View Full Version : Sex predators will get to pick the therpy they choose
Colorado Legislation 10-1364---Predators get to choose their own therapy program.
If you want sex predators to decide what therpy they have to take then you get your wish, if you dont call Ritter and tell him to veto the bill.
Our tax $ pays for these programs and when the sex predators only pick the easiest treatments the ones that they dont like will not be funded and go away.
If only I could commit a horrible crime, get parole and be able to pick what treatment I wanted. Man we are getting tough on crime these days.
Bill Ritter, Governor
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792
Phone
(303) 866-2471
Fax
(303) 866-2003
Joyce Foster [Democrat] needs to be further embarrassed and then rejected by the CO constituency as a result of her poor decisions and tactics. Bottom-line, she's a liar and motivated to "serve her own" interests versus the people of the state.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15107460
he has been the single worst Governor that I can remember.
we will see how he likes being unemployed... after we vote his ass out.
He's not running. And I'm sure he'll get some "teaching" position somewhere. But yes, He does make Jimmy Carter look like a compentent politician.
And I'm sure he'll get some "teaching" position somewhere.
Hey, hey. So what? I'm too "conservative" then cause I cna't find a teaching position? That's how it's gonna be huh? ok, ok....
[ROFL1]
Hey, hey. So what? I'm too "conservative" then cause I cna't find a teaching position? That's how it's gonna be huh? ok, ok....
[ROFL1]
Yep, don't you pay attention...
Yep, don't you pay attention...
Huh, what?.... ummm... No?! HAHA. [ROFL1][Beer]
68Charger
05-18-2010, 12:02
Our tax $ pays for these programs and when the sex predators only pick the easiest treatments the ones that they dont like will not be funded and go away.
I can say they are certainly not all funded by our tax $.. in Fremont county, the offender pays for it.
I do not know if there is any indigent program to pay for it if they cannot, but AFAIK, standard protocol is the offender pays for it. Same with any GPS anklet, for their time served in jail, etc.. they get billed
maybe it's just Fremont county- that's the only system I have any knowledge of, and it's 2nd hand..
Edit:
after reading this: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100511007594&newsLang=en
It's likely Ritter will veto it, and that was the plan all along to continue funding for the SOMB without public testimony... if veto'd they get funding for another year without having to pass anything.
and before I forget...this thread is a good place to toss out this reminder. Check-in often to ID the s*** in your area. Updated 5/13/10.
http://www.denverpost.com/coloradoregisteredsexoffenders/
While this information is updated periodically, readers should not rely solely on this as a safeguard against perpetrators of sexual assault in their communities, nor should this information be used to exact retribution on those named here. <-- Bah...it should be
and before I forget...this thread is a good place to toss out this reminder. Check-in often to ID the s*** in your area. Updated 5/13/10.
http://www.denverpost.com/coloradoregisteredsexoffenders/
While this information is updated periodically, readers should not rely solely on this as a safeguard against perpetrators of sexual assault in their communities, nor should this information be used to exact retribution on those named here. <-- Bah...it should be
HOLY @#$%^!!! There are 71 of those #$%#%^ within 5 miles of my apartment! 4 of them live in my complex!!! Thanks, now I'm gonna be all paranoid when we get to babysit the neice/nephew....
GoldFinger
05-18-2010, 15:31
HOLY @#$%^!!! There are 71 of those #$%#%^ within 5 miles of my apartment! 4 of them live in my complex!!! Thanks, now I'm gonna be all paranoid when we get to babysit the neice/nephew....
Ditto. I just saw that there is a "correctional service" place a few miles from my house where about 25 sex offenders are registered at.
Anyone have connections to call in an air strike?
[A9]
Anyone have connections to call in an air strike?
Wait for it....
Little kid: "yea dooooode, lemme get out my MW2 game and eye'll laze that target for shizzle!!!"
[Beer]
[DC3]
Keep in mind that you can become a sex offender just from changing your pants in your car while in the parking lot if the right/wrong person walks by. It can mean literally nothing to be on a list. Hell, I know a registered sex offender. I had no idea until I heard about it later.
Just saying don't get too upset about that map. Not every sex offender = child molester.
GoldFinger
05-18-2010, 15:46
Keep in mind that you can become a sex offender just from changing your pants in your car while in the parking lot if the right/wrong person walks by. It can mean literally nothing to be on a list. Hell, I know a registered sex offender. I had no idea until I heard about it later.
Just saying don't get too upset about that map. Not every sex offender = child molester.
Understood, and I actually know of someone that had a similar situation happen. However, with over 25 of them in one place, even if half of them are benign, that leaves something to be concerned about.
Especially 71 in a 5 mile radius... come on....
Goes to show you that there is something wrong with the criteria for becoming a registered sex offender.
What's the amount of space required between an offender and a school? I apparently have one three doors down and a school I could throw a rock to. Besides that one not another within a 1/2 mile radius (outside of that though...) so I thought that might be the reason.
Goes to show you that there is something wrong with the criteria for becoming a registered sex offender.
You must be referring to these criteria, a conviction under one or more of the following statutes. Sections 16-22-102(9) and 18-1.3-1008, C.R.S. defines a sex offender as a person convicted of one [or more] of the following sex offenses:
Sexual assault in the first, second or third degree;
Unlawful sexual contact;
Sexual assault on a child;
Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust;
Sexual assault on a client by a psychotherapist;
Enticement of a child;
Incest;
Aggravated Incest;
Trafficking in children;
Sexual exploitation of children;
Procurement of a child for sexual exploitation;
Indecent exposure; (<-- Here's your example from above used in a catch-all attempt to trivialize the value of having a registry)
Soliciting for child prostitution;
Pandering of a child;
Procurement of a child for prostitution;
Keeping a place of child prostitution;
Pimping of a child;
Inducement of child prostitution;
Patronizing a prostituted child;
Engaging in Sexual Conduct in a Penal Institution;
Wholesale Promotion of Obscenity to Minors; and
Promotion of Obscenity to Minors
Criminal attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of the above offenses.
Further,
Sexually Violent Predator (SVP)
1) Per 18-3-414.5 C.R.S., a "Sexually violent predator" is an offender:
(I) Who is eighteen years of age or older as of the date the offense is committed or who is less than eighteen years of age as of the date the offense is committed but is tried as an adult;
(II) Who has been convicted on or after July 1, 1999, of one of the following offenses committed on or after July 1, 1997:
(A) Sexual assault in the first, second, or third degree (felony);
(B) Unlawful sexual contact;
(D) Sexual assault on a child;
(E) Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust;
(III) Whose victim was a stranger to the offender or a person with whom the offender established or promoted a relationship primarily for the purpose of sexual victimization; and
(IV) Who, based upon the results of a risk assessment screening instrument developed by the division of criminal justice in consultation with and approved by the sex offender management board, is likely to subsequently commit one or more of the offenses specified in subparagraph (II) under the circumstances described in subparagraph (III).
68Charger
05-18-2010, 17:44
Indecent exposure; (<-- Here's your example from above used in a catch-all attempt to trivialize the value of having a registry)
Engaging in Sexual Conduct in a Penal Institution;
Criminal attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of the above offenses.
so if you encourage one inmate to sodomize another (because he was a child molester- "he deserves a good taste of his own medicine"), that would be conspiring, and you could classified as a sex offender... hmm
so remove the more trivial offenses from the list, and there will no longer be a reason to trivialize the value of the list...
You have to admit it's a pretty broad range of offenses all lumped under one title... it should be changed- then there would be no argument.. as it is, getting a sex offender charge to stick- even if it's streaking at a football game by an 18yo drunk college student is a notch in the DA's belt, but ruins that guy's(or woman's) life
so for the sake of not trivializing the other serious offenses on the list- either remove those offenses, or create another class for them that doesn't lump such broad crimes together..
Check out this nasty sex offender.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6406630/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-in-own-home-while-naked.html
He was convicted by the way.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/indecent-exposure-in-home-121809
Check out this nasty sex offender.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6406630/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-in-own-home-while-naked.html
He was convicted by the way.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/indecent-exposure-in-home-121809
Old news Stuart, and rest assured I am/was privy to that miscarriage of justice as well. Since you choose to "pick the extremes" let me ask you a few questions:
1. What does that singular failure, or any similar, have to do with the value of a registry as a whole? You choose one-offs to base your position that a "registry map" is to be disregarded by society? Note: I concur, a travesty this case was, lives are ruined and that cannot be over-looked so, next question
2. There were 10,096-registered sex offenders in Colorado, as of June 2, 2008, (http://sor.state.co.us/?SOR=home.youshouldknow) what percentage [or hard metric] of those do you sincerely believe were not egregious sexual offenses deserving of conviction and registration? How many of that 10K+ were "indecent exposure" or the proverbial "streaking 18 year-old?" I submit your number will be a small one.
More to follow...
”so if you encourage one inmate to sodomize another (because he was a child molester- "he deserves a good taste of his own medicine"), that would be conspiring, and you could classified as a sex offender... hmm”
Let’s adjust your example; So you encourage a banger’ to go grab some bros and sodomize and rape the 15 year-old down the street (“because that little bitch thinks she’s hot and is old enough to take a good fu----- anyway”) , that would be conspiring, and you could be classified as a sex offender…hmm?
Yes, that is conspiracy to sexual assault, and so is your [rather strange choice of] example above. As written the statute dictates if convicted you are classified as a sex offender. Are you suggesting that because it was “not your dick doing the damage” that you have no culpability? If yes, defend that position.
”so remove the more trivial offenses from the list, and there will no longer be a reason to trivialize the value of the list...
Full-disclosure, I would remove indecent exposure. Now, tell me what you are going to remove, I’m eager to hear your response.
”…even if it's streaking at a football game by an 18yo drunk college student…”
Reference my answer to Stuart on the "one-off extremes" but...neither one of you have a decent positon to argue that a registry is of no value. You may not like select line-item statutes (I get that) but to suggest society should run-blind until the solution meets your ideal specs...no thanks.
Seems like you're trying to pick a fight to me. I never said there shouldn't be a registry.
My stance is that you should have actually committed a crime to be labeled a sex offender, not be just a victim of circumstance.
68Charger
05-18-2010, 23:06
that's ok, I'll stay in the fight:
Let’s adjust your example; So you encourage a banger’ to go grab some bros and sodomize and rape the 15 year-old down the street (“because that little bitch thinks she’s hot and is old enough to take a good fu----- anyway”) , that would be conspiring, and you could be classified as a sex offender…hmm?
Now who is using extremes? anyone who knew it was going to happen, and didn't TRY to stop it should face the full charges... but life doesn't always occur in black and white, it's in shades of gray and colors... How about a case in Colorado Springs where a mentally retarded (not mentally ill) individual is now on the sex offender list because he has the mentality of a 6-8 year old, and when talking with another "mentally challenged" person, they dropped pants and "compared".. they never touched each other, but he's now a registered sex offender- should someone seek him on the list, and seek justice because he's dangerous?
or a 15 year old that comes onto an adult, and tells someone she's 18, and is literally asking for it? She's not responsible for her behavior because she's underage, but it's not as black-and-white as the picture you paint above.
Yes, that is conspiracy to sexual assault, and so is your [rather strange choice of] example above. As written the statute dictates if convicted you are classified as a sex offender. Are you suggesting that because it was “not your dick doing the damage” that you have no culpability? If yes, defend that position.
I was trying to say that under the letter of the law you posted, they could make a case for MANY people to be tried as a sex offender... however absurd the circumstances, if you "conspired" (hypothetical example, a father of the victim states that "he deserves to get the same thing to happen to him"- that gets to an inmate, and he acts on it.. under the text you posted, it's possible a PA/DA could make a case to try you as a sex offender... you conspired with the inmate to exact revenge. If a jury bought into it, you could be found guilty- I have seen (not hypothetical, observed) the law used to the LETTER, however strange the consequences- those on the side of justice are HUMAN- do not expect them to be perfect... they may USE the system however they can to get a conviction, and the most severe one they can to further their career, or using a "the ends justify the means" mentality
Full-disclosure, I would remove indecent exposure. Now, tell me what you are going to remove, I’m eager to hear your response.
I'm no lawyer, but "Engaging in Sexual Conduct in a Penal Institution" is a bit ambiguous - perhaps it's more clear in the details of the statute- but it should be clearly defined- masturbation? undressing? showering? clearly sodomy/rape would be over the line, but at what point is it "sexual conduct" other than that, the rest of the crimes are certainly deserving of the label,IMO. Attempt, conspiring or soliciting of remaining offenses would also be deserving.
I will say that I know of a case involving one poorly worded statute- (again, well intentioned, but poorly worded law)
(E) Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust;
I have seen this statute applied where there was no coercion (in fact, a coercion charge was on the case, but dropped), and no violence.. either change the wording, or move it off the "SVP" list.... I'm in no way condoning the behavior.. but it was NOT violent in any way.. and predatory is reaching in this case (I know the victim, the victim's family, as well as the offender & his family)- but he was found guilty.. he should have been charged with "Unlawful sexual contact", but that's a class 1 misdemeanor... not a felony- felony convictions look much better on the PA/DA's resume. IMO, the jury felt compelled to hand down a guilty verdict so he wouldn't "walk"- but the charge should have fit the crime..
Reference my answer to Stuart on the "one-off extremes" but...neither one of you have a decent positon to argue that a registry is of no value. You may not like select line-item statutes (I get that) but to suggest society should run-blind until the solution meets your ideal specs...no thanks.
Please show me where anyone stated that it was of "of no value".. (you're going to extremes again) somebody (BigBear, I think) expressed distress over finding a high # of offenders close to him- we (I don't speak for Stuart, but I'm inferring) simply tried to point out that the system is not perfect.. I certainly never said it was "of no value", but suggested it be taken in full knowledge of it's flaws... would you prefer to HIDE the flaws of the system? (full disclosure, right?) also, nobody should fly off the handle, or decide that those on the list deserve further punishment outside the law...
overall, unless you've seen the system at work, you're simply working on theory that justice is always served perfectly.. have you factored in everything? are you sure? when you've seen the system at work with knowledge of the case, you can see that the PA (Prosecuting Attorney) is a lawyer, and subject to the same human flaws as the "scumbags" that defend criminals... maybe I have been jaded by a specific bad example... I'm not perfect, either..
Final comment.
The "No-fly" list probably has mostly serious terrorist threats on it, but since it also has Boy Scouts with similar names, then I can't take the list seriously.
SA Friday
05-19-2010, 00:37
I'll admit I didn't read all of the last couple of posts, but I'll throw this one out there. This is an example from a case I had about 11 years ago, and it's not hypothetical.
Subject is 18 year and a couple months old. Victim is 15 years and 11 months old. This was in CA, and the legal age of consent is 18 with some caveats concerning age spreads more than 3 years apart for minors... Subject is a friend of the victim's family, and no relationship other than friendship between subject and victim at the time of the incident. Mom is a single parent, and there are additional younger siblings. Subject is watching the kids while Mom is doing errands. Comes home and victim is giving subject a BJ in the back room. I forget how the local cops got involved. Mom tells the cops that it was probably victim that started the incident as she is sexually active and had it in for subject for months. Subject tells the cops that victim was hyper aggressive during the whole incident. Victim admits to being hyper aggressive, initiating the incident to include aggressively pulling the guys junk out and...
He was found guilty of carnal knowledge, violation of CA penal code, is a registered sex offender for life, and his military career needless to say ended quite abruptly. I watched the spirit of the law die a slow and horrorific death during this case. It still bothers me to this day. It's one of four cases that I just can't let go of. Too many people let the wrong thing happen as a matter of course. It's been hard for me to take the sexual offender list as anything but tainted ever since. It's a modern day scarlet letter, and however many legitimately end up branded, it only takes one to start questioning the validity of a lifetime sentence like that.
A lot of criminal cases are clear cut. Subject did it, and will do it again given the chance. Not all of them though. When the legal system becomes a pipe-line instead of each individual case handled as an independent entity, the integrity of the entire system is in question. In this case, it's the sexual offender list itself. It begs the question, what if you were the one miscarrage of justice on that list?
SA Friday
05-19-2010, 00:42
Final comment.
The "No-fly" list probably has mostly serious terrorist threats on it, but since it also has Boy Scouts with similar names, then I can't take the list seriously.
I know a Federal Agent that currently works the Joint Terrorism Task Force in CO Springs with the same exact name as an IRA member on the no-fly list... He has to go to the airport an extra hour or 2 ahead of every flight and jump through hoops every time.
EDIT: Never mind, getting off topic and I don't know anything about the "no-fly" list to make further comments on it anyway.
Seems like you're trying to pick a fight to me. I never said there shouldn't be a registry.
My stance is that you should have actually committed a crime to be labeled a sex offender, not be just a victim of circumstance.
No Stuart, I’m not but your cavalier responses suggesting to ignore registry data entirely because they may contain “lesser offenses” in your view is bullshit.
In the prior listed statutes where there are "no crimes" and only circumstances?
clublights
05-19-2010, 07:02
As I posted in my " a Very Slippery Slope" post this gets doubley bad now .
now some paper pusher can take the "poor kid" in SA Friday's example and hold him till said paper pusher think's he is ok.
Yes my deep down hard core emotions say " let these fuckers burn in hell!!!! and I'll drop a couple rounds from my weapons to help them get there faster.! "
However..... as once said .... "Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man"
of course on the other hand ........... 9 of those guilty men could hurt 18 children.........
it's a very confusing and tough issue. I'm as torn as I'm sure most of you are also.
Lets focus a little on the person that is a family member of the person that is pushing this bill, Julian "Uncle Budd" Newman http://www.khow.com/pages/boyles.html
He is not a one time offender of a exposure incident, he has used his authority as an physican to rape women.
Pass a bill to get streaking and all other non-sexual offenses out of the legislation but dont make it easier for guys like this and all the other serious offends to make it easier on them.
68Charger
05-19-2010, 08:44
I get why you don't want the offender to choose the therapy- but just who do you think should choose the therapy program?
and you seem to think the therapy is considered part of his punishment... I get that you want him to suffer- but is that really the function of therapy?
a more valid argument would be that you believe the offender wants to choose a therapy that allows him to hide his issues more easily.. IMHO, the function of therapy in sex offender cases is NOT an attempt to "cure" the offender... it's to keep an ongoing investigation into the person's psychological status.. therapists are supposed to detect when something in the offender's mind is changing, or being hidden, and report it to probation.. the probation officer and therapist discuss each of the offenders under their watch, and determine when they need to take action to prevent/minimize recidivism.
that's ok, I'll stay in the fight
Good for you, I will as well.
Now who is using extremes?”
I am, why? It’s acceptable for you to enter this thread with an over-the-top example, as if that somehow validates your position on the subject and in-turn demeans another [me] in the process, yet when countered with a parallel conspiracy example it is no longer appropriate to use your same tactic? Nah…post up bullshit and I’ll counter it with more bullshit.
anyone who knew it was going to happen, and didn't TRY to stop it should face the full charges...
Contradictory. Then what was your point in posting your “prison rape example.” Is that conspiracy and deserving of registration or not if convicted?
”…but life doesn't always occur in black and white, it's in shades of gray and colors... How about a case in Colorado Springs where a mentally retarded (not mentally ill) individual is now on the sex offender list because he has the mentality of a 6-8 year old, and when talking with another "mentally challenged" person, they dropped pants and "compared".. they never touched each other, but he's now a registered sex offender- should someone seek him on the list, and seek justice because he's dangerous?
Another 1-percenter sample eh? As if pulling-out yet another sensationalized one-off makes your case? It doesn’t, far from it. I’ll counter with this, what about the “other” 99% that are registered and accurate? Does society solution for your 1 or my 99? Re: Your weak attempt to “poke me in the eye” by asking should someone target this mentally retarded individual for justice?” How do you think a rational person who lives in the real “colorful and gray zone” everyday would respond to that example and question? I’ll answer, very succinctly, “no.”
”…or a 15 year old that comes onto an adult, and tells someone she's 18, and is literally asking for it?” She's not responsible for her behavior because she's underage, but it's not as black-and-white as the picture you paint above.
Ah..yes…this worn-out obligatory classic failure of justice saga suggesting this too invalidates a registration database, eh? I like the National Inquirer flair you’ve chosen, “underage and…She was literally asking for it?” Your fictional [and I do accept these failure cases as fact] adult is fucked either way if wrongly convicted so I’ll ask again here, what does this have to do with the “other 99%” that are accurately registered?
I was trying to say that under the letter of the law you posted, they could make a case for MANY people to be tried as a sex offender... however absurd the circumstances, if you "conspired" (hypothetical example, a father of the victim states that "he deserves to get the same thing to happen to him"- that gets to an inmate, and he acts on it.. under the text you posted, it's possible a PA/DA could make a case to try you as a sex offender... you conspired with the inmate to exact revenge. If a jury bought into it, you could be found guilty- I have seen (not hypothetical, observed) the law used to the LETTER, however strange the consequences- those on the side of justice are HUMAN- do not expect them to be perfect... they may USE the system however they can to get a conviction, and the most severe one they can to further their career, or using a "the ends justify the means" mentality
With or without a sex-offender registry nothing you posted above changes, nothing. The system has been exploited, twisted, used negatively, wrongly, and viciously for decades, and will be today, tomorrow and far into the future. And human failings [and impacts] will persist. But, that criticism and acknowledgment granted, the justice system doesn’t “just fail at every turn” as you seem to be insinuating either. So what exactly is your point with the above? Are you stating “a federal or state registry is a failure in its entirety and must be abolished because the justice system as a whole has failings?”
"Engaging in Sexual Conduct in a Penal Institution" is a bit ambiguous - perhaps it's more clear in the details of the statute- but it should be clearly defined- masturbation? undressing? showering? clearly sodomy/rape would be over the line, but at what point is it "sexual conduct" other than that, the rest of the crimes are certainly deserving of the label,IMO. Attempt, conspiring or soliciting of remaining offenses would also be deserving.
So we now count two, only two of the statutes you would remove. Indecent exposure, which I agree with FWIW and sexual conduct in a penal institution, do I have that right? Two are trivial offenses, the rest are “ok” to be added if convicted? But…we need to step back and revisit the clarity of the others as well right?
(E) Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust;
I have seen this statute applied where there was no coercion (in fact, a coercion charge was on the case, but dropped), and no violence.. either change the wording, or move it off the "SVP" list.... I'm in no way condoning the behavior.. but it was NOT violent in any way.. and predatory is reaching in this case (I know the victim, the victim's family, as well as the offender & his family)- but he was found guilty.. he should have been charged with "Unlawful sexual contact", but that's a class 1 misdemeanor... not a felony- felony convictions look much better on the PA/DA's resume. IMO, the jury felt compelled to hand down a guilty verdict so he wouldn't "walk"- but the charge should have fit the crime..
I cannot speak to this and you know that, nobody can, like you, unless privy to the facts and brevity of such case. Are you choosing to share this to substantiate that registry’s are a failure or the system is a failure? I’m missing the connection to having a registry because in your words; “should have been charged with "Unlawful sexual contact",” and strangely enough, guess where that designation lands you?
Please show me where anyone stated that it was of "of no value".. (you're going to extremes again) somebody (BigBear, I think) expressed distress over finding a high # of offenders close to him- we (I don't speak for Stuart, but I'm inferring) simply tried to point out that the system is not perfect.. I certainly never said it was "of no value", but suggested it be taken in full knowledge of it's flaws... would you prefer to HIDE the flaws of the system? (full disclosure, right?) also, nobody should fly off the handle, or decide that those on the list deserve further punishment outside the law...
Ah…I’m going to extremes again, if only such not-so-subtle-attempts to discredit had any impact on me (they don’t], you’re welcome to continue that kind of inflammatory rhetoric though, that tactic always makes me laugh and I enjoy the humor. “Show me, “show me.” You never said that verbatim so why the misguided question? Is that another attempt to discredit? It failed. Your position on registries is unclear, you pipe-in with negatives [post #19] and samplings of misses suggesting that the registry or mapping as a whole is invalid as a result, what should the reader interpret? So far you’ve suggested the justice system is imperfect, and it is, stated the statutes should be adjusted, changed, clarified, etc., in some instances I concur but what do those statements have to do with a member of society using the data in an advantageous way? Frankly, whether you acknowledge it or not many of us in society have the ability to decipher the data, understand there are flaws, apply a reasonable level of critical thinking, reach conclusions and use that data to our advantage. Thanks for the attempt to “educate me” though.
Would I prefer to hide flaws? What do you think my response is to such an ignorant question?
My “flying off the handle” comment – I’ll give you that, my failure, it was wrong and inappropriate, but you already knew that too.
overall, unless you've seen the system at work, you're simply eworking on theory that justice is always served perfectly.. have you factored in everything? are you sure? when you've seen the system at work with knowledge of the case, you can see that the PA (Prosecuting Attorney) is a lawyer, and subject to the same human flaws as the "scumbags" that defend criminals... maybe I have been jaded by a specific bad example... I'm not perfect, either..
Bullshit, your presumption and comment suggesting one [me in this case] interprets the system as perfect and that is our [my] baseline for decision-making is utter crap. Once more, a fallible justice system, which is your stake-in-the-ground, has no bearing on whether an offender registry is worthwhile.
I applaud your passion and real-world experience on the topic as whole but your underestimation of others [me] is far from accurate.
I get why you don't want the offender to choose the therapy- but just who do you think should choose the therapy program? The board appointed by the courts should select the treatment based on the type of offense and the phyc evaluation of the offender.
and you seem to think the therapy is considered part of his punishment... I get that you want him to suffer- but is that really the function of therapy? Therapy is part of the punishment, most offenders of any crime dont voluenteer for treatment. The treatment should be based on helping the offender understand and control their problem.
a more valid argument would be that you believe the offender wants to choose a therapy that allows him to hide his issues more easily.. That is my argument and clearly I did not make that point, this is why the offender should not choose the thearpy.
IMHO, the function of therapy in sex offender cases is NOT an attempt to "cure" the offender... it's to keep an ongoing investigation into the person's psychological status.. therapists are supposed to detect when something in the offender's mind is changing, or being hidden, and report it to probation.. the probation officer and therapist discuss each of the offenders under their watch, and determine when they need to take action to prevent/minimize recidivism.
Contradictory. Then what was your point in posting your “prison rape example.” Is that conspiracy and deserving of registration or not if convicted? .
The offender that is specific to this case, is a family member of the representive that put the last minute lanuage into the bill to allow her family member who raped women in prison, using his power of position as a physican, to make it easier for him and not his victims.
All other examples said, lets go with the specifics for this case as this lanuage would not be in the bill if the represenitives family member was not a rapeist himself.
This is about another elected offical using the law, again, to make rules that allow their family to do as they please.
Call "the snake" Ritter and maybe he can leave office doing something right.
68Charger
05-19-2010, 10:25
Contradictory. Then what was your point in posting your “prison rape example.” Is that conspiracy and deserving of registration or not if convicted?
I wasn't saying this action would be legal, morally ethical, or tasteful... but I simply contend that as a crime, it's not on the same level as someone who fondles a patient or a child.
Another 1-percenter sample eh? >snip< what about the “other” 99% that are registered and accurate? Does society solution for your 1 or my 99? Re: Your weak attempt to “poke me in the eye” by asking should someone target this mentally retarded individual for justice?” How do you think a rational person who lives in the real “colorful and gray zone” everyday would respond to that example and question? I’ll answer, very succinctly, “no.”
You seem to be fond of statistics that you've created from thin air... (1%, 99%) I do not know of any studies or actual statistics that characterize the "quality" of sex offender cases.. it wouldn't serve the purpose of the justice system to point out it's flaws, and there are not many groups willing to stick their neck out for "sex offenders" no matter how trivial their crimes. it's a political black hole.. And it was a rhetorical question- I was not attempting to poke anybody..
Ah..yes…this worn-out obligatory classic failure of justice saga suggesting this too invalidates a registration database, eh? I like the National Inquirer flair you’ve chosen, “underage and…She was literally asking for it?” Your fictional [and I do accept these failure cases as fact] adult is fucked either way if wrongly convicted so I’ll ask again here, what does this have to do with the “other 99%” that are accurately registered?
More thin-air statistics.. and I specifically stated that it is NOT my intent to "invalidate the registration database"
I don't know what you think what I'm trying to accomplish here, since you seem to be ignoring some of my statements to explain it...
when somebody uses the "sex offender" label, many will automatically "assume" the roving pervert in the van, luring children with candy... it's human nature- and it's used to invoke an emotional response that can be exploited to trample the rights of innocent people.
With or without a sex-offender registry nothing you posted above changes, nothing. The system has been exploited, twisted, used negatively, wrongly, and viciously for decades, and will be today, tomorrow and far into the future. And human failings [and impacts] will persist. But, that criticism and acknowledgment granted, the justice system doesn’t “just fail at every turn” as you seem to be insinuating either. So what exactly is your point with the above? Are you stating “a federal or state registry is a failure in its entirety and must be abolished because the justice system as a whole has failings?”
again, when did I call to abolish it.. but thank you for acknowledging the system is imperfect, and subject to human error- that is my main point. Can't we work to try and improve it- I never said we should abolish it, but is it pointless to try and improve it, either?
Two are trivial offenses, the rest are “ok” to be added if convicted? But…we need to step back and revisit the clarity of the others as well right?
To repeat my point on this- by putting any cases in the category, it trivializes the label.. reserve the label for dangerous criminals, and I'll respect it fully.. it also ruins the lives of those that get the label, even if all they did was pick the wrong alley to take a leak in... because as soon as anyone sees the label, they assume the worst.
I cannot speak to this and you know that, nobody can, like you, unless privy to the facts and brevity of such case. Are you choosing to share this to substantiate that registry’s are a failure or the system is a failure? I’m missing the connection to having a registry because in your words; “should have been charged with "Unlawful sexual contact",” and strangely enough, guess where that designation lands you?
I'm glad you asked- that designation would have landed him with a "sex offender" status, as opposed to his current "Sexually Violent Predator" status... it may seem like a nit to you- but he is neither violent, nor a predator- the law was not clearly defined as to when it should apply.. so it should be fixed.. but nobody would dare, for fear that they would be perceived as soft on predators...
that tactic always makes me laugh and I enjoy the humor.
better laughter than anger- besides trying to get a point across, I enjoy the debate, your assumptions that I'm attacking or belittling you are not valid.
“Show me, “show me.” You never said that verbatim so why the misguided question? Is that another attempt to discredit?
It was another rhetorical question- not an attempt to discredit, I honestly would not expect anybody here to promote hiding flaws in the system.
Your position on registries is unclear,
I'll try to clarify... the status of "sex offender", if used in a registry, should be used to define criminals that are dangerous, with the intent to prepare people to protect their loved ones.
Ever wonder why there is no "thug registry"? why is this reserved for only sex offenders? Why not create one for drug pushers, violent criminals? They can ruin or end lives as quickly as sex offenders...
Frankly, whether you acknowledge it or not many of us in society have the ability to decipher the data, understand there are flaws, apply a reasonable level of critical thinking, reach conclusions and use that data to our advantage. Thanks for the attempt to “educate me” though.
You can only decipher/process data that you're aware of, and critical thinking is only based on the data at hand..
I have been exposed (no pun intended) to cases that I think knowledge of will only enhance the critical thinking process.
your presumption and comment suggesting one [me in this case] interprets the system as perfect and that is our [my] baseline for decision-making is utter crap. Once more, a fallible justice system, which is your stake-in-the-ground, has no bearing on whether an offender registry is worthwhile.
I applaud your passion and real-world experience on the topic as whole but your underestimation of others [me] is far from accurate.
Refer back to my last paragraph- even the best critical thinker can be fooled by omission of facts... and to reiterate, I have never stated that the registry is invalid, just that if you go with your gut instinct of what you think it is, you'd likely be overreacting...
in the previous case I brought up, where I knew both families- the father of the victim confronted the offender, and before the police arrived, attempted to strangle him (offender was not fighting back, he was remorseful at that point)... I was once asked by someone "what would you have done if it was your daughter?" with what I knew at the time, I thought about it, and responded "you'd never find the body".. so I speak of the "gut instinct" from some level of experience
...
Be back with ya', I need to go knock-down some real work this afternoon.
68Charger
05-19-2010, 11:03
Sorry for my derailing of your thread, Jim... not my intent..
More reading on this subject:
http://thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=8511
the comments are also food for thought.. having the offender choose their therapy directly is not the answer, but through what I've seen someone within the system go through, I can attest that the current system is abused, and needs some checks and balances put in place.
Lets focus a little on the person that is a family member of the person that is pushing this bill, Julian "Uncle Budd" Newman http://www.khow.com/pages/boyles.html
He is not a one time offender of a exposure incident, he has used his authority as an physican to rape women.
Pass a bill to get streaking and all other non-sexual offenses out of the legislation but dont make it easier for guys like this and all the other serious offends to make it easier on them.
Sorry for my derailing of your thread, Jim... not my intent..
More reading on this subject:
http://thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=8511
the comments are also food for thought.. having the offender choose their therapy directly is not the answer, but through what I've seen someone within the system go through, I can attest that the current system is abused, and needs some checks and balances put in place.
No problem, I just want to get this bill stoped, I agree that the entire law needs changed and that is a measure I would support if the lauange would not make it easier for the real offenders and it would not classify all the non-offenders as crimals that need to be on a registery.
My friends son did a little streaking at the school football game and they were talking sex offender registry for that, lucky he did not expose his genitals, something was covering them, and that is what appeard to save him from that.
No Stuart, I’m not but your cavalier responses suggesting to ignore registry data entirely because they may contain “lesser offenses” in your view is bullshit.
In the prior listed statutes where there are "no crimes" and only circumstances?
Guy makes coffee naked in his house.
Guy takes a leak in an alley.
Two mentally retarded kids compare penis size.
Where/who exactly is the victim in any of these cases?
Guy makes coffee naked in his house.
Guy takes a leak in an alley.
Two mentally retarded kids compare penis size.
Where/who exactly is the victim in any of these cases?
Tax payers? (gettin' raped)... Sorry, had to...[Beer]
Guy makes coffee naked in his house.
Guy takes a leak in an alley.
Two mentally retarded kids compare penis size.
Where/who exactly is the victim in any of these cases?
If the coffee guy has a school bus stop in front of his house and leaves his front curtain open so he can expose himself, the kids are the victims.
your general example i agree is not a sex crime. Current law needs to be written over.
Apology for the delay, real-life called…
[quote]I wasn't saying this action would be legal, morally ethical, or tasteful... but I simply contend that as a crime, it's not on the same level as someone who fondles a patient or a child.
I get the distinction you are drawing very clearly but I have hard time separating the fact that conspiracy to prison rape (or my over-the-top rebuttal example previously used) is a more or lesser crime than your two examples above. Again, I understand but I will not agree that one has more impact than the other in these examples we chose to use. I will state that I would not draw the same severity parallel between comparisons of conspiracy to commit sexual assault vs exposure to randomly pick another set of examples. My direct stance in the comparisons FWIW, I would place both conspiracy to commit forcible rape and one who was convicted of “fondling” in the registry. Make any sense?
You seem to be fond of statistics that you've created from thin air... (1%, 99%) I do not know of any studies or actual statistics that characterize the "quality" of sex offender cases.. it wouldn't serve the purpose of the justice system to point out it's flaws, and there are not many groups willing to stick their neck out for "sex offenders" no matter how trivial their crimes. it's a political black hole.. And it was a rhetorical question- I was not attempting to poke anybody..
I am fond of statistics, and numbers, and crisp edges, and black-n-white as you pointed out prior. Further, I’ll be even more critical than you were; I pulled them not from thin air but directly out of my ass-end, intentionally selecting the “extremes” (1% & 99%) at opposite ends of the scale in attempt to illustrate the ridiculousness in some post on this thread. Whipping-out one-off examples of failure here and there, legitimate or not, or stating “pissing in the alley” etc. as a justification for painting the entire solution as worthless is invalid. Cherry-picking samples laying at either end of the bell-curve to support a debate and using that tactic to broadly state “the registry data is no good, I won’t use it as result, therefore you should ignore it too…”
Nah…my 1% stands on its own under practical-use here, you know that, you knew it when you read it and you knew that I was not trying to imply or embellish.
More thin-air statistics.. and I specifically stated that it is NOT my intent to "invalidate the registration database"
I don't know what you think what I'm trying to accomplish here, since you seem to be ignoring some of my statements to explain it...
when somebody uses the "sex offender" label, many will automatically "assume" the roving pervert in the van, luring children with candy... it's human nature- and it's used to invoke an emotional response that can be exploited to trample the rights of innocent people.
No, not “more”, just re-use of the same. You’re right, I don’t know what you are trying to accomplish in full but I’m not ignoring your comments (I’m actually affording very real review and consideration and I appreciate the discourse on topics that stir passion). My interpretation so far is that you are suggesting due to inherent flaws in the justice system, subjective severity segmentation that you and others personally disagree with and society’s [at the individual level] inability to parse and effectively use information that the “risk” is greater than the value of a registry. Do I have that right?
again, when did I call to abolish it.. but thank you for acknowledging the system is imperfect, and subject to human error- that is my main point. Can't we work to try and improve it- I never said we should abolish it, but is it pointless to try and improve it, either?
Reasonable resumption on my part, somewhat justified in the context of this thread drift, I’ll retract that literal. Your welcome for the acknowledgement but let me share this 2-bit advice; “don’t presume that other’s [me in this case] are lacking the ability to assess the fallacy’s of our judicial system, a registry’s data integrity, or anything else for that matter, it’s just inaccurate and a disservice to do so.” Of course, once I prove I’m a dumbass (maybe I have already) you are welcome to call me on it. Admittedly, with the decisions made by our society today on a cross-section of topics it’s easy to fall prey to the “everyone’s an idiot or doesn’t get it mentality,” I find myself in that mode unfortunately on occasion but, rest assured many of us can decipher the granularity, purge the chaff and flow mentally with the nuances of a given subject, and that includes the pros and cons of using a registry.
Your two points here; acknowledging an imperfect system (topic for another day – I like that debate too) and improvements with [any] registry; I strongly concur with you, both ripe for tuning.
To repeat my point on this- by putting any cases in the category, it trivializes the label.. reserve the label for dangerous criminals, and I'll respect it fully.. it also ruins the lives of those that get the label, even if all they did was pick the wrong alley to take a leak in... because as soon as anyone sees the label, they assume the worst.
Subjective, purely subjective territory but I understand your stake here. So I have to ask; “what’s dangerous? And who gets to decide?” Unfair questions with no answers that can be anchored and accepted across a 300M+ population. But…here’s my personal concession, I would strip indecent exposure, I’m weak on grounds to defend the inclusion of Engaging in Sexual Conduct in a Penal Institution and I would support a revisit of the Unlawful Sexual Contact statute. Beyond those, you will not convince me that the remaining statutes as implemented should be stricken from the offender registration program.
Stop with the “pissing in an alley and/or streaking 18 year-old references,” in your rebuttals, it’s not working and it plays to exactly what you despise above, an attempt to invoke emotion and trivialize the extreme. You know very well the majority of convicted and/or registered offenders have committed real-world offenses, agreed to by your judgment or not with respect to inclusion, and while I’ll not burn time to go get the hard facts today I would be very curious to have someone substantiate exactly how many registrants are registered for “pissing in the alley.” I’ll hazard a guess that my 1% is very large number in comparison.
As an aside, you are dead-on re: the assessment of assumption, I too, “go mentally negative” right away but…that does not mean I presume the worst, what it does is trigger my interest in learning the specifics if I believe it has an impact for me personally or professionally.
I'm glad you asked- that designation would have landed him with a "sex offender" status, as opposed to his current "Sexually Violent Predator" status... it may seem like a nit to you- but he is neither violent, nor a predator- the law was not clearly defined as to when it should apply.. so it should be fixed.. but nobody would dare, for fear that they would be perceived as soft on predators...
I’m going to let this piece lie after this, your real-life example and understandable bias as I’m unable to speak to the granularity. I will tell you this FWIW from an outsider, I chose to use the term [your] “bias” intentionally because whether you recognize it or not, this has colored your judgment on the subject of a registry as whole, it is skewing your view, and it comes across very clearly in your commentary, your posts are steeped with it. That’s not a criticism of you as an individual, just sharing and suggesting that you occasionally “lift the veil” of that singular experience to prevent becoming to jaded on the whole. With more of my shitty advice just shared I have to say, I would do the exact same thing I’m sure if I were that close and I’d have a hard time recognizing and correcting that “skew” personally.
And the distinction of a VSP vs lesser offenders is not deemed a nit on my end, I get it.
better laughter than anger- besides trying to get a point across, I enjoy the debate, your assumptions that I'm attacking or belittling you are not valid.
Agreed, me too, I really do appreciate the dialogue as mentioned earlier, it’s how the good fight gets done! Maybe I’m just on-the-rag and overly sensitive this week but…this topic does get to me because there is value in the registry, room to improve greatly to your point byt there is value. Suggesting that its worthless is bullshit and that is the vibe I picked-up, maybe incorrectly it seems.
It was another rhetorical question- not an attempt to discredit, I honestly would not expect anybody here to promote hiding flaws in the system.
Closed.
I'll try to clarify... the status of "sex offender", if used in a registry, should be used to define criminals that are dangerous, with the intent to prepare people to protect their loved ones.
Ever wonder why there is no "thug registry"? why is this reserved for only sex offenders? Why not create one for drug pushers, violent criminals? They can ruin or end lives as quickly as sex offenders...
I have to ask again then, the unanswerable questions, “Who decides what is dangerous?” Leads us back to the “improvement opp” I presume?
“Thugs or violent or…? Huh? They do exist, and I’ve used them selectively. Example, I was a resident of WI for many years, I leveraged the [public records] Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) when I deemed necessary for various purposes to review case and conviction data on individuals. The fact that public records DBs are not “advertised and emotional” like the sex offender registry might lead you say this but…not factual, the records are there and usable.
I have been exposed (no pun intended)…
Are you registered? J
Good stuff Charger…
68Charger
05-20-2010, 11:47
I get the distinction you are drawing very clearly but I have hard time separating the fact that conspiracy to prison rape (or my over-the-top rebuttal example previously used) is a more or lesser crime than your two examples above. Again, I understand but I will not agree that one has more impact than the other in these examples we chose to use. I will state that I would not draw the same severity parallel between comparisons of conspiracy to commit sexual assault vs exposure to randomly pick another set of examples. My direct stance in the comparisons FWIW, I would place both conspiracy to commit forcible rape and one who was convicted of “fondling” in the registry. Make any sense?
I fully get what you're saying here- what I was really going for (and is probably your reason for believing that I "have a hard time separating") is that conspiracy, while easy to define in letter, in practice can be construed under may situations... actually having a dialog back and forth to conspire a rape I agree would fully be a registered offense.. but at what point does it become conspiracy? if someone who is related to a victim posts in a blog "I hope he gets a taste of his own medicine while in prison", and an inmate acts upon that (without asking the poster), and sends a letter back to the poster telling him "done, you're welcome" a case could be made, but did he really conspire to commit the crime? (I know you're going to call this a 1% example, just explaining where I was coming from originally)
I am fond of statistics, and numbers, and crisp edges, and black-n-white as you pointed out prior. Further, I’ll be even more critical than you were; I pulled them not from thin air but directly out of my ass-end, intentionally selecting the “extremes” (1% & 99%) at opposite ends of the scale in attempt to illustrate the ridiculousness in some post on this thread. Whipping-out one-off examples of failure here and there, legitimate or not, or stating “pissing in the alley” etc. as a justification for painting the entire solution as worthless is invalid. Cherry-picking samples laying at either end of the bell-curve to support a debate and using that tactic to broadly state “the registry data is no good, I won’t use it as result, therefore you should ignore it too…”
"there are lies, damned lies, and statistics" -Mark Twain
There are literally books written on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
That being stated, I'll concede to your point about "cherry picking" samples, but only as long as you stop inferring that I think the registry is invalid,worthless, or the like...
No, not “more”, just re-use of the same. You’re right, I don’t know what you are trying to accomplish in full but I’m not ignoring your comments (I’m actually affording very real review and consideration and I appreciate the discourse on topics that stir passion). My interpretation so far is that you are suggesting due to inherent flaws in the justice system, subjective severity segmentation that you and others personally disagree with and society’s [at the individual level] inability to parse and effectively use information that the “risk” is greater than the value of a registry. Do I have that right?
risk of what? and what is the real value, what does that average person DO with this data? Are you less inclined to trust people, now that you see there are 71 registered offenders within 5 miles? Do you ask your children to avoid the streets that have offenders on them? Do you tell them why? I'm really curious about this, because when I take a hard look at it, I don't change anything based upon the data in the registry, my kids are probably over-sheltered already. The only scenario is if someone did approach a child, I could look and see if they're on the registry- and if they are, a report to authorities would be in order. That scenario sounds like a .01% example to me (maybe because of the rural setting I live in).
Reasonable resumption on my part, somewhat justified in the context of this thread drift, I’ll retract that literal. Your welcome for the acknowledgement but let me share this 2-bit advice; “don’t presume that other’s [me in this case] are lacking the ability to assess the fallacy’s of our judicial system, a registry’s data integrity, or anything else for that matter, it’s just inaccurate and a disservice to do so.” >snip< it’s easy to fall prey to the “everyone’s an idiot or doesn’t get it mentality,” I find myself in that mode unfortunately on occasion but, rest assured many of us can decipher the granularity, purge the chaff and flow mentally with the nuances of a given subject, and that includes the pros and cons of using a registry.
While admittedly an odd place to quote from, there is some truth in it:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."
Agent K, Men in Black
The point being that while 1 person can process it, a group getting together may have a "lynch mob" mentality, and may gravitate towards a lowest common denominator. I also admit to have adopted the "people are stupid" mentality.. There were enough of them to get Obama in office... (ok, maybe you didn't have to be an idiot, just fooled)
Subjective, purely subjective territory but I understand your stake here. So I have to ask; “what’s dangerous? And who gets to decide?” Unfair questions with no answers that can be anchored and accepted across a 300M+ population.
Some have already decided "what's dangerous enough"- so we have a registry..but apparently the only type of crime that evokes enough emotion to allow it is sex offenders..
this has colored your judgment on the subject of a registry as whole, it is skewing your view, and it comes across very clearly in your commentary, your posts are steeped with it. That’s not a criticism of you as an individual, just sharing and suggesting that you occasionally “lift the veil” of that singular experience to prevent becoming to jaded on the whole. With more of my shitty advice just shared I have to say, I would do the exact same thing I’m sure if I were that close and I’d have a hard time recognizing and correcting that “skew” personally.
I'm sure you're right, that it has at least "colored" my judgment, and perhaps I'm a bit jaded- that can happen when you see those that are on the side of justice using dirty, dishonest tactics... I don't know if they believe "the ends justify the means", or if they're just trying to further their career by getting convictions of higher crimes. Overall, it leads to distrust in the system when abuses by those in power are observed. The average person observing that trial would think everything was above board, but the actions of the Prosecuting Attorney literally made my stomach turn.
I have very little interaction with the law, in the past 12 years I have been "sworn in" to court for only 2 purposes- once was an adoption, the other was this trial... so my perception is based on 50% of the time, the system was dishonest... I have to work at believing in the system with that kind of experience. It also means that just because someone is within the justice system, I don't automatically trust them- they have to earn it.
[68Charger]
”…but at what point does it become conspiracy? if someone who is related to a victim posts in a blog "I hope he gets a taste of his own medicine while in prison", and an inmate acts upon that (without asking the poster), and sends a letter back to the poster telling him "done, you're welcome" a case could be made, but did he really conspire to commit the crime? (I know you're going to call this a 1% example, just explaining where I was coming from originally)
Common-sense and good minds have to prevail when pursuing conspiracy in my view, sex offenses or otherwise, and I’m not qualified to address the question (my escape hatch answer) from a pure legal perspective, I’d become a “Google-n-paste flunky” and that’s not something I’m willing to do. I have to put some faith and support in the [previously acknowledged fallible] justice system, the professionals accountable to administer such and as a US/CO based constituent hold that structure accountable to ensure conspiracy charges are applied with integrity. But…my answer to the above, no way, that would not pass this non-legal boy’s sniff test.
” That being stated, I'll concede to your point about "cherry picking" samples, but only as long as you stop inferring that I think the registry is invalid,worthless, or the like...
Agreed and closed. As an aside, analytics, statistics, associated references and the ‘good and bad,’ yup…I live in that mode often.
risk of what? and what is the real value, what does that average person DO with this data? Are you less inclined to trust people, now that you see there are 71 registered offenders within 5 miles? Do you ask your children to avoid the streets that have offenders on them? Do you tell them why? I'm really curious about this, because when I take a hard look at it, I don't change anything based upon the data in the registry, my kids are probably over-sheltered already. The only scenario is if someone did approach a child, I could look and see if they're on the registry- and if they are, a report to authorities would be in order. That scenario sounds like a .01% example to me (maybe because of the rural setting I live in).
Risk of misuse or the risks of applying the proverbial Scarlet Letter theory to people that are listed under less-than-ideal parameters, etc.
The value for me, coupled with other public records searches (I cannot speak the average Joe, I’m hoping they do something similar) is;
1. Proximity awareness of convicted offenders and drill-down if I elect to do so.
2. Q1 - Q2 09’ decided to return to CO and buy a new home. I used the data pre and post move in my decision processes, not excessively but as a feed [input] to quality of life factors, sale/re-sale value consideration, etc.
3. Further, post move, I selected names that met a given criteria (e.g. within X miles, on X road or street) and I then determined if drill-down for details was warranted and it was, specifically on two names that were “closer geographically” than I was comfortable with and listed as “assaults,” so…I went over and shot em’ [I’m kidding…I’m kidding…]. I know where they are, I know what they look like, my lady knows the same, knows their history and she would be very conscious if either was found strolling around in my very remote area. Not that we live in any fear of that, or much of anything else but…we’re aware. What I intended to do, and still need/will do at some point is solicit more details via fee-based records services as I my on-line pursuit of details and free DBs turned-up nothing (and I looked hard - an important point, I used the data). By choice, I have no children so I can’t respond in that light.
4. Another example FWIW, used the data in Wisconsin to gather information on offender counts and locations when working with a colleague to determine lease/buy locations for a professional practice (dentist). The data “meant something” in the due diligence process. More on that if you ever care to hear it.
This thread is hurting my eyes.
[68Charger]
Risk of misuse or the risks of applying the proverbial Scarlet Letter theory to people that are listed under less-than-ideal parameters, etc.
The value for me, coupled with other public records searches (I cannot speak the average Joe, I’m hoping they do something similar) is;
1. Proximity awareness of convicted offenders and drill-down if I elect to do so.
2. Q1 - Q2 09’ decided to return to CO and buy a new home. I used the data pre and post move in my decision processes, not excessively but as a feed [input] to quality of life factors, sale/re-sale value consideration, etc.
3. Further, post move, I selected names that met a given criteria (e.g. within X miles, on X road or street) and I then determined if drill-down for details was warranted and it was, specifically on two names that were “closer geographically” than I was comfortable with and listed as “assaults,” so…I went over and shot em’ [I’m kidding…I’m kidding…]. I know where they are, I know what they look like, my lady knows the same, knows their history and she would be very conscious if either was found strolling around in my very remote area. Not that we live in any fear of that, or much of anything else but…we’re aware. What I intended to do, and still need/will do at some point is solicit more details via fee-based records services as I my on-line pursuit of details and free DBs turned-up nothing (and I looked hard - an important point, I used the data). By choice, I have no children so I can’t respond in that light.
4. Another example FWIW, used the data in Wisconsin to gather information on offender counts and locations when working with a colleague to determine lease/buy locations for a professional practice (dentist). The data “meant something” in the due diligence process. More on that if you ever care to hear it.
This thread is hurting my eyes.
Realist use of the list. Good work.
Realist use of the list. Good work.
You should see what I do with the no-fly list.
68Charger
05-20-2010, 15:12
Judicious use of resources, I must admit..
I didn't think of real estate uses- I don't think the registry existed last time I bought a home... and because of the remoteness of where I live (and the proximity to numerous prisons), I'm suspicious of anyone I can't identify.. (and some I can identify[LOL])
and just something to keep in mind, (this is from: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/so_pdfs/schoolresourceguideregistration.pdf )
"The sex offender registry includes only those persons who have been required by law to register and who are in compliance with the sex offender registrations laws. Persons should not rely solely on the sex offender registry as a safeguard against perpetrators of sexual assault in their communities. Since most sexual assault crimes are not reported, most sex offenders are not convicted of their crimes and therefore will not be listed on the sex offender registry. The crime for which a person is convicted may not accurately reflect the level of risk."
so the Sex Offender Management Board states the registry has a limited value... [Poke]
I know, it's a disclaimer meant to absolve them of responsibility.. er, I mean, protect them from lawsuits..
I wanted to bring it up, as a point that one should avoid "tunnel vision" and overlook a real threat, because they were so focused on a registry... same point I was trying to make with the other dangerous criminals that lack a registry for the crimes they committed.
[Poke]
"See...SEE...I knew it...I told you you were pokin' me in the eye...and I'm 93.7% certain this is fact!" heh heh Thanks for the banter Charger, I really do appreciate and respect it (and I "get it").
Now back to Jim's core topic...after the real-world gets out of my way again. SAFriday has an interesting and thought-provoking post up-stream, may have to kick that around too!
Good news the bill was killed today so no changes were made.
Hopefully when they take this up next session they can work on the whole thing and clean up some of the problems with the current one, at least they did not make it worse.
when they take this up next session they can work on the whole thing and clean up some of the problems with the current one.
Yeah, that's usually how government works.
[ROFL1]
Yeah, that's usually how government works.
[ROFL1]
We can only hope, at least they did not make the current one worse then it already is and that was the goal.
claimbuster
05-22-2010, 11:26
Well at least Ritter didn't sign it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.