I haven’t read any studies that suggest that chemical castration has any appreciable effect on recitivism rates. Considering that most of the time rapes have nothing to do with sexual gratification and everything to do with exherting power over someone, humiliating them, and dehumanizing them, even when rapists can’t manage to “get it up”, there are always foreign objects avalible.
I am with you 100% on every element of this post.
The terms and conditions of almost all online service providers states that a user will not share his password with anyone. Does this law give the user the legal rights to violate those terms?
Seems to me that state law supersedes a web site’s policies, therefore no sex offender will ever be able to sign up for any online services because he’ll know that he will be required to violate the terms & conditions.
This is one of those facts that just ain’t so, but that gets repeated so often that people feel they can’t possibly trust their common sense on it. Look into the origins of the myth that rape isn’t about sex, and you’ll find they’re absurd.
Rape is usually about sexual gratification. A great deal of the time it’s also about exerting power–but a lot of the time it’s no more about exerting power than robbing a house is.
You’ve obviously looked into this. Can you provide me with some sort of source to get me started?
Besides the aforementioned “common sense” that is.
Because me, I like sex, I desire sex, and I can’t obtain sex, yet I haven’t gone off and raped anyone.
It is mentioned all over the Internet as being covered by the act, even if not mentioned explicitly. Do you know of any case law or anything else that definitively contradicts that?
As I understand it, public urination is deemed to be covered because the act has broad definitions of what is included, and public urination becomes ensnared because of being included in individual states’ definitions of sexual offenses.
My great uncle Billy smoked two packs a day and died of old age at the age of 97, so smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.
I have no idea what evidence LHoD may or may not have, but your response is not a logical rebuttal.
Ah, so you’re saying I’m an exception and that any normal person not posessed of my heroic will would have likely raped someone if put in my position? What a sad, cynical view of humanity. And I thought I was a pecimist and misanthrope.
And his response ignores my core point which is that chemical castration has not been shown to reduce recitivism, so he’s advocating a procedure that has no demonstrable positive impact.
So if this password database gets hacked will the state be financially liable for damages? You could do some pretty severe damage with say, someone’s online banking password.
How about corporate passwords? Does hiring a sex offender mean all your private company emails with that person will now be available for the government to browse, search, and scrutinize at their whim?
Also what happens if a sex offender needs to change their password?
IIRC the “Adam Walsh” law imposes its requirements upon all “sexual offenders”. It happens that several states classify public urination as indecent exposure and the latter in turn as per se a “sexual offense” – so these people may get caught in the gears. In other states, “indecent exposure” requires “lewd intent” so merely watering the park trail would not be as easily subject to this. That is legally a different thing than saying the AW law itself targets people who take a whiz in a public place, though that’s little consolation for anyone who suffers that effect.
Besides, that’s another level of legislative/law enforcement playaround, inflating the classification of certain conducts to the level of “sex crimes” just so you’d rather quickly plead guilty to some disorderly conduct charge than risk the opprobrium of even a minor “sex crime” case.
I don’t think that is what they were saying at all. You said “Because me, I like sex, I desire sex, and I can’t obtain sex, yet I haven’t gone off and raped anyone.”, as if that countered the fact that rape could be about sexual gratification. This is like saying “I like money, and I can’t obtain money, yet I haven’t gone off and robbed anyone”, and then using that to claim that theft cannot be about material gratification or wanting the stuff that is stolen.
You’re irrelevant to the rape question, since as an admitted non-rapist you do not provide any useful first-hand answer to the question “why do people rape?”, and it is silly to use yourself as an example. Hopefully, likewise with the theft question. Just because you wouldn’t steal or rape for the gratification, material or otherwise, does not prove that nobody else does. There are tons of people in prisons for doing crazy, stupid and impulsive stuff that you or I would not dream of doing.
Also, saying “so you’re saying I’m an exception and that any normal person not posessed of my heroic will would have likely raped someone” only makes sense in a world where most people would rape. We clearly do not live in that world, so it isn’t clear why you would make such an off the wall comment about what they were suggesting.
Yes. The actual text of the law, which is what is used when someone is charged with something. See, when you ask the grand jury to indict based on a law that’s found “all over the Internet” but not in the actual text of the law, you will run into some small procedural hurdles.
Well, yes. If in fact public urination was included in a state’s defintion of a sexual offense, THEN it would be covered by the Adam Walsh Act. I agree.
Which state does that, again?
I wish I could link some relevant info on this, but right here in Utah, we also had a law stating that sex offenders had to give up passwords/e-mail addresses etc. (not certain if it “just” was for the duration of thier parole-probation or extended beyond that) but an offender sued, and the Utah Supreme Court (not exactly bleeding heart liberal types) agreed and struck the law down.
Many in Utah were outraged that we would allow the ex offender any privacy/normallacy after thier incarceration; seemingly Christian charity is often in short supply here in Zion…
I hope someone can pull up better cites than this–my google-fu is weak right now–but A Natural History of Rape points out that rape occurs among other species, and it could prove to be an adaptive trait among some men. The idea that rape is not about sex is based on some seriously flawed older research. If anyone can pull up an article that talks specifically about interviews with convicts and how convicts tend to skew their answers to match what the interviewer wants, I’d appreciate it; I read the article that convinced me on this point many years ago.
This does not contradict the interpretation that public urination is covered by the act. My “internet” comment was a result of doing a search which found thousands of hits and the first three pages are all references to public urination being covered by the Act. This is not a court of law. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to come up with counter-examples.
And as you know perfectly well, there are many court cases where the verdict depends on interpretation rather than just looking to see whether the exact wording is in the Act. Otherwise we would not need a Supreme Court.
Whether you agree with the decision or not (and I suspect not), the Supremes have decided that abortion is covered by the First Amendment of the Constitution. How can that be when the word “abortion” does not appear anywhere in that amendment?
Why does it have to be in a state’s definition as opposed to a court’s intepretation?
I get the feeling you are attempting lawyerly nit-picking at the detail rather than addressing the real point.
If you follow the link given by our own Gfactor in this Dope Staff Report, and look at their reference, you get:
There is no “counter-example” possible when the defense is “it’s not in the damn law in the first place.” Nor is it useful for you to point to three pages of hits on Google claiming it is, because those three pages of hits are all simply parroting the same error. If you claim it’s covered by the law, it’s for you to point ot the part of the law that covers it.
In fact, the Adam Walsh Act does not lay out specifics at all. Here is the text fo the act. If you claim public urination is covered under it, point to the place.
OK, if you say it’s a matter of interpretation, find me one person convicted under the law whose crime was public urination.
Of course. But I can point to case law (Roe, Casey, et al) that specifically say that abortion is protected by the Constitution. (Not actually by the First Amendment, mind you). Why don’t you offer up some case law where the Adam Walsh Act is applied to public urination?
If you think you can find a direct court case applying the Adam Walsh Act to public urination, have at it.
OK, let’s see. These cites are given by Human Rights Watch in a publication dedicated to removing registration requirements. Let’s see what the actual laws say.
Arizona Rev Stat §13-3821 simply lists a long string of offense that registration, including:
What does §13-1402 say?
So it’s clear here that the law imposes penalties only on a “serial” offender. even if urination satisfies the “offended or alarmed” element, a single act of public urination can’t possibly qualify.
California Penal Code §314(1) et seq
That’s not simply public urination, which in California is a municipal code violation. In Wainwright v. Procunier, 446 F2d 757, the Ninth Circuit considered a case of whether an officer who directly observed a man urinating in public had probable cause to believe the man had violated PC §314. The concluded he did not:
OK, that’s the first two.
Do I have to dissect all of the remaining cites? Why don’t YOU tell ME which of those laws actually says public urination, alone, is sufficient to trigger registration within the meaning of the Adam Walsh Act?
Under pretty skeevy circumstances that involved, among other things, videotaping both said episode of oral sex as well as sex with another minor girl who was under the influence of drugs, obviously in a state of “impaired judgement” on the videotape, and who later filed rape charges. If Mr Wilson had merely retired to his bedroom with said 15-year-old and there wasn’t the drugs-videotape-and-rape angle, I doubt it would have resulted in a conviction.
[QUOTE=
(*)Because of course part of the worry is, not all “sex offenders” are dangerous rapists, child or otherwise, so not all of them even fall in the categories where people may justify an opinion that they deserve to have their lives destroyed.
[/QUOTE]
This is what I always felt was a disservice to the American populace and even some ‘sex offenders’.
Kids having sex with other kids (consenting) should not be a part of the current archaic laws but they are.
I want to be able to point to a ‘sex offender’ with disgust not in bewilderment wondering if they were one of the former.
You have not offered a single opinion/view/case/article/anything to support your view other than your own opinion and analysis. When I search for opinions, I find masses that contradict you, and not a single one that supports you. I have followed about a dozen links and skimmed the synopses of several pages of results. Not one supports you. I don’t feel the onus is on me to do anything. It appears that you put your own analysis ahead of those of others. Fair enough - you are perfectly entitled to do so in coming to your own opinion. But the view of one lone, anonymous message board poster is not going to persuade me that all the others out there are wrong.
I am doing no more work on this. If you want to try persuade me, offer evidence of people/organizations that support your view and I will happily read them and weigh it against what I found.
Did you not read my post? Wainwright v. Procunier, 446 F2d 757 ? Isn’t that a case? Doesn’t it support the exact point I’m making?
Look, try this: Google “duck’s quack doesn’t echo.”
Look at that!! Hundreds of cites, all saying that a duck’s quack doesn’t echo. They must all be right, huh?
And where do you get off saying I have offered only my own opinion? I gave you specifc cites from specific laws from the first two states on your list, along with a circuit court decision DIRECTLY ON POINT. Did you not see it?
You haven’t done ANY work. You’ve cut and pasted the link that GFactor gave in his Staff Report. GFactor, because he is a cautious and careful lawyer and reseacher, said (correctly) that HRW claims this to be true. But he does not independently endorse their findings, and a good thing, too, because examining the first two claims shows that they have dramatically overstated the case. Which I showed. With links and cites to a case. On point.
You’re asking me to prove the negative: that the Act doesn’t encompass public urination. I’ve quoted the text of the law and provided cites for cases that have fallen the other way. Now you throw up your hands at your impossible burden. To disprove you, what could I possibly show? A case where an officer stares right at a man pissing in public and the court decides that doesn’t count as an registrable offense?
Actually, yes. I did find such a case, didn’t I?
Now, your turn: find a case of someone convicted only for public urination, nothing else, no other elements to his crime, and show me where he’s covered by the Adam Walsh Act. One. Show me one.
Because a duck’s quack doesn’t echo, and no one knows why. :rolleyes:
Oh dear. Did you even try this or did you just guess that it would support your argument? I did such a search and on the first page eight of ten entries were links to articles stating that a duck’s quack does indeed echo, one was a link to a search engine and just one was a factoid that it doesn’t echo.
And I apologize - you have offered up one case. That seems to show that in a case in California nearly 30 years ago (no idea if the timescale makes any difference), public urination was found not to be an offence. It is one piece of support for your position, although as yet that does not persuade me that it outweighs the dozens of links to opinions that are easily found - a unanimous position in my searching, not one in ten as with the duck’s quack.