Joined
·
5,215 Posts
Acording to my friends date she has a man on her list of sex offenders that was put there because he took a leak in his backyard (rural area) and his nieghbor saw it and filed a complaint.Malum Prohibitum said:
Sex Offender - 1000 yards from bus stop ruling.
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
I did a skim of the very lengthy bill (HB 1059), and it looks like the only way the full-bladdered traveler might land on the registry is if the "victim" of the horrid sight is a minor.
One interesting thing I noted was that incestuous crimes seem to have some unfounded gender bias. Homosexual relations between grandparents and grandchildren of any generder is incest. Among aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews, however, homosecual relations are not incest (???), but heterosexual relations are.
One interesting thing I noted was that incestuous crimes seem to have some unfounded gender bias. Homosexual relations between grandparents and grandchildren of any generder is incest. Among aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews, however, homosecual relations are not incest (???), but heterosexual relations are.
Joined
·
75,268 Posts
http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/
Everyone on that list near me has been convicted of child molestation or a similar offense.
What angers me is to see how most of them spent little or no time in prison, but now my child is supposedly being "protected" by this list?
How about keeping them in prison?
Everyone on that list near me has been convicted of child molestation or a similar offense.
What angers me is to see how most of them spent little or no time in prison, but now my child is supposedly being "protected" by this list?
How about keeping them in prison?
Joined
·
4,792 Posts
There is no cure for sex offenders. All you have to do is watch the news or read your newspaper. Lock'em up and throw away the key.
Joined
·
30,197 Posts
Sex Offenders
The law regarding the sex offender registration requirement was changed in many ways, effective 7/1/2006, but I think that the law has always required registration for someone convicted (here or in any other state) for an offense against a victim who is a minor. So public indecency won't cut it-- the "victims" are all the good citizens of the State, not the person who just happens to be see it. If the flasher targets a particular person to show his weenie to, and that particular person happens to be a minor, THEN it would seem that he's committed a sexual offense against that minor.
This crime could be described as "child molestation" even if it did not involve touching any part of the child in any way. All it takes to be found guilty of child molestation is that the person does an "immoral and indecent at" in the presence of a child, for the purposes of sexual gratification (that does NOT mean an attempt to achieve orgasm -- it could just be to satisfy his perversions) of either himself or the child.
By the way, one part of the the new law appears to do away with the requirement that sexual offenders commit a "sexual offense" against a minor to be on the registry. Per the new definition of "sexual offender," any "criminal offense" against a minor will work. Did the legislature really intend to apply this to someone who steals a kid's bicycle???? But in a different section of this same law, the phrase "criminal offense against a victim who is a minor" is itself defined to include 7 offenses and types of offenses, most of which have something "sexual" about them, except for "kidnapping" and "false imprisonment" (neither of which will trigger sex offender registration if done by a parent, by the way).
In Massachusetts, a similarly-worded law was found to apply to a case where an adult asked an underage girl to SUCK on his THUMB, and he did in fact put a finger in her mouth. He never said he wanted anything else sucked. Nonetheless, the appellate court in MA said that since he violated that girl's expectations of privacy and society's expectations of decency, he could be convicted (as he was) of child molestation. So he's going to be a registered sexual offender, and if he ever moves to Georgia, he'll have to register here too (within 72 hours of his change of address).
I think that this new law misses a great opportunity to deal with such cases on a case-by-case basis, taking many different facts and circumstances into consideration. The way the law is now, the thumb-suckers and the college girls who give oral sex to teenage boys will be registering just like the rapists of 6 year olds and the hardcore pedophiles who have a history of hanging out in school yards wearing trenchcoats, with pockets stuffed full of candy to give away.
The law creates a new government agency called the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board, who will go over each sexual offender's case individually and assess what level of risk that person is to society. High risk people will get more supervision, more intense monitoring, etc. But even the lowest-risk people still have to obey all the standard sex offender restrictions, if the Courts allow this law to be enforced.
I would much prefer that JUDGES who hear all the facts and circumstances of each case get the authority to impose a WIDE RANGE of sentences, from just a few years of straight probation to life or 30 years. And I wish the Sex Offender Review Board, or the Sentencing Review Panel, would then review that judge-imposed sentence to make sure that it is neither excessive (if defendant wants it reviewed) nor unjustifiably lenient (if the State complains and wants it reviewed).
If the laws in Georgia are going to be so broadly worded that one particular statute could be violated by something as minimal as a pat on the tush (over the clothing, one time, in public) or something as horrible as full sexual penetration (and maybe giving the child some disease, or making her pregnant, etc.), then the statute ought to have a wide range of sentences to match the seriousness of the offense.
And some "sexual offenders" ought not to be on the registry, anyway.
They just don't need to be there, especially after they've fully completed their sentence and are no longer on probation, parole, etc. Many of them should have all their civil rights back, including the freedom to live, work, and travel where they please.
If a particular person's crime was so bad, or their criminal history so disturbing, that we just don't think we can ever trust them to be fully free in our society again, and if there's evidence that this person could use monitoring and supervision for the rest of his life, here's how to handle it:
KEEP THE S.O.B. IN PRISON !!! Or, if he doesn't need to be locked down 24/7 but DOES need the State to limit his freedom and supervise his life, then give him a LONG TERM OF PROBATION and/or PAROLE, so that he will get the supervision he needs (and the supervision that society demands to feel safe from him) while under a criminal sentence ordered by the judge that presided over his trial or guilty plea.
I have a problem with significant restrictions on liberty being placed on people ex post facto. Just saying that the restrictions are done for "public safety" reasons rather than "punitive" reasons doesn't cut it. But as long as the restrictions are PART OF the judge's sentence, rather than something added by the legislature years later, after the judge's sentence is over and done.... then I'm OK with the restrictions.
The law regarding the sex offender registration requirement was changed in many ways, effective 7/1/2006, but I think that the law has always required registration for someone convicted (here or in any other state) for an offense against a victim who is a minor. So public indecency won't cut it-- the "victims" are all the good citizens of the State, not the person who just happens to be see it. If the flasher targets a particular person to show his weenie to, and that particular person happens to be a minor, THEN it would seem that he's committed a sexual offense against that minor.
This crime could be described as "child molestation" even if it did not involve touching any part of the child in any way. All it takes to be found guilty of child molestation is that the person does an "immoral and indecent at" in the presence of a child, for the purposes of sexual gratification (that does NOT mean an attempt to achieve orgasm -- it could just be to satisfy his perversions) of either himself or the child.
By the way, one part of the the new law appears to do away with the requirement that sexual offenders commit a "sexual offense" against a minor to be on the registry. Per the new definition of "sexual offender," any "criminal offense" against a minor will work. Did the legislature really intend to apply this to someone who steals a kid's bicycle???? But in a different section of this same law, the phrase "criminal offense against a victim who is a minor" is itself defined to include 7 offenses and types of offenses, most of which have something "sexual" about them, except for "kidnapping" and "false imprisonment" (neither of which will trigger sex offender registration if done by a parent, by the way).
In Massachusetts, a similarly-worded law was found to apply to a case where an adult asked an underage girl to SUCK on his THUMB, and he did in fact put a finger in her mouth. He never said he wanted anything else sucked. Nonetheless, the appellate court in MA said that since he violated that girl's expectations of privacy and society's expectations of decency, he could be convicted (as he was) of child molestation. So he's going to be a registered sexual offender, and if he ever moves to Georgia, he'll have to register here too (within 72 hours of his change of address).
I think that this new law misses a great opportunity to deal with such cases on a case-by-case basis, taking many different facts and circumstances into consideration. The way the law is now, the thumb-suckers and the college girls who give oral sex to teenage boys will be registering just like the rapists of 6 year olds and the hardcore pedophiles who have a history of hanging out in school yards wearing trenchcoats, with pockets stuffed full of candy to give away.
The law creates a new government agency called the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board, who will go over each sexual offender's case individually and assess what level of risk that person is to society. High risk people will get more supervision, more intense monitoring, etc. But even the lowest-risk people still have to obey all the standard sex offender restrictions, if the Courts allow this law to be enforced.
I would much prefer that JUDGES who hear all the facts and circumstances of each case get the authority to impose a WIDE RANGE of sentences, from just a few years of straight probation to life or 30 years. And I wish the Sex Offender Review Board, or the Sentencing Review Panel, would then review that judge-imposed sentence to make sure that it is neither excessive (if defendant wants it reviewed) nor unjustifiably lenient (if the State complains and wants it reviewed).
If the laws in Georgia are going to be so broadly worded that one particular statute could be violated by something as minimal as a pat on the tush (over the clothing, one time, in public) or something as horrible as full sexual penetration (and maybe giving the child some disease, or making her pregnant, etc.), then the statute ought to have a wide range of sentences to match the seriousness of the offense.
And some "sexual offenders" ought not to be on the registry, anyway.
They just don't need to be there, especially after they've fully completed their sentence and are no longer on probation, parole, etc. Many of them should have all their civil rights back, including the freedom to live, work, and travel where they please.
If a particular person's crime was so bad, or their criminal history so disturbing, that we just don't think we can ever trust them to be fully free in our society again, and if there's evidence that this person could use monitoring and supervision for the rest of his life, here's how to handle it:
KEEP THE S.O.B. IN PRISON !!! Or, if he doesn't need to be locked down 24/7 but DOES need the State to limit his freedom and supervise his life, then give him a LONG TERM OF PROBATION and/or PAROLE, so that he will get the supervision he needs (and the supervision that society demands to feel safe from him) while under a criminal sentence ordered by the judge that presided over his trial or guilty plea.
I have a problem with significant restrictions on liberty being placed on people ex post facto. Just saying that the restrictions are done for "public safety" reasons rather than "punitive" reasons doesn't cut it. But as long as the restrictions are PART OF the judge's sentence, rather than something added by the legislature years later, after the judge's sentence is over and done.... then I'm OK with the restrictions.
Joined
·
30,197 Posts
INCEST
JRM: Regarding homosexual incest: Note that while "sexual intercourse" is not defined in the statute, the RAPE law uses the phrase "carnal knowedge" and defines it in a way that duplicates what most of us would call sexual intercourse. Therefore, the State may argue that the definition of "sexual intercourse" is broader than "carnal knowledge" and may include sodomy or other forms of sexual coupling or penetration that may not necessarily be "carnal knowledge." This would be a novel question of law for the appellate courts to deal with, at least with regard to the INCEST statute. Previously the Court of Appeals held that the ADULTERY statute could be violated by a homosexual encounter, and that statute also uses the term "sexual intercourse."
One day soon some overzealous prosecutor may get an uncle or father convicted of "incest" for doing some form of sodomy on his neice or daughter, and if that defendant appeals it, you can read about the result in the Fulton County Daily Report (perhaps a few years from now).
JRM: Regarding homosexual incest: Note that while "sexual intercourse" is not defined in the statute, the RAPE law uses the phrase "carnal knowedge" and defines it in a way that duplicates what most of us would call sexual intercourse. Therefore, the State may argue that the definition of "sexual intercourse" is broader than "carnal knowledge" and may include sodomy or other forms of sexual coupling or penetration that may not necessarily be "carnal knowledge." This would be a novel question of law for the appellate courts to deal with, at least with regard to the INCEST statute. Previously the Court of Appeals held that the ADULTERY statute could be violated by a homosexual encounter, and that statute also uses the term "sexual intercourse."
One day soon some overzealous prosecutor may get an uncle or father convicted of "incest" for doing some form of sodomy on his neice or daughter, and if that defendant appeals it, you can read about the result in the Fulton County Daily Report (perhaps a few years from now).
Gunsmoker, first of all, I agree with virtually everything you said in your lengthy email of yesterday.
As for the shorter email, I should clarify about my observation regarding homosexual incest. You seem to have focused on "sexual intercourse" and its definition, while I was referencing the gender terms used in the statute. Note that I used the phrase "sexual relations" because I was not limiting my discussion to intercourse.
Anyway, my point was that the statute prohibits sexual relations (not necessarily intercourse) between grandparents and grandchildren (gender neutral terms). It also prohibits relations between uncles and nieces, and between aunts and nephews (gender specific terms). It does not prohibit relations between uncles and nephews and between aunts and nieces. I do not believe it is the sense of the general assembly that "funny uncles" should stay away from their nieces, but that it's open season on nephews.
As for the shorter email, I should clarify about my observation regarding homosexual incest. You seem to have focused on "sexual intercourse" and its definition, while I was referencing the gender terms used in the statute. Note that I used the phrase "sexual relations" because I was not limiting my discussion to intercourse.
Anyway, my point was that the statute prohibits sexual relations (not necessarily intercourse) between grandparents and grandchildren (gender neutral terms). It also prohibits relations between uncles and nieces, and between aunts and nephews (gender specific terms). It does not prohibit relations between uncles and nephews and between aunts and nieces. I do not believe it is the sense of the general assembly that "funny uncles" should stay away from their nieces, but that it's open season on nephews.
Joined
·
30,197 Posts
good point
I had not noticed that before. The difference between gender-neutral grandparent-grandchild sex and uncle-niece, aunt-nephew gender specific sex is puzzling. What was the legislature thinking? Or weren't they thinking? Did they intend to only criminalize sexual acts between people of opposite genders, regardless of what that sex act was? Hmm....
I had not noticed that before. The difference between gender-neutral grandparent-grandchild sex and uncle-niece, aunt-nephew gender specific sex is puzzling. What was the legislature thinking? Or weren't they thinking? Did they intend to only criminalize sexual acts between people of opposite genders, regardless of what that sex act was? Hmm....
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
The "Sex Offender Registry" is too broad and the offenses needs to be narrowed down only to the most violent of sex offenses such as rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, child molestation and aggravated child molestation, enticing a child for indecent purposes, and statutory rape - I think the age limits for this one need serious overhaul too. Did I miss one?
Also I believe in capitol punishment, but I think it only should only be used as an "eye for an eye" type case. For example if a person committs murder or voluntary manslaughter while participating in the crimes above, then the death sentence should be put on the table as an option. I think rape does have a provision in the statute to where a person can be put to death.
Lastly I feel that the sentences for offenses of child molestation should be as follows; child molestation 1st offense mandatory 20 years, no parole. register as a violent sex offender. 2nd offense mandatory life in prison. Aggravated child molestation (where a child is physically hurt or an act of sodomy is performed) 1st offense mandatory life in prison.
I can tell ya as an ex-deputy sheriff working in the jail, general pop is no fun for a child molester. His fellow inmates will take plenty of opprotunities to subject him/her to the same type of treatment he gave to his victim and then some. Some child molesters, after a few encounter with the reciprocating inmates, learn the errors of their ways and cant stand the preferential treatment from their fellow inmates and try to take their own life or end up in a fight and beaten to a bloody mess.
Also I believe in capitol punishment, but I think it only should only be used as an "eye for an eye" type case. For example if a person committs murder or voluntary manslaughter while participating in the crimes above, then the death sentence should be put on the table as an option. I think rape does have a provision in the statute to where a person can be put to death.
Lastly I feel that the sentences for offenses of child molestation should be as follows; child molestation 1st offense mandatory 20 years, no parole. register as a violent sex offender. 2nd offense mandatory life in prison. Aggravated child molestation (where a child is physically hurt or an act of sodomy is performed) 1st offense mandatory life in prison.
I can tell ya as an ex-deputy sheriff working in the jail, general pop is no fun for a child molester. His fellow inmates will take plenty of opprotunities to subject him/her to the same type of treatment he gave to his victim and then some. Some child molesters, after a few encounter with the reciprocating inmates, learn the errors of their ways and cant stand the preferential treatment from their fellow inmates and try to take their own life or end up in a fight and beaten to a bloody mess.
Joined
·
30,197 Posts
ICP
ICP, so you're saying that all child molestation cases should result in a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence, without parole? I can see how that would be the right sentence in SOME child molestation cases, but if you read my post above, you will see that the "child molestation" statute is so broadly-worded that it includes conduct that I think can be adequately punished with probation, or a few months in jail, rather than a few decades.
It's like saying "ALL CONVICTED FELONS SHOULD LOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS--INCLUDING GUN RIGHTS-- FOR LIFE." That makes sense if you think of the common-law felonies (rape, robbery, murder, etc.). But today there are a lot more crimes that are "felonies" than you probably realize. Should all "felons" be treated alike? No.
ICP, so you're saying that all child molestation cases should result in a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence, without parole? I can see how that would be the right sentence in SOME child molestation cases, but if you read my post above, you will see that the "child molestation" statute is so broadly-worded that it includes conduct that I think can be adequately punished with probation, or a few months in jail, rather than a few decades.
It's like saying "ALL CONVICTED FELONS SHOULD LOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS--INCLUDING GUN RIGHTS-- FOR LIFE." That makes sense if you think of the common-law felonies (rape, robbery, murder, etc.). But today there are a lot more crimes that are "felonies" than you probably realize. Should all "felons" be treated alike? No.
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
Well gunsmoker I do see your point and yes I do feel that the child molestation statute is too broad as well. Obviously just patting a child on the bottom or relieveing yourself infront of a child shouldn't automatically net a child molestation charge. What I am trying to say is that a child molestation charge however severe shouldn't have the death penalty attached unless murder or voluntary manslaughter resulted in from their actions aganist the child.
Joined
·
75,268 Posts
If it was my child - I would kill the offender myself.ICP_Juggalo said:
:shock:
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
If it was my child - I would kill the offender myself.Malum Prohibitum said:
:shock:[/quote:2su2hiyh]
And I would probably most likely do the same thing if someone raped my wife. He/she/they just better hope that the authorities get to them before I do. :shoot:
Joined
·
338 Posts
I think having him randomly beaten up for serveral years is a far worse punishment then death. :shattered:
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
