kraftdinner
|
posted on June 5, 2002 05:49:15 PM new
Michigan Sex Offender Registry Shut Down After Judge's Ruling -
DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- A judge has ruled that Michigan's sex offender registry is unconstitutional, saying it lacks a way for people to challenge the government's claim that they are a danger to society.
U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said the law violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the right to due process.
Michigan shut down its Internet sex offender registry Tuesday in response to the ruling. The state will appeal and file for a stay of Roberts' decision, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Jennifer Granholm's office said.
Monday's ruling was met with criticism from
supporters of the registry who say it will restrict information that should be available to the public.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/05/sex.offender.registry.ap/index.html
|
gravid
|
posted on June 5, 2002 08:12:13 PM new
The Mom was on TV saying her son is not a criminal.
Well excuse me - he is.
What the Mom should be getting the legislature to do if she feels that way, is to decriminalize a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old because right now in MI it IS a crime.
|
Borillar
|
posted on June 5, 2002 10:48:28 PM new
In the meantime, Drug Lords hold sway over the streets and common criminals roam at will!
|
gravid
|
posted on June 6, 2002 03:52:48 AM new
Right - important stuff first.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on June 6, 2002 02:41:15 PM new
I've always had a problem with these "lists". I mean a person commits a crime and gets sentenced. For everything else "he has paid his debt to society". It's like double jeopardy. I think it's an additional "penalty" that wasn't assessed upon conviction.
It's a free country as long as you're politically correct.
|
nycyn
|
posted on June 6, 2002 03:42:37 PM new
>>It's like double jeopardy. I think it's an additional "penalty" that wasn't assessed upon conviction.<<
Serial killers start out as sex offenders. Pedophiles and serial rapists have not proved to be treatable, meaning there is an inordinately high rate of recidivism.
Given this, I'm inclined to just have them taken out and shot. Megan's Law might be a deterrant to death penalty lobbyism.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on June 6, 2002 06:31:44 PM new
Cyn
Don't get me wrong, I support the death penalty for many crimes. But the law is the lady with the blindfold on holding the scales. In my opinion the court did the only thing it could. You can't single out people for "special treatment" under the law. Either kill 'em or put 'em away for life, but don't release them and then broadcast their identities to the world, unless you do the same with burglars, murderers, or jaywalkers or anybody else.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 6, 2002 07:03:51 PM new
I agree DeSquirrel. It almost makes me think that the government has given up on how to treat sex offenders, so they are subliminally welcoming vigilantism. I'm not sure what other purpose these lists would serve. On the other hand, I wouldn't want a sex offender living next door.
|
hepburn101
|
posted on June 6, 2002 11:42:00 PM new
bump
Drive on. We'll sweep up the blood later!....Katharine Hepburn Quote
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on June 7, 2002 12:05:08 AM new
The list is not going to save anybody's kid, it just gives some parents reassurance. I mean, what are you going to do, follow the kid 100% of the time, or not allow them to go anywhere without you?
|
Borillar
|
posted on June 7, 2002 12:05:29 AM new
"It's a free country as long as you're politically correct."
I'd go on to say that it's a free country to say whatever you like, so long as you're mindful of others and how they might feel about it. Being a tactless piece of trash is rarely welcome wherever you go and can get you killed in many places.
|
yeager
|
posted on June 7, 2002 01:49:47 AM new
I thouhgt that it was a very useful tool for knowing who lived in your neighborhood. To use this site, you would type in your zip code and all the offenders living in your city would show up. Once the list appeared, you could press Control and "F" on your keyboard, type in your street name and anyone with a sexual offense listed on your street in Michigan would appear. The street that I live on is about 1 mile long, and I found two offenders on this street. The first living about 2 blocks form me, and the other living about 1/2 mile from me.
On the second one, I asked a couple of my friends that are his neighbors if they knew about his history. They both knew of him. One of my friends has a son aged 13, and her lovely neighbor has a history of molesting boys.
It was also very interesting in finding out if child molesters were living in the area of any schools. The site would give basic information about the crime. Many thimes you could find offenders who were convicted of child ponography offenses.
Good work judge.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 7, 2002 07:24:21 AM new
nycyn said, "Pedophiles and serial rapists have not proved to be treatable, meaning there is an inordinately high rate of recidivism".
And for that reason I believe we have a right to know so we can protect our children. If we don't want 'lists' then I'd like to see the law changed so they spend the rest of their lives in prison. Period. Want to pay for that? Or just have lists so those children who, IMO, are put in jeopardy because these perpetrators are released in their neighborhoods, can in some way protect themselves by knowing who not to trust. At least they can be on alert and maybe even warn their children.
I'm sick of these perpetrators 'right's' being put ahead of our childrens lives and safety. Those who worked to get these lists going in the first place, were doing so to protect ALL children. We have for too long, again IMO, been putting the rights of convicted criminals before those of their UNSUSPECTING VICTIMS, our children.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on June 7, 2002 08:39:57 AM new
Linda_k
The type of crime, degree of perversity, etc, have absolutely nothing to do with the judge's ruling as they have no bearing. It's simply an usurption of people's rights that is illegal.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 7, 2002 09:44:01 AM new
DeSquirrel - What I'm saying is that people can work to change laws. Just because a judge makes a ruling doesn't mean it's in the publics best interest. Laws can be changed...judicial decisions can be reversed/overruled..etc. Judges can be impeached.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 7, 2002 11:06:30 AM new
That's the thing Linda. The "Sex Offenders" list apparantly includes ANY type of sex-related crime.
I watched John Walsh (America's Most Wanted) on Biography and he dated a girl that was 16 when he was in his 20's. If someone reported him, he'd be on one of those lists.
I wonder if the lists 'shift' the law? Like if I had a child that was killed by someone on the list, do I bear a certain amount of responsibility for my child's death because he was on the list, and I did or didn't see it? (I used me as an example because I don't have children.)
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 7, 2002 11:28:14 AM new
Hi Kraftdinner - I understand what you're saying. But those 20 year olds having sex with 16 year olds *are* breaking the law. I'm sure you're aware it's called statutory rape. Part of the intent of that law was to protect those underage kids.
I doubt there are few men [or women for that matter] that aren't aware if they're having sex with an underaged girl/boy they're breaking a law. Just like those who choose to take a few tokes know they're breaking the law. Don't like the laws...work to change them. If there are enough people who feel a 20 year old shouldn't go to jail because they had sex with a minor...then the law needs to be changed. We can't choose which laws we agree with and abide by those while at the same time not be willing to accept the consequences of the areas where we don't agree with the law....and therefore break it.
I can remember when I was 12 a guy approached me...he was much older. When he realized how young I was, he made the statement..."I didn't realize you were jail bait." He never asked me out again. 
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 7, 2002 11:41:22 AM new
I agree 100% Linda. The only thing that would still bother me about the list, would be seeing John Walsh's name in with a serial pedophile. There's no distinction between them. If you saw both names on one of these lists and you knew both men, you'd be leary of both equally the same, when their crimes are completely different.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 7, 2002 11:49:56 AM new
Okay...so you've just mentioned an area where maybe compromise could be reached.  A distinction could be make on the lists. Maybe the actual conviction could be listed.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on June 7, 2002 07:54:53 PM new
taking down this list will have severe reprocussions.
1.the democrats wont have a list to solicite campaign contributions from.
2.the republicans wont have a list to appoint people from.
3.the michigan state gestapo police wont have a list to hire from.
|
yeager
|
posted on June 8, 2002 03:03:05 AM new
Linda,
The actual convictions were listed on the site. The information included the person's name, address, birthdate, race, height, weight, eye color, and the law they were convicted under, including the number of counts or charges.
The lesser of the charges may have been 4th degree criminal sexual conduct. This is inappropriate touching or fondling.
The worst would be 1st degree criminal sexual conduct. This would have been forcelabe rape.
This site did not have pictures of the offenders, but maybe it should have.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 8, 2002 06:28:19 AM new
Technically all of this information should be obtainable as in the public domain. It is just what everyone said the internet was good for - getting the information to everyone cheap. Could it be that is not as sweet as you thought?
Perhaps they should have a public site for EVERY court action and conviction. How would you like all your relatives and neighbors to know instantly if you had a ticket or filed for bankruptsy?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 8, 2002 08:57:06 AM new
Yeager - Thank you for sharing that they do list what the person was convicted of and do make that distinction of whether or not their crime was with a child or an adult. And I agree...This site did not have pictures of the offenders, but maybe it should have. It's very sad to me that people can't ask themselves, "How would I feel if this happened to my child?" "What am I willing to do to try and prevent it from happening to another child?" That's why these lists were started in the first place....to protect children. I hope the site is reopened in the future.
Seems that so many [like the ACLU] are constantly fighting [in the Supreme Court] to keep the internet "open" to all forms of speech and expression...and yet will fight to keep convictions [that were also public] away from those who want them there.
And gravid, I agree with "Technically all of this information should be obtainable as in the public domain." To me it's organizations like NAMBLA and all the child porn sites have a right to 'do their thing' then the public should have a right to the information that is pubically available. ALL information. And would I worry that my name would be found on a list of any kind??? No...because I'm not a person who would threaten the safety and security of another person....especially not that of a child.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on June 28, 2002 06:10:04 AM new
Michigan to study Arkansas program.
The state of Michigan under the tuteledge of Engler is viewing a novel Arkansas offender program.
The program takes a known sex offender and after working it thru the system makes a presdient out of it.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 28, 2002 06:57:49 AM new
There would not be a problem except for the fact that the law as it is written now makes people a criminal that the great mass of the public does not consider criminal.
People remember their youth and don't consider teenagers having sex with each other criminal. But they are by law.
It would help a great deal if public opinion could be reconciled with law. But both are a moving target.
Would you want to live in a country where the population could get together in a computer forum and vote directly on what the law should be on a regular basis?
No thanks.
|
birdpix
|
posted on July 2, 2002 03:15:57 AM new
I agree in theory with having the information available, but I also know that the laws CAN put people on that list unfairly.
Personally know someone who was accused of a crime, wrongly, and he still is going through he!! because of it. Thankfully, he had money and could afford the $15,000.00 legal bills to try and fight the false accusation. If he had no money, he would be in jail now.
In the end, he still had to end up pleading no-contest to a lesser charge rather than risk a trial and jail time at the hands of a witch hunting jury. Now, he is on that list and on probation for the next five years, and his life sucks. He is an upstanding professional man with 2 kids and no prior criminal record, but now thanks to being accused of a crime, he can not even leave the state to work in other states (he works in auto field and traveled the country daily for work) as he used to and his ability to provide for his family is severly damaged along with his reputation.
All of this was because a hormone swinging teen aged girl decided she wanted to get a little attention from her parents, so it would be fun to make an accusation. No physical evidence at all, just the accusation and this guys life is crap.
He's a very dear friend and as a former Michigander myself, I have been horrified to watch over the last year as he has gone through all this nightmare and sadly disappointed in the justice system up there.
Also know two people here in the south who were accused falesly of abuse by divorcing wives seeking revenge just to help the child custody cases. Both these guys were devoted, loving dads who dearly loved thier kids and they got scrwed over by the ex. One with big bucks spent a few years cleaning up the mess and has partial custody. The other is a low income worker and could not afford the legal fight - he now cant see his kids and is on one of those lists as "offender".
Do I want to know if my kids are playing in the street in front of someones house who could be a danger? Yes, of course. But after seeing what can happen to people wrongly accused who must bear a "scarlet letter" for life, I cant help but take the lists with a grain of salt as they so often dont tell "the rest of the story"...
Perhaps they should make a list showing every priest out there!
|
auroranorth
|
posted on July 2, 2002 02:28:38 PM new
Michigan is run by assholes
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on July 2, 2002 04:21:41 PM new
You make a good point birdpix. In your last post, you state:
"Do I want to know if my kids are playing in the street in front of someones house who could be a danger? Yes, of course. But after seeing what can happen to people wrongly accused who must bear a "scarlet letter" for life, I cant help but take the lists with a grain of salt as they so often dont tell "the rest of the story"..."
This is the problem with having such lists. They're one sided and ruin the lives of the poorly defended.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on July 2, 2002 04:59:19 PM new
what procedure does michigan have to remove drunken lawyers ? Lawyers on dope ? Dishonest Lawyers ? Is a public defender who plea bargains every case without bothering to familiarize themself with the case at all guilty of mis conduct ? How about a paid lawywer? How about a Judge ? There is no procedure for any of this if there is not then it is not any better for a person victumized by this sick system than it would be in China. How about I take out the word lawyer and sub doctor or dentist or real estate agent or banker? THe fact is is in most states we now have the fox guarding the hen house sometimes even worse.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 2, 2002 05:05:59 PM new
I agree with birdpix also. It's an incredible invasion of privacy and an unconstitutional violation of the rights of people to publish their names on sex offender lists.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jul 2, 2002 05:07 PM ]
|
