A Sex Registration Horror Story

[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?

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.

LOL!! Yes?? Or no??

 

[LuckyDan]

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?

You're in way over your head here, sweetness.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

That's entirely possible, Dan. I was just asking for an answer to my question. It's not a difficult one.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

You still miss my point, violating what you're calling the conditions of his release "is", in itself, the new crime he's being charged with. Which makes it very different from something like a parole violation, in analysis and principle. But I think we're just going to continue to argue past each other.

I'm not actually outraged over this, I save the outrage for bigger things. But principles are important. I wish you could see the deeper issue here that does concern me and others in the thread, but maybe I'm not putting it out there well enough.

Regardless, life and especially this place would be boring if we all agreed on everything.

 

[George Costanza]

and nowhere was it stated Joe is on parole.

Joe is not on parole.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

I'm not actually outraged over this, I save the outrage for bigger things. But principles are important. I wish you could see the deeper issue here that does concern me and others in the thread, but maybe I'm not putting it out there well enough.

I really do understand what you are saying, goldcatt. I may not be the brightest crayon in the box but I'm not stupid either. I understand the deeper issue that concerns you. It just doesn't concern me in this particular case. I also understand the implications and the possibility of these excesses affecting the people that do concern me. Those people weren't the issue here, tho.

Regardless, life and especially this place would be boring if we all agreed on everything.

That, we agree on wholeheartedly.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yes it does and it should. Clearly the new charge is standing on its own otherwise you would not be trying to sway public opinion against it. The three strikes laws are a good example of this. Non violent offenders are supposed to be exempt from its use (which is why all the language for the three strikes laws all have the comission of a violent crime as a precondition) whereas violent offenders are the specific target of the law.

The goal, and yes sadly non violent offenders get caught up in the process when unscrupulous DA's decide to flex their power, is to keep violent predators in prison. Thus by definition prior bad acts are allways considered in those cases.

 

[AllieBaba]

and nowhere was it stated Joe is on parole.

Joe is not on parole.

Look, the one requirement of sex offenders is that they register. They have to provide their name and address to the communities they live in.

Joe Yahoo was homeless living in somebody's garage which is a HUGE RED FLAG to anyone who has ever dealt with sex offenders.