After Prison, Few Places for Sex Offenders to Live

[question everything]

FEBRUARY 19, 2009

After Prison, Few Places for Sex Offenders to Live
Georgia's Rules That Keep Some Convicted Felons Far From Children Create Challenges for Compliance, Enforcement

By STEPHANIE CHEN
WSJ

CEDARTOWN, Ga. -- After two years of fitful searching, Christopher Noles and his family finally found a modest three-bedroom house in rural Georgia. The bedrooms are cramped, the kitchen plumbing leaky. There isn't a neighbor in sight. But the lonely old house is a last refuge. Mr. Noles is one of nearly 16,000 sex offenders convicted in Georgia who, under state law, can't live or work within 1,000 feet of a church, school, day-care center, skating rink, park, swimming pool or any other place where children gather. Failing to register an address could mean 30 extra years in prison for a convicted sex offender.For Christopher Noles and his family, this three-bedroom house in rural Georgia is a last refuge. Being listed in a database of sex offenders, Mr. Noles can't live or work within 1,000 feet of any location where children routinely congregate.

The crime that placed Mr. Noles, now 31 years old, in Georgia's database of sex offenders was having sex in August 1996 with his girlfriend. He was then 17, while she was 14. Both said the sex was consensual, and they later wed. But state law at the time said it was statutory rape for either an adult or a minor to have sex with someone under the age of 16. After the girl became pregnant, a family member reported the liaison to police. Mr. Noles pleaded guilty and spent three months at a prison boot camp. He thought he paid his debt to society. But under a 2006 Georgia law, Mr. Noles and nearly every person convicted of any of dozens of crimes considered sex offenses must be listed on a publicly available database. They must keep police notified of their address at all times and can never reside or work near any banned area. An additional requirement prohibits any convicted sex offender from volunteering at church. Mr. Noles says he skips all church activities -- including a play in which his 11-year-old daughter performed at Pleasant Valley South Baptist Church in Silver Creek, Ga. "I'd rather be able to tuck my kids into bed every night than to have to dream about them from prison," he says.

Laws cracking down on sex offenders enjoy broad public support across the U.S. All states require offenders to report to law enforcement, but Georgia's statute is considered to be among the toughest such laws in the U.S. for its living restrictions and sentences. The law has set off messy conflicts between politicians and others who argue sexual criminals should be aggressively tracked and isolated and those who say lawbreakers -- especially juveniles and nonviolent offenders -- deserve a second chance. Among the most vocal critics of the laws are police. Some sheriffs say the crackdown on sex offenders forces them to divert substantial resources from investigating active criminals to monitoring and tracking offenders who aren't threatening. Enforcing the additional restrictions from the 2006 law cost sheriffs' offices about $5 million in 2007, says the Georgia Sheriffs' Association.

(snip)

Law-enforcement officials say the law has forced many sex offenders to move. According to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of records compiled by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, more than 8,400 of the sex offenders on the registry, or 68%, moved between June 2006 and November 2008 -- far higher than in previous periods. More than a hundred left the state entirely. Still hanging over those listed on the Georgia registry is a provision approved as part of the 2006 law forbidding them from living within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop. But enforcement of that requirement was stayed by a federal judge in response to a lawsuit filed by several sex offenders. If the measure ultimately goes into effect, the vast majority of Georgia would be legally uninhabitable to anyone on the registry, according to sheriffs across the state.

(snip)

But soon there were signs that the newly strengthened law might have gone even further than intended. Law-enforcement officials were required to order hundreds of people to move. The requirements make no distinction between the most heinous sex offenders -- such as child rapists -- and those who had consensual sex with an underage girlfriend. More than 800 of those on the Georgia list committed their offenses before they turned 19 years old, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. Since then, exceptions have been added to Georgia's statutory-rape laws reducing the charges against minors having sex.

(snip)

At the time the 2006 law took effect, Mr. Noles, then a truck driver, was busy dropping off loads at Davenport Lumber Company in Rockmart, Ga. After getting divorced from his first wife of seven years, he was raising his newborn son with his second wife, Rita. The sheriff told him to stop delivering to the lumber company because its grounds bordered a church. It made no difference that Mr. Noles didn't work on Sundays, rarely was at the lumber yard and had letters from his boss begging a probation officer to let him stay, citing a clean, two-year work history. For the last two years, he has been unemployed the majority of the time, scraping by as a freelance construction worker.

(snip)

ttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500941182818821.html (subscription)


Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16

[MadBadger]

1. Another Bullshit Sex Offender notation

*sigh*

[question everything]

47. I take it, then, that when you were in your teens

you were not engaged in sexual relations that could have put you in a position of a statutory rape?

I remember a few years ago a young boy in Georgia was sent to many years in prison for this and it raised a national protest that, I think caused the law to change.

This case is summarized in post #42, below

[elocs]

2. Unfortunately, true sex offenders have a very low rehabilitation rate and a high recidivism rate,

but the law in all of its self declared wisdom has made all sex offenses equal where a pedophile and a man in a Romeo/Juliet affair both get classified as sex offenders and have their names added to the list. Then all concerned citizens make it their duty to hound these people from one end of the land to the other, pretty much assuring the failure of the true sex offenders that do want to reform. There are probably a lot of guys who met a younger girl while they were both in high school together and by the time she is a senior he may be 20 years old and subject to the mood of a pissed off dad and then his life is pretty much ruined when he is put on a sex offenders' list with the ones who have committed truly disgusting sexual crimes. I wish someone had an even near perfect answer, but let's face it, our criminal justice/prison system is pretty much a shambles.

[napoleon_in_rags]

6. Thanks for pointing that out, its not known nearly enough.

I work in mental health, and I've worked with "sex offenders". The label applies to true predatory offenders, but also to adults with the mind of a 5 year old who took off their clothes in a public place (indecent exposure). There is a UNIVERSE of difference between the different people who have this label applied to them.

[sandnsea]

7. And children are no safer

when we don't differentiate. That's the really sad part. If we truly targeted the most dangerous, which is what I think most parents want, then we could keep track of them because there aren't that many. But the way they've thrown absolutely everybody into the mix is ridiculous. The only good thing that might come out of these budget cuts is some common sense in targeting the most dangerous offenders and letting the rest work out their crimes in some other fashion.

[marksmithfield]

16. The pedaphiles that target small children

have no value to society at all and should face a slow and painful execution. Other sex offenses such as exposure should be monitored. Sex between teens on the other hand should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[elocs]

34. That's an understandable thought that has a very large problem.

What if a pedophile abuses small children, but does not kill them? If he knows he already faces a death penalty for abusing them, what would be the point in not killing them then to eliminate a witness (often children can be intimidated into not telling). Then there would not only be an abused small child, there would be a dead one too, more dead ones than there are. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[MattBaggins]

93. I'm going to go ahead and do a no no and call you out as

a freeper troll. Tread very lightly when you start deciding who is "of value to society". Some day someone might decide you are of no value.

So what benefit do we get from a "slow and painful" execution other than feeding your sadistic tendencies; which could be easily labeled as coming from the same illness as pedophiles have.

Talk about helping even more pedophiles to get away with it. You are aware that no little child is ever going to report Uncle Chester if they know he is going to be tortured to death?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Juliet was 12.

I certainly take your point, but I think the choice of phrase is unfortunate.

[elocs]

36. That is what that type of relationship is known as in those situations.

It's not something I simply made up, but is used to identify a consenting and sexual relationship between a minor female and who is a few years older. The difference between a girl being 15 and a guy who is 18 is the same as 18 and 21, but if the girl is a minor and below the age of consent that difference is legally huge even though the two may have met in school.

[elocs]

43. Again, that is simply the terminology used in these situations.

I am sure that nobody who is rational believes that sex with a 12 year old girl is ok today. Historically that was once a different situation. Plus, I am willing to bet that your average person on the street has no idea that Juliet was just 12.

[JackDragna]

64. Although the true hardcases do reoffend..

..as a whole, like you said, the category has been broadened so much that any statistic is meaningless. Actually, as a whole, sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any type of felon.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

102. How confident are you of that?

Most of the sources I've seen say the reverse - that sex offenders have lower reoffence rates than practically any other category of offenders.

[izquierdista]

3. I'll be amused

To see the size of the lynch mob that assembles here to hang Mr. Noles. Why it's pretty much the same thing that Roman Polanski was accused of and all the comments on that thread were screaming for blood. Maybe Roman needs some construction work done and can give him some work.

[exboyfil]

4. Actually the accusation was that Polanski gave alcohol and drugs to the girl

and no prior relationship existed (ie some sort of courting ritual that led to sex). Also he was 34 and the girl was 13 hardly the same situation at all.

[seabeyond]

26. obtuse comparing a 30 something yr old fucking a 13 yr old and

a 17 and 14 yr old.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Situations are not comparable

[Raskolnik]

61. You cannot be serious.

Comparing a 34 year old drugging and raping a 13 year old to consensual sex bewteen a 17 year old and a 14 year old is ludicrous.

edit typo

[lonestarnot]

5. Maybe they should just get together and start a sex abuser commune and abuse one another.

[readmoreoften]

8. A 17 year old dating and marrying a 14 year old isn't abuse. It's reality.

It makes me sick to see laws abused like this. If you have sex with and marry someone with a 3 year age difference and you're still married to her when you're 31 and she's 28, you're not a sex offender. Fucking preposterous.

[izquierdista]

10. Maybe Georgia is more lenient

When it is kept in the family. :shrug:

[question everything]

48. A correction

They were married for 7 years than divorced - not surprising with teen marriages - and is now married to his second wife.

But your point is well taken.

That story generated many online comments, the first read:

"This is brutal. I was a deputy sheriff for 25 years and I'm here to tell you: Our rules regarding sex offenders that have a low risk to society are just plain draconian. We're way off base here."

[Why Syzygy]

9. He had sex with a 14 year old!

No pity here. She is still a child.

[NutmegYankee]

11. And so was he for that matter, your point?

They were both children, and people under 16 have sex.

[Why Syzygy]

12. A 17 y/o is not a child. A 14 y/o is.

Having sex doesn't make one an adult.

[varkam]

15. I'm pretty sure that, under the law, a 17 year old is a minor.

Further, there's evidence that suggests that the "adult" brain isn't fully formed until the mid-twenties or so

Most states do have a romeo & juliet provision in the law that does not criminalize sex between two minors. GA, however, did not.

[elocs]

42. Here is another GA case from a few years ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/22/opinion/oe-edelman22

There is a boy in Georgia who almost beat the odds. An African American born to a 15-year-old, drug-addicted mother and an absent father, Marcus Dixon nonetheless went on to become an honor student and all-state football star. His football skills, 3.96 grade point average and 1,200 score on his SAT won him a full scholarship to Vanderbilt University.

Marcus, 19, was supposed to enter Vanderbilt last fall. Instead, he is serving a 10-year prison sentence with no chance of parole for having consensual sex when he was 18 years old with a white girl who was three months shy of 16. He is the only person in Georgia history this close in age to his victim to be convicted of “aggravated child molestation,” a charge that was intended to protect children from predatory adults, not imprison teenagers for having sex with other teenagers.

More at the link.

Dixon was acquitted by the jury of statutory rape charges after 20 minutes of deliberation (a maximum 1 year sentence), but he was convicted of child molestation which carries a 10 year sentence. After serving 15 months in prison the GA Supreme Court ruled 4-3 (that close) that he should only have been prosecuted on the rape charge and he was released, but his life was forever changed. He did, however, sign with the Dallas Cowboys last year as an undrafted free agent and in August he was placed on their practice squad, but there are those who still view him as a pedophile and child molester and news and sports stories still use that label in reference to him so he will never escape it.

[question everything]

49. Thank you. Yes, I was thinking of that case as I read and post

this story.

We do need to make a distinction when there a consensual sex between teenagers. Not every 14 year old is the same, which may be one reason why the age of consent varies from one state to another.

[LisaL]

41. 17 y/o is underage.

[elocs]

51. Underage, but the age of consent for sex varies state by state. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

88. Considering that adulthood starts at 18, yes it is. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

13. Where do you want to draw the line?

Okay for a 10 y/o and 13 y/o? Seven and 10? Where's YOUR line?

[PVnRT]

21. Where's your line?

How would you handle it?

[Bill McBlueState]

66. We're not really talking about "okay" versus "not okay"

more like "not okay" versus "warrants the sort of punishment the guy in the OP has to deal with"

[Xithras]

71. My line is "Same peer group"

Would I support a prosecution if a 10 year old and 7 year old were caught having sex? Absolutely not. Sexual activity is inappropriate at that age, but there are other ways to deal with the problem. A 10y/o and a 13y/o are borderline and would depend on the circumstances.

It's not the age, it's the peer groups and social development.

[Why Syzygy]

80. Reasonable answer.

However, I don't consider an 8th grader and 12th grader being the same peer group.

I also don't believe the law is reasonable.

[Xithras]

81. Most 14 year old's are in high school.

Unless you start your kid a year late, or they get held back, 14 year olds should be in high school.


G Age
K 5
1 6
2 7
3 8
4 9
5 10
6 11
7 12
8 13
9 14

High school kids generally fall within the same peer group.

Under 21, it's also generally a good idea to apply the "Three Year Rule" to these sorts of things. Sexual activity between children and teenagers is a reality, but it's NEVER a good idea for the gap to be bigger than three years. A 14 and a 17 year old is OK, a 13 and a 17 year old is not. A 12 year old and a 14 year old is understandable. A 12 year old and a 16 year old is not.

The Three Year Rule traces back to peer groups anyway. As kids, our peer group is almost exclusively made up of people up to 3 years older and younger than us. That's true for kids from toddlers to college age teens. Most people don't start expanding their social circle to a wider age group until their post-college years.

[NutmegYankee]

89. It may outrage people, but it's not criminal.

Spare me the BS Outrage - I'm a realist. Also, it is very rare to see sex below the age of 12.

[Why Syzygy]

94. Frankly, I blame

the lack of education children receive about sex. In the OP, I assume if the young lady had not become pregnant, nothing would have come of it. I have one son who was a virgin until the age of 25. His choice. When we first started discussing it (5th grade), I explained that when you're with someone, they become a part of you forever. He has reminded me of that. He didn't forget. I've heard that from men, too, so try not to blow off what I say due to some 'outrage'. It's really a public health issue. But, some liberals would rather try to prove how liberal they are by being okay with *whatever*.

[question everything]

97. As Bill McBlueState responded to you, above

there is a difference between not being "okay" and persecuting a teenager for the rest of his life for engaging in what comes natural for most teens.

[NutmegYankee]

108. Few parents would be OK with it.

My problem is turning a moral failing into a crime. The Taliban does that, and I don't want it here. I expect sexual experiences to start at around 17-18, though some will push them off well into the 30's for various reasons. My problem with your original comment is that two children having consensual sex in the same peer group should never be a crime.

[tabbycat31]

50. NJ has a provision for that in their law

I'm taking a criminal law class and learned that last night. In NJ if the victim's under 13 it's a much more serious offense.

If the victim is bewteen 13 and 16, then it's only a very serious offense if the perpetrator is 4 years older than the victim. This was designed so that the 17 yo having sex with his 14 yo gf isn't considered a criminal.

[Xithras]

70. And? I've had sex with more than one 14 year old.

I was 14, 15, and 16 at the time.

Guess what...TEENAGERS HAVE SEX. Hell, even pre-teens are having consensual sex nowadays. I posted a thread here about two years ago about a 12 year old babysitter caught having sex with her 15 yer old boyfriend. He's a kid himself, so should he have been locked away? Even though she initiated it?

A 14 year old kid is in high school, and in in most of America that puts them in the same social group at 17 year olds. It's patently stupid to tell a kid that you can have sex with freshman X, but not freshman Y, simply because their birthdates are a few months apart.

And yes, I have a daughter...a 15 year old high school sophmore. No sex yet though, thank goodness. When she does, I'm not going to freak out if her boyfriend is 17 or 18 because that's NORMAL. I might grab my shotgun if he's any older though :)

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Hmmm. When I, -sorry, my "good friend"- was a HS sophomore, my, uh, 'his' girlfriend was a Freshman.

I think at one point the age difference was 16-15, but it might have been 17-15 for a month or so.

Wow, thank God the statute of limitations is long over! Not that we- I mean, "they"- did anything more 'heavy' than exchange abstinence pledges.

Of course. *cough* :eyes:

[demodonkey]

91. He was a child too, when he did it. Geesh! nt

[varkam]

14. Most sex offenders never re-offend.

The problem with these laws, esp. those in GA, are that they destabilize people's lives and force them out into rural areas away from treatment, family, friends, and work - thereby increasing the risk of recidivism. It's all based on this assumption that people offend based on physical proximity - which is not true at all. The vast majority of sex offenses are perpetrated via social relationships - i.e. not the stranger down the street but it's going to be someone in your family or close to your family. That's also part of the problem in that it gives people a huge false sense of security because of the misconception that these are the folks you need to be worried about when upwards of 90% of sex offenses are perpetrated by people not on the sex offender registry.

Of course, for some people it's not about being safer at all - it's all about punishment. You'd be hard pressed to make a coherent argument that these laws protect anyone, but there is evidence that suggests that these laws actually make people less safe. But, as I said, for some people it is just about punishment and not about safety.

[marksmithfield]

17. Most pedophiles will continue to offend

at a very high rate. Look it up.

[varkam]

18. Actually - you look it up. Check out the CSOM / DOJ stats.

Recidivism is generally lower (sometimes much lower, depending on what study you look at) than other types of criminals.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. How are they classifying paedophiles?

If they're looking at recidivism rates for all those who have sex with someone underage, of course the reoffence rates will be low - a large number of those will be situations like the one in the OP, rather than what most people would class as genuine paedophilia.

How discriminating is the definition of "paedophile" in the figures you're referring to?

[varkam]

38. According to the CSOM, one of the groups with the highest rates of reoffense...

is adult males who have sex with underage, same-sex, strangers. Even they have a lower rate of reoffense compared with other types of criminals.

[Why Syzygy]

59. I think most, if not all, parents would pefer prevention to punishment.

[cobalt1999]

19. Wow, could the author have been more biased?

Let's pick the most benign case she can find, even then a 17 y/o fucking a 14 y/o girl is hard to forgive.

You know why she didn't pick a case where a 30 y/o raped a 12 y/o? That wouldn't have served her attempt to "tug at the heart strings"

Sorry, I have no sympathy for sex offenders. Little Stephanie can sell that to someone else.

[PVnRT]

20. You're doing the same thing

Going from one extreme to the other. The fact is that both exist, and the most benign ones with a desire to reform should get the chance to. If someone 30 rapes someone 12, yes, they should stay in jail for a long, long time.

What's your solution? Life sentences for anyone accused of a sex crime? Sew letters to their clothing to be seen prominently? Castration? How do you feel about murderers, corporate thieves and leaders of organized crime?

[cobalt1999]

23. I'm just providing the flip side

An unbiased article would have provided both types of stories or neither. A real journalist (they are rare these days), would have shown of the 8,400 people in the registry how many were cases where both were underage, consenting, and withing 2-3 years of age of each other.

Like I said, it's biased article. Some buy her story and will shed a little tear, not me.

[varkam]

22. You seem to be missing the point.

The point of these laws is supposed to be that they make society safer, where they clearly do not. They're not intended as punishment (lest they violate the ex post facto clause of the Constitution). In fact, it's likely that these laws make society less safe. The laws are not likely to change, however, due to the fact that many simply want blood and don't care whether or not the law is actually helping or hurting.

[cobalt1999]

24. Where is the conclusion that they don't make society safer?

How did you come to that conclusion? Maybe it's true, but where's that data? Certainly not in the OP.

[PVnRT]

27. With fewer places to live, they will naturally become concentrated

Do you think putting former sex offenders into the same general area is a good thing?

[cobalt1999]

32. What's the Recidivism Rate since these laws went into effect?

Has it dropped, stayed the same, increased?

It isn't what is I THINK is a good thing, because I don't have enough information. Gut feeling says better to group them off and away from children, but without data or information, how can we tell if the laws are working or not?

You contend the laws don't work but haven't provided any data. The journalist just give a single benign sob story and no real information.

What I want to see is the recidivism before and after these laws went into effect.

[varkam]

98. Like I've been trying to tell you...

the laws are based on the faulty premise of a high rate of reoffense. I encourage you to check out the Center for Sex Offender Management (which is run by the DOJ) for data. There was a study, done in CO I believe, that examined residency restrictions and found that it had no impact on preventing future offenses and might even make the situation worse for exactly the reasons that I described. There was another study as well that used census data to examine the average concentration of children where an offender was living pre and post-registration. It found that, after they had to move, the concentration of children actually increased by about 150% (meaning that the law fails at the stated purpose - stupid as it may be).

Further, even LEOs and prosecutors are lining up against these laws because they are 1) costly, 2) difficult to enforce, 3) make plea-agreements more difficult to obtain (thus making a conviction less likely), and 4) cause many to just abscond totally from supervision.

[varkam]

39. It destabilizes the life of the offender and pushes them away from...

things like jobs, therapy, and social support. In addition, the stricter requirements cause many to go "off the grid"

[cobalt1999]

44. Yes it destabilizes the life of the offender

However, like I asked above, what data shows these laws help/hurt/don't do a thing?

If repeat offenses go down after such laws are enacted, then maybe the law is doing what it intended.
If repeat offenses go up due to the destabilizing the life of the offender, then we should get rid of the law.
If repeat offenses are unchanged, then the law is just wasting money.

Again, where's the data for your conclusion?

[marksmithfield]

69. Destabilizes the life of the offender!!!

God damn good it does. I simply cannot believe people will defend crap like this. If it destabilizes the poor life of 50 offenders but prevents one sick son of a bitch from repeatedly raping and killing a 3yr old then that is a small price for decent society to pay. The apologists are unfuckingbelievable. I think I'll have to start my ignore list now, my blood pressure can't take reading this tripe. THESE ARE CHILDREN THESE SCUM ARE RAPING. They should have no life to "destabilize"

[Juche]

74. You've got issues

This was consensual sex with a 17 and a 14 year old.

FTR, about 95% of cases of sexual abuse are never reported, in large part because of attitudes like yours. Imagine you have a daughter who is about 6 years old who is being abused and she knows if she tells anyone you will go off the deep end, and it will destroy your family. Chances are she will keep it secret and let the abuse continue to happen if her only options are that and doing nothing. Right now abused children (truly abused children, not 14 year olds who have consensual sex) have nowhere to go to let someone know what is happening because of the moral panic surrounding this issue.

Add me to your ignore list please. If you are unwilling to face this travesty of widespread abuse that goes on in America like an adult rather than a knight in shining armor wannabe I'd prefer that.

[varkam]

95. Interesting perspective. Based on lots of fallacies and blinded by rage, but interesing.

I simply cannot believe people will defend crap like this.

I'm sorry, was I defending anything?

If it destabilizes the poor life of 50 offenders but prevents one sick son of a bitch from repeatedly raping and killing a 3yr old then that is a small price for decent society to pay.

The point is that the more lives to destabilize, the more victims that you are going to have. Further, the more restrictions that you place on it, the more people are going to just go off the grid and abscond from supervision alltogether. In addition, the residency restrictions are based on many faulty premises - among them that sex offenders find their victims through physical proximity. This is just plainly false - the vast majority of CSA cases are perpetrated by someone known to the child; usually a family member. Of course, to know that, you would have to look at the data.

So, let me ask you: do you care more about the prevention of crime or do you just want blood?

[varkam]

40. dupe

[marksmithfield]

68. Whoa

how does keeping child molesters away from schools, parks, and playgrounds not make society safer, or aren't children part of your society?

[Juche]

75. 90-95% of child molesters are never caught

So good luck going after the 5-10% who have been caught as a way to keep kids safe.

[verges]

78. The real point is...

how does destroyin gthe lives of 17 yr olds for having sex with their 14 yr old girlfriends make society safer?

There are serious sex offenders out there. THEY deserve the serious punishment. Not a kid in love with another kid.

BTW. there is many a 14 or 15 yr old that can pass for 21.

[varkam]

96. .

how does keeping child molesters away from schools, parks, and playgrounds not make society safer, or aren't children part of your society?

Use that brain of yours for a second. Do residency restrictions keep sex offenders away from schools, parks, and playgrounds? No, they don't. All they require is that the offender not sleep near them. They can go to a park all day if they want to. Furthermore, it's not as though if a sex offender were really driven to molest a child that they wouldn't walk the 1,000 feet. All it does is require that the offender not be there at night - which is good since that's when all the kids go to the park.

Furthermore, it's a faulty premise that sex offenders find their victims through physical proximity. It's usually a child they know, and it's usually a relative.

[marksmithfield]

67. damn straight

she's being an apologist for the worst sort of human scum.

[Raskolnik]

79. I believe you have missed one of the points of the article.

The point is that under most current sex offender registries, a 17 year old that had consensual sex with his 14 year old girlfriend is treated the same as "the worst sort of human scum."

The problem with these registries is that they are worse than useless. By lumping in non-predatory "victimless" crimes with true predatory sex offenses, it is of no effective use, and prevents us from effectively managing those offenders we do need to keep a close eye on.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. It's the difference between a senior and a freshman in high school

I get why we have laws that forbid people from taking sexual advantage of minors. But they are written in such a way that basically criminalizes teen sex and the fact is that teenagers have sex. Locking them up for it is as ridiculous as locking people up for smoking pot.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. It's the same story with all these "well intentioned tough on crime" laws that sound good in theory.

You pass the "Three Strikes" law to keep violent criminals in jail, and you end up paying to lock up the dude who stole the slice of pizza for the rest of his life. :eyes:

[seabeyond]

25. i have mixed views of this law and just do not see it as a black and white issue

when looking at the list to view who lives in my neighborhood i absolutely look at the ages involved. i see a 19 yr old who missed with the 16, 17 yr old i do not see a threat to my children.

i also know that once on this list, the added challenges and stress once they get out of prison which i feel a since of responsibility for

but, i have a loved one that was in prison for three strikes you are out in calif for alcohol related offensives and a drug offense. i have seen the challenges he has for getting jobs and other because of his record.

though i hate seeing him with the added burden in his already hard world, he also created, knowing repercussion.

i dont see it so black and white.

[question everything]

52. And this is true with every law and every policy

Even with the housing bailout announced the other day which causes many DUers to holler. But we either are unwilling or do not have the resources to fine tune such policies to better aim them at the real targets, whether the action is to help or to punish.

The three strikes law is the best example of why the the ballot measure system in California is so bad. It passes laws based on yesterday's flaming headlines. By its nature it posts a question in a Yes or No response, while life is not like that and a legislative body passes a law after long research and debate and compromises.

The three strikes law also caused extra burden on the court system, since even petty theft often ends up in a trial instead of what used to be before - a plea.

And, again, we pass laws that demand more actions by police and the court, while not willing to provide the extra funds needed for these expanded responsibilities.

[seabeyond]

53. yes. n/t

[acmavm]

28. Well hell, if we're gonna punish 'em all for life, why don't we just save everyone

some trouble and execute them after they're done serving their sentence?

You figure out if I'm being sarcastic or not.

edit: Punctuation problems

[question everything]

54. I agree. And I find it hard to find on DU a refusal

to accept the concept of paying one's dues to society. And, I think, once released, former felons should be considered as "innocents until proven guilty." This is why in many court cases prior convictions are not admissible.

Mostly, we have to separate repeat offenders from these examples, the one also on post #42 - what is it about Georgia? - where we are talking consensual teenage sex. One's precious innocent 14 year old is not the same as another 14 year old who was raised not being sheltered from life, who matured earlier.

[zagging]

29. The law's application is sometimes too harsh

For cases like Mr. Noles, the courts need to work with public agencies to determine whether the perp is a danger, and mitigate the law's harshness where due. However, I have no problems with society gathering their pitchforks and driving true pedophiles from their neighborhoods into the sea.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Certainly, most would agree with that. The question, though, is whether a 17yr old HS student who

has consensual sex with his 14 yr. old Girlfriend should be categorized as a sex offender. Or a drunk who takes a whizz in an alley.

By all means, let's get tough with the people who actually harm kids, and those that would help them escape justice. How about starting with the Vatican? :shrug:

[zagging]

104. Hence, the need for disgression

I don't think it can be determined whether or not a 17 year old and a 14 year old getting together categorically constitutes sexual violence, but I can say without a doubt it deserves evaluation. A 14 year old cannot legally give consent, so the law does apply with possible extenuation. It needs to be looked at closely by qualified professionals. That's the best we can do.

As for the malignant psychopaths in fancy dresses attacking kids, and all the other qualified pedophiles; exile them. Drive them into the abyss.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Once again, though, I need to ask if you are familiar with reality as it exists in High Schools, etc

You say "a 14 year old cannot legally give consent"-- nevertheless, there are 14, 15, and certainly 16 year olds engaging in sex with each other all over the place, and these are not isolated "abberations" requiring intervention by "qualified professionals", this is the way things are, and furthermore this is the way things have been since the dawn of time. Certainly, in my day, despite a lot of Reaganesque family-values flogging and overhyped AIDS panic, it was perfectly normal for High Schoolers to lose their virginity at age 15-16. This was the NORM. And survey after survey reveals that, on average, Americans lose their virginity at age 16. On average.

Now, if you're saying the bright line is to be drawn between 14 and 15, okay.. or that there is a massive difference between a 14 yr. old getting together with a 17 yr. old and a 15 yr. old getting together with a 16 yr. old, okay. Personally, my take on the matter is that there is a massive difference between an ADULT harming a CHILD and two high schoolers engaging in sexual activity together. Clearly, "qualified professionals" or not, I think slapping said 17 year old with a lifetime stigma as a "sex offender" is most likely unwarranted, and counter-productive, in these sorts of cases.

[zagging]

112. The point of having qualified professional evaluate the situation

is to determine predation, meaning that these situations cannot be categorically qualified and any sentence should be mitigated based on any extenuating circumstance. It should go without further explanation that sex between a 14yo and a 15yo qualifies as an extenuating circumstance unless predation was involved. I can't make it any clearer.

[lightningandsnow]

31. When I was 16, I had sex with a 21-year-old.

I wasn't raped or exploited in any way. I have no regrets. And my ex-boyfriend is definitely not a pedophile or sex offender.

(16 is the age of consent where I live anyway, but even if it wasn't, I wasn't in an exploitative situation.)

[SmileyRose]

37. Because a pedophile won't walk more than 1000 feet to molest a child.

If the person is not to be trusted in public then lock them up longer. A true pedophile is not going to stop molesting kids because of where they live. Sure it would be political suicide for a politician to get serious about stopping this farce but it is a farce.

Look, plaster their names and addresses on the sex offender database website and leave it at that.

[chrisa]

45. I would be willing to bet that.

The rape of prepubescent to preteen children far outweight teens having sex at a 3 year difference and getting charged for it. I bet it's not even close.

[Evoman]

46. It's one of those stupid laws that don't make a difference, but irrational people like.

Like it really fucking matters to a real pedophile if he has to walk 1000 feet or 1001 feet to a place where children congregate. How often do you find yourself 1000 ft from your home?

It's a farce that cynical politicans use to placate over-emotional parents. Not that it's not understandable, but I'm suprised so many people can't see the worse drawbacks.

[varkam]

101. It seems to me that people need to ask themselves what they consider to be important.

A more sensible regulatory scheme would be one that doesn't regulate where an offender can or cannot live but rather one that regulates where an offender can or cannot loiter. It seems you would get more of the protection with fewer of the drawbacks, but it also seems that people prefer making things as difficult as possible on people who are presumably trying to reintegrate into society (which kind of runs contrary to the notion of preventing crime).

[Aristus]

55. Cry me a river. Hey, sex offenders! You know what?

That wouldn't happen if you didn't molest little kids! Now it's time for YOU to suck on it a little!

:nopity:

[lightningandsnow]

57. A 17 year old having completely consensual sex with a 14 year old

...isn't exactly molesting little kids.

[Aristus]

If it goes against age-of-consent laws, it is.

No fourteen-year-old has the intellectual or emotional maturity to give informed consent for sex.

[NYC Liberal]

62. So once you hit 18 you automatically have "intellectual or emotional maturity"?

17 years, 364 days: no "intellectual or emotional maturity" for sex
18 years, 0 days: enough "intellectual or emotional maturity" for sex

Is that what you are saying?

[question everything]

99. And you really know all 14 year old girls

and can determine their "emotional maturity."

I've got news for you, not all 14 year old are like the sweet girls that you keep at home. Many are mature way beyond what you would consider their age. After all, before the industrial age, when we developed the stereotype of dad goes to work and mom stays home raising angelic kids who live at home and "save" themselves for their marriage, many 14 year olds got married. To move out of her house so there should be one less mouth to feed.

[Aristus]

58. If it goes against age-of-consent laws, it is.

No fourteen-year-old has the intellectual or emotional maturity to give informed consent for sex.

[EOTE]

60. But every 17 year old does?

You don't see the flaw in your argument at all?

[Warren DeMontague]

85. How about a 16 yr. old and a 15 yr. old?

Did you ever go to High School? On this planet?

[Raskolnik]

63. What an unbelievably stupid post.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between a 17 year old having consensual sex with a 14 year old and "molestation?"

Should 14 year olds be having sexual relationships with 17 year olds? Probably not. Should the 17 year old be put in the same category as an adult who molests children? Hell no.

[demodonkey]

92. Yes, that post not only is stupid, it demeans people who truly have been molested. nt

[elocs]

56. In prison, sex offenders whose victims were women or children are model inmates

because there are no women and children to tempt them in prison (a pedophile in particular does not lead a pleasant life in prison because many of their fellow prisoners have children of their own). Once they are released it is a different story because there is temptation as well as being hounded from place to place. Certainly parents want to protect their children, but for a sex offender who truly did want to reform there is not much of a chance. Where I live there is a place less than a mile from me which facilitates the release of sex offenders back into society and I believe these men actually live there. It is, unbelievably, right across the street from an elementary school. Parents are justifiably concerned, but this is also like placing a halfway house for recovering alcoholics across the street from a bar.

I believe that for the protection of society prisons should be used to separate violent criminals from society. The vast majority of inmates eventually are released from prison and it certainly behooves all of us to have those people succeed in reentering society if they want to succeed. Unfortunately far too many come out of prison more violent and criminal than when they went in and that does not bode well for us at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Right, but the central question here, as I understand it, is whether this guy ought to be considered

a "sex offender", at all.

Certainly, people -adults- who harm children-- should be separated from Society and dealt with VERY harshly (EVEN if they're part of a large international religious organization that is engaged in criminal conspiracy to help them escape justice. Cough.)... however, the problem with these laws seems to be that High school students get tagged for life b/c they have consensual sex with their peers, or a drunk gets busted taking a leak behind a bar.

I don't think that justifies "sex offender" status. I think it's a waste and a travesty and minimizes the seriousness of the crimes done by the REAL criminals (like some Priests, who for odd reasons get to play by different rules than everyone else) ... I think the law needs to be re-thought.

[elocs]

90. The problem is that the law lumps them all together.

A sex offender is a sex offender is a sex offender with no distinction when put on the sex offender's list.

Not long ago I did see a story on one of the networks about this. A young man was labeled as a sex offender and put on the list because of a Romeo/Juliet situation where he pissed off her father. Somebody saw his name on the list and assumed he was a pedophile so he went to his front door and shot him when he opened it.

[Raskolnik]

65. The problem is a ridiculously over-inclusive categorization of "sex offenders"

that lumps 17 year olds convicted of having consensual sex with their 14 year old girlfriends in the same category as true sexual predators. It's a ratcheted category that very few legislators have the courage to address.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Public urination gets you on the sex offender list in some states

These laws are really out of control.

[Raskolnik]

76. The problem is that every single judge and legislator is scared to death of narrowing

the definition of "sex offender" or the decreasing the punishment for things currently considered sex crimes that have no business being classified as such.

And can you blame them? The first time a public urinator that "should" have been on the sex offender list commits an actual sex crime, the media and a host of spokespeople will go berserk calling for tougher sex crime laws to protect the children, and the coward legislators will comply and ratchet up the definition and the punishment.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Agreed, the public just needs to wake the fuck up

The fact that we even consider "indecent exposure" to be a serious offense says a lot about our "values". Seriously it's the human body for fuck's sake. Who is being harmed by being exposed to a person's genitals?

I'm all for seriously punishing dangerous criminals. Most of the people that the law punishes are not dangerous criminals.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Public Urination is a real problem!

Unless you get extra tough with these folks, it'll be open season for peeing bandits.

:sarcasm:

[1]

100. sux to be a sex offender. poor sex offenders. i weep for the sex offenders...

not...

[Warren DeMontague]

110. So I take it you didn't have sex in high school?

You've never taken a leak on a tree or in an alley behind a bar?

Good on you. You would never be categorized as a "sex offender" under some of these idiotic interpretations of the law, then. :eyes:

[Raskolnik]

111. Are you able to distinguish between predatory sexual acts and consensual sex

between a 17 year old and his 14 year old girlfriend?

[dsc]

103. Under Georgia law until SCOTUS overturned it

every single gay person in Georgia who had sex was a sex offender. Adulterers still are. This is what happens when we decide that rights are only for people who we think deserve them. I have no truck for real sex offenders but I care more about rights being rights more than I detest sex offenders.

[keroro gunsou]

105. i've noticed

that people always squeal for the "tough on crime laws" stance, up until the very last moment til they are subject to them.

true pedophiles are not the same as two horny teens getting laid. marginalizing them, while may make for feel-good political posturing, does nothing to keep anyone safe.

[aikoaiko]

106. Bad timing for the example in the story, but it doesn't happen that way anymore.

A year or two earlier and he wouldn't have been required to register at all.

A few years later, and his crime would have been classified as a misdemeanor and not required to register.

I'm not sure if there is flexibity in the GA system to change his status. It seems to me that there should be some mechanism for review and discretion if someone has complied with the law since conviction.

Having said that, I knew at the age of 17 not to have sex with girls under the age of consent (16 in NJ where I grew up) because it was illegal no matter how much we wanted to -- and so I didn't.

WHO IS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER?

* If a person convicted of a sexual offense in Georgia was released from prison, placed on probation or supervised released before July 1, 1996, he/she is not required to register as a sexual offender.
* A person who was convicted of a misdemeanor sexual offense after June 30, 2001.
* Juveniles prosecuted in juvenile court are not subject to the registry.

http://gbi.georgia.gov/00/channel_modifieddate/0,2096,67862954_87983024,00.html

O.C.G.A. § 16-6-3 (2008)
§ 16-6-3. Statutory rape
(a) A person commits the offense of statutory rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years and not his or her spouse, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of statutory rape shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years; provided, however, that if the person so convicted is 21 years of age or older, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years. Any person convicted under this subsection of the offense of statutory rape shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.

(c) If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp

[Odin2005]

107. When horny teens are given the same label as monsters that rape kids something is messed up.

This is the result of demagogic "tough on crime" stupidity.