Comments on: SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION LAWS BEG REFORM

By: common sense

common sense — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:03:31 +0000

Thank you for such an informed, courageous arguement for sex offender law reform. I was one of those in Georgia interviewed for the Economist article. My son, age 22, went to a legal site that said you must be 18 yrs. or older to enter. The detective, who was “trolling” the site, asked him how old he was, and he told her, and then asked her the same. She replied, “A couple years younger than you,” which would have made her at least 19. My son then said he wanted to make sure he didn’t do anything illegal age-wise, and she said, “How young is too young?” to which he replied, “15 or 16.” The question is why the detective kept trying to entrap my son after this — didn’t he say he wanted no part of anything illegal? Aren’t there real crimes taking place all the time? Is law enforcement that desperate to label someone a sex offender for a media pat on the back? My son repeated at least three times that he did not want to engage in anything underage, during which time the detective continued to mislead him about her age. The conversation continued, and the detective never stated that she was 15, although, towards the end, she said, “I will be 16 in a couple months.” My son’s terrible decision is that he discussed sex with her after that — that is the crime he is being incarcerated for. Although my son did go to the city where he was supposed to meet the “girl,” he never went to the place where he was supposed to meet her. Like most young people (and most of the adults we know, including us) my son did not realize that it would be a crime if he never actually met the girl. We were told that the police would have come to his residence to arrest him, because his crime was already committed on the internet. It was explained to us that even though my son did not violate the “spirit” of the law (its true intention as written), he did violate the “letter” of the law (the exact wording). Okay, we can see that: My son was convicted because he discussed sex with someone ambiguously portraying themselves as 15 and 10 months old. What we will never see is why the punishment is so severe. My son is guilty of a one-time lapse in judgment, encouraged by a professional role-player. He is not a sexual predator or any risk to anyone. What will his jail sentence and lifetime registration accomplish except to ruin one young person’s life: his.

By: Benoliwal

Benoliwal — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:37:37 +0000

The Adam Walsh Child Protection Act is the most corrosive federal legislation or federal criminal statute that has come out of the Congress in many decades, especially Title I, Subsection A, and Section III. It is the most unfair and completely unbalanced piece of political grandstanding that people must face to have their lives forever ruined, and for many, for nothing heinous whatsoever.

A federal statute principally supported by what we now know as the Hard Right Wing and a few Democrats strips away completely fairness in the laws and through its barbarism suggests it is constitutional by the slick twist of words and twisted reasoning.

Still today the vast numbers of supporters of this unfair federal statute are the rabid Hard Right Republicans we were able to witness during this past August recess of Congress.

Those so called child protection groups along with John Walsh who to this day refuse to acknowledge even an iota of unfairness will stand firm for injustice as the article points out, their bias interests, which for John Walsh means millions of dollars.

John Walsh and Ahearn, Mark Lunsford, and a host of other people of that coalition are the principle promoters of this unfair, and from the judicial mind of Justice Ginsburg, unconstitutional federal statute, as this statute is supposed to have a link to the Alaska case heard by the United States Supreme Court.

Courts that have been willing to be convinced that the AWA is unconstitutional are quickly overturned on the flimsiest judicial arguments of a higher state court. What we have been seeing on the judicial side is a willingness to have a continuation to support the popular sentiment of legislative leaders, rather than have the judicial fortitude to do their judicial jobs of protecting the US Constitution, and that of states.

By: Sex Offender Issues

Sex Offender Issues — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:34:10 +0000

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

See children being labeled sex offenders, as young as 4, here:

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2007/12/child-sex-offenders.html