Supreme Court To Examine Federal Law Targeting Sex Offenders

Supreme Court To Examine Federal Law Targeting Sex Offenders

www.foxnews.com

They said the government "has no unexhausted power to prosecute a former federal prisoner simply because he could violate [a law]; any person could violate federal law."

In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, Solicitor General Elena Kagan defended the "important act of Congress" designed to protect Americans from people who are "sexually dangerous to others." She argues the law is necessary and appropriate.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Ok and I seem to do this a lot but I apologize if this is in the wrong place, If so feel free to move wherever.

Now before I get jumped on for the article being old, It was the only thing I've been able to find, a few off branch sites maybe, that talk about what I feel is a very important vote.

Today the U.S Supreme court is to make it's decision. Is there any chance for sexual predators, and other sex-charged felons, to serve their time? Or as much as it pains me to say it, and I'll explain why shortly; are they to be confined after serving a l10+ year sentence, ready to do good, see the world anew, and now that will all be gone.

I don't condone or even think I can relate to these sick minded individuals, my point is, INDEFINITE DETAINMENT, oh sure to keep us safe from the sickos, but it starts there folks.

If someone can find a recent article, I'd really appreciate it. My online searching skills are subpar compared to some of you guys.

But I think this is one of those topics that really deserves some conversation. Especially looking at some of the others that get it.



www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Explanation: S&F!

Australia has also been wrestling with this exact issue and several released sexual crime ex-criminals [they have served their FULL time] have been hunted and hounded across the country and across state borders.

Personal Disclosure: :shk: What happened to a Fair Go Australia? Retro actively confining them after they have served their time for their crime is EXTREMELY REPREHENSIBLE! Get the sentence right in the 1st place or don't have a state sanctioned justice system at all!

regardless what is considered a sex crime in the US needs to change. Right now you could be convicted as a sex offender for mooning someone, 17 year olds could be considered sex offenders for sending nude images of themselves to other 17 year olds. There are dozens of other situations like those.

We need to separate these people from those who rape or molest, it is completely asinine and immoral, to group a college student who got caught mooning a bus by the police with someone who raped one of those passengers on that bus.

I am not talking about jail sentences here, but the fact that they are all grouped as sex offenders.

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. Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in reoffense patterns from one category to another. Looking at reconviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences: child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period. Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). Individual characteristics of the crimes further distinguish recidivism rates. For instance, victim gender and relation to the offender have been found to impact recidivism rates. In a 1995 study, researchers found that offenders who had extrafamilial female victims had a recidivism rate of 18% and those who had extrafamilial male victims recidivated at a rate of 35%. This same study found a recidivism rate for incest offenders to be approximately 9% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; 47% were reconvicted; and 41% were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Source

So much for finding newer data....BUT, whatever the real % is, it's too high. The current "register when you move, we trust you" approach ain't working.

Sex offenders are gateway punishment procedures...who in western society would dare stand up for some perv whom did something naughty with a 15 year old or looked at some tracy lords videos.

So, they are able to very effectively toss out any and all consitutional law for absolute power over these crimes, and once that happens, well obviously murderers are monsters also, and drug dealers, and etc etc etc.

Simple statistical fact: Sex Offenders have the least reoccurance of their crime once caught in comparison of any other type of crime. The theory goes they are caught, they get therapy, and they are able to identify and sort out their problem.
However, due to the sensationalism of the age old scarlet letter, the media makes a epidemic of it.

Your child is far more likely to get robbed, your house get burgled, and everyone in your family get addicted to meth before someone does a sex offense to you, yet I can find out all the flashers, peeping toms, and 20 somethings that banged their teenage girlfriend in a quick internet search, I do not however know if there is a repeated burgler in the area..and I know which one I am more in danger from.

So, yes...the rational mentality would be to support the constitution and rationality by demanding once a sentence is up, punishment stops for any and all crimes, sex, drugs, violence, or otherwise. 1st degree felonys rarely see the light of day anyhow, so these community issues are targetting lower level crimes.

sickens me how seemingly rational people can get soo frightened by government and media sponsored misconceptions.

Originally posted by Signals
BUT, whatever the real % is, it's too high. The current "register when you move, we trust you" approach ain't working.

Would you be in favor of every type of felon having to register for life in the same way a specific group needs to?

I am far more concerned about drug dealers in my area, home invaders, and habitual drunken drivers. These are all felonys...and far more likely to impact my life than some date rape idiot from 10 years ago moving into town.

Either the law is equal, or you must admit that its fine to start dismantling liberty so we feel safer...(I hope they get the chronic speeders next.)

reply to post by Desolate Cancer


And that is one of my major problems with this. The repercussions, and groups they could so quickly file us into. The sad thing is the guy that does moon someone, or the next cop he sees, isn't knowledgeable enough to know what he's getting himself into.

The passage the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, carries consequences for us all.
To say it doesn't, you need to stop drinking all the hatorade and remember what America is supposed to be about. Are we really ready to go down this road, even if it removes the scum off the street?

I'm sure rape, and sexual crimes ran rampant hundreds of years ago, but they also used to burn, stone and hang people. To the violent offenders, handle them accordingly, but for any one that remotely deserves a chance, should have it.

I bet it's a nervous day for all those sitting in thier cells right now. For them, they could possibly never have the chance of freedom again.

reply to post by Desolate Cancer


That is my point also, in the US the laws against sexual predators are not limited they are applied to everybody been tagged "sexual predator or offender" regardless of the severity of the crime, like one size fix all.

That is wrong if this laws has been in effect back when my father 25 took my mother 15 and elope to get married my father would have been in jail and tagged for the rest of his life a sexual predator.

People said times are different not they are not, sex is sex no matter what, at least my father has been with my mother for 50 years, provided all of us with education, a roof over our heads and a good life and we all outstanding members of society is 4 of us siblings.

Now a days look what is going around, laws to protect the young but doesn't stop them from fathering and bearing children with not parental support whatsoever.

Yes I say those that are sexual offenders that harm children should be hanged by their private parts, or have them cut off, but when it comes to the law it should be applied depending of the severity of crimes.

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
regardless what is considered a sex crime in the US needs to change.

That is the key to the madness however, They can boost up the image of scary sex offenders by highlighting how rapists and child molestation is in this group and make it a scary group you dont mind burning the constitution up for.

Your absolutely right. a sex offense is like a violent offense. someone whom got in a bar fight is not in the same catagory as a serial murderer as a violent offender, a shoplifter is not in the same catagory as a bank robber, yet they put some seriously assanine things lumped into sex offenses.

short list of what makes a sex offender (not including child molestation and rape):
Public nudity/sex, peeping, digital voyeurism (toilet cam), child porn (child being anything under 18...a 17 year old nude and pornie is considered)..underage sexting included, incest (of age consensual or not doestn matter), flashing, etc

arguable: digital images of appearance of underage(anime is being questioned), stories, photoshopped images, intense public affection without nudity, the list goes on and on and on...

Basically, the more puritan we become, the more will be added to reflect a nice 1950s society else bare the scarlet letter. keep the frontrunners up and fill in the bulk with trivial crimes. so long vegas. bah.

reply to post by ThirdJohnAdams


Where do we draw the line? I know someone whos on the list for have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and he his 19. Now there Married, but the courts wont throw it out, He had a real tough time getting a job till he started his own buisness.

Diddnt we have this problem with England before? Whats the time is finished and the person goes a certain amount of time with out repeating, should they have to continue to be on a offenders list do to them being stupid at a younger age?

Now I know some people who are on that list most likely deserve the needle, but throw them out in General Population for a month instead of protecting them, let them get raped over and over see how they take to it.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Would you be in favor of every type of felon having to register for life in the same way a specific group needs to?

No, just the sex offenders. I have 2 daughters, aged 9 & 12. I can chase away the drug dealers & home invaders.

reply to post by Signals


Haha go you protective dad you.
Just a little word of advice though, I know from personal experience with my own lil sis, the drug dealers, are probably the ones you like the most, they're good at doing that.(nothing hard just the herb, never would of suspected the kid, if one of my buddys hadn't called him to hook us up :lol

Originally posted by Signals

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Would you be in favor of every type of felon having to register for life in the same way a specific group needs to?

No, just the sex offenders. I have 2 daughters, aged 9 & 12. I can chase away the drug dealers & home invaders.

But, should the guy that took a piss in a dark alley at 2am deserve to be on that list?

reply to post by MikeNice81


Of course not...it is unfortunate he could be considered a sex offender, but he did have his day in court. If I were that guy, I would disappear.