News & Politics - Topic of the Week #17: Should Sex Offenders be Protected of their Identities?

**vc318** · 08-16-2008, 10:24 PM

FOXNews.com - Sex Offenders Try to Block Laws Allowing Them to Be ID'd Online - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Sex Offenders Try to Block Laws Allowing Them to Be ID'd Online

LAS VEGAS — Eager to protect children from sexual predators, Nevada and other states across the nation are adopting laws that publicize the names of offenders on the Internet.

But sex offenders say they have rights, too, and argue it's wrong to lump those guilty of minor offenses with the worst offenders. Some are challenging the laws.

"People think that imposing these draconian retroactive laws are a way to keep their children safe," said Margaret McLetchie, an American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer.

McLetchie and Robert Langford, who represent 27 unnamed plaintiffs in a federal civil rights lawsuit, want to block two sex-offender laws from taking effect in Nevada.

The laws, which they say are unconstitutional, were tailored to meet standards under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed in 2006.

Nevada was among the first to pass the laws that would allow the state to post on the Internet the names, photos, home and work addresses and vehicle descriptions of offenders who've served probation or prison sentences on convictions as far back as 1956.

McLetchie said the measures mix serious sex offenders with people convicted of misdemeanors such as public nudity and could subject them to violence from neighbors who see their names and photos.

"These laws don't provide public safety, they only demonize a particular group," she said.

But Binu Palal, the deputy state attorney general arguing the case for Nevada, said the law is constitutional and U.S. Supreme Court rulings from 2002 limit sex offenders' ability to block the release information about their crimes.

"The system is based on the fact of conviction," Palal said. "Informing the public of a true fact is not considered punishment."

U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan is scheduled to hear arguments Sept. 10 in the Nevada lawsuit. He is being asked to make permanent a temporary ban he imposed that stopped the law from taking effect July 1.

Mahan has expressed concerns that if Nevada posted its list of 4,941 people convicted of sex crimes since 1956, there would be no way to restore their privacy if the law was later found to be flawed.

Once posted, the judge said, "the cat's out of the bag."

His ruling is expected to be watched closely in states that have adopted or are considering provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, named for a 6-year-old Florida boy abducted and killed in 1981. He was the son of John Walsh, star of television's "America's Most Wanted."

Implementation has been challenged in some states, including Florida and Ohio.

"We've objected since it was first introduced in the Legislature," said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the Ohio public defender's office in Columbus. "We believe it's unconstitutional when it's applied retroactively. Even going forward, it's bad policy."

Borror noted similarities between the Ohio and Nevada laws, and said officials in Ohio were watching the Nevada case with interest.

The Ohio registry went into effect Jan. 1 despite objections that it punished offenders twice, broke plea deals and represented a violation of states' rights by Congress. Furthermore, by creating the registry, the state Legislature usurped powers reserved to the courts, Borror said.

"We used to have a system where a judge made a decision about an offender's risk to re-offend," she said. "Now it's based only on the offense that they're convicted of, not on any future risk."

The federal law sets a July 2009 deadline for enactment, and threatens states with the loss of federal grant money if they fail to adopt it. In Nevada, officials told lawmakers the state stood to lose $300,000 a year if they failed to adopt the law.

Langford said he believed Nevada lawmakers knew the law would change the lives of convicted offenders, but didn't consider the breadth of the measures or the increased costs of enforcing them.

"Nobody wants to say they're for sex offenders," Langford said.

The plaintiffs in the Nevada lawsuit include a construction company manager, a tow truck operator and a grandfather, according to court documents. They are not identified by name.

Most say in court documents that they served sentences ranging from probation to prison time in plea agreements that predated passage of laws redefining a sex offender.

The plaintiffs claim the law is broad enough now to apply to a wide range of offenses ranging from child molestation to rape to theft of a pornographic magazine from a store.

Police Capt. Vincent Cannito, commander of the Las Vegas police sex crimes unit, said reclassification added about 1,800 people to a list of 2,200 offenders in Las Vegas and surrounding Clark County, home to about 2 million people.

Cannito said he has no sympathy for offenders who would have to check in more frequently with probation officers, or might be forced to move away from areas near schools or parks.

"Remember, it's the offender who decided to go out and commit the crime that they did," Cannito said. "This increases the standards and raises the level of accountability of those individuals who have been convicted of sex crimes, and it raises the ability of law enforcement to further protect the community."

Offenders complain that reclassification is unfair.

One plaintiff, identified as Doe 2 in court documents, said neither he nor his attorney at the time understood that lifetime supervision would apply after he pleaded guilty in 2001 to a sex offense, or that he would continue to be banned from going to parks or schools.

He said that during an acrimonious divorce his ex-wife accused him of sexually assaulting her 14-year-old daughter. He faced five felony charges but pleaded guilty to one count of attempted lewdness with a minor under 14, and was sentenced to 5 years probation.

"I never touched my stepdaughter or any other child inappropriately," he said in the affidavit, which says he took a plea deal to spare his children the embarrassment of a trial. "I was not told that there would be any restrictions on me whatsoever after I was done with probation."

He now lives with his second wife, his adult adopted stepdaughter, his 15-year-old son and the couple's 5-year-old son in Las Vegas. He said he fears for his family's safety and his job if he is identified publicly as a sex offender.

"I have done everything I can to comply with the law, and be a good citizen," he says in the affidavit. "I would never hurt anyone. But none of that matters now."

This is a very sensitive topic but I'd like to know how you guys feel about this: Should the identity of sexual predators be made public online?

These are people who took it upon themselves to harm another innocent person and I think no matter how much time you serve or whether or not it's your first or twentieth offense, it's going to stay with you forever. You're automatically viewed as a threat to other innocent children. Only because an act like this isn't committed by accident, I can't see this as something that can be let go. We need to protect our children from sexual and Internet predators. If this will help stop the abuse, then I support the need for it to be done.

**sunnykerr** · 08-18-2008, 07:16 PM

The only thing is I wish they would differentiate between different types of sexual offenders. For the most part, I think everything should be done to arm parents against these criminals.

But I also think that certain states are incredibly unreasonable with who and what they'll label a sex offender. Young men sleeping with their consenting girlfriends (who aren't necessarily that much younger than they are), young boys horsing around with their utterly non-traumatized female classmates... It can ruin lives.

I'm sure a lot of the times that's exactly what needs to happen. But I really do wish they'd differentiate between the guy who slept with his girlfriend and the guy who rapes little girls and little boys.

**TheAngel** · 08-19-2008, 05:39 PM

I agree, Sunny. There's a big difference between a 18 year old boy and a 16 year old girl, both consenting, who sleep together on their prom night, and a 32 year old man that wants to sleep with a 12 year old.
I think a 5+ year age difference in children under 17 should be considered a sexual offense. I mean, what would a guy 20 years old want with a 15 year old other than sex, and if it is something more than that, then they can wait until she turns 16, which I think if you're old enough to drive a car, you're old enough to decide if you want to have sex, though, that being said, I feel like a 40 year old with a 16 year old probably has an element of sexual abuse because the relationship is probably built on manipulation. Those people should be identified, because, as a potential parent someday, I want the opportunity to protect my children.
However, I also think that if a sexual offender has gone 10 years without committing a single offense or violating the terms of his/her parole, then their privacy should be restored in the public realm, but police should still be allowed to check up on registered sex offenders, they should still have to register if they move, their address should still have to be on file, everything like that. I think people truly do make mistakes, a lot of people that commit sex offenses can get psychological help and not commit them again, so it depends. It's a really big difference, as was said before, between two teenagers and a man that has an obsession with small girls or boys.

**sunnykerr** · 08-20-2008, 05:56 PM

The only caveat I would have to any of that (since I agree with most of it) is that I don't personally think that pedophiles should ever be left to their own devices. I don't think it's one of those you can actually change about yourself. I think whatever wiring goes wrong in a person that they think little kids are sexual objects... I don't think you can ever right that ever again.

Otherwise, I agree with all of that.

**TheAngel** · 08-22-2008, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

The only caveat I would have to any of that (since I agree with most of it) is that I don't personally think that pedophiles should ever be left to their own devices. I don't think it's one of those you can actually change about yourself. I think whatever wiring goes wrong in a person that they think little kids are sexual objects... I don't think you can ever right that ever again.

Otherwise, I agree with all of that.

My dad's a psychologist, mostly drug and alcohol but he's dealt with a lot of things in his years. Yes, in pedophiles the wiring is wrong, but it is for schizophrenics too and with the right medications and counseling, they can function fairly well. I agree that they shouldn't be left to their own devices. They should always have to register when they change towns, police should be allowed to check up randomly, all of the following, but I think that their privacy should be restored after ten years without an incident. However, they still have to stay away from schools, parks, and other places with children.

**vc318** · 08-22-2008, 06:22 PM

Sunny, that's a good point. I guess sexual offenders need to be defined a little bit better. I forget how often these high school girls are dating these guys that are adults yet the moment their parents find out they're having sex, he's arrested immediately.

I wonder if female sex offenders have to go through the same process of registering themselves as male sex offenders do? Even though they're slim, these female teachers who chose to prey on young boys instead of dealing with their mid-life crisis in a better always seem to get away with the crime. Maybe the law thinks it's cute or something.

**TheAngel** · 08-22-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)

Sunny, that's a good point. I guess sexual offenders need to be defined a little bit better. I forget how often these high school girls are dating these guys that are adults yet the moment their parents find out they're having sex, he's arrested immediately.

I wonder if female sex offenders have to go through the same process of registering themselves as male sex offenders do? Even though they're slim, these female teachers who chose to prey on young boys instead of dealing with their mid-life crisis in a better always seem to get away with the crime. Maybe the law thinks it's cute or something.

Not totally true, Mary Kay Letourneau ended up in jail, lost custody of her children, and is registered as a sex offender because of what she did, despite the fact that she ended up married to the student that she had an affair with. I think it's just that women don't commit sex crimes as often as men do, statistically. I'm not certain though. All the teachers I've known of that are female and accused of having affairs with students end up in some kind of trouble.

**vc318** · 08-22-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

Not totally true, Mary Kay Letourneau ended up in jail, lost custody of her children, and is registered as a sex offender because of what she did, despite the fact that she ended up married to the student that she had an affair with. I think it's just that women don't commit sex crimes as often as men do, statistically. I'm not certain though. All the teachers I've known of that are female and accused of having affairs with students end up in some kind of trouble.

That's just one rare instance of "Happily Ever After" I guess in a weird, twisted way. But most cases have resulted in the judge giving these women numerous chances before they ever get locked up. I think there was one case out of Florida where the woman (also a teacher) was practically given a slap on the wrist and as soon as she returned home, she was making contact with the victim again! I think she's out on bail right now. I don't think it should matter whether there are more male or female sex offenders - the law is obviously not the same for both parties.

Leneoth · 08-23-2008, 10:13 AM

When their named a ' Sex offender' they've given up their 'rights' IMO!
But, those people who does this must have serious problems, so if they get help for it and pay for their crime they should be protected.
Yeah, i'm torn. I'm not sure!

**sunnykerr** · 08-24-2008, 07:24 PM

I believe in the justice system, I truly do. But I also think we have to be careful, because nothing is perfect. There have been miscarriages before.

Mary Kay Letourneau is a good example. Her and her now-husband may be the one exception to the general rule, and I may have my own personal opinion about their union... but so long as everyone's happy there, is it really our business what happens to her?

The idea of a registry of sex offenders is to protect the population against criminals who, in many cases, by virtue of the nature of their crime, are among the most likely to reoffend. It makes sense to protect ourselves when the likelihood of a crime is tangible.

But if a person offended in a specific context. Be it Mary Kay Letourneau and her former student now-husband, be it a high-school student whose boyfriend happens to be a wee bit older... I don't see a pattern there that's likely to be repeated. I don't see a danger to society. Mary Kay Letourneau was released on certain conditions, which she broke, and then she went back to jail. I have no problems with that. I believe in the justice system.

But I do think we have to be careful about making laws that apply absolutely to a crime when our definition of it is far from absolute.