Grab a kid's arm, register as a sex offender.

[Pangloss]

Interesting points.

 

It's too easy to blame it all on the left. That's just more ideology getting in the way. I have quite a bit of sympathy (as you all know) for the concept of liberal bias and political correctness in the media, and if there's one thing I LIVE for it's to point out hypocrisy wherever I can root it out (grin), but we seem a bit too caught up in that sometimes. It's two wrongs making a right, and as we all know that's just another kind of hypocrisy.

 

(My biggest problem these days is defining a middle ground wide enough to catch a foothold on!)

[Douglas]

It's too easy to blame it all on the left. That's just more ideology getting in the way.

Political correctness within the bounds of common sense (MY common sense) is simply being polite and courteous.

 

As for XPC (extreme political correctness), it's probably easier to blame the left than to blame the right. Given some choices, I'd blame XPC on the NEA over the NRA, the NY times over the Washington times, Dick Durbin over Dick Lugar.

 

Perhaps some others can share their thoughts on why XPC is out of control.

[Phi for All]

As for XPC (extreme political correctness), it's probably easier to blame the left than to blame the right.

When it comes to civil rights XPC, the left is probably more to blame. But there are other aspects that I see spread evenly across the board, and even predominantly towards the right.

 

PC and XPC are attempts to reset political and social boundaries, and this is what corrupt leaders from the right and left attempt to do to set new standards they can control. These leaders prey on selfish desires to punish those with unfavorable ideas, and let's face it, the right more often criticizes the left for unpopular new ideas. The left views the right as "stick-in-the-muds" who are resistant to favorable change.

 

I think you are unfairly pointing partisan fingers. XPC is an attempt to control behavior, to set new standards, and as such it is practiced by selfish conservatives and liberals who see themselves as the new paradigm of morality. The "behavior gestapo" has equal amounts of right and left.

[Douglas]

The "behavior gestapo" has equal amounts of right and left.

Phi, You're probably right.

 

Since XPC seems to be getting worse rather than leveling off, which factions or focus groups, right or left, would you blame? Do you think academia has a big hand in it?

[Phi for All]

Since XPC seems to be getting worse rather than leveling off, which factions or focus groups, right or left, would you blame? Do you think academia has a big hand in it?

Since it seems to be all about control, I look for the money and power trails. Since this discussion is about PC that gets out of hand and starts being legislated into XPC, I would watch out for politicians who use it to gains quick support and make them look caring and responsive to the "will" of the people. It's actually just catering to the selfish mob mentality.

 

Who makes money when books have to be reprinted to correct certain un-PC words and phrases? Who profits when medical professionals have to divert resources to try to correct the sources of poverty rather than simply treating the ills of the poor? Who gains power when they lobby either for a law making English the US national language or for a law respecting immigrant's rights to speak the language of their culture?

 

Perhaps our fears (which I mentioned as a cause in my earlier post) are simply a tool that the behavior gestapo uses against us. I see academia as another tool for them to use, trying to teach XPC to young minds eager for change that lack the wisdom to see that broad policy is already in place to handle most situations. Who sets the curriculum in state run institutions?

 

Personal accountability is lost when we let the behavior gestapo dictate right and wrong. The consequences of improper social behavior are a better long-term deterrent than XPC punishments.

[In My Memory]

Dave,

 

I would imagine it's the people getting elected for office. They want to make themselves look good before they go under the public vote, so they say "look, we've increased the number of arrests for sex offenses!!!1111222" (or thereabouts). At the end of the day, it's all boiling down to political correctness and what is acceptable in today's litigious society.

It has nothing to nothing to do with political correctness, its just the way the law was defined. According to the judges very own words from the article:

"I don't really see the purpose of registration in this case. I really don't," Morse said. "But I feel that I am constrained by the statute."

[Douglas]

It has nothing to nothing to do with political correctness' date=' [/quote']I think the PC thing was tangential to the original discussion, which was the zero tolerance of the pedophile law. The judge claims he was restrained by the law, but it seems to me that he had some discretion in the interpretation or the meaning of a law that was not well thought out.

[Phi for All]

It has nothing to nothing to do with political correctness, its just the way the law was defined.

While I see your point that the law was correctly applied, I can also see XPC clouding the judgement of those who wrote the law. The judges should have enough discretion to allow them to ascertain whether there was a sexual motive for the unlawful restraint. Without that motive, the defendant can still be guilty of breaking the law without having to register as a sex offender.

[In My Memory]

Douglas,

 

The judge claims he was restrained by the law, but it seems to me that he had some discretion in the interpretation

Hmmmm...

 

I have a hard time reading what you're saying literally, because to me it means that you are allowing the judge room to circumvent the application and punishments of particular laws he doesnt like. In this case, because the conviction of the man required his mandatory registration, if the judges of the original trial or appeal had ruled any differently, they would have been circumventing the laws penned down and definitely overstepping their boundaries.

 

The judicial body exists to see that laws passed by the congress are fairly applied, so the judges actions were essentially correct and should not be in dispute.

 

or the meaning of a law that was not well thought out.

Laws involving minors are a special case. There are really lots of different offenses that arent usually sex crimes with adults, but are when they involve minors, which includes kidnapping, abduction, murder, manslaughter, and in some cases child endangerment (source).

 

 

Phi for All,

 

While I see your point that the law was correctly applied, I can also see XPC clouding the judgement of those who wrote the law.

I'm going out on a limb, but perhaps this law was written as a sex crime for cases where pervs get their rocks off by grabbing children and holding them against will.

 

According to the original article, the man appealed his registration, but the appeals court ruled against him. Apparently the appeals court believes there is enough rationale behind this law that it should still remain a sex crime without necessitating that the law include some kind of a "sexual intent" amendment.

[Dak]

well, then lets just go the whole hog and imprison the guy who grabbed the kid's arm for statutory rape.

[In My Memory]

Swansont,

 

I wonder if having to register as a sex offender when you are not guilty of a sex-related offense qualifies as "cruel and unusual."

Not in this case, because sex-offense registration was not a part of his punishment or sentence, but was a result of the mandatory registration laws following his conviction.

[husmusen]

Not in this case, because sex-offense registration was not a part of his punishment or sentence, but was a result of the mandatory registration laws following his conviction.

 

Whoah, that seems to me to open door big enough to fit a road train through.

 

Example,

!) The branding of the letter T (for traitor) on the forehead of a journalist was not cruel as it was not a punishment for breaking laws under Bushs "A bill for a more trustworthy media" Bill but rather a consquence of his conviction for publishing unvetted articles specified under the act.

 

2)The stoning of the woman to death was not cruel or unusual because it was not part of her punishment but simply a consequence of her conviction.

 

There are some M-E governments who are just going to looove that reasoning.

 

Cheers.

[Pangloss]

Swansont' date='

Not in this case, because sex-offense registration was not a part of his punishment or sentence, but was a result of the mandatory registration laws following his conviction.[/quote']

 

 

Well, we should ask a legal scholar, but I don't believe the Eighth Amendment is restricted in its enforcement the confines of a criminal's sentence. For example, in Trop v Dulles the court held that the much-later action of removing Trop's citizenship (years after he had served his time) was "cruel and unusual". The issues in that decision had nothing to do with the issue in question here (and other cases may indicate that I'm wrong), but it certainly suggests a wider scope in the 8th.

 

But if you think it is so restricted, cite some cases and let's take a look at it. It sounds like an interesting issue.

 

 

Regarding the main issue of this thread, I agree that the judges actions are not in dispute. The issue here would appear to be flawed legislation.

[In My Memory]

Husumen,

 

Whoah' date=' that seems to me to open door big enough to fit a road train through.

 

Example,

!) The branding of the letter T (for traitor) on the forehead of a journalist was not cruel as it was not a punishment for breaking laws under Bushs "A bill for a more trustworthy media" Bill but rather a consquence of his conviction for publishing unvetted articles specified under the act.

 

2)The stoning of the woman to death was not cruel or unusual because it was not part of her punishment but simply a consequence of her conviction.

 

There are some M-E governments who are just going to looove that reasoning.[/quote']

It think you have the wrong idea.

 

The way it works is like this: there are two laws:

1. one that says "knowingly detaining a minor without legal authority is a sex-offense" where the punishment is perhaps to spend 48 hours in jail

2. and another law that says "people guilty of sex-crimes are mandatorally required to be registered into the sex-offender database".

 

I should clarify if I was unclear: registration is based on being found guilty of a specific crime (i.e. this is what I mean by saying its not a punishment, but a consequence of a conviction), so criticisms against the judge's ruling or claiming that the ruling is cruel and unusual just dont make sense.

[In My Memory]

Pangloss,

 

Well' date=' we should ask a legal scholar, but I don't believe the Eighth Amendment is restricted in its enforcement the confines of a criminal's sentence. For example, in Trop v Dulles the court held that the much-later action of removing Trop's citizenship (years after he had served his time) was "cruel and unusual". The issues in that decision had nothing to do with the issue in question here (and other cases may indicate that I'm wrong), but it certainly suggests a wider scope in the 8th.

 

But if you think it is so restricted, cite some cases and let's take a look at it. It sounds like an interesting issue.

I'm not a legal scholar (only a legal dabbler ), but I think some case precendents might be found in how far judges are allowed to deviate and be creative with the sentencing structure. As far as that is concerned, the amount of deviation has been limited very much in some recent Supreme Court rulings.

 

On Blakley v Washington, according USAToday - Supreme Court starts term with prison sentencing rules:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court begins its new term today by moving to clear up confusion over the future of federal sentencing rules that have been in place for nearly two decades.

In June, the justices sent ripples through courts across the nation — and raised doubts about the validity of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines — by ruling that a Washington state judge could not increase a defendant's prison sentence unless a jury had decided there were grounds to do so.

 

... "States have been enacting reforms to give judges more discretion so the punishment fits the crime," Weich said. "But on the federal level, Congress has been taking away judges' discretion by creating mandatory minimum sentences and making the guidelines more rigid."

This is about mandatory sentencing, but it suggests a judges ability to circumvent the certain guidelines in handling criminals is limited.

 

More relevant cases would be those limiting a judges ability to selectively apply certain laws to individuals. Can the judge apply certain laws to some people, but not the others? No, of course not, as an established precedent in Kansas v. Snelling:

1. The registration and notification provisions of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq. , are not deemed inhumane, shocking, barbarous, or contrary to fundamental notions of human dignity so as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

 

2. Trial courts are not allowed to pick and choose when and if the public access provisions of the Kansas Offender Registration Act are applied.

As far as I'm concerned, this is why I dont join the rest of the SFNers in claiming this ruling as silly. (Besides, not only is this ruling valid enough constitutional grounds, but its really really practical to prohibit judges from selectively applying law.)

 

 

However, on the scope of the 8th Amendment and Sex-offense registration, there is more than enough precedent to see that the 8th amendement rights are protected even with the use of the sex-offender registry:

 

Sex offender registration statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment:

On February 23, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the sex offender registration statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment when applied to juveniles because it is nonpunitive in both intent and effect.

 

Illinois Judicial Rulings Revisited:

It found that the registration is not cruel and unusual punishment because "the statutory duty is neither imprisonment nor a fine. It imposes no restraints on liberty or property. In short, by traditional definition, the duty to register is not punishment." Even if it were punishment it could not be termed cruel since the stigma claimed by the defendant, placed on him after his debt to society was paid, actually results from his own actions and is already a matter of public record.

 

The court also ruled that there was no denial of due process since "the means adopted are a reasonable method of accomplishing the desired objective," namely the protection of children by allowing law enforcement agencies to track habitual offenders.

 

Nor can the requirement be seen as violating equal protection by singling out such offenders from others, such as child pornographers or exploiters of child prostitutes. The court said, "When the legislature creates a statute, it is not required to solve all the evils of a particular wrong in one fell swoop. The legislature may tailor a statute to the particular problem it is seeking to solve." Justice Joseph H. Cunningham wrote the opinion in People v Adams (Docket No. 70462).

[Pangloss]

Interesting. It's hard to say if that's definitive one way or the other, but it's food for thought. I've read that the subject of federal mandatory sentencing guidelines may be tested by the Supreme Court this fall, which will be an interesting issue to follow. Certainly if that happens then the 8th would presumably be in play.

 

At any rate, I think there's enough there to support the opinion that it might not constitute an 8th violation, but not enough to declare it to be factual. In other words, it's your opinion that the placing of this individual would not be ruled cruel and unusual because it's not part of his sentence, but we don't know that for a fact. We don't have sufficient information here to make a declarative statement on it. I also suspect that ultimately it would be up to a judge to determine.

 

Interestingly, this would seem to bear relevence to your point about judges making decisions based on strict guidelines, something I was considering taking issue with you over earlier. I agree that, in the case of some mandatory sentencing guidelines (such as the federal ones, which are not relevent here), the judges have very little leeway. But this is not always the case, and as we've seen in recent years, it's not all that unusual for a judge to make a determination that's broader in scope than was anticipated.

 

The point being that just because the law required that the man be placed into the database does not actually mean that the appeals court was required to do so. In fact I suspect that if you were to read the appellete judges opinions closely, you would find it implicit in their statements that they had the authority to decide the case the other way.

 

After all, you can't have a concept of judicial review without that ability.

 

(Edit: BTW, I'm going to be out of touch for 24 hours or so.)

[Thomas Kirby]

You know what would happen to the judge who refused to convict a man of a sexual offense for grabbing a girl's arm that way? Not one damned thing would happen to him, ever. He would never be punished. He would never lose his job. If he lost the sexual favors of his wife for a month, that's probably not a punishment. This judge is an idiot.

[Thomas Kirby]

"Laws involving minors are a special case."

 

Do tell, whoever wants to defend that thesis. Does this mean, "be as stupid as we want to be", "be as completely psycho as we want to be", or what? Does it mean "we get to use our children as an excuse to commit mayhem and murder against anyone we want"? Can anyone see the insanity of this? Can anyone see the insanity of sentencing people to a life of horror for things that everyone knows that they didn't do? Can anyone even see the futility?

 

Let me lay this one on the line: These zero tolerance attacks on people, like beating a man for saving a girl's life and calling him a pedophile, are symptoms of psychopathy. They do not save children from anything. They help set up children for a very miserable kind of adulthood. What could we possibly be saving them for when more than 60 percent of their lives are going to suck horribly? I will tell you exactly what we are saving them for. We are saving them for a program of psychological and physical torture that is intended to do the exact opposite of giving them a better life in any way shape or form. We are even helping pedophiles destroy lives.

[Thomas Kirby]

Let me see if I can say something that sounds a little more coherent.

 

In a case involving a child, which is better? Is it better to do the best job we can to protect the child and proceed rationally with whatever proceedings are necessary even if doing so fails to satisfy an appetite for violence?

 

There is something I know from firsthand experience. Whatever it is that humans are doing to "protect children" starts with using the children themselves as tools and sports equipment. I've been the punching bag and the football more often than I want to count, mostly the punching bag. The tool use is mostly the thin edge of the wedge.

 

There is some kind of weird program going on. People beat up their children, destroy their minds, murder their souls, and tremendously compromise their futures and their abilities. They do this in the name of protecting their children. It's obviously moronic to beat a child to death because the child did "something wrong" like use the wrong toothbrush. One of the worst things that there is to teach a child, and one of the most persistent habits, is to teach the child that if he is perceived as having erred, he will suffer the most vile forms of destruction that humans and Gods can conceive. That incidentally is what "sin" means, to err, or so I've heard.

 

Maybe the entire reason that that poor soul was persecuted was because he took the time to express concern for the child's life. That is a capital crime in the society that I was raised in. "Pedophile" is just a handy label to hang on someone who has violated a cardinal rule. That rule is, never attempt to actually save a child's life or enable that child to live his or her own life.

[radiohead]

First of all, please don't triple post, there is an edit button for a reason.

 

Second of all, my parents let me live my life fine. They are not restrictive at all, they allow me to make my decisions and learn from my mistakes. But that doesn't come without it's prices. I have shown them that they can trust me not to do things that could seriously harm me or do drugs and things like that...

And since when is it a rule that you are not supposed to attempt to save a childs life? Haven't you ever heard the saying women and children first?

[Thomas Kirby]

Well, maybe I came home from work too tired to think straight.

 

You're right, Radiohead, when did it become against the law to attempt to save a child's life? There are even good Samaritan laws. Some go so far as to require taking action if you can. That judge and the judges of the appellate court have a lot more discretion than they pretend to, starting with the discretion that they can exercise to not construct guilt for something that they know the man didn't do. The above mentioned judges are behaving irrationally, destructively, and even suspiciously.

 

Perhaps my best condensation of my three earlier messages is this: In any game or conflict, and yes "game" is the best term to use here, if you lose your head your opponent will eat your lunch and bed your wife. Believe me, what an opponent actually does will be a lot cruder than that sounds. Making excuses to continue to lose your head in each such conflict is making excuses to continue to give away lunches and wives. It is true that this is an emotionally charged issue. The importance of the subject matter contributes to that, and the trouble is, the irony is, that the importance of the subject matter is why people should be most careful to behave in the most rational manner possible. It is why people should make the most sacrifices and bear unendurable emotional pain in order to have a chance to win, instead of going in with fists and feet flailing and falling on their keisters.

 

"We" have been set up by a whole other layer of human predators to blow up at the slightest provocation. Often and usually by using the pretense that they are helping us to save society, these people have taught us to waste our energies fighting shadows and contributing nothing to our personal safety or the safety of our children. We can make a huge difference between using even a small amount of rational thought and rational work against a problem. We will never do this as long as we flail away. We will also never do this as long as we kill the messenger instead of listening.

 

Personally, I don't want to be the messenger. This here is compulsive behavior by an adult survivor of child abuse. I do this once in a while in hope that it will contribute. Maybe it's irrational to believe this, but I keep believing that one well-written essay will do more good than all of the no-knock search warrants, all of the irrational judgements, all of the beatings and killings, or all of the hysteria. Maybe some day I will write a good essay like that.

 

I will try not to triple-post again like that. Thank you for your patience.

[radiohead]

I understand where your coming from, but, yes, that is a bit irrational. You make it sound like almost every parent is out to beat their child and defile our minds, but that's not the case. To my understanding it is quite the opposite. I don't know how old you are, but I do know that the punishments of today are different than what they were 30 years ago. My dad suffered through child abuse and he has tried so hard not to turn out like his father in the way he punishes us. He used to spank me when I was little, then he realized I was becoming afraid of him and stopped. He said he was sorry and said he would never spank me again and he hasn't.

 

I know that most parents, and people in general, would not abuse a child if their life depended on it. The people that do have mental issues that they need checked out.

 

"We" have been set up by a whole other layer of human predators to blow up at the slightest provocation. Often and usually by using the pretense that they are helping us to save society' date=' these people have taught us to waste our energies fighting shadows and contributing nothing to our personal safety or the safety of our children. We can make a huge difference between using even a small amount of rational thought and rational work against a problem. We will never do this as long as we flail away. We will also never do this as long as we kill the messenger instead of listening.

[/quote']

 

This is also a bit irrational too. Schools these days teach you not to use violence, don't use anger, etc... to get your point across. They try and teach us that words and intelligent conversations can get you through almost any problem, be it saving society or who gets custody of the kids.

 

I hope I have cleared some things up for you, though you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions. All of the information I gave you is mostly from first-hand experience. I am 16, so I go to these schools that teach these morals. I don't know what time period you grew up in, but I am sure that the morals taught and carried out today are different then what they were when you grew up. If this offends anyone for any reason, I am sorry.

[Thomas Kirby]

Well, Radiohead, I'm very close to saying that you can take my word for it. I'd rather you didn't just take my word for it. You have to trust yourself.

 

I think and believe that what I am describing is irrational, but I am not irrational for describing it, except that my real name is out there with an opinion that has some chance of getting me killed. To me recent history includes Matthew Shephard, Salman Rushdie, Tienahmen Square, Kent State, the attacks on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, the cold war, the Berlin Wall, the Viet Nam era, the beginning of Fred Phelps's career, the first trials of the Mississippi rednecks, and I'm not even old yet. Just from reading the news I know that people are still randomly killed even in the U.S. for being different or expressing different opinions. Certain other countries, forget it.

 

The people who did me didn't know what they were doing. They didn't aim to destroy me or damage me, either. One of the things that will go into my book on this subject has to be the emotional dissociation that I witnessed. They're not belting a small child around "like a red-headed stepchild." They're making him a better and more productive citizen. They dissociate themselves from the reality of what they do. They harbor demons in their minds, like the thought that if they don't do particular things to their children, or allow them to be done, then their children will grow up to do Bad Things. It's just that moronic. Lowest common denominator behavior is like a scriptural requirement instead of being abhorred like it should be.

 

What you are telling me is a very hopeful sign. Your parents are a lot more rational than mine. Better behavior is not gained by punishment. The worst behaved children that I knew were subjected to horrors by their parents. I'm not saying that I am an exception to that. What I have seen with others is of course bullying, the least you would expect from children who see a pattern of violence against children. I gained some measure of sympathy with the bullies when I realized that they had been taught that way and didn't know better.

 

Also, I've read historical literature. They were worse just a century ago.

 

I fear backsliding more than anything else. Technology doesn't stop domineering buttheads from tearing up people's lives. The ones who most diligently attend to the preservation of their lives are the ones who will survive.

[In My Memory]

Thomas Kirby,

 

Have you read anything written in this thread?

 

You know what would happen to the judge who refused to convict a man of a sexual offense for grabbing a girl's arm that way?

He would be impeached, fined, and in the worst case scenario removed from his seat as judge, because judges dont have the leeway to circumvent laws that they dont like (as an example, just take a look at Judge Roy Moore when he tried to do just that).

 

"Laws involving minors are a special case."

 

Do tell' date=' whoever wants to defend that thesis. Does this mean, "be as stupid as we want to be", "be as completely psycho as we want to be", or what? Does it mean "we get to use our children as an excuse to commit mayhem and murder against anyone we want"? Can anyone see the insanity of this? Can anyone see the insanity of sentencing people to a life of horror for things that everyone knows that they didn't do? Can anyone even see the futility?[/quote']

Nobody sees the futility, because their too busy running from the tornado of strawmen you've created.

 

(And yes, it is easy to defend the thesis that laws involving minors are special case, due to the vulnerability of children, their lack of autonomy, and the fact their safety entrusted in the arms of a legal guardian.)

 

Maybe the entire reason that that poor soul was persecuted was because he took the time to express concern for the child's life.

No, the entire reason the guy was "persecuted" was because he grabbed the girl and wouldnt let go. That is a crime, and that makes him a criminal. You cant grab others children and hold them at any time, not when you walk past kids on the street, not when you're on the bus, not when you've nearly hit one with a car, never.

 

Thomas, understand this: the news article cited in the opening post is a slanted account. It was written to obscure the fact that everything the judge did was entirely consistent with the law, that the mans actions were indeed a crime, and the man recieved a completely fair trial and fair appeal. (Believe me, if someone wanted to, they could slant the article the other way by calling it "jerk with road rage picks on little girl").

 

In several posts, and nearly 1500 words, you seem to have written so much in this thread without even a vague familiarity with the facts or what they mean. Please take the time to re-read through this thread, there is lots of useful information. Otherwise, you are playing right into the authors hope that you would be simply too uncritical to see past the spin-doctoring.

[Thomas Kirby]

I just re-read the entire thread. Even if others are not as long-winded, the majority seems to agree with me. The judge is nuts. Also, you are wrong. He could have come down on the side of sanity and nothing would have happened to him. No one is going to impeach a judge for saying "We know very well that he did not have sex with that girl, so we aren't going to punish him for having sex with that girl."

 

My problem is that this society is once again driving itself past the point of insanity while actually making a problem worse. Even worse, it can't tell the difference, and it will definitely work to destroy anyone who can tell the difference. I don't think that the point is to solve problems. I think that the point is to commit cultural suicide in a futile attempt to take the bad guys down with us.

 

The court was quoted as saying that the "crime" was not sexually motivated, but that his actions were "often a precursor" to sexual crimes. The only "spin" that can be put on such statements is to try to make it look like they said or did something sane. The court was unnecessarily reaching for a way to make it look like a sex crime.

 

What you seem to be encouraging, and what you seem to be raging at me for attempting to discourage, is a world that is becoming increasingly dangerous for people who do things that can be misinterpreted as crimes. It isn't right to deliberately misinterpret an action, as the court admitted that it did in this case. Since practically anything can be misinterpreted that way, what you seem to be encouraging is a world in which no one can feel safe doing anything.