Steve Blow Is Right About Sex Offender Laws, and Dallas Should Pay Attention

Categories: Schutze

tabloids.jpg
Wikipedia
Always the same uplifting debate. Who's dumber? The media or the public?
The debate about media sensationalism and moral panic concerning sex offenders is always a tough one for me, mainly because I think most news media chase the public's interest in stories more than we create it. Our rule usually is that the biggest story is the one the most people will read. In that sense readers tell us what to write more than we tell them what to read.

But, yeah, that is what I would say, isn't it? When I see somebody else in my craft bringing a sound against-the-grain argument on a terribly inflamed topic like sexual victimization, the least I can do is salute, which is what I'm doing here to Steve Blow.

In recent weeks Blow has used his column in The Dallas Morning News to present research showing that many media clichés about sex offenders are wrong and much of the legislation spurred by those stories has been ineffectual as a protection of the public. Take, for example, the popular belief that sex offenders are incurable and can't stop repeating their behavior. Incurable as compared to what?

The three-year recidivism rate for drunk driving is 51 percent (my research, not his), for auto theft 70 percent, for burglary 74 percent. For sex offenses it's 5.3 percent.

In an especially moving portrait of one sex offender who was willing to be named and photographed with his family, Blow told the story of a man who was a 12-year-old boy when he engaged in sexual play with an 8-year-old sister. Now he's a registered sex offender for life.

The larger point Blow makes is that there is not much research to prove or even indicate a public benefit from onerous residency restrictions for sex offenders. Meanwhile, the studies show that the people who do offend would not have been stopped or impeded by a residency requirement.

All of this is churning right now in Dallas because our mayor is crusading for tighter residency restrictions. You will remember that a year and a half ago New York Magazine was fawning over Mike Rawlings for his campaign against beating up women, at least a portion of their enthusiasm up there having to do with surprise at finding a man in Texas who was opposed. With his new anti-sex-offender crusade, Rawlings is probably less surprising to New York Magazine, not that I think he's calibrating for their approval anyway. I'm sure he's as sincere on this as he was on wife-beating.

Sam Merten, the mayor's spokesperson, has told us here at The Dallas Observer that the mayor doesn't have a specific outcome or policy in mind and brought the issue to the council only in response to a Channel 8 WFAA reports May pointing out that Dallas is an outlier in the region for not having such restrictions. WFAA, by the way, has come back since then with the same kind of balancing other-side-of-the-coin reporting that Blow has been doing.

But since Rawlings began beating the drum for tighter residency restrictions, I have heard a certain amount of back-channel grumbling from city council members who resent being put in a position. Not a one of them -- no one in public office in Texas -- can say anything that could ever be twisted later to sound like sympathy for sex offenders. But some of them are willing to say privately they just don't know whether residency restrictions make any real sense or not.

The resentment I have heard from some of the council is a powerful illustration of the way arguments like this can imprison people morally and intellectually, making them afraid even to ask what they know are fair questions. Do take notice of this: when Rawlings put this issue before the council, the council did not jump to rally behind him. Instead they agreed to study the issue, and I am hearing the study will be very long and very careful.

In that atmosphere of political and moral tension, it's enormously constructive for somebody like Blow to put some real facts on the table publicly. He's sort of giving everybody permission to talk about the truth.

Oh, I know those ninnies at the News will get all on their high horses about me saying this last thing and say it's not true and say I'm a tinfoil hat and a liar and a pickpocket and stuff, but, damn it, I believe this to be the case: I believe it was a lot harder for Steve Blow at The Dallas Morning News to call for sanity on the issue of residency requirements for sex offenders than it would have been for me to do here. I did not. He did. So he deserves the points.

Phew. I was afraid for a while there I wouldn't be able to get through this and find a way to say something bad about them. Got the old thinking cap on, though.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
66 comments
oncefallendotcom
oncefallendotcom

I'd like to tell you a story about a state named Iowa. 

http://www.oncefallen.com/residencylaws.html


In 2005, Iowa passed what was at the time the most restrictive residency law in the country. Those forced to register as sex offenders could not reside within 2000 feet of any place children congregate. The impact of the law was immediate. Rural motels and trailer parks were filled with registrants as they flock to the few places left in the state where they could legally reside. One hotel with 24 rooms had 26 registered citizens at the address. Other registrants were left homeless and sleeping out of the back of their cars and trucks. Authorities reported three times as many registrants missing in the year after the residency law began than the year before (from 140 to 400). The city of Dubuque reported 90% of the city was off-limits. Another sheriff claimed that he used to know where 90% of the registrants in his county resided, but after the residency law took effect, he barely knows where half reside. By 2007, about 700 of the states 6000 registrants moved out of state or fled the country, while there was an increase of arrests of registrants for giving false addresses.


The 2007 Iowa monitoring report found that the number of sex crime convictions actually increased in the two years following the enactment of the 2000 foot residency restriction. In the year prior to the enactment of the law ending August 2005, there were 913 sex crime charges filed, with 433 ending in conviction. In the year following enactment of the law, between September 2005 and August 2006, there were 928 sex abuse charges filed, and 445 were convicted. Between September 2006 and August 2007, there were 1095 charges filed, and 490 convictions. The residency restriction laws had no positive impact on reducing sex crimes in the state. The number of failure to register convictions increased from 258 the year before the residency restriction was enacted to 442 the year after, in addition to 137 convictions for violating residency restriction laws. 


Iowa repealed RRs for most registrants in 2009. Those still subject to the RRs still face the same problems. Residency laws do not work. 

vahall2012
vahall2012

Fun and interesting things that can land you on the sex offender list - some of which don't even involve sex!


http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-make-you-a-sex-offender-2013-10


http://www.topix.com/forum/city/utica-ny/TRAMP7TVUEIQ20T21


There's also a great three part series currently on Slate, discussing crimes which require registration, and just how preposterously far these laws have gone. 


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/sex_offender_registry_laws_have_our_policies_gone_too_far.html

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

Can't believe nobody has accused me of ripping off Celeste.

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2014/08/12/did-anyone-notice-that-the-city-council-showed-real-leadership-last-week/

I actually wrote this item a couple days ago and then screwed up submitting it, so it got pushed back in the line-up a day. So I hadn't read Celeste on Frontburner, so I didn't just copy him, and I'm not defensive either. If anything, I assume he sat down to write after plumping that crocheted pillow I gave him with the letters WWJS on front (What Would Jim Say).

rchrc1
rchrc1

Good points, both in the article and some of the comments. Could you imagine, since there were a few who made suggestions on the minimization of certain sex offenses, ever being on that registry just because a malevolent spouse made accusations against that other spouse because he/she didn't want to lose children in a divorce child custody battle? OMG... what a nightmare. However, there are a good portion that are on the registry, nationwide, who either took plea deals to protect the children whom they allegedly "attempted or committed" to inappropriately touch, or themselves to prevent getting some serious time from a vehement jury. Could you imagine trying to find work, housing for some and just trying to get your life back and while researching find articles like this or ones that talk about some new legislation to increase the restrictions already placed on them? After researching the subject, I found that 85% of those accused in divorce/child custody battles are innocent. We have a foundation that says "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". In the case of the above thousands that are falsely accused annually, I think that the saying stands to be noted as reversed in that instance to "It is better for one innocent to escape than that ten guilty suffer". 

Admitting; I am one of those ten! My wife separated from me in 1999. Because I believed the environment she placed our children in was dangerous and contacted child welfare services. After "founded" of the circumstances I complained about and 5 months later, accusations arrive (finding out my ex had a friend with that agency) from the child welfare service that I had inappropriately touched one of three daughters. One who had just started talking. One I hadn't seen in 5 months! I sat in county jail for 3 years trying to go to a trial that would never happen. From advice from my P.D. I plead guilty to (I thought), "non-violent" "attempting to commit" charge. I spent 7 1/2 years in prison. I made the best of my time earning my Associate's Degree as a Paralegal and now am in my senior year earning my Bachelor's Degree in Legal Studies. I've looked everyday, online, applications, in person and can't get a job. The neighbors (which I'm within the 1,000 ft code here) are sympathetic, but there is nothing, nothing at all they can do but be supportive. When I was released, I was told I'd have to register for life. So, with reading the above, what is a person in my position supposed to do if he gets trapped in this predicament? Even when I tell my story, I can't get hired because they don't want the registry to point to their establishment. Go figure, right? There should be limits on one's who are placed on the registry to insure the saying "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" is carried out in all aspects of law when it comes to the protection of not only children, but guy's like me's constitutional rights. I've never done anything like this, then again, before this nightmare continuing to now I don't even have a speeding ticket, been in a car accident, drink or do drugs! I've been forcefully treated twice as a sex offender (treated for a cancer I never had) and twice for alcohol and drug addiction. I'm being treated at the VA Mental Clinic for PTSD due to false incarceration. I'm told by attorney's and law enforcement I'll just have to swallow the conviction. So, yes, I'm making this entry for consideration of cases like my own, what do we do for those in these situations? And guys, I'm telling you, if there are any children in your household, don't say this same nightmare can't happen to you or the woman you are with isn't capable of doing this to you. Thankfully, I've got a caring, loving and supportive family. I've got a fiance who adores me and is by my side (and wants to get to the neck of my ex for doing this to me) and blogs like this where I can see the pros and cons of what I've got to face until such changes are made. I look forward to any of your comments. And thanks for taking the time to read through this mess. Trust me, I never-ever thought I would become one of the statistics!

vespasian
vespasian

The one thing that everyone can agree on is that sex offenses (SO) are very bad, regardless of who it is against. The sticking point, I guess, is how to deal with it in the criminal justice system. But first I think we as a society should understand that SOs are not going anywhere. There is a long, long history of this behaviour. You can trace it all the way back to the Romans and Babylonians 2000+ years ago. Sorry to say but this thing is here to stay. Only the human who does this can stop him/her self.

shellystow
shellystow

Thank you, Mr. Schutze, for being a part of this issue. Until we can remove the "emotion" and "gut reaction" element and insist on laws and ordinances based totally on facts and empirical evidence, this battle will continue to be fought. Articles such as yours and Mr. Blow's are important in that they help dispel the myths on which the current sex offender industry is based.


For further research, I believe but am not positive that no major cities in Texas impose residency restrictions on registrants once their court-ordered  punishment has been satisfied. I know Houston does not, and I am almost sure that Fort Worth, Austin, nor Waco do. If I am correct, then Dallas would be the first should this initiative pass into law.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Restrict the domiciling of only the ADULT sex offenders who are convicted of:


Rape of a pubescent or prepubescent;

Forcible rape of a minor

2nd conviction of statutory rape of a minor

Rape of a minor where the age difference is (fill in the blank - say 20 years).

Most people worry about their kids.  So, setting aside conflicting recidivism stats, let's just agree that there are certain types of sex offenders the rest of us don't want in the neighborhood.  And that begins with the ones (legal adults) who rape little kids.

Of course, that would blow up the concept of using downtown as the repository for all the homeless since most all the shelters (public and private) house the harder cases.  And all of them are withing 2,000 feet of schools, parks, libraries, daycare facilities.

tdkisok
tdkisok

While pointing out "examples" of the media's sensationalism Blow does the same thing with the 12 year old incident. An very rare case when you look at the big picture. If it was up to me predators of young children would be castrated and given even longer prison terms. I have no problem with sex offenders being registered publicly like they are now or for them having to be a certain distance from a school. These scumbags have taken away the innocence of the defenseless. Fuck 'em. 

shellystow
shellystow

@vahall2012 It's actually a five-part series; the finale was today and is excellent. It quotes Patty Wetterling saying,  “Right now, you couldn’t walk into a church or community meeting and say, ‘I was a sex offender, but I’ve gone through treatment. I now have this lovely family, and I am so grateful to be a part of this community.’ There is no place for success stories. Nobody believes them.”


All five articles can be accessed here: http://nationalrsol.org/blog/2014/08/12/superb-article-series-at-slate/

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@bvckvs well first, a rapist IS a sex offender.  A murder tends to be a crime of passion and when it isnt, they usually end up in jail until they die.  Fuck car jackers, but they aren't taking your life or your dignity.  Next

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@JimSX It's okay, Jim. Originality is overrated.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@rchrc1 Honest question, if your life is truly well and fucked once you are on the registry, why would you ever, EVER take a plea deal if you were innocent.  Your fucked if they convict you but your fucked if you admit guilt when you are not guilty.  And did your attorney not tell you that taking the plea meant a lifetime on the registry?

vahall2012
vahall2012

@holmantx - Can you please address the well documented fact that the vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated - not by someone on a sex offender registry - by someone within the child's own family or close social circle?  Your proposed restrictions do not enhance safety, they merely create an underclass of persons who can not find housing and who can not reintegrate into the community.  (Is anyone safer, at that point?)

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@holmantx "...there are certain types of sex offenders the rest of us don't want in the neighborhood."

There are certain types of all sorts pf people some of us don't want in our neighborhoods, holman. That doesn't give us a license to prevent them from moving in. Nor does "worry" about our kids.


Until somebody can produce convincing evidence that laws controlling where potential abusers can live will reduce abuse, all this is just a lot of raw, unfocused emotion. Frankly I'm amazed that these laws even pass Constitutional muster.

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@tdkisok How about a person who, when drunk, took a piss in public in the vicinity of a school and was charged with indecent exposure to a child, a sex offense? Should that person spend the rest of his life branded as sexual predator. (He plea bargained his way down to a lesser charge, but it was a close thing.)  

shellystow
shellystow

@tdkisok Not so rare when you look at the stats. Fully a third of those registered are or were juveniles when their offense was committed. Research has found that very few juvenile offenders are predatory but rather act out of curiosity and impulse or, in the case of the girlfriend-boyfriend situations, normal urges.

fred.garvin.mp.713
fred.garvin.mp.713

Except that those laws don't do what they're purported to do. But here's to unbridled emotion!

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@tdkisok and there is the problem, not everyone on the list is a child molester.  Sex offenses take on many forms.  

DeeWhyH
DeeWhyH

Proof is NEVER required in a sexual accusation..PERIOD

end of story

I've been there, done that, got that freakin' T-shirt.

It can happen to ANYONE...the prosecuters love this abuse of power.

Such an easy conviction.

Only she said.....that's it !

DeeWhyH
DeeWhyH

no evidence is EVER REQUIRED for a sexual accusation
PERIOD...

end of that story

rchrc1
rchrc1

@bvckvs @rchrc1 hearsay. No physical evidence, no instance, past or circumstantial. All my ex did was make an accusation, which, to clarify, ended up with the conviction, without evidence, to a "non-violent" attempting commit. Two things; 1 either you're not familiar with the criminal justice system or 2 you've never lived in the state where this happened. All it takes is a word saying you did it. When they did their half-assed investigation, they couldn't even get my daughter to repeat or come close to what she had allegedly stated before, then she said, "you mean what mommy told me daddy did". That was suppressed. I got offered plea deals as early as 9 months into my stay, but I was adamant to prove my innocence. Trust me before I get long winded again with this, I didn't learn the law and here about to receive my BS in law to help others. I didn't just file a civil suit after I was released and obtained the suppressed exonerating evidence, to show I was guilty, and I'm not putting my life on the line here because I feel sharing my story will shed light on these types of charges that are putting thousands of fathers on the registry that haven't done a thing. You're right, "accusations don't land you on the list; convictions do"... those accusations produced in a ripe environment with laws in place to practically guarantee their success. The Walter Mondale Act, (President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 called the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), or the “Mondale Act” - See more at: http://www.faithandreason.com/the-mondale-act-and-its-aftermath/#sthash.fToUZLqc.dpuf) "made federal funds available to the states for child abuse prevention and research programs on the condition that they passed laws which mandated the following: reporting by certain professionals (such as physicians) of even suspected cases of child abuse and neglect. the problem of definition has been a major reason for an ongoing explosion of false abuse/neglect reports." Based on what the law was made for, and how "suspected" (ie word of mouth, hearsay) is granted as probable cause to obtain not only an arrest warrant but also indictment, if an allegation passes from anyone, to that someone with the authoritative position, that's all it takes. PERIOD! Believe that or not. The case is founded, any interview with the abused is coached (even if true) and the deck is not only stacked against you, you have no defense unless you've got plenty of money. The only evidence in my case was hearsay "their word against (yours)" "want to take the chance of getting the full 15 years and listed violent"? After 3 years, and was offered the "attempting" plea as non-violent and no exposure... no, it wasn't a deal of any kind, but I felt compelled because I sat that long, how much longer then they would still plead out with a time served. You just don't make allegations like this and expect to get off. I didn't have the money, nor did my family. I can guarantee you this: if you ever get a charge put on you that you've did anything to a minor, you will go to jail (you may have the money to bond out or hire a good attorney), and 99 times out of a 100 you will plead out or you will get some serious time in front of a jury! No one is going to believe you didn't do it, and no one is going to come to your defense! It's the perfect crime to falsely accuse someone of doing any harm against a child. So, I leave you with two items to ponder; 1) wifes, girlfriends, moms, aunts....want to take that man out of the picture and you have children around..... make the accusation! 2) If everything isn't exactly as I describe it to be and it is that easy, how is it that I can give you so much detail (based on my own experience)? And I leave anyone with this: want to learn how to do it, exactly as I described above, I can tell you step-by-step how to do it and I can also give you the law that will protect you once you've made those false allegations. You'll be protected by the law (you can even flee the state) and they'll pay you up to $15,000 per child victim to help you do whatever it is you'd like to do! That's exactly what happened in my case and thousands more. I again challenge people..... do the research! Find your own answers instead of "feel good" laws and those untrue crime dramas on the TV giving you all the facts. I'm one to tell you they are untrue and misleading. 

rchrc1
rchrc1

@ScottsMerkin @rchrc1 I was told that it was "non-violent" and didn't expose me to the registry. My question back at you, would you risk your young children going to court? No, more importantly, how long would you sit in a cell 23 hours a day for, I thought 1 day was too long, but I managed 3 years, thank God for the military experience. In this country my dad, sister and myself fought for, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. If true what you suggested, then if every man and woman in our county jails were to sit in their local county jails/detention centers were to all demand that trial by jury (6th Amendment protection), then if a new crime were committed tonight, there would be no place to put them in after they are arrested. We have to look at facts before we start on personal feelings, that doesn't work, I already tried that. It is even capable by your language that you don't have total control of your need to swear and project your position because you've never been in my shoes, nor I doubt you could muster the courage to face with what I've been through. Plead guilty to me is like the military or intelligence official going through interrogation to get information from... most only last a few hours versus much less three years> I just made my post not seeking anything other than advice, however, again I called the shot about seeing information of the pros and cons and of course the citizen response to my post on what or how anything like this could happen. Remember, (do the research, I did and shared) 85% of those with like charges are innocent, that's not 85 men, that's out of 700,000 registered with upwards of 22% of that total coming out of divorce/child custody battles. Roughly, based on that figure is 154,000 people. The criterion of conviction or acceptance of pleas, which is used to educate the public on these offenses occurring, not to mention the non-heard about allegations of abuse in divorce/child custody battles, to corroborate such alleged abuse is not a valid indicator at all. Most children in forensic studies have proven that 62% of the children who have been abused report their abuse within 48 hours, not 5 month like in my case. Oh and Scott, I've got all the evidence to prove my innocence, and the state withheld exculpatory evidence because they never intended to take me to trial. My children, now grown are pissed and are adamant to testify in the $22 million civil suit I have against the state, my ex- and everyone involved. I didn't learn the law to just help others, I learned it to help myself. I'm not crazy about sex offenders, and some really need to be put away for ever. My comment though was based on the restrictions, my own input to that was what a person like me, one in hundreds of thousands, can find a way to live a meaningful life with what we've had to "swallow" because the system is so strict that you "can't" slip through the justice system with these kind of charges, and anyone who thinks that the CJS is being lenient to them has got to have his head buried in the sand. But for what its worth, thanks for commenting. I've heard your question many times and I've been with thousands in the penitentiary who well know how you'll take a plea to get out of those horrendous conditions county jail have, especially after a minimum of 6 months, which the constitution says that you're supposed to get that "fair and speedy trail". 


ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@bvckvs @vespasian You have your Duck Dynasty characters confused.  Willie is the son who may have those views but never got caught saying them but he was invited to the State of the Union.  It was his daddy who got in hot water over his preaching.  You are very confused

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@bmarvel @holmantx

"That doesn't give us a license"

yes it does.

we do it by income now, as well as many other ways (55 and older in retirement communities).  Singles complexes.  many other ways


apparently you are easily amazed.


California has a 2,000 ft limit STATEWIDE!

tdkisok
tdkisok

@ScottsMerkin


I agree a that a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year could and has been prosecuted. But a 22 year old and a 14 year old? Do you want to defend that? 


But in the end it's very simple, don't have sexual contact with someone who is underaged. Duh.  

shellystow
shellystow

@whateveryousay--Given that we already have the largest prison industry in the U.S. of any industrialized nation, how much larger do you propose that it should become? And incidentally, "pedophiles" are a very small percentage of those on the registry. And you might be surprised to know that "pedophile" is not a legal term; it is a medical one. No one is convicted of pedophilia. Many diagnosed pedophiles have never touched a child inappropriately.

vahall2012
vahall2012

@holmantx  - yes, it does, and the idiocy of that law, the incredible array of problems it has caused in its implementation, and the damage left in its wake, have resulted in several cases waiting to be heard by the California Supreme Court.  I wouldn't brag about it...

shellystow
shellystow

@holmantx Could you possibly be mistaken about CA's statewide restriction law being 2000 ft? 

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@holmantx @bmarvel The stupidity of some laws --and those who enforce them -- never ceases to amaze me, holman. 


We do what by income? Require that people pay, or at least promise to pay, for what they buy? No revelation there, holman. And retirement and singles communities are governed by homeowners' associations, not criminal law.

vahall2012
vahall2012

@tdkisok - how about juveniles  And cases like these? Jake Rainer, who committed a drug robbery --he and his friends picked up a 17-year-old girl who was going to sell them some marijuana. Instead of making a deal, they drove her to a cul-de-sac, took the pot and abandoned her.

Rainer pleaded guilty to robbery and false imprisonment.  Because of the latter conviction, he now has had to register as a sex offender.   How about men who have sex with underage girls, then marry those same girls, have children with them, and are precluded from contact with their own families?  People who are prosecuted because (a) their partner decided it was rape, after the fact; (b) someone's parents found out s/he was over 18, and called the police or (c) a vindictive spouse/partner/employee decided to bring the big hammer down by making sexual abuse allegations, especially involving children?  


In the end, it's very simple, all right.  These laws, and the collateral damage which flow from them, need serious reform and my hat is off to anyone who advances that cause.

trekatch
trekatch

@tdkisok @ScottsMerkin And what happens when the 21 year old meets the 14 year old drinking a bar?  If you saw a girl who looked 21 or older, drinking in a club where only 21 and above where allowed, wouldn't you assume they were, in fact, at least 21?  Or how about meeting a girl through a dating site who lists her age as 18? When you find out she's 14/15 guess what, it doesn't matter (at least in Texas) what she told you, showed you, listed or anything else.  Your a sex offender and that's just that.  And guess what, they don't even take her fake ID away or make her take down her profile (or change her listed age).  She can do it again and again. (And I only use 'she' because there is not nearly as much reverse prosecution for teens having sex, its there, just not as prevelant).

rchrc1
rchrc1

@Chattering_Monkey @rchrc1 only what I'm doing now and trying to hold everyone accountable in civil court which has in itself been yet another nightmare.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@Chattering_Monkey @rchrc1

The no. 2 accusation in custody battles.  "I think he touched our child inappropriately".

A family court judge I know told me that one came in second.  It is handled all the time.  Not unusual at all.  Every court deals with the charge.  Only in custody battles can both sides get up and say the most scurrilous, unsupported charge the can think of.  It's war.

The first one is he or she does drugs.

But don't ever cop to it.  It is one thing to be accused then lose unsupervised custody as a result.  Quite another to be convicted of the crime.  There's no opportunity to "cop to a plea" when fighting over custody.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@bmarvel @holmantx

A guy who rapes a kid under 10 didn't make a "mistake" and he's not going to get a lot of leeway on the potential of recidivism to say the least.

We hold certain truths to be self-evident.

That you seem to, once again, draw the distinction up to where you think you look "wise", erudite, or otherwise enlightened sounds like a personal problem.

No doubt you'd represent the snake tossed form the garden of eden for cause.

Brass tacks are nobody wants to live around this particular type of sex offender and and that's what I am talking about.  If a neighborhood wants to discriminate, by law, then I I don't have a problem with that.

And the Ordinary Prudent Man is going to go with it, which leaves you out arguing in a bar somewhere about the unfairness of Life.

I think we should make an exception to the death penalty - you rape a prepubescent, you die.

Recidivism is then zero.

tdkisok
tdkisok

@ScottsMerkin


Very true, but what about kiddy porn? Or better yet, tell me how else you could get on the Sex Registry in an act that does not involve sex.   

tdkisok
tdkisok

@trekatch


That's laughable. You meet some girl and have sex with her that is YOUR responsibility. It's your dick. Be responsible enough to at least get to know her. A teenage girl can't cover her age for long. Fake ID or no (which may just be the lamest excuse I have ever heard) it's up to you.


What's funny is that you are trying to explain away the crime like the old Steve Martin joke, "Officer, I didn't know it was illegal to rob a bank."


rchrc1
rchrc1

@holmantx you've hit the nail on the head with your response, however.... according to the Walter Mondale Act of 1974 any person in position of authority, when disclosed with any allegation of abuse must contact law enforcement...... now you see how it went from being a family court matter to one of that of the criminal justice system. oh, and about the alcohol or drugs, I might, and that is maybe, have a beer or two during a football game, as soon as food is served, I lose taste for it and now getting older, my medications can't handle that much... but I've been successfully been treated for both! thanks for the responses.. 



shellystow
shellystow

@holmantx
These sorts of things must be imposed on the basis of individual need, not as a broad, sweeping ordinance. Fortunately, the courts are agreeing.  "California voters in 2006 approved Jessica's Law, which set residency restrictions and other rules for sex offenders. A court ruling in 2012 found that the law's broad restrictions for all offenders were unconstitutional but allowed for rules on individual offenders as part of their parole terms."  http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/crime_courts/2014/07/02/riverside-county-repealing-sex-offender-rules/11958927/

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@holmantx @bmarvel 

@holmantx @bmarvel You seem to imagine, hoiman, that I condone and even defend anyone who rapes "a kid under 10." You even put the word "mistake" into my mouth to justify your mistaken assumption.

Who is this "We" that hold your "truths" to be self-evident? Wrong on all three counts. I find no truths at all in your rambling screed, but a heap of opinion, much of it expressed with your usual lack of clarity. (Apparently to write clearly, in your opinion, is to pretend to be "wise, erudite, or otherwise enlightened.")

Speaking of clarity, holman, who is "this particular type of sex offender? The person who rapes a 10-year-old? Agreed. That leaves all sort of offenders, non-offenders and others out of the discussion, and they are precisely what this discussion has been about, starting with City  Council.

The ability of people to limit by law who may live where has been decisively dealt with again and again by the courts. Myself, I'm a strong law-and-order man. In this country we govern by law, not by what "the Ordinary Prudent Man is going to go with." The prudence, effectiveness, and Constitutionality of laws that limits where those who may or may not be a danger may live is still under discussion, not a forgone conclusion as you would like to believe. Sober evaluation and debate, not emotionality and personal insult should govern that debate.  

.  

trekatch
trekatch

@ScottsMerkin because states have added tons offenses to qualify to be on the registry.  In some states, even parental kidnapping will get you there, streaking at a foot ball game, urinating in public. None of those act involve sex, but they are offenses that can get you on that registry.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@tdkisok @ScottsMerkin pissing on a tree or building in public, driving around nude in your car, flashing people.  texting unsolicited or unwanted nudes 

trekatch
trekatch

@tdkisok @trekatch And how exactly do you suggest a 21 year old boy determine whether a girl is lying or not - if her own parents can't figure out she's lying about going out with 21 year old boys, going to bars, posting online ads, etc.?  Are they supposed to be mind readers?  I know 14/15 year olds girls that are more mature than 30 year old men.  And I like how you don't mention one thing about the girl being responsible for any part of it----it's okay for her to lie but not okay for a young man to believe her.  I doubt when you were 21 the first thing you thought of when you met a girl in a bar was, gee I should make sure she's really 21 before I get involved.  And actually homeless teens cover their age for long periods of time, fool cops, social workers and all kids of people to keep from being put on the street.  You fooling yourself if you believe a girl can't keep a lie going long enough to get what she wants.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@bmarvel @holmantx

I apologise.  

I thought you were responding to my post regarding those sex offenders I thought the City should bar from domiciling within a prescribed distance of where children gather.

I had no idea you were agreeing with me.

After reading your initial response to my post, it's quite clear from your writing you agree with me and that you truly are, a law and order type man. 

shellystow
shellystow

@holmantx

Yep; we're working toward that. We advocate for a law-enforcement only registry.


www.nationalrsol.org

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@shellystow @holmantx

My sister came to visit.  She's a tough chick.  She brought my nephew.  He's 10.  She got on my computer.  Checked out the pedophiles.  Asked where the Austin Street Shelter was.  I said it was two blocks over why?

10 sex offenders.

And when she brought their picture up, it was old guys convicted of raping prepubescents.

They weren't very  . . . photogenic.

Trust me.

Having said that, I understand what you are saying but seriously, you do not want society holding you and your family accountable after the fact so make sure your are right, then go ahead.

shellystow
shellystow

@whateveryousay--Friend, everything I advocate for is based on facts and evidence, generally held to be the antithesis of nonsense. All I ask is that before any law is passed--on any issue, not just registry ones--that the persons pushing the law show evidence that it will accomplish that which it purports to accomplish. Anything else is a waste of law enforcement time and effort and of taxpayer money. Why wouldn't anyone want the same?

vahall2012
vahall2012

@holmantx - Thanks for this story. I am often curious, as a parent, what makes others want to look at the Megan's Law Registry and what they do with the information found there.  So your tough chick sister came to visit with her 10 year old boy, looked at the local Sex Offender Registry, found out ten offenders were at the local shelter.


THEN WHAT?


(comments about the photogenicness or lack thereof of the registrants unnecessary).  


What I'd really like to read, is an explanation of how your sister's use of the online registry either (a) saved one child or (b) contributed to public safety.  


TY In advance....

vahall2012
vahall2012

@holmantx - my point being, "convicted" doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of guilt or innocence, when there is a moral panic afoot.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...