Man Loses Suit to Keep Identity off Sex Offender Registry

[BPSCG]

Link.

Quote:

John Doe must reveal who he is -- and that he was convicted 12 years ago of incest -- or face arrest for not submitting that information to Virginia's sex-offender registry, a Prince William County judge ruled yesterday.

Quote:

But VanLowe painted a picture of a changed man who has committed no further crimes. "This was a 1994 conviction,'' she said. "He has had no recidivist activity for 12 years.'' Forcing Doe to register now, she said, would violate his right to privacy and his ability "to maintain employment and his standing in the community.''

"You have to wonder,'' VanLowe added, "what the legitimate government interest is in requiring this plaintiff to register.''

Sylvester said the interest is in protecting the community. "We don't know that he hasn't committed another offense in the last 12 years,'' she said. "We just know that he hasn't been caught.''

Emphasis mine. Evidently the commonwealth's attorney wants him to prove a negative. We also don't know that the commonwealth's attorney hasn't committed any offenses in the last twelve years, do we?

[Art Vandelay]

If the only thing that he's been convicted of is incest, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no evidence that he EVER committed a crime. What business is it of the government's who someone has sex with? Was his partner charged with incest as well? And assuming that this law was passed relatively recently, isn't this ex post facto?

[HeavyAaron]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

If the only thing that he's been convicted of is incest, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no evidence that he EVER committed a crime.

There may be no evidense that he did something you consider wrong. But being convicted of a crime is strong evidense that he committed a crime. You seem to want to redefine crime as being something other that an action which breaks a law.

Aaron

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Link.

Emphasis mine. Evidently the commonwealth's attorney wants him to prove a negative. We also don't know that the commonwealth's attorney hasn't committed any offenses in the last twelve years, do we?

Absolutely, so to be safe we should put her name on the list as well.

[Dave1001]

I supect it was incest with a minor. Who gets convicted of having incest with a consenting person of legal age? That must be vanishingly rare.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

If the only thing that he's been convicted of is incest, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no evidence that he EVER committed a crime. What business is it of the government's who someone has sex with? Was his partner charged with incest as well? And assuming that this law was passed relatively recently, isn't this ex post facto?

Did you read the article?

Quote:

Doe is trying to block public disclosure of his longtime sexual relationship with his sister, which prosecutors said began when she was in first grade.

To answer your 2nd question about his partner being charged, I would question any claim that said a 6 year old has ever been charged with incest.

But it continued:

Quote:

Doe pleaded guilty at age 18 to misdemeanor incest, when his sister was 14.

I would agree that in this instance there's no reason for his name to be on a public sex offender list, particularily since that requirement was made almost 10 years after his conviction.

He's still an adult, she's a minor. You might argue that they're close enough in age to ignore it (if you want), or whether incest should be legal, but when you ask:

Quote:

What business is it of the government's who someone has sex with?

are you really saying the government had no business investigating all those catholic priests a few years ago? Or that child molesters should be ignored?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

I supect it was incest with a minor. Who gets convicted of having incest with a consenting person of legal age? That must be vanishingly rare.

All you need to do is get caught having sex with a relative, it was incest not statutory rape that he was convicted of after all.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

All you need to do is get caught having sex with a relative, it was incest not statutory rape that he was convicted of after all.

But I would think that was because the penalties were more severe for incest or some such thing? It would seem to me to be extraordinary if this incest he was convicted of was for consenting sex with someone of legal age.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by HeavyAaron

But being convicted of a crime is strong evidense that he committed a crime.

He was convicted of a misdemeanor. According to the Supreme Court, misdemeanors aren't crimes.

Quote:

You seem to want to redefine crime as being something other that an action which breaks a law.

If the Supreme Court can redefine words, why can't I? Besides, he didn't break a law. Just because a legislature passes a bill, that doesn't make it a law.

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

Did you read the article?

Not at the time of my post, no. It took several minutes to load.

Quote:

Doe is trying to block public disclosure of his longtime sexual relationship with his sister, which prosecutors said began when she was in first grade.

Since when do we impose punishments based on what prosecutors say? He very well have had sex with her when she was in the first grade, but he wasn't convicted of that. All he was convicted was incest. The issue is not whether we can go back and prove something that would justifiy him being on the list, but whether what has already been proven justifies him being on the list. If he belongs on the list, then everyone who has had sex with a relative, everyone who has had sex with someone of the same sex, and everyone who has had sex with someone of a different race belongs on the list.

And if he did have sex with her when she was in the first grade, he was then in the fifth grade, so if he was old enough to be responsible for what he did then, why wasn't she old enough to be responsible for what she did when she was 14? This doesn't really make sense.

Quote:

are you really saying the government had no business investigating all those catholic priests a few years ago? Or that child molesters should be ignored?

No, of course not.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Link.

Emphasis mine. Evidently the commonwealth's attorney wants him to prove a negative. We also don't know that the commonwealth's attorney hasn't committed any offenses in the last twelve years, do we?

And where have YOU been the last 12 years, eh?

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

He was convicted of a misdemeanor. According to the Supreme Court, misdemeanors aren't crimes.

If the Supreme Court can redefine words, why can't I? Besides, he didn't break a law.

You can. So can I. The difference is that when you or I do it the result is usually an obstruction to communication. When the Supreme Court does it their new definition becomes the new legal definition.

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Just because a legislature passes a bill, that doesn't make it a law.

That's true. It's not a law until the executive signs the bill passed by the legislature. So when the legislature passes a bils that does make it a law, if signed. It may be a law that's overturned later, but it is a law.

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Since when do we impose punishments based on what prosecutors say? He very well have had sex with her when she was in the first grade, but he wasn't convicted of that. All he was convicted was incest. The issue is not whether we can go back and prove something that would justifiy him being on the list, but whether what has already been proven justifies him being on the list.

I already agreed with that when I wrote:

Quote:

I would agree that in this instance there's no reason for his name to be on a public sex offender list

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

And if he did have sex with her when she was in the first grade, he was then in the fifth grade, so if he was old enough to be responsible for what he did then, why wasn't she old enough to be responsible for what she did when she was 14? This doesn't really make sense.

It doesn't make sense if you contradict yourself on what the issue is. As you pointed out, he was only convicted of the crime (or misdemeanor) that occured when he was 18 and she was 14. Therefore, he was an adult and she was a minor. You can't argue on the one hand that he wasn't convicted of anything when she was in first grade (and they were both minors), and then come back and argue that they should be treated the same because they both did something at the same age. She was 14. He wasn't convicted of anything he did when he was 14.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by shemp

And where have YOU been the last 12 years, eh?

I have been an employee of the government of the United States of America for the last 30+ years. So you know the NWO watches me 24x7, which explains why I have no children.

It really irks me that the commonwealth's attorney can get away with saying something like that. She's saying, basically, that because he committed a sex crime when he was 18, he has to be on a sex offender's registry because he can't prove he hasn't committed a sex crime since then. To me, this sounds like pure vindictiveness. You wouldn't treat a released murderer like that.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

It really irks me that the commonwealth's attorney can get away with saying something like that. She's saying, basically, that because he committed a sex crime when he was 18, he has to be on a sex offender's registry because he can't prove he hasn't committed a sex crime since then. To me, this sounds like pure vindictiveness. You wouldn't treat a released murderer like that.

It's astounding how prevalent this sort of attitude seems to be among career prosecutors (or at least those who have never practiced law outside of a prosecutor's office).

To so many of them, everyone accused is guilty, probably of 100s times more offenses than they are charged with at the moment. They've just been getting away with it until now.

AS

[Luke T.]

If the law is that all sex offenders must register, why should an exception be made for this guy? He qualifies as a sex offender under the law.

The problem is not that he hasn't been convicted of any other sex offense in the last 12 years. That is just a typical defense ploy. "He's been a good boy ever since, so an exception should be made."

The problem is that no differentiation is being made between the group of sex offenders such as hardcore rapists who grab kids off the street and rape them and the group of people like this guy.

In my state, such a differentiation is made and only the worst sex offenders are registered.

[Luke T.]

Aha!

Quote:

Virginia's registry has expanded to include nonviolent offenders such as Doe, which led to his lawsuit.

See? There's the problem.

[UserGoogol]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

And assuming that this law was passed relatively recently, isn't this ex post facto?

It depends, I suppose, on whether being put on a sex offender registry is legally considered a "punishment." Although sex registries annoy me, an argument might be made that they're merely "stating the facts," and that it's not a punishment. Of course, maybe being put on a sex offender registry is a punishment. It seems like something that's ambiguous, and as I am not a lawyer, I don't know where the law stands on it.

[Luke T.]

I'd like murderers and thieves on a publicly accessible registry. Just to be fair to the sex offenders...

[Walter Wayne]

How does the principle of irretroactivity apply to this?

What he did was a crime at the time he commited it. And the way the law is worded is that one can't be an offender and not be registered. However, it does seem somewhat to be part of the punishment to me, and applied retroactively.

Edit: I see saw already brought this point up.

[Checkmite]

The sex offender registry is not punitive. Oh, sure, in theory it could serve as a "deterrent" (even though in reality it doesn't deter anything), and I'm sure it makes some people feel very ashamed that other people may find out that they're rapists, molesters, and so forth. But none of that matters, because the sex offender registry wasn't made to "punish" the offenders - the jail time is for that. The registry is maintained for purpose of informing the interested community.

[TragicMonkey]

And supposedly the registry is also supposed to prevent sex offenders from living next door to elementary schools. Although according to the website that claims to map the locations of sex offenders' addresses, it doesn't seem to work at all. There are only so many places to live in a given city, and schools are specifically placed so that every residential area is close to one.

[Dave1001]

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

The sex offender registry is not punitive. Oh, sure, in theory it could serve as a "deterrent" (even though in reality it doesn't deter anything), and I'm sure it makes some people feel very ashamed that other people may find out that they're rapists, molesters, and so forth. But none of that matters, because the sex offender registry wasn't made to "punish" the offenders - the jail time is for that. The registry is maintained for purpose of informing the interested community.

It's not ostensibly to be punitive, but I think few could deny it's punitive in effect. I wonder if there is good science behind the utilitarian value to society of sex offender registries.

[OMGturt1es]

regardless of the letter of the law, it doesn't seem in the spirit of the law that a public list of sex offenders should include those convicted of incest. basically, for anyone honestly concerned with the welfare of their children, these entires just take time to sift through.

even if he did commit staturary rape, if he is to be listed as a sex offender based on an incest conviction, then those who were convicted of incest but did not commit staturay rape will need be listed as well, if all are to be treated equally.

on another a note, it sounds like he just had a really, really bad childhood. (or a good one, i guess, for those of you who have a thing for your sisters)

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

It's not ostensibly to be punitive, but I think few could deny it's punitive in effect. I wonder if there is good science behind the utilitarian value to society of sex offender registries.

The registry is nothing more than a system by which already-extant information about a specific class of crime is compiled and made easily cross-referenced. It's just another spreadsheet, in essence.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

You can. So can I. The difference is that when you or I do it the result is usually an obstruction to communication. When the Supreme Court does it their new definition becomes the new legal definition.

Are those supposed to be mutally exclusive? Surely, when the Supreme Court goes around redefining words so that their legal meanings are completely different from their actual meanings, that is a major obstruction to communication. And it is all the more pernicious because it is, by definition, politically motivated. What I am doing, however, is not an obstruction to communication but an aid. "Crime" doesn't merely mean "an action prohibited by statute", and it's a bit disingenuous to pretend it does. I don't believe that incest fits the meaning of a crime, and so I said so.

Quote:

It doesn't make sense if you contradict yourself on what the issue is.

I didn't.

Quote:

As you pointed out, he was only convicted of the crime (or misdemeanor) that occured when he was 18 and she was 14.

He was 18 when he was convicted. The article doesn't say how old he was when the alleged event occurred.

Quote:

You can't argue on the one hand that he wasn't convicted of anything when she was in first grade (and they were both minors), and then come back and argue that they should be treated the same because they both did something at the same age.

I didn't.

Originally Posted by Luke T.

If the law is that all sex offenders must register, why should an exception be made for this guy? He qualifies as a sex offender under the law.

The argument is that sex offenders present a special danger. The fact that he hasn't gotten in trouble suggests that he is not much of a danger.

Quote:

The problem is that no differentiation is being made between the group of sex offenders such as hardcore rapists who grab kids off the street and rape them and the group of people like this guy.

And apparently, in some states, they even include people who hire prostitutes.

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

It depends, I suppose, on whether being put on a sex offender registry is legally considered a "punishment."

No, whether it is CONSIDERED ex post facto depends on whether it's CONSIDERED punishment. Whether it IS ex post facto depends on whether it IS punishment. Whether it IS ex post facto does not depend on whether it is CONSIDERED punishment.

Quote:

Although sex registries annoy me, an argument might be made that they're merely "stating the facts," and that it's not a punishment.

That argument has been made, and it's crap. First of all, putting someone on the list implies something beyond merely the factual information. Secondly, if you require people to register, you're not merely stating the facts, you're forcing people to give you fact in the first place, which is something completely different.

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

The sex offender registry is not punitive.

Yes, it is.

Quote:

But none of that matters, because the sex offender registry wasn't made to "punish" the offenders

Yes, it was.

Quote:

The registry is maintained for purpose of informing the interested community.

No, it's not. The purpose of the registry is two-fold: to make the community FEEL informed, and to punish the offenders.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And supposedly the registry is also supposed

Isn't that redundant?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

The registry is nothing more than a system by which already-extant information about a specific class of crime is compiled and made easily cross-referenced. It's just another spreadsheet, in essence.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to this thread.

[schplurg]

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

The registry is nothing more than a system by which already-extant information about a specific class of crime is compiled and made easily cross-referenced. It's just another spreadsheet, in essence.

A spreadsheet to which one is required to register any time they change residence.

[Art Vandelay]

Which contradicts the "already extant" claim.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by schplurg

A spreadsheet to which one is required to register any time they change residence.

In addition, at least in my state, one must report once a year, in person, and in writing.

Merely a spreadsheet, as Joshua claims? Don't make me laugh. It's a severe restriction on where one can live. With the minimum distances from schools and day care centers required by my state's laws, effectively one almost has to move outside nearly any city to be in compliance. I know the police detective charged with the responsibility of keeping up with all registered sex offenders in my county, and she has a computer program into which she enters the offender's proposed new residence, and it shows all schools and day care centers within the minimum required distance by law on a map of the city. There are only small pockets of areas within the city that sex offenders can live in lawfully. In a very real sense, registration and the associated restrictions with it are nearly tantamount to exile from cities and communities.

The real world effect of the registration laws is that it drives a substantial portion -- perhaps a sizable majority -- of offenders required to register underground. They simply commit a new offense -- failing to register, which is itself a felony in my state and perhaps many others -- and further flout and undermine the purpose of the law. What purpose is that serving? How does that help make communities and their children safer?

I'm not taking up for actual predators of children. The uncomfortable fact remains, however, that once they serve their sentences and are released from prisons, they return to society. We have created a system whereby it is extremely difficult for them to do that lawfully, and have effectively booby trapped their return so that they will almost inevitably commit the offense of failing to comply with the community notification law (which is what my state calls sex registry requirements), and return to prison, even without having committed another sex offense.

Another glaring problem with my state's sex offender registration laws is that they are far too broad in scope. The class of offenses which require registration upon conviction is huge, and can include such minor offenses as urinating in public under certain circumstances. They are all placed under the same umbrella of "sex offenses." There is no distinction made between minor offenses and raping a 6 year old child.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Which contradicts the "already extant" claim.

Indeed. The police don't require most of us to provide advance notice of intent to move into a neighbor and to gain police permission before doing so. They also don't require us to report once a year in writing, updating our contact info, including telephone numbers.

AS

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Isn't that redundant?

I know you are, but what am I?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

No, it's not. The purpose of the registry is two-fold: to make the community FEEL informed, and to punish the offenders.

I disagree.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

Indeed. The police don't require most of us to provide advance notice of intent to move into a neighbor and to gain police permission before doing so. They also don't require us to report once a year in writing, updating our contact info, including telephone numbers.

AS

That's presumably because most of us haven't been convicted of a sex offense.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

But I would think that was because the penalties were more severe for incest or some such thing? It would seem to me to be extraordinary if this incest he was convicted of was for consenting sex with someone of legal age.

Why, it is against the law, all you need is the evidence and you are golden.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

The sex offender registry is not punitive. Oh, sure, in theory it could serve as a "deterrent" (even though in reality it doesn't deter anything), and I'm sure it makes some people feel very ashamed that other people may find out that they're rapists, molesters, and so forth. But none of that matters, because the sex offender registry wasn't made to "punish" the offenders - the jail time is for that. The registry is maintained for purpose of informing the interested community.

To promote ostracising them and thus punishing them more.

[Darat]

Is there any evidence (yet?) that these types of registers and restrictions have in fact reduced incidences of violent crimes against children?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

That's presumably because most of us haven't been convicted of a sex offense.

My remark was made in partial rebuttal of your use of the term "extant" information. As Art pointed out before me, it's not extant without registration laws. Sorry you missed the point, Joshua.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by Darat

Is there any evidence (yet?) that these types of registers and restrictions have in fact reduced incidences of violent crimes against children?

I seriously doubt it. I suspect very strongly, and with some anecdotal observations, that they have had four primary effects:

1) To provide politicians a cheap, easy way of scoring points with constituents;

2) To make the public, especially parents of young children, feel good that something is being done to make their children safer;

3) To create yet another unfunded mandate upon local law enforcement agencies which have insufficient resources to implement and follow through with the programs consistently;

4) To effectively exile or drive underground and make outlaws all "sex offenders," who are caught within the ambit of the registration laws (as I commented earlier, many of the states' laws are over broad and sweeping).

AS

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

There are only small pockets of areas within the city that sex offenders can live in lawfully.

So, as a result of the Law of Unintended Consequences, do we therefore end up with neighborhoods with a high concentration of sex offenders? I await the day that some politician has his staff map where the sex offenders live, and then yell that "Shadyside Heights has become a haven for sex offenders, and if you elect me, I'll do whatever it takes to make sure our children are safe!"

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

So, as a result of the Law of Unintended Consequences, do we therefore end up with neighborhoods with a high concentration of sex offenders? I await the day that some politician has his staff map where the sex offenders live, and then yell that "Shadyside Heights has become a haven for sex offenders, and if you elect me, I'll do whatever it takes to make sure our children are safe!"

Bingo! The Law of Unintended Consequences absolutely applies to this, and probably to most reactionary laws. Megan's Law was pure feel good legislation, without much thought put into it. It's led to a disaster, and from my perspective, has only served to make parents feel far more insecure about child abductions and sexual abuse than they were before. The news media outlets don't seem to help much in that regard.

I'm with you that someone someday will seize upon the pockets of degeneracy and vow to stamp them out once and for all. Australia, look out. A bunch of pedophiles are on their way, courtesy of several US states. If you don't want them, I suppose the ships can turn south and dump them on Antarctica. I'm sure the public in the US won't care. After all, they're monsters we're deporting.

Sheesh. The rhetoric surrounding this kind of nonsense is almost as sickening as the crimes being discussed.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

That's presumably because most of us haven't been convicted of a sex offense.

Well, for goodness' sake, Joshua, don't come to my state and get a BJ. It's within the statutory definition of sodomy, and sodomy is one of the many sex offenses covered by our registration law. Consent doesn't matter.

Get a BJ, get prosecuted, and you too can find yourself homeless.

Godspeed, Joshua.

AS