Sex-offender law harms those it is supposed to protect
The world can be an ugly place.
Phillip Garrido kidnapped 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard in 1991 as she walked to her bus stop. For the next 18 years, Garrido imprisoned Jaycee and used her as his personal sex slave.
In 1977, 44-year-old filmmaker Roman Polanski plied a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs and then forced himself upon her. After his recent arrest in Switzerland, he may finally have to answer for that crime.
In a horrible case here in Georgia, convicted child molester George Edenfield, his mother and his father face charges of kidnapping and molesting 6-year-old Christopher Barrios, then strangling him with bare hands.
And in another Georgia case, Wendy Whitaker, a 17-year-old high school student, was arrested and pleaded guilty to sodomy for performing consensual oral sex on a 15-year-old male classmate. She was put on probation.
Now, one of these cases is not like the others. While crimes of sexual violence and abuse of children are among the most vile that humans commit, a sexual act between two consenting teenagers does not logically fall into that same category.
You can see that. I can see that. But in many ways, Georgia law is forbidden to see that. It is written so broadly that it requires Whitaker and others who pose little or no danger to children be subject to the same restrictions regarding residence and jobs as those convicted of violent offenses and molestation.
Under that law, Garrido, Edenfield, Polanski and Whitaker would all be forbidden to live within 1,000 feet of a church, school, swimming pool, day-care center, park, rec center, skating rink or any other place where children might gather, a law that can make it almost impossible to find a legal place to live.
All of them also would be included on the state’s sex-offender registry, their faces and addresses publicly available for neighbors and potential employers.
Garrido, Edenfield, Polanski deserve all that and more. Whitaker does not. And hers is far from an isolated case of injustice.
Roughly 16,000 people are listed on the Georgia sex-offender registry, and according to the Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board, an official body, their criminal records and psychological backgrounds suggest that most are not dangerous.
The board has concluded that 65 percent of those on the registry pose little threat; another 30 percent are potentially threatening and just 5 percent are clearly dangerous. (By law, those deemed most dangerous must wear electronic ankle bracelets for the rest of their lives.)
With 16,000 on the registry, those numbers mean that more than 10,000 Georgians are forced to live under draconian restrictions that are disproportionate to the crime they committed and disproportionate to the risk they pose to others.
It includes people such as Jake Reiner, who as a teenager kidnapped a 17-year-old girl so he could rob her of marijuana she was trying to sell. It was a dumb act, a criminal act. But it was not a sex crime and it did not make Reiner a sexual predator.
But because the case involved false imprisonment of a minor, Reiner is listed as a dangerous sex offender, forced to abide by the same restrictions as a multiple rapist or child molester.
The law is not merely unjust; it endangers those it is supposed to protect. Instead of concentrating on offenders who pose a serious risk, law enforcement is forced to waste time and energy tracking the far less harmless, such as Whitaker and Reiner.
And tragically, the law is indirectly responsible for the brutal death of the Barrios boy. The Edenfield family charged in his murder was forced to leave its previous home because it was too close to a park.
They moved into a trailer park in Brunswick, across the street from Christopher’s grandmother, and a few months later the little boy’s body was found wrapped in plastic.
Our state legislators know all this. Experts have told them the law serves little or no protective function, because a sexual predator intent on finding victims will do so regardless of where he (or occasionally she) is forced to live. The courts have told them that the law is grossly disproportionate and have overturned parts of it. Other parts are still under challenge. Law enforcement has testified that they could protect more children if they could concentrate on actual threats.
It doesn’t matter. The law was passed as political grandstanding, and legislators are reluctant to be seen backtracking from it.
Earlier this year, though, they did pass a new law making it illegal for a person on the sex-offender registry to serve on a school board.
Just in case, you know.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
96 comments Add your comment
Jay
October 2nd, 2009
2:24 pm
FYI, this post does repeat some material from a previous post. It’s the text of today’s print column, posted here to allow discussion among those who choose to do so.
RollerGirl
October 2nd, 2009
2:30 pm
I agree…making consentual sex between people 1 or 2 years difference in age illegal is retarded and this should be rectified to allow the law to look at the case facts not just zero tolerance blanket systems…But for true pedophiles..and its easy to look at any case and tell was this pedophilia or not…they should be hounded by every legal means until they commit suicide which is the only cure for pedophilia.
RollerGirl
October 2nd, 2009
2:32 pm
Crap I agreed with jay bookman and cynthia tucker both, in one week…Unclean! unclean!!!
joe matarotz
October 2nd, 2009
2:34 pm
Garrido, the Edenfields, et al. should be prohibited from living with 1000 feet of planet earth. For the Whitakers of the world, the law should be amended to allow court review of the circumstances. Case closed.
Taxpayer
October 2nd, 2009
2:40 pm
Well, clearly our Georgia Republican ‘leadership’ would not want any of these types of people living anywhere near a Church. God forbid. I am surprised that they allow women that have had abortions to continue to move about so freely though. Perhaps it was merely an oversight.
Mary38
October 2nd, 2009
2:47 pm
Today there are more than 15,500 people listed on the Virginia Sex Offender Registry.
That’s 1 out of every 210 adult males in Virignia.
Approximately 1,200 new people are added every year. This number will NEVER decrease because Virginia continually increases the minimum time required to remain on the Registry, continually re-classifies “Non-Violent” offenders to “Violent” and continually adds new crimes that fall under “Sex Offender” offenses every year.
The most prevalent persons listed on the U.S Registries are those who were found guilty where there was no real victim (Internet stings, viewing porn), those that agreed to a plea agreement to avoid public humiliation and life in prison, or one whose crime was statutory in nature (Romeo and Juliet) but they are listed as rape, carnal knowledge and sodomy on the Virginia Registry for LIFE. Forty-five minutes of viewing (not creating, not distributing and not downloading) child porn results in a possible 140 year prison sentence in Virginia, http://www.rsolvirginia.org/blog_125.html
By all credible studies (see below) and accounts the vast majority of the people listed on the registries today will never re-offend. The National Statistics show the recidivism rates for sexual assaults to be 3.5 to 5.5%.
The Residency Restrictions, GPS Monitoring, stigmatizing and publicly posting Juveniles and first time offenders has NOT, reduced Sex Offender recidivism rates, provided safety, healing or support for victims, reflected the scientific research on sexual victimization, offending and risk or provided successful strategies for prevention.
The American Sex Offender Registries have become a useless list of names that the public can no longer use to decipher who is a true threat and who has simply been swept up in this Legislative Predator Hysteria. Dilution is Not the Solution.
If you were to think of this as a game of chess the Politicians have led the public to believe that because the registry exists they’ve reduced the moves a “Sex Offender” can make down to that of a pawn. The real problem is that this could not be further from the truth, what it’s done is given all persons listed the appearance of being a pawn. Because the Sex Offender Registry has become so vast the Garrido’s of the world give off the same appearance that someone who poses no risk at all. The Garrido’s are different; they are psychos, a true threat to society. The rest, the non-threats, because of the registry laws are unwilling pawns masking those who would do harm. The real predators enjoy what the registry has become; they’ve essentially vanished in its wake. What’s frightening is that the pawns on the other side, the most vulnerable, are the American children.
The American Justice System is far from perfect. Innocent people are prosecuted and persecuted daily because district attorneys aren’t looking for truth or justice; they just want convictions so that they can run for Attorney General, Governor and President of our great nation. A District Attorney can do anything he or she wants to, you may want to watch MSNBC’s documentary “Witch Hunt”, narrated by Sean Penn.
Once, America believed that in order to prevent the persecution of the innocent we would accept that one or two guilty might walk; we’ve gone to the extreme opposite of that, in order to prosecute one guilty person we are willing to destroy one thousand. The United States has become a fearful and paranoid country with a zero tolerance mentality. We punish through fear not through fact. Non threats need to be removed from the registry to better protect society.
This past winter Congress held a hearing inquiring why not one of the 50 States is yet to be compliant with the SORNA the Adam Walsh Act guidelines. An extension was granted until next summer. This is the public front they show, my husband and I have met with numerous Legislative Directors and Lead Counsel Members to Congress and Senate members. In private they admit the general consensus is the Sex Offender Registries have failed and failed miserably. They know the States will NEVER fully comply and have in-fact given up. Some States have gone so far beyond the recommendations they have blatantly endangered the very constituents they claim to protect. Fear DOES work, but it is Immoral and Unjust.
The below list of Studies, Reports and Books that conclude the proliferation of “Sex Offender” Legislation over the past 20 years in America that was meant to memorialize an assaulted, murdered or missing child has largely failed.
The Residency Restrictions, GPS Monitoring, stigmatizing and publicly posting Juveniles and first time offenders has NOT, reduced Sex Offender recidivism rates (5.5%), provided safety, healing or support for victims, reflected the scientific research on sexual victimization, offending and risk or provided successful strategies for prevention. These reports and books also confirm the real recidivism rates for sexual assaults are 3.5-5.5%, NOT the 70, 80, 90 and 100% that State and Federal Politicians and the media continue to claim.
No Easy Answers: Human Rights Watch Study, September 11, 2007
Fact Sheets Examine Impact of Sex Offender Registries: Justice Policy Institute, September 2, 2008
Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders by Jill Levenson, Ph.D. January 2009
Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies: Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking of State Attorneys General of the United States, December 31, 2008
The Adam Walsh Act: Scarlet Letter, by Lara Geer Farley, April 17, 2008
Registering Harm: How Sex Offender Registries Fail Youth and Communities, Justice Policy Institute, November 21, 2008
When Evidence Is Ignored: Residential Restrictions For Sex Offenders, by Richard Tewksbury and Jill Levenson
Failure to Register: An Empirical Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism, by Jill Levenson, Ph.D. April 1, 2009
Youth Sex Offenses Fact and Fiction, Justice Policy Institute, February 2009
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1994 Recidivism Rates for Sex Offenders- 5.3% and for Child Victimizers- 3.3%
The Pursuit of Safety: Sex Offender Policy in the United States, Vera Institute of Justice, September 2008
Residential Proximity to Schools and Daycare Centers: Influence on Sex Offense Recidivism, An Empirical Analysis, by Jill Levenson, Ph.D. December 23, 2008
California Sex Offender Management Board Recommends Rejecting the Adam Walsh Act, 2009
Sexual Predator Laws: A Two-Decade Retrospective, by Eric S. Janus & Robert A. Prentky, December 2008
Brandishing the Mark of Cain: Defects in the Adam Walsh Act, by Joseph L. Lester, December 2008
Perpetual Panic, by Michael O’Hear Marquette University Law School, March 2009
Book, Sex Offender Laws: Failed Polices, New Directions, by Dr. Richard Wright 2009
Book, The Modern Day Leper, by Dick Witherow 2009
The Sex Offender Registries are extremely costly to the Virginia taxpayer and to the families of the registered. It will cost $12 Million for Virginia to comply with SORNA/the Adam Walsh Act, but the state would only lose $400,000 (10% of the Byrne Grant) if they do not comply.
Contrary to popular belief among the Legislators there is indeed hardship related to being listed on the Sex Offender Registry. The lives being destroyed are not just the “Registered”, but their spouse, their children and every family member sharing their name and address. They ALL must endure a lifetime of shame, warranted or not.
The time has come for the all of our state and federal legislators to open their eyes and ears and to take this data seriously.
Impossible laws and restrictions ultimately ensure failure and increase the jobless rate, the dissolution of family life and eventual homelessness. This can only leave the “Registered” destitute with nothing to lose. The only way to ensure a life free from crime is to allow for success and stability.
Taxpayer
October 2nd, 2009
2:54 pm
Are these people allowed to hold public office.
Dusty
October 2nd, 2009
3:01 pm
I find sex offenders very offensive. So we make laws trying to protect our children. Don’t tell me that is bad. Those “poor ” offenders can manage in some way. Children don’t have a chance. If you can’t control your sexual urges for those 14 or 15 and under, don’t come crying to me. I’m for the children.
But I’D RATHER TALK ABOUT RIO…that lovely place planted between lush, forest covered mountains and breath taking beaches
Countless occasions for revelry–Saturday at Ipenema Beach. a festa in Lapa, soccer at Maracana, Samba on the sidewalks of Liblonor, Copacabana or any other corner…..Ahhhhh (I’ve been reading up on Google)
IOC is not dumb! Pack your bags! Dust off your Portugese! And let’s get going!!!
Jackie
October 2nd, 2009
3:03 pm
It appears the law in VA is draconian.
It is no worse than the laws about crack cocaine.
Those laws will have a difficult time being repealed because many politicians have nothing to offer but fear.
Gandalf, the Wise
October 2nd, 2009
3:04 pm
VA is worse than Ga?
N.J.
October 2nd, 2009
3:08 pm
Unfortunately for all of the recent media opinion, analysis, and editorializing about the Polanski case, the actual facts have been extremely distorted. I went back and simply read the news articles from 1978 and the things that occurred in between and there is a lot of publishing between the lines going on. The reason that Polanski was offered a plea of statutory rape was that the psychiatrists who examined Polanski thought Polanski wasn’t capable of it, and those who examined the girl thought she might be embellishing the truth under the coaching of her mother and the prosecution. In any case, a much reduced plea was offered because those who had to prosecute the case didnt see much of a chance of winning it.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:11 pm
Jay is right on in this case.
Let’s differentiate more granularly among the sex offenders and put the real monsters to death.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:12 pm
NJ -
“The reason that Polanski was offered a plea of statutory rape”
that and he had sex with a minor.
Mrs. Godzilla
October 2nd, 2009
3:15 pm
Years ago nobody talked about this stuff.
Not even my mom and pop. They didn’t want to believe it happened to anybody and for years mom didn’t believe it happened to me.
Then “he” did it to somebody else.
There should be no statute of limitations.
I’d still like to see that 67 year old SOB go to jail.
RW-(the original)
October 2nd, 2009
3:16 pm
Enter your comments here–
I just ran across an old box of AmEx bills and was amazed by how much I got around in those days, not to mention getting a little nostalgic. Then I got back here to this column and figured I was just having some sort of weird flashbacks.
I say free Wendy and I agree with your premise Jay B, but I do have a minor quibble. When one partner is under the age of consent then there can, by definition, be no consensual act. Now if our legislators could just acquire an ounce of common sense they could fix this anomaly and still keep an age of consent law.
Keith Richard Radford Jr
October 2nd, 2009
3:17 pm
Sex laws have been built on misconceptions and myth.
The Supreme Court just ruled on sex offender laws where some factions of our government think by some inert reasoning that sex offender should be quarantined like some virus steaming from Draconian/Islamic radical view that sex offenders should be executed. I have seen for myself, video taken in another country where a sex offender was placed on a pole much like the Catholics use to use a pyramid shaped object and have them sit on it and spin, the pole travels through the body looking for the throat but if not found its ok because the sharpened end of the pole will come out somewhere to the delight of these very strange people who think such sad thoughts. The heritage of the act is in its self a brutal throwback to violent uneducated people who are so obsessed with any sex they can find & the only way to deal with this kind of “hierarchy” of historic hysteria. A word taken from hysterectomy, hysteria is tied to castration used to make animals less threatening which clearly explains the atmosphere we have made for our selves.
Anyway we are supposed to be the most advanced nation and we still have a death penalty when the rest of the world except for some nations we are still warring with, selling weapons too, {think!} while other nations went home our weapons dealers and torture lovers delighting in support for the death of people they don’t know or want to simply because they don’t know how to get money with out taking it from someone by force. Is that supposed to include mutilations? In my humble opinion that alone are terrorist activities as much as severed hands, ears, heads, or making a case with nothing more than an obsession justified by lies.
The truth about the sex offender registry will come out soon enough. When it does, People will see how the use of the registry was created, and by exactly who and why and the devastation it has created and the worthlessness of the use of it. It’s origin in the Jim Crow hanging laws that brought disgrace to our nation allowing thieves and murderous societal bigots who have trashed any shot at making good of a program in its design to make money destroying our nation and its people. We can not play god and we can not survive using this behavior model because we are compounding the problem since the numbers increasing to include the children they purport to protect.
It’s a ruse designed by people who are getting rich off the doctoring, castration/hysterectomy/health care/physic care of people through sex laws that have gone wild. What about the people who are being used by the Medicare programs that requires these mutilations for both men and woman after they take their means of support? Digging around in someone’s genitalia because you want what a weaker nation? Can’t you see? You have created the model and it is worthless! Why don’t we just indiscriminately kill people we don’t know? That is statically the next sex offender, because over 90% of all new offences are committed by someone “not” on the sex offender registry and the numbers are increasing not decreasing so as a behavior model this is really worthless.
So what is the use of such laws as the sex offender registry other than to terrorize people? With the murder of so many sex offenders and the continued disregard for life by the use of the registry it will be no time at all before the federal government will be held liable for their deaths through federal court.
In a nation where a statement may have a double or triple meaning and our entire linage can be traced through mud, guts, and beer it’s nice once in a while to get the picture of what is meant instead of what some thinks someone may have implied being translated by greed. So it is from the trenches to the hill. Remember the game where someone says something in someone’s ear then passes it the same way to the next; the person advocating such destructive laws are the ones who need to be section 8 by simple brake down of the issue not the sex offenders. Best regards
TnGelding
October 2nd, 2009
3:17 pm
I would think a choice of voluntary castration or life in prison might be appropriate. You just can’t take a chance on recidivism in cases involving children.
Of course you’re right about the cases involving consenting teens. The registry should only be for those that are a danger to others. But then, should there even be one? If they’re considered a threat, see paragraph one above.
Carol
October 2nd, 2009
3:18 pm
Let me just say that a lot of offenders hide behind a supposed “Romeo and Juliet” situation, when it was nothing of the sort. I work with in a field that exposes this information on a regular basis. Offenders will often give the excuse that the reason they are on the list is they were a teen and the girl was a teen. Or they will say the “once brushed up against someone” and got put on the list. Or that they “urinated in public” and were put on the list.
Let me enlighten you all a bit. Most of that is B.S. In Texas most offenders get 10 years on the list and a slap on the hand.
MOST offenders have pleaded to reduced charges, which is why they don’t get severe enough punishment–such as the Roman Polanski case.
So, I don’t feel sorry for people on the sex offender registry. Perhaps parents should enlighten their teens about having teen sex and the possible consequences of that.
TnGelding
October 2nd, 2009
3:21 pm
Mrs. Godzilla
October 2nd, 2009
3:15 pm
Thanks for sharing that. It must have been painful. I’m thankful you seem to have been able to overcome it as much as possible and apologize for the human depravity that caused it.
Gale
October 2nd, 2009
3:21 pm
The problem in the Wendy case is the same we see in many other laws and regularions. Common sense is toosed out the window and every incident is treated with the same broad brush. Adolescents having sex with one another –without force– is not a crime. An adult forcing any child is a person who will never be rehabilitated. We have seen far too many cases of a child molester “serving his time” only to comit the same crime again, sometimes with deadly results. Violent child molesters and violent rapists should be put away for life with no parole. They will not be cured.
Gale
October 2nd, 2009
3:24 pm
To Carol’s comment, reduced pleas should NEVER be permitted for violent crimes.
AmVet
October 2nd, 2009
3:24 pm
On a related topic, I was thrilled to see that human POS Couey died in prison a couple of days ago.
Too bad they didn’t bury him alive…
Dusty
October 2nd, 2009
3:28 pm
Taxpayer,
You are so far out of the mainstream of America that you know very little about churches.
Parents carry their children to churches for Christian education. Many churches have nursery schools during the week, Some churches feed and house the homeless and some of these families have children. There are afternoon programs for school children at some churches. Some churches have clothing supplies where people with children can receive or buy affordable clothes.
In case you did not get it, there are many children around churches. That is why you don’t want child molestors living next door. and that is why churches are included in the laws for molestors.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:28 pm
Keith Richard Radford Jr –
Apparently this is an issue near and dear to your heart. Google shows that you have posted that exact same rant on 263 different sites. Are you a sex offender? What explains this subject being the focus of your life.
Your rant places all responsibility of mean old “society” and not a single mention of responsibility on the part of the sex offender. While there are unjust prosecutions of these laws, most convicted sex offefnders have comittted a serious crime, but you seem not to care about their need to be punished for their crimes.
What sex offenses do you consider legitiamte for prosecution? I bet it is a pretty short list.
Sorry to knock you off your script and all, but I am curious about where you are coming from.
Paul
October 2nd, 2009
3:31 pm
AmVet
This is a bleak topic. Thanks for the good news.
My wife is convinced some people have no soul. I see some as simply evil. But at least he’s gone.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I have difficulty with this whole ‘after incarceration’ idea. It’s bad enough that someone with any kind of record – even some arising from traffic offenses – will have a felony record and will be barred from most jobs and a chance at a good life once sentence is served. Talk about a path to recidivism. But this living arrangement thing – send’em where the rural folks have to deal with them? Or people in bedroom community subdivisions? Seems to me the effect of actions should be to minimize the chances of return to crime and another expensive stay in prison. Many of these actions seem to increase the likelihood, not reduce it.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:31 pm
Dusty –
Isn’t it interesting that Jay is so tolerant of bigotry directed at Christians?
Mrs. Godzilla
October 2nd, 2009
3:32 pm
TN
Thanks.
It takes some serious effort.
Like most, he is a member of the “extended” family. He was an uninvited guest at my pop’s 86th birtday last December. Made for an
uncomfortable 10 minutes or so…..
I think the stats are 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 4 boys…..
Please keep an extra close eye on y’alls babies.
N.J.
October 2nd, 2009
3:34 pm
Polanski was offered a plea. He accepted it.
The facts were that the grand jury found that the girls testimony was enough to proceed in court. They offered a plea which dropped all charges but one, if he pled guilty to that charge.
There were charges but Polanski was never found guilty by a court. He was also not given the opportunity to WITHDRAW his guilty plea after the judge and prosecutor decided to not approve the original plea.
Theres the entire problem. The judge was illegally coached by another district attorney on the issue of sentencing, and this district attorney was not associated with the case. What the judge was told by this district attorney was to send Polanski BACK to jail for another 90 days, and to pressure Polanski to accept “voluntary deportation” as terms of having additional prison time added. Both are illegal. The judge cannot make voluntary deportation part of the deal. A judge CAN block the federal government from deporting someone while a case is active, but he can’t make any decisions with regard to deportation. Only the federal courts can do that. The prime mistake was that the judge had no ability to send Polanski back to jail for more psychiatric examination once they released him and made their recommendation without allowing Polanksi to withdraw his initial guilty plea. From that point Polanski can remain free on bond until the case comes to court.
Its either or. If the judge offers a plea deal and the person takes it, that is the deal. If the judge later decides he wants to change the deal, the party being charged gets to change the plea from guilty to not guilty and then you take it through the courts.
But as it stands, the prosecutor is trying to enforce a charge that was the result of a plea deal that was broken, but allow the plea of guilty that Polanski made stand. Thats the major violation.
Polanski’s guilty plea was contingent on a number of things. The primary one being the pleas bargain. The judge was within his rights to drop the plea, but once he did, he had no authority to send Polanski back to jail without another bargain and another plea.
What they did was keep Polanski’s guilty plea, but not the terms under which he accepted the guilty charge. They legally had to start from scratch and let Polanski change the plea from guilty to not guilty and take the thing through the courts. They intended to not do that which is where both the charges of judicial and prosecutorial malpractice come in. They never intended to give Polanski his day in court and let the court decide. That is because they knew they stood a good chance of losing the case.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:34 pm
Of course Couey cost us a ton of cash on the way out of his miserable life:
“His 49-day hospital stay, round-the-clock guards, specialized cancer treatments and eventually his autopsy all had to be paid for — and the total bill came to just shy of $230,000.”
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/10/2/whos_paying_for_coueys_health_care.html
We need to make death penalty cases less expensive and get rid of these maggots post haste.
N.J.
October 2nd, 2009
3:35 pm
Simply put, if you offer a plea, and you decide to change it, you have to allow the person to change the plea and take it to court. They didn’t do that. And not only did they not do it, they intended to not allow it to happen. They intended to put Polanski in jail without being tried in court.
Bosch
October 2nd, 2009
3:36 pm
Paul,
” Many of these actions seem to increase the likelihood, not reduce it.”
I said the same thing yesterday or day before, whichever – they are left to wonder the street if they are homeless and more and more likely to repeat the offense.
Oh, and I DID NOT say that the Constitution should be amended to make flag burning illegal – I’d be happy with an offender having to endure a three hour lecture from an 85 year old WWII veteran on the care and proper use of the flag.
pat
October 2nd, 2009
3:36 pm
Agreed. The law needs to change. Violent sex offenders need serious punishment. Consenting teenagers who are on the borderline age need not be included, that is rediculous.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:36 pm
So NJ is a Polanski apologist.
What a surprise.
Let’s all remember that the next time he goes on off on a rant about the immorality of conservatives.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:38 pm
Bosch –
” I’d be happy with an offender having to endure a three hour lecture from an 85 year old WWII veteran on the care and proper use of the flag.”
Sneering at WWII vets for no reason? Pretty pathetic.
N.J.
October 2nd, 2009
3:39 pm
There is even some evidence that the original judge who the new prosecutor waited to die before starting up again suggested that Polanski save them trouble and leave the country for a place without extradition. To this end, the judge agreed that Polanski could leave the country while waiting because of the international nature of his work.
Bosch
October 2nd, 2009
3:39 pm
I will add too, that a colleague of mine was once on a jury where an 18 year old was on trial for statutory rape – he said it was consensual, and the girl originally did too, but later after the boy broke up with her changed her story to rape. Even then, the boy because he was 18 and his girlfriend was 16, by law, was found guilty of statutory rape – he was found not guilty of the charge of aggravated rape or whatever it was called because the girl was obviously lying (according to colleague – and was mad cause boyfriend broke up with her). But still the kid went to jail and is now a sex offender. Doesn’t make sense. And for those of us with sons – it makes you go – now just hold up a second.
Bosch
October 2nd, 2009
3:41 pm
mike,
Sneering at WWII veterans? Are you kidding me? Have you ever been to one of those lectures? I loved it, but the kids I was with thought it was awful, and I’m sure that anyone who burned the flag would probably have the same reaction and I say ‘good!’ And maybe they’ll learn some respect in the meantime.
stands for decibels
October 2nd, 2009
3:41 pm
Our state legislators know all this.
Yes. Yes, they do. And that’s the most damning thing in the piece, isn’t it.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:42 pm
Statutory rape should have a provision where it is not a crime if the older person is within a few years age of the younger person.
BTW: Roman Polanski was 31 years older than the 13 year old he had sex with and sodomized. That’s cool with NJ though.
Paul
October 2nd, 2009
3:46 pm
Bosch
That seems like a reasonable penalty. Although I’d bet some of those WWII vets probably would be so disgusted they wouldn’t consider it worth the effort.
I’ve a nephew who’s a defense attorney. Had a case similar to yours. College kids, cheerleader type and guy model superachiever type. Guy dropped the girl for a plain jane type. Girl cried rape, even saved the dress. Won’t go into all the details, but similar to yours. Testimony from friends, colleagues, and the stuff they wouldn’t let get introduced that spoke to the girl’s character – except when she talked about how pure and innocent she was and she would never, ever do some things…. then had an ‘oops’ moment when her supposedly-flushed facebook pictures were mentioned.
Anyway, the young man was acquitted. Sometimes justice is served.
And I worked with a young man – 19 – accused and investigated for rape. Month later the girl dropped after one of her friends went to the authorities and said she concocted the rape story because she was afraid her boyfriend would find out she was cheating on him.
Is there a pattern here?
Gale
October 2nd, 2009
3:47 pm
The only way I could see former sex offenders getting out of prison would be if they could be in isolation from contact with the objects of their illness. Many of these people are “ok” if they have no contact. If there is contact, they fall prey to their illness. Unfortunately, the only way I could see this happening is in prison. Maybe we could have a special prison just for these criminals? We would allow them to work, learn, whatever, but they never leave. Sorry, they cannot be back with the rest of society. They can never be released. Naive, I suppose.
mike
October 2nd, 2009
3:48 pm
Bosch –
Here with go with your rewriting your comments on the fly:
You sneer at how boring a lecture by a WWII vet is and it would be a good punishment for sex offenders.
Then, a few minutes later you are claiming you “loved it”, but the “kids” hated it.In order for the two statement to jibe, most sex offenders are “kids”, which as you know, is silly.
Next time you say something stupid, just come out and admit it instead of doing this nonsense where you deny what you said or like the other night when you called me a “bigot” and kept coming up with lame reasons for that statement (”You hate liberals!”). The next day, you admit it was all crap.
@@
October 2nd, 2009
3:48 pm
Somebody is gonna have to explain to me why that 35% are free to commit additional crimes. I’m pretty much in agreement with mike, yet again. If they’re child molesters, and too many studies have proven they cannot be rehabilitated, let’s put ‘em out of their misery.
When it comes to consensual sex among teenagers, I feel like the women’s movement have failed our young girls. Sit these young girls (12 years old?) down and ask them why they feel the need to subjugate themselves to the whims of older boys – any male for that matter.
I WILL NEVER forget what I saw at a high school football game here in Clayton County. A circle of guys gathered around a young girl performing oral sex on some jerk. WTH was in it for her? When a police officer ascended on the gathering, the circle dispersed and THERE SHE WAS on her knees.
I’m not going to apologize for thinking that we should be placing more value on our young girls than they place on themselves.
It sure doesn’t help to have a bunch of leftists out there saying it’s NO BIG DEAL!
Bosch
October 2nd, 2009
3:49 pm
sfd,
Because they don’t want to be looked as being soft on crime because most people can not differentiate between a registered sex offender and a child molestor. And don’t think for a minute that opponents wouldn’t use that in negative campaign ads. Just imagine if Jim Martin had advocated for such a thing as to change this law, don’t think for a second that Saxby wouldn’t have had ads up claiming Martin supports child rape – and people would believe him.
mike,
“Statutory rape should have a provision where it is not a crime if the older person is within a few years age of the younger person.”
Yeap.
N.J.
October 2nd, 2009
3:49 pm
other problems in the Polanski case, from a legal aspect of course is that a grand jury hears the witnesses for the prosecution to see if there is a possible case. The girl gave testimony that was accepted. After this in the actual court case the testimony given to the grand jury is tested. That means the defense gets to cross examine those who gave the testimony. In this case that was denied from the start. The only witness for the prosecution was to be kept out of the eventual court case to spare her trauma. Therefore there was really no way for the defense to contest the prosecutions testimony.
At every stage, Polanski’s ability to deal with the case was cut off by the judge and prosecutor. He was offered a plea, accepted it, the judge decided he didnt like the results he got from the prison psychiatrists, who are not known for their leniency and changed the deal without allowing the guilty plea to be withdraw before insisting on more prison time.
Every step of the way for both parties, justice has been stomped on, largely in the interests of protecting the prosecutors, not the victim or the accused.
The net upshot is if they try to get Polanski on the rape charge, they will lose, so they are going on the not showing up in court charge alone.
Gale
October 2nd, 2009
3:49 pm
Bosch, I was scared silly when I could not convince my 18 year old stepson to break up with his 15 year old girlfriend. The kid would NOT believe me about statutory rape. “That won’t ever happen!” Right.
Bosch
October 2nd, 2009
3:51 pm
mike,
“You sneer at how boring a lecture by a WWII vet is and it would be a good punishment for sex offenders. ”
What the hell are you talking about? I wrote that it would be a good punishment for flag burners.
Bosch
October 2nd, 2009
3:53 pm
mike,
Which btw, was from an earlier conversation I had in which Paul misconstrued a position I was taking. If your gonna attack, at least get the facts straight.
Gale,
Oh yeah, that’s real. Tell your stepson that it has absolutely nothing to do with consent. The law might have changed by now, but that kid went to jail.
DoggoneGA
October 2nd, 2009
3:54 pm
“I would think a choice of voluntary castration or life in prison might be appropriate”
Castration has no effect on a predator’s ability to abuse children (or women…or men either.) It isn’t even 100% effective for preventing men from the ability to have sex.
Rape is not about sex…it is about power. Even if you destroy a man’s ability to have sex, you have not solved his need to have power over his victims. He will just find another way to abuse them.
Gale
October 2nd, 2009
3:56 pm
Bosch, it was some time ago, and thanks heaven it never came to that. But I really understand the problems of parents with teens.