Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester

[J’raxis 270145]

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?

[Braddogg]

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"?

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

[KBCraig]

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.

[dalebert]

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.

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

[dalebert]

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

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.

[Rocketman]

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.

[error]

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!

[Rocketman]

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.

[error]

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.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

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

TITLE 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.

[LaurieP]

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?

[Rocketman]

Next 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).

[error]

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.