Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Registered Sex Offender should not apply here? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2008-11-06 12:12 PM
in reply to: #1789093

Expert
882
500100100100252525
Fort Bragg
Subject: RE: Registered Sex Offender should not apply here?
Wow. This is extreme and falls outside the scope of the intent of the law.

The military judicial system does not require indecent exposure offenders to register as sex offenders. It only requires folks who do an offense against another person. Someone who indecently exposes himself to a child would have to register however.

Not too long ago, the Georgia Supreme Court struck overturned a felony child molestation conviction for an 18 y/o boy who had sexual relations with his 16-17 y/o girlfriend. I don't recall the exact ages but it was something like that. The Georgia court recognized that it was abuse of the legislature's intent.


2008-11-06 12:15 PM
in reply to: #1789116

Expert
882
500100100100252525
Fort Bragg
Subject: RE: Registered Sex Offender should not apply here?
D.K. - 2008-11-05 10:39 AM

when there are over 100 participants, why are only 12 "arrested"?


They didn't do enough speed work in training.
2008-11-06 12:25 PM
in reply to: #1792388

User image

Champion
5615
5000500100
Subject: RE: Registered Sex Offender should not apply here?

berlinsd - 2008-11-06 1:12 PM Wow. This is extreme and falls outside the scope of the intent of the law. The military judicial system does not require indecent exposure offenders to register as sex offenders. It only requires folks who do an offense against another person. Someone who indecently exposes himself to a child would have to register however. Not too long ago, the Georgia Supreme Court struck overturned a felony child molestation conviction for an 18 y/o boy who had sexual relations with his 16-17 y/o girlfriend. I don't recall the exact ages but it was something like that. The Georgia court recognized that it was abuse of the legislature's intent.

I remember this one.  The problem was that the girlfriend fellated the boyfriend, instead of actually having sex with him.  Intercourse would have been fine under GA's "Romeo & Juliet" law but, because he got a hummer, it was a sexual offense against a minor; even though they both admitted it was mutual consent.

The moral of the story is not to have your buddies in the hotel room videotaping it.

2008-11-07 1:04 AM
in reply to: #1792327

User image

Master
1903
1000500100100100100
Portland, Oregon
Subject: RE: Registered Sex Offender should not apply here?
TriRSquared - 2008-11-06 9:59 AM
AcesFull - 2008-11-05 11:05 AM

This is what happens when you put in knee-jerk laws like "three strikes" or "Zero Tolerance." 

While I totally agree that in this case the "sex offeneder" labels is not deserved, how is 3 (not 1, not 2 but 3) strikes a "knee-jerk reaction".  Should we give criminals may 5 changes.  How about 10.  Yeah after committing 10 crimes we should lock them up.

Because 3 strikes laws are one size fits all, mandatory sentences encompassing more than just violent crimes. Quite often the "strikes" are penny ante things that happened before the 3 strikes law passed. Pee in the bushes in college = indecent exposure = strike one cuz nowadays that's classified as a "sex crime."Didja get busted for 1/4 oz of weed once back in the day? Well, that's strike 2 cuz now that's a dangerous drug crime and a class b misdemeanor that was included in the 3 strikes sweep.  Those USED to be just stupid things. Now, they're strikes. What is strike 3? The same dude 10 years later who is drunk and gets caught peeing on a bush after a bachelor's party? Or maybe one weekend he goes streaking? Why should my tax dollars pay for someone like that to be locked up at $2500/day when a perfectly reasonable judge can plainly see that three "stupids" in 10 years does not need jail time when the embarassment and a fine would do? Three strike laws don't make exceptions for "just stupid".  Or allow judges to do their jobs.

2008-11-07 6:54 AM
in reply to: #1789093

User image

Elite
3022
20001000
Preferably on my bike somewhere
Subject: RE: Registered Sex Offender should not apply here?
I'm sorry kids, I'm gonna have to bail on this thread. There is WAY too much logic here. It's making my eyes hurt.
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Registered Sex Offender should not apply here? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2