Jessica's Law - Good idea?

Just waiting for the day when a traffic stop in the wrong county with a copy of Playboy or Penthouse in the back seat results in being labelled a sex offender.

Wake up folks, the day is coming when any and all people will be regarded as potential enemies of the state.

Red-blooded males who like to see some skin will be sex offenders.

Red-blooded Americans who like guns will be labelled terrorists.

Anyone who posts or prints an opinion counter to the gov't line will be labelled a dissident.

End times are coming, don't just close your eyes and plug your ears; use your head. Wake up!

"798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior" - shouldn't that be void-for-vagueness? I wonder if anybody has been charged with that in the last several years.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, it is there and when they need it they are sure to find it. If you make enough things criminal you can nail anyone that you want at anytime. Don't want to plead down, oh well, look what we have here in the obscure law list...

as for the other one, show me the 'normal' person that would be an innocent victim of that. get real.

Click to expand...

Spiff, happens all the time, you wouldn't believe how easy it is to fall into that trap. Chat with a "21 year old college student" online, sync up for a date, and next thing you know you are out with a 16 year old HS student in her Mom's clothes and make-up. Ask her for some ID, guess what, she has a fake ID specifically to throw you off. Many girls that age are looking older men to be their sugardaddies. Think you can tell a mature 16 year old girl from a 21 year old? You can't, I promise.

yeah see i stopped doing the whole 'chat' thing with online 'females' a long time ago. didnt even need to experience being charged with a sex crime to discover how pathetic and absurd it is.

reread the sentence you quoted from me. what NORMAL person is out there getting bamboozled by what they think is '21 yr old chicks'?

what NORMAL person is out there getting bamboozled by what they think is '21 yr old chicks'?

Click to expand...

Well, "NORMAL" people don't get involved in long drawn out online debates about what is "NORMAL", so I guess that count all of US out.

Kidding aside, *I* have been near enough to that kind of situation twice to be VERY paranoid while online and in IM/Chat venues. First time was in the '90s when I was online on a dailup BBS in Florida so I could keep touch with a co-worker who was in a grad program in Gainsville. Got chatted up by a sweet southern girl (or so she said) looking for some online word play. Nope, not going THERE, since the majority of the users were H.S. aged

Again more recently when I first met my online buddy from Portugal, Carola. Her mannerisms and expressions were very indicative of a late teenager, so I was very careful with topics until I could verify her age, and I kept logs of our conversations just in case.

I think it would be VERY easy for a "normal" person to be bamboozled online, since most folks are nowhere near as suspicious and paranoid as I am.

Ok in light a very interesting encounter tonight. I have been talking to this girl for awhile and gone out with her a few times at first she is supposed to be 19. What do I find out tonight? She is 17, and she doesn't exactly tell me it jsut slips out more or less :banghead: :banghead:

Even though I didn't technicly do anything to get me in hot water (unless a conversation or two on the subject counts and god I hope not) it was moving in that direction. This strengthens my belief of idiocy of some sex offender labels and Im glad I found out sooner then later. No problem sticking it to the real guys that hurt kids but for taking a leak in public or other nonsense it is assinine. I like my guns and being able to live anywhere in town I please :banghead: needless to say she got the boot

Preacherman said:

I have no problem nailing a genuine sex offender, and making his/her life as miserable as possible. However, there are too many on the "sex offender" lists who shouldn't be there at all, and I don't see why they should have to suffer the same fate.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

Beethoven said:

- Prohibit sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any park or school

Click to expand...

they're passing laws like that here... and then expanding them to include: rec trails, libraries, day cares, etc. and some cities are banning offenders all together and kicking them out of the city limits

paired with the ever expanding list of offences that get a person on to the list, including (in some areas) public unrination, and calls 24/7 gps monitoring and even special car tags... I think that this is getting a little out of control. Keep the ones that are at risk to reoffend in an controled enviorment where they can get the help they need. (and lock the worst ones up for good)

hmmm... couple tricks here...

>No, they can't live next to me because I'm well within 2,000 ft. of both a School and several parks.<

See, these laws have a serious drawback: eventually, you won't have anywhere that released "sex offenders" can live. How long before the ACLU decides to start raising hell about how this violates the civil liberties of the "sex offender"?

As for the "sex offenders should hang" crowd: friend of mine only avoided getting nailed there because the girl in question got pregnant. Met her at a bar, things were going well, the idea of her comming over to his place came up, he asked for and recieved ID proof of her age, they shacked up. Turns out the ID was fake, and the girl was actually 15 (as opposed to the 21 her ID claimed). The ONLY reason I can see that he wasn't charged was the lawyer pointed out that my friend could provide child support better outside of prison. So essentially, if his condom hadn't failed, he'd be a "sex offender", and a "child molester"...

Oh... before y'all start screaming about me defending child abusers, read my bloody sig line (click the link about children). *I'M* actually doing something about the subject, instead of arguing about it online...

If you're not considered "safe" enough to be returned to society with all of your rights intact, then you probably shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.

If you're not considered "safe" enough to be returned to society with all of your rights intact, then you probably shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.

Click to expand...

If you snatch a little girl rape her and then kill her, along with anyone that helps you either directly or just by knowing and keeping quiet about it, you shouldn't even be still breathing.

My opinion, for what it's worth:

1) Fetishizing sex crimes only perpetrates a culture of victimhood. All violent and property crimes should be punished appropriately. 'Sex' crimes should not be treated differently. If, God forbid, I am raped, I am damaged. If I am shot in the shoulder I am damaged. If somebody breaks into my house and steals my belongings, I am damaged (both because I feel violated and because my time -part of my LIFE- has been stolen in that I must work to replace those belongings).

2) Women (and sometimes children, though this is often the fault of evil social workers) lie about rape OFTEN. It's a proven fact. For many reasons: attention, anger, mental illness, money. Our justice system is imperfect. It's bad enough anybody should go to prison for a crime they did not commit - should anybody be punished for that for LIFE?

3) Many things categorized as sex crimes are not violent crimes. I took a whiz behind a bush in Yuma the other day - I had no idea I could be branded a sex criminal. We call men who sleep with 14-year olds pedophiles, when, if you ask me, that's biologically a natural instinct (still not acceptable behavior by my book, but not a sickness).

4) Whenever the 'big governent' types want to start playing big brother, they start with groups of people that are hard to defend.

I am not arguing for leniency. I think that perhaps true pedophiles should be monitored very closely for life due to the high rate of repeat crimes.

Damn we need jury review.

i just ran across a picture online of a motorcycle cop taking a rest stop in some bushes. too funny. better get this guy a registration form, he might be dangerous. hahahahahhahahaha

http://consumtionjunction.com/downloadsnew/cj_51080.jpg

Being from Florida where both the Jessica Law originated and the LeFavre incident happened, I've had a LOT of exposure to all of this on the news. I am concerned about the classification of sex offenders, but more importantly, I'm concerned about the fundemental ideals encompassed in the knee-jerk reactions to the whole "sexual offender" situation.

This fundamentally equates to a "probation for life" situation. Normally I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I also understand that, once a priciple of law is accepted, it can be applied in other situations, such as a person convicted of robbing a convenience store can not live within 1000 feet of a convenience store, nor can they ever go to a convenience store. If we want to constrain their movements and liberties for life, then keep them locked up. Simple.

More importantly, however, is the focus solely on the perpetrator in a sexual crimes situation. Certainly, in the case of true child molesters and rapists in which there is NO possibility that the person contributed at all to the act, that is absolutely just.

But let's take the Lefave case. Do you think that young boy had NO culpability in that act? That he was completely at the mercy of Debra Lefave? That he didn't know he was doing something wrong? Certainly he doesn't have the same level of responsibility for what happened as she does, but how does he differ from John Malvo, the teenage shooter in the Washington, DC sniping attacks? John Malvo was under the influence of an adult. Why isn't he seen as a helpless victim? Shouldn't the young man in the Lefave case be held at least PARTIALLY responsible for HIS actions?

So now here comes the kicker, assuming you agree with the boy being held accountable for his actions. What if it had been a MALE teacher and a FEMALE student. Would you then also agree she was partially responsible for what happened? Boy....that really gets the old double-standard meter pegging out, doesn't it?

I can't believe that the Barnaby thing is still being brought up

To be fair he did not just merely grab her arm and yell at her for walking in front of his car.

He pursued her with his car and grabbed her by the arm and tried to drag her back to his car after, she allegedly , she walked in front of his car

And the statements of it being unfair to stigmatize him came from an appellate judge reading the case not from the judge that actually heard the case.

The original judge and jury found that he was guilty based on personal interaction in the courtroom.


Personally I believe that certain molesters just get the death sentence or at the least chemical castration or even the old fashion castration.

But these new and expanding laws are definitely candidates for the slippery slope argument

I dated a girl 25 years ago

when I was in my 20's she told me at the time that she was 19...I saw her 2 years ago & commented on how young she looked for her age and she said "oh I was lying to you way back when, I was 15 at the time we were dating"...her own mom didn't even blink when I was over for dinner!
In NY if you could prove prior promiscuity then you were off the hook, but still...I shudder to think what could have happened.

Still I think Jessica's law time has come because it applies to violent offenders who abuse children under 14 (if I'm not mistaken)
liberal judges seem to hate children & often let child rapist get away with a slapped wrist-it's got to stop.

Take a hot button issue

Add public ignorance

Stir in overly broad definitions

Slip in the ability to make "administrative" changes in definition without going back to the legislature

Fold in lots of money for technology infrastructure

Presto- chango you have expanded police state powers.

Pretty stiff price to pay for institutional failure to deal with the original problem.

We can start by narrowly defining laws to fix the problem.

Waitone

+1

>More importantly, however, is the focus solely on the perpetrator in a sexual crimes situation... But let's take the Lefave case. Do you think that young boy had NO culpability in that act? That he was completely at the mercy of Debra Lefave? That he didn't know he was doing something wrong?<

And here we get into the thorny problem of arbitrary age. And yes, he had a certain amount of culpability. From what I read, she TOLD him that the fact she wasn't supposed to have sex with him was a turn-on: that means he knew it was wrong too. However, I haven't met the 14 year-old boy who would turn down the opportunity of sex. But the fact that she made that statement makes it worse for her...

>Certainly he doesn't have the same level of responsibility for what happened as she does, but how does he differ from John Malvo, the teenage shooter in the Washington, DC sniping attacks? John Malvo was under the influence of an adult. Why isn't he seen as a helpless victim? Shouldn't the young man in the Lefave case be held at least PARTIALLY responsible for HIS actions?<

That may be why she was given probation...

>So now here comes the kicker, assuming you agree with the boy being held accountable for his actions. What if it had been a MALE teacher and a FEMALE student. Would you then also agree she was partially responsible for what happened? Boy....that really gets the old double-standard meter pegging out, doesn't it?<

Nope... 'cause I wouldn't hold a double standard if the genders were reversed in this case. Tell you the truth, I might wonder if the theoretical girl had more culpability. Quick story...

A friend of mine owns a coffee shop. He overheard a couple of young ladies (14-16) talking one night. They were discussing "going out and getting some guy in trouble": they were PLANNING on trying to get some adult into bed and ruining his life. That's something I'd have to question, were the genders reversed in this case...

Did I just blow your preconceptions?

Sorry Preacherman, but urinating in public will not get you branded as a sex offender (at least in Ohio). While it is listed under the broad title of "sex offenses", it's a 4th degree misdemeanor, one step up from a traffic ticket. (Ohio Revised Code Sec. 2907.09(A)(1) ) If that were the case, half of the bar patrons after last call would be listed .

I agree that the definitions for "sex offenders" needs to be changed and refined. It's been my experience that true sexual predators are almost always repeat offenders. We're working a case right now of a "gentleman" that raped a 14 yr. old girl. He was in his 20's at the time, served 10 yrs, and is currently on parole. The present case involves him stalking the same girl, constantly driving by her house and parking at her place of employment; sitting, watching. He has allegedly said that he "will have her again and kill them both" (murder/ suicide). We are currently working hard to have his parole revoked.

These are the people that need to be branded as predators. I don't think it would take a brain surgeon to distinguish between a young man dating someone slightly underage, and the dirtbag listed above, and the punishment for repeat offenders needs to be... well, harsh. I personally think that 3rd time offenders involving non-consensual sex should be castrated, along with a long, long stay in prison, at the least.

>These are the people that need to be branded as predators. I don't think it would take a brain surgeon to distinguish between a young man dating someone slightly underage, and the dirtbag listed above<

That's the biggest problem: it appearantly DOES take a brain surgeon. There are WAY too many cases of (basically) minor crimes being punished as "sex offenses". Heck, there was a case here in WI where two teenagers (both under the age of consent) were charged with statuatory rape, for having sex with each-other. Yes, both people were both victim AND perpetrator. SHouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure that case out either...

Well then, one thing I think we can agree on is that there are no brain surgeons among politicians . Seriously, how some lawmakers manage to stay in office is a mystery to me. I've seen a lot of incompetent judges, prosecutors, councilmen and mayors come and go.... and come.... and go, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They abuse their authority for personal gain and step on the average Joe. They ignore the demands of the voters, and what happens? Outcries and they're voted out... for one term. The following term they're voted right back in again! All too often and in spite of our grumbling, we as voters are responsible for a lot of the problems we face. I know most here believe that the only qualification needed to vote is to be a citizen, but I can't help but think that there should be a minimum IQ requirement.

>I know most here believe that the only qualification needed to vote is to be a citizen, but I can't help but think that there should be a minimum IQ requirement.<

Heck... don't really need a MINIMUM requirement, beyond proving they have an IQ. Some of the BS that I watch happen, you REALLY begin to wonder...