Part of Jessica's Law ruled unconstitutional (restrictions on sex offender residency)

[alp227]

Source: Los Angeles Times

California corrections officials this week stopped enforcing portions of Jessica's Law in Los Angeles County after a judge ruled that the 2006 statute restricting how close sex offenders can live to parks or schools is unconstitutional.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza concluded that the controversial measure left sex offenders in some areas with the choice of being homeless or going to jail because the law restricts them from living in large swaths of some cities such as Los Angeles.

He issued the 10-page ruling Monday after four registered sex offenders petitioned the court. He noted that the court has received about 650 habeas corpus petitions raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared.

In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck that Jessica's Law restrictions had resulted in "a marked increase of homeless/transient registrants." In 2007, there were 30 sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles. By this September, that number had jumped to 259, Beck said. Most of the new cases were filed in the last six months.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sex-offenders-20101105,0,6413324.story

---

Well...shouldn't those offenders just have been kept behind bars if the state is uncomfortable letting them live in normal society like other civilians?

[derby378]

1. How close can convicted murderers and rapists live to parks and schools?

This is something that has bothered me for a long time about pedophile offender registries - what appears to be a glaring disparity in the dispensation of justice under the law.

[arcane1]

6. It's not even just pedophiles

the definition of "Sex offender" can vary from state to state, and even something like urinating in public can get you on the list in some places, as "indecent exposure"

And I agree, if we're going to have these kinds of registries, then we should DEFINITELY have them for violent non-sexual offenses as well.

[mike_c]

2. exactly-- Jessica's Law is just vigillante justice institutionalized...

...for after convicted offenders have finished their primary punishment. We perceive sex crimes to be especially heinous, so we institute additional ways to extract revenge even if offenders have done their time and warrant release. I have always opposed that sort of injustice.

[Pavulon]

17. Raping a 7 year old is worse than selling coke, stealing your car,

or burglary. It actually is heinous and they deserve to be shot. Since that is not a possibility, let them spend life behind bars. They can write all the appeals they want.

[LAGC]

70. What about statutory rape?

You know, the proverbial 19-year-old who has sex with his underage girlfriend.

Part of the problem is that there is no differentiation between people who consensually "rape" teenagers and those who molest or really rape little kids. The bottom line is: if they are safe enough to be released from prison, don't you think they should be safe enough to get their rights back, including not being harassed on some registry?

Why don't we keep the real sickos up, and dish out more appropriate punishments to those who don't cause any real harm to anyone?

[Pavulon]

83. Not relevant to this discussion. this is about child molesters

people who victimize kids under 11. Stat rape, is a different category.

[LAGC]

87. Actually, the topic is about sex offenders in general.

Jessica's law merely stated how far ALL sex offenders must be kept from schools.

The law currently doesn't differentiate between teenage boyfriend-girlfriends and actual pedophiles.

So its a pretty broad-brush.

[Pavulon]

91. It should. Pissing in public and child rape are no where near the same

and should never be discussed in the same breath.

[coalition_unwilling]

71. Thank you. I'm a layperson and not an attorney, but these types of

sex registry laws seem to me to violate blatantly the Constitutional strictures against double jeopardy (Fifth Amendment) and bills of attainder (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3).

But after John Yoo, such prohibitions as those against Double Jeopardy and Bills of Attainder are really only 'quaint and obsolete.'

But I'm glad to hear someone else thinks as I do.

[Pavulon]

85. Bush string theory is not at play here. You fuck a little kid, die in jail

yoo, ashcroft, d. feith are not relevant here.

[coalition_unwilling]

88. If you say so. But are you familiar with what the Constitution says about

double jeopardy and bills of attainder?

John Yoo is all too relevant here. After all, Yoo referred to the Geneva Conventions as 'quaint and obsolete.' Under the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions have exactly the same force in the law as any domestic statute. But, in a milieu where an Assistant Attorney General can so breezily dismiss the U.S. Constitution and the obligations it imposes upon us under international law, petty constitutional concerns like double jeopardy and bills of attainder must always be sacrificed before the Gods of expedience and raw executive power. If the executive branch (that branch charged with enforcing the law) dismisses one part of that law as 'quaint and obsolete', it has dismissed all parts of that law, even without perhaps intending to.

But ask yourself this: Why have a prohibition on Double Jeopardy in the Constitution at all if you are going to allow someone to serve his or her statutory sentence but, once served, re-sentence him or her to constantly register on some list? Why not simply sentence him or her to life in prison with no possibility of parole? And, for that matter, why have a prohibition on Bills of Attainder in the Constitution at all if you are going to turn around and, in effect, pass a bill of attainder on a sub-group of citizens by requiring its members to register their whereabouts when no other group of citizens faces a similar requirement?

I'm not defending the rights of child molesters; I'm defending the Constitution as I understand its plain meaning. Your comments to me and other DUers on this thread make it all too clear that I am fighting a rear-guard action. Oh well. It started long before this thread, I suspect, with Alexander Haig and his comment that "I'm in charge". Or maybe before that with Nixon's perfidies. Or maybe before that even.

[Pavulon]

89. Distill your post. people who rape kids are not

to be discussed with bush or yoo, or whatever the fuck. If you fuck a 9 year old you should die in prison, that stands alone.

[bowens43]

3. Good. If they paid there debt to society as ordered by the courts

then leave them the hell alone.

[Ter]

20. If you raped a kid you can't pay your dept to society

How about we compromise: No Jessica's Law if they all stay behind bars?

[Courtesy Flush]

31. That's the kind of reaction that makes the law go too far.

People assume that all registered sex offenders are child rapists. If you are a teenager and have sex with your 16 year old girlfriend you can be tried for a sex offense. If you proposition a prostitute you are a sex offender. If your court-appointed attorney convinces you to take a plea to "make it all go away" you're a sex offender.

This law does not protect children. It panders to people's bile-fueled prejudices.

Make a registry for child rapists, and I'll agree with you... but that's not what it is.

[Pavulon]

36. Child molesters are covered in the DOJ numbers

They are convicted, not the ones who plead down to some other bullshit.

Rearrest for a new sex crime
Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420).

[Ter]

50. That's why I said "if you raped a kid"

Statutory rapists (those who have sex with someone who's under 18 but over 14) should not be listed.

[Pavulon]

54. No they should not. I cited numbers for child molesters

that is actually a legal term and would not cover stat rape.

[NYC Liberal]

4. Your comment is just it: if they need that many restrictions and

that much monitoring, they shouldn't be released in the first place.

[4lbs]

5. Under Jessica's Law a sex offender cannot live within about 2000 feet (or almost a half-mile) of a

park or school, or any other "sensitive area". What constitutes a "sensitive area" is pretty broadly defined. A McDonald's with a playground is considered a "sensitive area" under Jessica's Law. A rec center where children may congregate is also a "sensitive area".

The problem is that in places like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, in CA, there is pretty much a park, or school, or "sensitive area", every half-mile, making almost the entire city off-limits.

[trud]

7. actually life imprisonment is preferable

Why these people are ever let out of jail to destroy more lives is beyond me.

[truthisfreedom]

8. Recidivism is so high with sex offenders. What a conundrum.

We have a Constitution which forces us to be ever-vigilant of repeat offenders. Christ.

We need to just wall these people in with each other in their own disgusting community.

[cstanleytech]

9. "Recidivism is so high with sex offenders." You can of course back that up with proof from

an unbiased source right? Also assuming you can back it up just because there may be a high rate of recidivism you do realize that does not mean that they "will" do it but rather they "may" do, right?
Furthermore if we are going to punish people now for what they "might" do in the future by walling these people in then shouldnt we amend that thing called the constitution to grant the government that right, just to keep it constitutional of course.

[Pavulon]

16. I can. They deserve to die in jail. Rape a 7 year old, die in prison.

why make something so easy complicated..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

[AngryAmish]

10. Prove it.

Or delete

[Pavulon]

14. Done.. DOJ is awesome. Stats are better, not advocating chester the molester getting a break

priceless. They are fucking scum and people who rape kids should die in prison. In a ditch or on the end of a rope is a better option but not practical.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

Among many highlights of sex offender great behavior.

Within 3 years following their release, 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were returned to prison. They were returned either because they received another prison sentence for a new crime, or because of a technical violation of their parole, such as failing a drug test, missing an appointment with their parole officer, or being arrested for another crime.

[mike_c]

23. that's lying with statistics...

...which is pretty much what we expect from ya'll "law and order" types. Note that relatively few are convicted of new sex crimes-- about 3 percent. That's the huge recidivism you're talking about? That's laughable. Most are swept back up into the justice system the same way that other parolees or ex-convicts are swept up-- for being broke, or having some other difficulties in their lives, often as a direct result of the "criminal justice system" itself.

Roughly three percent sex crime recidivism. Page 24 of your own linked report.

[Pavulon]

25. Read it ALL, not a snip. Dont pick and choose..

read the whole thing and then tell me you still think people who rape kids need to be back in society.

[mike_c]

27. regardless, you're lying about what the report says about sex crime recidivism....

I mean, come on. Less than 4 percent. That's exactly the opposite of the circumstance you've been trying to sell all over this thread. At the very least, face the truth.

[Pavulon]

30. No I am happy with stats, they are cool. We are talking about thousands of raped kids

just in this SAMPLE.

Within 3 years following their release, 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 released

[mike_c]

33. you sir, are a bald faced liar....

That number is NOT the statistic for sex crime recidivism. Your "thousands of raped kids" is a sick fantasy.

Following their release in 1994, 209 of the total 9,691 released sex offenders (2.2%) were rearrested for a sex offense against a child (table 34).

That's 209, and this statistic is only for rearrests, not conviction. How many do you think might have been falsely accused by folks with sick fantasies about the "thousands" of kids they were raping?

[Pavulon]

35. Poor little babies.. And now we are name calling over a chester thread

Rearrest for a new sex crime
Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420).

That is lots of kids. How about we just lock them up for life on the first incident of child rape with DNA.. How many excuses are there for fucking a 9 year old?

[Gormy Cuss]

49. You need to read it all.

No matter how you slice it, the majority of convicted child molesters aren't arrested or reconvicted for child molestation.

[Pavulon]

52. 4X the going rate. they are scum,

the world would have been better off if instead of fucking a little kids they just shot themselves. They deserve to die in jail on the first trip.

"Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime."

[Gormy Cuss]

65. As mike_c already pointed out, that's 4 times a tiny percent

and while killing them all sounds like a neat solution the death penalty isn't a sentence for child molestation so convicted child molesters WILL get out of jail or prison at some point.

[Pavulon]

66. 4x in sample N applied to the entire FBI crime stats database in not small

so until it impacts you it is all trivial.

That will part can be changed with a stroke of the pen.

[Gormy Cuss]

72. Meanwhile, most child molesters are never caught or charged and they walk among us

and frying all of the ones that have been caught isn't going to make the others stop molesting.

[tpsbmam]

11. From the Center for Sex Offender Management (DOJ project)

<snip>

Myth:
"Most sex offenders reoffend."

Fact:
Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.

Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in reoffense patterns from one category to another. Looking at reconviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences:

# child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and
# rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.

Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).

Individual characteristics of the crimes further distinguish recidivism rates. For instance, victim gender and relation to the offender have been found to impact recidivism rates. In a 1995 study, researchers found that offenders who had extrafamilial female victims had a recidivism rate of 18% and those who had extrafamilial male victims recidivated at a rate of 35%. This same study found a recidivism rate for incest offenders to be approximately 9% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).

<snip>

It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; 47% were reconvicted; and 41% were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

(Emphasis mine)

http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

[Pavulon]

15. Context is a motherfucker. You dont have it.

Rearrest for a new sex crime
Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

I can advocate for not shooting these people and dumping them in a ditch. People who rape kids should die behind bars.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

read and weep. (literally if you have kids)

[tpsbmam]

78. You need serious help.

I provided a link. I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you -- you stated an opinion, I Googled. That's it, asshole. You FINALLY provided interesting information -- thanks for the interesting read. Your behavior, on the other hand, suggests serious interpersonal failures. Your hostility was unwarranted, asshole.

[Pavulon]

84. Sorry that 4x the GP was an asshole thing to say.

I will be sure the next time I post commentary urging harsh punishment for people who rape kids I am more polite.

[ProudDad]

18. Who is this "ignored" that's disputing the facts you posted? (n/t)

[Pavulon]

19. That is funny. The ignore feature so strange..

unlike the google and read the source button, that leads to knowledge.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. Yeah, I don't like it either.

If prevents you from alerting, and that's not good.

[Pavulon]

53. Not much alert worthy in stating people who rape kids should be jailed

for very long periods of time and then not released to live next to schools. Kinda common sense.

We generally disagree on stuff, but making life easier for people who have raped kids is not to high on the agenda of many people.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. Define "next to".

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

67. No, but you added nothing to the conversation. Feel free to answer the following

what is the appropriate sentence for a person who rapes a 7 year old child?

Given a sample size N and you get a set of numbers like 5% repeat. How many people does that impact given the usdoj numbers?

How should the rights of children be balanced against felons?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. Do you think all of them should get the exact same sentence?

Or is an answer like "X to Y" or "X to life" acceptable?

[Pavulon]

76. Your DNA shows up in a 9 year old, you die in prison..

child molester is a slim cross section. Not a x to y thing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

77. So, if I say "30 to life", I'm being Soft on Crime™?

[Pavulon]

80. Nope that works..(nt)

[provis99]

95. 'Ignored" is just one of the regular assholes that routinely make DU a trial at times.

made my list long ago.

[ProudDad]

12. You are entirely wrong...

Recidivism rates among most sex offenders are about the lowest of all "criminal" classifications...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misunderstood-crimes

"Sex offenders" are your brothers and sisters and dads and moms and granddads and friends... Most "offenders" are part of the family of the victims. One in ten men and one in thirty women in USamerica have committed a sex offense.

So you are also part of "their ... disgusting community."

And if given proper treatment (NOT including jail or prison) will probably never re-offend...

[Pavulon]

13. All how you spin the numbers. Here are DOJ reports.

people who rape kids should DIE in prison. They are fucking scum and have no place among civilized people.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420).

Within 3 years following their release, 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were returned to prison. They were returned either because they received another prison sentence for a new crime, or because of a technical violation of their parole, such as failing a drug test, missing an appointment with their parole officer, or being arrested for another crime.

[mike_c]

24. you keep posting that report but it contradicts your preconceptions....

It says the recidivism rate for new sex crimes-- the thing you seem to think ex-criminals just cannot avoid doing-- is less than 4 percent. Page 24.

[Pavulon]

26. No it lists a clear percentage that go back for fucking little kids..

that number is greater than 0 so, fuck them. Lock them up until they die.

Fucking a little kid should be a one and done event. Please explain to me why a person who rapes a child should be released..

[mike_c]

28. it's LESS THAN FOUR PERCENT....

This way, even folks who don't read the report can see your misrepresentations debunked.

[Pavulon]

29. Negative...read

Within 3 years following their release, 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were returned to prison. They were returned either because they received another prison sentence for a new crime, or because of a technical violation of their parole, such as failing a drug test, missing an appointment with their parole officer, or being arrested for another crime.

The first 12 months following their release from a State prison was the period when 40% of sex crimes were allegedly committed by the released sex offenders.

How many raped kids is acceptable?

[mike_c]

32. you're NOT reporting sex crime recidivism....

"Of the total 9,691 released sex , 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime (a forcible rape or a sexual assault) within 3 years."

and with regard to sex crimes against children:

Following their release in 1994, 209 of the total 9,691 released sex offenders (2.2%) were rearrested for a sex offense against a child (table 34).

The second statistic differs from the first in that it reports only the percentage rearrested and accused of sex crimes against a child-- only two percent of those previously convicted-- but nonetheless we can assume that not all of those were found guilty. Thus 2 percent recidivism is the upper boundary for sex crime recidivism against children. And because 2 percent of prior offenders repeat their crimes, you want to condemn all the folks who did their time and never committed sex crimes against children again? How is that not vigilante justice?

[Pavulon]

34. Kid rapers should die in prison. you keep ignoring this section..

Rearrest for a new sex crime
Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420).

vigilante justice is shooting or hanging them for raping little kids.

Hey if they go up for life they can write all the appeals they want..

[mike_c]

37. ok-- now you're back into the realm of reality and reporting 5.3% recidivism...

...rather than 38% as in previous screeds. Now read further. That's the percentage rearrested for a sex crime-- all sex crimes, not just sex crimes against children. And the percentage that was actually convicted was even lower-- 3.5 percent if I recall correctly. I didn't see any statistic for reconvictions for crimes against children, but the rearrest rate was a miniscule 2.2 percent, so assuming a similar ratio of false accusations holds, the actual recidivism rate for sex crimes against children is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 percent.

That's a criminal justice success story if I've ever heard one.

[Pavulon]

38. 4x is a big factor there. 4x is key..

Rearrest for a new sex crime
Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420).

They are 4x less likely to rape a child if they do life for the first incident. Why should a person who rapes a kid get out of prison anyway?

[mike_c]

39. 4x miniscule is nothing, for crying out loud....

Non-sex offender rearrest rates for later sex crimes were only about one percent of released population. ONE PERCENT. Prior sex crime offenders were 4x as likely to be rearrested for sex crimes. That's only about five percent, as you noted in your own response. The reconviction rate was only about 3.5 percent, suggesting that at least one third of those rearrests were spurious. The rate of reconvictions for crimes against children was even lower.

Jesus. WTF is wrong with you? That is a massive success rate. What about the other 97 percent or so of ex-offenders WHO NEVER COMMITTED ANOTHER SEX CRIME AGAINST ANYONE? Why should they be punished for the crimes someone else commits?

[Pavulon]

41. YOu assume the others were saints, and just not busted for another kid rape

again what is the proper penalty for DNA backed rape on a child under 11?

[mike_c]

42. dude, those were the statistics YOU posted-- stop trying to pretend they're something different....

I make no assumptions beyond the data, which you have grossly manipulated in support of your own sick fantasies about "thousands" of children being raped by ex-offenders. In fact, the data do suggest that a significant number DO become swept back into the criminal justice system-- but for entirely different reasons having nothing to do with sex crime recidivism. That's what we do to our underclass.

Willie Horton much?

[Pavulon]

43. Again once more, what should the penalty be for rape on a child under 11, dna backed

be, a lollypop, or life.

oh, just curious, ever seen the aftermath of rape on a person, adult woman or child? just curious why you are taking your position.

I wonder what the suicide rate is for victims vs population.

Fuck your condescending tone, take the sample size N in the study.. use the percentage and apply to the national numbers from the FBI.

That is reality, and it is a BIG number. Not a fantasy, a fantasy would be any person with dna rape on any person under 11 gets a death penalty.

[mike_c]

44. you posted the report-- now you're trying to extrapolate beyond it into another fantasy...

...because you've got nothing but your rigid preconceptions. Welcome to ignore. :hi:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. Read #51. -nt

[Pavulon]

68. Ignore, my football is going home. The repeat rate is 4x the GP, I linked in hard numbers

you minimize it with shuck and jive. Bottom line, they re offend more. You asked for data, you got it.

You took your football home because of it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

74. Delete

reposting in correct location

[Kablooie]

21. Almost all child rape occurs with family or friends.

A stranger attacking a child is very rare. It's dramatic so we hear about it when it occurs but it's like being hit by lightning. The living distance requirement does not have any real effect on lowering crime.

[Pavulon]

22. Link?

I would say a good number is "family" but do you have a source. moms new boyfriend, step people, may or may not be classified as family.

[Kablooie]

46. Info came from NPR. Here's the link.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2010/11/04/jessicas-law-ruled-unconstitutional/

[Ginto]

40. What is the proper punishment for raping a child?

Death, 20 years, life in prison?

[ProudDad]

47. What's the proper punishment for setting up a strawman?

What's the proper punishment for someone lumping together all "sex offenses" with the .01% outlier you think will get the most attention?

But to answer your question about the 1 in 100,000 "child rapist", if the perpetrator is a sociopath (and nearly all are) then humane incarceration for life so that they will not harm others is appropriate...

To sentence anyone to the torture chambers the U.S. laughingly calls "prisons" is a crime against humanity...

To sentence anyone to death is counter-productive and morally repugnant...

[Ginto]

48. I lumped no one. I cited a specific circumstance.

Explain to me how keeping someone confined to a "cage" their whole life is humane? I've always thought that to be the cruelest of punishments.

[ProudDad]

55. It depends on the design and architecture of the "cage"...

In USAmerica the purpose of incarceration is to torture and "punish" and the cages of USAmerica are designed and populated in a manner to do just that...

Rehabilitation and the possibility of redemption are ignored or considered "weakness" in USAmerica...

Civilized countries are more humane in their incarceration methods and procedures.

People can be safely housed in such a manner as to be treated decently and allowed to fulfill whatever human potential they may have within them and still keep society "safe".


On Edit: Come on! "I lumped no one. I cited a specific circumstance."

You used inflammatory rhetoric, to wit "child raper" in order to elicit an emotional response that would cloud judgment and obfuscate the truth that "sex offenders" come in all shapes and sizes and that most can be rehabilitated...

[Ginto]

58. Personally, I would choose death over any sort of cage for the rest of my life.

They can make the cage nice, but it is still a cage.

"Someone who rapes a child" is now inflammatory rhetoric? How should we refer to them? Pedofillically challenged?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. It's inflammatory because it misrepresents what the ruling is about.

The restrictions applied to all sex offenders, not just child rapists, not even just rapists.

[Ginto]

60. I wasn't referring explicitly to the ruling.

I was just asking a question related to one part of the subject. Personally, I think we should give several choices as punishment including euthanasia. They say that one man's heaven is another man's hell.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

61. The OP is about a ruling for all sex offenders.

Your selection of a particular "one part" is misleading by design.

It's as if someone advocated the death penalty for all theft and acted as if no thieves exist other than murdering thieves.

[Ginto]

62. Seems like the solution is to classify offenders by levels then.

Perhaps I, II, and III. III being the worst.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

63. Or perhaps actually keeping violent criminals on jail longer, non-violent ones shorter,

and dispensing with that crazy Kafkian Catch-22 stuff.

[Pavulon]

69. What is the right sentence for a person who rapes a child.

any in the US that means they did something so bad they could not get their lawyer to plead it down to another crime. Which is common.

So if your neighbor is convicted of illegal contact with a minor that may mean he was charged with forcible rape and was given a plea.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

73. Parsing the fractured grammar took me some time, but I think I got it.

So, we should always assume someone actually committed a worse crime than the one he was convicted for. Nice.

Because the opposite, or fair convictions, never happen. Those damn criminals always get off easily. :eyes:

[Pavulon]

79. DNA, wife collects it in the ER

from little kids all the time. If it comes out of a kid in the 5th grade a life sentence should ensue.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. Does that have anything to do with the post you're replying to?

Or are you just yargle-blargle-blarrrrgh-ing?

No, no need to answer. That was rhetorical.

[Pavulon]

82. Feel free to answer. Right sentence for a person who rapes a child

nickel, dime, quarter, post a reply.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. Problems with short term memory too?

Hello, 30 to life, remember?

[Pavulon]

90. Works for me. Hard 30

to life is reasonable for rape on a person under 11.

[happyslug]

92. So you would punish the victim worse then the offender?

It has been ten years since I did Children and Youth work, but I still see CYS workers in my Custody and Visitation practice. We get together and find that things are still the same, how do you punish the criminal worse then the victim? That may sound odd to people who do NOT practice in this area of the law, but it is the norm in Children and Youth cases where sexual or other abuse occurs.

The problem is that in many cases the main source of financial support for the victim is the Child Father. The Father, in such cases, also is the person abusing the child. If you send the Father to jail, the Father can NOT pay Child support. Without that child support the Mother often can NOT afford the house the family has been living in. If she has relatives, they may take her in, but if none are near, or none can take her in, the Mother and Children can end up homeless and worried where their next meal is coming from, while the perpetrator has "Three hots and a Cot".

Remember even today, men earn more money then women, even if the parents are earning the same amount of income, the lost of access to the Father's income often means a cut in family income of 50% or more. The best way to resolve this is to attach the Father's income. You can only do that if he is working, and he can NOT work if he is in jail (yes, some jail permit prisoners to work, but almost all the prisoner's pay go to the Prison NOT to anyone else and for such income from work to be available to the Victim, the perpetrator generally has to work outside of Jail). This is the classic CYS legal dilemma, how to avoid harming the Victim more then harming the perpetrator when the perpetrator is the main source of Financial support for victim?

Remember, something like 90% of all abuse incur between family members, thus this is a common problem. I sympathize with the Family (having to deal with the abuse) and the Judges (for the Judges have to weigh the punishment of the perpetrator with the resulting lack of finance support for the victim, a tough call to make).

Now it is sometime the mother not the father who did the abuse but the vast majority of the time it is a male relative of the Victim NOT a female Relative who is the abuser. Thus I am using the terms Mother and Father, but I understand that it is sometime the mother who is the abuser. I use the terms Father as the abuser for that tends to be the more normal situation. I agree it is NOT 100% of the time, i.e. the opposite has occur, but I use the terms Mother and Father as those parents are involved in most cases not the odd case.

Now the Mother can file for child support while the Father is in Jail. The Court will order payments, and set the non payment of support as an arrears. This can build up for years, but the Mother generally can not borrow on it, no one will loan her money based on the arrears that may NEVER be paid (and if "sold" to a third party becomes a bankruptcy discharge-able debt, something such support arrears are NOT if held by the Mother).

Thus the mother has this promise to be pay, but no actual cash and the state will NOT give her anything more then the normal welfare payment (Which in my county is $174 a month for one person, $265 for two, i.e. a Mother and Child). With a promise like that how can the Mother maintain the same level of Housing and living as she could if she could depend on money support from the Father?

My point is that in most cases, by locking a perpetrator up for a long time, you end up hurting the victim do to the lost of financial support for the child from the perpetrator then you are hurting the perpetrator. We have to make sure that does not occur, but we can NOT make sure if you want to jail the father of the victim for 20 plus years. Probation is a much better solution (providing the supervision by the Probation/Parole officer is sufficient to prevent further harm).

Just pointing out that Jail for 20 plus years ends up hurting the victim more the the perpetrator and any system of punishment has to avoid that miscarriage of Justice.

[Pavulon]

93. So here is the deal.

my wife is a doctor. During her training she did (and still does from time to time, now surgical) do E-Med rotations at a large hospital in Raleigh.

During those rotations she has collected dna from children to be compared to their step siblings (children under 11). DNA to compare biological father to rape on his own child, uncles, boyfriends, and so on.

A person who over the course of months rapes a child needs to die in prison. Once you have the discussion with enough people, brilliant people who care about patients and respect human life, they all conclude the same way. No matter what church they go to (heard it from a hindu man), what race they belong to, no matter they would all kill a person who rapes a 7 year old. These are educated people from a hospital you know the name of, no matter where you live. Not kids, department heads, people who have mental health backgrounds.

If they could not destroy their careers they would inject them with a shit ton of ethanol (or whatever would blend in) and call it a day. The after everyone feels kinda bad because they are freely admitting they would murder a person they wonder why.

The answer is genetic programming. We are programmed to protect children and to empathize with them. People who do not do this are sociopaths and that must be dealt with.

The only legal way is long term incarceration. No one benefits from leaving a person in a home to rape their little sister.

Truth is that most of this stuff gets pled down to some other lesser charge.

[Xithras]

94. The problem with these laws is that they unduly punish people whos crimes didn't involve kids.

I know a guy, right now, who is a registered sex offender. His crime? He's gay and was caught having consensual sex with another gay man in his car. The arresting officer told him "we're going to lock you sick faggots away forever."

He ended up with a two year suspended sentence, and a lifetime registration as a sex offender.

I don't support these Nazi laws.

[Pavulon]

96. I disagree with "Nazi" terms and fucking in cars..

one is best left in Germany and the other is done by stupid trashy people. A straight person should be arrested for the same act.

Obviously the slurs are not acceptable.

I am talking about child molesters not public pissers or stat rape people.