Dean's World

I will have to be arrested for my lustful thoughts as well. I am a mastur criminal.

The case Michael Demmons cites is just obviously ridiculous on the face of it, as was his stupid commenter. The man was saving the child's life. The law is an ass....

I'm with JDS, totally don't get your point. The case is ridiculous, but it's not a case of someone being treated as a sex offender because he thought about committing an offense (intent without action), it's a case of someone doing something which could have been a precursor to committing a sexual crime but wasn't (action without intent). It's not the same.

The article says:

While acknowledging it might be “unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated,” the court said his actions are the type that are “often a precursor” to a child being abducted or molested.

Though Barnaby was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges stemming from the November 2002 incident, he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor – which is a sex offense.

Now, he will have to tell local police where he lives and won’t be able to live near a park or school.

The man was convicted of a sex offense, even though his crime was not sexual. But restraint of a minor is a precursor action. Thinking about raping someone is also a precursor action....

Is Dean's point clear yet?

Yours,
Wince

"Is Dean's point clear yet?"

Not entirely. Dean's phrasing suggests (to me at least) that Michael supports the cited case. Reading Michael's post, that's clearly not true.

The man was saving the child's life

Not sure about that. But he was teaching the child a lesson her parents neglected to teach her. Too bad he has this stigma for the rest of his life now.

This is one of those cases where it makes me sad that we'll forget about it in two days. This guy needs to be rescued.

What happened to the principle that when you serve your time (prison/parole) you get a fresh start?

For what it's worth, I thin sex offenders are scum. But I also think that our justice system is supposed to be about rehabilitation though time served.

It's SUPPOSED to be.

Nobody should be on a sex offender registry, in my opinion. Its punishment after punishment has been served. I have no sympathy for sex offenders, but they need to be treated the same as others.

If their crimes warrant longer sentences, then do it.

FWIW, the SF Chron editorialized this morning about "lifers" with initially indeterminate sentences (15 to life, &c.), saying (sensibly) that it might be worth paroling a few codgers here, as long as they weren't the real nasties. But the editorialists wedged in a defense of indeterminate sentencing, noting that criminals convicted of offenses mandating shorter, fixed terms seem to have higher recidivism rates, and that moreover they get released without any showing that "they have acquired any vocational skills, learned how to control their emotions or impulses, or even taken responsibility for their crimes." All they need to show, apparently, is that they've served the term they were sentenced to, and off they go, free as birds.

The shame of it! I mean, obviously they ought to be in there until they're provably "cured" of wanting to kill people, or steal cars, or break into rich people's houses, or pick pockets, or hit other guys over the head with beer bottles. Since we don't actually know how to "prove" any of these things, that might be a long time, but we can always use our discretion, yes?

Yes, only the first would get you an indeterminate life sentence. I know that. Bear with me here. What's the difference? The Chron says (of "lifers"): "Clearly, inmates who represent a likely danger to the community should not be released."

I am at a loss to understand what separates a man with no "vocational skills" and no scientifically demonstrated "control" over "emotions or impulses" who has never been imprisoned from one who has and has been released. Except, of course, that the latter will be watched the rest of his life, a statistic rather than a man.

Steven Malcolm Anderson, quoting Chesterton, who was in turn quoting someone else, said it;

Beat the man about with a great stick, and then let him go free for ever.

I think that the sex offender registries in many states obviously have, like in this case, suffered from 'sex offense dilution': much like having more and more victimless drug and other morals crimes be felonies, you have reduced how serious 'being an ex-con' is, and simultaneously stigmatized what were otherwise functioning members of society.

The bona-fide pedophlies and baby rapers probably should, if ever let out, be listed in registries. But this guy got foolishly carried away (when he restrained her) when trying to correct a very deficient education in, well, how to deal with roads!

My best friend in another state once got busted for taking pictures of his girlfriend naked. At the time the age of consent for sex in that state was 16, but for taking photos was still 18. He never distributed a one, merely foolishly, unwittingly consented to a search after she had hurt herself after their breakup. But he's now a sex offender in that state for life, and has to go around to the neighbors and tell them the whole 'hi I'm a sex offender, and I live in your neighborhood' speech.

Now, if they made it mandatory that your SPECIFIC offense was listed, both in the online registry, and in any notice you must make/give, then I would have a lot less problem: my friend could say "I was convicted of taking naked pictures of my 16 year old girlfriend, who it was legal for me to sleep with", and the baby raper would say "I was convicted of raping a child under 14".

All of that is in the public record ANY way, and more, not less, information will let people know who they have to worry about.

Sorry, forgot to add the corollary, which is that if you don't like the proposal, then you might want to rethink releasing the names and residences of sex offenders specifically. I don't mind the "public record" aspect of this, but I find the selective publicization of some people's records loathsome. All or none.