|
|
Forum: General
Thread (Discussion): Michigan Registry
Message 120270
"Ready, Fire, Aim"
Posted by orolan
on Oct 21, 2003 06:45 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Can't figure out how to post to the News Articles forum, so I'm putting this here. Steve, move it if it needs to be moved.
BRIAN DICKERSON: Sex-offender list is overdue for changes
http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker20_20031020.htm
The whole article is good, but one particular paragraph caught my eye:
"Although its primary purpose was to alert parents to the proximity of ex-cons with a history of targeting children, Michigan's sex-offender registry currently includes teenagers prosecuted for having consensual sex with underage girlfriends and a woman convicted of urinating in public."
Did you see that? Yes, it says "urinating in public".
While the intent of the new legislation is to put these people on a different registry that isn't public, why stop there? How about no registry at all for such "crimes"?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 120271 (In Reply to Message 120270)
Posting news articles to the General forum fine for now
Posted by steve
on Oct 21, 2003 07:11 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
> Can't figure out how to post to the News Articles forum
There's not currently a way to post news articles to the In the News forum so it's fine to post them here for now. Time permitting I'll add articles posted here to the News Archive and move the threads to that forum. It may be a couple of weeks before I have a way to automatically post to the Archive and that forum.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120270)
Message 120273 (In Reply to Message 120270)
Between a rock and a hard place
Posted by HPierce
on Oct 21, 2003 08:48 PM | Also by HPierce
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The registry's only reason for existing is said to be so that the public will be informed of sex offenders in their area. Granted it was supposed to be violent sex offenders but mommyism and bleeding heart moralists have had that watered down to include public urination and offenses by teens. So if you look at it from that warped point of view, then all is fine.
Now if you take them out of the registry and a teen commits another consensual moralistic crime by having sex with his girlfriend, doesn't that open a can of worms by all the mommiesand daddies who feel that their little darling would have been spared what she wanted if they knew her boyfriend had already been convicted of a consenual victimless crime?
If we take the teens and urinating women out, why not those who had consensual sex with minors? Seems fair.. But why stop there... lets remove those that only possesed but never distributed or produced so called 'child porn'. After all he/she had no victim and is guilty only of looking at pictures that others find offensive.
Better yet, lets get rid of the registry.... grow up as a nation and be parents to your kids instead of expecting the government to do it for you.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120270)
Message 120276 (In Reply to Message 120273)
H.Pierce
Posted by myoung
on Oct 21, 2003 09:31 PM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
There is no such thing as no victims when "children" are exploited . You are not making the distinction. Are we talking about children or minors. They are not the same thing to most. 0-17 are all minors but I think it is safe to say that 0-14 would be considered children. do you agree? There is a very clear change in their thinking that takes place at around age 15. That is why school cirriculim is set up the way it is. You wouldn't try to teach algebra to the typical third grader.....they have no concept of the abstract. You would teach it to a 15 year old because they can understand. Those who view child porn create a demand. In order to fill the demand, children are victimized. Both parties are culpable because they create the existence of it. Do you agree?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120273)
Message 120277 (In Reply to Message 120270)
I think that says it all
Posted by Silverthorne
on Oct 21, 2003 09:57 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Well when someone is registered for urinating in public - I guess that says it all.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120270)
Message 120279 (In Reply to Message 120276)
My two cents
Posted by orolan
on Oct 21, 2003 10:59 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Although your post is addressed to HP, I'll throw in a few comments here. Note that this is theory, not "how it is".
I think it's safe to say 0-12 are children.13-14 is an "iffy" age, depending on the development of the person. This is where biology and physical development becomes a factor as well as age. A 14 year-old who has not begun menstruating(rare, but it happens) would be a child, but a 13 year-old who had would not be a child. Over 14, definitely some distinction. No longer a child, not yet a full adult. Protection from predatory adults is needed, but the teen has more culpability in their actions and more rights to consent.
When you speak of child porn, I assume you mean graphic depictions of sex acts involving children? Simple nudity is not child porn, right? Or is it? And what are photos of two consenting 15 year-olds having sex? Just wonder what you feel, because the bulk of what is called child porn is simply that. Nudity or partial nudity. No actions taking place. And I have been told that many of the participants are willing and happy to pose(regarding the nudity, not the sex acts), so who is being exploited?
The primary cause of the child pornography scare is that an overwhelming majority of molesters have it. Because of that, we see that anybody with child porn is a molester. I'm not so sure that is true, but there is no way to know.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120276)
Message 120280 (In Reply to Message 120270)
Florida Has It
Posted by DoTheCrimeDoTheTime
on Oct 21, 2003 11:07 PM | Also by DoTheCrimeDoTheTime
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
http://www.dc.state.fl.us
The above site has all offenders under supervision and in prison. It was started shortly after the SO registry was done. DOC had taken all the photos of Sex Offenders, then shortly aftterwards, all offenders-in Prison or on Community Supervision were photographed and put on the web site. You can search the web site for offenders by zip code, offense type and by name.
This does not include people in the local county jails-unless they are being supervised on felony probation at the same time as serving a jail sentence. (In Fla, Prison Sentenced are handed out to the commiting felonies and receiving a prison sentence of 1 year and 1 day or longer, while jail sentences are issued to those who received up to one year jail, or those commiting misdemeanor offenses.)
I for one beleive if you put one type of offender on a web page, you should put them all.
DTCDTT
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120270)
Message 120291 (In Reply to Message 120280)
DTCDTT
Posted by Silverthorne
on Oct 22, 2003 12:55 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Excellent - I hope to see the rest of the nation follow Floridas lead here. Whats good for one is good for all!
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120280)
Message 120307 (In Reply to Message 120279)
orolan
Posted by myoung
on Oct 22, 2003 05:23 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
Geez, I pity these girls having their periods so young. I was 16!! It was great swimming with no fear in the summer while some of my friends sweated it out:) TMI!! Anyway, I do think of child porn as graphic sexual pics of children. They don't even need to be involved in a sexual act if they are in a sexual position exposing private parts (spread eagle, etc.) I don't think a nudie shot of a child is child PORN. I think it crosses some ethical boundaries that someone other than the parents are seeing that child naked without the parents permission or the presence of the parents. My two year old can't keep clothes on when she's in the house. Her birthday is tomorrow so I have to get used to saying three year old. I get some shocked looks from visitors when she comes running out of her room completely naked! Well, what can you do? I don't tell her it's wrong but she cannot remove her clothes out in public (outside our house). About pics of 15 year olds having sex.......look, I don't even feel the need to see adults engaged in sex. For me, sex is a very personal and private thing whether it be kinky or not blah, blah, blah. I just don't think it's necessary to do that sort of thing. Now, if the kids agree, first, they are very gullible and not too bright, second, they apparently have no respect for themselves and third they lack scruples. But, it is their decision. I do agree with you about the distinction you made in yoiur reply
"think it's safe to say 0-12 are children.13-14 is an "iffy" age, depending on the development of the person. This is where biology and physical development becomes a factor as well as age. A 14 year-old who has not begun menstruating(rare, but it happens) would be a child, but a 13 year-old who had would not be a child. Over 14, definitely some distinction. No longer a child, not yet a full adult. Protection from predatory adults is needed, but the teen has more culpability in their actions and more rights to consent."
I see a lot of girls at my daughters school who just have no respect for themselves and I can't help but wonder why. My daughter was wearing this (way too short that her aunt bought for her......she's gonna hear it too) mini skirt and I gave her the third degree when she got in the car. I simply told her that when you have respect for yourself, you save some of the "eye candy" for someone special you wish to show it to. Keep them guessing just what's under there! Don't just give it away. You don't just go showing it to everyone and anyone. Maybe I am a little old fashioned but girls just don't give enough priority to self respect and dignity these days. There is no mystery, no imagination, etc. It's a little disappointing. I would rather see a man in a really sharp, well taylored three piece suit with great shoes than a naked guy. With the naked guy it's like, well, there it is and there you have it. No wonderment, nothing........how very boring
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120279)
Message 120316 (In Reply to Message 120277)
Urinating in Public Pisses Me Off
Posted by dp1
on Oct 22, 2003 12:50 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Is urinating in public a felony offense in the state of Michigan? It isn't in Florida so we don't register them. I'm thinking along the lines that it's the law that's messed up not the registry. If the registry in Michigan is a list of felony sex offenders which includes peeing women then the Offense should be changed or reduced the next legistative sentence. If nothing else an example like that (assuming the reporter reported accurate info in the article) shows that the registry is a good thing and is getting some of these backwards states to take a second look at their outdated laws.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120277)
Message 120318 (In Reply to Message 120307)
Posted by orolan
on Oct 22, 2003 02:46 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Having three daughters of my own, I am well versed in the no clothing routine from their younger days. I had to teach them that while they had no need to be ashamed of their bodies, they needed to respect the morals of others and keep their clothes on when company was at the house or they were at other peoples houses.
And I agree about the "sharp-dressed man". I feel the same way about women. Clothing leaves something for the imagination.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120307)
Message 120319 (In Reply to Message 120280)
Florida registry
Posted by orolan
on Oct 22, 2003 02:55 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
"I for one beleive if you put one type of offender on a web page, you should put them all. "
This is good, but it doesn't go far enough. The SO registry contains people who have completed their sentence and paid their debt to society, while the site you posted consists ONLY of people incarcerated or under supervision. Once released, they are removed from the site.
Now when EVERY convicted felon in the state, regardless of status, offense or jurisdiction of conviction is placed on the internet, for periods from 10 years on up to lifetime, THEN you will have a "fair" system.
Tough as they are on crime, I somehow don't see Florida doing this any time soon. But I could be wrong.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120280)
Message 120320 (In Reply to Message 120316)
Michigan law
Posted by orolan
on Oct 22, 2003 03:25 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
"Is urinating in public a felony offense in the state of Michigan?"
No, it isn't. Under MCL 750.335a it is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. But in a "strange" twist, if a person is determined to be "sexually delinquent", the sentence is to be an INDETERMINANT sentence of 1 day to LIFE.
A "sexually delinquent" person is:
"...any person whose sexual behavior is characterized by repetitive or compulsive acts which indicate a disregard of consequences or the recognized rights of others, or by the use of force upon another person in attempting sex relations of either a heterosexual or homosexual nature, or by the commission of sexual aggressions against children under the age of 16."
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120316)
Message 120339 (In Reply to Message 120320)
Qualifying Offenses
Posted by dp1
on Oct 23, 2003 12:30 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Registration laws have what they call "qualifying offenses" which are a select group of laws determined by legislature whereby registration is required. If it is true that urination in public (first offense) is a qualifying offense in Michigan (I have my doubts and think the media isn't exactly accurate with legal terminology based on my experiences) then the registration law simply needs to be amended. Actually, Orolan you seem to be good at researching law....would you mind looking at the qualifying offenses for Michigan sex offender registry? I'll bet you that it's not on there? How much you wanna bet?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120320)
Message 120340 (In Reply to Message 120339)
Laws
Posted by orolan
on Oct 23, 2003 02:14 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Further research indicates that while public urination can get one placed on the registry in Michigan, placement requires that the person have two or more prior offenses. Here's the rundown.
Public urination is prosecuted as "indecent exposure", codified in MCL 750.335a as I previous indicated. Here is the text of the statute:
§750.335a Indecent exposure.
Any person who shall knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person or of the person of another is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life: Provided, That any other provision of any other statute notwithstanding, said offense shall be triable only in a court of record.
The Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act is codified under Act 295, sublisted as §§28.721 - 732
§28.722(iii) holds that:
A third or subsequent violation of any combination of the following: (A) Section 167(1)(f) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.167.
-or-
(B) Section 335a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.335a.
So three convictions are required for registration. But it is clear that a public urination offense can get one put on the registry. I suppose the justification is not the offense itself, but the frequency of it.
BTW, the other 3-time offense is disorderly conduct, with the specific sub-category stating:
(f)A person who is engaged in indecent or obscene conduct in a public place.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120339)
Message 120348 (In Reply to Message 120319)
orolan check out NJ
Posted by myoung
on Oct 23, 2003 05:55 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
The New Jersey state police site is pretty good. They have several tiers of offenders, pics, addresses, alias, MO, etc. I think it's www.njsp.org Tell me what you think because it is what I am lobbying for in PA
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120319)
Message 120352 (In Reply to Message 120340)
Is There a Risk?
Posted by dp1
on Oct 23, 2003 04:05 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Thanks Orolan. Although it is cleary nasty to urinate in public (continuously) I wonder what risk these people really are to the community. I guess if they were hanging around your front yard and urinated on your rose garden you may have some dead flowers to tend with. Or up North where there is snow I guess the risk of yellow snow can be increase. I have not found my felony cases (the real risk we are concerned about) to have an excessive amount of offenses such as urination in public.
On the other hand, the felony offense of "indecent exposure" (when you masterbate in front of a child) can get sticky. These guys do have a few of those charges because it's so easy to say you were urinating when in fact you were exposing or masterbating. So while I understand the logic behind prosecuting urination under indecent exposure I tend to think once or twice may not be a risk,,,but 3 or 4 times? At some point, these nasty people need to learn where the public restrooms are.
In any event, I agree in general terms that peeing people should not be on the registry. Maybe probation with a mandatory urology evaluation would be more appropriate.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120340)
Message 120353 (In Reply to Message 120352)
Posted by steve
on Oct 23, 2003 04:41 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
> On the other hand, the felony offense of "indecent exposure" (when you
> masterbate in front of a child) can get sticky. These guys do have a few of
> those charges because it's so easy to say you were urinating when
> in fact you were exposing or masterbating.
That's a good point - I hadn't really considered that before you mentioned it. Though some people point to cases of registered offenders convicted solely of urinating in public when criticizing the sex offender registries, I've never seen details from any such case and I haven't seen evidence that there are many such registered sex offenders. I like to be informed so if anyone can point me to details or statistics I'd appreciate it.
Incidentally, though urinating in public can be disgusting it's sometimes a necessity and unless done in the open, in front of children or when alternatives were available I don't think society or law enforcement cares and I don't think either would consider a single act of public urination in of itself a sex offense.
Over Labor Day weekend I ran in a large half marathon (15,000+ runners) and due to long portable toilet lines before the race hundreds of people urinated in public, many in plain view of law enforcement. I was one of them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think people should be urinating in public if they can help it. If someone comes into my driveway and urinates on my car or does it next to some children when he could have gone behind a dumpster I think they should suffer the consequences. And maybe they should be given the benefit of the doubt on the "I was just getting ready to urinate" defense, but if someone does it repeatedly I'd be more inclined to think they're a flasher and less inclined to believe they have a weak bladder.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120352)
Thread
120270, orolan, Oct 21, 2003 06:45 PM ["Ready, Fire, Aim"]
120271, steve, Oct 21, 2003 07:11 PM [Posting news articles to the General forum fine ...]
120273, HPierce, Oct 21, 2003 08:48 PM [Between a rock and a hard place]
120276, myoung, Oct 21, 2003 09:31 PM [H.Pierce]
120279, orolan, Oct 21, 2003 10:59 PM [My two cents]
120307, myoung, Oct 22, 2003 05:23 AM [orolan]
120318, orolan, Oct 22, 2003 02:46 PM
120308, Rejected
120277, Silverthorne, Oct 21, 2003 09:57 PM [I think that says it all]
120316, dp1, Oct 22, 2003 12:50 PM [Urinating in Public Pisses Me Off]
120320, orolan, Oct 22, 2003 03:25 PM [Michigan law]
120339, dp1, Oct 23, 2003 12:30 AM [Qualifying Offenses]
120340, orolan, Oct 23, 2003 02:14 AM [Laws]
120352, dp1, Oct 23, 2003 04:05 PM [Is There a Risk?]
120353, steve, Oct 23, 2003 04:41 PM
120280, DoTheCrimeDoTheTime, Oct 21, 2003 11:07 PM [Florida Has It]
120291, Silverthorne, Oct 22, 2003 12:55 AM [DTCDTT]
120319, orolan, Oct 22, 2003 02:55 PM [Florida registry]
120348, myoung, Oct 23, 2003 05:55 AM [orolan check out NJ]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
