1 Sounds harsh. But no law is perfect. Do we toss out the law over a few rare instances?
This just opens the door for so many "what ifs" that will never be debated in full or answered.

2 That quote at the end is stunning.  I hope we're not so jaded that the judge declaring quite plainly that the the state supreme court is both supreme court and supreme legislature (and presumably supreme executive?) does not still cause jaws to drop.

3 Georgia is physically in contact with Florida. That explains a lot.

4

Silly Judge.  Everyone knows the Supreme Court doesn't create our laws, the UN does, in consultation with the EU and taking into account Evolving Standards of Decency.

5

As I may have said before, the issue I have with these sex offender registries and the recent fad to lay down the penalties isn't that the penalties are too harsh, but that the category is far too broad.

Someone arrested for flashing is a 'sex offender'. Someone arrested for raping a 4 year old is a 'sex offender'. They're on the same damn list. They're not the same thing. To not be too hard on 1 and also not be too easy on the other we need to do a better job on how we seperate and classify their crimes.

This 'cannot live within x' of a school or playground' stuff is entirely warranted and good - for pedophiles. It's nonsense for other ways to get on the list though. Even if a 45 year old has sex with a 15 year old, that's disgusting and illegal, but it's actually not pedophilia. Clinically, it is not. Does not fit the actual definetion. If there's grass on the field it's not pedophilia (but it's still illegal). There actually 2 very different things. Pedo's particular hang up - and the recidivism statistics and all that that go with it we allways hear about - specifically go after PRE-pubescent children.

While a 14,15,16 year old is not mature enough to have sex and we can certainly call that illegal, he/she IS physically equipped for it and emitting the pheromones and all that. While it is not appropriate, it is a natural reaction. The drunk stupid guy who was drunk and stupid may be bad, but he's fundementally not the same as a pedophile. Nobody ever gets drunk and stupid with a 10 year old because they aren't equipped and it's NOT a natural reaction, no matter how drunk or stupid or amoral you are. It's a sign of a seriously malicious mental illness. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

So I applaud the hard line taken against the pedo's recently, but we really need to start to distinguish actual pedophiles from streakers, gropers, peeping toms, and drunk stupid cradle robbers who don't ask for ID in the parking lot of a bar. I'm not defending any of these sorts of crimes as not being bad, but there's a serious large difference - not only in degree, but in kind. If we're going to respond well to these sex crimes and handle them justly we have to handle them differently because they are different. Not just all a lump of 'sex related offenses'.

6

Does your opinion change if the sex offender is on the registry for circumstances less horrific than statutory rape?

Statutory rape can be horrific, but is a 19 year old sleeping with a 15 year old really "horrific"? Is said 19 year old really a pedophile? I think pedophilia refers to those who are sexually attracted to children, i.e., those in prepubescence. Most girls I know lost their virginity at 15 to older guys, most of whom were at least 17 or 18. Not much difference there.

Actually, in my state, I'm not sure this would even be illegal (I think it's legal as long as the age difference is less than five years), although I don't doubt that there are quite a few parents out there that would like it to be.

7

Good law, possibly bad outcome.  That's why pencils have erasers and Govenors have the power of pardon and commutation. 

Don't let hard cases make bad law or undo good..

8 I'm very uncomfortable with the concept of forcing people who have ostensibly served their time to permanently pay by registering and telling people of their former crime.

9

As I may have said before, the issue I have with these sex offender registries and the recent fad to lay down the penalties isn't that the penalties are too harsh, but that the category is far too broad.

In the past we had judges who used reason and common sense to distinguish between dangerous behavior and simple stupidity and they had the latitude to punish accordingly. Somewhere along the line the liberal "It's society's fault" mentality became entrenched and judges began slapping dangerous people on the wrist. The people got sick of it and took matters into their own hands, legislatively speaking. The authority of the judges has been reduced by mandatory sentencing policies, but it's their own fault. I wish that we could still trust our judges to do the right thing.

10 I'm sorta on the side of the group that says watering-down the current laws with exceptions just makes the law essentially unenforceable when there are cases where it needs to be. These laws are designed to punish those that can't control their urges, period. For everyone else there's a simple solution: Don't f*ck those that are under the age of consent and/or look like they are and you won't end up in jail and/or on a sex offender registry for all eternity. This is especially the case for males who are disproportianately punished in such cases. And if you are one of those satyrs that feel your rights are being violated because you can't bed that hot 16 year old, tough sh!t--go take a cold shower and/or surf the net for some 'barely legal' relief (I also don't give a f*ck if you're 18 and your high school sweetheart isn't legal yet--find someone older to date or learn some self-control).

11

These laws are designed to punish those that can't control their urges, period.

No, they're not. These laws are designed to protect children.

Not being able to live with 300 yards of a preschool isn't done for punishment's sake, it's done to protect children.

It makes total sense that a guy arrested for groping a Hooters waitress while drunk can't live within 300 yards of an elementary school...

I wouldn't want these laws to be watered down with exceptions. I just want the category they target to be more specific AND ACCURATE. Laws saying you can't live around public parks should be aimed at pedophiles, not all 'sex offenders' who got convicted for doing anything that happened to be sexual.

It isn't about  satyrs that feel your rights are being violated because you can't bed that hot 16 year old. Date Rape is rape and a terrible crime that should be punished. But some frat boy who date rapes a college co-ed with rohipnol is not a pedophile. He just isn't. That doesn't mean it's OK or he's a swell guy - look - he's not arsonist. He just isn't. Not an arsonist, not a pedophile, not an Al Quaeda terrorist, not a shoplifter...

What the fuck is restricting him from living next to a school gonna do? He's not gonna go after the 9 year olds... It's just SLOPPY. It's the result of a failure to distinguish between different types of sexual offenses and deal with them accordingly. That's NOT even to say one deserves less punishment or protective measures then the others, just that they need different punishments and different protective measures because they are different things with different motives. Ban date rapists from being perscribed sedatives - don't ban them from living down the street from a daycare. That's just sloppy lawmaking.

12 That's why pencils have erasers and Govenors have the power of pardon and commutation.

Yuh huh. And then when election time rolls around, said Governor is now "soft on sex offenders".

Sometimes I think we're not very good at distinguishing between things that are similar but not the same in this country.  There needs to be a recognition that the guy who rapes an 11-year-old is not the same thing as a guy who gets handsy at Hooters.

13

"That sounds like an abdication of duty to me. Of course, trial judges are elected in Georgia."

Uh, no Gabe...actually it isn't a trial judges place to discern constitutionality of laws and/or sentences.  That should be up to the state supreme court in this instance.

If you want a restrained judiciary, a good place to start is at the bottom.

 

14 So, who wants to run on the "_____, best friend of sex offenders" platform?

I agree with most of the criticisms of the law, but I think that political opposition is going to be a non-starter......

15 I wouldn't care if it were only for pedophiles. But a 19 yo guy who has sex with a 15 yo girl is not a pedophile. He's usually a loser who can't get girls his own age and probably plays D&D, but he's not a pedophile. And the frat boy story is even more retarded.

That's the problem of mandatory sentences and zero tolerance laws in general. On the other hand, they are in place because there is often no justice for victims and their families in the courts.

So what are you gonna do?

16

Terrible law.

Mandatory sentences usually are, IMHO.

Mind you, I'm a pretty law-and-order guy, but really Gabe illustrates the problem very well here.

Grabbing 4 breasts != stat rape != actuial rape.

And as someone who, ah, has had to deal with the aftermath of a (minor) brush with the law, I can tell you that there's often so much paperwork, fines, community service, etc., all administereed by different agencies, different parts of town, so on, that there's a nontrivial chance of 4-boob kid failing to dot an i and ending up in prison.

Laws can be judged by the badness of their likely outcomes; this law does not advance the cause of justice. 

17 Your facts are misleading. Before fucking the 15 year old, he was arrested and convicted for enticing a child for indecent purposes.  And I would point out the facts in this article is very scant on details which leads me to believe that they are a lot worse then what the ajc portrays. These guys know the rules. They are told them enough times and what the consequences would be.  He chose not to follow them. He also chose to lie when he got caught. He's a typical pedophile in that they are always testing the rules.  

18 Pervert was arrested and pled guilty to enticing a child for indecent purposes, i.e., kiddy diddling.  The fact that they have not published the age of this child leads me to believe it would not make pervert too sympathetic.  Before he reported to serve his sentence, he got caught fucking the 15 year old.

Also, what is life in prison really mean? It's not life without parole. So, how much time does he have to serve before he's  parole eligible? Again, your average person doesn't know this so it's another hit job on the criminal justice system and allows all the pedo sympathizers to yell foul..

19

Hey, loserish D&D players like jailbait as much as the next guy.  It could be preference, not necessity.  Have you seen the nerd chicks these days?  Have you seen the guys they date?  Kee-rist. 

While I have no sympathy for actual sex offenders, this borderline shit should never get the same treatment.  Groping a waitress should not put you on the same list, with the same penalty as the guy that rapes a woman in a backalley or the guy that molests 6 year olds.  I can't believe no one has figured this out.  Is something I'm saying amazing and new? 

As far as mandatory sentences, I'm not a fan.  Let trial judges be elected, and then let them make their own decisions, with their career on the line. 

20 I have thought about all of these laws that are supposed to "protect" our children.  I have come to the conclusion that they are all bogus.  If these offenders need to register, cant be allowed within 500 feet of schools, and all of the other mandates set forth for them, that would mean they are still dangerous.  If they are still dangerous why are they letting them out of prison?  One only has to look at the amount of re-offenders plastered all over the news to realize that the current system is completely broken.

Jessica Lunsford anyone?

K

21 The problem is the wide disparity between sex offender laws. Child molesters? I don't care what you do to them. An 18 year old boy who had a 15 year old girlfriend? Still wrong, but on an entirely different level. Both are on the list. This can be a good law if directed at the worst offenders.

22 well, grabbing a boob twice is more action than Dave In Texas will ever get, so he should be happy.

23 And to the drunk frat boy boob grabbing, that is a scenario made up by a public defender. There is no way to specifically verify what he is talking about. And a sexual battery is a sexual battery. Would it change any one's mind if the boob grabber did so in a violent manner? Wouldn't let go? The waitress was screaming and he was laughing at her fear and pain? These are the types of facts the defense bar and the leftard msm,  always leave out. 

24 The new info from GRC does seem put a different light on things.

News stories about the consequences of "draconian" laws do tend to leave a lot of important details out.

25 Groping a waitress should not put you on the same list, with the same penalty as the guy that rapes a woman in a backalley or the guy that molests 6 year olds.

You are assuming it is merely groping a waitress which is still unacceptable behavior. What if he cornered the woman and wouldn't let her go? What if it wasn't a grope but grabbing and twisting her breast and designed to cause her pain which is pretty creepy and unacceptable? Again, they don't give you all the facts and like Pavlov's dog, you people react. Wise up!

26 News stories about the consequences of "draconian" laws do tend to leave a lot of important details out.

Damn right they do! For all we know the child enticed was 5 years old and he had candy in one hand and a jar of vaseline in the other.

27 There is no way to specifically verify what he is talking about. And a sexual battery is a sexual battery.

Of course there's a way to verify it, GRC. OCGA sec. 16-6-22.1 provides that a second conviction of what would otherwise be a misdemeanor sexual battery is a felony sexual battery and subject to sex offender registry.

Moreover, the sexual contact need not be violent. 16-6-22.1(b) provides that "A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person."

No violence required.

28 Zero tolerance in the hands of bureaucrats rarely results in raising the efficacy of the bureaucracy.

29 Good law or bad law?

Kind of depends on what Justice Supreme Decider Anthony Kennedy thinks. Of course that in turn depends on what side of the bed he gets up on and if he's jonesing for a tongue bath in the NY Times.

Really, this stuff is none of our business. We're just citizens after all.

30 Oh really? Than provide a scan of the arrest reports to each sexual battery so we can see the actual facts. You can't do that because this is all made up in order to argue against something that didn't happen. I love how you went outside the imaginary scenario by a commenter and found statutes to support your theory of your imaginary outrage. 

31 GRC, it's very simple. The law mandates life imprisonment for felony non-violent sexual batterers who make two improper registries. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face that there are no non-violent sexual batterers (something that neither you, nor I, actually know), but the law will still be the same and it will still be a stupid law.

If you actually believed that only violent sexual batterers should face mandatory life imprisonment for two improper registries, you'd have no problem with changing the law to exempt non-violent sexual batterers, right?

32 It is very simple, gabe. You deliberately minimized what got one guy in jail by omitting his first offense in order to make him falsely appear more sympathetic.  The law also mandates that a sentence to life imprisonment is not really life imprisonment. If it was, it would be lwop.  If you had the time to look up the GA sex. battery code on your imaginary case, how come you don’t have the time to see when bozo is eligible for parole or to state the few facts accurately? Because it makes him more sympathetic if people falsely believe this is a lwop sentence?  You can mislead people until you’re blue in the face, but we’re on to you.

Now if you believe that some imaginary boob grabber is being shafted, if you get your bar card, you can represent him in his imaginary case in the imaginary court and spring him from his imaginary jail, right?

33 You deliberately minimized what got one guy in jail by omitting his first offense in order to make him falsely appear more sympathetic.

You have your facts wrong. He was placed in a juvenile detention center for the enticement charge; the sentence was for six to eight months. The thing that first got him in jail was the stat. rape.

If you had the time to look up the GA sex. battery code on your imaginary case, how come you don’t have the time to see when bozo is eligible for parole or to state the few facts accurately? Because it makes him more sympathetic if people falsely believe this is a lwop sentence?

Did I say it was a life without parole sentence? No, I didn't. And it's far from misleading because a substantial majority of states have separate life and lwop sentences. It is the norm, and therefore understood by just about everyone (as you so ably illustrate). Ignorant of facts and law, eh?

Finally, you rage about my "imaginary case" but what did you freakin' expect? I extended a hypothetical, i.e. an imaginary situation,  for the very purpose of examining the law in circumstances less "horrifying" than those presented here.

34 If they are still dangerous why are they letting them out of prison?

Exactly.

These people are a serious threat, yet we think we're protecting children by letting them free with a "we're watching you!" message, along with some public humiliation.  It's no surprise at all when somebody commits some horrible crime against a child, and it turns out they already have a record.

As for mandatory sentencing, I think it's a bad idea to remove judges' discretion from the legal process.  Taking mitigating circumstances and corner cases into account is part of what judges are there to do.

35 in my opinion, 19-year-olds shouldn't be having sex with 15-year-olds.  There's a world of difference in maturity between the two ages.  Just calling it a four-year age difference doesn't even begin to sum it up.

In Bradshaw's case, the first time he improperly registered and was busted for it should have been a wake-up call.  I'm not seeing any 'excuse' for his first improper registration.  I don't think life for a second improper registration is harsh - he should have learned his lesson the first time he registered improperly, and dotted his i's and crossed his t's much more carefully.  He got a second chance with not having to register with the enticing charge - which, from the description of the law sounds to me like kidnapping a child for molestation purposes by persuasion instead of by force.  At some point, he's gotta learn that sex with children is wrong, and since the courts can't be bothered to put him away for life after he didn't learn what a complete moral fuckup he is from the first conviction, the least they can do is make absolutely certain that he walks the straight and narrow as much as they possibly can.  (Yes, I consider a 16-year-old a child.)

I'm wondering what's wrong with Grabby Greasyfingers that he didn't learn from his first conviction that it wasn't OK to go around groping waitresses.  Obviously the punishment for the first offense wasn't enough.  Time to crack down.

So in both these cases, we have situations where offenders were given a second chance to quit being sexually predatory and decided to ignore it.  We keep going lightly on them, they'll keep doing the same thing.  Sex crimes are one of the few things that can never be taken back - the victim is going to be impacted by it for the rest of her life.  If anything, I think both of them got off too easily on the second sex charge and we shouldn't even be having to have a discussion about a second improper registry.

36 Did you say what the pedo was originally arrest for? No, you didn’t. You wanted to give the false impression that he was merely guilty of a statutory rape.  And life imprisonment is misleading and you know it. A poll of morons will tell you that they believe that life imprisonment means just that –  which it does not.  You’re willing to lie by misleading and omission, eh? And if their treatment was so fkn outrageous, you and others wouldn’t play so fast and lose with the facts and law. 

37 And why isn't Bradshaw's lie about where he was living at the time of his second improper registration charge being discussed?  He registered at an address that he hadn't moved to, and I don't think we can take him at his word that he was planning on getting around to it sometime.  

38 A poll of morons will tell you that they believe that life imprisonment means just that –  which it does not. 

I don't agree and I'm genuinely sorry that think this, especially given that we've discussed it here at the HQ at least twice in comments and it is the majority law in the United States.

I also think that you'd claim I intentionally soft-pedaled the summary no matter what I wrote. I don't know what your beef is, but I don't have any more time today to respond to it.

39 A poll of morons

Do you mean a poll of morons or a poll of morons?

40 "When he was 19 he had sex with a 15 year-old."

1) This makes him a "pedophile" ?!

2) Is assessing (federal) Constitutionality the job of state officers? That's not rhetorical, I honestly don't know.

41 If you didn't know all the facts as GRC has provided then you did not intentionally soft pedal your summary.  If you did know these facts then you are in denial. 

42 So this dipshit could not abide by the registration requirements and now he is getting slammed. Gabe, bad cases make bad law.

43 "Uh, no Gabe...actually it isn't a trial judges place to discern constitutionality of laws and/or sentences."

What are you talking about?  They swore the exact same oath last I checked.  A statute doesn't generally get ruled unconstitutional JUST by the last court that reviews it.  Indeed, if the trial judge didn't make a determination, it's hard to see how there's a proper record for appeal, and it's only under exceptional circumstances that an appellate court will even consider issues first raised on appeal.

Would this robed idiot have said the same thing if defense counsel had filed a motion to dismiss prior to trial, contending that the statute either facially or as applied was unconstitutional?  Either on 8th Amendment grounds and/or some other argument?  I can think of at least arguable Due Process issues regarding the legislature imposing a mandatory life sentence for a strict-liability crime, i.e. one that doesn't require the state to prove ANY level of mens rea, not even ordinary negligence let alone intent.

The parties are entitled to adjudication of their dispute: that's what JUDGES are actually supposed to be for.  For any judge to say, "screw it, they'll figure it out on appeal" is absolutely an abdication of the fundamental purpose of his job.

44 "Is assessing (federal) Constitutionality the job of state officers? That's not rhetorical, I honestly don't know."

Yes, state office-holders have an independent duty to uphold federal law, including if and when it conflicts with state law. Article VI of the US Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution(emphasis added)

45

I think we should have the same registry requirements for many other crimes that have have high recidivism rates, such as: belonging to a gang, conviction of more than two felonies, an arson conviction, a "history" of robbery and/or burglary, and maybe all male blacks under 30, just in case (statistically, they're trouble waiting to happen). 

Seriously, though, I'm with Christopher Taylor.  These registries are a disturbing part of our legal system that need to be looked at critically and utilized very carefully.  Boob-grabbing and kiddy diddling are two rather different crimes, to say the least.  And as for a ~15yo having sex with an ~17yo, I hate to tell you that this has been common, if not normal, for pretty much recorded history.  The fairly recent moral outrage over it is based on feelings, not any fundamental reason.  Statistics show that in excess of 20% of girls in the USA are regularly sexually active by 15yo, and guess who they like?  Older boys, since they find boys their own age immature--quite reasonable, since girls mature emotionally and mentally earlier than boys.  "Romeo and Juliet" laws based on sliding age differentials are an excellent way to deal more rationally with this sort of thing. 

When I was in high school in the late 70s, the freshmen and sophomore girls were after the junior and senior guys.  The junior and senior girls were after the guys at the community college down the street.  And it seemed to work out pretty well for everyone.  A police sweep of the two schools, strictly enforcing modern laws, would have put about 50% of the male student population behind bars, and I doubt this would have been to anyone's benefit.  But, yes, at some point the gap does become unhealthy.  When a 21yo guy from the college went after my girlfriend's 15yo sister, we all knew that it crossed some invisible line and it was not considered appropriate.

BTW, just joking on the young male blacks.  But I suspect one could make just as firm a case for them, using statistics, as for your run-of-the mill "sex offender."

46 "What the fuck is restricting him from living next to a school gonna do? He's not gonna go after the 9 year olds."

Have you seen any 9 year olds lately?

Just kidding.

I think its to protect the female teachers at the school. We know they wouldn't like to have some nasty 23-year frat boy come on to them when they're really interested in this year's freshman class crop.

47 A 19-year-old was fucking a 15-year-old?

And that leads to being put on the SO registry for life, and now life imprisonment?

This is insane.  We need to scale back statutory rape laws so they stop catching normal people in their net.

No one should go onto the SO registry unless they're truly deranged.