Sex predators will get to pick the therpy they choose

[cebeu]

”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.

[Irving]

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]

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..

[Irving]

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]

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]

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.

[Irving]

EDIT: Never mind, getting off topic and I don't know anything about the "no-fly" list to make further comments on it anyway.

[cebeu]

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]

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.

[jim02]

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.