What's everyone's opinion on convicted and registered sex offenders being TI's?

[promise5 17]

It is a sad thing.
Do you have a case in mind where someone is on the registry for streaking as a kid?

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[promise5 17]

kelpdiver

***When doing the search you would come up with a person and then listed would be what they were convicted of or plea bargained down to. But, again there can be a BIG difference to what occurred and what the person got in a plea bargain.

it's clear that in your mind, they probably did more than they were actually convicted of. But it works both ways, and shows why DAs are prone to over charge.

Someone that is innocent (or guilty of a minor offense) yet being threatened with years in prison might choose to take the deal in order to avoid jail, to avoid bankrupting themselves, to move on. Some may find, or think wrongly at the time, that being labeled a sex offender is preferable to the risk of losing in trial. And they may be right - juries are no different than the people posting here, ones that forgot that Americans are presumed innocent.

Backinthesky asks what my stake in all this is? I believe in the Constitution and generally like to push back against rabid witch hunts where due process or presumption of innocence would be cast aside in the name of victims' rights.

Promise - it wasn't clear to me if you're talking about an actual instance or a hypothetical where a victim went skydiving and encountered a convicted sexual predator. Either way, it's not enough to warrant blackballing from the TI ranks anyone that has ever made a list. Your glib "he should a got a better lawyer" rationale doesn't cut it in this country.

I'll push back the other way. What about the perpetrator getting lesser charges to save the victim from going through a trial.
I don't see a witch hunt I see that many in today's society rather push for the rights of the one convicted of a crime then the victims of the crime. The ONLY person in any scenario that didn't have a choice or a say in it was the victim. The guy that CHOOSE to run naked across the street still made a CHOICE.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

it as being the "go to story," but not everyone on the registry has committed a serious crime. So how, precisely, does the long-haired leaping gnome of a tandem examiner know the difference?

I am curious what percentage of registered sex offenders listed did not commit a "serious" crime? This seems to be the main argument against the registry and/or how an employer reacts toward hiring (or not) someone listed on that registry.

A quick search revealed less than one-tenth of one percent of registered sex offenders are listed for peeing in public (in plain view of someone).

How often would the leaping gnome turn away someone who simply went streaking vs. someone who committed a more "serious" crime if he turned away them all just to be safe?

Is the argument here to not check the registry at all before hiring because there are some streaking, peeing stragglers in the mix, or is it to check, but ask questions and make an informed decision?

I can appreciate the latter pov and just want to clarify.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 4]

PLFXpert

Is the argument here to not check the registry at all before hiring because there are some streaking, peeing stragglers in the mix, or is it to check, but ask questions and make an informed decision?

Emphasis mine.

The argument we're having here ISN'T about checking prior to hiring. I stated in my very first post, which was the very first response in this thread, that whoever is hiring has a responsibility to protect himself and his customers.

However, what Promise5 is suggesting is that it is somehow the USPA's responsibility to check before certification and that is a world of difference.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Arvoitus 1]

promise5

It is a sad thing.
Do you have a case in mind where someone is on the registry for streaking as a kid?

How about this guy?

Quote

Chaneya says the more she denied any abuse, the more irate her mother became - and even threatened her with a belt. According to Chaneya, her mother said, "If you don't tell me the answer that I want to hear, I'm going to beat you." To avoid a beating, says Chaneya, she told her mother that her father molested her even though it wasn't true.

Quote

When NBC News spoke with Chaneya's mother in August, she said she'd been drug-free for many years, and said that she had threatened her daughter with a beating, blaming the incident on a drug binge. "I was really deep in the grip of my addiction." When asked why she would threaten her daughter if she didn't lie, Charade said, "I have no idea, I really don't."

Quote

Kelly refused a plea deal that would have made him eligible for parole in six years, and within a year he faced a jury, was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 40 years.

If he had admitted that he did it, he would've had a possibility of being out on a parole in 2004 already, as a registered sex offender, but instead he is still in prison even though he is likely innocent.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Andy9o8 2]

promise5

It is a sad thing.
Do you have a case in mind where someone is on the registry for streaking as a kid?

I have a more typical example of a miscarriage of justice from the sex offender registry, which I handled as a lawyer. I previously posted about it here:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2793507#2793507

That's just 1 of several similar cases I've either handled or been closely familiar with. And as I've mentioned in previous discussions, I have 2 daughters myself, so I don't take this subject lightly.

Far fewer things in this world are as black-or-white as it appears you often seem to think. I urge you to start more deeply appreciating all the shades of grey. FWIW, it's a life-long pursuit.

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

Far fewer things in this world are as black-or-white as it appears you often seem to think. I urge you to start more deeply appreciating all the shades of grey.

This is my favorite thing about Speaker's Corner:

"It's more complicated than you silly people think, so in the interest of better and fuller understanding, stop asking questions and having discussion."

...
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

[promise5 17]

I was asking about if you had a case of someone streaking and ending up on there.

Yes I heard about that case and it's sad. But I think it's a little off topic. Sad to say he's still in prison.

I think case after case could be brought up of people that are wrongly accused and put in prison. Our justice system isn't perfect but it's the best we have right now.

Another thought. Child victims have been known to say they weren't abused when in fact they have been and vise versa. It's sad really that such evil exists or that people will go to that extreme to get back at another parent.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Andy9o8 2]

rehmwa

***Far fewer things in this world are as black-or-white as it appears you often seem to think. I urge you to start more deeply appreciating all the shades of grey.

This is my favorite thing about Speaker's Corner:

"It's more complicated than you silly people think, so in the interest of better and fuller understanding, stop asking questions and having discussion."

That level of debate - cherry-picking a sentence and spinning someone else's words - is below your intellect and ability to articulate, Bill. That's not at all what I was saying, or implying. I'm disappointed.

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

******Far fewer things in this world are as black-or-white as it appears you often seem to think. I urge you to start more deeply appreciating all the shades of grey.

This is my favorite thing about Speaker's Corner:

"It's more complicated than you silly people think, so in the interest of better and fuller understanding, stop asking questions and having discussion."

That level of debate - cherry-picking a sentence and spinning someone else's words - is below your intellect and ability to articulate, Bill. That's not at all what I was saying, or implying. I'm disappointed.

I was disappointed with your note, too, Andy. You essentially said the poster was being dumb and unsophisticated in a thread where she trying to develop a position through discussion. If we are reading past each other, we'll figure it out and swap a beer later for the misunderstanding.

I'm just in the mood lately to call out those tactics for a while. bear with me.

...
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

[promise5 17]

I read your post on that thread but then doesn't it become irrelevant because he didn't have to register. Yes it took two years and a legal battle but at the end of two years he could then go on to be a TI.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[normiss 897]

How many Bad Cases does it take before people understand how effed up our legal system is?
As a society, we really seem to take it for granted that it is just, functional, and accurate.
It isn't.

[Andy9o8 2]

promise5

I read your post on that thread but then doesn't it become irrelevant because he didn't have to register. Yes it took two years and a legal battle but at the end of two years he could then go on to be a TI.

He did initially have to register, and spent a total of about 5 years on the list. And even once he was formally off it: (a) once you're "known" by people, they think of you you that way forever, and (b) nothing dies on the internet; it's archived, and out there to find, pretty much forever.

[promise5 17]

Yes it is. But if he decided after that time to become a TI and was checked he wouldn't show up so he would be in the clear.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[promise5 17]

But how many so called "good cases" are there? Compared to bad. Yes it's screwed up in ways but it's still the best we have!!

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[normiss 897]

This is precisely why we are supposed to be presumed innocent.

Making innocent people pay for crimes they didn't commit is just unimaginable, just as is marking people for life if they have made mistakes.

I think you're naive with regards to how unjust our system is.

I've had friends commit violent crimes, accused of things they've not done, suffered jail time due to inconsistent laws across state lines and federal, even a couple of child molesters.

Not every case made sense, nor was the process even logical.
I've seen more than enough to not trust the system.

We ignore it and trust that it works. It doesn't.

[Andy9o8 2]

promise5

Yes it is. But if he decided after that time to become a TI and was checked he wouldn't show up so he would be in the clear.

My point (Point (b), above) being, if his prior listing was archived somewhere on the internet, then Yes, it might very well still be discovered by a prospective employer with a thorough search.

[normiss 897]

It's pretty amazing what you can find.

A buddy of mine from the Tampa area moved to Dallas years ago.
We used to catch up with each other on business travels.
I knew Paul was a very wild man in his life, he had the money to do as as he pleased. Very successful, beautiful home, cars, boat, wife was an amazing person....
So we lot touch about 5 years ago....so I googled him and started looking for him with just his name and last address.
He's currently serving 13 years for sexual assault on his minor step daughter. Based on the appeals paperwork (as usually family sexual assault cases aren't publicly available) it appears he started with back rubs, then touching her genitals, then he raped her when she was 16-18. He had all but one charge dropped, plead guilty expecting probation, got the book thrown at him.
This might be the best case of the system working correctly I've seen in some time.

I'm still floored that I thought I knew this guy....I had no clue.
Clearly he had a great woman.

Humans are amazing sometimes.

ETA: in case you're curious: Paul Simonetti

[promise5 17]

No disrespect but I've seen the opposite. Plea bargains made to lesser charges that don't even come close to what actually happened.

When you start advocating for something you begin to hear and see horrendous stories. That being said. I will say that before I would use a case as an example I would make VERY sure I knew the facts the true facts about the case I was using. I'm saying that's what I do and I'm not implying AT ALL that anyone on here is doing the opposite.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[promise5 17]

I'll add thus has been a great discussion and I think for the most part everyone's been respectful of each other.


I know I've tried many of your patience in other threads but I appreciate how open everyone's been and patient!!

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[rifleman 70]

I don't know how relevant this is but in the UK, peeing in public is generally dealt with by an £80 fixed penalty notice or (more frequently) a bucket of hot soapy water and a brush with the police officer standing over you while you clean up your own mess.

Streaking, depending on the police officer concerned can be treated as a public order offence (£80 fixed penalty notice or on summary conviction maximum of 6 months in prison and/or maximum of £5000 fine) or an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (fixed penalty notice or on summary conviction, maximum 6 months in prison and/or maximum £1000 fine or if convicted on indictment maximum of 2 years in prison).

If so required, a person must register with their local police force within 72 hours of being cautioned for a sexual offence but the term of registration depends on the sentence received. Currently, if sentenced to over 30 months imprisonment then the person is required to remain on the register indefinitely, 6 months to 30 months on register for seven years, less than 6 months on register for five years. These periods are halved for a person under 18. (These periods may be under review as there have been changes made to when convictions are considered "spent" ie: do not have to be declared to an employer or other agency).

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[champu 1]

promise5

It's sad that they would be put on the registry for something like that but it happens. Hopefully if someone like that is on the registry they would be able to appeal and get themselves off.

But like some have said a lot of times it's what they've pled down to.
Maybe the guy wasn't just running naked and a 10 year old saw him. Maybe it was a lot sicker then that but he was able to get a plea deal.

promise5

Not to be a smartbutt, but the guy really should have gotten a better lawyer.

promise5

Not to lesson anything but he "faced" it and it's sad that no one including his attorney could talk to him about what the actually possibility is of ending up on the registry and for how long. It's an all around sad situation.

promise5

The problem with taking something out is the possibility of someone that has committed a more serious crime being able to plea bargain down to something like what would be excluded.

promise5

When doing the search you would come up with a person and then listed would be what they were convicted of or plea bargained down to. But, again there can be a BIG difference to what occurred and what the person got in a plea bargain.

I think you want to have your cake and eat it too.

You've demonstrated through your own series of comments the problem with the registry. Everyone who "shouldn't" be on it but is (according to some loose consensus on dropzone.com) should have just "gotten a better lawyer" and yet you still don't trust people on the list for minor offenses because they may have "gotten a better [lawyer]."

If this is all about lawyers (which I agree, it largely is) rather than about what people have done, why would you want to push decisions based on this flawed data set further up a chain of authority (DZO -> T/E -> USPA -> etc.) where a wrong decision does more damage?

Why don't you just let tandem students do their own research and decide for themselves? If it's a woman who was a victim of sexual assault and she doesn't want to take any chances she can look up the whole dropzone and, hey, if she refuses to jump there if the part time janitorial woman who cleans the bathrooms once a week flashed her breasts at Marti Gras two decades ago, that's her call.

[PLFXpert 0]

Thank you for the clarification. There was so much back-and-forth of grey-area exceptions vs. Andreya's general rule-of-thumb that I skimmed and must have missed where the conversation turned from hiring offenders to certifying them.

I appreciate Andreya's pov for what it is: general rules-of-thumb are generally a good thing.

Not sure it is the USPA's responsibility, though. That is a weird one. On one hand we check backgrounds for many things before handing out certifications, licenses, etc. But, in this case the TI certification is more like the resume and not an acceptance of application to do the work so...then I would say as long as registered sex offenders can go to school and get their doctorate degree, why not a TI certification?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,118]

>But how many so called "good cases" are there? Compared to bad.

From an article in Forbes:

======
There are almost three quarters of a million people on the sex offender registries now. But according to a study done by the hardly soft-on-crime George Sex Offender Registration Review Board, only 5% of the 17,000 sex offenders in that state were “clearly dangerous” to children, and among them, only 100 could be classified as “predators.”
======

So 5% are the bad ones you are referring to. And this has some very negative effects:

===========
(same Forbes article)
So here’s an idea, says Adam Thierer, president of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a market-oriented think tank: Why not make a “Scum of the Earth List” featuring only the scummy 5% and let the other 95% go streaking on their merry way? Save time! Save money! And, oh yeah: Save lives!

After all, maybe one of the reasons Jaycee Duggard was allegedly imprisoned for 18 years by a known sex offender was that an overburdened police force couldn’t concentrate on creepy Phillip Garrido and the hut behind his house. They were too busy with the 100,000 other Californians on the registry.
==============
(Freakonomics website)

The first study by Jonah Rockoff of Columbia Business School, and J.J. Prescott, a law professor at the University of Michigan, parses out the effectiveness of the two basic types of sex offender laws. While they find that the registration of released sex offenders is associated with a 13% decrease in crime from the sample mean, public notification laws proved to be counterproductive, and led to slightly higher rates of sex crime because of what the authors refer to as a “relative utility effect”:

"Our results suggest that community notification deters first-time sex offenders, but may increase recidivism by registered offenders by increasing the relative attractiveness of criminal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists showing that notification may contribute to recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and, as a result, making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. . . .convicted sex offenders become more likely to commit crime when their information is made public because the associated psychological, social, or financial costs make crime more attractive."

The second study comes from Amanda Y. Agan, a PhD student at the University of Chicago, who throws water on the whole notion that sex offender registries work in the first place.

Agan compared arrest rates for sex crimes in each U.S. state before and after registry laws were implemented and found no appreciable changes in crime trends following the introduction of a registry. As for recidivism, she looked at data on over 9,000 sex offenders released from prison in 1994. About half were released into states where they needed to register, while the other half did not need to register. Agan found no significant difference in the two groups’ propensity to re-offend, and that those released into states without registration laws were actually slightly less likely to re-offend.
===================

So there is evidence that such registries actually make the problem worse. So given that the question becomes - how many more sex crimes are OK in order to support sexual offender registries?

[Amazon 7]

rifleman

I don't know how relevant this is but in the UK, peeing in public is generally dealt with by an £80 fixed penalty notice or (more frequently) a bucket of hot soapy water and a brush with the police officer standing over you while you clean up your own mess.

Streaking, depending on the police officer concerned can be treated as a public order offence (£80 fixed penalty notice or on summary conviction maximum of 6 months in prison and/or maximum of £5000 fine) or an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (fixed penalty notice or on summary conviction, maximum 6 months in prison and/or maximum £1000 fine or if convicted on indictment maximum of 2 years in prison).

If so required, a person must register with their local police force within 72 hours of being cautioned for a sexual offence but the term of registration depends on the sentence received. Currently, if sentenced to over 30 months imprisonment then the person is required to remain on the register indefinitely, 6 months to 30 months on register for seven years, less than 6 months on register for five years. These periods are halved for a person under 18. (These periods may be under review as there have been changes made to when convictions are considered "spent" ie: do not have to be declared to an employer or other agency).

The biggest problem with the UK is you managed to get rid of many of the religious whack jobs, by showing them the door. Many of those "Covenanters" and "Puritans" still hold a grip on the morals of this country. There are a large percent of our populace that would be perfectly happy to have a Biblical based version of Sharia Law codified into church and state as one.

Oh Wait.. maybe that is not a problem for the UK After all... gee thanks for sticking the US and other former colonies with them

I like the idea of embarrassing the idiots who want to do stupid crap that they should know is stupid over our "Corporate Prison" mentality where even small offenses land people in money making schemes that further enrich those who have profited so greatly on mistakes in judgement.


Now when it comes to any kind of sexual predator whether it be rapists or child molestation, I as a former victim would see all of them removed from our society to a place where they can NEVER prey on others ever again. Each predator usually has many victims whose lives have been changed by the predators crass desires. I think they would enjoy the wide open spaces of the far end of the Aleutian Islands where they have no prey to be "tempted" ( as if that is EVER a womans or childs fault)