Georgia Supreme Court Says It's Okay To Put Non-Sex Offenders On The Registered Sex Offender List
from the this-is-not-good dept
The question of registered sex offenders lists is a tricky one -- because for those people who really do commit sexually-driven crimes against minors, it's hard to be even remotely sympathetic to any complaints they have about the punishment they receive. The problem is that so many things are considered sexual offenses these days that many people are put on the list, and must live with it for life, for something that most people may consider a youthful indiscretion, rather than something that automatically should brand them to neighbors as a possible child molester. Things such as kids having sex with each other after only one of the two teens has reached the "legal" limit or even urinating in public can sometimes be classified as a sexual offense.And, now, it's gone even further, so that non-sex-offenders can be put on the list. A law passed a few years back says that sex-offender lists must also include those convicted of "kidnapping or falsely imprisoning minors." Again, if you've done one of those things, you certainly deserve to be punished, but should you be put on a sex offender list? A guy who was convicted of "false imprisonment" of a 17-year-old girl when he was 18, during a drug bust gone bad, was added to the sex offender listings in Georgia and he sued to be taken off the list. However, the Georgia Supreme Court has said that it's perfectly legal to put non-sex-offenders onto a sexual offender list.
Again, no one is saying folks like this shouldn't be punished for their crimes -- but this goes beyond punishment for the crime he committed. And the really bad thing is that including all of these other offenses on such a registry dilutes the power and value of any such registry. The purpose behind such a list was supposedly to alert neighbors to be aware -- but when you expand the list to include all sorts of people who are of no risk at all to children, it takes such a list away from its very purpose.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: georgia, sex offenders
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
However, warning devices only work when they're used judiciously. If your work does a fire drill five times a day, you start to ignore them.
Thus, sex offender lists should be very narrow. Only those who pose a legitimate risk of committing predatory sex crimes should be on it. Otherwise it's a useless watered down list that helps no one.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? God, the story of the boy who cried wolf has been a part of our culture for thousands of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WELCOME TO NAZI/AMERICA!
P.O.D.A.T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ima Fish on Georgia Supreme Court Says It's Okay To Put Non-Sex Offenders On The Registered Sex Offender List
This is all about political posturing and getting votes. If you didn't commit a sex crime, you don't belong on the list. Period. Just because a crime involves a child should never be a blank check for the state to put a criminal on the sex offender registry.
The registry is about career politicians winning votes; nothing more. You think politicians give a rat's furry behind about your child's or grandchild's safety? Think again. All they want are votes, power, and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the adulthood-not-required dept...
Sadly an arbitrary "legal" age limit isn't always necessary. Two underage kids having sex -- even just foreplay -- can lead to one of them being charged with statutory rape and getting slapped with the sex offender label as a parting gift to along with that long jail sentence. Look up the case of Genarlow Wilson -- it'll make you cringe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
They eventually let him out and took him off the list, so what's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
They eventually let him out and took him off the list, so what's the problem?"
The problem is exactly what you just said - "EVENTUALLY". How would you feel if you were thrown in prison for more than two years only to be told by the government later "Oops, we made a mistake. Sorry about that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
That's the way the legal system works. Sometimes you just have to be patient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the adulthood-not-required dept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lists
After all, we do ostensibly believe in the rehabilitation of criminals, even if we aren't very good at it, and I would like to think that one day we will see a world where the majority of violent criminals pay their "debt to society" by rejoining that society as sane and productive members therein.
Idealistic, yes. But ideals are good so long as we don't let them make us naive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lists
how about a scoring system? how about something like cross between the credit reporting system and the drivers license system where you get points added for moving violations.
you could put everyone on "the list" with a score of 0 and add points for indictments, convictions, and other infractions, and have certain points expire over time, like those for misdemeanors and non-violent or non-sex based crimes.
each person's score (but not the details of the how the score was calculated) could be a matter of public record so it would be cheap and easy to do quick background checks on everyone, including elected officials, employers, and religious leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lists
Too lazy to Google now, but IIRC the rates of recidivism for actual paedophiles is much lower than that of violent offenders.
I've always wonder why people require a list of sex offenders, but require no knowledge of whether your new neighbour is a murderer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lists
That statement right there explains it. To many lawmakers deciding to try and get votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad
First the lists were for sexual predators. Those who sexually molested children or violently raped people. Then we added a few more things like exposure. Then someone decided urinating in public also included exposure. Now Georgia is adding kidnapping and false imprisonment to the list originally intended for`sexual predators. How long until a teen somewhere sues their parents for grounding them because it is false imprisonment?
Don't think that can ever happen? Ask the lawmakers who passed the various laws if it was ever intended for urinating in public? The federal Sexual Offender Act was passed in 1994. Sixteen years ago. Thats how quickly the slippery slope gets out of control.
We keep adding people to the list, despite the fact that the lists DO NOT HELP.
"A December 2008 study of the law in New Jersey concluded that it had no effect on community tenure (i.e., time to first re-arrest), showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses, had no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first time sexual offense (still largely child molestation/incest), and had no effect on reducing the number of victims of sexual offenses."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad
Kind of like car alarms. Admit it, when you hear a car alarm the first thing you think is "Someone please shut that shit off"
Their original intent was that when someone heard it you'd run and see who's breaking into a car; maybe even try to stop them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad
That's right, the laws set up to "protect the children" forced a young girl to live in a paedophile community because her father took a piss on the wrong street before she was born.
Anybody who applies this law to anybody who is not a dangerous sex offender is dangerous idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad
Actually we already have that in America and Britain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So given that even that is a gray area, the concept of having someone on such a list for public urination seems utterly insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no safety in preventing them from living near kiddies--they will just travel to where the kiddies are.
And yes, diluting the list will just make it useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Indeed. I can understand the restriction of not living within view of a school or playground. But do these zoning officials really expect that having to spend an extra 5 minutes to drive to the town's (or a neighbouring town's) children is going to deter actual child rapists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
File that under Relevance fail, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the this-is-not-good dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the this-is-not-good dept
Somehow, I'm not at all sure how, we "adults" need to come top grips with the fact that the onset of puberty is the time that nature (evolution, God, whatever) has set for as child becoming an adult.
That said those of us older and allegedly wiser (?) need to guide this transition to adulthood but recognize that raging hormones or whatever is normal and natural and we ain't gonna stop the kids.
As for non consensual sexual relations (aka rape) by a parent (the vast majority of those who sexually abuse children and young adults), minister, pastor, teacher, doctor etc that's clearly a criminal offense and needs to be treated as such as must not reporting knowledge of such a thing by people like employers (hello, Roman Catholic Church).
Sex offender lists tend to be something of a joke, I'm afraid. On one hand they continue punishment while doing little or nothing to rehabilitate and everything to ensure recidivism by the tiny minority who are true, chronic paedophiles while gathering in those like, as you point out, have done nothing at all wrong other than one is one age and the other is another in a clearly consensual exchange of messages.
The lists communicate nothing of value to the neighbourhood and simply allow police agencies to appear to be doing something while they do nothing, really.
Except take another step towards a police state for our own good, the sake of the children and so on.
Orwell's 1984 is alive and well in 2010.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do ya one better
My friend is now a "sex offender" for indecent exposure near school grounds. Hey pays 50$ a month to be on it.
Welcome to socialism folks. Land of the free my ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do ya one better
Care to elaborate?
I'm curious as to why you think this characteristic is attributable solely to socialism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya one better
(unless, i suppose, you're in the usa, where socialism= comunism =totalitarianism = nazis or some such equally crazy stupidity...
yeah, your republicans are communists and your democrats are nazis. have fun with that horribly broken logic... American politics don't make a blind bit of sense beyond the 'people with money are incompetent and/or want to screw you over' level, at least from the outside. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya one better
Because he's another one of those idiot Americans who listens to the drooling right-wingers who haven't got a clue what the word means, and wrongly use it and other diametrically opposed terms to attack Obama and/or healthcare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya one better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do ya one better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do ya one better
And if, for some strange reason, you can't find a facility, you are capable of holding it for another 45 seconds to get out of sight of a school. Which, in case you never attended a school, kids play there on the weekends sometimes.
So, should you're buddy be on the Sex Offenders list? No, but both of you are clearly eligible for the dip-shit list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya one better
I have three friends, one for public urination in an alley behind a bar at
2 am. And two, a married couple, for having sex with each other in the bathroom of a bar. All registered sex offenders.
putting people who do stupid, but completely harmless, shit while drunk
on a sex offender list, renders the list completely moot and useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do ya one better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do ya one better
I am so sorry for your friend - that was unfair.
BUT, let's not bandy words like 'socialism' about - just because it's unjust does not mean it's socialist. Socialism is about economic systems of use.
No wonder this nation is in a very sorry state - we throw labels around without really knowing what they mean
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya one better
Not exactly the same type of Communism that was practiced in the Cold War.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do ya one better
Welcome to the land of right winger, get tough way of treating people. It has nothing to do with socialism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "kidnapping or falsely imprisoning minors."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offender's comment
What about "those" sex offenders before they were listed on the World Wide Web? S.O. have to register, at least in the State of Missouri with the local county sheriff's Office every 90 days or once a year depending on their case.
Before the 'Net, the local Counties kept a listing available to the public. (They still do...) But now that we have easy access to that information and don't have to drive to the local office, it somehow has turned into political votes, fear, and a general mess.
Are there certain person's that need tracked. Yes. Does everyone need to be on the list? No. -- Can someone be reformed, rehabilitated, or retrained? Yes.
A Registered Sex Offender in Missouri.
(remaining Anonymous just because)
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Offender's comment
Better to put all the criminals on an island and leave them there. They had the right idea with Alcatraz.
Can someone be reformed, rehabilitated, or retrained? Yes.
Then let them go do it somewhere else, not around my family.
A Registered Sex Offender in Missouri.
(remaining Anonymous just because)
And that's another thing: we need to get the criminals off the internet too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Offender's comment
How do you define "criminal". Someone who broke the law? OK then, you broke a traffic law once, enjoy your island of murderers and rapists. You should think you deserved it...
(only very slightly more ridiculous than putting public urinators on a list intended for child rapists)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Offender's comment
Yea, Alcatraz.. Did you perhaps forget Australia? It was started out as a Penal Colony for England/U.K. Which, in a convoluted sort of way, proves that even the most hardened criminals will create a society, that, ultimately will be a "normal" (IE: functioning) society. Besides, Alcatraz was a joke. It was shut down for good reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
people are getting list crazy!
Maybe they actually want to dilute the list, make it so no one cares because it's full of so many crap entries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Romeo and Juliet
The sheriff says that they are required to spend too much time and resources tracking all of the low-level offenders when they really need to spend more resources keeping an eye on people like Sowell.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/post_127.html
Deputies check on scores of what Lutz calls "Romeo and Juliet" cases, in which men, typically in their late teens or early 20s, were convicted of having consensual sex with underage girls and are classified as Tier I or Tier II offenders. Some neighbors don't seem as bothered by those types of cases, he said, and deputies think their time would be better spent checking on people who molested children or forcibly raped women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Romeo and Juliet
should be..
"or forcibly raped women or men."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's dangerous to exist because the growth of its power is inevitable, but I don't think it's just for them to exist in the first place either. The argument supposedly goes that a sex offender could offend again and therefore must suffer certain restraints. But any {criminal} guilty of {criminal_activity} could perform {criminal_activity} again. Murderers could murder again but we let them out of prison and don't make them go door-to-door explaining their murderer status to people. What is so special about this case that we have to create an entire system of modern pariahism? Was there some landmark study about this? Some true summit of clear-thinking and logic that showed we should do this?
Somehow, I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But why not? That's what I want to know. I, for one, do not think that public urination, or even under age sex, is worse than murder. So, if we have a list for sex offenders, then surely we need one for murders and other violent criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: somebody think of the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I guess I should speak up too
The every fiber of my being would rather lock every sick F*** away and never let them out, but that also goes against the every fiber of my being that was taught, "Do the Crime, Do the Time".
As for putting non-sex-offenders on a the same list as sex-offenders makes just as irate as the other assholes who think sex-registers shouldn't be a part of our life. I hate to break it to you, the World keeps spiraling down a hole, and the only way a Parent or Concerned Citizen could ever know what's going on anymore is by looking up the sex-offender list in their area.
Now, listen, I really can't see the Supreme Court saying this is a Judicious Use of the System as it was first built, so really, I'll lose the rest of the Faith I have in the Govt., if they don't slap this back and tell them to try it again.
Alright, so, let me explain this part. My Father and his Brothers all fought in WWII, in Europe and Pacific (my Father). I learned early on listening to Him and my Uncles about the battles, the scary things they've seen, even discussing Flash Backs and supporting one another during those times. It constructed in me a real fundamental base of what this Country is supposed to stand for. While I absolutely detest Child Abusers, I still say, they have the right to free speech as you or I. I don't have to LIKE what they say, but you know what, an awful lot of people died to be certain we had that right, and I'm not going to start sliding down the slippery slope just because sick F**** are around. We as a Nation need to get back to Basics, we need to be Proud of what our Fore-Fathers have done, fought for and Built. Too much anymore I can't even watch the news because one Party or another is talking too loudly and too fast to give a damn about. I'm neither Pro-Obama or Neg-Obama, what I am is someone that thinks we should throw out all of them and fill that place up with people that really give a damn about the average Joe.
*steps off soapbox*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, I guess I should speak up too
seriously, i lost track. did you manage more than one sentence in a row on the same subject? *very confused*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The economic or social justification behind totalitarian government is irrelevant. Infringement on individual freedom "for the good of society" is found, with differing justifications, on both sides of the largely-useless left/right dichotomy.
But as long as "they" can keep us slinging such "I know what it means when I use it!" terms as treehugger, teabagger, anti-American, bible-thumper, socialist, communist, racist, etc, etc at each other the slow gathering-in of all power to a central elite will continue.
And trust me, "they" aren't all oilmen or hollywood stars, or pointy-head academic proponents of the various -isms or cynical manipulators of clueless religious fundamentalists.
The problem is systemic. There is a major benefit to ruining these people's lives for some few (prosecutors, lawmakers, campaigners to end child sexual abuse) and not enough benefit to the many who see what a bad thing it has become for them (us, I guess) to do anything about it.
Same with marijuana laws. Same with imminent domain. Same with public employee pensions. Same with IP and patent policy.
The forces driving bad law and bad policy, in case after case move things to a worse and less logical and less just place and leave people fuming about the "liberal media" and "hate radio" and ranting about the bad people on the other side of the bogus divisions we've been presented with.
"Welcome to socialism.", my ass. I wish it was that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A new list needs to be made...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do all states have a $50/month fee to be on the list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do all states have a $50/month fee to be on the list?
The "criminal justice system" is a *huge* industry in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get convicted of stealing $20 from someone under the age of 18? put them on the list. convicted of assault on a major in the presence of a minor? put them on the list also.
why you ask? dilute the entire list to the point of its being completely and utterly useless or so unconstitutional that the entire thing gets thrown out.
you can not have such a list of people without having what amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in the aforementioned inability to ever find legitimate work and living quarters.
but thats just my personal opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't just punish the offenders
However, a solution presented itself. A bunch of people from the adjoining neighborhood, which does not have a pool, wanted to pay for access to the pool. It would have been more than enough to cover all maintenance needs, and maybe even make improvements. However, in their midst was one sex offender. With no information other than a dot on the sex offender map, the HOA board made a unanimous decision to deny the ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD of their request, simply because one person was on the list.
Now, everyone loses. The other neighborhood can't access the pool. Our neighborhood struggles to pay for it. And one person who may or may not be dangerous is the cause because of some ridiculous list with inadequate transparency and information.
The lists need to be banned. Dangerous offenders need to remain in prison. Less tolerance for violent sexual offenders and murderers. It's ridiculous that you can kill someone and be out in 5-10 years. Just keep them in prison and eliminate the lists, but stop unconstitutionally punishing people beyond the tenure of their sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Only That...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The list is *supposed* to serve the purpose of notifying the community... of... what, exactly? That there is a potential criminal living nearby? Well, EVERYBODY is a potential criminal. For a variety of reasons including upbringing, morals (or lack of), mental stability (or lack of), etc. etc. ad nauseum, the vast majority of people do not commit crimes beyond speeding, not using their blinkers, copying movies, games, music etc. While this topic doesn't seem to need to get diverted to piracy and whether or not it's actually harmful, it's not even remotely a problem of the same consequence. My point is this: for most people, commission of most crimes is unsustainable. They are unable to do the time so they don't commit the crime. As a society we have deemed that speeding (generally) is a crime of low consequence so the "time", or fine as the case may be, is typically a minimal investment of cash or community service (though why I can get out of a reckless driving ticket for 163$ and yet it may cost 5 years jail time and a quarter million bucks if I want a bootleg copy of Air Bud: Golden Retreiver is totally beyond me...)
So what we've got then is a totally screwed up economy of scale. Most crimes carry sufficient punishment when caught to keep most people from committing them. But then there are some people that those consequences are not sufficient to prevent them from committing the crime. And unless the consequences change, the crime will continue to be committed.
So I think that leaves one option: make the consequence so profoundly consequential that the benefit of committing the crime (obtaining something you didn't earn, getting somewhere quicker than you should, etc etc) is staggeringly outweighed by the punishment. And then, if that is insufficient as prevention.... Make it such that there is NO opportunity for repetition. Be it lifetime incarceration without wasting money and effort on rehabilitation, because what's the point?, execution, or dismemberment (pick an appendage based on the crime, perhaps. They cut thieves' hands off in some parts of the word.. and have surprisingly low levels of theft).
Now, I realize the real world will never be that simple, because there are a million shades of gray. But I think that at the extreme end it's really very simple: Murder = execution. Attempted murder = execution (seriously, you get the reward of not getting the death penalty because you failed? Hell no.) Rape (any type, any age) = execution. All carried out immediately upon conviction. In public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one for sex offenders
and the other for regular offenders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further Ramifications of Such Laws
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/CivilandCriminalJustice/StateLawsonDNADataBanks/tabid/12737/D efault.aspx
Article
State Laws on DNA Data Banks
Qualifying Offenses, Others Who Must Provide Sample
February 2010
As person who has worked in the U.S. Judicial system, I have seen this problem a number of times. Prior to 1999, the frequency in my state was minimal (still not acceptable to me, as it blurred to law, and tainted all the data by including all kinds of non-sexual offenses). After 1999, it was a whole different ballgame, with the case involving non-sexual offenses requirement to register increasing exponentially with each passing week.
As a person who has utilized the sex offender database as an additional tool to help protect the ones I love, I found it further frustrating. At least I knew that I could only rely on the information, to a certain degree. In my case, it was easy. Better safe than Sorry. However, I am not using it to employee people or for a number of other means that greatly impact those that are now branded (associated with) by crimes they did not commit.
Yes, they should be punished for what they were found guilty of, ".. a just and fair punishment..."
However, skewing the data helps no one. The ripple effect of this costs us all greatly in many ways financially and otherwise.
In my state a person found guilty with requirements to register as a sex offender, whether misdemeanor or felony sexual offense or not, MUST MADITORIALLY provide a DNA sample to the state’s database.
Thanks your article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is my beef and forgive my spelling as I didn't proof-read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]