Touch a minor while lecturing them, become a sex offender?

[Aguila Blanca]

Unless I've missed a part of this thread, nobody has yet posted the exact statute which the judge felt "constrained" to apply literally, in an inappropriate situation. Can someone dredge it up so we can decide for ourselves if the judge actually was required to support this ridiculous verdict and sentence, or if he was as off his meds as he appears to have been?

 

[thorn726]

You're right this is much more fun and probably more productive

oh sorry, i couldnt come up with a good spin.

 

[DorGunR]

Hell yes..........I say we take the SOB out and hang him.

 

[Jeff]

jeeper:

The punishment must be extremely grossly disproportionate to the crime. This doesnt even come close. The state easily has the power to regulate conduct like this and classify it however it wants. This case would not even make it past a first round of appeals on whether the punishment violated the 8th. Any constitutional law scholar would tell you that this would not come close to being a violation.

Nope, you are in incorrect. This man HAS TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER, a conviction that is based on a FALSE PREMISE, because he did not commit a sex offense.

You can spin it all you want with your fine details on state law this and that......the bottom line is this law it totally unconstitutional, and what happened to this man is highly cruel and unusual. He has been branded with the most ugly of labels, for which he took no part of, and now his privacy rights are to be violated because of it.

YOU ARE WRONG, jeeper, just totally wrong.

 

[Jeff]

joab:

His actions put him in a position to be in this position. If he had not acted inappropriately nobody would have been able to sentence him inappropriately.

I understand that. You are trying to minimize the immorality of the decision because he put himself into a undesirable situation to begin with. Joab, as soon as you leave your house in the morning you are putting yourself into an undesirable circumstance. Don't minimize the foolishness of this conviction because the guy made a mistake. It doesn't wash.

Why do his words carry more weight than her's

We've been there already. I happen to believe his story over hers.

Actually yes it does, especially if she had to break free instead of just pulling away

What's the difference? It's all semantics.

So what does it take, anything short of a complete beat down?

No, joab, that would be an extreme. Try something as simple as contact with no harm given or intended. AS IN THIS CASE.

So now protecting your children against violent assault is abuse. I guess some people don't hold their children in as high a regard as others do

That's not what I said. I was responding to your statement that merely touching a strange child is equal to a child's abusive beating at the hands of his father. You said that.

 

[Jeeper]

Nope, you are in incorrect. This man HAS TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER, a conviction that is based on a FALSE PREMISE, because he did not commit a sex offense.

You can spin it all you want with your fine details on state law this and that......the bottom line is this law it totally unconstitutional, and what happened to this man is highly cruel and unusual. He has been branded with the most ugly of labels, for which he took no part of, and now his privacy rights are to be violated because of it.

YOU ARE WRONG, jeeper, just totally wrong.

I argue with actual US case law. You argue with nothing but your own assertions. If you ask any constitutional lawyer who is right....Take a guess who it will be? (hint: Not You)

Here it is for simplicity's sake

Under the consitution:
States get to define what most crimes are
If a state defines a crime its review from SCOTUS is limited
The act of "restraining a child" could arguably be seen as sexual
STATES CREATE THE DEFINITIONS

Just because you dont agree with it does not mean it isnt correct

I dont think that it was a sexual crime. That is not the point. THe point is that it is well within the states power to define it as one.

If you can find any cases that support your position I would be happy to read them. Please just back up your position with law!

 

[Jeff]

If you ask any constitutional lawyer who is right....Take a guess who it will be? (hint: Not You)

BS. This is called Fallacy of False Appeal. Until you can ask every constitutional lawyer what his or her opinion is, and post it here, your are just blowin' smoke.

Under the consitution:
States get to define what most crimes are
If a state defines a crime its review from SCOTUS is limited
The act of "restraining a child" could arguably be seen as sexual
STATES CREATE THE DEFINITIONS

So what the hell does a state having the right to define some term or group of terms do with constitutionality? Because a law says so makes it constitutional? Are you saying all of the state gun control laws, which state that it is a crime to do this or that, are constitutional? Am I missing something here.

Defining a crime as something it is not is wrong. When the defendant is convicted of such a false premise, the ensuing penalties are unconstitutional. State laws have frequently been overturned or ruled as unconstitutional, at least by the state's constitution.

I have no idea where you are getting your reasoning for all of this.

 

[JohnKSa]

Let's look at at a very slightly different scenario.

Citizen X is standing on the sidewalk next to a young girl. She starts to step off the sidewalk in front of a speeding truck. Citizen X grabs her by the arm and restrains her from stepping off the sidewalk and then while still holding onto her arm gives her a 1 sentence lecture about looking both ways.

The girl is irate about being grabbed and lectured and Citizen Y is a witness.

On the basis of the testimony of Citizen Y and the girl, Citizen X is convicted of "unlawfully restraining" the girl and is required to register as a sex offender.

Still a good call joab?

 

[Jeeper]

So what the hell does a state having the right to define some term or group of terms do with constitutionality? Because a law says so makes it constitutional? Are you saying all of the state gun control laws, which state that it is a crime to do this or that, are constitutional? Am I missing something here.

As of right now the answer is yes. There is no supreme court ruling on the issue.

Here is an easy example. State A defines DUI as .08 while State B defines it as .1. They get to decide on the definition. Illinois has chosen to define "restraining a child" as a sex crime. That is their right. The actual classification is irrelevant. The only way you could try and fight this case is through the 8th amendment as cruel and unusual punishment. But as I said before the case law on that is against that proposition.

Defining a crime as something it is not is wrong. When the defendant is convicted of such a false premise, the ensuing penalties are unconstitutional.

Do you have any legal authority to back this up? Please post it here. What amendment is this even based upon?

State laws have frequently been overturned or ruled as unconstitutional, at least by the state's constitution.

There has to be a provision in the constitution which it violates in the first place. You havent stated which provision this violates or any legal authority for the proposition. Arguing without legal autority is rather meaningless.

 

[joab]

I understand that. You are trying to minimize the immorality of the decision because he put himself into a undesirable situation to begin with. Joab, as soon as you leave your house in the morning you are putting yourself into an undesirable circumstance. Don't minimize the foolishness of this conviction because the guy made a mistake. It doesn't wash.

No I am not minimizing the "immorality of the punishment I have stated over and over that it was excessive( if we believe his excuse).
No I am not putting myself in an undue undesirable circumstance when I leave my house, unless I leave with the intention, or lack the will power not to, assault someone who has not done me harm other than inducing a small level of road rage. No matter how you rationalize it that's exactly what this amounts to.

Don't minimize the foolishness of this conviction because the guy made a mistake.

I don't minimize the foolishness of the conviction, mostly because I don't believe that the conviction was foolish, I believe that it was righteous and a direct result of his stupid actions.
It's the sentencing that I find foolish (If we believe his excuse) and even inexcusable.
But he would never have been in the position to receive the punishment if he wasn't an idiot. You seem to be trying to minimize that aspect


Here's some advice for those that still don't get it.
Keep your damn hands off little girls and there is a good chance that nobody will try to charge you with a sex crime against little girls.
If you grab at little girls with no right or reason be prepared to defend yourself against any and all charges that stem from this act of extreme stupidity.
And don't come crying to me when you get screwed.
If this guy were to admit his mistake instead of trying to rationalize it I might have some sympathy. Saying that he simply wanted to lecture her in no way explains or justifies physical contact.

I happen to believe his story over hers.

I meant to respond to that earlier. Fair enough something in all this gives you reason to believe him.
I on the other hand don't feel the same confidence in his story.

Something either in me or the story forces me to think that there may be something missing.

Maybe it's the fact that
The arresting agency (if there was on) believed that he should be arrested for his actions.

The DA believed that he should be charged for his actions


The Jury (assuming that there was one) believed that he was guilty of the charge

Possibly the DA was over zealous, possibly he just did not prove his case on the other charges.

Maybe he had a poor lawyer, maybe he had an excellent lawyer

Maybe his lawyer couldn't get him off on a ridiculous charge maybe he got him off on all the more serious charges. Haven't there been pedophiles that have gotten off when everyone knew that they really had committed the crimes but because of good lawyers they got off.
It almost happened here with the Ocoee Squirter.

The thing that sticks in my mind is that DAs need to win cases so why would all those extra charges be added on if they did not believe them to be valid.

Or maybe he's a fine upstanding citizen that had a bad case of the dumb ass that day, who really knows

Try something as simple as contact with no harm given or intended.

See here we have to agree to disagree and I think it is the crux of our disagreement I think harm was given if only mental and if only temporarily. You don't have the right to touch me I don't have the right to touch you,( except in extreme circumstances, and this wasn't one. That's a fundamental truth as far as I'm concerned

I was responding to your statement that merely touching a strange child is equal to a child's abusive beating at the hands of his father.

OK I thought you were making a judgmental statement about MY dad and the clerk, my bad
I Believe that my statement ( I really don't feel like looking for it now) was that allowing some stranger to physically discipline children was no better than beating them yourself.
Not that you taking it on your self to touch someone elses child was the equivalent of their parents beating them.
That's a whole nother issue, that could get you arrested and convicted of something like unlawful restraint of a child but we could debate the merits of a case like that some other time

 

[Jeeper]

On the basis of the testimony of Citizen Y and the girl, Citizen X is convicted of "unlawfully restraining" the girl and is required to register as a sex offender

Innocent people are put in jail all the time. If he was given a fair hearing and was found to have broken the law then the punishment is within the states right to administer.

I dont agree with the outcome but the process behind it is still sound. Fair and legal are not always the same thing.

 

[joab]

Citizen X is standing on the sidewalk next to a young girl. She starts to step off the sidewalk in front of a speeding truck. Citizen X grabs her by the arm and restrains her from stepping off the sidewalk and then while still holding onto her arm gives her a 1 sentence lecture about looking both ways.

I'm sorry I must have missed th part where he saved her from the speeding truck. But I did read the part where he stopped his car got out and physically restrained her with no right or reason simply because she pissed him off

You find me a case where someone saves a life and is convicted of a sexual crime, or any crime, stemming from the life saving effort and then we'll talk.

Or how bout this one
What if a crate of apples is heading for the little girl and you heave a bushel of oranges at her to knock her out of the way.

What if, What if, What if.

What if a frog had wings? What if a turd smelled like a rose,? What if I wasn't fat old and gray headed and had a big pecker.

What if we talk about a case that has already happened instead of inventing fantasy cases to prove our point.

 

[joab]

Does anybody here ever actually drive?

I do for about 10 hours a day people are always doing absent minded stuff like this girl supposedly did.

I usually yell out the window

"Grow a Brain"
Or "Open Eyes Work Best" or just simply " Way to go Brain Dead"

I have never felt the need to physically make contact with these people even when they respond less than favorably to my helpfull suggestions

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm sorry I must have miised th part where he saved her from the speeding truck.

No, actually that's not what you missed. Sorry to have bothered you...

 

[joab]

Sorry to have bothered you

No problem I was up anyway

 

[Jeff]

Here is an easy example. State A defines DUI as .08 while State B defines it as .1. They get to decide on the definition. Illinois has chosen to define "restraining a child" as a sex crime. That is their right.

Wow, what a jump. Comparing the variations in legality of intoxication (they are both levels of intoxication, btw) by 2/100's of a point; and the absurd definition of sexual offense as to include "grabbing a child by the arm to admonish."

It sounds bizarre and it is bizarre. It's insane.

Do you have any legal authority to back this up? Please post it here. What amendment is this even based upon?

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

If you don't think being labeled a sex offender when you never were convicted of an actual sexual offense is not cruel (it sounds unusual, too, since this is the first time we have heard of something like this), then you are nuts. This guy has to forfeit his privacy rights for something based on a false premise.

And don't try to wiggle out of this by stating something like this shouldn't be considered cruel and unusual. You would be wrong. If SC justices Brennan and Marshall found the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment, even when the death penalty was valid when the Constitution was written, then such a law in Illinois would have to qualify, given what has happened to this man.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Such a law abridges the immunities of the citizen because it is based on a false premise. Grabbing a child by the arm is not sexual misconduct and can therefore not be considered a sexual offense. To prosecute as such is a bastardization of citizens' immunities.

Due process, which under the 14th, includes State trials, includes a fair trial. If the law being presumed upon the defendant is based on a totally false premise, then the trial CANNOT be fair, and is thus a violation of the 14th amendment.

Privileges And Immunities [emphasis mine]
n. The fundamental rights that the U.S. Constitution protects, enabling people in free governments to enjoy. Article IV states: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities in the several States," and specifically to be protected against state action by the Constitution's 14th Amendment (1868): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington first defined “privileges and immunities” in 1823 as: "protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole." However, the exact nature of privileges and immunities that the state governments can limit has long been disputed. The U.S. Supreme Court has leaned towards protecting citizens’ individual rights against state statutes that may encroach upon constitutional rights.

Fair and legal are not always the same thing.

No. Under the 14th Amendment, it has to be.

This law is a Supreme Court decision waiting to happen. It will be overruled, with a rational jury, that is, in a trial case somewhere.

 

[Jeff]

joab:

Keep your damn hands off little girls and there is a good chance that nobody will try to charge you with a sex crime against little girls.

As others have already pointed out with some rather astute examples, it's not always that simple. You are making it black and white, and this cannot be as simple as black and white. What he did was not a sex crime, and therefore-- personal mistake notwithstanding-- the whole charge is ridiculous.

 

[Jeeper]

This law is a Supreme Court decision waiting to happen. It will be overruled, with a rational jury, that is, in a trial case somewhere.

This statement perfectly sums up you knowledge of the law. Whether something is a constitutional is a question of law which is only to be decided by a judge NOT A JURY.

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

If you don't think being labeled a sex offender when you never were convicted of an actual sexual offense is not cruel (it sounds unusual, too, since this is the first time we have heard of something like this), then you are nuts. This guy has to forfeit his privacy rights for something based on a false premise.

Once again you cite a law but no case that actually interpreted it. The 8th amendment is a ridiculously high standard. It is not as simple as you try to make it. It is very apparent that you have never read a single case that dealt with the 8th amendment. Death penalty cases are treated by a vastly different standard under the 8th due to the gravity of the punishment.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Such a law abridges the immunities of the citizen because it is based on a false premise. Grabbing a child by the arm is not sexual misconduct and can therefore not be considered a sexual offense. To prosecute as such is a bastardization of citizens' immunities.

The privileges and immunities clause deal with unlawful discrimination against out of state people. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Once again, you should try and read cases about the amendment you quote as authority.

I am not trying to be an ass but it is very apparent that you are not very well versed on consitutional law. There are many great websites that give case law and talk about issues.

Maybe we should go about this in a different manner

Who do you think gets to define what type of crime a certain action is?

For example, who gets to define what a "hate crime" is? Who gets to define what the actual definition of rape is? Or what "indecent exposure" is?

Laws are defined by elements. You are guilty if A,B, and C are met. Who gets to define this?

You cant admit in any way the the act or "restraining a child" (not this case but the act itself) could be a sex crime? What do you propose to do for a crime for people that are close to pulling off a girls pants to molest her but havent done it yet? What are your proposed criteria and should that be a sex crime? (dont use this case as an example but rather what neutral criteria would be) How do you charge sex offenders if they havent commited the crime just yet?

 

[joab]

You are making it black and white, and this cannot be as simple as black and white.

He stopped his car ,he got out, he physically restrained the girl with no right or reason , he should not have done that.
Pretty black and white

What he did was not a sex crime,

Where have I even remotely agreed, stated or implied that I believe that it was a sex crime.

I do believe that it was the crime of unlawful restraint of a child, the state of Illinois believes that that is an automatic sex crime I do not.

I also believe that his actions put him in the position of being charged with a crime.
Unfortunately and wrongly the state has chosen to classify his chosen crime as a sex crime.

How does minimizing his own contribution to his dilemma strengthen the position that the state's actions are unfair

 

[gc70]

A little legal clarity

Okay, now you can read the relevant laws and reach more-informed conclusions.

Illinois Combined Statutes - CRIMINAL OFFENSES - (720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.

ARTICLE 10. KIDNAPING AND RELATED OFFENSES

Sec. 10-1. Kidnapping.
Sec. 10-2. Aggravated kidnaping.
Sec. 10-3. Unlawful restraint.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint when he knowingly without legal authority detains another.
(b) Sentence. Unlawful restraint is a Class 4 felony.
Sec. 10-3.1. Aggravated Unlawful Restraint.
Sec. 10-4. Forcible Detention.
Sec. 10-5. Child Abduction.
Sec. 10-5.5. Unlawful visitation interference.
Sec. 10-6. Harboring a runaway.
Sec. 10-7. Aiding and abetting child abduction.
Sec. 10-8. Unlawful sale of a public conveyance travel ticket to a minor.

ARTICLE 11. SEX OFFENSES

Sec. 11-9.3. Presence within school zone by child sex offenders prohibited.
(c) Definitions. In this Section:
(1) "Child sex offender" means any person who:
(i) has been charged under Illinois law, or any substantially similar federal law or law of another state, with a sex offense set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection (c) or the attempt to commit an included sex offense, and:
(A) is convicted of such offense or an attempt to commit such offense;
(2) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.5), "sex offense" means:
(iii) A violation of any of the following Sections of the Criminal Code of 1961, when the victim is a person under 18 years of age and the defendant is not a parent of the victim:
10-1 (kidnapping),
10-2 (aggravated kidnapping),
10-3 (unlawful restraint),
10-3.1 (aggravated unlawful restraint).

ARTICLE 12. BODILY HARM

Sec. 12‑1. Assault.
(a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.
(b) Sentence. Assault is a Class C misdemeanor.
Sec. 12-3. Battery.
(a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means,
(1) causes bodily harm to an individual or
(2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.
(b) Sentence. Battery is a Class A misdemeanor.

There you have it; the guy was charged with a Kidnaping-related offense rather than a Bodily Harm-related offense.

One thing about this case... it makes me hope I am never involved with the Cook County criminal justice system.

 

[joab]

Unlawful restraint.) (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint when he knowingly without legal authority detains another.

A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

Once again gc70 muddies the water.

I think the legal definition here before us of unlawful restraint is a stretch, if there are no pertinent details left out of the article.

I have not been able to find any info on the case

Assault certainly applies though and goes along with my belief that a couple of years probation was all that was warranted

Lets not forget that he was also charged with attempted kidnapping and abduction so there could very well be more to the story.

He was also cleared of those charges so there could very well be no more to the story

 

[Jeeper]

One thing about this case... it makes me hope I am never involved with the Cook Country criminal justice system.

I would bet that many states have similar laws about what constitutes a sex crime. If I still had free Westlaw access I would do some searches on whether any have been challenged under the 8th or any other amendment. I looked and AZ doesnt classify it as a sex crime but I bet other states do.

 

[gc70]

Once again gc70 muddies the water.

Gee, thanks. Somebody asked about the actual wording of the relevant law(s), I do the research, and i am guilty of muddying the water?

 

[joab]

It was actually a compliment

Maybe I should have said muddies the water with relevancy

 

[Jeff]

This statement perfectly sums up you knowledge of the law. Whether something is a constitutional is a question of law which is only to be decided by a judge NOT A JURY.

That's my wrong. I understand that. Total "typo" on my part. We kept talking about juries earlier in the thread, I mistakenly said jury.

Once again you cite a law but no case that actually interpreted it. The 8th amendment is a ridiculously high standard. It is not as simple as you try to make it. It is very apparent that you have never read a single case that dealt with the 8th amendment. Death penalty cases are treated by a vastly different standard under the 8th due to the gravity of the punishment.

"Gravity of the punishment," with no regards to the gravity of the crime itself?

The privileges and immunities clause deal with unlawful discrimination against out of state people. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Once again, you should try and read cases about the amendment you quote as authority.

Poe v. Ullman (1961). In Poe, The Court dismissed the claim of a doctor and his patients that the Connecticut law denied their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights, on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because the law had not been enforced in many years. In that case, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote one of the most-cited dissenting opinions in Supreme Court history, arguing for a broad interpretation of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause.

Through the doctrine of Incorporation, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also brought about the application of nearly all of the rights explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the adoption of this amendment, the Bill of Rights acted only as a restraint on federal, not state, governments, and a state's relations with its citizens and those of other states was legally restrained only by that state's constitution and laws and those provisions of the United States Constitution that limited the powers of the states. While many states modeled their constitution and laws after the federal government's, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights.

Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of procedural fairness. As a bare minimum, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings involving him, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. In criminal cases, fair procedures help to ensure that an accused person will not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, which occurs when an innocent person is wrongly convicted.

Criminal prosecutions and civil cases are governed by explicit guarantees of rights under the Bill of Rights and as incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States (see below). However, when the Constitution has not laid out the specific procedures that must be followed in other government proceedings, due process provides a minimum floor of protection to the individual that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must at least meet (but can exceed), in order to ensure that no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property arbitrarily and without opportunity to affect the judgment or result. This minimum protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. In criminal cases, many of these due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees reliable procedures that protect innocent people from being punished, which would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Like I said, jeeper, this case is a Supreme Court decision in the making. Then I guess it can finally satisfy your "legal-only" definition of constitutional.

Epilogue: I don't understand this "Anything oppressive is Constitutional if it hasn't been challenged by the Supreme Court" mentality. That is why things get challenged by the Supreme Court. Because the law or decision in question is inherently unconstitutional.

A question for you, jeeper. Was slavery actually Constitutional before the ratification of the 13th amendment, even though the DOI said something about "all men being created equal?" The Constitution means more than just Supreme Court decisions. It means certain unalienable rights.

Being convicted of a false felony would seem to be right up there with a violation of unalienable rights.