PDA

View Full Version : 'Sex Predator' Law Reexamined.



Gingersnap
01-29-2010, 11:50 AM
Constitutionality of 'Jessica's Law' questioned

Treating sex predators differently from other violent offenders may violate equal protection guarantees, the California Supreme Court says.
By Maura Dolan

January 29, 2010

The California Supreme Court ruled 5 to 2 Thursday that a 2006 ballot initiative that permitted the state to lock up sexually violent predators indefinitely may violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

The ruling, written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, did not strike down the measure, Proposition 83, also known as "Jessica's Law."

Instead, the court said a fact-finding hearing must be held to determine whether valid reasons exist for treating sex predators differently from others subject to civil confinement, such as mentally disordered offenders.

Proposition 83 increased penalties for repeat sex offenders, prohibited them from living near schools and parks, and changed the law to permit their indefinite confinement to mental institutions, instead of two years with the possibility of extensions.

Richard McKee, a convicted child molester, challenged his confinement on several constitutional grounds, but the court found that only his equal protection argument had merit.

The majority said the state must provide "some justification" for creating greater obstacles for sex predators to win their freedom than for severely mentally disordered offenders who commit crimes but serve their terms in mental institutions.

Sexual predators must be shown to "bear a substantially greater risk to society, and that therefore imposing on them a greater burden before they can be released from commitment is needed to protect society," Moreno wrote.

The majority said the state can provide its justifications in a hearing before a trial judge.

Justice Ming W. Chin, joined by Justice Marvin R. Baxter, dissented.

"Whether sexually violent predators present a distinct danger warranting unique remedies is for society to determine, not a trial judge," Chin wrote.

Interesting. I'm not pro-sex predator but it's clear to me that the label of sex predator is misapplied a lot. Even when you have a genuine sex predator, how do all these conflicting laws actually protect potential victims?

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sexpredator29-2010jan29,0,977394.story)

djones520
01-29-2010, 12:01 PM
Interesting. I'm not pro-sex predator but it's clear to me that the label of sex predator is misapplied a lot. Even when you have a genuine sex predator, how do all these conflicting laws actually protect potential victims?

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sexpredator29-2010jan29,0,977394.story)

It's an interesting concept. Especially with the hubub recently about this same constitutional issue about the Hate Crimes law.

noonwitch
01-29-2010, 12:03 PM
Interesting. I'm not pro-sex predator but it's clear to me that the label of sex predator is misapplied a lot. Even when you have a genuine sex predator, how do all these conflicting laws actually protect potential victims?

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sexpredator29-2010jan29,0,977394.story)



I don't know how much the laws that forbid sex offenders from living near parks and schools protect potential victims. It gives the police grounds to arrest them if they are near places they aren't supposed to be. Those things should be conditions of parole, anyways, whether there is Jessica's Law in place or not.


Most sexual abuse is committed by people who are known to the child, and trusted by him or her. All the laws in the world don't work if the parent(s) allow that person to continue to have access to the child.

NJCardFan
01-29-2010, 12:35 PM
Interesting. I'm not pro-sex predator but it's clear to me that the label of sex predator is misapplied a lot. Even when you have a genuine sex predator, how do all these conflicting laws actually protect potential victims?

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sexpredator29-2010jan29,0,977394.story)

Because pedophilia is incurable and if left unchecked there's a high degree of probability that it will end in the death of a child. This is a stone cold fact as we read about it almost every day on how a known pedophile ends up killing a kid so I agree that these scumbags should be civilly committed for life.

It's an interesting concept. Especially with the hubub recently about this same constitutional issue about the Hate Crimes law.

Big, big difference here. Hate Crime law is a thought crime law. You beat up a dude in a bar fight, it's just assault. If that dude happens to be a minority or gay, you can get hit with a hate crime on top of it. All you need is one person to say you were using epithets during the fight and you're toast. If you are already a known sex offended or a pedophile, then you should have major restriction on you because it's a known fact that pedophiles more more likely to re-commit their crimes.

Gingersnap
01-29-2010, 12:39 PM
Most sexual abuse is committed by people who are known to the child, and trusted by him or her. All the laws in the world don't work if the parent(s) allow that person to continue to have access to the child.

Bingo. All too often the "predator" is also Mom's current lover or a friend of Mom's current lover. Then there are the assorted "funny" uncles, cousins, step-brothers, and so on. Once these people are identified, I would think that simply forbidding them to have direct contact with any children would do the trick. Most of these men require a combination of continual exposure to a child plus liquor/drugs to get to the point where they cross that line.

noonwitch
01-29-2010, 02:02 PM
Bingo. All too often the "predator" is also Mom's current lover or a friend of Mom's current lover. Then there are the assorted "funny" uncles, cousins, step-brothers, and so on. Once these people are identified, I would think that simply forbidding them to have direct contact with any children would do the trick. Most of these men require a combination of continual exposure to a child plus liquor/drugs to get to the point where they cross that line.



My mom's family had a "funny" great uncle, uncle and cousin. When we'd go to the home of the great uncle and his son, my dad would keep my sister and I outside with him while he smoked, at least if my dad went on that trip with us. My mom wasn't supposed to bring us there if my dad wasn't with her.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
01-29-2010, 05:29 PM
I think the problem is that in some cases the laws are WAY too technical. Like, I don't think an 18 year old guy dating a 17 year old girl is a sex predator yet by law depending on the state he could be charged as one and have that on his record for life.

Sonnabend
01-29-2010, 05:30 PM
Keeping a child molestor away from new victims is what the law is supposed to be for..that I can understand...but waiting until their sentence is done then telling them they will be locked up indefinitely...doesnt sit right with me.

If he gets ten years and does ten years, the judge SAID ten years and he serves it he SHOULD be released...but that poses a danger to possible victims AND is a violation of his rights....the sentencing law should be changed.

Telling a man that after he's served his sentence he stays in jail and he will, and rightly, say "FOR WHAT?"....I'm torn both ways....:confused:

PoliCon
01-29-2010, 07:14 PM
Interesting. I'm not pro-sex predator but it's clear to me that the label of sex predator is misapplied a lot. Even when you have a genuine sex predator, how do all these conflicting laws actually protect potential victims?

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sexpredator29-2010jan29,0,977394.story)

They don't. If law makers were actually serious about protecting potential victims they would never let these bastards see the light of day ever again. Convicted pedophiles and actual rapists - not just men who have been accused of rape because the woman got buyers remorse - should face the death penalty and at the very least they should NEVER EVER walk free again.

Sonnabend
01-29-2010, 08:44 PM
Convicted pedophiles and actual rapists - not just men who have been accused of rape because the woman got buyers remorse - should face the death penalty and at the very least they should NEVER EVER walk free again.

PoliCon, I can pick a HUGE hole in this. Example: man accused and convicted of rape...later evidence proves he's innocent.

Jail? Yes.

Death penalty should be off the table.

PoliCon
01-29-2010, 08:56 PM
PoliCon, I can pick a HUGE hole in this. Example: man accused and convicted of rape...later evidence proves he's innocent.

Jail? Yes.

Death penalty should be off the table.

I disagree. There are times when there is no doubt at all as to the persons guilt - multiple victims, witnesses, video tape, DNA, etc. - and just like with murder - when the evidence is solid enough - death penalty.

Sonnabend
01-29-2010, 09:13 PM
I disagree. There are times when there is no doubt at all as to the persons guilt - multiple victims, witnesses, video tape, DNA, etc. - and just like with murder - when the evidence is solid enough - death penalty.That is for a jury to decide. A "one size fits all" law can do as much damage as it does good.

You can release a man after years in prison....it's kinda hard to apologise to a corpse. Rape is not a capital crime, the death penalty should be reserved for those circumstances where it is merited..example again, a woman accused her husband of rape.

He had sex with her...physical evidence. Witnesses said he did and that they had seen her injuries afterward...damning testimony. So he got twenty years.

Under your criteria he'd be executed.

Two years later she breaks down and admits she wanted his house, and money, and that she did it out of revenge. The "witnesses" got a cut of the loot. Now she faces perjury charges...and he is a free man.

DP = no going back = only when necessary and where merited.

EDIT:Years ago horse stealing was a hanging offence. Hang a man for that today? No.

I am not arguing against the DP..I am simply saying that it should be applied selectively and when the case calls for it.

Sonnabend
01-29-2010, 09:51 PM
A woman has sex with a 14 year old. Statutory rape. Hang her too? A man has sex with a woman he believes to be 19 and later is told she is 16 and is charged with rape.

Execute him as well?

There are many more examples...which, I believe, prove my point.

Gingersnap
01-29-2010, 10:04 PM
Convicted pedophiles and actual rapists - not just men who have been accused of rape because the woman got buyers remorse - should face the death penalty and at the very least they should NEVER EVER walk free again.

No! Have a thought for the victims here. If a guy is facing the death penalty or real American-style life-with-no-parole, he has no reason to spare his victim. In for a penny, in for a pound.

The death penalty is fine for those who already intend to kill their victims but not for crimes that the victim might ordinarily be expected to survive.

PoliCon
01-29-2010, 10:29 PM
No! Have a thought for the victims here. If a guy is facing the death penalty or real American-style life-with-no-parole, he has no reason to spare his victim. In for a penny, in for a pound.

The death penalty is fine for those who already intend to kill their victims but not for crimes that the victim might ordinarily be expected to survive.

I don't agree. The in for a penny in for a pound people would be dissuaded by a death penalty.

Rockntractor
01-29-2010, 10:37 PM
I don't agree. The in for a penny in for a pound people would be dissuaded by a death penalty.

I was agreeing with you until Ginger made her post. She has a pretty compelling argument!

Gingersnap
01-29-2010, 11:00 PM
I don't agree. The in for a penny in for a pound people would be dissuaded by a death penalty.

Rape is usually opportunistic. Dedicated, serial rapists are few compared to the drunken type. Quite a few rapists are living out a failed romantic fantasy: they seriously think we like it. They don't want to kill us, they want to convert us.

If a guy is looking at the death penalty for acting out this "romance", he may well understand that his target is not converted and she will talk. Killing her pays no worse wages than not killing her but it's way more unlikely that he will be caught than if a living victim speaks.

Now, that said, I have zero problem with a woman defending herself and taking justice into her own hands if she's capable of it. ;)

PoliCon
01-29-2010, 11:04 PM
Rape is usually opportunistic. Dedicated, serial rapists are few compared to the drunken type. Quite a few rapists are living out a failed romantic fantasy: they seriously think we like it. They don't want to kill us, they want to convert us.

If a guy is looking at the death penalty for acting out this "romance", he may well understand that his target is not converted and she will talk. Killing her pays no worse wages than not killing her but it's way more unlikely that he will be caught than if a living victim speaks.

Now, that said, I have zero problem with a woman defending herself and taking justice into her own hands if she's capable of it. ;)

And those kinds of rapists should not face the death penalty where as the cereal ;) rapists should!

Rockntractor
01-29-2010, 11:05 PM
Now, that said, I have zero problem with a woman defending herself and taking justice into her own hands if she's capable of it. ;)
Pull start him like a lawnmower!:D

PoliCon
01-29-2010, 11:07 PM
Pull start him like a lawnmower!:D

rotfl! My advice to the ladies is always play along until you can get your hands on his balls and then SQUEEZE and TWIST and PULL as hard as you can. :)

Sonnabend
01-29-2010, 11:12 PM
And those kinds of rapists should not face the death penalty where as the cereal ;) rapists should!http://eplacencia.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/cornflakes400.jpg
+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HlbgYQLE0

:D:D

Gingersnap
01-29-2010, 11:22 PM
rotfl! My advice to the ladies is always play along until you can get your hands on his balls and then SQUEEZE and TWIST and PULL as hard as you can. :)

My advice, in all seriousness, is to bite, scream, kick, throw things, break a window, destroy furniture, and generally make a huge squirming ruckus.

Most rapes happen when a drunken man pushes his intentions. Most rape victims are too afraid of causing a scene or being "mistaken" as to a guy's intention. They don't want to be embarrassed. They don't want to "be wrong".

Be wrong. I kicked a guy out his Dad's car and drove it back to his house. When I rang the doorbell and handed the keys over to his Dad, I was very nervous about how this guy's Dad would view me. I felt awful but the guy's Dad didn't say a thing other than to ask where his kid was. I told him.

It was stupid of me to feel bad and I don't today.

My instinct was right. Be violent, loud, and uncooperative.

NJCardFan
01-30-2010, 03:06 AM
Keeping a child molestor away from new victims is what the law is supposed to be for..that I can understand...but waiting until their sentence is done then telling them they will be locked up indefinitely...doesnt sit right with me.

If he gets ten years and does ten years, the judge SAID ten years and he serves it he SHOULD be released...but that poses a danger to possible victims AND is a violation of his rights....the sentencing law should be changed.

Telling a man that after he's served his sentence he stays in jail and he will, and rightly, say "FOR WHAT?"....I'm torn both ways....:confused:
Say Charles Manson got 40 years instead of life. Charles Manson is certifiably insane. That is as much a certainty as water is wet. He serves every minute of those 40 years. Still think the prison doors should be opened for him to walk free in society? These people go through therapy while in prison and some are found to be unrepentant and incurable. Here in NJ that buys you a quick trip to Avenel. People are civilly committed all the time. This is no different.

Sonnabend
01-30-2010, 04:12 AM
Manson is a lunatic. No argument.

As I recall he was sentenced to 40 years to LIFE....for MURDER. Not rape.

PoliCon
01-30-2010, 09:25 AM
My advice, in all seriousness, is to bite, scream, kick, throw things, break a window, destroy furniture, and generally make a huge squirming ruckus.

Most rapes happen when a drunken man pushes his intentions. Most rape victims are too afraid of causing a scene or being "mistaken" as to a guy's intention. They don't want to be embarrassed. They don't want to "be wrong".

Be wrong. I kicked a guy out his Dad's car and drove it back to his house. When I rang the doorbell and handed the keys over to his Dad, I was very nervous about how this guy's Dad would view me. I felt awful but the guy's Dad didn't say a thing other than to ask where his kid was. I told him.

It was stupid of me to feel bad and I don't today.

My instinct was right. Be violent, loud, and uncooperative.

My sister had one guy try and force himself on her while she was still in high school and she said he limped for 2 weeks when she was done . . . :)

NJCardFan
01-30-2010, 11:14 AM
Manson is a lunatic. No argument.

As I recall he was sentenced to 40 years to LIFE....for MURDER. Not rape.

Wow, dance around much? I was using this as an example but you conveniently change your tune. I called you on your "but he served his time" argument and you side step it. Admit you're wrong and move along.

Sonnabend
01-30-2010, 05:53 PM
Wow, dance around much? I was using this as an example but you conveniently change your tune. I called you on your "but he served his time" argument and you side step it. The issue here is this: a man is sentenced to : ten years for rape, no more.

Rape is not a capital crime.

After serving his entire sentence he is then told :sorry actually we will lock you up for a long time and no you've committed no crime but we think you will...which is to me an abuse of due process.

Manson was sentenced to 40 years to LIFE: for a capital crime which could and should have had the DP imposed.

Murder is a capital crime

And no I am not wrong, as you have not read the entire thread, and have missed my point.

this is my point.


You can release a man after years in prison....it's kinda hard to apologise to a corpse. Rape is not a capital crime, the death penalty should be reserved for those circumstances where it is merited..example again, a woman accused her husband of rape.

He had sex with her...physical evidence. Witnesses said he did and that they had seen her injuries afterward...damning testimony. So he got twenty years.

Under your criteria he'd be executed.

Two years later she breaks down and admits she wanted his house, and money, and that she did it out of revenge. The "witnesses" got a cut of the loot. Now she faces perjury charges...and he is a free man.

DP = no going back = only when necessary and where merited.

EDIT:Years ago horse stealing was a hanging offence. Hang a man for that today? No.

I am not arguing against the DP..I am simply saying that it should be applied selectively and when the case calls for it.My issue with the original OP is that it is not true sentencing and the concept of "he may commit another crime" can be applied to...burglars, conmen, politicians who swindle, lie, cheat, perjure, car thieves, bagsnatchers...right down to jaywalkers.

Aren't you Americans the ones who keep lecturing me on gun rights and other rights...telling me it's a "slippery slope"?

Isn't whats being done here against your own Constitution?

Hm?

PoliCon
01-30-2010, 10:56 PM
Rape is not a capital crime.No it's not. Not any more at least. And I believe that that is a mistake.

NJCardFan
01-31-2010, 12:00 AM
Stop dancing around the fucking point. Since you didn't like my Manson analogy, let me make it more hypothetical:

Joe Sixpack was convicted of murder and given a sentence of 30 years, no parole. While incarcerated, Inmate Sixpack was evaluated and found to be certifiably insane. Crazier than a shithouse rat, whatever adjective you want to give for being stone cold crazy. I mean this guy would sit in his cell at night and rub shit all over his body. He also would tell his doctors in jail that he often fantasizes about his crime and the thrill it got. All of that said, tomorrow is his max date. 30 years served. Are you comfortable with releasing him to society or do you think he needs to be civilly committed?

Sonnabend
01-31-2010, 01:32 AM
Joe Sixpack was convicted of murder and given a sentence of 30 years, no parole. While incarcerated, Inmate Sixpack was evaluated and found to be certifiably insane. Crazier than a shithouse rat, whatever adjective you want to give for being stone cold crazy.Does not equate to say, a woman who had sex with a 14 year old, hence statutory rape.

Or a man who gets into a drunken state and rapes a woman.

Or a man who has sex with a woman and later learns she is not 18.

It happens.

Both are heinous yes, but they do not equal murder..which is my point. You believe that a person should be convicted and then be told ten years and then later told no it's life...that is not justice.

There are levels of sentencing, levels of severity, which is where I am going with this.

If after evaluation that person is found to be a possible risk, then the issue is not that they should be jailed indefinitely, but if said possible risk is real or just a convenient way to "satisfy the mob"


I mean this guy would sit in his cell at night and rub shit all over his body. He also would tell his doctors in jail that he often fantasizes about his crime and the thrill it got. All of that said, tomorrow is his max date. 30 years served. Are you comfortable with releasing him to society or do you think he needs to be civilly committed?No, I am not. But then the question comes, and this is again an issue and what I am concerned with is the sentencing itself...what we here cal;l; "truth in sentencing"..as a matter of fact we have people here who have had their papers stamped "Never to be released".

They know they will die in jail.

My point is that a "one size fits all" approach does not allow for the factors I have stated above.

NJ...murder is not rape. Both are horrific...but should a person who is convicted of one serve a sentence that is reserved for the other?

Sonnabend
01-31-2010, 03:01 AM
Someone commits an armed robbery. They are sentenced to five years. Then the law says "we think you will do it again so you stay in jail"

Someone embezzles money. They are sentenced to five years. Then the law says "we think you will do it again so you stay in jail"

See the corollaries?

The statement "we are keeping you in prison in case you commit another crime" has some connotations that are...disquieting, to put it mildly. I am not arguing in favour of sex predators...far from it...but the concept of imprisoning someone after they have served their sentence "in case" makes a mockery of the trial, the judge..and the law.

And "due process".

Do you also favour wiping out double jeopardy? How many times do you try the same person for the same crime?.

I dont know what the answer is, but the potential for abuse is large, and this is the same law that has seen people convicted on perjured testimony, or corrupt police activity. Are we keeping this person in jail indefinitely because we are sure? Or are we simply bowing to hysterical public pressure?

And no, I don't know what to do in these cases, I can see both sides to it. The potential for abuse is what worries me.

From that article:


In fact a large majority of heinous crimes should be worthy of the death penalty. It will reduce the incidence of crime, and reduce our prison populations, thus reducing the tax burden on the law abiding citizens of this fine state.

And who decides what those "heinous crimes" are?

RobJohnson
01-31-2010, 03:17 AM
I think the problem is that in some cases the laws are WAY too technical. Like, I don't think an 18 year old guy dating a 17 year old girl is a sex predator yet by law depending on the state he could be charged as one and have that on his record for life.


I agree.

I know a kid that they waited until he was 18 to arrest him for the consesnual touch of a 15 year old's breast when he was 17. This young man was all set to go into the army after graduation and ended up spending his graduation weekend in jail.

This young man & his friends were being charged with "gang rape" and other bogus charges due to someone at a party said they over heard the boys saying "we could double team her"

The case went to trial and the county really did not have much of a case, it was proven that the girl was not a virgin at the time of party during when the events in question allegedly took place. In fact, the girl said she was so drunk, she did not remember anything, or at least that is what she told her dad and the judge....

A hospital exam found no signs of sex, yet this young man's life was turned upside down.

The day of the jury trial, and thousands of dollars later for the young man's family, the state's attorney added some lesser charges to the major felony charges...the jury went with one of the minor charges which still meant that this kid had to be a registered sex offender...

NJCardFan
01-31-2010, 11:17 AM
You know what Sonnabend? I'm done. You just refuse to see the forest through the trees. You have to be 100% right on all topics. And when someone gives you a scenario you don't like, you change the rules of the debate. You can't admit that there are circumstances where CIVIL COMMITMENT TO AN INSTITUTION is a viable solution for some deranged criminals. Here's something for you to chew on. There have been people who have been civilly committed who've never committed a crime. But you refuse to listen to reason so I'm done with you on this debate. You're wrong and that's that.


Do you also favour wiping out double jeopardy? How many times do you try the same person for the same crime?.

Jesus Christ you're like arguing with a child. Where in the fuck did I say this. Grow the fuck up already and stick your strawman right up your ass. I hope every batshit crazy loon who gets released from prison comes and lives right in your neighborhood.