Dave & Clipper = This law that was passed by the VOTERS of each State, including NYS, was for those Sex Offenders designated as a Level 3 - the worst of the worst, and those that have exhibited violent actions and have been judged to repeat their offenses if they are ever turned loose into Society again.
So, Clipper, your argument about a 17 year old boy having sex with an underage girl due to a romatic involvement would NOT apply to this Lifetime Commitment Law that was passed.
Dave - I understand your argument about Government interferring with our Constitutional Rights. But, on the otherhand, I think Society as a whole is totally fed up with the lenient laws that have existed for these Sex Offenders and their repeated crimes, that the majority of voters were in agreement with the passing of this "Lifetime Commitment" law.
I also worked with the mentally ill many years ago and even back then, sex offenders were only given a slap on the wrist whenever they harmed a young child. Now - the laws have gotten tougher due to Society finally getting fed up with what has happened to our young children by these perverts.
Ask Todd, Ralph, Wcup what their "opinions" are about this matter and I'm sure they will agree with me. It has been proven time and time again, that once a criminal develops the "urge" to have sex with a child, or harm a child in any way, he/she has crossed the line and can NEVER be "rehabilitated". IMO, that is when they have stopped even being a human being.
Post by Disgusted-Daily on May 1, 2008 13:01:44 GMT -5
I could be wrong but I think the law has been amended for the new Civil Confinement act. We have Judges all day long call the Prison to change current policies. We also have Judges stop by unannounced and take a tour. Judge Dwyer was just recently on a tour in the Prison.
I do feel sorry for that 17 or 18 year old boy who has sex with an 15 yr old girl that lied about her age, whether it is consensual or not, it is a sex crime and he will be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
I work with a guy that his son was in that same predicament and it is truly ugly and embarrassing for the parent and a hardship for that child who has just basically destroyed the rest of his life.
If a State Correction Officer is caught having sex with an Inmate while incarcerated (male or female) regardless if it's consensual, it is a crime and will be registered as a sex offender.
In those two incidents the law needs to be rewritten and is definitely not fair or what one would expect when they hear the words of a sex offender.
Both these incidents also would not qualify for the Civil Confinement Law because of the level and no violence was used.
This should be no different than a mentally ill person who is confined to a mental institute against their will. I have stated before that these individuals are the worst of the worst in the filthy animal category. I have worked first hand with these individuals and they have told me that there is no cure for them and they will always have these tendency's toward children. They are unable to watch inappropriate TV programs, reading material or conversations (such as getting off on previous crimes against children) which is a common occurrence we discover on a daily basis in the Prison.
This type of person is counter productive in society and will never contribute anything to society. In my eyes they have just killed a child when they commit such a horrible and inconceivable act toward them. I have no remorse for this type of person and would be able to sleep better knowing that they were in a place where they would never harm a child again.
No complaints about confining class 3's. Simply don't agree with the constitutionality of it all. Sounds like they have skirted the constitutional rights of the offenders, when they could have made the effort to do it right.
Contrary to all of the "IMO's" in the world, laws are not effectively enforced by circumventing the constitution, and contrary also is the belief that any American has NO constitutional rights.
Sex offenders are "offensive" to us all, but they DO still have rights, like it or not, and to take away those rights, is a dangerous precedent to set in a free country.
The only point that I would make is that when a judge sentences a person to 20 years, at the end of that 20 years the person should be freed. If we are to keep a person confined beyond that, then the sentencing guidelines need to include that option as a part of the original adjudication of the case.
If one wants to keep a person under the thumb forever, change the law to make maximum sentencing for sex crime, a life sentence, and then allow for the parole process after so many years in custody. At least then the person has a chance of being re-evaluated periodically, and a chance to be held "legally" for whatever period of time is decided upon by parole. If they are never considered "parolable", then they at least are being legally and fairly held.
I guess this will most likely be my last post on this subject, as I know better than to think it possible to sway minds to consider other options or opinions when the opinions are so firmly entrenched. It is like arguing the abortion issue. No purpose is accomplished by beating it to death.
I have read the provisions of the law and it changes nothing in my personal opinion. The waters are still pretty muddy as to the constitutional correctness of the law. The mental health people have some very valid points. Especially their points concerning the retroactive determination as to the original intent of the crime and whether it was sexually motivated or not.
The non-reversible petition by the state attorney general is constrictive to the inmates rights in itself. Like I said, I don't care if you keep them underneath the jail as long as it is done with no infringement on the constitutional rights of the individual.
I am fairly sure that with the injunctions to be filed and the legal determinations to still be made, the issue will become legally applicable eventually. In the meantime, I hope they don't keep anyone beyond their rightful sentence without first determining that they are a valid danger.
I really hate saying this , but I do have to agree with Clipper.
Before the State decided to do any of what they are doing now, all should have been reviewed to the fullest.
Todd, you know most of the time, they jump into the water before knowing how deep it is, which causes more serious problems then we had in the beginning.
Most violent level 3 offenders usually get sentenced to either life in prison or in some states the death penalty as in the one quoted by Thelma.
Right now they are throwing all sex offenders in the same category no matter what level they are rated. Holding one after their sentencing is unconstitutional and I'm sure in the near future there will be cases that wll fight and win that fact. Sad, but time will tell.
Clipper is right. If they wanted to keep these offenders under their thumbs for the rest of their lives then the sentences should be life in prison without parole and leave no doubt or any room for law suits.
All remember one thing. Before the State started this, (which is just recently), levels 1-2-3 offenders were already released after serving their time. They are still now our streets. Can't round them up and send them back. I still state the problem lies in what happens after they are back on our streets. They have to be monitored and monitored properly and efficiently for everyone's safety. Most cases you hear about, again like the one Thelma quoted, someone was not doing their job on watching that animal.
Also remember, that they will concentrate on level 3, but yet the ones with the level three ratings now, started out with lesser sexual crimes until they reached the level 3 status. Have to go back to monitoring well all sex offenders once they are released back into the public.
Last Edit: May 1, 2008 17:40:49 GMT -5 by bobbbiez
If we don't agree with that, we need to amend the constitution. I guess that is what Dave was saying also. There is a large difference between "amending" the constitution, and "bending" the constitution.
I agree, Clipper, but I dont' think we need to amend the constitution. The legislature could simply increase sentences or prescribe lifetime parole. That would be constitutional, I suppose, up to the the limit of whatever is "cruel and unusual." I'm concerned about the Division of Parole developing administrative policies that would increase incarceration. THAT is beyond the pale.
Last Edit: May 1, 2008 18:13:08 GMT -5 by dgriffin
I think I got a little confused here, due to reading the posts out of order. Or I could just be getting confused! At any rate, Thelma, you are correct that the new Civil Confinement law was passed in a constitutionally acceptable manner. However, as Clipper et al point out, whether the law will be upheld as constitutional is another matter. We all want safety from sex perps. But we also have concerns about any abridgement of citizen rights. Here's a scary quote from the reference that Ralph cited: ""As a result of the retroactive finding that a NON-sex crime was sexually motivated, a person can be branded a 'sex offender' and subject to long-term, indefinite civil commitment, including psychiatric treatment and behavior modification." Holy Soviet Union, Batman! My impure thoughts could land me in jail. I don't know how the prosecutor will prove it to the jury, but if he can show that when I stole your coat I was sexually motivated, the theft will cost me a $200 fine, but my thoughts will force me out of my neighborhood near the school and I'll have to visit a shrink the rest of my life.
I think the word "sexually motivated" means when rape or some other sexual crime was committed against the victim at the same time another crime (robbery, etc.) was done. So, Dave, your "thoughts" would NOT be subject to what was intended when they mentioned "sexually motivated"!
I have read all the links, arguments, and postings on this subject. So far, NOTHING has changed my mind. I still say, once a criminal is branded with a Level 3 Sex Offender status - he is subject to confinement until the day he dies. Whether or not this is "constitutional" or not is immaterial in my opinion.