Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

May 2, 2012

Advertisement

A September Journal-World investigation of Kansas sex offenders who fail to register when crossing state lines prompted a federal agency to take action and led to several arrests, said Tom Lanier, a chief inspector for the U.S. Marshals Service.

Arrests since our investigation

• Samuel M. Gagnon: Convicted in Johnson County in 2002 of attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child, Gagnon told Kansas authorities he was moving to Colorado, but failed to register in that state. Gagnon was arrested by the Marshals Service and the Denver Police Department in February and charged with failing to register as a sex offender.

• Thomas C. McCoumb: Convicted in Harper County in 2004 of indecent liberties with a child. McCoumb was released from a Kansas prison in 2009 and told authorities he was also moving to Colorado. McCoumb failed to register there and was arrested by the Marshals Service in January in Denver.

These sex offenders were arrested for other offenses during the investigation and could face additional charges of failing to register:

• Thomas J. Miller: Convicted of sexually assaulting a minor in Nebraska in 2006. Miller moved to Kansas but failed to register with another state when he left Kansas. Miller is currently in jail in Wyoming for drunken driving and is facing charges in Texas for failing to register as a sex offender.

• Raymond C. Carrick: Convicted in Kansas in 2000 of sexual battery, moved to Georgia following his 2006 release, but failed to register as a sex offender. Carrick was arrested on burglary charges.

Kansas Sex Offender Registry facts and guidelines

• Enacted in 1993 and applies to crimes committed only after April 14, 1994.

• Requires sex offenders to register in person four times each year with their local sheriff’s office.

• Adults are required to register for either 15 or 25 years, depending on the crime, for a first conviction, and life for a second conviction.

• Some more serious offenses require lifetime registration on a first conviction.

• People required to register for an offense in another state are also required to register if they move to Kansas.

• Crimes requiring registration include sodomy, rape, sexual battery, indecent liberties with a child, sexual exploitation of a child and incest.

• Failing to register, or failing to notify the sheriff’s office within three days when there’s an address change, is a level 6 felony that could result in prison time.

• The public can search the registry online at no charge.

• The U.S. Department of Justice operates the National Sex Offender Public Website, which compiles registry information from all 50 states.

Last year, a Journal-World investigation found that more than 160 Kansas sex offenders who left Kansas were not registered in other states. Failing to register after moving to other states is potentially a federal and state crime.

Following the investigation, the Journal-World furnished the Marshals Service — tasked with enforcing sex offender laws across state lines — with a list of unregistered offenders.

“We went painstakingly through the list,” said Lanier, who is in charge of the Sex Offender Investigations branch, which includes Kansas.

They were quickly able to narrow the list down, Lanier said. Some of the offenders had died or moved to states with different registration laws that did not require them to register.

For the past several months, the Marshals Service has been investigating 22 of the cases identified by the Journal-World. Those investigations led to two arrests, while two additional sex offenders were arrested for other offenses and could face additional failure-to-register charges.

The Marshals Service is actively searching for several other offenders who have failed to register, but the agency asked that those names not be released.

In addition, two of the offenders, B.J. Lucas and Hayton P. Robinson, are currently serving in the U.S. Army. Lanier said that the Marshals Service contacted the Army in both instances and that the Army is aware of both men’s sex-offender status. Calls to the Army for comment were not immediately returned.

Kyle Smith, deputy director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, said the KBI, which is responsible for the Kansas Sex Offender Registry, sends letters to states notifying them that a registered sex offender is entering their state. But after that, it’s somebody else’s responsibility.

“It’s up to (the new state and the offender) to do,” said Smith when interviewed about the issue in September.

There could be cases where an offender moves to one state, then to another, but that information isn’t necessarily communicated among states, Smith said.

That’s exactly the problem, said Laura Ahearn, executive director of Parents for Megan’s Law and the Crime Victims Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for more accountability in sex offender registries nationwide.

“We’ve established a law that requires society’s most cunning of criminals to register on an honor system,” Ahearn said.

Inconsistent laws among states make keeping track of sex offenders a complicated endeavor, a situation Lanier and the Marshals Service is all too familiar with.

“There’s 50 ways of doing business out there,” Lanier said. “Nobody really has a clue how many (sex offenders) have to register.”

In some cases, an offender in one state may not be required to register in another state. That means some clever offenders are engaged in “state shopping,” where offenders move to a state where registry laws may not be as strict.

“That’s not uncommon,” Lanier said.

Comments

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

LadyJ 2 years, 5 months ago

Wow, all I did was ask if you were still around, no reason to start calling people names.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

Well, you seem to have remembered me from last year on an article of which you only contributed, I do believe, ONE comment to which added nothing to the debate.

Have you got anything intelligent to say? Can you defend the registry?

Or do you just like pointing fingers at others who do the thinking?

Do you think stupid was harsh? I don't know. Let us see what you can come up with?

0

LadyJ 2 years, 5 months ago

You commented on two articles that I can tell and there were certainly more than myself that commented. Maybe I was just showing concern. You have to admit your comments were memorable.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

To admit my comments are memorable would be a bit of a conceit. Of course I try and type to get the largest impact I can.

What I am doing is taking a stand against the laws. I am going to find out if the registry laws can stand the test of scrutiny. Not my scrutiny, of course, but the scrutiny of an independent evaluator. This means that the registry is going to be looked at by people who are completely and wholly disconnected from all political and cultural aspects of a registry.

There is a HUGE HOLE in the registry, and that it is passed and applied outside of a court of law (in many instances). This means for many people there is no judgement of conviction stating that a person, for the rest of their life, has to abide by a registry.

Next, the registry is comprehensive. Not only is it passed outside of a court of law, it seeks to regulate normal conduct such as walking in a park, attending and participating in one's own child's schooling, being able to attend community events, choosing where one wishes to live, and even living a life harassment free.

The registry also has unlimited public access. This means it can and is used by public and private organization to deny access to services (such as Facebook, or the local YMCA), and is accessed by individuals without limitations and regardless of intent.

The registry has no mechanism to challenge determinations. A person is presumed to be dangerous (hence all the laws and denial of services) and cannot challenge or appeal any law, even if it is obvious that abiding by the law puts the registrant's health, safety or security at risk.

All the State can do is point fingers at a conviction and assume a dangerousness.

The problem becomes when a person can start to point to everything else in his life and assert he is not dangerous.

All you needed was a court of law and a semblance of a fair hearing and my arguments would be severely limited. You couldn't even do that.

You guys are destroying the registry without even realizing it. The world is more interconnected today then it has ever been. Just because the system and the culture can't see the obvious injustices and violation of basic principles, doesn't mean they aren't there, and doesn't mean they won't be exposed.

Exile is an illegal act by the State, and can, where the U.S. is involved, have serious international political ramifications.

To put it simply: Nobody in the world is going to put up with having to take care of U.S. rejects, because the U.S. can't follow simple and basic principles.

THEY THEM AND THOSE are no longer legal justifications in ANY arena to systematically banish, imprison, isolate, harass and brand people according to political or legislative prerogatives. Hanging a label or calling a person a name is certainly not enough, and in the end, will only make you look foolish.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

The fact that the registry is a law, passed by the legislature, rather than a court imposed sentence, doesn't make it invalid.

Many laws aren't imposed through the court system.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

Laws that restrict freedoms MUST be applied through a court.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Source?

You can't legally drive in KS without having auto insurance - that's a law that restricts your freedom, isn't it?

Is that invalid?

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

How does having car insurance violate fundamental freedoms? Does it violate your 1st amendment right? Does it violate your right to associate? Do people get harassed for having car insurance? Does having car insurance make the public less safe? Does it make the person purchasing the insurance less safe?

So, YES, requiring car insurance is proven to be a legitimate public interest in protecting the public from having a recourse in the event of an accident.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of our system.

The legislative branch makes laws, while the judicial branch enforces them.

As such, if you have a problem with a law, you should lobby the legislature to change it.

If the courts enforce it, as is their responsibility, they're just doing their job correctly.

There are laws that convicted felons can't own guns - apparently it's ok to deprive them of a constitutionally protected right, if they're convicted of a felony.

What constitutionally protected rights are you claiming are lost incorrectly here?

And, if you think nobody can ever be deprived of a constitutional right, I think you're mistaken - anybody can be deprived of life, liberty or property after "due process".

So, if you're a convicted sex offender, and one of the consequences of that is that you lose your right to hang around schoolyards, that seems ok to me.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

You really believe that after a due process, THEN the State can make up any kind of restriction they like.

What about the father who has a child at a school? Can the State, years AFTER a sentence been served stop that father from watching his kid at a high school football game?

What new consequences will the legislature come up with this year? Do you think the prohibition on ex-post facto laws will apply to this restriction? Doesn't the State have ANY obligation to show how a, for example, a residency restriction, will enhance public safety, as applied?

Or you will leave a person on the streets, but for a perfectly good home, because that is to protect the public?

Courts have other responsibilities than just throwing people into jail. They are to ensure fairness, as per the U.S. Constitution.

Due Process, at its heart, requires fairness. A legislature passing a residency restriction upon a whole group under some unproven theory is NOT fair. The court's job is to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution. They are failing in this respect BECAUSE the State politicizes the judicial branch by requiring elections, which then makes courts inherently NOT independent and beholden to the LAW.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Courts are not responsible for ensuring "fairness".

They are responsible for enforcing the laws.

If you feel that a law is unconstitutional, then the remedy is to bring a case before the US Supreme Court, which will then rule on that.

0

RodTemple 2 years, 5 months ago

Rudy101:

You are correct. But I don't think anyone should try to avoid any "laws" that have been enacted by the criminal governments though. A person has to play their game. Otherwise, they will use their police forces to attack you and steal from you. That would be helping the criminal governments to win. The point in this war is to defeat the criminal governments.

The SEX OFFENDER Registries, and especially the adjunct, moronic "laws" that they have enabled and promoted (e.g. Banishment), are unnecessarily and negligibly beneficial, counterproductive, immoral, anti-factual, often illegal, often idiotic, anti-religious, and un-American. Good parents have never needed the nanny big government Registries and never will.

If the Registries were useful and not immoral, we would already have many, many other types of Registries and millions more people Registered. There is are legitimate excuses that we do not.

We Register people who flash their genitals at people but not people who do the same with guns? Really?

We Register some neighbor of yours who might try to "groom" your child and create an inappropriate relationship in order to eventually sexually molest your child. And it's so hard for you to be enough of a parent to prevent that? Because that behavior is so dangerous and difficult to prevent?!! Yet we don't Register a neighbor who has broken into previous neighbors' homes and severely beaten them? Really?

We Register people who make rude sexual comments to your child but not someone who would smash him/her in the face with a shovel for looking at them the wrong way? Really?

Those comparisons go on forever.

It doesn't matter anyway. We shouldn't have any Registries because they do nothing significantly useful and they cause HUGE problems.

But of course no one cares because the SEX OFFENDER Registries are not really about "public safety" or "protecting children". No, those are just the lies that the terrorists who support the Registries repeat in order to try to get normal people to support the witch hunt. But today, it is beyond clear that the Registries are not really about that. Look at most of the comments on this forum. That is what the Registries are about. They are about making stupid, pathetic Americans feel better about themselves and supporting the ever-growing SEX OFFENDER industry. Can't have enough big government or "public safety" people, right?

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

A couple of comments about your writing.

No police force is coming to attack me or steal from me. That is why I am able to speak freely and factually about this subject.

Next, the registries ARE expanding and will expand.

I don't like the words, terrorists or criminal governments to describe the registry or most people who use the registry.

In fact, I am not fundamentally opposed to a registry. I am absolutely opposed to a registry and registry laws completely controlled by a legislature. If the State can articulate, upon specific people, in a court of law why a specific person needs to register or follow a registration regulation, then yes, that person must follow those laws.

My argument is, that without that court of law, the laws, as applied, becomes ridiculous, even dangerous, and strips a person of equal protection of the law.

It is not illegal to put dangerous people on a registry and regulate them, but it IS illegal to put non-dangerous people on there and regulate them. Right now, there is no way to differentiate between the two. Therefore, until those procedures come into play, ALL registry laws for ALL people do not have to be followed. That is because freedom is the HIGHEST virtue and defaults to that when basic principles of freedom are violated.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Anybody who follows your advice and fails to register as they're legally required to do takes the risk of facing legal consequences.

I can only speculate as to why you have such strong opinions on this subject.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

Legal consequences are not a concern. The credibility of a law is not found in its enforcement, but whether that law has the 5th amendment requirement of DUE PROCESS. Many registry laws are applied without that requirement.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I disagree.

Due process is found in the process by which somebody is convicted of a sexual offense, just as with all other such offenses.

Your argument would invalidate all mandatory sentences, and a variety of other things, like ignition interlocks for DUI's, etc.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

No. Due Process is not a one time deal which then gives the State a blank slate upon which to add any type of restriction, upon anyone they like, on any theory they can come up with, at any time they feel like it.

My argument would NOT invalidate mandatory sentences or ignition interlocks for DUI's. Why? Because 10 years AFTER a conviction for DUI they are not installing ignition interlocks on a car.

COURTS apply ignition interlocks and mandatory sentences. Legislatures are applying residency restrictions, public notifications, among other restrictions. See the difference???

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Due process is found in the process by which people are tried and convicted of a crime.

Having been convicted, you are then subject to any legal consequences of that crime.

Mandatory sentences are ones that must be applied by the courts - they don't get to decide it on their own. Your argument was that the courts should be deciding those sorts of things.

So what? Whatever the legislature decides is the length, whether it's one year or five years.

Courts enforce the laws, as I said, while the legislature makes the laws. So if a law states that there is a mandatory sentence of 5 years for a crime, then the court must enforce that in sentencing.

In the same vein, if there are requirements for convicted sex offenders, then the courts will enforce those.

That's how it's supposed to be done - if you don't like the laws, lobby the legislature to change them.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

You don't even have an understanding of what the jobs of each branch of government are. The executive branch enforces the laws. The courts interprets the laws.

But anyway, no ex-post facto laws.

Can you imagine that the most unpopular group of people are beholden to an electorate or a legislature in order to get justice? The residency restriction in Kansas was passed AFTER a sentence. That I know. It is applied by a legislature and has blanket provisions.

That is why there is the requirement for due process.

I don't like the laws. How's that? I won't subject myself to the laws for the specific reason that the laws as applied take away safety and/or security, have no mechanisms for challenge, are constantly added to and violate basic constitutional rights.

Can anyone do anything? In this case? The answer is, NO.

Why? Because of all the reasons I stated above, nobody will move against me.

People being individuals before the law is more powerful than you think.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

Also, a couple of disclaimers about Kansas. Apparently, and I could be wrong, or there could be misinformation in the article (it happens), but Kansas did not apply, (as most States did) the registry ex-post facto. But Kansas has applied many restrictions upon the registrant ex-post facto (including public notification and residency restrictions).

This is a HUGE problem legally.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

A quick google search shows that the US SC has ruled in 2003 on a couple of cases, which used your arguments, "ex post facto" and "due process".

Sex offender registries were found to be constitutional by the court in both of those cases.

Interestingly, some states have found them to be unconstitutional at the state level.

I'm not sure what to make of that difference - if they're constitutional at the federal level, but not at the state level. I guess states can restrict their state governments more than the federal government, if they choose to do so.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

It is interesting to actually read those two cases.

For one, the cases are contradictory at their core.

In one case, the Alaska case, the court said that the registry is not a punishment because it protects against those that are potentially dangerous.

In the Connecticut case, they ruled that it doesn't matter if a person is not dangerous, the registry is only putting out information that is factual.

It also should be noted that those cases were heard BEFORE ALL residency restrictions and other restrictions that grew out of public notification.

In other words, the court left it wide open for a legislature to do anything they want under any theory they want.

The courts, as well as America culture, has a long history of illegal laws that were held to be constitutional.

A few of them are Jim Crow laws, forced sterilization and the imprisonment of Americans simply because they were of Japanese decent.

NONE of those laws, in hindsight, had to be followed BECAUSE they obviously deprived a person of freedom without any due process.

The same applies here. It is obvious that the registry takes freedom (it is common knowledge and accepted). Because the State uses different language when speaking to the court and when speaking to the public doesn't make FACTS different.

I am hardly going to put my freedom to the test in a culture who doesn't value freedom or due process. It was so easy, simply through an executive order to label a person a terrorist and then take ALL due process away and torture people. Nobody has EVER been held responsible for torturing innocent people.

American culture, it seems, can't be trusted with defending freedom and rights. It is all just a shell game where whatever the person moving the pieces wants it to fall.

Face it, you have the precedence and 1 out of 4 adults in America has a conviction of some kind.

It seems America is ready and willing to sell out freedom simply based upon popularity.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

You're entitled to your opinion.

And, you can do as you wish - just don't expect there not to be consequences for breaking the law.

A simple registry listing the names of sex offenders doesn't "take freedom" - it simply lists their names.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

Don't you wish it was that simple. It isn't. I am making the assertion that the registry strips a person of safety and/or security.

I believe I can PROVE that.

If I can, the registry is in big trouble.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Now, you've switched from claiming it "takes freedom" to claiming it makes somebody less secure.

Those are two different things.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I read a little more about the cases.

The first held that registries aren't "ex post facto" laws because they don't involve punishment, and are simply civil in nature - the ruling was 6-3, so there were 3 dissenters. I read nothing about protection from dangerous people.

The second held (unanimously) that it doesn't matter whether somebody is dangerous or not - the website discussed had a disclaimer that in fact stated they were making no representation that those on it were dangerous.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

Yes, CIVIL in nature. Why would you need a CIVIL law? For fun? To oppress? Or to protect?

The registry, does not protect society, therefore, there are no civil outcomes.

At the end of the day, you seem to be arguing that the State can set up a police State, call it civil, put anyone they want on it, not have any civil outcomes, and still be called a free country?

It is called, by definition, totalitarianism.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Nope.

I'm arguing that your arguments against the registry are unconvincing, and that you misunderstand the reasoning of the SC in deciding they are ok.

An "ex post facto" law is one that criminalizes prior behavior - for example, if they make a law today that makes it illegal for me to have mown my lawn last week.

The registries don't do that - they simply publish the results of previous criminal cases that were decided earlier. Those that were prosecuted for sexual offenses were prosecuted in accordance with existing laws at the time, not later ones.

0

RodTemple 2 years, 5 months ago

Rudy101 (May 4, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.):

RIght and it is also something that not one single American supports. Not one.

Further, it makes so much more sense to have probation/parole officers control the residencies of people they are supervising (like they always did) and tailor it to the individual. People who are not on probation/parole should not have any residency or other restrictions.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I said it a little bit imprecisely, perhaps.

Our criminal justice system is comprised of both police, who enforce the laws, and also courts, which do the same. As part of that process, courts sometimes interpret laws, but mostly they simply explain the laws to juries.

The courts "apply" the laws to specific situations.

You can like or dislike the laws - that's up to you. However, if you simply break laws you dislike, you should be prepared for legal consequences.

If you want to affect change, you need to lobby the legislature to change the laws, or bring a case to the US SC, claiming they are unconstitutional.

0

RodTemple 2 years, 5 months ago

jafs (May 4, 2012 at 8:09 a.m.):

You appear to be replying to me but I didn't even suggest that anyone not follow any law, let alone say it. In fact, I said the opposite.

You wonder why I have such a strong opinion about the Registries? Well, I would like to tell you.

Let's call the people listed on the Registries "Registered Citizens". The Registries don't do much useful but one thing that they do very well is take people who were fairly normal, albeit people who likely did something bad or even heinous, and turn them into people who hate other people. The Registries turn Registered Citizens into people who do not respect the U.S., governments, or law enforcement. They turn Registered Citizens into people with little remorse. They turn Registered Citizens into bad citizens who don't care about their fellow citizens, what happens to them, and most certainly not any rights they claim to have. The Registries turn Registered Citizens into people who want to hurt other people and in some cases, literally murder them.

Now you might say that Registered Citizens were like that before getting listed on the Registries but I can tell you with certainly that that is not the case. What I just told you is the main product and effect of the Registries. Not protecting children. Despite the propaganda campaigns of the criminal governments and their agents, that is reality.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I was talking to Rudy, not you.

0

RodTemple 2 years, 5 months ago

Rudy101 (May 4, 2012 at 8:07 a.m.):

I did not say a police force was coming to do anything to you or even had grounds to do so.

I tend to agree with you that the Registries are expanding and will continue to do so. The U.S. is not getting any smarter or more moral. No, quite the opposite. Further, as I said before, if we have SEX OFFENDER Registries, then there is absolutely no reason why we should not have many, many more Registries. There is no excuse.

I love the words "criminal governments" and "terrorists" to describe the people behind the witch hunt because that is exactly what they are. In summary, if the governments had simply created a Registry that listed people who had been convicted of sexual offenses to inform people (remember, that was the original lie to justify creating the Registries), it would have been hard to argue against that. And if Americans could have been able to use it intelligently simply to "be informed", that would have been one thing. But it has hardly worked out that way. The criminal governments and moron Americans who support them have no clue how to be responsbile or intelligent. Look at the Unamericans on this forum.

In a later post of yours (May 4, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.), you described pretty well why it is exactly appropriate to call our nanny big governments "criminal governments". They just are and they are filled with terrible, ugly people who have no business calling themselves Americans. They have literally made me hate their guts down to the very bottom of my soul. They are scumbag criminals. Worse the "SEX OFFENDERS". The people who hate "SEX OFFENDERS", I hate 10 times more.

Further, I'm not calling people who just want the Registries "terrorists". People who use it responsibly and with good intentions are fine. But I believe there are very few of those people and the number of them is shrinking every day (as more and more of them realize the Registries are a panacea). Good parents already know that they don't need Registries and that they aren't nearly enough anyway. Good parents, like myself, treat every single person like he/she could be on a Registry. Because, and I know you know this, the person who tries to molest your child isn't going to be someone listed on a Registry. Once you parent like that, you don't have any need for any lame, grandstanding, nanny, criminal big government Registry.

So, yeah, the people who use the Registries to harass people and try to get their legislatures to pass laws to move those people out of homes that they own, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., are scumbag terrorists. I hate them and they are not Americans.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

The U.S. has a problem and needs to be stopped.

I do love my country. That is why I am doing what I am doing. There are people who understand my motivations. I don't have any enemies; just misunderstandings. We have all heard the expressions, to know someone is to love someone.

The registry isolates people and implants ideas into the public that a person is dangerous. It is done without any knowledge about that person.

I know there are dangerous people on the registry. I know that the reason there are limits placed on governments are because that the people will always have a tendency to simplify and oppress when given the chance. The world is a complicated place for everyone and complicated answers are difficult for many to comprehend.

The road to peace for humanity truly was started about 225 years ago, upon ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The broad language of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS along with the right to express one's opinions were nails that were going to free prejudices and expand knowledge, the founding fathers could have never understood.

NOW, those same principles are laid out in every single free and un-free country in the world (some take freedoms more seriously then others).

After WWII, and amid a world of destruction was laid out a new set of laws that every single person falls under. Those laws were based, in a very large part on the U.S. Constitution.

In effect, those laws as laid out in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights prohibits the State from making enemies out of people simply because they are not liked.

You get to follow procedures. No more legislative declarations of dangerousness or passing of banishment laws on groups.

At the heart of international law are two concepts; both violated by the registry. One is that, every person is an individual before the law, AND that freedom of speech is the HIGHEST virtue and deserving the most protection.

I am very serious, your registry does NOT have to be followed.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Registries don't violate either of those principles.

And, a registry that specifically states it's not making any representation that people on it are dangerous isn't "implanting" that idea in anybody.

And, it's done with the knowledge that the people on it have been convicted of a sexual offense.

Your best bet would be to try to get the SC to hear another case on this issue, but they may not be willing to do that.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

UH-HUH. Because a website makes a ridiculous assertion that it is not telling anyone that they are dangerous, and THEN a legislature uses that list to systematically banish, makes the statement ridiculous at its core.

What your argument is, that the State can set up a police State around people who are not dangerous. They can ban them from the community and community events. The public can use the list in order to take away the right to live in peace and even to speak out and create relationships within the community.

You use an argument for whatever is convenient for you. At one point, a registrant can't go to a school yard. At another point, some may not actually be dangerous.

Which is it? Can the State ban non-dangerous people from living within the community because they don't like them? Or should there be some way (like through a court) to have a dangerousness established?

Don't try and justify despotism by reading illogical and self-serving opinions by the Supreme Court.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

If the registry states that it's not representing danger, then you can't claim it's telling people that those on the list are dangerous.

The next question has to do with whether or not it's reasonable for the legislature to make laws regarding the people on that registry.

I might agree with you on that one, that if the list contains both dangerous people and those that have not been dangerous, that it's not quite fair to the non-dangerous ones to treat them the same as the dangerous ones.

That's an issue to bring up with the legislature - that there should be a distinction between those two groups.

But you seem to be the one with illogical and emotional arguments here, not me.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

From Wikipedia: Ex-post facto law: retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.

Anyway, a legislature is in no position to determine who is or is not a danger to the community. Only a court can.

The idea that putting oneself up for a life time of banishment laws, community condemnation, police visits and visits by the police; that a person must give up all his personal information, some of which is also published on a website (including work info, shoe size, car details, internet details, along with periodic pictures, and a map to one's home) and doing all of that AFTER the sentence (sometimes decades after) and then using that information to exclude a person from a community through law or policy IS an illegal ex-post facto law.

It is nice to think that the registry is only publishing facts related to a registry and that is all it is doing. But that is clearly not the case.

The registry strips a person of safety and/or security; forces instability, makes normal conduct criminal conduct and adds long prison terms for not abiding by the laws and laughably you believe that none of that touches on the rights to live freely.

Believe me, your registry is already beat because you, and most people refuse to see the obvious.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

It's not "my" registry.

The SC didn't buy the argument that registries are ex post facto laws.

Probably because they don't criminalize prior behavior.

They require somebody who was already convicted of a crime according to laws at the time to register their information.

Using that information to deny housing, etc. might be unfair to those that aren't dangerous, as I've said already - that's an issue to bring up with legislatures.

If long prison terms are in fact the result of failing to register, then your suggestion that people should just ignore the registry requirements is particularly bad advice.

Since it seems this is a personal issue for you, my best advice would be to move to a state that doesn't have these sorts of registries - you can find that information pretty easily online.

A couple of better arguments for you to use would be: Consensual sex with minors shouldn't be illegal under some circumstances (eg. "she told me she was 18", a month before somebody's 18th birthday, etc.), registries should separate violent offenders from non-violent ones, or only publish violent offenders' information, states should only restrict violent offenders' housing, etc.

But beating the dead horses that the SC has already ruled against seems pointless.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I checked out the KS registries.

Interestingly, they're not just for sex offenses, but include violent ones and drug ones as well.

So much for the "don't you want to know where the violent offenders live?" argument.

Also, in KS, if your sexual offense was before 1994, you don't have to register in KS.

And, it includes a statement in bold that anybody who uses the information on it to harass, etc. the people on it can be subject to both civil and criminal prosecution.

Finally, it lists the actual offense, so if it's statutory rape, that would be immediately obvious, and distinguished from rape or other violent sexual offenses.

I am a little bit uncomfortable that it lists people's apartment numbers, as well as addresses, but other than that, it seems pretty ok to me, and there's no detailed information of the kind you mention, shoe size, etc. simply name, address, picture and the offense involved.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

No, the registry must have a point to it. That means there must be an articulable reason why a certain person must have their information actively disseminated to the community.

Why?

Because the effects of putting out such information in unlimited ways, which includes violence directed toward the offender.

Your suggestion to move because an environment is intolerable is illegal. That is the definition of exile.

I will not bring up any issues to a political organization who inherently has no business deciding what is justice in a specific case.

A legislature does not inherently decide issues on individuals. That is a job for a COURT to do.

Your argument that because there are disclaimers hardly ameliorates the actual violence and threats of violence directed toward a registrant and the apathy that the police and society takes towards those actions.

In other words, it is about OUTCOMES, not intentions.

Also, I am not only speaking about Kansas, but about the insanity that exists in the vast majority of States and federal law.

And finally, long prison sentences for evading illegal registry laws makes MY argument so much stronger.

Of course, in the prison culture that has been built in the U.S. you and most people would not agree.

I laugh at registry and all registry laws. I am not following them and nor do I have fear of them. If that ever does happen and I do become fearful of registry laws, I will destroy ALL the credibility of the stupid registry.

You all think you are dealing with a person with a label. It is your first mistake. I am an individual before the law. Only despots can't see that.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Ok - I'm going to stop after this comment.

Your arguments get more and more irrational as we continue this discussion.

My suggestion is certainly not illegal - it's a suggestion - and it was based on the supposition that you are a non-violent sexual offender. However, some of your more recent comments have made me reconsider that - you may in fact be a violent one.

Different states have a variety of differences - people move from state to state based on those all of the time.

Your scorn for our legal system is duly noted - it's what makes me change my view, and conclude that you may in fact be a violent offender.

I hereby retract my suggestion that you move to a state without a registry.

My next suggestion is that you follow our laws, and get some counseling to deal with your various issues.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

You're a person who has a label and think it means something. It does not occur to you that I am an individual before the law and your registry is already beat.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

It should be noted, that when a State goes outside of a sentence and labels a person and especially uses that label in unlimited ways to harass and banish, that label carries very little weight legally.

You call my comments and arguments irrational, but they are actually very rational. The arguments I make and solutions I advocate for fit very nicely into the system already in place.

A legislature, creating that list is unique in America. There is no precedence for it in American jurisprudence.

It is amazing how little you understand the basic concepts of separation of powers. Each branch has certain responsibilities. The legislature is supposed to be limited in their law making capacities to APPLY criminal justice laws.

The argument is always that the laws are benign and do not tread on basic Constitutional rights. The funny thing about it is, the courts are buying into the argument that intention is all that matters and outcomes can and are ignored.

The outcome of a registry is the loss of safety and/or security. This is a fairly easy proposition to prove. I don't have to show that I will lose safety and/or security, but that it is likely through the laws, that I will lose safety and/or security.

I do have value as a person in the community I am a part of. I am a productive member of the community I am a part of. In many ways, I am even loved by the community I am a part of.

Nobody is going to take that away from me through ex-post facto, safety stripping illegal laws.

0

RodTemple 2 years, 5 months ago

Rudy101 (May 5, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.):

Your last two paragraphs are great. People who are listed on a BS Registry in the U.S. (i.e. Registered Citizens) should fully adopt those paragraphs. They need to stand up and tell the terrorists who support the Registries where to shove them.

Registered Citizens need to decide that the Registries are simply unacceptable and that they are not going to put with them. Then begin a relentless war with the terrorists.

I have to say that I don't know exactly what you mean by your contention that the Registries are "doomed" (not quoting you, just quoting the word). I don't really see the Registries going anywhere for a very long time. I expect they will eventually be eliminated and that history will look back upon them as just another stain on the U.S., but I don't think it will be for decades. Just look at our governments' "War on Drugs". They have proven beyond doubt that they are colossal, collective idiots who don't know how to do anything right and will not stop regardless of how badly they are beaten or any facts. The Registries have already hit that point.

I have been following your discussion with "jafs" and it is clear that he/she is the irrational and illogical one. In fact, he/she made many arguments that were simply preposterous and, as you said, laughable. To me, he/she represents the typical person who I believe supports the Registries. He/she appears to not quite be a terrorist but at the very least, he/she is irrational, anti-factual, uninformed, and an Unamerican. Enough time wasted on that though.

I have seen your comments/postings about this Registration BS all over the place. I would like to tell you my impression of it all. Prior to this thread, I actually had not read many of your postings and probably none very closely. I think one of the reasons for that is it appeared that I agreed with the things you said and I tend to read less from the people I agree with. I usually focus on the people I disagree with, especially the terrorists.

But also, I thought that you were a Registered Citizen and that you also might not be very bright. I have been trying to figure out why that is. I think it is because I don't think I really understood a contention that you seem to always make that the Registries are invalid, can be ignored, and are "doomed". I think I saw that, didn't quite understand it, and so I kind of wrote it off and moved on.

Having read your comments here more carefully, however, I now belive that your arguments are quite well-reasoned. I also do not think you are a Registered Citizen. I think if you did commit a sex crime, it was a long time ago and you do not have to Register. Or, you may actually be a citizen of a country other than the U.S.

(continued in my next comment)

0

RodTemple 2 years, 5 months ago

(continued from my previous comment)

I still do find your concept of "your Registry is invalid and can be ignored" to be a bit vague for me. I have also noticed that people tend to attack you quite vehemetly but based on what you are saying, that is not rational. In fact, good Americans should fully agree with you. I'm wondering if people attack you because they don't quite understand your premises. I don't know. The things I say are certainly more offensive but I don't think people attack me to the level they attack you.

Anyway, I am a Registered Citizen and I have been for a very long time. I know for a fact that the whole of the SEX OFFENDER witch hunt is some seriously stupid BS and the point of it SURELY cannot be to help prevent sex crimes. Most of it is just too stupid for words. It has made me come to believe that most Americans are morons.

I know that the Registries are a bad thing. They have turned me into a terrible citizen. I could go on and on about that but I won't bore anyone. I will just try to summarize it.

I feel that people who support the Registries are my enemies. They are not my fellow Americans. I feel like I am at war with them and I have already defeated them. I live better than 99% of them do. I am not going to allow their Registries lower the quality of my life. I am very wealthy and I live my life like a normal person, how I want to.

The Registeries are counterproductive, just as all experts have always said. But one thing I have done is to structure my life to make absolutely certain that is the case. I understand many things that Registry Terrorists would like for me not to do and I do those things all the time. One of the biggest things I do in that regard is be around children all the time. It is a completely normal thing to do but I think the Registry Terrorists somehow believe their Registries do something to prevent that. But like many things they believe, it has no basis in reality. I am around children all the time and very, very few people know that I am listed on a Registry. All my close friends and associates know. No one else does.

As a "safety" device, the Registries are trivial to defeat. All the Registries do is harass Registered Citizens who are doing nothing but living normal lives. As far as preventing or even discouraging any type of crime, they do the opposite.

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

And YES, I am still around...

0

somedude20 2 years, 5 months ago

It is surprising to me that the Army would allow sex offenders to join. I remember way back when enlisting in the Corps that a few of my friends had to get waivers for pot/under age drinking offenses. One would think that being a sex offender (or pederast) would be no bueno

0

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

It depends on the offense. In Kansas, it is possible to get on the registry for 15 years for conviction of sexual battery, a class "A" misdemeanor, with a maximum sentence of one year in jail. This crime can be inappropriate groping and the like. It is also possible to get on the registry for 15 years for a conviction of adultery, if one of the parties is under 18. That would essentially be an 18 year old married person cheating and having sex with a 17 year old that they are not married to. Adultery is a class "C" misdemeanor carrying a maximum one month jail sentence.

The army could grant a waiver following the completion of any jail or probation term.

0

acg 2 years, 5 months ago

I'm with Buffalobill. Let's make human shields for the soldiers out of all of the sickos in prison and in mental hospitals (you know, the ones who served their time for child rape but still aren't "cured"). That's a win-win for everyone!! :)

0

lepchun 2 years, 5 months ago

I have two children in the Army and both of them had back ground checks and were asked questions in regards to traffic tickets on their record. So much for background checks.

0

sigephandy 2 years, 5 months ago

Wow! I know the guy of the far right from college. I had not idea he was a sex offender. Last I heard had moved out of state. Creepy!

0

somedude20 2 years, 5 months ago

one walks amongst us if you frequent FSB on Monday nights

0

somedude20 2 years, 5 months ago

I walk around the lines but wont cross em. If I told ya, it would cross the line and LJW would probably throw me off

0

RodTemple 2 years, 5 months ago

Actually, if you believe in the panacea Registries, it would wrong for you not to name the person.

Remember, it's all for public safety. Don't you want to protect children? Remember all those lies? How could LJW disagree with that? How could they disagree with something that the nanny governments run propaganda campaigns so hard to promote?

It's for the children.

0

jjinks 2 years, 5 months ago

The problem is, like a friend's son who was dating a 17 year old when he was 18 years old, got this same status put on him

0

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 5 months ago

Fortunately, in Kansas, that scenario isn't even a crime. Teens below the age of consent (16) but at least 14 having voluntary sexual relations is not an offense that requires registration. So there is one small way in which Kansas laws are more progressive. Yay!

0

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

My understanding is that someone engaging in sex with someone under 16 still has to register upon conviction or juvenile adjudication.

http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_22/Article_49/

0

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 5 months ago

Not if the offender is under 19, the other party is at least 14 and they are less than 4 years apart in age. It's KSA 21-3522, unlawful voluntary sexual relations and it is not among the list of crimes that require registration.

0

Jayhawk1958 2 years, 5 months ago

I had a consentual relationship when I was 22. She told me she was 18 but later found out she was 15. Not sure what would have happened if I got caught, but was just a young and dumb guy. You don't think of things like that when you are young.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I always wonder how guys can think a 15 year old is actually 18.

0

Reuben Turner 2 years, 5 months ago

well i be... well jayhawk 1958, in these times you better start thinking of things like that and these coming up must or they will find themselves with a mug shot on bad website..

0

Rudy101 2 years, 5 months ago

The guy jayhawk is admitting he had an illegal sexual relationship. If what he says is true, that the girl said she was 18 but she was only 15, what benefit would society gain from putting the offender (any offender like that) on a sex offender registry?

The answer is, NONE.

This is the whole of your problem. The registry is supposed to list dangerous people and then the legislature fills it up with people who are obviously not dangerous, and then destroys their ability to become a productive member of society.

The State has built a registry that has absolutely no rationalization to it.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.