Another reason to be skeptical of these sorts of punishments...not only can you get on the list for consensual activity, you can get on the list without ever committing any sexual offense at all:
Quotethe law applies to anyone convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment of a minor, regardless if a sexual act was committed.
At 17, Darnelle Harvey took part in the robbery of a Dairy Queen in Chamblee. Brandishing a gun, he ordered a 16-year-old to lie down as the holdup progressed. This got him a false imprisonment conviction, and because the victim was under 18, Harvey became a sex offender.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories//2009/03/15/sex_offender_law_georgia.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
Well, to be honest I am not concerned that much about someone guilty of armed robbery, as I am about people who commit consensual sex offenses with adults, such as public indecency (e.g. getting a blowjob in a public restroom).
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2009, 09:25:38 AM
Well, to be honest I am not concerned that much about someone guilty of armed robbery, as I am about people who commit consensual sex offenses with adults, such as public indecency (e.g. getting a blowjob in a public restroom).
Yeah if you've committed one crime, who cares if you get put down as committing other unrelated crimes?
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2009, 09:28:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2009, 09:25:38 AM
Well, to be honest I am not concerned that much about someone guilty of armed robbery, as I am about people who commit consensual sex offenses with adults, such as public indecency (e.g. getting a blowjob in a public restroom).
Yeah if you've committed one crime, who cares if you get put down as committing other unrelated crimes?
There is a reason to care. The more that people who are not actually sex predators get added to the list, the more diluted the ostensible purpose of the listing becomes.
If every mugger is on the list together with every 18 y.o. who slept with his or her 17 y.o. bf/gf, pretty soon no-one gives a shit about the fact of being on the list - it won't mean much of anything.
If the list becomes so diluted it also becomes of no use whatsoever to parents trying to protect their children. Knowing that there is a convicted paedophile in the area is far more useful to them than generic information that.......OMG!!!.......there are criminals in the area.
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2009, 09:38:36 AM
There is a reason to care. The more that people who are not actually sex predators get added to the list, the more diluted the ostensible purpose of the listing becomes.
If every mugger is on the list together with every 18 y.o. who slept with his or her 17 y.o. bf/gf, pretty soon no-one gives a shit about the fact of being on the list - it won't mean much of anything.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic but I hate the new roll eyes smiley. :(
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2009, 09:50:12 AM
Sorry, I was being sarcastic but I hate the new roll eyes smiley. :(
The internet doesn't do sarcasm.
It's Georgia. What do you expect?
Quote from: Martinus on March 16, 2009, 09:25:38 AM
Well, to be honest I am not concerned that much about someone guilty of armed robbery, as I am about people who commit consensual sex offenses with adults, such as public indecency (e.g. getting a blowjob in a public restroom).
That's a fucking lie and you know it. You're only concerned with homosexuals, who aren't really 'people'.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 16, 2009, 09:44:36 AM
If the list becomes so diluted it also becomes of no use whatsoever to parents trying to protect their children. Knowing that there is a convicted paedophile in the area is far more useful to them than generic information that.......OMG!!!.......there are criminals in the area.
Well, as best as I can tell, even most people convicted of actual sex crimes aren't pedophiles, so even an undiluted list of sex offenders isn't that useful. Actually, I think that I'd rather have a list of people in my area who were convicted of robberies than those convicted of sex crimes. Granted, I don't have children, so that attitude might change when we do, but even then, I think that I'll probably figure there are a bunch of pedophiles out there who haven't been caught yet anyway.
Think of it as a felony sex offense. If you commit a felony while sex is going on you get hit with a sex offense charge.
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 10:23:32 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 16, 2009, 09:44:36 AM
If the list becomes so diluted it also becomes of no use whatsoever to parents trying to protect their children. Knowing that there is a convicted paedophile in the area is far more useful to them than generic information that.......OMG!!!.......there are criminals in the area.
Well, as best as I can tell, even most people convicted of actual sex crimes aren't pedophiles, so even an undiluted list of sex offenders isn't that useful. Actually, I think that I'd rather have a list of people in my area who were convicted of robberies than those convicted of sex crimes. Granted, I don't have children, so that attitude might change when we do, but even then, I think that I'll probably figure there are a bunch of pedophiles out there who haven't been caught yet anyway.
My sentiments exactly. The only people interested in sex offender lists are those too ugly to hook up via Manhunt.
Did we really need another reason to conclude that the sex offender registry is BS and (IMO) unconstitutional?
In America all you need is a citizen register. Oh shit, you don't even have that.
Quote from: The Brain on March 16, 2009, 12:09:40 PM
In America all you need is a citizen register. Oh shit, you don't even have that.
The US has it in several movies, though. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2009, 10:26:17 AM
Think of it as a felony sex offense. If you commit a felony while sex is going on you get hit with a sex offense charge.
There wasn't any sex going on there though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2009, 05:42:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2009, 10:26:17 AM
Think of it as a felony sex offense. If you commit a felony while sex is going on you get hit with a sex offense charge.
There wasn't any sex going on there though.
Somewhere, probably.
Quote from: Caliga on March 16, 2009, 11:33:44 AM
Did we really need another reason to conclude that the sex offender registry is BS and (IMO) unconstitutional?
Why is it unconstitional.
I approve of these registries. They are hilarious, and I like knowing where the Tier III's are.
Quote from: Cindy Brady on March 17, 2009, 08:23:57 AM
I approve of these registries. They are hilarious, and I like knowing where the Tier III's are.
Fair point. Does anybody give a shit about Tier Is? If you
sneeze and it lands on a womans' tits, it could land you a Tier I. Also, sex offender notifications do give the conviction.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 17, 2009, 09:01:37 AM
Quote from: Cindy Brady on March 17, 2009, 08:23:57 AM
I approve of these registries. They are hilarious, and I like knowing where the Tier III's are.
Fair point. Does anybody give a shit about Tier Is? If you sneeze and it lands on a womans' tits, it could land you a Tier I. Also, sex offender notifications do give the conviction.
Hell, the dude I've buying my Chicken McNuggets from is likely a Tier I.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2009, 05:44:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 16, 2009, 11:33:44 AM
Did we really need another reason to conclude that the sex offender registry is BS and (IMO) unconstitutional?
Why is it unconstitional.
IMO it fits the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" to continually punish someone for the rest of their life (via difficulty getting a job, harassment by neighbors/law enforcement/public ridicule) once they've served their sentence.
Quote from: Caliga on March 16, 2009, 11:33:44 AM
Did we really need another reason to conclude that the sex offender registry is BS and (IMO) unconstitutional?
And when you get appointed to the USSC you're opinion will matter.
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 10:56:26 AMAnd when you get appointed to the USSC you're opinion will matter.
:(
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 11:22:26 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2009, 11:15:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 10:56:26 AMAnd when you get appointed to the USSC you're opinion will matter.
:(
:face:
When *you* are on the Supreme Court, you can have a clerk take dictation and chew him or her out when stuff like that gets in your judgments. ;D
I have trouble envisioning a scenario in which a Canadian barrister might find himself on the USSC. :-\
Quote from: Malthus on March 17, 2009, 11:29:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 11:22:26 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2009, 11:15:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 10:56:26 AMAnd when you get appointed to the USSC you're opinion will matter.
:(
:face:
When *you* are on the Supreme Court, you can have a clerk take dictation and chew him or her out when stuff like that gets in your judgments. ;D
Since under the traditional regional allotment of SCC seats there are NO northern judges, plus combined with the facts of my unilingualism and good but not gold medalist LS grades make it very unlikely I'd ever make it to the SCC...
I'm curious what your opinion on this issue actually is, Beeb... I imagine you are in favor of the registries, but I'd like to know the reasoning.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 17, 2009, 09:01:37 AM
Quote from: Cindy Brady on March 17, 2009, 08:23:57 AM
I approve of these registries. They are hilarious, and I like knowing where the Tier III's are.
Fair point. Does anybody give a shit about Tier Is? If you sneeze and it lands on a womans' tits, it could land you a Tier I. Also, sex offender notifications do give the conviction.
To be fair to those who created the system there is scientific research that justifies giving a shit about Tier I offenders. Most offenders don't wake up one morning thinking, "Ok, today is the day I become a serial rapist". There are various crimes and types of behavior that many sex offenders have in common that continually escalate until it becomes something serious. Using a very basic and simple example, the person caught peeping through a neighbors window can eventually become the person who enters through that very same window and rapes someone. Does every offender take that next step? Of course not. If he does though than people are complaining that law enforcement knew he was a peeper/stalker/creep and didn't do anything about it.
Well, the registry is
da man doing something about it.
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2009, 11:54:33 AM
I'm curious what your opinion on this issue actually is, Beeb... I imagine you are in favor of the registries, but I'd like to know the reasoning.
Our own sex offender registry is quite different from yours - first of all the information isn't made public, and a lot fewer people get put on it.
I'm not a huge fan honestly. There are some tools that are enormously helpful in solving crimes - DNA first and foremost. If I had my druthers I'd make DNA like fingerprinting - everyone gives their DNA as soon as they're arrested.
But SOIRA, our sex offender registry? I've never, ever seen it be useful in solving a crime.
So I don't think it's all that useful other than for pestering sex offenders. But I don't see it being unconstitutional. It sure as hell aint "crual and unusual punishment".
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 12:08:59 PM
If I had my druthers I'd make DNA like fingerprinting - everyone gives their DNA as soon as they're arrested.
Fuck that shit. Everybody should have to give their DNA, arrested or no. Make it a condition for a social insurance number, and then start taking samples from everyone who is born.
Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2009, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2009, 12:08:59 PM
If I had my druthers I'd make DNA like fingerprinting - everyone gives their DNA as soon as they're arrested.
Fuck that shit. Everybody should have to give their DNA, arrested or no. Make it a condition for a social insurance number, and then start taking samples from everyone who is born.
At the very least make it a condition for obtaining benefits from Welfare.