Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Originally Posted by Stuart
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.
[quote=68Charger]
Apology for the delay, real-life called…
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"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?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.
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.I have to ask again then, the unanswerable questions, “Who decides what is dangerous?” Leads us back to the “improvement opp” I presume?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...
“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…
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)
"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...
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).
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)
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..
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.
Realist use of the list. Good work.
"There are no finger prints under water."
You should see what I do with the no-fly list.
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)
and just something to keep in mind, (this is from: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_of...gistration.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...
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.
"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.
Yeah, that's usually how government works.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
