger) who has consensual sex with a younger partner should not be penalized for life. However, there are MANY restrictions that do impact them for life (such as residency restrictions, bans from school property, labels on driver's licenses, etc). In many states, a person witnessed urinating in public can also be on the registry. While unsavory, hardly an act that should forever define this person's life. We ABSOLUTELY need serious consequences in place for chronic child molesters and rapists, but we can't treat all offenders the same.

We need to educate ourselves on what terms mean and NOT use them interchangeably - a sexual predator is always a sex offender, but a sex offender is very rarely a predator. We need to educate ourselves on whatresearch says works and doesn't work instead of just heaping more ineffective laws onto the pile. The Jacob Wetterling Foundation website notes that it is in EVERYBODY'S best interest to help former offenders become productive members of communities. Current laws don't do that. Humiliatin and destabilizing offenders WILL NOT keep our children and communities safe. ALL research on crime (including sex offenders) shows that stable housing, employment, and community connections prevents recidivism. Our current laws prevent that.

Sorry to go on and on, but as a PARENT I want to see laws that work - ones that actually let me know who the most serious, predatory offenders are while letting low-risk offenders (and those with consensual sex offenses, incidental nudity offenses, etc) have an opportunity to live their lives. Many victim and sexual assault prevention programs advocate changing our current laws - NOT out of sympathy for offenders but out of concern for the unintended impact of the laws on the safety of children.

And, no, I am not a sex offender or predator or child molester or child rapist.

 

I tried to make this point several months ago. Not that it went over well.





Craig

 

I have had years to come to terms with what happened to me in my childhood. I have also had ALOT of time to research things for myself. It is my belief that we as a society dehumanize sex offenders because that way we can PRETEND that sexual abuse cannot touch us or anyone in our family.
The State cannot be our babysitter. TALK to your kids. ASK for programs in schools. DEMAND that people get the counseling they need, victim AND offender. Do you really think that I would have come forward and turned in my abuser in todays climate knowing that it would mean the end to my family?

 

We must become a THINKING society, not a reactionary one

Think this can’t happen to you? - Think Again!
TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT WHO WE ARE PLACING ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY HERE IN AMERICA
It’s no wonder that horrific crimes like those of Jessica Lunsford keep happening. Law enforcement officials are too busy trying to keep up with all these “dangerous” offenders (like the ones listed below) that the real nut cases are slipping through the cracks. Politicians and their "Corporate Cliques" are making big money selling fear to America about the dangerousness of Sex Offenders. This is their dirty little secret.
OUR children are but mere pawns in their clever little game. They don't give a damn about protecting our children. Yours or mine. All they care about is votes and money and as long as they can keep the general public fooled by suppressing stories like the ones below, more lives will be forever destroyed by the system or taken by the hands of a REAL sexual predator. Laws will continue be passed that ultimately infringe upon all of our rights and freedoms, in the name of protecting the children.
Here are, yet more, real life stories. Young lives being utterly destroyed by out of control laws in America’s “War on Sex”. These stories might sound ridiculous, absurd, and maybe a little humorous.
What is not funny are the consequences of being labeled as a sex offender and having a felony sex crime conviction which follows them for life.
An 18 year old is charged with a sex crime of indecent exposure for trying to have sex with a mannequin in Sioux Falls, SD. Source: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13466788,00.html?f=rss
A 13 year old Utah girl impregnated by her 12 year old boyfriend is charged with child molestation and marked as a registered sex offender. Source: http://kutv.com/local/local_story_365134652.html
A Georgia woman and her family is faced with homelessness due to residency restrictions. She is on the sex offender registry for simply failing to prevent her teenage daughter from having sex. Source: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3374
An 11 year old Ohio boy is charged with sexual assault, “gross sexual imposition” involving a 7 year old girl. He will be a registered sex offender. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17762423/
A 15 year old Pennsylvania teen has been charged with manufacturing and disseminating child pornography for taking nude photos of herself and posting them on the internet. She will now be a registered sex offender. Source: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm
Two Florida teens, age 16 and 17, are charged with child pornography and will have to register as sex offenders for taking “racy” photos of themselves and e-mailing them only to each other. Source: http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
A 16 year old Arizona teen has been charged with a sex crime for showing his father’s Playboy magazine to a couple of his friends. Source: http://justice4matt.com/
A website chronicaling even more stories: http://community.cnhi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/67110366/m/99710761

 

tip of the iceberg ...

Sarlininn - that's just the tip of the iceberg! There is a case where two 13 year olds are both the victims and offenders. 20 years from now, all that people will see on the registry is that they are 33 year olds with a prior charge of sexual assault or rape or whatever that state calls it. THIS is yet another reason why the registry is misleading - by not providing the true nature of offenses, it makes reasonably concerned parents think that their next door neighbor is a rapist when in fact it is an old offense that had nothing to do with rape! Few people take the time to check the date of the offense, and even if they did, the actual offense is still misleading.

A consensual sex offense is called "sexual assault" in Texas, "carnal knowledge of a minor" in Virginia, and "statutory rape" in some states. Public urination may be called "indecent exposure" or "lewd and lascivious" behavior. When I look on the registry, I can't tell if some guy was flashing little kids at Wal-Mart or peeing behind a bush. I don't know if some guy actually ASSAULTED a child or just had consensual sex with a willing teen partner.

If only those offenders determined to be actually, legitimately dangerous were on the registry, the public would have a better way of knowing who to watch out for. Police could focus their resources on keeping track of those offenders and not waste their time (and taxpayer money) determining the minute-to-minute whereabouts of several hundred thousand non-angerous offenders.

 

Many people don't believe it, but it is true in many states. Virginia actually tried to ADD it this year (along with many other vauely sexual offenses). People need to realize that states et federal funding for every offender on the registry. The more people they can put on there, the more money they get.

Unfortunately, as someone pointed out earlier, these laws are not to protect children - if they were, legislators would be following the research instead of acting on politically popular positions that earn money for their states.

NONE of this means that we shouldn't be "tough" on serious sex offenders. But, it is important to understand that the term "sex offender" covers a wide variety of offenses. In being "tough", though, we need to remember that the U.S. went to great lengths to be sure that Saddam Hussein was treated in a humane manner. Being "tough" shouldn't mean stripping people of every opportunity to reform and move on after completing their sentences and treatment requirements. Be "toughest" on the scariest guys (and women) by using monitoring resources that are currently being diluted among hundreds of thousands of minor offenders.

 

I Think We Have Been Had

I've just come across information of this type a few days ago. I'm astounded!!! This FEAR FACTOR that the news media puts out is, in my opinion, based on ratings, as far as the news media is concerned. I've watched Bill O'Reilly for 8 streight years now and could never figure out why he cuts people off with reference to this issue. I think he has too much power and its going to his head. He is the biggest perpetuator of mis-information that I know of. When a guest brings out the Department of Justice's states, he will yell at the guest and not allow those stats to be brought out in a decient conversation. He will yell and prejudice his audience at the drop of a hat. The "No Spin Factor" is in my opinion the largest spin machine in the country.

In my research, I'm finding out that Registered Sex Offenders (RSO's) that have served their time do not repeat their crimes. The most common offense is an "inhouse" type where an step dad, uncle, someone known to the family amount to 90% of all RSO's. While I do not condone that, I find that that particular crime is only recommitted by 1% of the RSO. WOW! To hear the polititations and the news media, there is an epidemic going on. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. 94.7% of new crimes that are committed by people who are not on any RSO lists.

I seen where the state of Kansas has put a moratorium on all their registry restrictions. Such as housing, schools, etc. They are looking for what does work.

There is so much I could share, but I think it is up to each individual to do their part. Its true, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are being thrown out the window, especially when more is added to a sentence, after a person gas been sentenced. That is called "Double Jeapordy" which is to be unconstitional but it is applied to all RSO regardless how serious their crime was. If they don't reoffend, let them get back into society. They have extended families which I read amounts to a total of 7 million people who are negatively affected by these hate laws. They serve no purpose.

I better stop, I have found so much more info that I would like to share.

 

WOW! WOW AND WOW!!!!!!!

I'm impressed to the knowledge that those in this forum have. Can anyone recommend sites and where we can go to write our state reps to start looking at things different. I mean to be able to confront them with reliable stats put out by reliable organizations?

I believe that if we don't act now we might loose all our rights under the laws of this great nation. This is scary. We need to act. Help

 

I Copied these today entitled "Experts Advice" I wish I remembered where I found it.

Compilation of quotes from experts in Law, Law Enforcement, and Psychology, regarding the effectiveness of proximity, residency, and/or registration laws.
Experts’ Voices
“Therapy works for these people. Let them be punished for their crimes, let them out and let them get on with their lives. Let them work. Let them have stable homes and families and let them live in peace. Harassing them, making them move and continually punishing them does far more harm than good. A sex offender in therapy with a job and a place to live is less of a threat than one that is constantly harassed.”
— Robert Shilling, Detective, Seattle, WA Crimes Against Children Division

“If the 2,000-foot rule had been in effect 10 years ago, I can’t think of a single case from our files that would have been any different.”
— Sgt. Bryce Smith, Sex Offender Registry Officer, Scott County, Iowa

“What you’re doing is pushing people more underground, pushing them away from treatment and pushing them away from monitoring, you’re really not improving the safety, but you are giving people a false sense of safety.”
— John Gruber, Executive Director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

“We went from knowing where about 90 percent of them were. We’re lucky if we know where 50 to 55 percent of them are now...the law created an atmosphere that these individuals can’t find a place to live.”
— Sheriff Don Zeller, Linn County, Iowa

“When I talk with friends, colleagues and neighbors regarding this law, the first reaction is that we must do everything we can to protect our children. Absolutely. But I am afraid this statute gives parents and communities a false sense of protection against crimes that most often occur not at school bus stops, but where children are in the greatest danger: their own homes.”
— J. Tom Morgan, Former DeKalb County DA

“It may be time to do away with sex offender registration laws altogether. At the very least, the federal government should commission research to study the laws’ effectiveness. In the meantime, several changes should be made. States should differentiate between serious and non-serious offenders and only require registration of the most serious offenders. Next, public access to online sites should be dismantled, and registries should be kept at the local police stations. This would provide at least a minimal screening process to those seeking inquiries… Lastly, we should experiment with restorative justice models such as what has happened in Canada where sex offenders moving into a community meet with members of the community in a public forum facilitated by a trained mediator. This type of forum gives the community an opportunity to meet the offender face to face and express their concerns and for the offender to show the community that he is earnestly seeking to change his life.”
— Rachel King, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law, Washington, D.C.

“Though laudable in their intent, there is little evidence that recently enacted housing policies achieve their stated goals of reducing recidivistic sexual violence. In fact, there is little research at all evaluating the effectiveness of these policies. Furthermore, these policies are not evidence-based in their development or implementation, as they tend to capture the widely heterogeneous group of sex offenders rather than utilize risk assessment technology to identify those who pose a high danger to public safety.”
— Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Human Services, Lynn University

“Housing restrictions have passed in most localities with little resistance. Child safety is rightly the primary concern when sex offender restrictions are imposed. It seems to make sense that decreasing access to potential victims would be a feasible strategy to preventing sex crimes. There is no evidence, however, that such laws are effective in reducing recidivistic sexual violence. On the other hand, such laws aggravate the scarcity of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them out of metropolitan areas and farther away from the social support, employment opportunities and social services that are known to aid offenders in successful community re-entry.”
— Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Human Services, Lynn University, “Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature,” October 2005

“The recent wave of sex offender legislation is based upon emotion and myths about sex offenders which are not supported by valid research or evidence. Legislation in this area should be based upon facts and valid evidence. The NACDL encourages criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and legislators to oppose legislation based upon myth and public emotion. In doing so we can ensure both public safety and due process.”
— Report of the Sex Offender Policy Task Force, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

“I would rather have someone who has committed a sex offense be going to work every day, come home tired, have a sense of well-being that comes from having a regular paycheck and a safe home, as opposed to having a sex offender who has a lot of free time on his hands.”
— Richard Hamill, President of the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers

“[California's] Proposition 83 would have other dangerous, unintended consequences. The Proposition's monitoring provisions would be least effective against those posing the greatest danger. Obviously, dangerous offenders would be the least likely to comply, so the proposed law would push the more serious offenders underground, where they would be less effectively monitored by police. In addition, by prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, the initiative would force many offenders from urban to rural areas with smaller police forces. A high concentration of sex offenders in rural neighborhoods will not serve public safety.”
— Carleen R. Arlidge, President of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

“The current law applies to too many offenders and I spend ‘way, way too much of my time’ trying to enforce it, I believe less than 10% of the state's 8,000 convicted sex offenders to be high-risk and is lobbying lawmakers to focus on them”
— Sgt. Gary Stansill, Tulsa Police Department, Sex-crimes Unit

“What we're doing with sexual predator laws is creating or enlarging an exception to those constraints. We're saying the government can take away people's liberty ... based on a prediction that somebody might be dangerous in the future.”
— Eric Janus, Vice Dean, William Mitchell College of Law

“The more cities choose to install these ordinances, the more ex-offenders will become an exile class, sex offenders are less likely to reoffend if they're allowed to reintegrate into society, to get a job, to establish stable roots, a support network, a home, by forcing these people to be refugees, politicians are essentially making their own citizens less safe.”
— William Buckman, defense attorney and national sex offender policy expert

“The law was well-intentioned, but we don't see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might offend.”
— Corwin R. Ritchie, Iowa County Attorneys Association executive director

“In 2002, Iowa enacted a law that prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or daycare center. ... the law overburdened law enforcement, has concentrated sex offenders in areas where they are allowed to live and has led to an increase in the number of sex offenders who have stopped registering with local authorities and gone missing. I defy anyone to try and convince me, scientifically or logically that those requirements have any affect at all. It makes great sense politically, but has no affect whatsoever on public safety.”
— Corwin R. Ritchie, Iowa County Attorneys Association executive director

“There were about five weeks of testimony presented by knowledgeable Iowa people who work with sex offender issues... There was not one, not one shred of evidence presented that the residency law provides safety for children. In fact, there was a significant amount of evidence presented that the law might actually decrease child safety. Even the clear evidence that enforcement of the law is wasting valuable law enforcement resources...”
— Corwin R. Ritchie, Iowa County Attorneys Association executive director

“We're not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized.”
— Carolyn Atwell-Davis, Director of Legislative Affairs, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

“There is no evidence in Minnesota that residency proximity to schools or parks affects reoffense … Blanket proximity restrictions … do not enhance community safety.”
— Minnesota Department of Corrections, “Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues” 2003 Report to the MN Legislature

“There is simply no evidence to suggest that residency restriction … will lead to decreases in recidivism. Rather, the evidence suggests mass migration to rural areas, decreasing their social stability and increasing their risk of recidivism [plus] a dramatic increase in offenders driven underground”
— California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2006

“Placing restrictions on the location of correctionally supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism.”
— Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board, Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community

“... the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled since the law went into effect.”
— Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

“The proliferation of these types of [residency] restrictions is making it more difficult for corrections to fulfill their mandate of helping offenders make a successful reentry into society.”
— Charles Olney, research associate for the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM), an affiliate of the U.S. Justice Department

“Unfortunately a lot of crime legislation is a function of politics and not rehabilitation or community safety.”
— Thomas Masters, Program Director, Correctional Treatment Services at Oregon State Hospital

“You ban somebody from the community, he has no friends, he feels bad about himself, and you reinforce the very problems that contribute to sex abuse behavior in the first place. You make him a better sex offender.”
— Robert Freeman-Longo, former director of the Safer Society

“... mean spirited vengeful legislation is only an incitement to vigilante injustice masquerading as a responsible public safety measure.”
— Margaret Love, Former Justice Department Pardon Attorney

“Strangers make up 7% of child molesters; the vast majority are family members. But you wouldn’t know it from watching TV. When stranger predators are everywhere on TV, it suggests that they are everywhere in the real world: in your school yard, roaming your street, and especially climbing the DSL line into your kids’ bedrooms as if it were an ivied trellis.”
— James Poniewozik, Time Magazine staff writer

“All this rational talk may mean nothing to a parent. Nine in 45 million children are raped and murdered: slim odds sure, but if it happens to your baby, who cares about the statistics? Still, most parents manage to put irrational fears in perspective. Why, in spite of all information to the contrary, do Americans insist on believing that pedophiles are a major peril to their children?”
— Judith Levine, author of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex

“It is sad 20th Century Commentary that society views the convicted felon as a social outcast. He has done wrong, so we rationalize and condone punishment in various forms. We express a desire for rehabilitation of the individual, while simultaneously we do everything to prevent it. Society cares little for the conditions which a prisoner must suffer while in prison, it cares even less for his future when he is released from prison. He is a marked man. We tell him to return to the norm of behavior, yet we brand him as virtually unemployable, he is required to live his normal activities severely restricted and we react with sickened wonder and disgust when he returns to a life of crime.”
— Former Chief Circuit Judge Donald Lay

 

I can not believe this thread is still booming . They do need to change some laws for the minor offenders such as the teens . I still think posting the offenders , names , adresses and pics is a good thing. They also need to post how dangerous the person is . One thing that bothers me is that man who raped that girl and killed her friend is fixing to get out and nobody will know who he is and what he did because he did the crime so long ago. There was a thread on here long while back about him Danny something lots of people protested his personal leave he got it and is going for parole soon is what I heard his name was Danny something can't remember.

 

That quote is relevant, regardless of how old or who uses it. The erosion of rights for one follows the "foot in the door" method of eroding more and more rights, until the entire thing's made it through the door--and by then, you can't slam it back shut, because it's already in.

I'm not here to bang on peoples' emotions or belittle people. I want people to not let their emotions get ahead of them; I want people to read my words and verify my data sources, to see if I'm right or wrong, and if I'm right, I want them to change their minds accordingly.

I apologize for coming off the wrong way. I've got emotional ties to this kind of stuff too, otherwise I might not care quite as much as I do. There are many things I propose level-headed reforms for, including the tax code and gun laws, but they don't hit me *quite* as hard (the tax code is going to, though, because I've already started a small business and it's killing me trying to figure out HOW IN THE HELL the taxation on business works! ARGH!)

I don't personally know these new people at all. It's likely that they showed up from some of the advocacy groups I work with. I want those people to follow my forum visits and see what I do with a lot of transparency, so that they may perhaps learn from my conversations, regardless of the outcome. Their commentary, however, is their own decision to post and not mine, and I honestly think they might not have read the entire thread before posting as of late. There is a whole side of sex offenses that is unexplored by design, because a lot is at stake if you find out that innocent children are being locked up for those mandatory 10-year or even 25-to-life Jessica's Law sentences just for touching each other. We've got five-year-olds being prosecuted for sexual assault for touching the genitals of other five-year-olds, like they even know what a genital is. The problem with you KNOWING these things and the word being spread is that it might stop you from voting for the politician or attorney general or whomever else pushes these "tough on crime" laws down our throats.

I knew one sex offender who was convicted of having illegal pornography on his computer. The guy was put through the legal system for a while, and eventually they jammed a plea deal in his face. I personally asked him how much of this stuff was true, and he said that he had downloaded lots and lots of porn files all at once, and because the stuff he used to do it wasn't very clear about what came down the pipe, he'd accidentally get some pretty sick stuff and throw it in the recycle bin. Most of the stuff he got, he didn't even see before they came and took everything away, and he was charged in part based on what he hadn't seen yet and what was thrown in the bin. Even though there was evidence that the evidence was tampered with during pre-trial stuff, apparently they found a legal loophole that could make things even worse and he was stuck. He plead his life away, and how he's convicted of "third degree sexual exploitation of a minor." That's legalese for "possession of child pornography." He's screwed, and I can't do much for the guy. He wasn't a bad guy, but he had everything taken away from him.

He was 18 years old when they raided him, and he's totally screwed, because now he's subject to residency restrictions, registration, can't vote, can't buy a gun, can't run for office, and now he's a wreck inside. I swear to you, the guy is deathly afraid of children to the point that it's a phobia. Any time a kid gets hear him, he starts to panic. It's the strangest thing I've ever seen in my entire life, and I can't do anything to help the guy at all. The corruption of the legal system and the kinds of small things (like grabbing a child's arm that runs in the road) people are being convicted for nowadays has basically rendered him so afraid of children that he's afraid of innocent children. I literally saw him walk very rapidly out of a store after a kid walked up and asked him, "Sir, where can I find oranges?"

Time and circumstance parted our ways, so I don't know where he is now, but after seeing that kind of a thing happen to a human being, where they lose trust in humanity and fear children to the point of panic, it really rips your perspective on these issues apart.

I'm afraid that one day I'll do something innocent (like pulling a kid in danger out of the road) that gets misinterpreted and I'll become him. I'd rather not, if that's okay with you.

 

There's a WRAL article on it, linked to earlier in this thread.

 

What about Joshua Lunsford and his legal problems. He has been arrested for sexual misconduct with a minor. I bet his daddy is proud he enacted Jessica's Law. Now it will affect her brother too. He is 18 and he was messing with a 14year old.

 

Well, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Has his father spoke or gave any comments on his sons charges?

 

Yes, he has. "This is different!"

The problem that I have with that is that Mark Lunsford didn't give one single hint of a damn about the difference while he ran around the country demanding 25-to-life punishment. Suddenly, Mark changes his opinion, and now he says "it's not the same thing." He's right on that count, but why didn't he make sure to clarify the difference BEFORE someone with his name bore the Scarlet Letter?

Harsh punishment for sex offenders sounds great, until your son is caught up in the rush. It's almost as bad as your son being the victim, because the courts don't care if he's innocent. All that matters (remember Nifong!) is getting a conviction. When was the last time you heard a prosecutor drop a case willingly because they didn't feel that a crime had been committed?

 

Angeleyes, I am trying to figure out what "crime" Josh Lunsford really did. I mean I understand that there is a law written, but I cannot understand why Lunsford's actions are wrong and merit being punished by laws.

This like all the teenagers, is a case of consensual sex. Why is that illgal?