Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge at the Political Forums; The Georgia Supreme Court has upheld a provision of the state's sex offender registry law that requires some people who ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2010, 11:23 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,216
Thanks: 9,965
Thanked 15,063 Times in 9,133 Posts
Post Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

Quote:
The Georgia Supreme Court has upheld a provision of the state's sex offender registry law that requires some people who have not committed sex crimes to register as sex offenders.

The law, said to be one of the toughest in the nation, allows the state to keep a tight leash on child molesters, rapists and other sexual predators after they have served their prison time. But it also requires anyone convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment of a minor to register as a sex offender regardless if a sexual act was committed.

The challenge was brought by Jake Rainer, who committed a drug robbery in Gwinnett County in May 2000. Rainer and his co-defendants picked up a 17-year-old girl who was going to sell them some marijuana. Instead of making a deal, they drove her to a cul-de-sac, took the pot and abandoned her.

Rainer pleaded guilty to robbery and false imprisonment. Because of the latter conviction, he now has had to register as a sex offender. This means he cannot live or work within 1,000 feet of places where children congregate, such as parks, schools and swimming pools.

Writing for a 5-2 majority, Justice Harold Melton rejected arguments that the provision, as applied to Rainer, was cruel and unusual punishment. Sex offender registry laws, Melton wrote, "are regulatory, not punitive, in nature."

"Because the registration requirements themselves do not constitute punishment, it is of no consequence whether or not one has committed an offense that is 'sexual' in nature before being required to register," Melton wrote.
Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge | ajc.com

This is ridiculous.
The whole point of "sex offender" restrictions is to try to prevent a sex offense.

Plus, there SHOULD come a point of reason whereby people can recognize the difference between a "classic" "sex offender" (one who is expected to repeat) and a guy who did something stupid that happened to involve a minor that will probably never do it again...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2010, 03:42 AM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 74,567
Thanks: 53,406
Thanked 25,482 Times in 18,115 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

I agree it sounds bizarre. Maybe in legalese the registration isn't punitive, but tell that to someone who can't pick up his own kids from grammar school because of a non sexual indiscretion in his past.
__________________
Humans Less Than 1% of Life on Earth, But Have Destroyed Half of Its Plants, More Than 80% of All Mammals
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2010, 08:28 AM
jabbo's Avatar
Village Idiot
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Miles away from my Immortal Beloved
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,997
Thanks: 1,409
Thanked 1,559 Times in 1,048 Posts
Default Re: Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge | ajc.com

This is ridiculous.
The whole point of "sex offender" restrictions is to try to prevent a sex offense.

Plus, there SHOULD come a point of reason whereby people can recognize the difference between a "classic" "sex offender" (one who is expected to repeat) and a guy who did something stupid that happened to involve a minor that will probably never do it again...
Agree with both points. The current laws are a classic example of how we sometimes address a very serious problem with overkill and shrug our shoulders when the "solution" goes beyond the problem. From a political standpoint there's no hope for change, though - the argument that treating a convicted criminal unfairly is worse than letting a child molester slip through the system is a non-starter.
__________________
_____________________________________________

“A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else." Fyodor Dostoevsky
_____________________________________________

"Public office is the last refuge of the incompetent." Boies Penrose
_____________________________________________

"Just an old sweet song keeps Georgia on my mind" Stuart Gorrell
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jabbo For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2010, 09:05 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 11,288
Thanks: 9,083
Thanked 7,328 Times in 4,719 Posts
Default Re: Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

Even the legal definition of sex offender has some very serious problems in it.

Example: and 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old. Statutory rape if the parents push it, and that goes on the SO registry.

Locally, we had one such problem as noted above. The 18 year old (with no other offenses) who is now 48, built and opened a furniture store, was doing extremely well.

It was within a 1000 yards of a Church, who then opened a day-care center.

He had to sell his business.

This I'm sure is not the only example of the miscarraige of a law with the best intents. The defining line of stupidy and criminal is very gray, but it needs to be addressed.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2010, 09:48 AM
MrLiberty's Avatar
professional curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,506
Thanks: 21,953
Thanked 18,608 Times in 11,935 Posts
Default Re: Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

Common Sense Has Flown Out The Window!
__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MrLiberty For This Useful Post:
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2010, 01:56 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

I don't agree with how this law was implemented, but I can understand why it was. Someone who kidnaps a child with the intent of raping them, but gets caught before they can commit that crime may not be a SO by the legal definition, even if they admitted to the intent or there was sufficient evidence to indicate that this was the reason for the kidnapping. I think that there are definitely situations where this is very much warranted, but not in every case.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to faithful_servant For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2010, 10:30 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,216
Thanks: 9,965
Thanked 15,063 Times in 9,133 Posts
Post Re: Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
I don't agree with how this law was implemented, but I can understand why it was. Someone who kidnaps a child with the intent of raping them, but gets caught before they can commit that crime may not be a SO by the legal definition, even if they admitted to the intent or there was sufficient evidence to indicate that this was the reason for the kidnapping. I think that there are definitely situations where this is very much warranted, but not in every case.
I can understand the "why" of what you say, but the explanation is incredibly repugnant to me.

It bypasses the very requirements of proof that our country has established.
It says "We don't have to actually prove you were doing it or going to do it. We get to ignore that and get our desired sentence anyways...

There is a philosophy of law that states: "It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted"
Here, we've bypassed that entirely.

(And I don't think you gave an explicit opinion on the discussed philosophy, but I will give mine...)
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-18-2010, 10:57 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,812
Thanks: 857
Thanked 1,006 Times in 645 Posts
Default Re: Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

I think sex offender registries should only have rapist,child molesters/rapists,statutory rapist(if the victim in question is 12 and under),child sex trafficking and those who attempt to do those things. I think requiring some guy banged his 16 year old girl friend(or some chick who banged her 16 year old boyfriend),some drunk guy or girl pissing in the bushes, and prostitutes to register as sex offenders are a misuse of what those types of laws were designed for. Those laws are designed to protect little Suzy and little Timmy, not be be misused by someone who doesn't like who is daughter is dating, or to go overboard by requiring prostitutes and drunks register as prostitutes.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-18-2010, 01:47 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: Ga. Supreme Court rebuffs sex offender registry challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I can understand the "why" of what you say, but the explanation is incredibly repugnant to me.

It bypasses the very requirements of proof that our country has established.
It says "We don't have to actually prove you were doing it or going to do it. We get to ignore that and get our desired sentence anyways...

There is a philosophy of law that states: "It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted"
Here, we've bypassed that entirely.

(And I don't think you gave an explicit opinion on the discussed philosophy, but I will give mine...)
I clearly stated that if the intent was proven, then I'd say that it's entirely warranted, but only if that intent was clearly proven.

Here's a hypothetical situation:

A woman is arrested for kidnapping a 10 year old girl for her husband to sexually abuse. Should she be registered as an SO???
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
challenge, court, offender, rebuffs, registry, sex, supreme

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0