New Sex Offender Laws In Georgia

To be honest, I'd want clarification on how that is going to be implemented. I'm curious if the date was due to when the prior restrictions were passed and if they are now exempted due to overturning a law and ex post facto restrictions.

I agree that the actual nature of the offense should be taken into account. Some states have laws on the books making "sexting" by teenagers an offense categorized as worthy of being on the sexual offender registry.

They need to make it clear exactly what the offense is, and go from there. But I have no sympathy for true sexual predators who prey on minors. These people are sub-human and do not deserve to live.

Agreed. Whenever I think about the law catching up with technology, I can't help but remember the Napster fiasco.

If it's a Federal child-porn law, then the Feds need to address it. I must apologize for my lack of knowledge, but I do have my opinions on predators. Thanks for a very good post.

Yes my son is an adult and his girlfriend is 17, I just hold my breath until she turns 18 next month and he 19. I could see where the girlfriend at age 17 could get mad at the 18 or her parents could and boom record. That should be adjusted to within reason. But the real predators, well lets just say I have seen what the do and its not pretty.

In Virginia, moving a child 15 feet against their will is considered Abduction.

So, to put this in practical terms, if a babysitter picks up a kid and takes them upstairs to put them in bed, if the child says "no" they have technically done something that would put them on the sex offender registry, which would not detail their offense, just that it occurred and what the charge was.

This is but one example.

A babysitter has the authority from the parents, so I don't see how that could be construed as kidnapping in any court.

I doubt any prosecutor in Virginia would actually take this case, but I wasn't trying to present a great case for prosecution. I was backing the statement "Most Americans would be shocked to learn that they have done the same thing that has landed people on the sex offenders registry."

I have a friend who is on the registry. He was using the bathroom at his parent's house during some sort of social function. One of the neighbor's kids walked in on him as he was finishing up. The girl freaked out a bit and he attempted to calm her down . including holding her arms.

No touching occurred. She testified she never saw his bits nor were his pants ever open. When she told her father what had happened, she was asked "Did he touch you?"

My friend was prosecuted for abduction (for holding her arms) and a couple of other charges which I can't call to mind right now. He had an indecent exposure charge prior (which he got standing on his porch in swim trunks). His lawyer counciled him to plead out or he was looking at 2 years. He agreed, served his probation and was on the registry.

The static that comes with being put on the registry has caused him problems finding work and has gotten him harassed. This will follow him anywhere he goes and has made his life harder.

This isn't even getting into things like the lady who was sentenced to 40 years for having a teen touch her clothed boob or the 14 year old kid who was charged with abduction for taking a toddler out of a store while trying to find the toddler's mother.

Getting on the registry or being charged with a sexually based offense is surprisingly easy, comes with enormous penalties and once it sticks, is nigh impossible to get rid of.

Child rapists are horrid human beings, don't get me wrong. But not everyone on the registry is a rapist and depending on the state, they get treated the same as if they were.

That makes no sense to me.

It's the facts.

He did not have the right to take a child anywhere no matter what his excuse.

So you think there should be a chance he would be convicted and put on the registry for life for this? He brought the girl back inside when they saw nothing. He was charged the same as if he'd thrown her in a car and drove two states away. I fail to see how this is being "correctly charged".

I don't know anything about a case where a child touched a woman's breast, so I can't comment on that.

She made an inappropriate advance on a minor, held his hand to her chest and that was apparently the end of it. Because she refused to take a plea, it went to trial and she was convicted. Of a note, if instead of making the boy touch her, she'd killed him, she'd have gotten a lighter sentence.

I'm not saying what she did was good. I think it's good that it was brought to light. But the issue is that the punishment does not fit the crime.

And once again, all of these prove the point: What it takes to get on the registry is laughably minor.

Not every sexual assault is rape, so I don't know why you think that rape is the only thing that should be considered.

And also, I wasn't saying only rape should be considered. My point is that once one is on the registry, it is assumed that what you did was unthinkable and you should be executed in some gross and dehumanizing manner. The fact is that while many people on the registry have done the unthinkable, they are lumped in with people who have taken a whizz in public.That's not justice.

Many of those who commit lesser sexual crimes in the beginning accelerate in their assaults and become more violent at time goes by...

The average child rapist has raped 100 victims before he's ever caught. The average rapist is usually a serial rapist too, as are those who commit other forms of sexual assault.

I'm going to ask for backup on these statements. I see it said, but I don't see anyone linking to the proof.

There must be something more that would put it in perspective.

In Virginia, there is a principle that states that in child molestation cases, accusation equals proof. This means there needs to be no physical evidence, just an accusation.

The speculation I've heard is that the child thought she was going to be in trouble for walking in on him, so she lied to protect herself.

The lawyer asked the child directly "Did he pull your hand towards his privates" and she said yes. That is enough to convict even though she testified he never said anything suggestive, told her to touch him or actually touched anything, clothed or unclothed.

There was a case in England where two boys led a toddler away from a store, tortured and murdered him.

Fair enough, but the actually took him from sight of the store, I'm imagining. This kid took the toddler through the doors and onto the sidewalk. If he hadn't actually breached the door and just looked through the window, he'd have been charged with nothing.

Making a family fight a criminal conviction in court is not "better safe than sorry". It's using a sledgehammer to open a walnut.

The woman who put a child's hand on her breast is a sexual predator.

She was drunk and stupid. I don't know that means she needs to be put away for 4 decades. Also, nothing I read indicated that she'd done anything of the like before or any likelyhood she would again.

Misdemeanor offense? Sure. What is likely a life sentence? Hell no.

And while I understand that sexual abuse destroys people, I'm thinking the kid will recover from having one hand laid on her shirt. The punishment simply does not fit the crime.

But in the meantime, we need laws that try to protect future victims because they most assuredly will need it.

And what we don't need are laws that are easy to break and end life as you know it if you're convicted.

Okay, I never said that sex offenders don't re-offend. But that wasn't what you were arguing before.

Your contentions were 1) Sex offenders often become incrimentally more violent, which none of your links support and that 2) the average, not uncommon but average, child rapist has a hundred victims before he's caught. The link you provided to Wikipedia directly contradicts that, indicating that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than other criminals.

Yes, I did read about history. I'm not trying to play down the gruesome nature of the crimes or the actions of those who perpetrated them. You are saying this supports your statement that "Many of those who commit lesser sexual crimes in the beginning accelerate in their assaults and become more violent at time goes by...." While these crimes are horrible, I'm not sure they represent a verifiable trend.

Furthermore, your statements were in response to me pointing out that it's easy to get on the registry and it devastates your life if you are. The implicit argument is that it's justified to put a flasher away for life because eventually he's likely kill someone.

Again, I don't deny the heinous nature of the events you present. I'm saying that they do no support a statistical likelihood that justifies severe punishment of lesser crimes.

Second, I understand that not everything in Wikipedia is to be taken as gospel truth, but what I was referring to was a linked study by the Department of Justice. I would hope you'd accept that as perhaps somewhat unbiased.

The link you provide is about establishing likelihood of committing further or more aggressive acts, not about actual rates of re-occurrence.

It also does not, in any way, support your claim that the "average" child rapist has 100 victims prior to being caught. Even your previous link said that "23 men had an average of 175 victims each", which doesn't really give a good idea what range that was taken from, how truthful they were or if they were typical of the thousands who commit such unspeakable acts each year.

Third, sex addiction is a seperate issue. Sex addiction is about sex and leads people to cheat and be promiscuous. Rape is about power. One thing is not the other. If you can provide some correlation between sex addicts and rapists, I'd like to see it but I know of no such correlation. It's like saying gambling addicts are bank robbers because both things involve money.

I'll restate my point: You're making claims that I don't know can be backed up. And then you're suggesting them as justifications for laws that punish people severely even after they've served probation or jail time.

I don't think this a good line of argument and I don't think it helps anyone, including those trying to protect people from rapists and molesters.

I've given you plenty of links.

And I've demonstrated how those links do not support your argument.

You're going to deny there is any correlation because it suits your argument that these poor predators are gettting a raw deal.

I'm going to deny it because I haven't seen it demonstrated.

I'm not going to place the rights of a predator above the rights of the victims and potential future victims.

We're not talking about predators. We're talking about people who get lumped in with predators. You're not going to hear me defend someone who has committed a violent sexual offense. Your will hear me point out that witch hunts help no one, including the people you're trying to protect.

There is plenty of research that shows both that these predators do not stop their crimes, even after prision, and that they escalate in violence.

Then it should be no problem for you to back up your argument by presenting it.

Until there is a way found to change those facts, I support severe restrictions on them.

You've not presented facts to support your argument. You have presented things that "everybody knows", i.e. rumor.

However, I don't support the restrictions of them being on the streets so much as I do sentencing that prevents them from being on the streets again.

I agree; the punishment should fit the crime. And right now, it doesn't.

There is nothing that is going to give a victim back what they've lost. I think as a society, we want revenge more than we want justice for these offenses. It's understandable but it leads to the sort of madness we're seeing in the system now.

I think in the case of pedophiles there is documentation that they continue to be pedophiles upon their release and/or after "counseling", so LE is "erring" on the side of caution in protecting children....and I support this.

Loretta please don't bantar back and forth with LordFluffy, because he is obviously one of the persons, why these stricter laws were put in place.

Um... did you just call me a sex offender?

I'm not. I'm not on the registry. I've never been charged nor convicted. I've never done anything that would get me charged or convicted.

The reason I argue these points is exactly why I stated. I believe that the punishment, in many cases, doesn't fit the crime.

I've been called a lot of things on the 'Vine. This is the first time I've been disgusted by an accusation, however. Well done.

Though you've demonstrated one other problem with sex offenses: See those people who keep siting the "underage person who slept with his girlfriend, or the unrinating in public argument" These are the people who have not changed. As soon as someone is accused, it assumed they are guilty and if they are accquited, they escaped; the presumption of innocense goes out the window. A load of assumptions can be tacked onto them effortlessly and they can be dismissed as non persons for the rest of their days.

Which is all well and good if they've done something deserving. But put simply, there are people on the registry who haven't done anything of that caliber. Some of them have done stupid things. Some of them have done bad things that can be forgiven. Some of them have done nothing wrong. And they are lumped in with the people who have done horrible things on the registry.

But go on believing that all those who are on the registry got exactly what the deserved. After all, the justice system is perfect in every other way, right?

Loretta,

Thanks.