NH considers taking some off sex offender list

[Chemisse]

Some sex offenders may leave list
Least dangerous would be exempt


By SHIRA SCHOENBERG
Monitor staff
August 24, 2009 - 12:00 am


A 20-year-old college student went online in a New Hampshire romance chat room one afternoon and struck up a conversation with a 14-year-old girl. She said she was a virgin who lived at home with her mother. In explicit terms, detailed in court records, the man asked her to meet him so they could have sex.

She agreed, and the man drove to the meeting place. He waited a few minutes, then got back in his car and left, according to court documents. The police pulled up behind him and arrested him. The "girl" he met online was actually an undercover cop.

The man was charged with two felonies. But on a negotiated plea, he pleaded guilty to attempted second degree assault, a felony, and attempted sexual assault, a misdemeanor. He received a suspended sentence and was required to register as a sex offender for 10 years.

The man's mother is state Rep. Jennifer Brown, a Strafford Democrat. Brown has sponsored a bill that would exempt the least dangerous class of sex offenders, which includes her son, from registering on the public sex offender registry.

Brown said people like her son should not be stigmatized publicly.

"He didn't meet anyone," Brown said. "He got there, turned around and left so fast. . . . He went to the meeting, then said, 'I'm just leaving,' and that's what our state calls a criminal."

Brown said her son has graduated college with a degree in finance but cannot get a job. Brown said she has talked to other people on the registry who have had consensual sex with a person who lied about their age. She knows of young men who were caught in stings or lied to, she said, who "cannot speak for themselves and have no advocates."

"What happens when you're young derails your career," Brown told a House subcommittee last week. "You have none. Being on the list is an onerous responsibility."

Brown's proposed change would exempt Tier 1 sex offenders, which includes only those convicted of misdemeanors, from the public list. Those who were exempted would still need to register on a private list with the police department. A Tier 1 sex offender can currently petition to come off the public list five years after he or she completes his or her sentence.

The bill, which had a public hearing in January and was retained by a subcommittee to work on this summer, has the support of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.

"To put all individuals who have committed an offense in a very broad category in the same pot is absurd," said Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. Ebel said she knows young men who had consensual sex with a minor who was close in age to them, and their names appear on the public list, under an old law that has since been changed.

In general, Ebel is critical of the idea of a public sex offender list.

"When you place people on the list that can put their lives and properties in danger, you're making rehabilitation a joke and reintroduction into society impossible," Ebel said. "The other part of that is that the public list itself gives a false sense of security. If you live in a neighborhood and don't find anyone on list, a parent might say my kids are safe. They're not."

More effective, Ebel said is educating children about not speaking to strangers and about telling an adult if someone touches them inappropriately. Ebel supports Brown's bill because it removes one class of people from the public list, though she said she would ideally prefer that the state set up an assessment board so that sex offenders were grouped in tiers according to their likelihood of re-offending. Currently, the tiers are based solely on the crimes for which the offenders were convicted.

The bill is facing stiff opposition from the state's law enforcement community.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090824/FRONTPAGE/908240338/1001/RSS01



I hope this has legs.

[daedalus_dude]

1. Indiscriminancy in law enforcement is usually a bad thing IMO.

Lumping in child murderers with consenting teens of slightly different age reduces the associated severity of the worse of the two offenses.

[Chemisse]

2. Indeed.

I think a public list should be kept only for the ones who committed very violent acts and have been released because they have done their time.

Others could be on a local police list, but not published.

This whole sex offender thing has become a bit of a witch hunt, in my opinion. And it goes on because nobody likes a pervert and nobody wants to defend the rights of one.

Well, except a mother :)

[Wednesdays]

29. Sex is dirty, don'cha know.

:spank:

[paulsby]

3. this guy should definitely be on a sex offender list

the fact that the person he THOUGHT was a 14 yr was not, is irrelevant to the inchoate offense.

analogy. you intend to kill john smith. you surveil him and see him in a local park. he takes a nap on his blanket next to his picuhnick basket. you wait. he isn't moving. you stealthily approach, look around and see the area is clear of witnesses. you draw your .22 lr pistol from your holster and fire a few shots into his cranium (believe it or not .22 lr is a very effective assasination round at close range with headshots, but i digress).

you walk away.

UNbeknownst to you, john smith was actually dead before you took your shot. see, he went to the picnic and drank a glass of poison, intending to commit suicide. iow, he was already dead, of his own volition, prior to you shooting him.

pop quiz... what's the crime?

answer: Attempted Murder. see: Mens Rea.

the fact that he WAS dead, and in fact you could not kill him means you are not guilty of murder, but you are guilty of attempted murder.

in the case in the OP, it's similar. the guy intended to meet a 14 yr old girl (a person whom he believed to be) for sex. in that state, sex with a 14 yr old is illegal. Note: i used to live in hawaii and the age of consent was 14. it would be a legal act there (they may have changed the law. ). canada is also 14 iirc. but in this state, it's a serious felony. and the guy attempted to complete the act. it;'s a similar offense to the above example. iow, impossible to ACTUALLY commit, but still a perfectly valid execution.

does the fact that john smith was ACTUALLY dead make the shooter any less guilty of the murder attempt? of course not.

this guy DESERVES to be on a sex offender registry.

fwiw, i am all for ACTUAL minor sex offenses to not be subject to registry. i'm talking indecent exposure stuff, things like that.

but sorry. a 20 yr old attempting statutory rape on a 14 yr old most definitely should be on a sex offender registry.

[izquierdista]

8. Blah....blah...blah.....blah

Doesn't take long for the Puritans to come out of the woodwork to apply punishments to all sorts of crimes, real and imagined. I won't tell you what I think of you, for it might be a ninth class felony.

[paulsby]

13. it;s not an imagined crime

it's called mens rea. it;s a fundamental aspect of law. and inchoate crimes are not debatable (not that you are debating).

but clearly you are not interested in rule of law. sad.

there is no evidnece presented that this was entrapment. the entire log of conversations between the investigator (fake 14 yr old) and defendant were presented at trial.

here's a hint. if you attempt statutory rape, as a 20 yr old with a 14 yr old, you shoud go on a sex offender list.

[izquierdista]

21. Here's another hint

Twenty year old homo sapien males have been mating with 14 year old homo sapien females for thousands of years. Until quite recently, in the last few generations. Even in your own family tree.

However, it's to be expected for a cop-apologist like yourself to come up with fealty to human dictated "law" as opposed to say laws of biology or natural selection. Why don't you let go of the fascism for just a minute and figure out what is really going on and why the law is the one that is offensive, not the boy.

[paulsby]

25. here's another hint

i don't give a flying fuck if 20 yr olds schtup 13 yr olds.

but the LAW says that they can't.

people are responsible for knowing what the age of consent is in THEIR jurisdiction and acting accordingly.

like i said, i used to live hawaii where the age of consent was 14. schtup away!

and spare me the "fascism" crap.

[LanternWaste]

35. What then, is the precise and relevant difference?

"Twenty year old homo sapien males have been mating with 14 year old homo sapien females for thousands of years."

Fifty year old homo sapien males have been mating with 13 year old homo sapien females for thousands of years.
What then, is the precise and relevant difference?

[Chemisse]

39. That's true!

I wonder what the evolutionary advantage of that may have been - if any.

[paulsby]

53. easy

men are biologically evolved to seek partners that exhibit physical characteristics that suggest fecundity and youth.

this makes sense. first of all, prior to medical advances, childbirth was significantly more problematic amongst older women. this is also why certain waist/hip ratios are preferred - because ceasareans aren't part of our evolutionary background.

puberty results in visible changes, of course. ontogeny of humans are such that the average male will find the post-pubescent (regardless of age) female form to be most attractive. this is consistent with the fact that puberty is the dividing line between reproduction capable and not reproduction capable. since men's biological urge is to spread seed IN ORDER to spread DNA, it only makes sense that the average biological drive would be for women that exhibit physical characteristics that evidence capability of conception and healthy birth.

like i said, i used to live in a state where what this guy did was perfectly legal. our age of consent was 14. canada's iirc is 14.

the reality with age of consent laws is that they are necessarily arbitrary, just like drinking age laws, voting age laws, etc.

there is no magickal event that takes place on any birthday that makes one suddenly qualified to vote, drink, or give consent to sex.

many people rail against such arbitrariness, but it is consistent with rule of law and as long as it is APPLIED equally, it is just, even though arbitrary.

if the law did NOT set bright lines, it would make the situation for sex crimes impossibly problematic

[Chemisse]

54. That makes sense about younger women being the better picks

For fertility and successful childbirth. I guess I wondered why a 14 year old would want to marry a 50 year old (vs a young guy) but that is probably not a factor. Since women have always been physically weaker (and later, with far less power over their lives than men in society), they didn't get to be the ones making a choice about mates.

I understand your adherence to the law, but there is nothing wrong with talking about changing a law we might perceive to be off balance or unfair. For instance some girls are highly sexually active at age 15. To suggest that if an 18 year old has consensual sex with her it is then rape, is really off balance.

[paulsby]

55. actually, that's because women have different mate selection criteria

not just from a cultural standpoint, but from the biological, which is what we are discussing

the primary difference between male and female sexuality from a mate seeking evolutionary approach is this: men can (and often do) impregnate many women in a 9 month period. but a woman can only become pregnant once.

so, women would naturally evolve with different optimal mate selection criteria because they have differnt biological reality.

women would evolve to be more slective because if they have sex with 50 men, of various desirabilities, they can't choose which man will be the father.

its been shown for instance that women gravitate more towards very strong type A men for SEX but somewhat less agressive, but more responsible and wealthy (and not just money, but wealth in terms of ability to provide) men for PARTNERS to raise their children. for obvious reasons. the former are felt more "dangerous" but also more likely to give offspring that will have a higher chance of survival.

a man can schtup 50 women in a 9 month period and get them all pregnant, so his mate selection strategy and factors he is looking for are different.

women are weaker in general, but significantly more vulnerable in the later stages of pregnancy, so protection was an important biological concern.

society of course evolves moral, legal, taboo etc structures that often encourage us to go against biological instinct, of course. and for good reason

[Chemisse]

91. That must be why women often have trouble resisting a tryst

With a 'bad boy', yet not wanting to give up the nice guy who is always there when needed.

[paulsby]

93. i would think so

many of the "all gender archetypes and behavior is socially constructed " have been pushing the lie that differences in male and female behavior are all LEARNED -for decades (less so now, since the science has gotten more extensive), but it's simply ridiculous

i also find it ironic that the same people who assume genetic basis for homosexuality, deride the concept of genetic basis for differences in behavior between men and women.

it's quite an interesting (and purely political) double standard.

i agree. i think the "bad boy" thang is a product of evolution.

it's also interesting when you do studies of body types that women ON AVERAGE favor, that muscularity (and for women it's shoulder to waist ratio vs. men who look at hip to waist ratio) in abundance tends to throw up a red flag especially in relationship (vs. sex) partners due to unconscious perception that the mate may be more violent.

[billh58]

92. The Hawaii AOC

Law allows a 14-year old to consent to sex with someone who is 19-years old, or younger:

http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/11/09/hawaii-age-of-consent-laws/

So, in the case cited, the 20-year old would have been guilty of at least attempted statutory rape in Hawaii. Most AOC laws contain similar provisions, and the purpose is to not criminalize consenting sex between teens within a similar age range. Hawaii's AOC law currently allows a 14-year old to consent to sex with someone who is 19 or younger, and has been raised to 16-years old for all others.

As an FYI, Canada has raised their AOC to 16, with a similar 5-year age difference caveat:

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/canadianlaw/g/ageofconsent.htm

[paulsby]

94. this is correct, but as i said, i was refering to the law WHEN I LIVED THERE

not too long, the age was 14, with NO age differential.

i was actually a cop in hawaii. i remember once a woman reported to me that she had found out her 14 yr old daughter had been engaging in sex with a couple of 40 yr old men in their hotel in lahaina, that she had met on her trip. i told that since the sex was consensual, there was nothing we could do. the age of consent WAS 14 at the time. she screamed at me and asked me to get my supervisor. my sgt told her the same thing, and she screamed at him and he got the lieutenant. HE told her the same thing, and she ended up contacting our mayors office. the mayor had our prosecuting attorney call her and explain the law to her.

heck, maybe SHE was the one to get the law changed.

i once arrested a guy for schtupping a 13 yr old. he was 45. the girl was within 3 months of her 14th birthday. he ended up getting a 5 yr prison sentence.

frankly, he should have gone to jail for impatience. all he had to was wait 3 months for pete's sake.

fwiw, i live in WA . we have a similar age differential law. 16 is across the board legal.

14 and 15 are legal if the other party is within a certain # of months in age.

[billh58]

98. I believe that

the law was changed during the summer of 2001. IIRC, Gov. Cayetano vetoed the original bill, and his veto was overridden by the State legislature.

I've lived on Maui for 51 years (since before statehood), so I may have seen you around. A few of my wife's family, and some of our friends, are/were Maui police officers.

[paulsby]

103. aloha nui loa

then, sir.

[billh58]

104. Me ke

aloha pumehana...:-)

[sudopod]

44. lol

Wealthy and powerful homo sapiens have been enslaving other, poorer homo sapiens for thousands of years. Until quite recently, in the last few generations. Even in your own family tree.

[proteus_lives]

49. So how many 14 year olds did you fuck when you were twenty?

:puke:

Not everyone is a perv. When I was 20, there would no way in hell I'd sleep with a 14 year old.

[proteus_lives]

50. dupe.

[Matariki]

72. Exactly. My grandfather was 21 and my granndmother was 15 when they married.

everything turned out fine.

[paulsby]

95. again, the laws VARY

rule of law matters.

age of consent varies.

there is nothing inherently different between a 13 and 14 yr old. but in a location where 14 is the AOC, a few days (birthday) can mean the difference between a serious felony, and legal sex.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. It may not, legally, be an imaginary crime, but it IS an imaginary victim. n/t

[JeanGrey]

56. The guy was meeting a 14 year old for SEX. He's a sex

offender, period and should stay on the list.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. What 14 year old? n/t

[redqueen]

81. Can you imagine a guy trying to get out of a citation for soliciting a prostitute

by claiming it was really an undercover cop, therefore there was no crime?

[JeanGrey]

84. Oh please, spare me.

[Hannah Bell]

88. what nonsense.

[nuxvomica]

9. That's a completely erroneous analogy

First of all, nothing in the story says he thought the girl was 14. You are assuming that. Secondly, to be a truly comparable situation, your "John Smith" wouldn't even exist. You expected to find him at the park and no one was there. So are you guilty of attempted murder then?

[paulsby]

14. well then get the friggin transcripts

obviously the JURY found it to be the case, since it is an ELEMENT OF THE CRIME. so, if you believe it wasn't adequately proven, since it already has been adjudicated as such, the burden is on YOU to disporove it.

and my situation is perfectly comparable. at least to somebody who understands the law, mens rea, and inchoate offenses. which CLEARLY you do not.

the reality is this, his activities (the ones he was convicted of) meet the standard for criminal attempt . it's that simple. the fact that the target was not a 14 yr old girl is NOT relevant. the jury concluded HE thought that, and unless you have evidence to the contrary, yer spittin in the wind.

[nuxvomica]

17. I am familiar with this case and there was no jury

There you go assuming again. Still, your analogy makes no sense in this universe,

[paulsby]

18. it does make sense

it's a simple matter of understanding that mens rea is what matters in proving criminal offenses. how many criminal trials have you testified in? observed. this is what i do. inchoate offenses often strike the layman as WEIRD. fine. it;'s called RULE OF LAW.

advocate to change it if you think that the cops should have to wait for some asshole rapist to complete the act of rape before they can arrest him. god forbid we set up stings to catch rapist scum without endangering 14 yr olds.

or advocate to lower the age of consent. i used to live hawaii. it was 14. he wouldnt have done anything wrong if he did there. or canada, where iiuc it is also 14

if there was no jury, then he pled guilty. and thus, he allocuted and the judge found sufficient corpus delicti evidence to corroborate his guilty plea. the judge also would have had access to the transcripts of his conversations with the decoy 14 yr old.

i'd love to read those frankly. i am certain it would put all these handwringers in this thread to shame.

[1955doubledie]

22. Scarlet letter anyone?

It's a good thing you're not my lawyer, I'd be locked up for life for sure, for a petty offense.

The term "branded for life" was from the old way of handling sex offenders: they permanently branded a letter on their cheek or forehead so that everyone would know their "shame" forever. This is the modern equivalent, thanks to the religious nutcases and their apologists.

Analogy? Heh, a middle schooler could shoot holes through that one. The offender in the real case didn't "pull the trigger" like the person did in the analogy. Instead, it's like this: guy shows up, doesn't shoot anyone...walks away. What is his crime?

There are so many variables, "what if's" in this case...What if (supposing he met a real girl) he gets cold feet at the last moment and leaves without anything happening? What if the guy was a vigilante himself, and was there to lecture the (imaginary) girl?

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution side, and with the evidence presented here, it doesn't cross the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. Yeah, a jury convicted him, but they never get it wrong? (*cough* OJ *cough*) Maybe they had a particularly brilliant prosecutor and/or a particularly incompetent defense, what about that?

And even if I concede you all that, the guy has to be on some list, for life?

Wait, I know...let's start lists for all felons, starting with murder. You are in favor of listing murderers for life, right? Or are you about to let murderers get off scot-free?

[Strong Atheist]

64. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[JeniB]

33. There was no jury!

It was a plea bargain because since the police invented the crime they can say whatever they want. It's very hard to go up against the police in a trial. Just so you know there was a previous conversation with this "girl" where "she" said "she" was going to be 16 in the next month but since that wasn't against the law the police didn't keep that one. Then in the second one which was 6 months later she suddenly was 14. How's a guy supposed to know which one was right? Girls do lie about thier age on the internet, that's a fact. The point is he left without trying to meet the "girl" because he just didn't want to deal with the uncertainty. He didn't commit a crime becasue he had conflicting information on how old she was and then decided not to meet her. Only in the mind of the police is that an attempted assault. Oh yea, and, I guess,you!

[Gormy Cuss]

73. Sorry, but once she changed it to 14, time to run.

That's not to say that the guy should be tarred and feathered by a public sex offender registry like this, but it was stupid to agree to meet a 14 year old for sex in a state where that is below the age of consent. He's just lucky that his mother is in the legislature and can try to effect change.

[intheflow]

38. When cops set up sting operations to catch people cruising for

underage sex, they actively pose as underaged people, they spell it out for prospective pedophiles. If the cops never said, "I'm 14 years old," and didn't have that saved in a chat room thread (or however they save that kind of stuff electronically), then they couldn't have gotten a warrant to bust the guy. The fact that this story is about someone on a sex offender list and not about entrapment based on no supporting evidence is a clue that the 20-year-old thought he was going to meet a 14 year old.

[nuxvomica]

48. The point is that not everyone on these lists is a genuine threat

I'm familiar with the details of this case and I know the young man is innocent. He had every reason to believe the "14-year-old" was lying and that she was actually 16 or older. And it turns out "she" was lying. You needn't accept my belief but to embrace this system you need to accept that the police are always right and our criminal justice system hasn't been compromised by political haymaking, fearmongering and the seduction of increased law enforcement funding. That's why he didn't go to trial. Read some of the responses on this thread and see how the average American citizen would try such a case. He would've been convicted and spent time in prison. And for what?

[The Doctor.]

10. That is probably the most convoluted, irrelevant 'analogy' I've ever seen.

First, the kid never even made contact with the 'intended victim'.

After that, the rest of the post is just ridiculous.

[paulsby]

15. the jury came to the conclusion

that he made the necessary step towards completion of the crime.

if you have evidence he did not, then get the transcripts and present it.

stings are an excellent example of pro-active law enforcement and if they are getting rapist scum off the street and into sex offender lists - more power to em.

the article made clear that the conversations he had with the fake 14 yr old evidenced her alleged age and he graphically told "her" about his intents to have sex with her, then attempted to complete the act, at which point he was arrested.

fuck him. no pun intended.

he should have moved to a state (or canada) where he was free to schtup 14 yr olds. ooops. his bad

[JeniB]

34. And I suppose you think...

that romantic chat rooms are perfectly normal places for 14 year olds to hang out looking for sex!

[Chemisse]

40. What if the girl was real and he met her

Then saw how young and vulnerable she was and just couldn't go through with it?

Since she wasn't real and a meeting never took place, we will never know if he has what it takes to be a child rapist.

I think the whole concept of a sting is faulty for that reason. The crime itself just never happened.

[EOTE]

82. So a 20 year old who has sex with a 14 year old girl in Canada is okey dokey.

While a 20 year old who has sex with a 14 year old girl in certain U.S. states is "rapist scum"? Nice logic you've got there, chum(p). And how many times do you need to be told that there was no jury?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. No, he did not attempt to complete the offense. Reason took over and he drove away.

[rug]

58. Mens Rea does not equal a crime. Mens Rea plus Actus Reus equals a crime.

What is the guilty act here?

(BTW, shooting a corpse is not attempted murder.)

[Matariki]

71. If someone THINKS about murdering you, should they get the death penalty?

[armyowalgreens]

4. The sex offender registry was a horrible idea to begin with.

It hasn't actually reduced sex crimes. The only thing it's good at is further alienating persons on the list. Which might actually cause more crime.

[Posteritatis]

36. I always figured the unofficial point was to encourage vigilantism. (nt)

[Chemisse]

43. I think it was in response to a child abduction and murder

By a nearby resident who was a convicted sex offender. But nobody knew that. It was speculated she could have been saved if police knew he was a pervert in the early hours after she vanished.

I can agree with a list - at least for police to have - for the most violent sex offenders (although I would really prefer they just be locked up until they are too old to do such things).

Other than those really disgusting and dangerous creatures, they should do their time, be released and left alone.

[verdalaven]

5. The "List" doesn't protect anyone

Particularly when it is populated by young men (and women) who are there because they had consensual sex. In our area, there is a man on the list for peeing in public. Ewwww, gross, but really - a sex offense? A special needs boy is on the list because a special needs girl let him touch her boob, and the girl's mother pressed charges. Ridiculous.

In our small town, a 17 yr old girl was walking home one day, accepted a ride from someone she "sort of" knew, and spent the next thirty six hours being raped and held against her will.

Too many people support that stupid list because it makes them feel like they are protecting their family proactively by knowing offenders in their area, while failing to remember that most molesters/rapists are someone known to them, or part of their own family - people not on the list.....yet.

Maybe if the list was reserved for real, live predators, maybe it would be justified. But then again, maybe we should start listing every felon, regardless of their crime or whether they did their time, so we know just who are neighbors are.......that was /sarcasm/ btw.

edited to add.....though I question the common sense (and underlying motivations) of the 20 yr old man in question, I do hope this has an impact on the sex offender registry, as a whole. Considering the 20 yr old in the article actually didn't have sex with a 14 yr old girl (just wanted too) it seems he really didn't commit a crime, other than wanting to have sex with someone underage. If we policed the fantasies of every adult male in America, they'd all be on the list (however, the majority of them wouldn't be so stupid as to try to hook up with a 14 yr old-I hope!).

[joeycola]

6. As long as The list exists there is no rehabilation for anyone on

that list.

[Omar4Dems]

7. We really need to remove thought crimes from our law books

That's what most of the so-called "sex offenders" are guilty of...thought crimes.

[paulsby]

16. rubbish. lets deal with facts

these are not thought crimes. you can advocate sex with children, for example. NAMBLA does. nobody prosecutes them, because advocating policy changes that would legalize sex with children (let alone 14 yr olds) is entirely legal.

THAT would be a thought crime if we punished NAMBLA.

you can fantasize about sex with a 6 yr old all you want.

you can post to the internet that you'd love to fuck a 6 yr old

you can write graphic literature that includes statutory rape

you can even create SIMULATeD child porn (due to recent scotus case that threw out a conviction for "child" porn that in fact used a virtual child) using a computer likeness of a prepubescent child.

but you cannot ATTEMPT to commit statutory rape, any more than you can commit it.

that has nothing to do with thought crimes.

[Strong Atheist]

67. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[nuxvomica]

12. This is not the truth - of course

Some reporters just try to make this stuff sound more salacious than it is. There was a previous conversation in this matter where the girl said that she was 16 years old. The police, of course, didn't save that conversation and so it is not part of the record. I don't remember anything in the conversation about her being a virgin either. The ambiguity in the age makes this case even more wrong. We have become a society who will throw away any life as long as they can say they MIGHT have done something wrong.

[paulsby]

19. so what is your evidence of this alleged conversation

"There was a previous conversation in this matter where the girl said that she was 16 years old. The police, of course, didn't save that conversation and so it is not part of the record"

if the police didn't save it, did HE? unless he used a DOD level wipe program, his defense attorney could have recoverd it from his computer and used it as part of the defense, even if he didn;'t save it. so why did this not happen? or are you referring to a conversation that (allegedly) didn't occur on the computer?

what is your basis for believing this conversation occurred. who is making the claim? the defendant? is there corroboration?

[no limit]

20. That sick bastard needs to be on that list

I can't believe people in this thread are actually defending this scum.

[1955doubledie]

23. So, what other "lists" do you want to see kept for life?

Murderers? Rapists? Arsonists? Vagrants?

[no limit]

31. Rapists is already covered under the sex offender list

Murderers? I dunno, in theory I don't think murderers should be out on the streets, they should be locked up for most of their lives.

And you are just being silly with the other 2.

If you are asking me if I support the sex offender list then that's really up for a whole other debate. But the idea that this asshole didn't do anything wrong (someone here refered to it as an imaginary crime) is total bullshit. And as long as a sex offender list is in place this pedophile needs to be on it.

[Chemisse]

45. That is exactly the problem with the list

Nobody likes a pervert; nobody wants to defend the rights of a sex offender. So they are made vulnerable to hateful actions because they are on the list - and nobody will care.

[no limit]

57. You can make the same argument against jail for murderers

nobody cares about those poor little murderers.

[Chemisse]

90. I'm not making an argument against jail for anybody who commits a serious crime

I am arguing against publicly branding them after they have served their time.

And I am not expressing pity for the sex offenders particularly, just saying that it is not a popular stance to stick up for someone who everyone loathes. This means they can be treated very badly and no one makes a peep.

For example, Jeffrey Dahmer did pretty much the most despicable acts ever done on another human being, in my opinion. Did any of us feel any outrage that he was murdered in prison? Certainly not me. I was actually pretty happy that he got 'what was coming to him.'

But having a prisoner murdered in prison is a still murder and it's still wrong. So because everybody hated Dahmer, nobody cared. There was no tv special, no calls for changing prisons to prevent such things from happening. Disgusting mass murderers who ate boys have no voice speaking for them.

Sex offenders are in the same boat. Everybody hates them and nobody will speak out for their rights, even if their rights are being totally trampled on.

But when one group is being treated unfairly, it compromises all of our rights. It weakens our moral integrity as a nation.

[no limit]

96. But jail already publicly brands people

this list is no different, it's simply part of your punishment. And actually I don't think it's intent is to punish but to protect people that have to live in the same neighborhood as these sick bastards.

[Chemisse]

99. It's different from jail because no matter where they go, it goes with them

It IS supposed to protect people. The repeat offense rate is so high among sexual predators that it makes sense in that way.

The problem is (in my opinion) that all sexual offenses are piled into this category, stigmatizing people who are not likely to reoffend and whose offenses are not that serious.

[no limit]

100. I totally agree with you there are people that shouldn't be on there

and laws should be changed in that regard. But there are plenty of people that need to be on that list, including the asshole in the OP.

[berni_mccoy]

24. This is a really bad idea and one I don't agree with.

[Vidar]

26. Consensual teenage lovers & strippers don't belong on the list.

[msanthrope]

46. I agree with that. But the case in the OP, stays on.

[graywarrior]

27. I know a woman in NH who is on the list for having sex with a 15 year old boy when she was 18.

She's in her 40's now and still carries the stigma. Everyone in town knows her as a decent, hard working person. I think it's insane to keep her on the list.

[Wednesdays]

28. There shouldn't be a list, period.

I mean, why a list for sex offenders and not other crimes? What is it about sex that makes it more heinous?

[graywarrior]

32. It's a social problem.

Of course, it's more complicated with pedophiles, but even then, the history of the pedophile and his/her family is not really taken into account.

[redqueen]

42. The likelihood of recidivism. (nt)

[madmusic]

60. That's a myth

http://offenderstatistics.blogspot.com/

[redqueen]

61. A blog post? Really?

Sorry, there are so many studies corraborating that sexual offenders are 4x as likely to re-offend as any other type of offender.

You're going to have to do better than a blog.

Or is the blog simply relating a peer-reviewed study?

[madmusic]

62. Nothing but studies, many of them government sponsored. nt

[redqueen]

63. And many of them containing arbitrary cut offs and other restrictions.

One study only seemed to look at whether they offended within three years, another only if they followed treatment... and in that one CA study which this blogger posted twice, they pointed out the weakness of the study (see the section on 'gaps').

Pathetic, really.

I will not call it a 'myth' based on a few limited studies.

[madmusic]

65. You don't have to call it a myth. I did it for you.

You can keep you myth if you want and I won't complain. There are other official state studies that went 10 years or more if you cared to dig a little more, like on the first page, second paragraph ten-year follow up ("only 8 % were re-committed for a new sex crime") but you don't care, and that's fine.

You can argue that 8% is high enough to justify the restrictions on the other 92%. That would be a valid argument, but a blanket statement of "The likelihood of recidivism" is misleading.

[redqueen]

66. Did you read the study, or just the blogger's excerpts? That blogger obviously has an agenda.

Go ahead and agree with his cherrypicking, it obviously suits you, since you agree with his agenda.

[madmusic]

68. Here we go.

"I don't like the numbers so I blame you and your agenda."

Typical.

[redqueen]

69. I read the details... you read the blog.

Yes, very typical.

I'll let you have the last word now. Maybe you'll find another cherry-picked study on some biased blogger's page to back up your obviously closely-held, much-cherished belief.

[Gormy Cuss]

80. So is the blanket statement "It's a myth."

You and redqueen are both right, oddly enough. There is a high recidivism rate among certain types of sex offenders and yet there are many who are not known to reoffend.

A good discussion of the problems of measuring recidivism rates with sex offenders can be found here:
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

This is the site of the Center for Sexual Offender Management, a project of DOJ (specifically, the Office of Justice Programs which is a research unit within DOJ. )

[madmusic]

83. Myth: "Most sex offenders reoffend."

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

That is from the same site you linked to, which, BTW, is 10-years-old.

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

There are many more detailed and comprehensive studies since then. "New research in California shows that only a tiny fraction - 3.38 percent - of released sex offenders are convicted of a new sex offense within 10 years of release."

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2008/06/ca-study-low-sex-offender-recidivism.html

There are valid arguments in favor of tough laws, but claims that the recidivism rate is higher overall than for other crimes is not one of them if evidence-based reasoning is better policy.

[Gormy Cuss]

85. The weakness of relying on reconviction rates is discussed at the CSOM site

and yes, I'm well aware that it's not hot-off-the press data. The purpose of posting it was the long and thoughtful discussion of how difficult it is to assess recidivism rates because of many noisy factors like under reporting of sexual offenses and the fact that many studies lump all types of sex offenders together.

Interest post at your second blogspot. Don't know why the author didn't simply link to the report location, which is here:
http://www.casomb.org/docs/RECIDIVISM%20OF%20PAROLED%20SEX%20OFFENDERS%2010%20year.pdf
It does differentiate based on whether the return was based on sexual offense, other criminal offense, or other parole violations.

The CA corrections site has their current and past 3 year recidivism rates for felons. In the most recent report I calculated the aggregate 3 yeer recidivism rate for felony sex offenders at 49.5%, which is just under what would qualify as "most." Sex offenders as a group had a lower than average recidivism rate than all parolees but the overall rate seems to be driven by property crime offenders.
Note however that the recidivism for all offenders includes returns for any parole violation.

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/RECID3/Recid3d2005.pdf

[madmusic]

86. Either recidivism is recidivism or it isn't.

I knew better than to jump into this, but one last post. It is not surprising you found a 49.5% rate. The CASCOMB study found a 49.06% rate for straight parole violations.

New sex offense = 3.38%

New other offense = 3.83%

Parole violation = 49.06%

http://www.casomb.org/docs/RECIDIVISM%20OF%20PAROLED%20SEX%20OFFENDERS%2010%20year.pdf

(Thanks for finding the pdf link.)

That means 3.38% were returned to prison for a new sex offense and about 45% did not go back to prison for anything in the 10-year period, not even a parole violation. What surprises me about this study is that a sex offender recidivist is slightly more likely to offend with a non-sex offense than with a sex offense. But the total is still only 7.21%.

[Chemisse]

47. I think they should change the list so

As to exclude any consensual acts between teenagers. Once they hit 20, it should include only those that are 5 years or more apart in age.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. 30 years ago, my wife and I started dating when she was 15 and I was 18.

[LeftHander]

30. RNC must be cleaning up for midterms....nt

[Hippo_Tron]

37. What's even more absurd is putting people on the list for public urination

That's an offense that should at most be a $200 citation, not a red mark for the rest of your life.

[redqueen]

41. A 20-year-old guy who even thought for one second that meeting a 14-year-old for sex

was a good idea should be a on a list.

But then I'm a prudey prudey puritan prude, according to some DUers.


(edited because it's RI and not NH where girls can legally be strippers at 16)

[JeniB]

102. In case you missed it...

There was a previous conversation in which the "girl" (cop) said she was going to be 16 in the next month. The 20 year old was 19 then. Six months later the second converstion took place where "she" changed her age. There was clear confusion as to the age of the person. In fact it ended up being a 40 something cop thereby proving the 20 year old had no idea who he was talking to.

The real point is that if it had been a real person the guy could have met her, bought her a burger and fries and then asked for her ID. WHen she proved to be only 14 he could have said you're too young for me and left. This guy didn't get that chance, but he DID leave before he even had a chance to see her. I think he did what we all would hope people faced with that choice would do.

[proteus_lives]

51. Sorry Rep. Brown

Your son is a sex offender and he should be on the list. You'll realize that when he's arrested for rape down the line.

[aikoaiko]

52. I agree that misdemeanors as a general rule should not be on the list.

That would keep a lot of people off the list who probably shouldn't be there.

However the 20 year old pled guilty to a felony and he should really consider himself lucky to have not spent time in jail and have a limited time on the list (10 years max maybe as little as 5).

This thread should have more Varkam.

[Vickers]

59. So, what was Rep. Brown's stance on sex offender registries BEFORE her son

was busted?

:eyes:

[northernlights]

70. I don't think a couple of dating high school kids

that do it belong on the list. At. All.

On the other hand, a 20 year old trolling the internet for sex with a strange 14 year old?

Please. He thought she was lying when she said she was 14, because he claims that earlier she said she was 15? That doesn't make sense. Why on earth would a 15 year old lie and say she was 14? Young teens don't lie to make themselves younger; they lie to make themselves older. And to quote Judge Judy, if it doesn't make sense, it's probably a lie.

And he claims he changed his mind because he was unsure of her age, so didn't follow through. How do we know he didn't spot the cops, causing him to have that sudden change of mind?

I don't think "low-level" one-time offenders should be branded for life, though. That doesn't solve anything.

[redqueen]

78. I think we all agree about the teenager thing... or public urination.

I wasn't even aware that public urination was enough to get on one of these lists... weird.

[oddtext]

74. as a defense lawyer

who's represented people in cases like this my guess is that this boils down to Defendant's potential punishment exposure and the plea offer which saved his ass.

Defendant was probably charged initially with a very serious felony for which he could go to prison. Def plead to something requiring registration and obtained probation and breathed a sigh of relief.

mama, now sees how unfair this is. nice. who cares about "sex offenders" anyway -- shouldn't they just be banished to go live on some island in the pacific and screw one another until the crack of doom?

what bothers me in these cases is the fact that they occur online. what do people know about others while chatting in a chatroom? people constantly engage in misrepresentation and fantasy. in extreme cases, men represent themselves to be women, for example. context is everything.

next, i question the "attempt" factual basis. an attempted crime is complete only when one specifically intends to do a crime, and while defendant possesses the intent, he does something substantial to bring about the crime, and the act comes so close to causing crime that it would have happened had he not been stopped or when an unforseeable event occurs that prevents the crime from occurring (like a jammed gun after pulling the trigger).

here, mr skeevo defendant was leaving, LEAVING, the scene not having met at the appointed place when officers swooped in. i think that's enough to show that his intent to do the crime had dissolved and this kind of prosecution borders on thought policing.

we shouldn't prosecute people for having "creepy thoughts" and this is where a lot of sex crime law is evolving.

[peacebaby3]

79. My father would be considered a sex offender today because he met and

started dating my mother when she was 14 and he was 24. It was 1951 when they met. They dated and married 3 years later when my mother was 17 and my father was 27. They remained married for nearly 50 years until she passed away in 2004 and had 4 daughters. Today he would have been prosecuted as a sex offender and be on the sex offender registry.

We've gone crazy over this kind of legislation. Anyone who doesn't support this is automatically told they support child molestation because people in this country and many on this board are completely reactionary. No true thought goes into anything. The US is an act first, think later (or never) country.

[Gormy Cuss]

89. If they were having sex then that's likely to be true. Dating, not so much.

Most of us have relatives in prior generations who married at a young age. As long as both were of legal age to get married the state had no interest.

That's different from what would have happened if there was evidence of premarital sex. There's always been a harder line on that, particularly when the evidence was a pregnancy. The threat of charges like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or statutory rape was used to enforce breakups or to facilitate hurried weddings.

That said, there is something fundamentally different between the degree of seriousness between an adult having sex with a young teen who while willing was under the age of consent and an aggravated rapist, yet both appear on the same public sex offender lists. It hardly matters if the list also makes clear the severity of the offense since the label "Sex Offender" is all that some people will use to discredit the person or deny employment.

[Hannah Bell]

87. i hope so too. the sex offender list, legislation & hysteria is pernicious.

i believe more pernicious than the harm it's supposedly intended to forestall - but doesn't.

[Jennicut]

97. When I was 13 I was molested by my brother's friend, who was 21.

I find it crazy then anyone considers a twenty year old interested in a 14 year old normal. One is an adult and the other is still a minor. Now if it was consensual then I would not classify that as a sex offender. But it still creeps me out and brings back a bad memory, which thankfully only lasted once.

[dugaresa]

101. the problem i have with arresting a man based on "intent" is that

in cases where he leaves the scene, as in the case cited, he basically had a "rational moment" and then left and didn't do anything.

What kind of slippery slope does that lead to? What if someone "thinks about killing their spouse"...goes to the cupboard for rat poison and has a "rational moment" and doesn't do anything? Isn't that kind of the same thing?

I do think child predators are the lowest form of life but I get all creeped out when we start ruining people's lives forever for something they didn't actually do.