New Hampshire Underground

City considers sex offender restrictions like those adopted in other towns (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=b73973ca-ddb7-4b64-a3a9-d124cdce582f):—

QuoteManchester could soon join the small but growing list of New Hampshire cities and towns banning sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds and other places where children gather. Several aldermen in the state's largest city have said they would vote for restrictions to keep known sex offenders from moving into certain neighborhoods. Mayor Frank Guinta also supports a ban, an aide said yesterday. A proposal is being drafted and is expected to go before the aldermanic committee on public safety and traffic next month.

Besides the obvious—calling and faxing these schmucks, and voting against them in the next elections—what can we do about this? There are an awful lot of freestaters in Manchester. If we could get some kind of organized campaign going to resist this insanity before it happens, it would probably be a lot more effective than just one or two people calling them up on their own.

Here (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10043.0) is what happened to someone as a result of these restrictions in Georgia. And here's a very disturbing incident (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=c7ebd950-5452-451c-b74d-6c41bce58ab5) that happened in Manchester on Saturday.

Quote"I just try not to fight and let it go. Eventually, they are going to hopefully stop it, or I'm just going to have to move," Huot said.

It won't end if she moves. It will follow her wherever she goes. She's possibly worse off than in prison. She's been thrown to the wolves.

According to a 1994 DOJ report (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm) (the first I came across in my googling), 5.3% of male sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime.

Quote from: Braddogg on August 14, 2007, 11:07 AM NHFT
According to a 1994 DOJ report (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm) (the first I came across in my googling), 5.3% of male sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime.

From that page: "Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime."

• People put on sex offender registries include far more than "men who had committed rape or sexual assault," so the recidivism rate for those registered cannot be determined from this statistic. It could be higher or lower.
  
  
• It says "men." What about women?
  
  
• It does not state whether "another sex crime" means "rape or sexual assault" or a broader category of offenses.
  
  
• It implies that 5.3% of convicted sex offenders reoffend, but it states that 5.3% of sex offenders are merely rearrested. How many of these people were actually convicted? Since it can't be 100%, obviously the 5.3% statistic is higher than the real recidivism rate.
  
  

So, that statement is essentially meaningless in regards to the justification for sex offender registries or residence restrictions. Especially in light of my fourth point, I conclude this statement put out by the Department of Justice is intentionally misleading, nothing more than fearmongering propaganda to garner support for such registries.

Also, some of the comments attached to those Union Leader articles point out many more flaws in supposed recidivism-rate studies.

But even if the statement were entirely true and accurate, that 5.3% of people on sex offender registries reoffend, this to me still does not justify their existence. Nothing does. If someone has served their time and been released, they should be able to go about their life without further punishment, especially when such punishment takes the form of some Sclarlet Letter–like public humiliation scheme.

Time for an LTE barrage!
letters@unionleader.com
http://nhliberty.org/lte

I think it's great that the adjective form of "alderman" is "aldermanic," lol.

I think it's true that people are too irrational in this sort of thing, and that the reaction outweighs the risk.  The fact that sex crimes are undoubtedly the most devastating kinds of crimes (short of murder -- steal my computer, just don't bugger me) adds fuel to this fire.  Does the increased recidivism (I'd agree that there's an exaggeration of recidivism if you'll agree that a sex offender is more likely than a non-sex-offend to commit a sex crime) plus the devastating nature of the crime warrant SOME increased attention to convicted sex offenders?  I'd say yes.  I'd be hesitant to hire a convicted sex offender (depending, of course, on the crime -- peeing in public shouldn't be considered a sex crime, for example).  All this sort of stuff should occur on the free market, though, not through governments.

Quote from: Braddogg on August 14, 2007, 11:57 AM NHFT
Does the increased recidivism (I'd agree that there's an exaggeration of recidivism if you'll agree that a sex offender is more likely than a non-sex-offend to commit a sex crime) plus the devastating nature of the crime warrant SOME increased attention to convicted sex offenders?  I'd say yes.

Agreed, and I'd say that's what they should take into consideration in deciding sentences and deciding whether to release. I'd say we need to get off the fence and if they believe they're too dangerous to be around children, they should be pushing to keep them in prison. This registry approach provides a false sense of security (besides a sense of revenge). If you let them out, they need to be able to live their lives. I can't imagine how hard it would be to find a job after prison, not even considering trying to afford a place to live under extreme restrictions above and beyond the normal cost restrictions. There was a story recently discussed on the FTL boards about ex-offenders living under a bridge and that was where the state workers would come to meet them and make sure they were abiding by their curfew. And you'd be shocked at the sort of stupid offenses some of them were stuck with that left them on the registry. It's absolute insanity.

I have the same attitude about gun control. I don't believe in gun control for convicted felons. If you don't trust someone with a gun, don't let them out of prison. First of all, it's a false sense of security because just like anyone else, if they intend to use a gun to commit a crime, the gun control LAWS aren't going to stop them in the least. Secondly, I think it's completely unacceptable to expect anyone to render themselves helpless against a potential aggressor. Ex-cons can be victims of criminals too. If they're in jail, I expect the jailors to be completely responsible for protecting them. That doesn't happen either of course, but that's another topic altogether. If they're out on their own, they need to be able to protect themselves.

Quote from: Braddogg on August 14, 2007, 11:57 AM NHFT
I think it's great that the adjective form of "alderman" is "aldermanic," lol.

I think it's true that people are too irrational in this sort of thing, and that the reaction outweighs the risk.  The fact that sex crimes are undoubtedly the most devastating kinds of crimes (short of murder -- steal my computer, just don't bugger me) adds fuel to this fire.  Does the increased recidivism (I'd agree that there's an exaggeration of recidivism if you'll agree that a sex offender is more likely than a non-sex-offend to commit a sex crime) plus the devastating nature of the crime warrant SOME increased attention to convicted sex offenders?  I'd say yes.  I'd be hesitant to hire a convicted sex offender (depending, of course, on the crime -- peeing in public shouldn't be considered a sex crime, for example).  All this sort of stuff should occur on the free market, though, not through governments.

It's probably true that sex offenders are more likely to commit another sex crime than someone originally convicted of a different crime, although I have no reliable numbers on this. A certain subset of "sex crimes"—actual rape and sexual assault, especially directed against children—are probably the most traumatic crimes, too.

But I wouldn't have a problem with hiring, or otherwise associating with, a convicted sex offender, unless the job in question exposed the offender in some manner to new potential victims. That is, hiring a child molester to work in a factory or drive a truck or somesuch would be fine; hiring a child molester to work around children or perhaps even another customer-facing job that might involve children (e.g., store clerk) would probably not be safe.

Quote from: dalebert on August 14, 2007, 12:07 PM NHFT

Quote from: Braddogg on August 14, 2007, 11:57 AM NHFT
Does the increased recidivism (I'd agree that there's an exaggeration of recidivism if you'll agree that a sex offender is more likely than a non-sex-offend to commit a sex crime) plus the devastating nature of the crime warrant SOME increased attention to convicted sex offenders?  I'd say yes.

Agreed, and I'd say that's what they should take into consideration in deciding sentences and deciding whether to release. I'd say we need to get off the fence and if they believe they're too dangerous to be around children, they should be pushing to keep them in prison.

This is what's known as "civil commitment" and leads to its own abuses, people being locked up for life when their sentence was only a few years. The criteria used is often not based on the particular individual, but statistical recidivism rates for the offense in question.

OK.. I'm new to these forums... but I live in Manchester, and I will stand with others to fight this insanity and utter waste of our tax dollars and police efforts. 

Someone asked: Besides the obvious—calling and faxing these schmucks, and voting against them in the next elections—what can we do about this? There are an awful lot of freestaters in Manchester. If we could get some kind of organized campaign going to resist this insanity before it happens, it would probably be a lot more effective than just one or two people calling them up on their own.

We can show up, all of us that live in Manchester at least, to the town meeting scheduled for the 1st Tuesday in Sept on this issue.  Alderman Ed Osborne is the chair of that committee and the  man is on the fence about these issues.  HE feels something needs to be done, while recognizing this is a very sensitive issue (ie political hot potato, especially with elections coming this November, though he didnt add that to our conversation this afternoon as a factor). 

Those of us who want to get organized have a place to do so... it's at my house.  We can set up a time and date... so email or call me if you are interested. 

There has to be a strong community voice against these restrictions... and there have to be a significant and substantial number of us.  Significant means media worthy, substantial to me would mean 50 plus people, but I'll settle for less. 

We educate ourselves as to the facts that influence these policy decisions.  Recidivism is LOW as reported by the USDOJ.  Sex offenders as a group have the 2nd lowest reoffense rate out of all crimes.  The only thing less is repeat murder. 

Experts in treatment (NH's own David Finkelhor, who is nationally reknowned for this stuff), namely psychologists and registering officers, know who the real threats are likely to be once released to society and turned over for the 'civil regulations' of registration.  There are people that have definite red flags for those who are high risk.  There are diagnostic tools (Static 99, Minnesota sex offender screening tool to name a few, that have excellent success at predicting reoffense... so why arent we using these to guage dangerousness and targeting our resources toward the high risk offenders?)

The label sex offender encompasses a broad range of people (as most of us here know well).  It is the minority of sex offenders that are your repeat, predatory ongoing persistent threats to society.  If you know where they live already, you are already able to protect yourself against the ones in your neighborhood that are KNOWN.  This does not account for all the unknown sex offenders living amongst us. 

We WANT sex offenders in society to be SUCCESSFUL.  If they are successful, then society is safer.  It is imperative (much to the disgust of some of us) to see that these people are reintegrated.  If they were released, we MUST deal with them, not ostracize them and make them someone else's problem.  That only causes the ripple effect of "not in my backyard' which is no solution at all.

Which brings us to the few neighborhoods that may be left for an RSO to live in (assuming the town ordinance is very broad and there is little assurance that it wont be, given the overbroad reaches of other sex offender policy) how will the people in the remaining 'sex offender zones' feel about their once nice neighborhoods becoming a literal 'sex offender mecca'?  How is this isolation and ostracization fair to those neighborhoods that must know deal with the influx offenders that will likely move there to meet requirements?  If we dont give a damn what happens to the RSOS (and there is good reason for many not to) then we should at least give a damn about the innocent people livng in these newly created 'sex offender safe zones'.  And woe to their property values as well...

We need to lauch a public awareness campaign.  Let's get together a flier of some sort stating the facts (recidivism rate, who these crimes are perpetrated against, ie 90% of all crimes are committed within the family or by a close acquaintence, so how do residency restrictions prevent abuse, not to mention that if we dont chop of their legs, they can jsut walk 1000 feet) and distribute it at the town meeting enmass. 

Anyone with me?  I'll even foot the printing costs... if anyone can compile the data/facts. 

There are some great resources at missingkids.com that we might use, as well as at CSOM and the USDOJ.  And SOhopeful.org keeps a lot of facts at the ready too. 

laurie.peterson@getronics.com  or 603-641-0423

There are some sex offenders who should be banished to the hinterlands. Or put on a south-bound ice floe, Eskimo-style.

Here's a good example:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=BA80262D10AFA60A78EAFEF7A1587782?contentId=3966415&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

Rep. Allen says he feared black men in park
Last Edited: Friday, 03 Aug 2007, 11:25 PM EDT
Created: Friday, 03 Aug 2007, 3:31 PM EDT
Florida State Rep. Bob Allen
We've got you covered

Related Items
Videos

TAMPA - Police released taped statements from a state leader accused of trying to buy sex in a men's room. State Representative Bob Allen says he was feeling nervous and offered sex to get away from a man he didn't trust.

Allen chairs the House Energy Committee and co-chairs Senator John McCain's presidential campaign in Florida. He is the Police Union's 2007 Lawmaker of the Year, and he recently sponsored a bill to crack down on soliciting sex in public parks.

But he told police he did offer sex to an undercover officer in a public park men's room. 

"He goes, you want $20 if i give you (oral sex). I'm like I don't want (oral sex), but I'll tell ya... I can give you one. What if I give you one?" said Allen.

Allen also warned the man of undercover cops.

"I said they're around here, you ought to know about that."

Allen didn't know he was talking to a policeman until he pulled out a badge. He explained his behavior shortly after his arrest.

"This (undercover officer) is a pretty stocky black guy, and there's other black guys around in the park that—you know!"

Allen said he was also frightened of the weather. So he fled to the men's room.

"I said the building is safer than staying out here, so I went back in and I sat down."

He said he offered the man in the men's room what he thought he wanted, just so he could get out safely.

"I went ahhh -- I'm about to be a statistic. You catch all kinds of people, so a legislator is like whoa! You know, especially one that's the (police union) guy of the year...this is too ironic!"

Allen sponsored six different sex crime bills just this year -- three focus on indecent exposure and soliciting sex. He was arrested last month in Titusville. He said he will keep fighting in court.

Laurie, excellent post. I'm with you and I'll be there the 1st.

KB, that's karma in action.

Welcome to nhfree.com, Laurie -- sounds like you'll "fit in" perfectly  ;)

KBCraig, love the story/link... you know.. it has been said before that "he who accuses one of cheating is usually guilty of it himself"  and apparently it applies to sex offenders as well!  I guess all that can be said is that it takes one to know one...  That Rep has some problems.  And a thing for big black dudes in parks  ;D  lol

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on August 14, 2007, 12:24 PM NHFT
But I wouldn't have a problem with hiring, or otherwise associating with, a convicted sex offender, unless the job in question exposed the offender in some manner to new potential victims. That is, hiring a child molester to work in a factory or drive a truck or somesuch would be fine; hiring a child molester to work around children or perhaps even another customer-facing job that might involve children (e.g., store clerk) would probably not be safe.

Part of my concern is risk to women and children who may become potential victims.  But part of my desire to not hire sex offenders is just on principle.  It's what an-caps and free marketeers mean when they talk about "shunning" as a non-state-based solution to crime.  I DON'T want a child molester or violent rapist to thrive, or even to survive.  I want that person to live the most tormented, shortest existence possible.  And yet, I refuse to be violent.  Instead, I'm going to use my freedom of association and not associate with that person.

Quote from: Braddogg on August 14, 2007, 09:33 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on August 14, 2007, 12:24 PM NHFT
But I wouldn't have a problem with hiring, or otherwise associating with, a convicted sex offender, unless the job in question exposed the offender in some manner to new potential victims. That is, hiring a child molester to work in a factory or drive a truck or somesuch would be fine; hiring a child molester to work around children or perhaps even another customer-facing job that might involve children (e.g., store clerk) would probably not be safe.

Part of my concern is risk to women and children who may become potential victims.  But part of my desire to not hire sex offenders is just on principle.  It's what an-caps and free marketeers mean when they talk about "shunning" as a non-state-based solution to crime.  I DON'T want a child molester or violent rapist to thrive, or even to survive.  I want that person to live the most tormented, shortest existence possible.  And yet, I refuse to be violent.  Instead, I'm going to use my freedom of association and not associate with that person.

Well, that's fine, and certainly permissible in a free market. But I consider most sex offenses to be trumped-up nonsense—they shouldn't be considered "crimes" in the first place—and so I wouldn't do that. To each his own, right?

Oh, well definitely.  Peeing on the side of the road can get you indecent exposure, and that makes you a sex offender.  And there's the whole business with "date rape" that stems from just drinking too much (versus the real date rapes that occur, with either forced sex or date rape drugs).  I'm talking about child molesters, rapists, and probably flashers, rather than the drunk idiot who peed on the side of the road or the 18-year-old with the 16-year-old girlfriend or the drunk dude who took a drunk girl back from a party.

Does that run along the lines of what you meant by "most sex offenses [are] trumped-up nonsense"?

Quote from: Braddogg on August 14, 2007, 11:08 PM NHFT
Oh, well definitely.  Peeing on the side of the road can get you indecent exposure, and that makes you a sex offender.  And there's the whole business with "date rape" that stems from just drinking too much (versus the real date rapes that occur, with either forced sex or date rape drugs).  I'm talking about child molesters, rapists, and probably flashers, rather than the drunk idiot who peed on the side of the road or the 18-year-old with the 16-year-old girlfriend or the drunk dude who took a drunk girl back from a party.

Does that run along the lines of what you meant by "most sex offenses [are] trumped-up nonsense"?

Mostly. But I believe even a lot of child-related incidents are nothing more than irrationality born of a moral panic. In the interests of not repeating myself again—and considering I just came back from Murphy's Taproom, and am not, let's say, entirely coherent at the moment ;), I'll just paste two links where I've gone over this before:—

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=11887.msg173038#msg173038
http://www.nhteaparty.org/index.php/topic,29.msg1572.html#msg1572

In each case, read from my comments onward, not just the specific comment to which I linked.

The Union Leader weighs in with some common sense:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Monitoring+molesters%3a+Take+care+with+residency+restriction&articleId=efcab647-3fad-4b0d-a896-ea3b2b520bcb

Monitoring molesters: Take care with residency restriction

MANCHESTER is considering an ordinance to ban registered sex offenders from living close to places where lots of children gather, such as schools, parks and playgrounds. We like this idea in theory, but aldermen need to be very careful that they don't create an ordinance that makes sex offenders harder to catch.

Similar laws have been enacted in other states and municipalities, and the results are not always as positive as expected.

Since 2002, when Iowa prohibited sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or day care, the number of offenders not registering with police doubled, USA Today reported in February.

Where their residency is restricted, sex offenders tend to wind up living closer to each other, often in cheaper apartment complexes, The Enquirer of Cincinnati reported in June. Those apartment complexes often are filled with children. And most child sex offenders, around 90 percent, molest children they know, not strangers.

"It's ineffective, it wastes resources and has unintended consequences that may well increase the chances an offender will re-offend due to the instability, the going underground, surrounding themselves with other offenders," Corwin Ritchie, head of the Iowa County (Minnesota) Prosecutors Association told Minnesota Public Radio in June.

We hate the idea that a child molester can live right across the street from a school, as has happened in Manchester. Aldermen should look into setting a narrow restriction preventing that. But they must take care not to send offenders underground.

Evidence from other states suggests that an overbroad restriction will cause offenders to stop registering, making it harder for police to track them. That's counterproductive. Aldermen need to make certain that any ordinance they draft will not do that.

In summary, this problem like all of them needs to be addressed with our heads and not with our emotions. That's the Libertarian way. It's easier said than done with a subject like this that really gets people boiling but we need to try to get people thinking with level heads.

Quote from: KBCraig on August 15, 2007, 02:00 AM NHFT
The Union Leader weighs in with some common sense:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Monitoring+molesters%3a+Take+care+with+residency+restriction&articleId=efcab647-3fad-4b0d-a896-ea3b2b520bcb

...

Whatever restrictions are put in place, if any are put in place at all, will grow over time. The cities that have near-complete residency restrictions now didn't start out that way; they started out like this. It has to be prevented from the outset, or we'll end up with the same thing, just with it taking longer to get there.

I understand completely, RD. That's why I said this earlier.

Quote from: dalebert on August 14, 2007, 12:07 PM NHFT
Agreed, and I'd say that's what they should take into consideration in deciding sentences and deciding whether to release. I'd say we need to get off the fence and if they believe they're too dangerous to be around children, they should be pushing to keep them in prison. This registry approach provides a false sense of security (besides a sense of revenge).

Maybe this woman is the perfect example of someone that should still be in prison. I understand the argument for life sentences for serious sex offenders. You don't sound like you're "on the fence" as I put it.

I understand being emotional about it. Now the part about thinking with your head is where do you stand on the registration issue? Unfortunately, it's kind of two separate issues- sentencing and what to do if/when they are released. Do you realize it does nothing but provide a false sense of security and doesn't really protect people or their children?

This is a pretty complicated issue for me as a strict voluntarist. If we weren't depending on the state to protect us from crime, I think a lot of the really serious offenders would get an unofficial death sentence and the silly offenses would get blown off as they should be. More importantly, parents would take more personal responsibility for protecting their children and people would do a better job of protecting themselves which would reduce the number of these crimes (and all crime) dramatically. It doesn't surprise me that we have so many apathetic and even criminally irresponsible parents when we have such a nanny state. That sort of behavior is encouraged and even rewarded by the state.

Meanwhile, the state is doing things, and some of the things they're doing are just ridiculous and totally not helping the problem like this registry process. I'm going to speak out against it.

I think locking people up and throwing away the key is a fine idea -- for murder, rape, and child molestation.

Obviously, we need to be sure "child molestation" is really child molestation and not an 18-year-old with a 16-year-old girlfriend.  And we definitely need to make sure we're not punishing nudists, flashers, streakers, or people who pee on sidewalks -- just people who actually violate others, the truly helpless.

On the flip side, you can't lock people up for longer than they've been sentenced.  The best you can do is keep an eye on sickos once they're released and throw away the key next time.

I agree with others who say society has to police itself, and could do so more effectively if we weren't so reliant on the "criminal justice" system. 

(We're on pace to arrest 800,000 people for cannabis this year -- if some of that energy could be putting into fighting something that's truly criminal, people might start liking cops a little better?)

But I think the issue at hand is one that individual libertarians can disagree over.

Emotionally I'd be all for castration with a rusty knife. But life in prison where I have to pay to feed and clothe the scum of the earth? No thanks!

Quote from: Beavis on August 15, 2007, 11:45 AM NHFT
Emotionally I'd be all for castration with a rusty knife. But life in prison where I have to pay to feed and clothe the scum of the earth? No thanks!

I'll pay taxes to house the truly dangerous, Beavis.  As it is, our prisons are bursting with nonviolent drug offenders.

Prison isn't justice. It does nothing to repair the physical and emotional damage of the victim, and it victimizes the rest of us by making us pay for criminals to get room and board and training in another criminal enterprise from their fellow prisoners. And that's not to mention all the people unjustly in prison, like the pot smokers, or Russell Kanning.

Here is the charge she was convicted of.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/632-a/632-a-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/632-a/632-a-2.htm)

QuoteTITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 632-A
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 632-A:2
    632-A:2 Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault. –
    I. A person is guilty of the felony of aggravated felonious sexual assault if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person under any of the following circumstances:
       (a) When the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force, physical violence or superior physical strength.
       (b) When the victim is physically helpless to resist.
       (c) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use physical violence or superior physical strength on the victim, and the victim believes that the actor has the present ability to execute these threats.
       (d) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate against the victim, or any other person, and the victim believes that the actor has the ability to execute these threats in the future.
       (e) When the victim submits under circumstances involving false imprisonment, kidnapping or extortion.
       (f) When the actor, without the prior knowledge or consent of the victim, administers or has knowledge of another person administering to the victim any intoxicating substance which mentally incapacitates the victim.
       (g) When the actor provides therapy, medical treatment or examination of the victim and in the course of that therapeutic or treating relationship or within one year of termination of that therapeutic or treating relationship:
          (1) Acts in a manner or for purposes which are not professionally recognized as ethical or acceptable; or
          (2) Uses this position as such provider to coerce the victim to submit.
       (h) When, except as between legally married spouses, the victim is mentally defective and the actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective.
       (i) When the actor through concealment or by the element of surprise is able to cause sexual penetration with the victim before the victim has an adequate chance to flee or resist.
       (j) When, except as between legally married spouses, the victim is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age and:
          (1) the actor is a member of the same household as the victim; or
          (2) the actor is related by blood or affinity to the victim.
       (k) When, except as between legally married spouses, the victim is 13 years of age or older and under 18 years of age and the actor is in a position of authority over the victim and uses this authority to coerce the victim to submit.
       (l) When the victim is less than 13 years of age.
       (m) When at the time of the sexual assault, the victim indicates by speech or conduct that there is not freely given consent to performance of the sexual act.
       (n) When the actor is in a position of authority over the victim and uses this authority to coerce the victim to submit under any of the following circumstances:
          (1) When the actor has direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim by virtue of the victim being incarcerated in a correctional institution, the secure psychiatric unit, or juvenile detention facility where the actor is employed; or
          (2) When the actor is a probation or parole officer or a juvenile probation and parole officer who has direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim while the victim is on parole or probation or under juvenile probation.
    Consent of the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in subparagraph (n) shall not be considered a defense.
    II. A person is guilty of aggravated felonious sexual assault without penetration when he intentionally touches whether directly, through clothing, or otherwise, the genitalia of a person under the age of 13 under circumstances that can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
    III. A person is guilty of aggravated felonious sexual assault when such person engages in a pattern of sexual assault against another person, not the actor's legal spouse, who is less than 16 years of age. The mental state applicable to the underlying acts of sexual assault need not be shown with respect to the element of engaging in a pattern of sexual assault.

Source. 1975, 302:1. 1981, 415:2, 3. 1986, 132:1. 1992, 254:6. 1994, 185:2. 1995, 66:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1996. 1997, 220:2, eff. Jan. 1, 1998. 1998, 240:2, eff. Jan. 1, 1999. 1999, 177:2, eff. Aug. 30, 1999. 2003, 226:1, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2004.

Some of these offenses appear to be a lot worse than others, but they are all grouped in together as if they were equal.  I wonder what it was that she did that resulted in her arrest and conviction.

Maybe I can help clarify what she did a bit, as I have studied these laws in depth for over 2 years now.  1st, she is not guilty of either 632A:2 II or III (both listed at the bottom of that statute).  Her victim is under 13 and she is guilty of one of the offenses listed in 632A:2 I.. which means the only one out of the list that applies here is section (l) When the victim is less than 13 years of age.

Because the precursor to section (l) is " 632-A:2 Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault. –
    I. A person is guilty of the felony of aggravated felonious sexual assault if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person under any of the following circumstances: "   

When know she penetrated a child under 13 in some way.  She is a true sex offender.  There is no mistake about that and her crime is undeniably INEXCUSABLE.  She admitted to her crime (it's part of treatment) and therefore it would be correct of us to agree that she is not an innocent convict and should be considered abnormal, psychologically speaking, to have done such an atrocious thing to a child. 

Rattydog... I can't disagree with a lot of what you are saying.  Emotionally it all makes sense to me.  The problem is that these laws need to be passed not out of emotion, but with logic.  This doesnt make the acts acceptable or right. 

Victims of sexual abuse are already unlikely to report that abuse, for a myriad of reasons.  And if we start in with mandatory life sentences for any first time offender who molests a child we risk creating a situation where a child victim is even more unlikely to report the crime to authorities or a counselor who could treat a child victim.  The last thing we want to do is create an environment where even LESS of these occurences get reported.  It's a delicate balance. 

As for castration... these crimes arent about the Penis folks... so much as they are about power, control and manipulation.  Removing the penis does not remove the desire, nor does it remove the ability to penetrate a child with some other object. 

As for teenagers and the AOC... unless some adult (18 and over) continually and repeatedly goes after 13 and 14 year old girls as their choice of bedmates, I'm not worried about the singular incidents of consensual experimentation between developed teenagers, regardless of their biological age, or those in a 'dating' relationship that the parents dont have a real problem with.  If the parents have a problem with an older guy or gal that their kid is dating (and their kid is under 18) then let them use the endangerment laws or restraining orders to keep the older person away.  Again, as long as the activity is mutual.  I'm not talking about those who are coerced (by coercion, I mean specific and deliberate coercion, not the mere difference in age being used as 'proof' of automatic coercion.)  These people are not a danger under these types of circumstances.  Judicial discretion should weed these cases out nicely from the mix of other sex offenders, but of course there is no room for such discretion currently.

Now... back to residency restrictions...  since when did registered sex offenders forget how to walk or drive to find their next victim and exactly how will these restrictions prevent abuse from occuring?

QuoteNext time

I'm just saying, there's an idea called double jeopardy written into the U.S. Constitution, and it's not going anywhere.  Once a person has been sentenced, he or she can't be tried again for the same crime.

This means if you're sentenced to 3 years, you're getting out in 3 years; if you're sentenced to 10, you're getting out in 10 (assuming you aren't paroled to make room for potheads).  There is no way to prolong a sentence under the rules of our legal system -- on the other hand, if the system fails, it would be hard to blame a person who chooses to administer a dose of extra-systemic justice.  Many of us would be happy to look the other way in a truly egregious case, if a sicko gets out in a year and winds up getting mysteriously shot in the face.

But within the system, the real problem is sentencing people correctly to begin with.  Probably over half the people in our prisons shouldn't be there at all, and yet there are others who (IMHO) should never see the light of day, and they get out way too soon.  The recidivism rate is truly appalling, and in many cases the crime itself is worse than murder.

So Beavis, seriously... it costs 25k to 30k a year to keep a person in prison.  We have room in our jails for people who commit heinous crimes.  (In a perfect world, this would be voluntarily funded, but in our imperfect world of coercive funding, I'd say it's one of the very best uses for our tax dollars).

I'll stop complaining so much about the injustice system when they keep the murderers, rapists and child molesters locked up, stop putting pot smokers away entirely, and close 2/3 of the prisons.

Abolish public schools. End of problem.

I posted two half-assed comments earlier which I deleted to replace with this, if anyone's wondering where they went. Never try writing a cogent post when you're five minutes from sprinting out the door to catch a bus...

Quote from: RattyDog on August 15, 2007, 10:50 AM NHFT
I refuse to include "sidewalk pee-ers", flashers or 18 year old boys with 16 years old girlfriends in discussion of this topic, it is crazy and unreal to me that a person can pee on a sidewalk and end up having to register as a sex offender...just insane. I think that is another topic though, one that needs to be discussed, but not in the course of this conversation. When I say, sex offender, I mean....a person who has committed a crime of sexual violation against another human being. A rapist, a child molester. The law needs to be changed. If you are not a rapist or a child molester, you shouldn't be called a sex offender.

When you say "sex offender," that might be what you mean, but it's not what the law means—the law includes all these former categories, and that's actually why I'm bringing this topic up. I don't disagree with you on meting out the worst punishment for bona fide child molesters and rapists. But the law has to be changed to not include the former groups, ultimately, and my immediate concern when I started this thread is to try and stop these new residency restrictions Manchester is trying to put in place.

Quote from: RattyDog on August 15, 2007, 10:50 AM NHFT
That being said....I am disturbed by some of the tone I am reading on this thread. Let's not act as if there is not good reason for people to become emotional or angry about this issue.

There's a very good reason not to become emotional: It clouds judgment and stops people from thinking critically. When you hear the term sex offender being applied to someone, you have to remember it might not necessarily mean the person is a child molester or a rapist; it might mean the person had an underage girlfriend or urinated in public. And, even if the registry lists a serious offense that sounds like bona fide child molestation, several things should be kept in mind:—

Firstly, people do not get fair trials when they're accused of sex crimes, especially involving children. "Guilty until proven innocent" and a sort of witch-hunt mentality pervades these cases; people get emotional—like you are—and stop thinking critically, and innocent people go to jail. Making it even worse, laws and trial procedure have been modified to make it even more difficult for someone to defend themselves against charges—things like protecting the accusing child's identity, shielding them from all sorts of pertinent questions, "rape shield" laws in the case of adults, and so on.

Secondly, a lot of innocent things have been misconstrued as some form of serious child molestation. There is a case where a woman was bathing her child and the child ran out of the house naked, and a neighbor saw it and called the cops. The woman was charged with molesting her child based on this brief scene. I don't remember if she was convicted or not, but if she was, she'd be registered as an out-and-out child molester now.

There was another case where a man pulled a child back onto the sidewalk and scolded him after he nearly got hit by a car; the man was charged—and convicted, and is now registered—for illegally touching someone else's child.

A third case I remember is probably the most bizarre: two adolescents took nude photographs of each other and put them online; the parents found out and somehow the cops got involved. Both of these children are now registered as distributors of child pornography.

Now, in these cases, only these people's offenses would be listed in the registry—not the circumstances surrounding the case, pertinent facts, whether or not the case was solid or tenuous, nor anything else. How would you react when you read the registry entries—like you react when you read Ms. Huot's? Wouldn't you react differently if you knew the above facts?

Quote from: RattyDog on August 15, 2007, 10:50 AM NHFT
If you.....

1. Molest in any way a child under the state legal age of consent
2. Rape anybody, of any age, at any time
3. Facilitate or knowingly disregard any of the above...

You are a sex offender. Period. You should go to jail, forever.

Except for the first item, it sounds like you and I are on the same page and that we both support reforming these laws. :)

As for that item, remember the age of consent laws is what causes eighteen-year-old boys with sixteen-year-old girlfriends to be registered as sex offenders, which I thought you said you didn't agree with.

Quote from: dalebert on August 15, 2007, 11:40 AM NHFT
I understand completely, RD. That's why I said this earlier.

Quote from: dalebert on August 14, 2007, 12:07 PM NHFT
Agreed, and I'd say that's what they should take into consideration in deciding sentences and deciding whether to release. I'd say we need to get off the fence and if they believe they're too dangerous to be around children, they should be pushing to keep them in prison. This registry approach provides a false sense of security (besides a sense of revenge).

Maybe this woman is the perfect example of someone that should still be in prison. I understand the argument for life sentences for serious sex offenders. You don't sound like you're "on the fence" as I put it.

I understand being emotional about it. Now the part about thinking with your head is where do you stand on the registration issue? Unfortunately, it's kind of two separate issues- sentencing and what to do if/when they are released. Do you realize it does nothing but provide a false sense of security and doesn't really protect people or their children?

This is a pretty complicated issue for me as a strict voluntarist. If we weren't depending on the state to protect us from crime, I think a lot of the really serious offenders would get an unofficial death sentence and the silly offenses would get blown off as they should be. More importantly, parents would take more personal responsibility for protecting their children and people would do a better job of protecting themselves which would reduce the number of these crimes (and all crime) dramatically. It doesn't surprise me that we have so many apathetic and even criminally irresponsible parents when we have such a nanny state. That sort of behavior is encouraged and even rewarded by the state.

Meanwhile, the state is doing things, and some of the things they're doing are just ridiculous and totally not helping the problem like this registry process. I'm going to speak out against it.

I don't agree with life in prison, but that's because I think imprisonment is a stupid form of punishment. Again an argument from historical perspective: Long-term imprisonment wasn't even invented as punishment, it was originally invented as a method to rehabilitate people. Religious leaders in the eighteenth century thought that if society forced someone into solitude with nothing more than a bible, the criminal would eventually be cured. This never worked right—people went crazy, mostly—and eventually prisons went on to become the modern combination of retributive justice and warehousing of undesirables that they now are.

But I do agree that rapists—of children and adults—deserve the worst punishment possible, whatever that be within a free system.

Quote from: LaurieP on August 15, 2007, 04:51 PM NHFT
Because the precursor to section (l) is " 632-A:2 Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault. –
    I. A person is guilty of the felony of aggravated felonious sexual assault if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person under any of the following circumstances: "   

When know she penetrated a child under 13 in some way.  She is a true sex offender.  There is no mistake about that and her crime is undeniably INEXCUSABLE.  She admitted to her crime (it's part of treatment) and therefore it would be correct of us to agree that she is not an innocent convict and should be considered abnormal, psychologically speaking, to have done such an atrocious thing to a child. 

It sounds like she is a true sex offender, but I still don't know the facts surrounding the case. See the three cases I posted earlier to see why I'm always so skeptical about things like this. I have far too little faith in this country's criminal justice system, especially in cases where charges of child sex-crimes have been leveled.

Oh, and if I were in jail for one of these crimes, and I were told I had to admit it in order to leave treatment and be let out of jail, I might end up admitting to it, too.

Quote from: LaurieP on August 15, 2007, 04:51 PM NHFT
As for teenagers and the AOC... unless some adult (18 and over) continually and repeatedly goes after 13 and 14 year old girls as their choice of bedmates, I'm not worried about the singular incidents of consensual experimentation between developed teenagers, regardless of their biological age, or those in a 'dating' relationship that the parents dont have a real problem with.  If the parents have a problem with an older guy or gal that their kid is dating (and their kid is under 18) then let them use the endangerment laws or restraining orders to keep the older person away.  Again, as long as the activity is mutual.  I'm not talking about those who are coerced (by coercion, I mean specific and deliberate coercion, not the mere difference in age being used as 'proof' of automatic coercion.)  These people are not a danger under these types of circumstances.  Judicial discretion should weed these cases out nicely from the mix of other sex offenders, but of course there is no room for such discretion currently.

This is what I've begun referring to as "a common-sense definition of consent" in order to differentiate it from the definition of consent as used by the law, originating from psychology, where people are assumed to be unable to give consent for a myriad of specious reasons, especially age.

Quote from: LaurieP on August 15, 2007, 04:51 PM NHFT
Now... back to residency restrictions...  since when did registered sex offenders forget how to walk or drive to find their next victim and exactly how will these restrictions prevent abuse from occuring?

Back on topic. ;D Did you want to set up a meeting sometime to organize for this, per your email? Let's talk about it here so we can get other supporters on board. We could meet at your house as you originally suggested, or perhaps Murphy's Taproom (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.0) which is becoming quite the meeting-place for freestater organizing.

Quote from: Beavis on August 15, 2007, 06:44 PM NHFT
I'll stop complaining so much about the injustice system when they keep the murderers, rapists and child molesters locked up, stop putting pot smokers away entirely, and close 2/3 of the prisons.

Now yer talkin', Beavis!

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on August 15, 2007, 10:16 PM NHFT
I don't agree with life in prison, but that's because I think imprisonment is a stupid form of punishment. Again an argument from historical perspective: Long-term imprisonment wasn't even invented as punishment, it was originally invented as a method to rehabilitate people. Religious leaders in the eighteenth century thought that if society forced someone into solitude with nothing more than a bible, the criminal would eventually be cured. This never worked right—people went crazy, mostly—and eventually prisons went on to become the modern combination of retributive justice and warehousing of undesirables that they now are.

But I do agree that rapists—of children and adults—deserve the worst punishment possible, whatever that be within a free system.

This is a very interesting perspective.  But I want to think about something else now.  Goodbye, molester thread.

Rattydog:

QuoteI see, however, violent sexual perpetrators being locked up away from me as a service, a service I will gladly pay for.

Rocketman:

Quote(In a perfect world, this would be voluntarily funded

Justly convicted convicts should work to pay their own way


Rocketman:

QuoteThis is a very interesting perspective.  But I want to think about something else now.  Goodbye, molester thread.

:D

Sure we can Meet at Murphy's or here, but probably best at Murphy's since it is already an established hang out!   I'm flexible for time usually... so let me know what works best for most (if such a time exists).  I have started compiling facts to distribute... and would love help in narrowing them down to determine which ones are best to keep it simple and to keep it to a 1 page handout.  I can email them to you.. let me know what you think... thanks.

Quote from: LaurieP on August 16, 2007, 02:11 PM NHFT
Sure we can Meet at Murphy's or here, but probably best at Murphy's since it is already an established hang out!   I'm flexible for time usually... so let me know what works best for most (if such a time exists).  I have started compiling facts to distribute... and would love help in narrowing them down to determine which ones are best to keep it simple and to keep it to a 1 page handout.  I can email them to you.. let me know what you think... thanks.

There are weekly meetings Tuesday at 19:00, called Taproom Tuesdays (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.0). A load of freestaters always show up—two weeks ago we topped thirty people. It's usually pretty busy but we can set up at a table away from the main crowd; we've done this a couple times for the Manchester Free Press meetings already.

We should definitely work on narrowing down whatever sex-offender facts you've collected to the best ones that fit this particular issue. As you can probably see from the comments in this thread, my own opposition position on sex offenses is pretty wide-ranging: everything from opposing this coming law, to the existence of the public registries, to the age of consent itself—but we need to remember to stay focused on this one issue in order to tackle it most effectively. I especially think we'd just scare away a lot of support I get into my AoC arguments with people.

LaurieP and I will be meeting at the Taproom at around 20:00 tonight (2007-08-21). We have a handout we've put together, and a tentative name under which we're organizing: Citizens United to Reevaluate/Reform/Repeal Sex Offender Registries (CURSOR). We're not sure on the first R word there yet. There'll be a website put up sometime soon, with our handout(s) and more information, including in particular aggregated links to news stories documenting examples of sex offender–related legal insanity.

Anyone else interested is welcome to come chat with us—comments, suggestions, criticism welcome.

The meeting at last night's Taproom Tuesday (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.msg177569#msg177569) went well: In attendance were LaurieP, RattyDog, and myself, with Ron Helwig, dalebert and error/Beavis drifting in at times. Laurie, who is a true super-activist on this topic, had a very interesting slide show presentation on sex offenders that was recently shown at the state house in Concord—how recidivism rates are extremely low, how reports of sex offenses have been going down over the past decade, and so on. We'll be working more of this data into our handouts before we have anything to give out.

The CURSOR website should be up by the end of the week. PDFs of our handouts will be available, as will much of the data we've collected, and there'll be a news section documenting other examples of the injustices committed against accused sex offenders. There are other ideas we're kicking around, too.

And most importantly: We'll be attending the next Manchester town hall meeting, which is the first Tuesday in September (2007-09-04), in order to give people our handouts and educate people on this issue. I've added this event (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10367.0) to the calendar.

Thanks for everyone's help on this!

So, I have to ask the loaded question.....especially to those of you who have kids. You're OK with a rapist or a child molester living next door to you and your family?

I have a problem with all "sex offenders" being lumped together. A perfect example is the 19 year old convicted of statutory rape with a 15 year old....and then having to be on the sex offender list for the rest of their life. That's just plain wrong and I think there are many people who would fight to change the laws regarding it.

I also have absolutely no pity for anyone who could rape or molest someone. I'm not talking about date rape, or taking naked pictures of your kids in the bathtub....I mean rapist and molesters. The fact they have a hard time dealing with the fact that they are labeled the scourge of society is OK with me. There was a woman on Will Infantine's MCAM show last year talking about her situation where I believe her husband, when younger, had been having consensual sex with his underage girlfriend and the parents filed charges against him. He should not have to be on the list....or at least be able to get removed from the list after a certain period of time with no further underage incidents. I would be curious to read what LaurieC's story is....is there someplace that I can read that?

Personally I think efforts would be better spent changing who and how we classify sex offenders moreso than beating up city officials that want to protect kids and the areas that those kids are in often. 1000 feet from a school is what 15 or 20 houses?

I know that there are predators out there who are not identified.....and that they are likely more of a concern than those on the list.....but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't know about those already on the list.

Quote from: ny2nh on August 22, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
So, I have to ask the loaded question.....especially to those of you who have kids. You're OK with a rapist or a child molester living next door to you and your family?

"OK with it" in that I'd treat them like any other neighbor and not even think about their past? Of course not.

I would not be okay with the government telling that person they couldn't live next door to me.

Quote from: ny2nh on August 22, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
So, I have to ask the loaded question.....especially to those of you who have kids. You're OK with a rapist or a child molester living next door to you and your family?

The residency restrictions are about keeping sex offenders a certain distance from public schools. Your neighborhood will only become sex offender–free if you live within this same area—and if you don't, these new restrictions will be sending sex offenders into your neighborhood. This law is protecting a certain group of citizens lucky enough to live within a radius of the school, to the detriment of the rest of Manchester's citizens.

Secondly, sex offenders who go after other people's children typically do not do so close by to where they live, nor do they target schools, because it would be too obvious and easy for them to get caught. I understand people are creeped out by having a sex offender living next door, but he's no more substantively harmful to you than someone half a mile away.

Quote from: ny2nh on August 22, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
I have a problem with all "sex offenders" being lumped together. A perfect example is the 19 year old convicted of statutory rape with a 15 year old....and then having to be on the sex offender list for the rest of their life. That's just plain wrong and I think there are many people who would fight to change the laws regarding it.

This is something else we're working on: A), oppose these residency restrictions as an immediate cause, and B) reform sex offender laws and the registries to not cover statutory rape, public urination, and other similar nonsense.

Quote from: ny2nh on August 22, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
I also have absolutely no pity for anyone who could rape or molest someone. I'm not talking about date rape, or taking naked pictures of your kids in the bathtub....I mean rapist and molesters.

I think we mostly agree here. Forcible rape should be dealt with in the harshest way possible within whatever legal system you have. That is, life in prison nowadays—and perhaps getting shot by the pissed-off victim or her family in a free state. ;)

Quote from: ny2nh on August 22, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
The fact they have a hard time dealing with the fact that they are labeled the scourge of society is OK with me. There was a woman on Will Infantine's MCAM show last year talking about her situation where I believe her husband, when younger, had been having consensual sex with his underage girlfriend and the parents filed charges against him. He should not have to be on the list....or at least be able to get removed from the list after a certain period of time with no further underage incidents. I would be curious to read what LaurieC's story is....is there someplace that I can read that?

I'll let her share the details if she wants, but it was basically a statutory-rape situation.

Quote from: ny2nh on August 22, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
Personally I think efforts would be better spent changing who and how we classify sex offenders moreso than beating up city officials that want to protect kids and the areas that those kids are in often. 1000 feet from a school is what 15 or 20 houses?

Well, we're doing both. And since these residency restrictions will apply to all people on the list, not just child molesters, it needs to be dealt with, too. Also see above how this is ineffective to begin with.

Quote from: ny2nh on August 22, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
I know that there are predators out there who are not identified.....and that they are likely more of a concern than those on the list.....but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't know about those already on the list.

And this law will make more of the identified ones homeless, and thus harder to track. We haven't looked at Manchester's specific geography yet, but some cities have so many "sex offender–free zones" that there are few places they can find housing, leading to them living on the streets... leaving them roaming around at will, instead of being kept in a known location.

Boy Scouts' secret "degenerate" files revealed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20070829/co_po/boyscoutssecretdegeneratefilesrevealed

The website is online, with a bit of content:—

http://cursor.eprci.com/

The bill to pass sex-offender residency restrictions in Manchester has been tabled for further discussion. It's been stopped for now, but we expect it to be back next month, and we'll be continuing our work on this issue.

At today's town meeting, Laurie gave a great speech, the text of which shall be up on the CURSOR (http://cursor.eprci.com/) website by tomorrow. She pointed out the several ways in which this law would be both ineffective at what it tries to do, and actually counterproductive in some respects. The aldermen unfortunately seemed more concerned about the exact size of the radius drawn around schools (500' or 1000') than about the law's unintended negative effects, but their concerns were enough to delay the bill for now.

Afterward she was interviewed by TV channel 9 and WGIR, and outside city hall we both spoke to Rep. Infantine, who is continuing work on her bill before the state house.

More details to follow soon.

Not to bring this whole thread back on topic, but would it be possible to hire private detectives to watch the alderman, to see if they could be convicted of a sex crime and then be subject to the laws that they are proposing?  I'm hoping that they would be guilty of the roadside peeing crime, not anything more harmful, but anything to get them to think before they act.

Quote from: sandm000 on September 05, 2007, 09:08 AM NHFT
Not to bring this whole thread back on topic, but would it be possible to hire private detectives to watch the alderman, to see if they could be convicted of a sex crime and then be subject to the laws that they are proposing?  I'm hoping that they would be guilty of the roadside peeing crime, not anything more harmful, but anything to get them to think before they act.

Hah, I love stuff like this. Have you been watching how many anti–gay rights congressman have been outed as homosexuals by activists?

I certainly don't have enough to hire someone, but I'd throw some money in if people wanted to pool money for it.

At the public safety committee (http://www.manchesternh.gov/CityGov/CLK/Mayor/Committees.html) meeting on Tuesday, it looked like Alderman Roy was the strongest in support; the other aldermen there—Osborne, O'Neal, Shea, and Long (my ward's)—voiced various reservations about the bill. I believe the draft legislation originated from Thomas Clark (http://www.manchesternh.gov/CityGov/SOL/ContactUs.html), who spoke in support of it at the meeting.

Congrats on tabling this!

The best option to kill police-state legislation of this kind is a three-pronged approach. In order of most immediate importance:
1) delay, stall, delay... by any and every means possible
2) FUD of all kinds, on all points, trivial and irrelevant to central and philosophical. Especially the trivial and irrelevant; those work best in helping objective #1 above
3) public outreach and education. This is the long-term pro-liberty investment, but don't think for a moment our argument will win hearts and minds fast enough to stave off the immediate-term police-state desires of the 'crats

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 05, 2007, 09:42 AM NHFT

Quote from: sandm000 on September 05, 2007, 09:08 AM NHFT
Not to bring this whole thread back on topic, but would it be possible to hire private detectives to watch the alderman, to see if they could be convicted of a sex crime and then be subject to the laws that they are proposing?  I'm hoping that they would be guilty of the roadside peeing crime, not anything more harmful, but anything to get them to think before they act.

Hah, I love stuff like this. Have you been watching how many anti–gay rights congressman have been outed as homosexuals by activists?

I certainly don't have enough to hire someone, but I'd throw some money in if people wanted to pool money for it.

At the public safety committee (http://www.manchesternh.gov/CityGov/CLK/Mayor/Committees.html) meeting on Tuesday, it looked like Alderman Roy was the strongest in support; the other aldermen there—Osborne, O'Neal, Shea, and Long (my ward's)—voiced various reservations about the bill. I believe the draft legislation originated from Thomas Clark (http://www.manchesternh.gov/CityGov/SOL/ContactUs.html), who spoke in support of it at the meeting.

All those 'OUTings' sort of gave me the idea.

Quote from: d_goddard on September 05, 2007, 09:47 AM NHFT
Congrats on tabling this!

The best option to kill police-state legislation of this kind is a three-pronged approach. In order of most immediate importance:
1) delay, stall, delay... by any and every means possible
2) FUD of all kinds, on all points, trivial and irrelevant to central and philosophical. Especially the trivial and irrelevant; those work best in helping objective #1 above
3) public outreach and education. This is the long-term pro-liberty investment, but don't think for a moment our argument will win hearts and minds fast enough to stave off the immediate-term police-state desires of the 'crats

In order:—

1) Looks like we've accomplished that, once at least. The aldermen were quite confused over whether or not there is a grandfather clause for current residents who end up in the restricted zones, and what the radius would be; apparently that's not even in the draft legislation yet, so they tabled it pending further research. One of the bureaucrats (the solicitor or city attorney) is supposed to present a map next time around.

2) Check out our handout on the website (http://cursor.eprci.com/). We're attacking this mostly from the position that the legislation will mean sex offenders are going to move into neighborhoods away from schools, thus rendering certain neighborhoods much less safe than others. From the meeting I gather southeast Manchester is the largest school-free area. Protecting one neighborhood at the expense of yours is the title of our handout... two can play at the "won't someone please think of the children!?" game. ;)

3) I'm getting ready to engage in an LTE barrage per your initial suggestion, now that I've been to the meeting and heard the aldermen speak on it, and heard the actual legislation, or pieces of it, read. See here (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10590.0) if you have any more advice on this, and thanks for the initial idea. ;D

The aldermen also mentioned that these residency restrictions are being litigated in virtually every other community in which they've been passed. If killing this bill ultimately fails, that'll probably be the next approach. Is this litigation the NHLA's doing, the NHCLU's, or someone else?

Would it help if the aldermen find out prior to passing the ordinance that someone will be looking into litigating it shortly thereafter? Or do politicians—in general known more for their arrogance and pride than ability to see reason—tend to treat a statement like that like some sort of threat and just dig in?

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 05, 2007, 11:10 AM NHFT
Would it help if the aldermen find out prior to passing the ordinance that someone will be looking into litigating it shortly thereafter?

YES

For reasons I don't completely understand, a lot of elected officials, especially (R)s, are scared of having their laws credibly challenged in court.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 05, 2007, 11:00 AM NHFT
two can play at the "won't someone please think of the children!?" game. ;)

You people ROCK.

NY2NH... I am the woman/girl  ;) who was on Will Infantine's show and that was/is my husband that was discussed.  Rep Infantine was one of the few who bothered to read the reports and information I gave him about my husband last year... and I never hid any of the gory raunchy details of that night of consensual sex from any of our NH reps when I started petitioning them for a law change.  There is an article in the Concord Monitor, USA Today and various gatehouse news media outlets that spoke to this in print over the last 6 months.  I gave the state reps my husband's court docket numbers and offered up any information they wanted, last Oct 2006.  Unfortunately, and probably to their own benefit, they didnt bother to read any of the INCH thick reports on the matter so they could act 'appropriately surprised and horrified' if questioned about me or the bill.  The truth is still the same, as it was then, as it is now.  The sex was consensual.  It was reported when the natural mom found out, and my husband DID believe she was 17.  What the reports will not detail is that being mistaken is not a defense.  They wont detail the idle chatter and talk that the cops used to get my husband into the station to talk to them (no mention that they told him the minor was a missing person who had run away and he was one of the last people to see her, could he come down and give a statement...which any decent 19yr old would do when he had no clue he had committed a crime) and that they told him it was a sexual assault investigation of his buddy who was also there that night (as well as another female and 2 more males at one point, all consenting) but fail to mention that specifically in the transcript that was taped, making it look like he knew that they were investigating HIM for a crime (which he did not till they started asking him if there was anything that had been bothering him about that night).  I keep the reports in my kitchen... anyone's free to read their statements, which after all, are the meat of the case.  Unfortunately, when we're teens we dont 'GET IT' about the law the way we should.  They passed off his miranda rights as if everyone who is questioned gets read these... not just people who are suspected of a crime but all volunteer statements as well.  Anyhow.. more to the point here.. the issue is, he is not a public safety threat and shouldnt be held or labeled as one and he is not alone.  There are hundreds more across the nation, and that is a conservative estimate.  I found approx 150 guys on our webiste (some of them gals) who were guilty of statutory rape when they were 21 or under according to the year of conviction (which by the way, conviction is often a year or more after the act...) .  Of those 150, approx 30 responded, all with their own stories.  You cant take everyone at their word and I know this. But even if just a few of those stories were 100% true, it is an OUTRAGE.  They should never have been prosecuted, much less registered for the rest of their lives.  There is one couple up in Croyden NH and they are now married, victim and offender, and he's registered for life because of their consensual premarital sex... and they have 4 kids.  Do they deserve this?  Can any rational person answer yes to that?  (rational is the qualifiying word here...  ;D)

The answers to forcible rape and child molestation lie within the front end of the system, not the back end when these creeps are released on the street. (ie registries and other restrictions on released people)  And by creeps I mean those that have violated a child or woman or man or boy (or animal... I don't want to discriminate) against their will, or thru deception and lies or trickery in the case of children.  These people need to be locked up.  Judges must grow some balls and sentence them to some real prison time, not a paltry 3 years or 8 years.  They should be serving some REAL time.  And GOD FORBID they ever repeat that crime.. they should go away for life.  It's that simple to me.  I've read the case law and court documents of people who have raped their own children and I can't get through it without throwing up.  But really gets me is that these sickos arent even sentenced to any meaningful prison time.  And then you get a kid like Genarlow Wilson, who at 17 got consensual oral from a 15 year old girl, who is sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 10 years.  I know rapists, violent adult rapists and child molestors, that have served less time.  WHY?  The system needs to be fixed HERE, not when these guys get out on the street.  I'm not sure I'm 100% convinced, but experts say that treatment works... since I have not dedicated my life to reviewing the data or working with sex offenders on this level, I'll bow to their expertise.  If they have empiracal evidence that shows it actually decreases the rate of reoffense, then I'm all for it.  But in the meantime, they can get that treatment in prison.  And there will be plenty of room for them in prison if they ever let out low level drug offenders... don't get me started... I got some personal experience on this one too... *sigh*

The NH Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against Boscawen and Dover regarding their residency restriction on different grounds.  Boscawen was filed because they passed it with hardly any public notification, I believe.  Dover is under attack on a few different fronts.  I personally know of 1 family that I encouraged the NHCLU to support and them to contact the NHCLU when their 5 year old son was kicked out of kindergarten because Daddy, a registered sex offender for a teenaged consensual sex crime, was NOT  'allowed' to drop his son off at school, due to their ordinance.  His son, who spent the first 3mths of kindergarten being dropped of by his mother, was forced to stay home and leave his friends behind, to say nothing of losing his early start on an education.  His mother could no longer bring him because she was forced by the state under the welfare program to go for job training to become a nurse.  They were on welfare because her husband, the registered offender, lost his painting business (their only source of income) after being posted online when the law expanded in 2003 to encompass the 13 to under 16 age group for public posting of registry information.  Welfare said they wouldnt waste their time on him, since he was virtually unemployable by any source of meaningful, family supporting employment.  And this is just one of many of the injustices I have come to discover.

It's ironic to me that I would feel the need to say this on a proliberty website, and since I'm new here, I'll qualify this with a "no offense"   :)  When you strip the rights of one group of people, you attack the rights of ALL people.  I'm not defending sex offenders, I'm defending US!!!  As I type this, there are already 3 states that have registries for Murder.  Sensible you say?  Maybe, if they were talking about releasing a serial murderer onto the streets.  But consider this:  they've used the same broad brush approach and included crimes that range from premeditated murder to unintended homicide (involuntary manslaughter).  How is the the guy that didnt mean to back up over a kid a public safety threat to anyone else?  It follows the same twisted logic... because they register people based on offenses, not on facts.  In NH they have tried over the last several years to institute a registered drug offender registry.  And other states in the great U.S.S. of A. have already done so.  And in Maryland, they are considering passing a - LISTEN UP FREESTATERS - a GUN registry.  Everyone convicted of a crime involving a gun will be registered.  And you can bet money that this will follow the same broad brush approach as the other registries have, even if it starts out narrow and specifically targets a few 'acceptable' offenses.  All laws our government passes inevitably grow to allow more government control and power over the people.  Isnt that what we're fighting for?  No one here is fighting to free sex offenders... we're fighting to keep our own rights protected.  There are solutions to the sex offender problem, of that I have no doubt.  But the answers are not found in broad based laws that are passed under the mask of 'civil' restrictions that are legal because of the government's overwhelming interest in protecting the public safety.  The next logical question would be:  Who's next? 

Has anyone else ever seen the documentary about the lepers?  These people were isolated and segregatred to an island in Hawaii (sounds like what people want to do to all convicted/registered sex offenders, and actually, I wouldnt mind Hawaii, since I'd have to go there to be with my husband if this happened  :-\).    But what struck me the most was how the public and the government so EASILY overlooked the family members of the infected/labeled lepers.  Not only where the lepers outcasts, but so were their family members, their children too.  It's one thing if we think a registered offender deserves any and all of the restrictions placed on him and their is no doubt that some deserve to be pecked by vultures in a dry desert for days till they die, but let's not forget that most of these guys/gals have families that love them and any time we attack them as a society we inadvertently attack their children and their spouses too. 

So if we agree with laws that ostracize and outcast sex offenders in the name of protecting children then lets be clear that we are in effect saying we don't care about the children of these registered offenders.  We don't care if they suffer from public ridicule and scorn, from being subjected to the same residency restrictions as their fathers/mothers, that we dont care if they are beat up in school because the other kids assume their daddy must be a child molester because he's on a website. 

There are so many problems with this, it's hard to tackle them all.  We've got to start back at the beginning, but since the genie is out of the bottle, that's almost impossible.  So instead, we tackle one issue at a time, as they crop up and as we are available and willing to do so, regarding this topic. 

Residency restrictions are an easy one for me.. they do not accomplish their goal of protecting children. 
Wtih the vast majority of abuse happening within the home, there is no way a residency restriction would deter or stop that type of abuse.  And for those that say that having a sex offender living near a park or school is like throwing steak in front of a dog, I'd say this:  that's based on the flawed logic that ALL sex offenders are mere seconds away from reoffending, against a stranger no less.  Since we already acknowledge that the term sex offender is so broad, it's easy to see that not all of these people would be mere seconds from offending.  And since research and medical statistics show us that predatory pedophiles represent the smallest group of registered sex offenders, we know that only a fraction of registered offenders are salivating with the thought of reoffending again.  And since predatory pedophiles almost always violate children within their direct circle of trust, that leaves an even slimmer chance that a residency restriction will stop them. 

What I suggested instead (and this is only to show all of you how 'balanced' I am.. lol) is that we can institute no loitering zones for registered sex offenders if people feel something needs to be done to address this 'what if' issue.   A man loitering at a park with no kids of his own or a school or place where kids congregate who IS a known registered sex offender can and should be subject to some sort of action.  I've got no problem with that.  But assuming that these guys can't walk 2000 feet to be near a park or school is just ridiculous.  And that's what residency restrictions do.  And we've got enough stupid laws already.  We don't need to allow any more to pass. 

Oh and we have 3 children.  And just for laughs... I'll share a snippet of conversation from one of my neighbors, who is homosexual.   One night while having drinks with these guys, one of them says to me... 'hey, with Mike being a registered sex offender it means people wont give us a second thought in the neighborhood'!  He said this in good fun and we took it in good fun.  All of our neighbors know us and know about us down here.  They probably know more about my husband's previous sex life than most people ever wanted to know about their neighbors  ;).  But the irony of his statement isnt lost on me... only a decade ago (and even to some degree today) it was the gays that were ostracized and shunned by a strong majority of people in this nation.  Granted they weren't doing anything criminally wrong (unless you consider that sodomy laws were being upheld in the 1990's), but nonetheless they were targeted as a group that brought fear to most parents. 

And to answer the question about whether or not I'd like a registered offender living next door (aside from the fact that we are that family):

I wouldnt like it, since it would lower my property value.

I wouldnt pay any more attention to my kids than I do now (since as a good parent, you WATCH your kids and you know where they are in the neighborhood and you would already be paying the highest possible level of attention to them.

I'd look the guy/gal up online and try to determine what their offense was really for and even call the police to ask if any extra information is available.  The police are allowed to tell you the age of the victim if you ask them.  If I didnt feel like I knew enough, or wanted to know more, I'd confront the offender in a non-threatening way and ask them to explain if they were willing to do so.  My feelings would also differ based on whether or not this man had a family and children of his own, versus just some old dude living alone.

But that said, the truth is, I've got criminals living all around me.  I know most of them weren't ever arrested, much less convicted, but I'm sure that they are guilty of trespassing or stealing or drunk driving or any number of drug offenses that they were not caught committing.  I guess I can be sanctimonious here, since I've never been arrested  8) )  But if Big Brother had cameras, I'd bet we'd be seeing a lot more of each other behind bars, wouldnt we? 

Laurie -

I remember watching Will's show (Will, a friend of mine, had told me about your story) and thinking that something does need to be changed. I think that the registry should not be the same for all "sex offender" crimes.....someone, who at 19 had consensual sex with a 15 year old, should not be treated the same way as a child molester or a rapist. Changing the registry requirements/categories would seem to me to be the biggest priority.

I do still have a problem with the whole consensual sex with a minor though. Once someone reaches the legal age of adulthood (18, I presume), there are ramifications that go along with that.  They are adults at that point - and knowing the age of someone they have sex with becomes the adult's burden. Ultimately, the 18 or 19 year old needs to think with the head on his shoulders and consider if the person he's about to have sex with is of consenting age...because if she is not, he's committing a crime. If he doesn't know that 15 year old well enough to know that she isn't 17, then maybe he shouldn't be having sex with her. If we chalk all of these instances up to them just being young, what would stop 19 year olds from pursuing 15 year olds (or 13 or 14) knowing that they could just say they thought she was old enough. Thinking they are old enough should not be enough. No matter what - they are the adult and the minor is still a child. It's an unfortuate situation that can easily be avoided.

That said, do I think your husband is a threat to society - no. Should he be treated the same as a predator - no. Do I want to give a pass to ALL 19 year old who have sex with someone under age - also no.

The details of the investigation sound wrong as well - but that, to me, is a different issue.

I also agree that those that are truly predators spend far too little time in jail.

Quote from: ny2nh on September 06, 2007, 06:47 AM NHFT
I do still have a problem with the whole consensual sex with a minor though. Once someone reaches the legal age of adulthood (18, I presume), there are ramifications that go along with that.  They are adults at that point - and knowing the age of someone they have sex with becomes the adult's burden. Ultimately, the 18 or 19 year old needs to think with the head on his shoulders and consider if the person he's about to have sex with is of consenting age...because if she is not, he's committing a crime. If he doesn't know that 15 year old well enough to know that she isn't 17, then maybe he shouldn't be having sex with her. If we chalk all of these instances up to them just being young, what would stop 19 year olds from pursuing 15 year olds (or 13 or 14) knowing that they could just say they thought she was old enough. Thinking they are old enough should not be enough. No matter what - they are the adult and the minor is still a child. It's an unfortuate situation that can easily be avoided.

It shouldn't be criminal for someone to do something they don't even know they're doing. This is called "strict liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29)," and it has no place in a free society. (To put our laws in context, many states' and even the federal government's statutory rape laws are not strict liability.)

It's true that in a relationship—sexual or otherwise—where one person is less mature or knowledgeable, the other person certainly bears additional responsibility to make sure they're not causing any harm, accidentally or intentional. This is just personal responsibility and common sense. Criminal liability should only apply here if true harm occurs and either actual intent, negligence, or recklessness can be proven.

As for disapproving of people having sex with someone they just met, and thus don't know well enough to trust—not my business. Shouldn't be anyone else's business either. I personally think doing so is highly dangerous—venereal diseases and the like—but I'm not about to negatively judge other people based on their sexual preferences. And even if I did think it was wrong in some moral sense, it shouldn't be illegal.

I don't want to drag this thread off-topic (that being organizing people opposed to sex-offender residency restrictions), so if we're going to debate the merits of sexuality law or cultural values, we should start a new thread.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 06, 2007, 09:44 AM NHFT
It's true that in a relationship—sexual or otherwise—where one person is less mature or knowledgeable, the other person certainly bears additional responsibility to make sure they're not causing any harm, accidentally or intentional. This is just personal responsibility and common sense. Criminal liability should only apply here if true harm occurs and either actual intent, negligence, or recklessness can be proven.

As for disapproving of people having sex with someone they just met, and thus don't know well enough to trust—not my business. Shouldn't be anyone else's business either. I personally think doing so is highly dangerous—venereal diseases and the like—but I'm not about to negatively judge other people based on their sexual preferences. And even if I did think it was wrong in some moral sense, it shouldn't be illegal.

Between two consenting ADULTS I would agree 100% - but we're talking about a child here....someone's son or daughter - and if that were MY son or daughter, I would think it was MY business and I would have a problem with it.

The burden has to fall on the adult.
[/quote]

Quote from: ny2nh on September 06, 2007, 12:50 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 06, 2007, 09:44 AM NHFT
It's true that in a relationship—sexual or otherwise—where one person is less mature or knowledgeable, the other person certainly bears additional responsibility to make sure they're not causing any harm, accidentally or intentional. This is just personal responsibility and common sense. Criminal liability should only apply here if true harm occurs and either actual intent, negligence, or recklessness can be proven.

As for disapproving of people having sex with someone they just met, and thus don't know well enough to trust—not my business. Shouldn't be anyone else's business either. I personally think doing so is highly dangerous—venereal diseases and the like—but I'm not about to negatively judge other people based on their sexual preferences. And even if I did think it was wrong in some moral sense, it shouldn't be illegal.

Between two consenting ADULTS I would agree 100% - but we're talking about a child here....someone's son or daughter - and if that were MY son or daughter, I would think it was MY business and I would have a problem with it.

The burden has to fall on the adult.

It's certainly the parents' business—but not the government's, unless perhaps the parent wants to make it so because something bad happened. That's another problem with the current statutory-rape laws, though: Neither the "victim" nor the parents thereof have any say in pressing charges.

Part of my concern over this issue is the rights of the people involved in the relationship being outlaws, but part of my concern is the rights of the parents—because the law currently steps all over those, too.

There are happy marriages where one person is a registered sex offender because the relationship started—and in some cases with the full acceptance by the parents—when one partner was underage. Did you know that in some states, marriage law is still at the younger ages of 13 or 14, but the sexual age of consent is at 16, so technically a married couple couldn't even consummate their relationship legally? Take a look at the last paragraph of Laurie's speech linked on the CURSOR (http://cursor.eprci.com/) site, too, for another example of similar insanity, where the parent herself got in trouble with the law for her daughter's relationship.

That's the result of legislating this.

Thanks NY2NH for your supportive comments.  Will is a great guy. 

My husband did ask her how old she was and she said 17.  What burden of proof does he need beyond that answer to know that his behavior is illegal?  There were other people there that night that heard her say the same thing.  In fact, when my husband met me (2 weeks later I might add), it was one of the first things he asked me "how old are you?" because, as you said, 18 is the ADULT age (even if they arent really men yet..) and he knew he had a responsibility to ask and not be involved with someone under 16.  So... at what point does he become criminally responsible (morally yes, but felony sex offender charges for life?)  It is not a defense in court to show you were mistaken and that is a HUGE problem.  I agree with you to some degree that a 19 year old who wants to bang chicks under 16 (the legal age) should not get a free pass.  An Aoc is necessary to prevent exploitive relationships in my mind, but I do not feel it must always be charged as a felony crime requiring sex offender registration for life.  If it was consensual (albeit gross) then shouldnt both parties share some of that burden?   And if that same 15 year old girl conspired to murder someone with my husband (or anyone), she certainly would be tried as an adult in almost every state.   If that same 15 year old girl 'conspired' with my husband to have sex, isnt she guilty of something? The irony is, had they committed murder together that night (as long as it wasnt premeditated) then my husband would most likely be out of jail by now, living a life free of these crazy restrictions and reporting.  Penatlies are supposed to be proportioned to the crime for a reason.  (Not because they dont all deserve punishment, but because if we start treating lessor crimes like major crimes, whats to stop people from just committing the major crimes if the punishment is the same?)

Unfortunately casual sex is all the rage amongst teens then and now (friends with benefits is a commong slogan).  It is completely and utterly disgusting for me to look back on my own behavior at that age... A reminder though, that penetration isnt defined by intercourse alone.  Using a finger (kids do this regularly in middle school/junior high, or at least they did 15 yrs ago when I was there) is also a felony crime, that nets you the same results as my husband.  A review board is desperately needed to look at these men and women on the registry individually to determine whether or not they belong there for life.  A fair number of them do not.  A fair number of them certainly do belong there for life.  But someone needs to discern that ... not just throw them into cubby holes based on offense.  It's a disservice to the community and an unncessary to shame to people like my husband. 

The next Manchester town meeting will be Tuesday, 2007-10-02, at 16:00, on the third floor (the "Aldermanic Chamber") of City Hall. See pages 50–62 of this document (http://www.manchesternh.gov/CityGov/CLK/mayor/files/A8AD9B1FA6D443D1A6916AC75C54ACDB.pdf) for the sex-offender residency restriction issue. There is also supposed to be a map of the proposed sex-offender–free zones, but I don't see it in there.

Laurie and I will be there.

The Manchester section (http://cursor.eprci.com/events/manchester/) of CURSOR has been updated.

Age of Consent -

Brazil - Menstruation/Ejaculation - puberty
Iran 9 (Technically illegal if you are unmarried but you can marry at 9)
Japan 13
Canada 14
Spain 14 (recently it was 13)
Italy 14
Germany 14
Cuba, Guatemala, Iceland, Peru, Chile, China, Russia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, & dozens of other countries - 14 or less

Raise the AOC to 15 or less & you get more than 50% of the world.

Even in this country - less than 15yrs ago (before Megans/Jessica's laws) there were 2 states I can think of off the top of my head (Maryland & New Mexico) where the AOC was 13.

Why is it wrong in the US but not several other countries?
Why is it wrong now & not then?

Jewish children become adults at 13 & 14 - several other cultures have similar rituals & rights of passage.

Mary was said to be between 12 & 17 when she gave birth to Jesus (14 or 15 is the most likely from what I have read).

The prophet Muhammad had a 9yr old wife (from what I understand & this is the reason for Iran's law) - though I believe the marriage wasn't consummated until she was in her early teens (I have not confirmed this information/belief however).

Not religious?  Science says sex is for procreation - you are ready to procreate when your internal biological "clock" says so (menstruation/ejaculation).  Mentally/Emotionally "ready"  - that is societies & more importantly parental responsibility & failure.  "Our" particular society glorifies sex & casual sex at that... "Our" society also (like most) glorifies youth.  We have Prepubescent girls wearing thongs that show above their low rise jeans, in miniskirts, & halter tops... imitating their idols, older sisters, & even mothers. 

So - Where does that leave me?

I'm a registered sex offender.

My "crime"? - consensual "contact" w/a female that was 14 (6wks from her 15th bday which would have made it a misdemeanor).  I was 30.  She was not a virgin & she persued me (w/her parents consent) for 2years (yes her PARENTS knew she had an interest in me since she was 12).  I am not here to talk about my "crime" beyond what I already posted (here & in other threads) - but the ramifications.

10yrs to life on probation, lifetime register as a SO & if I violate probation I go to prison for life w/no chance of parole.
$8500 in fines
$2500 in restitution (for her "therapy")
$60/week for brainwashing group (for a min of 2yrs)
$225 per polygraph (4-8/yr)

I can not live at my house because it is next to a school.
I can not live at my girl friends house because our daughter lives there (19 months old)
I can not run my business's because I may have "contact" with someone under 18 & now have a hard labor job (that pays very good though).
I can not go to restaurants, bars, clubs, or even order pizza.
I can not "use" dating services, craigslist, or any type of pornography (this includes Maxim Magazine).
I can not drink or even buy alcohol.
I've had to move twice because of "people" not wanting me in their neighborhood.
I have to be home by 8pm unless I am working or at my brain washing class.
I have to shop between 3 AM & 5 AM & get permission from my PO (because it is after curfew).
I have to take polygraphs to see if I am compliant
I have to go to brainwashing classes where I am not allowed to tell the story as it happened but how "they" want to here it (how I hid in the alley & offered her candy if she helped me find my lost puppy).
I have to write out my ENTIRE sexual history & name my partners from childhood to now... I am polygraphed on the accuracy of that as well as tell my entire family - past, present, & future - of my entire sex history.
I can not have ANY contact w/anyone under 18 - this includes delivery drivers, cousins, nieces/nephews, etc... contact means I can not see them, have pictures of them, buy them birthday presents, or even hear news about them (including my own daughter).

Most of that is bad - but I can handle it - even the class... what I can't handle is what "they" are doing to my daughter & her future well being & development.

I have not seen my 19month old daughter since I was in Jail - "they" wont let me.  When I was in Jail & she would visit w/her mother she would try & kiss me threw the monitor (visitors were in a separate building).  She would draw me pictures (at 15 months) & not let my girlfriend see them because they were for "daddy".  She kisses a picture of me every night before bed.  She will be hysterical & scream "daddy" "daddy" if my g/f & I are talking & she knows its me.  When she was just 2 months old she would cry if anyone including her mom held her but be calm if I held her.  We have (had?) a very strong bond - I am very concerned what this separation is doing to her.

Before I put my plea in I went threw what is called an Abel Screen to test my sexual interests - including homosexual & deviant - i.e. bondage, stalking, etc... (by the way it is 100% normal for adult men to be attracted to teen women, adult women to be attracted to teen men - & visa versa... I wonder why?) - I passed w/flying colors

After I got out of jail, my lawyer set me up with a thing in my state called a Parental Risk Assessment - if you pass it you are supposed to be allowed to be w/your family/kids.  I took a VERY graphic polygraph about my daughter specifically.  I took a  plethysmagraph (PPG) - I put a ring around my penis & looked at porn (including kids in their underwear) & listened to stories of men molesting/raping people from infants to adult, male & female... it measures blood flow & therefore sexual interest.  I had an interview w/a sex specific psychologist.  I PASSED ALL OF IT 100%.

"They" still won't let me be w/my family.

In this same state (CO) just 8yrs ago a friend of mine had a friend that was in his late 20's get caught w/a 14yr old & the cops questioned him & her & left it at that - no charges, no court, no nothing.

I know of a "guy" in AZ who molested his 8yr old step daughter - dropped $35k on a lawyer & was never even charged - WTF!?!?!?!?!

I know of a guy who met his "victim" in a bar - she had a fake ID.  After living w/her & getting her pregnant he finds out she is 14 (barely 14 when they 1st had sex) & is now a life time sex offender too.

In the old testament if you slept w/a virgin out of wedlock you had to marry her & pay her father 5k pieces of Silver.

In several countries AOC punishment is a fine or very small sentences (only in a handfull of countries is it as strict or stricter than most US States).

Don't get me wrong - I also think rape & sex w/pre pubescent kids is sick & wrong - molest my kid, rape someone in my family - & I will kill you - plain & simple... F@CK the "law".  However I am not so sure I have the authority to regulate someone else & there family (stemming from a conversation at the FSP board).  I am, however, sure that the AOC laws are mostly BS.

Life sentence - no, 5k pieces of silver - no, life sentence (outside of jail) - no, castration - no.  The only answer is to have the victim & in molestation cases - the family decide.  If they want restitution, treatment, jail,  or castration - depending on the circumstances then they should have a choice... not "the state".

Quote from: SpeedPhreak on October 01, 2007, 10:25 PM NHFT
...
Why is it wrong in the US but not several other countries?
Why is it wrong now & not then?

The modern concept of the age of consent arose in the Victorian period (England), and the Anglo countries seem to have quite the moral panic about children/teens and sex going on nowadays. England, the United States, Australia. Practically all the news about pedophiles you see comes from these countries. I'd point you to some resources online about the history of this stuff, but your therapists would no doubt see such materials as undermining their reprogramming treatment so it's probably best that I don't.

Quote from: SpeedPhreak on October 01, 2007, 10:25 PM NHFT
The prophet Muhammad had a 9yr old wife (from what I understand & this is the reason for Iran's law) - though I believe the marriage wasn't consummated until she was in her early teens (I have not confirmed this information/belief however).

I think you're talking about Ayesha bint Abu Bakr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages#Later_marriages). It's interesting that you bring her up in defense of lowering the age of consent; Islamophobes love to point to Ayesha as "proof" Muhammad was an evil child molester.

Quote from: SpeedPhreak on October 01, 2007, 10:25 PM NHFT
I'm a registered sex offender. ...

Thanks for posting your story, and welcome back, albeit a bit late—I only started coming here in June and wasn't aware of your situation while it was going on.

When do you think you'll make it up to New Hampshire finally? I can't say you'll have an easier time here with respect to the legal system—as you can see from this post and others, all the major cities, and many of the smaller towns are intent on passing residency restrictions making it as difficult to get by here as anywhere else—but I think a lot of freestaters will accept you. We do have a some social conservatives, of course, who'll probably think you're a child molester, but they—like everyone else, including myself—don't speak for the FSP or the "movement" in general; no one does, really.

I for one don't have a problem with what you did: For me, consensual is consensual, regardless of social custom or artificial numbers. In many cases social custom—especially sexual taboos—can be more oppressive than the State, so to me, true liberty means opposing both.

So again, welcome back, and I hope someday that'll be "welcome home." :)

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 01, 2007, 07:44 PM NHFT
The next Manchester town meeting will be Tuesday, 2007-10-02, at 16:00, on the third floor (the "Aldermanic Chamber") of City Hall. See pages 50–62 of this document (http://www.manchesternh.gov/CityGov/CLK/mayor/files/A8AD9B1FA6D443D1A6916AC75C54ACDB.pdf) for the sex-offender residency restriction issue. There is also supposed to be a map of the proposed sex-offender–free zones, but I don't see it in there.

Laurie and I will be there.

The Manchester section (http://cursor.eprci.com/events/manchester/) of CURSOR has been updated.

Still tabled.

The aldermen adjourned at 17:15, leaving all tabled items from last time, which included the sex-offender residency-restriction ordinance, tabled. Committee meetings usually convene until 17:30 but apparently the aldermen wanted to get out of there in a hurry tonight. The meeting was spent receiving updates from the police and fire departments, discussing new EZPass-like tracking devices that can be used at parking meters, and replacing the clutter of small signs in downtown Manchester with very expensive-looking "wayfinding devices" (larger signs).

Laurie Peterson, Mark Warden, and I were in attendance. Even though she didn't testify to the committee this time, the aldermen were definitely aware that Laurie was there in order to witness the proceedings, and will doubtlessly be following up with them individually later this week.

Leo Pepino, former alderman, showed up to speak in favor of the ordinance, but didn't get to do so as a result of their early adjournment. He was quite angry with them, calling them a "bunch of idiots" and grumbling about them being more concerned with dogshit than sex offenders. This was most likely a reference to last month's meeting where the aldermen spent most of their time going over the finer points of dogs fouling Manchester's city parks.

From where I'm standing, however, if the aldermen want to waste their monthly committee meetings discussing dogshit instead of passing it, in the form of new anti-freedom laws, that's just fine with me.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 02, 2007, 05:09 PM NHFT
Still tabled.

Awesome!!! Congrats!!

This is victory, best you can get in this situation.
And make no mistake, they didn't table it because they had Bigger Fish To Fry... they tabled if because they knew y'all would KICK THEIR ASS.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 01, 2007, 11:10 PM NHFT


Thanks for posting your story, and welcome back, albeit a bit late—I only started coming here in June and wasn't aware of your situation while it was going on.

When do you think you'll make it up to New Hampshire finally? I can't say you'll have an easier time here with respect to the legal system—as you can see from this post and others, all the major cities, and many of the smaller towns are intent on passing residency restrictions making it as difficult to get by here as anywhere else—but I think a lot of freestaters will accept you. We do have a some social conservatives, of course, who'll probably think you're a child molester, but they—like everyone else, including myself—don't speak for the FSP or the "movement" in general; no one does, really.

I for one don't have a problem with what you did: For me, consensual is consensual, regardless of social custom or artificial numbers. In many cases social custom—especially sexual taboos—can be more oppressive than the State, so to me, true liberty means opposing both.

So again, welcome back, and I hope someday that'll be "welcome home." :)

Thank you.

I don't know... honestly.  I know I can transfer probation - but my lawyer says its very difficult & "treatment" doesn't like to let people leave before they are effectively brainwashed.  Then again I don't know if I trust my lawyer - more than 1/2 the guys in my group/class are in similar situations & had the same lawyer... I wonder if he gets kick backs for working it out so we get probation & have to go to this particular group.

I was thinking of Puerto Rico - The AOC there is 14 & although I would still be on probation & be required to register the supervision would be lax & the "worry" wouldn't be there.

I have also toyed with the idea of "other" places (still).

If I do decide - it wont be for 2yrs probably... the min amount of time I have to be in treatment (many guys go 5 or 6 yrs & a few haven't left after 9).

Good news Manchester... glad to hear it.

Quote from: d_goddard on October 02, 2007, 05:38 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 02, 2007, 05:09 PM NHFT
Still tabled.

Awesome!!! Congrats!!

This is victory, best you can get in this situation.
And make no mistake, they didn't table it because they had Bigger Fish To Fry... they tabled if because they knew y'all would KICK THEIR ASS.

We didn't do anything other than be there. But yeah, hopefully they're getting to recognize Laurie and I, as this is our second appearance at one of these meetings.

Next up:—

Find out when the next meeting is. It seems they don't want this to become an election issue, and the elections are on November 6, the same day the PS committee meeting would normally be scheduled. So, they're going to try to slip another meeting in earlier, most likely.

I also wonder if this, like things at the state and federal level, gets dragged out until the end of the session (do aldermanic meetings even run in "sessions"?), it'll die automatically and have to be reintroduced from step #0 again by next year's aldermen.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 02, 2007, 05:09 PM NHFT
From where I'm standing, however, if the aldermen want to waste their monthly committee meetings discussing dogshit instead of passing it, in the form of new anti-freedom laws, that's just fine with me.

I've heard of this as a strategy actually.

You know about the concept of a bikeshed (http://bikeshed.com/) right?  Ditto goes to these committee's. Everyone can understand dog shit in a park, the issue of sex offender residency is a very complicated and controversial topic.

So in order to keep anti-freedom stuff from going through you bring a bunch of trivial meaningless stuff which everyone can agree on to their table as problems and let them have that warm fuzzy feeling as each person on the committee takes their turn to agree with the proposal and show that they're "doing something".  No time left, all other items tabled.

Quote from: ArcRiley on October 03, 2007, 07:51 AM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 02, 2007, 05:09 PM NHFT
From where I'm standing, however, if the aldermen want to waste their monthly committee meetings discussing dogshit instead of passing it, in the form of new anti-freedom laws, that's just fine with me.

I've heard of this as a strategy actually.

You know about the concept of a bikeshed (http://bikeshed.com/) right?  Ditto goes to these committee's. Everyone can understand dog shit in a park, the issue of sex offender residency is a very complicated and controversial topic.

So in order to keep anti-freedom stuff from going through you bring a bunch of trivial meaningless stuff which everyone can agree on to their table as problems and let them have that warm fuzzy feeling as each person on the committee takes their turn to agree with the proposal and show that they're "doing something".  No time left, all other items tabled.

We actually didn't try to instigate this last month—they wanted to talk about dogshit on their own initiative—but it certainly might be a good strategy to try next time.

Mark was concerned about these expensive wayfinding signs they want to put up; perhaps if that's on next month's agenda again, we can get them to spend the whole time arguing and debating over those things and push it out past 17:15 again. I was thinking about these signs, and perhaps if they were to sell space on the signs for the five points-of-interest they want to put on them, they could make the signs pay for themselves (right now they're slated to be the highway and/or traffic department's responsibility). Since the signs can only hold five lines, it would probably get quite competitive between the various businesses wanting to be on there, too.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 03, 2007, 10:00 AM NHFT
Mark was concerned about these expensive wayfinding signs they want to put up; perhaps if that's on next month's agenda again, we can get them to spend the whole time arguing and debating over those things and push it out past 17:15 again. I was thinking about these signs, and perhaps if they were to sell space on the signs for the five points-of-interest they want to put on them, they could make the signs pay for themselves (right now they're slated to be the highway and/or traffic department's responsibility). Since the signs can only hold five lines, it would probably get quite competitive between the various businesses wanting to be on there, too.

Awesome!!
If you can spend the time to line up a few business owners who would speak favorably to the idea, then Manchester has a whole new "issue" that will be discussed and debated for hours... and it's a pro-free-market idea, raising money voluntarily instead of by coercive taxes, so you'll be putting 'em on the defensive.

Thou Art Jedi.
8)

Quote from: SpeedPhreak on October 02, 2007, 07:02 PM NHFT
I don't know... honestly.  I know I can transfer probation - but my lawyer says its very difficult & "treatment" doesn't like to let people leave before they are effectively brainwashed.  Then again I don't know if I trust my lawyer - more than 1/2 the guys in my group/class are in similar situations & had the same lawyer... I wonder if he gets kick backs for working it out so we get probation & have to go to this particular group.

Court-appointed public defender? Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence...

Quote from: SpeedPhreak on October 02, 2007, 07:02 PM NHFT
I was thinking of Puerto Rico - The AOC there is 14 & although I would still be on probation & be required to register the supervision would be lax & the "worry" wouldn't be there.

New Hampshire law only requires people moving into the state to register if they were convicted of a crime in the state of origin that is "reasonably equivalent to a violation listed" (RSA 651-B:1 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651-B/651-B-1.htm)). A lot of jurisdictions' registration laws are similar to this; since it wouldn't have been illegal in Puerto Rico, are you sure you'd have to register?

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 04, 2007, 11:05 AM NHFT

Court-appointed public defender? Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence...

NO

thats what is the most messed up.  In my group alone he made 6 figures.  There is another guy I work w/who's wife falsified charges on him & has the same lawyer - the lawyer got him a defered sentence but had to do a year of domestic violence & a year of alcohol classes... he also can't have his guns until the defered sentence is over (to do the DV charge).

Looks like I would probably have to register in NH... but if I can live w/my family I would rather live in NH than PR I think.

As for PR I am not 100% sure.  I would check w/the courts there when I arrived.  I am going mostly on what my attorney has told me & the conversation w/a person from PR who will be transfering his probation there if he doesn't have to do prison time (for assault or something - not AOC or DV).

The next committee meeting in which the residency restrictions will be discussed will be held today, 2007-10-30, at 15:30 at Manchester City Hall. These meetings are usually held on the first Tuesday of the month, but since 2007-11-06 is election day, they need to sneak one more in beforehand.

Laurie and I plan to attend, and we've updated CURSOR (http://cursor.eprci.com/events/manchester/) about the meeting.

Tabled again. Taxinator, LaurieP, and I were there to observe and take notes.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 30, 2007, 04:34 PM NHFT
Tabled again. Taxinator, LaurieP, and I were there to observe and take notes.

One Little Victory!
:icon_cheers:

Quote from: d_goddard on October 30, 2007, 05:54 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 30, 2007, 04:34 PM NHFT
Tabled again. Taxinator, LaurieP, and I were there to observe and take notes.

One Little Victory!
:icon_cheers:

Sort of. Honestly, it just needs to die at this point. We're starting to think that the aldermen don't support the thing but are afraid to outright bring it forward and kill it. Even Mr. Roy, the original champion for the bill, doesn't seem to enamored by it at this point. Maybe after the elections one of them will grow some cojones and do this.

CURSOR (http://cursor.eprci.com/events/manchester/) has been updated with a bit more on this.

Leo Pepino, primary proponent behind this bill, ran for alderman this year, and lost.

:party-smiley-020:

Some related news: In Georgia, restrictions on where a sex offender could live were found to be unconstitutional (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/190774518/123649.html) -- as an abuse of eminent domain.

This discussion is continued on the new NHLA forum:—
http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=4.0