Jessica's Law - Good idea?

[Beethoven]

I recieved in the mail a petition to sign to help get "Jessica's Law" put on the ballot for 2006.

According to the materials included, it will:

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

- Require lifetime GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders

- Expands the definition of a "sexually violent predator"

- Changes the current 2 year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health & petition by the sexually violent predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge.


Clearly, these seem like good ideas, but I was wondering if there is any argument against this proposed law.

Let's hear it before I sign this petition and pass it around the office!

Thanks!

 

[walking arsenal]

I'm starting to have issues with the title "sex offender". It seems, to me anyway, that it's getting to be a more liberal term. That people are starting to consider smaller and smaller things a sex offense.

Dunno, maybe it's just me.

 

[cadfael]

Just some questions to think about: (I can see arguments for both sides)

What gets someone on the sex offender "list"? Urinating in Public? An 18 year old dating a 16 year old?

How is the list maintained? By what agency? Is there an appeal process to get off the list?

Where will money for this enforcement come from? What will be shorted to pay for this?


Adam

 

[Sindawe]

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

Where will those released live then? Looking at plots of the 1,000 ft boundary around schools alone from the Lautenberg dren and its successor shows it darn near impossible to live within THOSE limits, much less double that range. Shall we build ghettos?

- Require lifetime GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders

How will this be implemented and who will pay for it? To what end will this serve? This strikes me as "You've served your time so we are releasing you, but not really. You'll still be watched."

- Expands the definition of a "sexually violent predator"

What exactly does this expand the definition too?

- Changes the current 2 year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health & petition by the sexually violent predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge.

So now we lock up people for an indeterminate amount of time? Is there ANY review of that confinement by the courts?

Sounds like you're being sold a Bill of Goods that only serves to expand .gov and police powers. Of course, it IS "For the children", so I guess that makes it OK.

 

[Beethoven]

Where will those released live then?

I don't care. Not my problem.

How will this be implemented and who will pay for it? To what end will this serve? This strikes me as "You've served your time so we are releasing you, but not really. You'll still be watched.

Well, I assume the government will implement it and the government will pay for it with my tax dollars.

I'll gladly have my tax dollars used for such a purpose.

So now we lock up people for an indeterminate amount of time? Is there ANY review of that confinement by the courts?

Hey, if you are a sex offender, I don't care what happens to you.

Sounds like you're being sold a Bill of Goods that only serves to expand .gov and police powers. Of course, it IS "For the children", so I guess that makes it OK.

Normally I'd agree with you, but it appears to be pretty strictly limited to expanding govt. powers to punish and control criminals, which is A-OK by me.

 

[Preacherman]

The problem is that many registered "sex offenders" aren't. For example, you can be registered for life as a sex offender if you:

- Urinate in public, even if it's behind a bush in the park and the only person to see you is a passing police officer;

- Have a sexual relationship (even if once only) with a girl under 16 - and you know as well as I do about 14- and 15-year-old girls who look five years older than their age, and are out for a bit of excitement over the weekend;

- Are accused of rape by an ex-girlfriend who wants to get even with you for some reason, even if the rape never happened - convictions are not always on the basis of evidence, but on who the jury chooses to believe.

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.

 

[Cosmoline]

The category of "sex offender" includes a wide array of offenses from mild to extreme. A lot of states have been lincluding pretty minor offenses on the list. The biggest problem I have with it is the notion of punishment beyond the term of the sentence. I don't really have a problem with the father of a victim going and killing the murderer when he's released. That's his business. But the STATE should not be involved in that sort of thing.

 

[Marko Kloos]

You know, I've looked through the local online sex offender registry, and got to thinkin'.

Three out of four of the guys and gals pictured were branded "sex offender" for Statutory Rape, or some likewise definition, and extrapolating from their DOBs, a large percentage of them got that charge by dating a 15-year old when they themselves were 18 or 19, or some such circumstance.

Now, as a parent, I fully support stringing child rapists and molesters up by the nearest lamppost once they are caught, and if anyone ever tried to sexually assault my child, they would end up in very small chunks on the coroner table.

That said, I am decidedly uncomfortable with branding and GPS'ing people for life whose sole offense was to be young and stupid and full of hormones, and dating a girl five years younger...or taking a leak behind a tree somewhere and being spotted by the wrong person.

Unless and until the term "sex offender" is redefined in a more discriminatory fashion, I'll refuse to participate in that emotional witch hunt. The current approach to "sex offenses" has all the brain-dead zero-tolerance emotionally-driven flavor to is as the "no gun zones" so favored by the left-leaning crowd.

 

[ArmedBear]

"Sex offender" is getting to be a frightening term to be used by a growing police state.

"Drunk driver" can now refer to someone who can drive better than the average person I have to dodge on my daily commute. "Common sense gun control" might have meant, at one time, that it would be good not to sell machine guns to violent felons, but now it's morphed into someone who wrote a bad check but did his time in jail, not being allowed to have a hunting rifle.

If the age of consent were lowered to 14 and the list contained only forcible rapists and legitimate child molesters (not 19 year olds sleeping with 15 year olds), then maybe I'd be convinced.

Otherwise, we're just giving the growing totalitarian menace an "in."

Furthermore, I generally oppose laws that are attached to a name (aka the "Brady Bill"). This is a way of marketing a law that would not be acceptable to those who think through its real implications, by trying to evoke a strong emotional response in the ignorant.

 

[AirForceShooter]

here's my problem.
A guy gets caught (it's usually a guy, except in Tampa) and he's sane enough to stand trail and sane enough to assist in his defense. So he gets convicted and goes to jail. Now he gets out and he's not sane at all. The State has the right to lock him up like forever because he's nuts and a danger to society.

No wonder I never trusted a shrink. This sounds like Russia in the good old days.

AFS

 

[Cellar Dweller]

According to the materials included, it will:

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

- Require lifetime GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders

- Expands the definition of a "sexually violent predator"

- Changes the current 2 year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health & petition by the sexually violent predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge.


Clearly, these seem like good ideas, but I was wondering if there is any argument against this proposed law.

1. What about "sex offenders" who later become parents? Is there an exemption while they are with their children or on business directly related to their children (PTA meetings, injuries on a playground, etc.)? What if a locality decides to put a park or school within 2000' of someone on the registry who is currently exempt?

2. GPS for "felony sex offenders" or "sex offenders with non-related felonies?"
There is a difference...esp. with the expansion of defining a felony.

3. From what to what? Actual crime to "may or may not be a danger, so we'll not take chances?"

4. Will it be a legitimate petitionable process, or will it be like ATF not being funded to review reinstatement for felons (but there's a process!)?

It MAY or MAY NOT be a good idea, it's definitely feel-good doing-something "for the children." If you can't answer these questions, it's a bad idea.

If you still don't care what the answers are, why are you bothering to ask? Acceptance?

 

[avpro]

... Urinate in public, even if it's behind a bush in the park and the only person to see you is a passing police officer...

So every golfer in the country is a sex offender . golfers!!

 

[Spot77]

Require lifetime GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders

And then it'll be " Require lifetime GPS monitoring of felony registered firearms volations offenders"

 

[gc70]

Beethoven, you didn't provide enough details for others to reach a well-reasoned conclusion. Or maybe the petition doesn't provide enough details about definitions and so forth for anyone to reach a well-reasoned conclusion.

As a general proposition, I don't like the "indeterminate civil commitment" provision. If society thinks a crime is bad enough to lock someone away for the rest of their life, then the penalty under the law should be life imprisonment without parole. But the penalty should not be locking someone away and saying "we'll think about maybe letting you out later."

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

If society thinks a crime is bad enough to lock someone away for the rest of their life, then the penalty under the law should be life imprisonment without parole. But the penalty should not be locking someone away and saying "we'll think about maybe letting you out later."

+1

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

I don't care. Not my problem..

Actually, it *IS* your problem. You are advocating this. So where do YOU suggest people live? Or since you "don't care", they can go live next door to you, right?

I'll gladly have my tax dollars used for such a purpose

Hey, if you are a sex offender, I don't care what happens to you.

Normally I'd agree with you, but it appears to be pretty strictly limited to expanding govt. powers to punish and control criminals, which is A-OK by me.

er...you don't care, you don't mind watching people for the rest of their lives and giving your money to the government to start up a Big Brother to do so, you don't care what happens to them, and you are quite fine with expanding government powers to punish and control.

wow.

Howsabout just cappn' 'em in the back of the skull and getting it over with? We could just make it easy like the good ole USSR and China! A heck of a lot cheaper, fewer restrictions on civil liberties, no appeals to cost us money, and we can probably get the cost of the bullet back from the family.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I'm starting to have issues with the title "sex offender". It seems, to me anyway, that it's getting to be a more liberal term. That people are starting to consider smaller and smaller things a sex offense.

Dunno, maybe it's just me.

It is not you. Sex offenders have it rough, and yes, there are animals out there that need to be put down, but honestly, the stuff you can get labeled a sex offender for are just ludicrous.

Not too long ago in here, there was that story posted of a man who jumped out of his car and grabbed a girl by the arm to yell at her because she walked in front of his car will he was driving. Well, he is a sex offender now. A relative of mine was drunk at a party and some girl stuck her a55 in his face. He bit it, she was 16, he's a sex offender now too.

What is really bad, is that they plaster the people's faces on sex offender web sites and only describe their crimes as something along the lines of "lewd behavior in front of a minor" What the heck does that mean? Now the guy is targeted a public danger and we have no idea if he really is, or the guy just got shafted by insane laws and courts.

Hello police state.

 

[pauli]

i tend to be of the opinion that if it were a good law, they wouldn't have had to name it after a dead girl to get sympathy.

 

[Beethoven]

Actually, it *IS* your problem. You are advocating this. So where do YOU suggest people live? Or since you "don't care", they can go live next door to you, right?

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

er...you don't care, you don't mind watching people for the rest of their lives and giving your money to the government to start up a Big Brother to do so, you don't care what happens to them, and you are quite fine with expanding government powers to punish and control.

wow.

Howsabout just cappn' 'em in the back of the skull and getting it over with? We could just make it easy like the good ole USSR and China! A heck of a lot cheaper, fewer restrictions on civil liberties, no appeals to cost us money, and we can probably get the cost of the bullet back from the family.

NO, I have NO PROBLEM with expanding the government's powers to punish and control sick, twisted, sadistic CHILD MOLESTERS and RAPISTS.

Is this law perfect?

No.

Is it the best possible solution to the problem?

Of course not.

Does that mean that we shouldn't do anything at all unless it is absolute perfection?

I don't think that is reasonable either.

I don't hang out here too much because of the decidedly leftist/militant libertarian slant and this post I've quoted above is a shining example of this garbage.

People defending the "rights" of child molesters and rapists....wow.....

 

[Beethoven]

1. What about "sex offenders" who later become parents?

I don't think that sex offenders (not ones caught urinating in public....real ones) should be allowed to become parents.

In fact, I don't think they should be allowed to become anything but worm food.

2. GPS for "felony sex offenders" or "sex offenders with non-related felonies?"
There is a difference...esp. with the expansion of defining a felony.

It says very clearly, "Felony Sex Offenders."

Though I admit I can't see anything wrong if "sex offenders with non-related felonies" were included, along the lines of a three-strikes-type law.

 

[rustymaggot]

ill tell you guys a little story about my old boss from many years ago. he was a registered sex offender. he "dated" a 17 year old when he was 18. because of that he has to register as a sex offender. when i knew him he was 34 years old and a sucessful buisness owner who did trade shows and couldnt even own a gun to protect himself carrying 15 grand in cash that he made at the trade show. that just isnt right.


there are dangerous offenders out there that need to be watched out for, but there are also good people who made small mistakes when they were young and are just trying to go on with their lives. i would hate to have decent people denied the right to own a gun all because they watered a bush in a innapropreate manner.

 

[Beethoven]

The problem is that many registered "sex offenders" aren't. For example, you can be registered for life as a sex offender if you:

- Urinate in public, even if it's behind a bush in the park and the only person to see you is a passing police officer;

Can you provide evidence of even one case in which someone has been successfully convicted under such circumstances?

 

[Lupinus]

I think this law is great but it needs to only be in effect for certian kinds of sexual offenders. If you take a leak in public some places that could get you a sex related charge. Total BS IMO. In some places an 18 year old dating a younger girl could make him a convicted sex offender even. BAsicly I think it needs to be reserved for two kinds of "sex offender". The first being the adults that harm kids. If you rape a little girl for all I cause they could bend oyu over let a few dogs rape you and then put you out of your misery with a bullet in the head. But that doesn't mean a harsh punishment should come jsut because of age so long as it was concensual....and within reason, if you are 20 and sleep with a 16 year old thats one thing, Im not talking some grown man sleeping with a 12 year old so just the age thing kept within reason. And on top of that, no I don't consider an older woman sleeping with an underage kid a crime, hell when I was 16 half the guys I knew would have given their left nut to sleep with some of these "child rapist" woman that are in the news being convicred for having sex with boys. So basicly in short the first group is anyone who hurts a child by having sex with or molesting or any other thing like that. These people no if its ands or buts about it first conviction they get the book thrown at them.

Second group are people who had lesser offenses and get a second conviction. Someone who may have done something wrong but didn't hurt girl, say a larger then reasonable age gap (say like a 20 and 15 year old or something) between a guy and girl had sex guy got convicted was released and then did it agian. Other things like that that no one was really hurt but it warrented punishment and he does it agian.

 

[No_Brakes23]

I don't hang out here too much because of the decidedly leftist/militant libertarian slant and this post I've quoted above is a shining example of this garbage.

People defending the "rights" of child molesters and rapists....wow.....

It ain't child molesters we are defending, it is people lumped in with them through the use of a broad term.

Did you even read more than a word or two of these posts? Most folks that posted don't have even a slight problem with genuine child molesters being punished.

Are you seriously advocating that people who don't use a toilet 100% of the time are child molesters? Don't you ever go camping or hunting?

And calling THR leftist just kills me. Maybe compared to David Duke or Nathan Bedford Forrest.

 

[Fletchette]

After much thought on this subject, I believe that the law should view adult citizens as one two types: Free or Un-Free.

The Un-Free people are behind bars. The Free people are everybody else.