You are here

Court decisions re sexual offense issues still based on myth, not fact

From Janice’s Journal . . . In the span of just one week, three courts have issued decisions that significantly harm registrants. Those decisions affect registrants’ marriages, homes and overseas travel.

It’s a lot to absorb in a short amount of time. It’s too much to fight at this time. But fight we must in the near future.

In the first of those decisions, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals validated a provision of the Adam Walsh Act that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for an individual convicted of a sex offense to sponsor his spouse for U.S. citizenship. That is because the individual must prove that he poses “no risk” to the safety of his spouse.

In the second of those decisions, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld residency restrictions adopted by the State of Illinois. In doing so, the Court relied upon the myth that there is a high risk of recidivism for anyone convicted of a sex offense as well as the wrongly decided case Smith v. Doe in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the requirement to register as a sex offender is not punishment.

In the third of those decisions, a U.S. District Court decided that the State Department did not issue improper regulations regarding the International Megan’s Law even though the scope of the regulations exceeded that law. In doing so, the court relied upon another myth – that individuals convicted of a sex offense involving a minor are likely to engage in child sex tourism or child sex trafficking.

What do these three court decisions have in common? Each of the decisions is based upon the myth that an individual convicted of a sex offense, regardless of the nature of the offense or when it occurred, poses a current danger. In addition, at least part of each decision applies to individuals convicted of a sex offense involving a minor even if the individual is no longer required to register as a sex offender.

Read the full piece

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.
EMAIL
Facebook
Google+
https://narsol.org/2018/07/court-decisions-re-sexual-offense-issues-still-based-on-myth-not-fact/
PINTEREST
LINKEDIN
YOUTUBE
RSS

This topic contains 11 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  admin 5 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #43467 Reply

    admin

    From Janice’s Journal . . . In the span of just one week, three courts have issued decisions that significantly harm registrants. Those decisions affe
    [See the full post at: Court decisions re sexual offense issues still based on myth, not fact]

  • #43471 Reply
    Fred
    Just the Logic

    What they have in common? Each of them was decided by a conservative judge. One of those judges was appointed just this past February by President Donald J. Trump. We get what we vote for.

    • #44271 Reply

      Tim

      LogIc,
      The evangelical right will soon reject the machines as they are already experiencing
      what they claim is intended bias on certain well known platforms. The right to participate in church is under attack in some states concerning registrants. Believers know man was created with the ability to learn while SORNA presumes registrants do not. If this were truly the case no culpability could be applied for the act in the first case.

  • #43584 Reply

    WC_TN

    And these judges appointed by a man who was recorded bragging about how rich people like himself can grab women by the intimate parts with impunity. President Trump should be on the registry in all likelihood. Ever notice the ones that protest the loudest are usually guilty of what they’re so vociferously renouncing?

    That Donald Trump has put another conservative on the Supreme Court does not bode well for the challenges that are no doubt headed to the S.C.O.T.U.S. There’s so much riding on the ruling Judge Matsch issued regarding the Colorado S.O.R. being unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting registrants to violent vigilantism at the hands of the public.

    Doe v. Smith is not even germane case law any longer. The registry of today includes a laundry list of affirmative disabilities that the registry in Doe v. Smith never included. It’s amazing how judges can cherry pick what they base their rulings on. They accept the myth and dismiss the facts. It seems facts are irrelevant when it comes to sex offenders.

    I think we need to accept that the state and federal governments are going to do what they want when they want and there’s nothing we can do to stop it cold. If judges can selectively ignore evidence that goes against the popular sentiment, why even have the pretense of a court or fair, impartial consideration of the facts??

    • #45198 Reply

      Tim Lawver

      @ C N, Connecticut DPS could not have logically applied to me. I was by no means similarly situated. I had not waived, nor could state post admission. and NOI filed June 8, 92. One may not appeal that which he knows not of. All penalties from trial outcome are fodder for direct OR indirect appeal including the civil. Fact is SO treated me as though I had waived BOTH ……like the plead out had done. WAS O.J. SIMPSON PERMITTED DEFENSE AGAINST THE CIVIL? YES! ME, NO!

      For me the questions becomes; whom benefits from forging felons from those not? Who would do both?
      The answers unfathomable just like the senator said when I asked him why he voted no omnibus. I’ve always wondered if that impacted why he lost in next cycle. My fishing buddy, his boy, said he took it real hard. For them getting elected is everything. He tells me all the time shut up and fish even bought me a shirt saying it.lol

  • #43600 Reply

    Maestro

    “ That is because the individual must prove that he poses “no risk” to the safety of his spouse.”

    I didn’t even finish reading because this stood out too much for me. I have PROOF that I am not at risk to harm a potential foreign wife – My offense was and still is considered to have been “consensual” even though it was illegal due to her age. How do I, or someone else with a similar case, pose a “risk”? A temporary lapse of judgement with a minor teenager due to my depression after a divorce somehow makes me a threat and a risk to someone else?
    If that’s the case, then we should all laugh in the faces of anyone who ever uses figures of speech such as “lesson learned”, because apparently, according to John Walsh and his ludicrous law, we never learn.
    How about someone take John Walsh himself to court and make the argument that had he met his former wife in any other state who’s age of consent was 18, he’d be just as much a risk to the public as he seems to think we are.
    I would argue this point when fighting the Adam Walsh Act. This has got to stop. And sometimes you’re gonna have to just go ahead and hurt some feelings (as if they care that they’re hurting us) and stop being PC with these people.

    • #44144 Reply

      Bruce

      What makes the having to prove you pose no risk to your wife seem unconstitutional is that if you touch a minor sexually or have consensual sex then you have to prove you’re no risk to your wife who is an adult. On the other hand you can torture, rape and kill adult women and you don’t have a law like this that you fall under where you have to prove you’re not a risk to your wife. If they’re really worried about you posing a risk to your wife then the law should apply to anyone who harms a woman sexually or physically.

  • #43604 Reply

    Maestro

    “ Ever notice the ones that protest the loudest are usually guilty of what they’re so vociferously renouncing?”

    WC_TN,

    Yup. Just like the leftists are the true racists and bigots, yet they’re on the streets causing traffic jams and busting out local business windows and setting cars on fire while calling everyone else a racist and bigot. Oh, and a fascist. 🤦🏻‍♂️
    Bottom line here is that no matter the political party a judge belongs to, a judge is going to do what’s going to keep him on the bench. And making offenders of that natural thing called “sex” out to be the monsters in the closet and under our beds is what’s going to keep those judges on the bench. And that’s a fact.

    • #43691 Reply

      WC_TN

      Maestro,

      From now on we’re going to have to win our victories in front of appointed judges. That means the federal level since so many state-level judges are elected. Ever since the judge in the Brock Turner case was recalled by an angry and vengeful public. Now elected judges will be in CMB (Cover My Butt) mode and will slam sex offenders as harshly as the law will allow whether it’s warranted or not.

      I can’t over-stress the point: If you are going to mount a legal challenge to the sex offender laws, get a lawyer who understands the nuances of the sex offender laws intimately because an improperly presented challenge only serves to poison the well and make it harder for other offenders who come after you to challenge the same laws. Get a lawyer who knows the sex offender laws so intimately that he or she can mount an air-tight challenge that will force the judge to rule in your favor. That’s the only reason this ever happens. The challenge is so perfectly worded that the judges have no wiggle room to overrule the challenge.

      • #43701 Reply

        citizen

        Even this caution would not work. I had evidence, case law, and intimate knowledge of law from not just myself but others working on my behalf. Circuit, district and appellate judges complimented my work publicly in court. That still didn’t stop them from blocking motions moving forward and running the clock. Sex offences carry no statute of limitation. everything else does and the system uses that to their advantage too. Good luck trying, but the only thing that will stop this is a civil movement in the streets.

  • #43772 Reply

    Saddles

    A lot of this sex ordeal may be one factor to overcome but look at government today.
    Laws of Nature and Nature’s God are some opening lines to the Declaration of Independence. Yes a lot has changed since than and government seems to have everything under control, Even the opinons of government seems to be out of control when giving opportunities of an unspeakable force. So who is taking prinsoners today with such opportunities? So who’s stealing someones liberty today? I believe one should understand the Decleartion of Independence more better.

    I. F. Stone published articles about the truth and cover-ups and deceptions of government. Sure there is presidents like Nixon, with his famous “I am not a crook” speech, LBJ, even Bush getting their hands dirty and all those in high places. Are they some great wizzard of Oz that says don’t look behind the curtain or should people today be strong and stand up for Justice.

    Some never get to stand up as they are just pawns or throw away people. Was the hussin thing and all the wars and killings throw aways, What about the mexican’s that cross the border are they throw aways or is their some some private information that government has for their code of silence. If this is still a nation that adhears to God’s principals this country would be a better place but it seems to go downhill day by day. Yes the president intends to build a wall and how he tends to clean up the swamp and how he tends to meddle in world affairs instead of running his “own” United States. And I thought this country was governed by biblical principals and not man’s principals. Even the war in Iran was a hellish thing. Are these agenda’s or logic really conventional wisdom or man’s wisdom. A lot of it is certainly not biblical wisdom or understanding. Yes we are all perverse in our own heart. So what is the myth about evil verses true justice when government plays their own game.

  • #44501 Reply

    Tim L

    Myth or Mysticism
    The young male tends to think with their dicks is hardly a myth.

    THE MYTH
    The myth that most correlates to the courts role in the SORNA boondoggle lay directly upon the foundation of all justice systems. Does Man learn from his errors?

    The SORNA myth presumed. NO!
    If man does not learn because he is indeed incapable then why bother trying to alter behavior in the first place. This conundrum clearly explain s civil commitment. Those suffering civil commitment do so precisely because “experts” claim an incapacity to learn.
    THE MYSTICISM
    Hence first the fed and states proceeded to insist they had accurately predicted the future in the ONMIBUS94 and decided to pass laws built an electronic list.. The folks upon the list presented a danger, because they have not reformed by what has already been done. Justice Stevens pointed to the use of the conviction as the touchstone for BOTH SUFFICIENT AND NECESSARY condition to include those already disposed. Ex post laws are considered worth prohibiting precisely because their extensive history of ineffectiveness AND inefficiency because indeed man learns. The record exposes the low % of recidivism of those listed. The Congress never did predict the future they merely pretended they could do so. How logically convenient does political correctness get?

    Society reaps what it sows.

  • #45041 Reply

    James Coghill

    This is a very important post for those fighting the registry in court. I read a book about 7 years ago on the sex offender phenomenon. I don’t remember the title and I must have loaned the book out because I can’t find the book and the court decision in my library. But here’s the important point it made. During the days of prohibition California had a registry of murderers mandated by state law. Just like the sex offender registry the scope of the murderer registry was increased to include a separate registry in every major city in California. Not unlike the Federal Registry and the individual state registries. You can imagine the mess and court cases this murderer registry created. Ultimately the California Supreme Court ruled that it was double jeopardy for the state and the various cities of California to maintain multiple murderer registries which forced the cities of California to eliminate their local murderer registries. This is a situation not unlike the multiple sex offender registries of the various states and the single registry of the Fed. Which means that our current system is duplicitous and a violation of the Bill of Rights against double jeopardy. I mention this story in the hope it might be useful to a legal team somewhere.

Reply To: Court decisions re sexual offense issues still based on myth, not fact
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">