Sex Offenders in Georgia

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

There's a recycling center near here. They hire people to pick through the recycled material to separate glass, paper, aluminum, cardboard etc. No kids around, and they can be supervised. And someone has to do it.

That only makes them productive - not members of society.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,120]

>That only makes them productive - not members of society.

Hey, if you live somewhere, have a job, drive to work, buy food at a store, watch TV, vote - you're a member of society, like it or not.

There are some people who cannot safely be members of a society. As Kris pointed out, these people should be in prison or an institution. Once they're out they're back in society, like it or not.

[jakee 1,596]

In your description of the recycling job 'No kids around, they can be supervised.'

If they need to be supervised in the work place then they need to be supervised where they live as well. If they need to be supervised where they live... thats what prison is for.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,120]

>If they need to be supervised where they live... thats what prison is for.

Which is what Kris's point is. If they have served their time, and are not a significant threat, then release them and let them work wherever they can find work (which won't be many places after a conviction like that.) If they ARE a significant threat, then don't release them. But do that per our laws, not because of public hysteria.

[nathaniel 0]

I think every county in every state should have a law like this, then all the offenders would have to live on boats way offshore.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

I think every county in every state should have a law like this, then all the offenders would have to live on boats way offshore.

Boats? Screw that...let them tread water.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[nathaniel 0]

If an offender has to live 1000 ft away from school bus stops...if a sex offender (say, someone who got caught streaking across campus in college) has kids, does that mean their kids can't take the bus?

Seems like a mean way to punish kids for their parents misdeeds.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

This is but another form of NIMBYism..

Whoa! I haven't heard that term except in environmental law classes.

I agree.
Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[Andy9o8 2]

I hate to be a buzz-kill, guys, but any law (in the USA) that would prohibit a convicted sex offender, who has completed his/her sentence - especially if he/she is no longer on parole - from residing anywhere within an entire county would be unconstitutional.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I hate to be a buzz-kill, guys, but any law (in the USA) that would prohibit a convicted sex offender, who has completed his/her sentence - especially if he/she is no longer on parole - from residing anywhere within an entire county would be unconstitutional.

Easy enough to solve; make it part of their sentence, or include parole-for-life as part of their sentence. What about my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Kinda challenging with an incurable child rapist living next door. I do not have that, but I'm OK with laws designed to prevent it.

I say bring back penal colonies. Let the predators fend for themselves and prey on each other.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I hate to be a buzz-kill, guys, but any law (in the USA) that would prohibit a convicted sex offender, who has completed his/her sentence - especially if he/she is no longer on parole - from residing anywhere within an entire county would be unconstitutional.

Which goes back to Nightengale's post that if they are not safe for release, then don't release them.

Our penalties are not consistent or firm enough. Laws like this coming out are a direct acknowledgement that at least local communities recognize that our punishment phase is not tough enough for this crime. So we get a bandaid attempt by local communities trying to protect themselves, instead of real fixes. Our legal system at it's best does not seem to be designed to protect society from the bad guys. It seems to be designed to punish the bad guys while not stepping on their sensibilities. The focus is wrong. Instead of justice, it's more of an attempt to satiate both right and left wing prejudices.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,589]

It shouldn't always be about punishment; I think that's part of where we get bollixed up.

If society is better served by X person being restricted, then fine. Don't work on making them miserable for the rest of their life, just make sure that society is protected.

We don't owe people the opportunity to take revenge. Even the wronged. Revenge is not the same as reparations.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

I hate to be a buzz-kill, guys, but any law (in the USA) that would prohibit a convicted sex offender, who has completed his/her sentence - especially if he/she is no longer on parole - from residing anywhere within an entire county would be unconstitutional.

Although the Supreme Court has not yet dealt with this issue, I have to agree. Take a look at Doe v. Pryor 61 F. Supp 2d 1224. It's 11th circuit - the same as Georgia. This case said that the Alabama Megan's Law was too restrictive, and infringed on the defendant's liberty interest.

My problem with these laws is that very few of them have any system whereby the defendants can challenge their sex offender status. This guy received ONE video tape in the mail with child pornography on it. He never actually assaulted anyone. I'm not saying it's not a serious offense, but it's hardly enough to make someone move out of a neighborhood. I'm sure many sex offenders haven't actually committed sexual assault, and are still subject to these restrictions. Like I said, it seems excessive to me.

Of course, I'm a person who believes that once you've paid your debt to society, you should be free to take advantage of all of those things in a society that people who haven't committed crimes have. In short, I agree with Kris. If we've determined that these people are no longer dangerous, and have let them out of jail, then we shouldn't be able to harass and embarass them, or let others harass or embarass them.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It shouldn't always be about punishment or touchy feely social experiments trying to 'guess' on whether a criminal is actually rehabilitated; I think that's part of where we get bollixed up.

If society is better served by X person being restricted, then fine restricted them and stop right there. Don't work on making them miserable for the rest of their life and don't work on making them happy either, just make sure that society is protected.

We don't owe people the opportunity to take revenge nor do we owe a criminal any of the rights they chose to give up when they blatantly disregarded the well being of the rest of society. Even the wronged. Revenge is not the same as reparations.

So why do you only acknowledge one side of the discussion? Is it on purpose? I agree with you, but it's weak without the entire picture. I think a few of us here, but not as many as I would have thought, have the same concept of justice.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

The sex offender list has nothing to do with justice. It's based on fear. Is the 19 year old college frat boy who streaks across the quad at midnight and gets arrested by campus police really a threat? No? If the guy gets turned over to the cops and takes a plea bargain at his arraignment, which most people do, included in that plea will probably be "X days in jail with credit for time served, a fine of X dollars plus penalty fees, a booking fee, a security fee, 3 years informal probation, and registration as a sex offender." If that guy's in jail, he's probably going to take the plea, especially if it means that his time served covers his whole jail sentence and he gets to go home. The sex offender thing usually doesn't sink in until later.

People are on that list who do not belong on that list. People who do belong on that list because they are a threat should be in jail or a psychiatric facility. Post-release counseling should be required for a period of years after release, and failure to attend should be a parole or probation violation that lands them back in jail.

The list is not about justice. It's about fear and revenge, neither of which should have a place in our legal system. I know that's idealistic, especially when it comes to sex crimes that get people's emotions going, but if we don't keep the ideal in mind, we continue to move farther away from it. Justice should not be emotional.

[justinb138 0]

You always have the right answer.

[billvon 3,120]

>Is the 19 year old college frat boy who streaks across the quad
>at midnight and gets arrested by campus police really a threat?

Indeed. I wonder at the logic that labels the 19 year old streaker a threat, but not the guy who killed two people when a drug deal went bad.

[Nightingale 0]

LOL. I wish. I've just been dealing with situations like the one I described at work pretty often.

[wmw999 2,589]

You have a point. I tend to see one side more easily, and should probably work on that.

That said, how do you "guess" when a criminal is rehabilitated? Or do you just leave them locked away forever because you can't know, and, well, then how do we afford that?

In general, there's an ugly feeling that's getting more and more pervasive that if one gets away with something, it's OK. Whether it's a violent crime or a white-collar crime, or a drug offense. It's not about how sneaky you are, or how much you can afford to pay a lawyer to get you off, is it. And yes, this is an entirely new rant.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>Is the 19 year old college frat boy who streaks across the quad
>at midnight and gets arrested by campus police really a threat?

Indeed. I wonder at the logic that labels the 19 year old streaker a threat, but not the guy who killed two people when a drug deal went bad.

You don't attract votes by being logical, You attract votes by appealing to the basest emotions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You always have the right answer.

NG for Pres - '08

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

>Pirana - "Easy enough to solve; make it part of their sentence, or include parole-for-life as part of their sentence. "

Sorry - interesting idea, but but still unconstitutional, at least in part. Residential restrictions are generally allowed while on parole, but they have to be reasonable. So what's "reasonable?" Who the hell knows?

Parole-for-life can't happen unless a person with a life sentence gets paroled - and in many states that doesn't exist (i.e., in those states, life means life - no parole). Anyhow, you can't have a person on parole for longer than the completion of the full term of their sentence.

> Nightengale & rehmwa - "if they are not safe for release, then don't release them."

Seems logical enough, but that only goes to (a) whether or not to release them on parole before the completion of their sentence, or (b) whether on not to give them a sentence of life imprisonment.
If their sentence is anything less than a life sentence, then they're absolutely entitled to be released at the completion of their sentence, because it would be unconstitutional to confine them once their sentence is complete.

[Richards 0]

Quote

People are on that list who do not belong on that list. People who do belong on that list because they are a threat should be in jail or a psychiatric facility. Post-release counseling should be required for a period of years after release, and failure to attend should be a parole or probation violation that lands them back in jail.

What I don't understand about this is why the "sex offender" status has to apply to streakers as well as child molesters. Rather than get rid of the registry because streakers can be penalized by it can we not redeifine what qualifies a person as being a candidate for the list? I have not studied law so the answer may be very obvious to someone who does, but I cannot understand why we don't keep the registry but simply limit sex offender status to those who have committed sexual assaults, child molestation...etc? It could be a valuable registry if it was limmitted to those who actually present a risk.

Can someone spell this out for me?

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[brierebecca 0]

As others have argued, these people should not be let out of jail if they still present a risk.

However, to answer your question....there is no answer. These Megan's Laws vary from state to state, and the sex crimes range from possession of child pornography (like the case I posted earlier) and indecent exposure (streaking) all the way to sexual assault on a minor. The problem with these lists is that there is often no procedural due process in place to contest one's place on the list. So a person who was caught with a pornographic video with a 17-year-old on it had no way of getting off the list.

The way to fix it is to write to your local legislators. Several courts have found these lists to be overbroad in the restrictions they implement, but Connecticut v. Doe (I think that's the case) ruled that one's place on the list is a result of a full trial, and that's all the process these defendants get. So if you have a conviction for statutory rape when you were 18 and your girlfriend was 17, and you didn't know that you would be labled as a sex offender and be kicked out of certain communities, then you're screwed because you didn't preserve the claim at trial. It's a messy messy system, and basically results in a lot of harrassment.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[Richards 0]

OK I sort of get it. With respect to writing my local legislator though would it not be more usefull to strictly limit who can be included on it rather than limitting the restrictions placed on people who are on the list?

I dont want to se a streaker get sex offender status nor do I see the point of labelling a 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old as an offender. That said if we are going to let child molesters out on parole I have no problem placing strict restrictions on them (although I would be just as happy to lock them up for good, I imagine that we will be forced to let thm out sooner or later so why not have a short leash).

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.