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

[Phi for All]

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.

I think you go too far with your generalizations. I might argue for leeway in certain cases so the judge can waive the sex offender registration if there was no sexual intent, but we really don't know if this case warranted that.

 

The judge admitted he was constrained by the statute. Where does the court admit that they deliberately misinterpreted the defendant's actions? Is that just your misinterpretation?

 

On a side note, why did the defendant say, "Come here, little girl?" That still bothers me. Where I'm from the fourteen-year-olds are hardly "little girls and boys". As IMM pointed out earlier, there are men who get a sexual thrill from restraining or demeaning children. We MUST protect our kids in situations where their size and strength limits their defensive alternatives. Also pointed out earlier, there is evidence that this type of restraint is strongly indicative of predatory behavior.

 

I'm not so quick anymore to respond with a knee-jerk to this case.

[Dak]

warrented or not in this case, the fact that compulsary sex-offender registration follows a non-sexual crime is surely worrying.

 

On a side note, why did the defendant say, "Come here, little girl?" That still bothers me.

 

maybe he felt that "COME THE F*** HERE YOU STUPID LITTLE B**** SO THAT I CAN F***ING WELL NUT YOU!!!!" would have solicited a less aqueisent responce?

[Phi for All]

warrented or not in this case, the fact that compulsary sex-offender registration follows a non-sexual crime is surely worrying.

This is the part I'm now questioning, that restraint of a young woman is a non-sexual crime. What age do you have to be where restraining someone against their will and saying, "Come here, little girl!" has no sexual overtone? Try that with a twenty-year-old and see if the charge isn't attempted rape. Haven't you ever seen a fourteen-year-old (of either sex) that could pass for a college student?

[Dak]

it could have sexual overtones, but it doesnt nessesaraly... and even in the cases where it does, its a far cry from rape.

 

Try that with a twenty-year-old and see if the charge isn't attempted rape.

 

I doubt it would be, unless there was specific evidence to sujjest rape was intended. it would be assault, and i doubt any sex-offender registration would follow. why should it be different with a child?

 

and dont forget that, by the wording of the law, compulsary sex-offender registration would have followed even in the abscence of the "come here little girl".

[Thomas Kirby]

Phi, in the article, the judge was quoted as saying that there was no sexual motive in this case. I do not consider him to be constrained by statute for that reason. He wouldn't be the first judge in the world who ever decided that a law didn't apply, and he wouldn't be the first to get away with it. It was the judge who decided to say that there was no sexual motivation, not me.

[Phi for All]

Emphasis mine:

Phi, in the article, the judge was quoted as saying that there was no sexual motive in this case. I do not consider him to be constrained by statute for that reason.

In the judge's own words,

"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."

The statute constrains the judge, having to register afterwards seems to be out of the judge's hands. He ruled that the unlawful restraint law applied in this case.

He wouldn't be the first judge in the world who ever decided that a law didn't apply, and he wouldn't be the first to get away with it.

The law did apply. That it becomes a sex offense when applied to a minor is really the issue here. I don't know what you mean by "he wouldn't be the first to get away with it".

 

What is needed is either a second law that applies to a minor victim that carries no sex offense ruling, or leeway for the judges to deem registration unnecessary. There's really no conspiracy involved here.

[Thomas Kirby]

I think that the "leeway" already exists.

[Pangloss]

I agree, but I think that the judge's only options were (a) "comply with the statute" or (b) "challenge the validity of the statute". Judicial review exists for a reason, but he could not simply decide that it doesn't apply to this man.

 

One of the point that I think is being overlooked here is that not only did the judge uphold the validity of the statute, he actually defended its validity in a hypothetical scenario not involving sexual context. Talk about chilling effects.

 

Equal justice under law means equal justice under law, not politically correct legal advantages for women.

[In My Memory]

Thomas Kirby,

 

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.

I think you're reading it out of context. According to the article:

While acknowledging it might be "unfair for [barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated," the court said his actions are the type that are "often a precursor" to a child being abducted or molested.

First, Its a sex crime because its written as such in the law. It is impossible for the court to "reach for a way to make it look like a sex crime", because he is either guilty or not guilty of unlawful restraint of a minor (which happens to be a sex crime). It doesnt work by saying this man is guilty of unlawful restraint, then trying to add the sex-offender label after-the-fact.

 

Second, you are reading some comments out of context. When the court mentioned "his actions are the type that are 'often a precursor' to a child being abducted or molested", they arent saying they believed this guy was going to molest the little girl. What they were doing is taking the time to review this law, to see if such a crime really needs to be sex-crime - the court decided it was a fair law with a serious rationale (that being its a precursor to more serious crimes) without need for revision.

 

Here is a visual diagram of what happened:

Part 1: First court trial

Is the guy guilty of unlawful restraint of a minor
(which happens to be a sex crime)?
[x] Yes
[ ] No



Part 2: Appeals court trial

Should unlawful restraint remain as a sex crime?
[x] Yes
[ ] No

 

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.

Raging? No, I'm as nice as a kitten, I swear.

 

But, I like to encourage critical thinking - however, it just seems unusual that so many people think the judges actions were out of the ordinary (and, I've seen elsewhere on various blogs people claiming this judge was acting unconstitutionally), but that isnt true.

 

Also, a lot of people believe this law has no rationale, or that this law was hastily written, or that certain effects of the law can be avoided in certain circumstances, or that the law wasnt subject to some kind of review, but that isnt true either.

 

Although I could see how anyone would be upset with the conclusion, just take the time to understand the details, and its obvious there is really nothing to question about the actions of the judge.

The only real place for debate is whether the appeals courts actions were correct, whether they should have ruled that the law was fair in its present context without need for revison. I am, to a certain extent, giving the benefit of the doubt that the appeals court knows the law better than I do, and that they have good reason for not amending a special "whereas restraint was sexually motivated" clause to it. However, as far as I'm concerned, the appeals court did its job, and the law is upheld in its current form, so there is little room to debate whether this law is practical or not.

 

Its when you are uncritical that your brains turn to mush, then you start watching FoxNews, and that's bad ( ).

[Thomas Kirby]

The judge is the one who said that the "crime" was not sexually motivated, and he very well knew it. He doesn't have to give in to every demand that the prosecution makes. He should have told the prosecution to go fly a kite and then dare them to do something about it. This is called, among other things, exercising judgement, and that is what a judge is supposed to do.

 

No, the appeals court did not do its job, and no, I am not that uncritical. The thing I tend to criticize the most is obvious stupidity, like that of the courts in question.

 

What can I say? The courts weren't smart enough not to go for the McMartin preschool prosecutions. They weren't smart enough to realize that it was wrong to convict just in case the prosecutors and their dog and pony show were painting the correct picture. And now they're not smart enough to not require a man to be on the sex offender registry when he did not commit a sex crime. They are also not smart enough not to have a sex offender registry, but WTH, stupid is as stupid does.

 

What they are doing is creating a situation in which continuing to have laws against those activities is going to be worse than useless and more dangerous than helpful, just like the drug laws. Then we aren't going to be able to have those laws when we need them. We're stuck between the probabilities of being unable to punish any perpetrators and being unable to live any sort of decent life. The man in question is experiencing the latter. A certain former pop star seems likely to be the former.

 

We've let the law and the courts take over our thinking to the point that we can't count change.

[Douglas]

Part 1: First court trial

 

Is the guy guilty of unlawful restraint of a minor

(which happens to be a sex crime)?

[x] Yes

[ ] No

 

 

 

Part 2: Appeals court trial

 

Should unlawful restraint remain as a sex crime?

[x] Yes

[ ] No

 

Yes, and the next good samaritan that grabs a child to prevent them from being run down, should be made to register as a sex offender.

 

And let's nail all those school street crossing guards for grabbing those kids, it *is*, after all, a precursor to more serious crimes

[Thomas Kirby]

It may be splitting hairs here, but I think that the actual act of grabbing the kid's arm is not a sex crime. Megan's law sets it as a criteria for registration as a sex offender, but apparently, if I have understood what is going on here at all, the act is not actually punishable as a sex crime. Literally, a person doesn't have to be charged with or convicted of a sex crime to be put on the registry.

[Glider]

But it is the 'sex offenders' register. If you have not committed a 'sex offence' why should you be on it?

[Thomas Kirby]

Glider, that's the whole point of this thread.

[Aardvark]

And it's still a good question.

[-Demosthenes-]

Literally, a person doesn't have to be charged with or convicted of a sex crime to be put on the registry.

What are the criteria?

[Dak]

So, what does being on the sex offenders register entail? I believe that you cant live within x of a school, and cant get jobs working with kids?

 

Is there anything else? do you have to mention it under the 'criminal record' bit of a job application? could civvilians look up an entry in the sex-offenders registry?

[In My Memory]

But it is the 'sex offenders' register. If you have not committed a 'sex offence' why should you be on it?

The guy did commit a sex offense, see post #4.

[Thomas Kirby]

It is not a "red-herring" argument, it is a common sense argument. "Unlawful restraint" is re-defined as a sex crime for purposes of forcing people to register as sex offenders. It is not a sex crime until it gets to that phase. The judge himself said that this was not a sexual offense, and the red herring is where he says that unlawful restraint is "often a precursor" to sex offenses.

 

The criteria are in Megan's Law. Basically, if you hang your toilet paper the wrong way within a thousand feet of a school, you are guilty of a sex offense: link

 

The next thing you know, protesting against Megan's Law will be on the list unless it is already on it in the fine print. I for one certainly do not support it. I find it worse than useless. I don't like the attitude that it represents. I don't go for the false sense of security that people get from ruining the lives of others to make a show of trying to solve a problem. I don't go for stupidity in general, and making someone a sex offender who did not commit a sexual offense is stupid. The judge himself said so, so I can say that. The closest thing we have to clever is a set of pious pronouncements along the lines of "it's for the children" and "we have to do something about it." All that and two dollars American will buy you an ice cream sandwich off the ice cream truck. People aren't even trying to do anything smart anymore.

 

I'm shouting at the wall, but those who want to do something intelligent had better already be thinking about what happens when people stop going for it. Even the incredible enjoyment of ruining one life after another, tearing people out of their homes and stomping on them, trashing their belongings and their reputations, labelling them as this that and the other thing, and reading the Malleus Maleficarium for more hints on what to do and who to do it to, these things get old. Unfortunately, it seems to take centuries for all that to get old, so in the short term these promoters usually have job security. I always, when I point a finger, first think of what happens if the finger points back at me. If I am one of these zealots, will I even see what I am doing wrong that requires me to trash more and more people to maintain my position? Anyone who opposes me is just an idiot, or a demon, or trash, right, so I'm justified, right? And if I can't or won't think of anything better, or don't think that anyone deserves anything better, I'm still justified, right? No such thing as overzealousness. No such thing as a need to think critically. If the esteemed Senator is caught with a 14 year old male prostitute, that's just an aberration, right? No such thing as hypocrisy.

 

According to the article:

 

According to Illinois Meagon's Law Legislation:

 

So' date=' it looks like the ruling [i']is[/i] consistent with Illinois law, and I cant really find a good reason to challenge it.

 

(I could imagine that most people would argue that "unlawful restraint" isnt a sex crime, but that is a red-herring argument because it doesnt deal with the actual facts or ruling of the case.)

[In My Memory]

Thomas,

 

I cant make any sense out of your post. What are you trying to say?

[Thomas Kirby]

Don't worry about it.

 

Thomas' date='

 

I cant make any sense out of your post. What are you trying to say?[/quote']

[Phi for All]

I'm shouting at the wall, but those who want to do something intelligent had better already be thinking about what happens when people stop going for it. Even the incredible enjoyment of ruining one life after another, tearing people out of their homes and stomping on them, trashing their belongings and their reputations, labelling them as this that and the other thing, and reading the Malleus Maleficarium for more hints on what to do and who to do it to, these things get old[i']... rant-rant, scream-rant, prattle-rant.[/i]

You are fast becoming a shining example of how sarcasm, overused, becomes a blunted and rusty weapon in the vacant and lonely scabbard of understanding.

[Thomas Kirby]

Which means I need to stop doing this. Point taken.

 

Still, this stuff does get old and I'm not the only one who's not getting anywhere and probably never will.

[MetaFrizzics]

(1) What if he'd said something ruder, like, "Come here, you idiot!"

 

He wouldn't have been convicted if saying "little girl" is what got him the 'sex-offender' label. But why shouldn't he have used 'little girl' prejoratively (as a mild disapproving insult) since she was really 14 and not 'little'. That is, he could have been saying "the way you're behaving regarding road safety is like a little girl (= uneducated or unable to grasp the danger)."

 

So he may have been punished for using a common epithet for a young woman who is acting foolishly. But in these post women's lib times, talking down to a woman can put an extra prejudice into your case!

 

(2) Now "citizen's arrest" will be impossible in the case of juveniles under 18.

 

If you can't restrain someone after being eyewitness to a crime, because they are under 18, it's one more essential right and priviledge eroded away. Already treating murderers as 'kids' when they are under 18 was a disaster. The mafia just hired underage 'gangstas' to do their killing, and get light sentences.

 

Now, if you see a punk stealing, assaulting someone or even killing someone, but it's only your word as a citizen against theirs, you could now be a sex-offender. Scenarios:

 

14 year old girl in Walmart tries to grab some videos off the shelf. You hold her and call for security. She says you grabbed her ass and called her "little girl". So much for trying to minimize store theft to keep down prices.

 

13 year old boy steals car, drives all over the road, then parks and flees. You pull over and grab him. He says he knows nothing about a car, and you offered him hockey tickets and a bottle of wine.

 

Good luck. The cops will like it, because more than ever, only 'they' have the right to participate in law enforcement. People will be more disenchanted than ever.

 

Hmmm. I could get a citation or award for being a hero, or I could have to register as a sex-offender. Think the carrot and stick have been confused here, and I'll have to pass on stopping the repeat offender mugging the old lady.

[Phi for All]

He wouldn't have been convicted if saying "little girl" is what got him the 'sex-offender' label.

It wasn't. Restraining an underage person is automatically considered a sex offense. Hmm, I wonder if any shopkeepers are on "the list" for restraining kids caught shoplifting.

But why shouldn't he have used 'little girl' prejoratively (as a mild disapproving insult) since she was really 14 and not 'little'. That is, he could have been saying "the way you're behaving regarding road safety is like a little girl (= uneducated or unable to grasp the danger)."

I only mentioned it because it's such a stereotypical pervert thing to say. It can be said in many ways that don't hold any sexual connotations but it easily lends itself to be taken the wrong way.

But in these post women's lib times, talking down to a woman can put an extra prejudice into your case!

I don't think women's lib or talking down to her had anything to do with it. The law doesn't seem to have much leeway once you're convicted of restraint of a minor. It was simply a poor choice of words, imo, and kids are constantly being told not to go anywhere with strangers who say, "Come here!". But even saying, "Excuse me, Miss" doesn't mitigate the use of force in restraining her.