A Sex Registration Horror Story

[westwall]

So a man should go to jail for up to 32 months for doing what he was told to do and reporting in at the specified time and place he was told to report to, because the police might be embarrassed in the event he committed a crime?

No. If he goes to jail, it is because he violated the terms of his release. Its up to a person to know the laws of the land. Shall we let off rapists just because they say they don't know its wrong?

And I suppose all sex offenders of any type should be slaves if they ever do get out of jail, made to work without payment in money or kind - even an occasional night spent in a garage instead of on the street. With electronic ankle bracelets monitoring their every move 24/7 I'm sure. Living in designated ghettos and with some kind of identifying mark on their persons or clothing perhaps? Yes, that's the ticket. THAT will stop the real predators. It's the perfect Final Solution to the problem of sex offenders.

I don't have any sympathy for sex offenders. None. Sorry. I have a bit of experience in this area and I have NEVER seen anybody labeled a sex offender for peeing on a golf course. I've seen them charged with misdemeanor Urinating in Public. That's it.

Of course I don't think anyone should be a slave. You are using histrionics to enforce your viewpoint and that won't change anything. I understand that the things being done now - like residency requirements, posting on sex offender registries and electronic monitoring - aren't stopping the offenders. But it sure as heck lets you know who they are. I see that as a good thing.

Another one confusing sex offender registry with parole....and assuming everyone on the list is a bona fide predator.

Tell me this, Kyleigh. Can you separate the issues here? I'll lay it out for you.

First of all, Joe is NOT on parole. He was not given a conditional early release from prison under terms dictated by the court, or the parole board, or any other body. He was convicted of a sex crime that required registry upon release, a crime that could have been anything from being naked in his own house and forgetting to close the blinds (indecent exposure) to serial rape. But the point here is, he served his time under the law and was released. That part is now officially over.

He now must register as a sex offender with the local police. He goes to the police and is told what to do, and he does it. What crime has he committed to be put back in prison for up to 32 months at this point? He slept in somebody's garage "maybe" once a week as payment for services rendered and received mail through that address. That is his crime, the crime for which he would serve another potentially 32 months in jail.

Now you tell me where justice is served by locking Joe up for the crime of accepting payment for his work and doing what the police told him to do.

If Joe was forced to register as a SO because he was naked in his house then no justice is not being served. If however he is a serial rapist who got caught up in this situation then no once again justice is not being served, because Joe should never have been out in the first place.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

Another one confusing sex offender registry with parole....and assuming everyone on the list is a bona fide predator.

I believe I stated before that there are a very few cases that shouldn't be there. In fact, I believe I stated it twice. I'm not assuming anything. I KNOW this to be true. I KNOW that, in my area, ALMOST everyone on that registry deserves to be there.

Tell me this, Kyleigh. Can you separate the issues here? I'll lay it out for you.

First of all, Joe is NOT on parole. He was not given a conditional early release from prison under terms dictated by the court, or the parole board, or any other body. He was convicted of a sex crime that required registry upon release, a crime that could have been anything from being naked in his own house and forgetting to close the blinds (indecent exposure) to serial rape. But the point here is, he served his time under the law and was released. That part is now officially over

.

I understand what you are saying and I should have used "conditions of release" other than parole, as it pertains to your example. That being said, he served his time under the law and was released and ordered to comply with certain conditions of release to remain out of jail. He did not follow them. Period.

He now must register as a sex offender with the local police. He goes to the police and is told what to do, and he does it. What crime has he committed to be put back in prison for up to 32 months at this point? He slept in somebody's garage "maybe" once a week as payment for services rendered and received mail through that address. That is his crime, the crime for which he would serve another potentially 32 months in jail.

If he does not present any danger to society, I agree he shouldn't have to serve 32 months. What I don't understand, and maybe you can make it clear to me, is that he was able to cough up an address when he wanted something (driver's license), but when asked by the police, he just had nothing to offer. That makes me suspicious and it should make you suspicious, too.

Now you tell me where justice is served by locking Joe up for the crime of accepting payment for his work and doing what the police told him to do.

He failed to obey his conditions of release. Those conditions are in place for a reason. If we start allowing people to plead ignorance, knowing it will keep them out of jail, THAT is when we should start being "very afraid".

I'm sorry. I don't agree with you here. If you are asking me if I think that 32 months is excessive, I'd probably have to honestly answer "yes". There are some rapists that don't serve that much time. The fact still remains that he violated his conditions of release and what happens to him is on him. Not anybody else. I'm not going to rail at the injustice of it all and I'm not going to join in on the lynching of the justice system.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

.

Regardless, if the man was following the rules as they were explained to him, all I can say is WTF? Don't these detectives have anything better to do?

Don't detectives have anything better to do that keep tabs on sex offenders? I sure as heck hope not!!!

Well, Kyleigh, they sure do have better things to do - like investigating homicides, robberies, major crimes, you know . . . that kind of stuff.

I happen to think sex offenders are right up there with the murderers and robbers; and they ARE major criminals.

 

[goldcatt]

No. If he goes to jail, it is because he violated the terms of his release. Its up to a person to know the laws of the land. Shall we let off rapists just because they say they don't know its wrong?



I don't have any sympathy for sex offenders. None. Sorry. I have a bit of experience in this area and I have NEVER seen anybody labeled a sex offender for peeing on a golf course. I've seen them charged with misdemeanor Urinating in Public. That's it.

Of course I don't think anyone should be a slave. You are using histrionics to enforce your viewpoint and that won't change anything. I understand that the things being done now - like residency requirements, posting on sex offender registries and electronic monitoring - aren't stopping the offenders. But it sure as heck lets you know who they are. I see that as a good thing.

Another one confusing sex offender registry with parole....and assuming everyone on the list is a bona fide predator.

Tell me this, Kyleigh. Can you separate the issues here? I'll lay it out for you.

First of all, Joe is NOT on parole. He was not given a conditional early release from prison under terms dictated by the court, or the parole board, or any other body. He was convicted of a sex crime that required registry upon release, a crime that could have been anything from being naked in his own house and forgetting to close the blinds (indecent exposure) to serial rape. But the point here is, he served his time under the law and was released. That part is now officially over.

He now must register as a sex offender with the local police. He goes to the police and is told what to do, and he does it. What crime has he committed to be put back in prison for up to 32 months at this point? He slept in somebody's garage "maybe" once a week as payment for services rendered and received mail through that address. That is his crime, the crime for which he would serve another potentially 32 months in jail.

Now you tell me where justice is served by locking Joe up for the crime of accepting payment for his work and doing what the police told him to do.

If Joe was forced to register as a SO because he was naked in his house then no justice is not being served. If however he is a serial rapist who got caught up in this situation then no once again justice is not being served, because Joe should never have been out in the first place.

But we are a nation of laws, and the law let him out. Regardless of his actual crime.

The new incarceration is for a new offense. Considering the actual behavior involved, is it fair?

I went back and edited the post you quoted, BTW - technically it was incorrect, since the technicality in how he reported where he was "living" is the offense, not sleeping in the garage. Personally I would think going in person to check in with local police on a regular basis is actually a higher level of monitoring than simply reporting an address and disappearing into the wild blue....but that's just me.

 

[westwall]

Another one confusing sex offender registry with parole....and assuming everyone on the list is a bona fide predator.

Tell me this, Kyleigh. Can you separate the issues here? I'll lay it out for you.

First of all, Joe is NOT on parole. He was not given a conditional early release from prison under terms dictated by the court, or the parole board, or any other body. He was convicted of a sex crime that required registry upon release, a crime that could have been anything from being naked in his own house and forgetting to close the blinds (indecent exposure) to serial rape. But the point here is, he served his time under the law and was released. That part is now officially over.

He now must register as a sex offender with the local police. He goes to the police and is told what to do, and he does it. What crime has he committed to be put back in prison for up to 32 months at this point? He slept in somebody's garage "maybe" once a week as payment for services rendered and received mail through that address. That is his crime, the crime for which he would serve another potentially 32 months in jail.

Now you tell me where justice is served by locking Joe up for the crime of accepting payment for his work and doing what the police told him to do.

If Joe was forced to register as a SO because he was naked in his house then no justice is not being served. If however he is a serial rapist who got caught up in this situation then no once again justice is not being served, because Joe should never have been out in the first place.

But we are a nation of laws, and the law let him out. Regardless of his actual crime.

The new incarceration is for a new offense. Considering the actual behavior involved, is it fair?

I went back and edited the post you quoted, BTW - technically it was incorrect, since the technicality in how he reported where he was "living" is the offense, not sleeping in the garage. Personally I would think going in person to check in with local police on a regular basis is actually a higher level of monitoring than simply reporting an address and disappearing into the wild blue....but that's just me.

I agree the law let him out. And he violated a new law which is what will see him back in.

But I want to know what his conviction was for. That has a huge bearing on how I view him now. If he is a minor offender caught up in the system that needs to be identified and rectified. If on the other hand he is a serial predator working the system to further his crimes I think that would be relevant as well.

Don't you?

 

[goldcatt]

Another one confusing sex offender registry with parole....and assuming everyone on the list is a bona fide predator.

I believe I stated before that there are a very few cases that shouldn't be there. In fact, I believe I stated it twice. I'm not assuming anything. I KNOW this to be true. I KNOW that, in my area, ALMOST everyone on that registry deserves to be there.

Tell me this, Kyleigh. Can you separate the issues here? I'll lay it out for you.

First of all, Joe is NOT on parole. He was not given a conditional early release from prison under terms dictated by the court, or the parole board, or any other body. He was convicted of a sex crime that required registry upon release, a crime that could have been anything from being naked in his own house and forgetting to close the blinds (indecent exposure) to serial rape. But the point here is, he served his time under the law and was released. That part is now officially over

.

I understand what you are saying and I should have used "conditions of release" other than parole, as it pertains to your example. That being said, he served his time under the law and was released and ordered to comply with certain conditions of release to remain out of jail. He did not follow them. Period.

He now must register as a sex offender with the local police. He goes to the police and is told what to do, and he does it. What crime has he committed to be put back in prison for up to 32 months at this point? He slept in somebody's garage "maybe" once a week as payment for services rendered and received mail through that address. That is his crime, the crime for which he would serve another potentially 32 months in jail.

If he does not present any danger to society, I agree he shouldn't have to serve 32 months. What I don't understand, and maybe you can make it clear to me, is that he was able to cough up an address when he wanted something (driver's license), but when asked by the police, he just had nothing to offer. That makes me suspicious and it should make you suspicious, too.

Now you tell me where justice is served by locking Joe up for the crime of accepting payment for his work and doing what the police told him to do.

He failed to obey his conditions of release. Those conditions are in place for a reason. If we start allowing people to plead ignorance, knowing it will keep them out of jail, THAT is when we should start being "very afraid".

I'm sorry. I don't agree with you here. If you are asking me if I think that 32 months is excessive, I'd probably have to honestly answer "yes". There are some rapists that don't serve that much time. The fact still remains that he violated his conditions of release and what happens to him is on him. Not anybody else. I'm not going to rail at the injustice of it all and I'm not going to join in on the lynching of the justice system.

But he did not have "conditions" on his release - that's the whole point.

Let me see if I can clear up the confusion here. When a felon is paroled, he is getting a conditional early release from prison. He may have been sentenced to 50 years and is released after 20. The catch is, his release is conditional. He will have to abide by the general conditions set by state statute as well as any additional conditions added as terms of his individual release, which will probably include not engaging in behaviors that others can do without penalty - like owning a weapon, or drinking alcohol, or associating with certain people. He does not have to commit another crime to go back to prison, all he has to do is violate one of those conditions whether the behavior itself is criminal or not. If he does and gets caught, he goes back basically under the original charge and for up to the remainder of his original sentence. So the original conviction is very much an issue.

A registered sex offender of any type, from the most innocent to the nastiest, does not get a conditional or early release for being on the sex offender registry. They can be paroled of course, and in that case they have to also abide by the conditions of their parole. But if not they serve their entire sentence and register after the fact. But here's the key, they can not be sent back to prison under the original sentence. Failing to report is a new and separate charge that has to stand on its own. There are no "conditions for release" that if violated send the offender back to prison for that crime, it's done.

So with that in mind, look at the facts in the OP again. Sounds to me like Joe was reporting as he had been told to do. Having a place to pick up mail is not the same as having a residence, ask anybody with a PO Box. Sleeping somewhere "maybe" once a week wouldn't qualify to a rational person as having a "home". So Joe was reporting, in person and in the manner he had been told to do under the rules of a homeless person. Which is in fact what he was. He reported the mailing address to the State, as required. He was "hiding" nothing, it is a technicality involving information being given to the incorrect jurisdiction under a perfectly reasonable assumption - not skipping out and vanishing. And you have no problem with sending him up the river for this?

Seems to me like the time, space and resources should be spent on the ones who try to evade the laws, not the ones who attempt to comply.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

But he did not have "conditions" on his release - that's the whole point.

Yes. He did. And he violated them.

 

[Father Time]

So a man should go to jail for up to 32 months for doing what he was told to do and reporting in at the specified time and place he was told to report to, because the police might be embarrassed in the event he committed a crime?

No. If he goes to jail, it is because he violated the terms of his release. Its up to a person to know the laws of the land. Shall we let off rapists just because they say they don't know its wrong?

So it's OK to expect citizens to understand all the legalese and redtape that goes into it but it's not OK to expect government workers to know them? Would you be ok with being arrested for following instructions from an officer that didn't know the law?

I don't have any sympathy for sex offenders. None. Sorry. I have a bit of experience in this area and I have NEVER seen anybody labeled a sex offender for peeing on a golf course. I've seen them charged with misdemeanor Urinating in Public. That's it. I'm not saying it does not happen, but it doesn't happen enough to be relevant.

Your personal experience can not be used to determine how often it happens. Show us some stats. It does happen and for all we know he could be one of them.

 

[goldcatt]

If Joe was forced to register as a SO because he was naked in his house then no justice is not being served. If however he is a serial rapist who got caught up in this situation then no once again justice is not being served, because Joe should never have been out in the first place.

But we are a nation of laws, and the law let him out. Regardless of his actual crime.

The new incarceration is for a new offense. Considering the actual behavior involved, is it fair?

I went back and edited the post you quoted, BTW - technically it was incorrect, since the technicality in how he reported where he was "living" is the offense, not sleeping in the garage. Personally I would think going in person to check in with local police on a regular basis is actually a higher level of monitoring than simply reporting an address and disappearing into the wild blue....but that's just me.

I agree the law let him out. And he violated a new law which is what will see him back in.

But I want to know what his conviction was for. That has a huge bearing on how I view him now. If he is a minor offender caught up in the system that needs to be identified and rectified. If on the other hand he is a serial predator working the system to further his crimes I think that would be relevant as well.

Don't you?

No, it's not relevant. A new charge must stand or fall on its own merit, the previous conviction has nothing to do with guilt or innocence on a subsequent charge.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

But he did not have "conditions" on his release - that's the whole point

.

Yes. He did. And he violated them. If he did not have conditions of release, he would not be in trouble right now for violating them.

 

[goldcatt]

But he did not have "conditions" on his release - that's the whole point.

Yes. He did. And he violated them.

You know now I'll have to ask for a source stating a sex offender who served his entire sentence is still only under "conditional" release if they are required to register. Preferably one from the correct jurisdiction, which would be CA.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

So it's OK to expect citizens to understand all the legalese and redtape that goes into it but it's not OK to expect government workers to know them? Would you be ok with being arrested for following instructions from an officer that didn't know the law?

Of course I wouldn't be OK with that. I wouldn't commit an offense that cause me to be charged as a sex offender either.

Your personal experience can not be used to determine how often it happens. Show us some stats. It does happen and for all we know he could be one of them.

It is not personal experience. It is professional experience. And I've stated about 15 times now that I know it does happen. I've also stated it doesn't happen enough to be relevant. I stand by that.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

You know now I'll have to ask for a source stating a sex offender who served his entire sentence is still only under "conditional" release if they are required to register. Preferably one from the correct jurisdiction, which would be CA.

Perhaps I'm wrong then. He has no conditions he was required to follow? Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you said he was required to report. Did I misunderstand?

 

[goldcatt]

You know now I'll have to ask for a source stating a sex offender who served his entire sentence is still only under "conditional" release if they are required to register. Preferably one from the correct jurisdiction, which would be CA.

Perhaps I'm wrong then. He has no conditions he was required to follow? Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you said he was required to report. Did I misunderstand?

I stand by my statements. All of them. A source please, showing that a registered sex offender who has served his full sentence is only released conditionally.

Or maybe the problem is the precise meaning of the words? The difference between a conditional release, as happens in a parole situation, and an obligation which must be fulfilled or a new charge will ensue is subtle after all. But the principle involved is important.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

I think we are debating semantics here, goldcatt. The fact of the matter is, Joe served his time as directed by the Court. He was released from his sentence and was required to do certain things. You can call them "requirements", "conditions", "obligations", whatever. His freedom is contingent on complying with those requirements or conditions or obligations or whatever. He violated those conditions, in the opionion of the arresting agency. If a Court finds that he did violate those conditions and he goes back to jail, that's just the price you pay for getting arrested in the first place. I do agree that 32 months seems excessive. I highly doubt that a Judge would order 32 months in this day and age, given the crowded conditions of our prisons and jails, unless said offender did something a little more serious in the first place than peeing on a golf course.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

A source please, showing that a registered sex offender who has served his full sentence is only released conditionally.

The "source" is your own words, goldcatt. Is he or is he not in trouble for failing to comply with the conditions imposed on him? Yes or no?

 

[goldcatt]

I think we are debating semantics here, goldcatt. The fact of the matter is, Joe served his time as directed by the Court. He was released from his sentence and was required to do certain things. You can call them "requirements", "conditions", "obligations", whatever. His freedom is contingent on complying with those requirements or conditions or obligations or whatever. He violated those conditions, in the opionion of the arresting agency. If a Court finds that he did violate those conditions and he goes back to jail, that's just the price you pay for getting arrested in the first place. I do agree that 32 months seems excessive. I highly doubt that a Judge would order 32 months in this day and age, given the crowded conditions of our prisons and jails, unless said offender did something a little more serious in the first place than peeing on a golf course.

It's not semantics though. It's the principle of whether he is under release conditionally, under grace and undeserved so to speak, or whether he has paid his debt and the State must now prove new charges against him. And those new charges must stand alone on their own facts, guilt cannot be assumed simply because of the previous conviction or its severity.

There are due process implications here that are far more important than semantics, IMO.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

It's not semantics though. It's the principle of whether he is under release conditionally, under grace and undeserved so to speak, or whether he has paid his debt and the State must now prove new charges against him. And those new charges must stand alone on their own facts, guilt cannot be assumed simply because of the previous conviction or its severity.

Ahhhh. Now we get to the heart of it. You agree he is under imposed conditions, but you believe those conditions to be unfair. That's a whole different debate.

According to your post, he hasn't been "charged" with a new crime but simply arrested for violations of the conditions of his release. Yes? If I missed a new charge, I apologize. And, if he has violated those conditions, his previous conviction most certainly can be considered seeing as how that is what the violation is based on.

There are due process implications here that are far more important than semantics, IMO

.

I don't disagree with that. My only point was you were debating my choice of wording instead of the facts behind them. I'm about as far from bleeding heart as a person can be when it comes to stuff like this. I just don't feel outrage you feel. That doesn't make one of us wrong. It just makes us different.

PS: Thanks for a debate devoid of name-calling. It's refreshing. You are an intelligent woman with a good heart. I can tell that from your postings. And belive it or not, I do stick up for the underdog. Like the woman who got caught stealing a pound of hamburger so she could feed her kids. Those people I bleed for. Not sex offenders.

 

[goldcatt]

A source please, showing that a registered sex offender who has served his full sentence is only released conditionally.

The "source" is your own words, goldcatt. Is he or is he not in trouble for failing to comply with the conditions imposed on him? Yes or no?

In other words you don't understand the difference between your words and mine, and can't produce anything to back up your claims. I've already explained the difference between what I'm saying and what you claim I'm saying ad nauseum. If I knew you better, I might think you were putting out bait. Since I don't I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....but FYI you really do need to back up your quantifiable claims if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

Goldcatt? If people don't take me seriously, I'll still wake up tomorrow. Have a good night.