Again, this is a real person. He did nothing more heinous than looking at pictures in a newsgroup. For this, he had to serve five years in prison, and his life and career is destroyed. And I would like you to acknowledge that some percentage of “sex offenders” are harmless.
It says right there on the website. Not a totally specific description but you get the idea.
“Crimes Convicted: FELONY SEXUAL CONTACT WITH A MINOR UNDER 16 (22-22-7)
Crime Description: SUBJECT HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH 8 YEAR OLD FEMALE”
As far as you know. 
Again, a real person. Five years for downloading pictures from a Usenet newsgroup. He was collateral damage in the effort to shut down Usenet waged by copyright interests.
If it will help, imagine that you were held responsible for verifying the age of every person in every sexually explicit image you have ever seen. That is the standard we are talking about.
As this is not the Pit, I can’t address the accusation that my friend was guilty of anything other than what he was prosecuted for with the vigor I would prefer. Suffice to say, if he had been guilty of anything else, don’t you think they would have charged him with it?
And this right here is the problem with the sex offender registry. Sexual contact does not mean that they had sex. This could be fondling all the way up to full on sex.
In my state, it’s call criminal sexual conduct with a minor and only the age of the victim is the determining factor, not the offense. First degree is for victims that are under 11, second degree under 14 and third degree under 16.
I have guys that inappropriately touched a minor, no violence, nothing forced, no penetration of any kind. Yes what they did was wrong and they should be punished but the way the law reads, people tend to think these people were raping kids. For example, one guy messed around with the then 15 or 16 year old babysitter (a troubled, fairly loose girl, not that it means the guy shouldn’t have been convicted). Another guy attempted to touch a 13 year old (his niece), the victim stopped him, and he apologized and left.
Another 2 guys had a repeated sexual intercourse with their daughters and were convicted to Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature, which doesn’t require a registry. One was ordered to the registry, the other wasn’t until he was caught having sex with this daughter again.
People just read the conviction and don’t realize the broad range of offenses that could have actually occurred and NONE of that is taken into consideration when these guys are sentenced. Or rather it can’t be taken into consideration since it’s mandatory for these guys to register.
However people at various places decide to tell everyone they can that someone is convicted of something and the supposed offense they believe took place because they got the idea from the sex offender registry website.
I heard one offender say something pretty interesting one day. If you take the worst 60 minutes of anyone’s life, they will seem like a pretty crappy person. This guy touched a boy’s genitals while he was asleep trying to figure out if he was gay (the offender was 18-19 at the time and apparently very confused). The boy told his parents and the offender confessed, plead guilty and did something like 10 years in prison and now has like another 10 years of supervision. We actually use him to speak with agents that are getting training for supervising sexual offenders to attempt to get them to understand how these offenses can occur. You meet guys like this on the sex offender registry, and there are plenty, and you really question if it’s a justifiable punishment. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have it, but we certainly aren’t using it to get the most advantage out of it.
Well we can’t really convict on imaginary offenses can we?
This goes back to educating your kids, watching what they are doing and having a good enough relationship with you where they feel comfortable talking with you about this stuff.
(Emphasis mine)
I see these arguments a lot. “Its better to be on the safe side.” However, what if that were you on the registry in the situation of that kid or if that kid was your son.
What if your crime was decades old before the sex offender registry, but because it’s viewed as a civil statute rather than a criminal one, you have been informed that an offense you were convicted of at age 18 will not put you on the registry at age 40, even though you haven’t broken another law since.
What if you complied with your sentence, went to counseling for years and didn’t get into anymore trouble?
The supposed point of the registry is to protect people from people that are supposedly going to assault, but it gives no standard of measurement to determine if anyone is a risk besides the fact that they have done it. Even though research is showing that people don’t seem to re-offend in this matter as much as many other offenses.
Do you advocate registries for burglars, drug dealers or people that commit fraud? They all are much, much more likely to re-offend.
I think I understand your point.
As for my example, I don’t care if he only fingered her or if he had full on sex, it was with an 8 year girl. He’s a creep.
Gee, I’m sorry. Your friend sounds like a really great guy.
You snark, but you have no idea. He is a genuinely good and decent person who had the misfortune of downloading a handful of illegal images from a newsgroup filled with legal ones. It was roughly equivalent to not having destroyed a Traci Lords VHS tape purchased before she revealed that she had provided a fake passport to get into porn at age 15 (and therefore removing all her existing product from the market, driving up the price for her upcoming film).
And what they were convicted of isn’t necessarily what they did or what they were originally charged with. I have seen plenty of plea bargains with these cases. The prosecutor agrees to drop the aggrevated sexual assault (that means rape in NJ lawyer speak) to sexual contact or some other lower offense to avoid a trial. If possible prosecutors will do anything to avoid putting the victim on the stand, especially a child. But when they do offer such a deal they usually require the defendant to agree to the registration. In my state the registration is not automatic.
BTW my worst 60 minutes of my life did not include kid touching. Sorry, very little sympathy for that.
Loach,
Can you address my earlier uncertainty?
If someone flashed a minor, would (or could) his registry description say “assaulted” his victims?
This is in NJ.
No. Not at all. Here is the lewdness statute:
[QUOTE=NJ Criminal Code]
2C:14-4. Lewdness
a. A person commits a disorderly persons offense if he does any flagrantly lewd and offensive act which he knows or reasonably expects is likely to be observed by other non consenting persons who would be affronted or alarmed.
b. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if:
(1) He exposes his intimate parts for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the actor or of any other person under circumstances where the actor knows or reasonably expects he is likely to be observed by a child who is less than 13 years of age where the actor is at least four years older than the child.
(2) He exposes his intimate parts for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the actor or of any other person under circumstances where the actor knows or reasonably expects he is likely to be observed by a person who because of mental disease or defect is unable to understand the sexual nature of the actor’s conduct.
c. As used in this section:
“lewd acts” shall include the exposing of the genitals for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the actor or of any other person.
[/QUOTE]
So if the victim is 13 or over it is a disorderly persons offense. Which in NJ lawyer speak means misdemeanor. It isn’t a crime unless the victim is 12 or under or mentally disabled. And then its only a 4th degree crime. And lewdness is not listed as crime which falls under Megan’s Law. So a flasher would not be a sex offender under NJ’s Megan’s Law.
[QUOTE=NJ Megan’s Law]
b. For the purposes of this act a sex offense shall include the following:
(1) Aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, kidnapping pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:13-1 or an attempt to commit any of these crimes if the court found that the offender’s conduct was characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive behavior, regardless of the date of the commission of the offense or the date of conviction;
(2) A conviction, adjudication of delinquency, or acquittal by reason of insanity for aggravated sexual assault; sexual assault; aggravated criminal sexual contact; kidnapping pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:13-1; endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child pursuant to subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:24-4; endangering the welfare of a child pursuant to paragraph (4) of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:24-4; luring or enticing pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1993, c. 291 (C.2C:13-6); criminal sexual contact pursuant to N.J.S.2C:14-3b. if the victim is a minor; kidnapping pursuant to N.J.S.2C:13-1, criminal restraint pursuant to N.J.S.2C:13-2, or false imprisonment pursuant to N.J.S.2C:13-3 if the victim is a minor and the offender is not the parent of the victim; knowingly promoting prostitution of a child pursuant to paragraph (3) or paragraph (4) of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:34-1; or an attempt to commit any of these enumerated offenses if the conviction, adjudication of delinquency or acquittal by reason of insanity is entered on or after the effective date of this act or the offender is serving a sentence of incarceration, probation, parole or other form of community supervision as a result of the offense or is confined following acquittal by reason of insanity or as a result of civil commitment on the effective date of this act;
[/QUOTE]
So not only would it not show as a sex assault, he would not be registered at all.
Also I want to make a point that I put in the other coincidental sex offender thread. Its up to the judge to place them on Megan’s Law. Once they are on the list our county reviews the case and places them in a tier, 1 thru 3. Most are considered a low level threat. Our state sex offender data base only shows tier 2 and 3s. So most of those on the list can not even be seen by the public. It is for law enforcement purposes only. An open records request could get you the information but not an internet search. If you see anyone on the NJ sex offender database you know they are on there for a damn good reason.
Thanks.
On this guy’s registry listing, it says: “Offense - Endangering the welfare of a child”. His level is “2-moderate”.
I had thought that an “endangering the welfare” charge indicated something less than touching - which would be assault - and more consistent with flashing.
But again, you’re saying that this can’t be correct.
I won’t quote the whole thing here (its long) but look up 2C:24-4. A large part of that statute deals with child pornography. Both producing and possession. But it is also used as a catch all for other sexual abuse. There is language stating “engage in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child.” So it is often used as a plea bargain statute as a lesser offense than sexual assault. The statute is graded from 2nd degree down to 4th degree depending on the circumstances. If he is Tier 2 I would guarantee it was a lot more than having the wrong pictures on his hard drive.
Actually I was in the process of doing so.
According to this source, the statute includes
And according to this law firm website, “These charges may also include Megan’s Law registration requirements.”
I’ve not suggested that it was pictures on his hard drive. As above, the story I heard was that he flashed kids. It would seem, based on these sources, that this is conceivable, as this would seem to be covered under the “endangering” statute and thus subject to registry requirements.
What I know for certain is that the guy never served jail time (IIRC he may have done some sort of community service), which would suggest a minor sort of crime. (Also that he pleaded guilty in the pre-registry days and then had to register once the laws were passed.)
If he flashed kids it would be under the lewdness statute. This statute deals with the child being nude or worse. You have the wrong information. And Tier 2 is reserved for bad offenders.
OK, thanks a lot!
There was at least one other real person involved – the child victim. And that child victim suffered the harm of sexual abuse at least partly in order to manufacture the product to supply the demand that your friend created.
As “Amy,” the child victim of pornographic images that were widely distributed – on Usenet, interestingly enough – said in her victim impact statement:
Her petition for restitution continues:
It appears the child might disagree.
If you read his first post, Bricker, it sounds more like his friend downloaded a “barely legal” type photo – pictures of girls who were really fifteen or sixteen, rather than eighteen. At least, that’s how I understand it.