High Court Upholds Sex Offender Law

[MicroBalrog]

Criminalizing potentiality has never been part of our judicial system.  Do we want "experts" judging what we might do in terms of "dangerous?"  In this and other things we are medievalizing our culture.

This, in spades.

How come a rapist is considered potentially insane, but a guy who messes another guy up with an icepick is perfectly a-ok? Society has far too much of a hang up with ZOMG SEX OFFENDERS for anybody to actually touch this with a spade.

What is the process of this re-evaluation? Is there a court proceeding, where the prisoner gets to have a lawyer and can defend his position, with a presumption of sanity on his side?

What is a sex offender for the purpose of this? Not a joke question, given what the definition of sex offenders is.

Many do not want to call a sex crime a mental illness because it places sexual practices more on a sliding scale from "Normal" to "Criminal/Insane" and many freaky folks wouldn't like being placed close to the "Criminal/Insane" side. 

Practically anybody is a freak to someone else.

[makattak]

This ruling is wrong.

I, however, find it very hard to get outraged about this when on the same day the Supreme Court has ruled that just because someone isn't 18 we can't even lock them away for life when they rape an 8 year old or gang rape a woman and force her to do even more unpleasant things.

They already said these vermin can't be put to death and now they also can't be locked away for good.

It's painful to watch the slow death of civilization.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

How come a rapist is considered potentially insane, but a guy who messes another guy up with an icepick is perfectly a-ok? Society has far too much of a hang up with ZOMG SEX OFFENDERS for anybody to actually touch this with a spade.


this indicates your understanding of the courts needs a lil work

[MicroBalrog]

How come a rapist is considered potentially insane, but a guy who messes another guy up with an icepick is perfectly a-ok? Society has far too much of a hang up with ZOMG SEX OFFENDERS for anybody to actually touch this with a spade.


this indicates your understanding of the courts needs a lil work

Of the courts? I don't seem to have mentioned the courts at all in that phrase.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

ok your understanding of our society could use tweaking
a rapist may not be adjudged insane and the guy with the icepick could well be adjudged insane.  a lot depends on the lawyering

[MicroBalrog]

ok your understanding of our society could use tweaking
a rapist may not be adjudged insane and the guy with the icepick could well be adjudged insane.  a lot depends on the lawyering

Quite likely the way is should be. But as you know full well there's a lot of people who have a knee-jerk reaction at the term 'sex-offender' and immediately imagine one of those Free Candy van drivers. Pandering to these people - in whatever country this occurs - creates bad law and bad practice.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i don't think the knee jerk reaction comes into play here   nor are we talking about borderline cases

[MicroBalrog]

i don't think the knee jerk reaction comes into play here   nor are we talking about borderline cases

You think? What do you think the legislators were thinking of when they passed this law?

[MechAg94]

You think? What do you think the legislators were thinking of when they passed this law?

They were thinking of people caught pissing on the side of the road obviously.  Can't let those weirdos out of jail.   

The idea that "sex offender" is a very broad term loosely defined in many jurisdictions is an old argument that has been brought up here multiple times and more than once in this thread.  I don't think you would find any disagreement here with fixing it.

[MicroBalrog]

The thing is. I don't trust the state - any state - with this sort of thing, because the state has a horrific record with it.

Not just in the area of actually innocent people pissing in the side of the road, but also people who actually did something criminal but are not the proverbial dirty-old-men.  We're all in agreement about the actually innocent.

But I would argue guilty people also need to be protected from the excesses of public punitarianism.

[Jamisjockey]

Just wait until unpopular speech is deemed dangerous to the public.... 

The sex offender brush is so broadly painted that any offense of a sexual nature is stuffed into it.  Those people are then relegated to life as second class citizens, even after paying their debts in prison.   

[alex_trebek]

Just wait until unpopular speech is deemed dangerous to the public.... 

The sex offender brush is so broadly painted that any offense of a sexual nature is stuffed into it.  Those people are then relegated to life as second class citizens, even after paying their debts in prison.   

We have doing it for years with felons as well. I dont intend to show sympathy for hardened criminals, but someone has either paid their debt or they haven't. They are either rehabilitated or they aren't. It really is that simple.

If they aren't rehabilitated, or haven't paid their debt to society, then don't let them out.

[KD5NRH]

If they aren't rehabilitated, or haven't paid their debt to society, then don't let them out.

+1.  My biggest problem with the sex-offender registry is the offenses that shouldn't be on it, but my second-biggest problem is the lack of corresponding lists for particularly violent non-sexual offenders, repeat violent offenders, and other high-risk recidivism types that might be living on my block.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i've got 2 basic issues with the lists.  one is that there isn't enough detail for folks to decide . the crimes are so vague that as has been observed you can get drunk and take a leak and get on it.  in va we had a guy do 14 years as a result for a crime he didn't do.

everybit as bad to me is guys who do in fact rape or molest someone then get a good lawyer and plead to some crime that keeps em off the list