Glory's Sun

I'm assuming that by saying that sex offenders should never get out of jail, you mean the actual predators, not the 18 year old who slept with a girlfriend. Correct??

This is a pretty tricky situation, and while I feel that if you rape a child, you need serious help, I'm not so quick to jump on a bandwagon of life in prison. There has to be some validity to the rehabilitation process. If a person, let's say, goes to the club and some girl is there who looks 18 (we all see 'em every day) but in actuallity is only 15, goes home with the guy and say, only has oral sex. Does that person really deserve to be on the sex offender list? Regardless of the man's age (while he should have asked for I.D. first naturally) did he committ the crime or did he just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with a girl who's hormones were raging?

These type of scenarios are why the Sex Offender Registries/laws are so muddled. That person if found guilty or via plea bargin, would then be on the same list as the boogey man who seeks out and coerces children and sodomizes them. This makes no sense. A person can plead or be found guilty (and yes there are plenty of people who plead guilty to things even if they didn't do it in fear of wrongfull conviction) of indecent liberties and share the same fate, if not worse, than the boogey man.

How do we change this? A tierd system is a good start but obviously has some flaws. If the person had no predatory sense in the matter and the state still thinks the person is guilty of a sex crime then tier one it is.. but let's only put him on the registry for let's say.. 3 years. Not 10 or life (in some states).

If a person uses force, coercion, or the victim is indeed a child, then it's tier2.
Put the person on the list, throw them in prison for 25 to life (depending on the circumstance) and if they make it out, notify neighborhoods, schools, daycares etc.

No need for a tier 3.

No matter what system comes or goes, shakran is right in saying that you have to watch your kids with anyone. There was a point in time when even the most vile sex offender wasn't on a list.

The_Jazz

The lists exist. That's an indisputable fact. Whether or not they should exist is a semantic arguement at this point. Whether or not sex crimes should result in life imprisonment is a semantic arguement as well since we all know that no state is ready to move in that direction at this point.

The question, as I see it, is what to do if a sex offender moves onto your block or in front of your bus stop. Obviously, the first step is to rachet up your vigilence when it comes to your kids and yourself (whether your male, female or something in between), especially when there is the greatest chance of coming into contact with that individual. Second, educate yourself on what the person did, not only the offense they were convicted of but the actual circumstances of the crime. Obviously, an 18-year old convicted of consensual sex with a 15-year old as a part of a long-term relationship is less of an immediate threat than someone who likes to rape old ladies (especially if you happen to be an old lady). Third, discuss what extra security precautions need to be taken with your family and neighbors.

I'm sure someone will flame me for these statements, since that seems to be the trend in this thread. So, flame away at rational thought.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

shakran

Quite. Some states have the right idea, btw, regarding the 18 year old who sleeps with his girlfriend. It's only statutory rape if there's X number of years (usually 3 or 4) of age difference between them.

In other words, the 18 year old can sleep with the 17 year old girlfriend, but the 25 year old cannot.

I have no doubt that some, given proper therapy, can rehabilitate to the point that they will never re-offend. However, it's impossible to tell who those people will be, and I am unwilling to risk the safety of innocent potential victims by giving a rapist the chance.

Depends. Did she pass herself off as being of-age? Frankly if I were the type to sleep with a girl on the first date (never was), I would check ID.

Several venues to this. Of course while you and I suggest he should check ID's, she could have a fake (how else could she have gotten into the club, really) and I dunno about you but unless it's a really crappy job, I probably couldn't tell a fake from a real ID.

That said, the fact that the girl is at the club having entered under a fake ID is evidence that she is willing to lie about her age to get what she wants. And it's circumstantial evidence that her ID is probably pretty convincing because bouncers are generally pretty good at seeing through those.

In that case, I don't believe statutory rape should be applicable, because the man has no reasonable way of knowing that she's under age. Being manipulated by a jackass girl into thinking you're sleeping with an attractive adult should not be a sex crime.

On the other hand, many guys could reduce the chances of this happening significantly if they'd just keep it in their pants until they got to know the girl. After all, if you wait to have sex until you know more about her, it's gonna be pretty hard for her to hide the fact that she's a sophomore in high school living with her parents.

I'd go farther than that. Do exactly what you said for tier 1. Tier 2 never leaves jail. Period. They screwed up, they knew they were screwing up, and I'm not willing to put innocent people at risk in some grand experiment to see if we can stop him from doing it again.

mixedmedia

Actually Florida has already moved in that direction. We now have tough mandatory sentencing laws (25 years to life) for people convicted of certain sex crimes on children under the age of eleven. As well as GPS tracking of these felons once they are out. Personally, I don't think this kind of umbrella legislation is particulary effective. Especially when taking into account that MOST sex offenders plea bargain and can easily avoid the crimes that carry mandatory sentencing. Pieces of legislation like this are essentially salves for the public to make us feel like they are doing something real to remove dangerous people from the streets. Once the attorneys start bargaining though, tough laws suddenly become very flexible.

And just in case anyone is wondering about my bias in this situation because of my "personal" experience: for the record, I don't feel like justice was meted out too leniently in our case. The charges were reduced in a plea bargain but the sentence was still very tough.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Glory's Sun

The other question and perhaps one of the most important, is at what age does a male or female really come into the correct sexual thought?? Some would argue that a 15 year old is quite capable of handling a sexual situation and therefore statutory rape should be out of the question completely. I don't know enough about psychology to really put an opinon here.

This needs to be a pretty solid fact before states go making different age of consents (which should be universal IMO). Sure it's pretty creepy for a 40 year old to sleep with a 15 year old but if it was consenual, and it's proven that at whatever age, sexual development is there is it really a crime? I guess that's not really up to me.

About the club situation, we all know that people screw on first dates, first five minutes, whatever. It's not going to stop. So the I.D. thing really doesn't come into play as I had orginally thought.

This won't happen.

This is easy. Arm yourself with information and inform your kids to be more careful. They don't have to know the details (unless it's found to be a predator). Let the person live his/her life but just keep a watchful eye out. This should be true of anyone around your kids. Not just the offenders.

mixedmedia

I agree that this issue should be further examined and examined outside of the realm of child molestation. There is SO much of this going on that it muddles our determination of what a child molester is - both in the justice system and in the public eye.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

ngdawg

How ironic that you, in essence, agree with the steps I'd taken....
I've always been vigilant with my kids' safety,ie; when a single older man bought the house next door, they were told in no uncertain terms to stay out of his house, don't speak to him without one of us present. I'd rather be accused of being a little over the top than to be accused of being indifferent.
At the same time, I gradually taught them how to be alone in the house, starting at age 9, for 15 minutes and, with trust and maturity, increasing that.
That being said, no one is 100% safe at any time and no one is trustworthy 100% of the time. Fallacies are just as much a fact of life as the list, which we all agree is not infallible. The 3 tier system isn't precise enough. The subject of the OP was a tier2(moderate risk)...but what else is? It's been said in the past that by the time someone is caught, he has already committed the crime numerous times; yet, if he's caught, plea bargains and gets out in 3 years, is he not the threat he was before getting caught? I'd say he is, but he'd be a tier2 just because....and he'd be a tier2 possibly with that dumb kid who couldn't control himself with a mature-looking 14 year old.
One thing also that I noticed about the registry-the years of the offenses are given, but not the time served, whether he's paroled or on probation, etc. You get aliases, address, tier rating and the crime(s). Now, granted, there are sites that charge money, but since I didn't pay, I have no idea if they delve further.
I agree that the registry should be a part of the sentence, not a lifetime thing. Keep it clean for 7 years or 10 and you're off the hook. Juvenile offenders should not be required at age 30 to still be registered unless they're repeat offenders. And hell, why are repeat offenders even out?
I'm not a firm believer in a piece of paper or some 'requirement' of law being enough, at any rate. I think it's up to parents and individuals to keep their awareness, their wits and their vigilance to make themselves safer, not rely on something that obviously has so many pitfalls.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Glory's Sun

You should be able to go to your states DOC site and do a prisoner lookup which will tell you parole status. You could probably also go to the courthouse closest to you and check the system I told you about earlier and it should have that information.

Also, the registry in NC gives the time sentenced, time served, time released and current address.

Right now NC has the 10 year registry but they've just recently made it to where you cannot get off of the registry unless you petition the Superior Court (in your county of course) for a motion to be removed. You can file this petition as many times as you like. While I don't really like this idea , in theory, it could help keep a better track of those who would most likely re-offend. By going in front of a judge after 10 years, you can look at the track record of the person and of course the Probation/Parole officers as well as Mental Councelors would have to give you a good report for the judge to remove you from the list.

One thing they haven't done is make sex offenders place those words onto their drivers license's yet. I hope they don't. That's just way over the top to me. Wisconsin does this but they have an extremely high number of sex offenders. IIRC, Ohio makes you have a pink license plate if you are a sex offender. I don't see what good this possibly does as it can only increase vigilante justice. The argument is it's easier to tell if a sex offender is where he shouldn't be. Umm wrong, it's not hard to put a different plate on the car or just drive a different car.

ShaniFaye

The GA registry give the information as well

if you go here for NJ

https://www6.state.nj.us/LPS_spoff/geographicsearch.jsp

it seems to give more information on an individual than the site that was originally posted, it also lists the tier level and more of a description of the vicitm (age range and sex) and what the person did

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Glory's Sun

I had seen that site before but forgot to post it. Good lookout Shani.

After perusing some of the profiles listed on that site. To me it looks like NJ hands down too many Tier-2 judgements. There were tier 2's that had used guns and physical force to assault. In NC or FL they would be tier-3 easily.

This shows how flawed the system really is. Now I haven't gone and read all the by-laws of NJ (I browsed the site the other day defining the laws) and some are quite different that here, but alot of them follow the same vein. I think the first step in getting this corrected would be to find out the age that is capable of sexual relations and then making a universal law set for sex crimes. Then we can get a better grasp of what pedophilia is and what the other dangerous fetishes are. Once we can more easily determine these, it would be easier to set people up in a tierd system and sentence easier as well.

ngdawg

That's the site I got the tier level from...only lists victims as, for first offense,
'under 18, 'female' and the second, 'adult', female' and dates of 'dispostion', along with the usual address, aliases, etc. He's listed twice-I reckon because he has two offenses? Wow...there's 5 mug shots...is that required every time he registers? There's no information posted about parole/probation stats that I can see(sorry, but I simply will not actually post the page) so, if there's more, I don't see how to access it.
Interestingly, the Klasskids site directs one to the state police site which then directs to this one...I have a sneaking suspicion that, had I paid that $35 for 'detailed information', I'd have gotten just this.
I agree. NJ is a bit inconsistent, but I'd assume most states are. It goes back to what I'd said earlier: If he's a tier2 and there's only 3 categories, where is the line drawn? His offenses are 'wreckless endangerment of a child'(assault of a juvenile acquaintance) and 'aggravated sexual contact(exposure to two stranger women; I have no idea what that could mean) and he's listed as a 'moderate threat'. Now, while I'd go with a 'moderate threat, tier2' to gauge my own level of safety with my family, why is he?
NJ is having a field day right now with busting people with child pornography on their computers to the point of recently having a massive 'round-up' across the state. Whether some plead out or get convicted, are they all now tier2 registrants? What if some clicked on a porn site not realizing there were kids used? Now that history teacher or coach is a sexual predator just one 'tier' away from being a threat to society.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

ShaniFaye

my guess by looking at some of the people on that site is the person was between 13-18, as I saw some that had "under 13" as the age of the person

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

mixedmedia

...or, that would be 13-16 since the age of consent in NJ is 16.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

ShaniFaye

I wouldnt see how that would have bearing on an assualt, otherwise it would say Under 16, not under 18

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

ngdawg

Or perhaps, once the crime is committed, anything under 18 is considered a child? If there's consent, it's not a crime, but if there's no consent, anyone under 18 is then listed as a minor? Too many grey areas....

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Glory's Sun

This is where the SBI comes into play. The SBI can track the use of the site as well as how often you viewed, how long you stayed on each site and if you saved any pictures or shared them.

When I was reading NJ's sex crime laws alot of the endangerment to children laws were about child porn. Be it possessing or making.

To me, if you are convicted of forcible sexual assault then it's tier 3. You used a weapon or your power to get a piece of ass. That's what prisoners do.. do it there.

I saw a guy who had sexually assaulted a 3 year old child of a girlfriend. These are the people who need to be seriously evaluated. We know that while the AOC is 16, and since I argue that perhaps it should be much lower, that a 3 year old has no way of knowing what's going on. That's pedophilia and while it may not have been predatory, it's still an infant and that needs to be treated as pedophilia. When we have people who 'sexually assaulted' an under 18 victim and place them on this same registry as actual pedophiles it creates the problem we have now. People hear sex offender and automatically assume pedophile. There has to be distinctions.

I was watching Nancy Grace for about 5 minutes last night (sorry I hate her and think she does more harm than good with her show) and some boy was abducted. Before she even said anything about the parents could have done it or random people, she started flashing names of sex offenders in the county and saying that it was probably a sex offender. Come on, seriously. Don't start a witch hunt until we have some facts. The police will automatically check the status of the registered offenders when an abduction occurs. We don't need everyone to start harassing someone who was at a 3rd shift job just because he's on a silly list.

God I hate her.

ngdawg

I agree about Nancy Grace. She's what's wrong with this system-a personal crusader/sole witchhunter with a mic and camera crew. Her bio is interesting (I believe it includes a fiance being murdered), but she uses her issues as her catalyst for thinking she's in the right. She could take some class lessons from John Walsh, who certainly has more of an axe to grind.
Ever watch those Dateline shows on CNBC that entraps guys who think they're going to have a 'fun time' with a teenager they stalked on the net?
After the guy(s) is confronted and tries to make haste out of there, he's surrounded by cops, guns drawn. There's been complaints from some of the neighborhoods used in these stings that their local police departments are being over-utilized in them and from what I've seen on these shows, it's true.
Do we really need 6 cops with guns out to take down one man?
I think that this, and Nancy (un)Grace feed into basic fears of parents, perhaps thinking that they somehow are SO much smarter than we are in safeguarding our kids. Granted, there are stupid parents, stupid kids, etc., but this fearmongering witchhunting serves little or no purpose. I got my information, I told the kids to be a bit more wary (not that they weren't already) and nothing in our lives has changed. I just think there's better ways of going about it and Nancy Grace ain't it.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

mixedmedia

Oopsy. No, it wouldn't. But I thought we were referring to the registries as a whole. Not just those accused of forcible offenses.

This is not necessarily a non-predatory situation. Pedophiles will commonly enter into relationships with women in order to get to their children. Sounds crazy but it's true. And, I'm not going overboard because I happen to have read Lolita, lol. Which is actually a pretty apt piece of fiction in examining the mindset we are talking about.



I'm glad to see you say that, because I can't stand her, either.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Glory's Sun

Correct. Most pedophiles groom their victims. Some do what they say. But if they only get with a woman or man to get to their children.. isn't that still predatory?? I mean they are using their position to then get to the child.

Predator doesn't = kidnap random kid and assault

edit: this is why we see most pedophiles or offenders often offend with someone they know or are close to.

mixedmedia

Oh no. I agree that it is predatory. Legally "predatory" status is not equated with forcible assault, but rather a tendency to re-offend in a deliberate way. We are in agreement on this.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Glory's Sun

going back to this, I completely agree. All these stories about myspace and chat rooms.. seriously, if you monitor what your kids are doing then you have a better chance. I don't want to take this off topic anymore by going on a tirade about nancy fuckface..

I wish I could find some stats on the number of kids that were solicited online how many were monitored by parents and how many weren't.

Deltona Couple

Here in Florida, they do have a mundane system to help try to separate the sick from the "oops" types of people. However, the general public never looks at it that way. If yo uare on a list, most people tend to jump the guy and assume you are a sick person who preys on little kids.

The BASICS, and this is in general, not the exact rules, is that if yo uare charged with a sexually based crime, meaning that the origination was simple,i.e. the 19 year old on a date with his 16 year old gf, or the underage with the fake ID in the bar, the older guy having concentual sex with the 14 year old...you get the idea, and this has been your ONLY offense to record, then you are placed on the "sex offenders" list. this ONLY means that the crime you were charged with had SOME basis of sexual action, but not neccesarily violent.

Now the NEXT list, if you were charged wit ha VIOLENT crime, meaning that force was used, OR it was a minor under the age of 13, or you have MULTIPLE charges of the same violent/non-violent crime, yoo are then placed on the "Sexual PREDATOR" list.
These are the worst of the worst. The really SICK ones. the ones where we should hide them in the DEEPEST cave and let mommy and daddy spend some time with them...

It's by FAR a perfect system, but it does allow those who know the difference between the two to make a much quicker assessment of the POTENTIAL risk involved.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

ngdawg

^^^ Therein lies the problem. Just by my saying in the OP that there was a registered offender and that, by law, the authorities were never notified, thus putting our kids in front of his house every morning, regardless of whether he was a 'predator' or not, and that I bothered to take matters into my own hands, I myself was jumped on. If people of a lesser mindset got hold of the info, lord knows what would have occured. Otherwise seemingly intelligent people took it upon themselves to label me a predator predator of sorts...
People are too quick to think the absolute worse-those two words together, 'sex offender', puts a spin on things not otherwise given a second thought. In this case, put the word 'aggravated' in front of it and the concern, whether correctly placed or not, is elevated. I won't deny this didn't happen in this instance, but I at least didn't go off into a frenzy, making demands, etc. The guy, I assume, is still in his house, no one's bothered him or us and life goes on. But there are people who would cross a line out of anger or ignorance or ill-placed bias. The list as it is depends on rational-thinking and maybe a bit of complacency and more often than not, that's not the case. When you have people like Nancy Grace taking it upon herself on national television to flash photos of otherwise innocent people, there's a problem with the system. She is using Megan's Law and the registry for her own crusade. That's not fair to the public, nor is it fair to those that may never ever be a threat; and unless they are listed as habitual offenders, they first off, shouldn't even be out and about and second, it's just not her job to harrass them, all the while standing behind this law. I daresay, she is one who doesn't know the difference and doesn't care to.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.