A New York Times article that discusses a proposed Massachusetts ordinance that would bar sex-offenders from many public spaces. While my initial reaction was excitement to see the issue being discussed and to see a legislative body taking accountability, I am uneasy about taking away rights of persons when so many grey areas exist as to when a place becomes considered a public gathering place for children and etc. To me, that means the ordinance needs to be clearly defined and tailored and it does NOT mean that the ordinance should be eliminated...but I am interested to see how others feel about it?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The bigger problem unfortunately is that in many states, New York for instance, not everyone who is a registered sex offender committed a sexual offense. In New York, and in a fair amount of other states, those convicted of kidnapping of a minor, without any showing that it was for a sexually deviant purpose, for instance, must comply with the most stringent level of sex offender registration.
Were sex offender registration laws not the dragnets that they are, I would be far more comfortable with ordinances such as the MA one you note here. Those who commit the most heinous of sex crimes very often, if not always, are such that they are not curable of their desires to repeat the offense. But here, suppose someone kidnapped his or her own child during a custody battle. Yes, it's stupid and criminal, but it's not at all sexually related. We should not punish such people in the same manner that we punish true sex offenders.
Suggested Reading: Ofer Raban, Be They Fish or Not Fish: The Fishy Registration of Nonsexual Offenders, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 497 (2007).
okay, I understand and agree with many parts of your point. At the same time, kidnapping isn't exactly a light crime. Should the law be structured in a way as to not inconvenience? Sure, there are circumstances when someone might be charged for kidnapping even though they had a really really good reason to do it (hmm)...I just am not sure that convinces me they should have done or that they don't deserve repercussions.
I have mixed feelings because I realize some parts of the law affect the population in disproportionate ways or unjust ways. At the same time, I need to know how often this kidnapping example actually occurs? Also, I might need a better example OTHER than kidnapping....
It is irrelevant that "kidnapping isn't exactly a light crime." It is not by definition a sex crime, which is where these registrations come in. 42 U.S.C. 14071 requires registration nationwide of any sex offender, as well as anyone convicted of the following nonsexual offenses: "kidnapping of a minor, except by a parent" and "false imprisonment of a minor, except by a parent." (do note I was incorrect in my above hypothetical therefore involving the custody battle). Whether or not you think these are light crimes - they often are not - it is inarguable that they are not sexual per se. The argument against classifying such offenders in the same way we classify the most horrid of sexual offenders is laid out much better in the article I cited in my first comment, and I would again refer you to it. The argument basically is that if we are to classify such criminals the same as we classify the most serious of sexual offenders, with all the repercussions that then result, we should demand the prosecution prove up a sexual nexus in the nonsexual offense. For instance, that the kidnapper or false imprisoner did so in the hopes of then committing a sexual offense, which was thwarted by law enforcement. As to how often this actually occurs, the author of that article I cited, Mr. Raban, wrote it after having struggled with the issue while an assistant district attorney in the Westchester DA's office. It has happened, and it does happen. Do realize that being forced to register as a sex offender means more than mere registration. It means that all subsequent potential employers, landlords, even in some cases significant others will be on notice that you are a sex offender, if not the specific crime you committed. Such ostracization is not something the system, nor we, should take likely.
The law does affect the population in disproportionate ways. Such is the nature of rules and laws. We draw dividing lines between criminal and noncriminal, between felonies and nonfelonies, between those who deserve gov't benefits and those who do not. There is no recognized guarantee in the constitution that we must all be treated exactly the same by the law. If that sounds funny to you, perhaps it should, but 14th Amendment law has shown it to be truth. Absent some trigger for a higher degree of scrutiny, laws and state action are presumed to be valid, even though they treat different portions of the population differently. See, e.g., Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
Side note: response to this yet no response to what I said re: the cunt post?
Post a Comment