Reply To: The sex offender registry: a non-punitive civil regulatory scheme

#41012
Avatar
Maestro

Timothy Level 3,

I want to address some things you mentioned.
First, you are NOT a sex offender. Very, very few of us with such a conviction are. And unless you are still working as a correctional officer, you’re not that either. Allow me to explain…

To say someone is a sex offender or a car jacker is to make the presumption that the person continues to do it. I sexually offended 1 time, 13 years ago.. How am I a sex offender?
I’ll tell you what I am, I’m a smoker. Every 15 to 20 mins I grab my pack of cigarettes and light one up. But I don’t go chasing after teenage girls. So I am not a sex offender. I am someone who ONCE committed a sexual offense.
I used to work in a warehouse that sold metal materials to construction companies as wall as Boeing. I worked in the shipping department. I haven’t done that job in over 10 yrs. I have been working in restaurants for the last 5 yrs. so I am NOT a warehouse worker anymore. I AM a server and catering delivery person.

One of the things we and our advocates need to do is stop referring to us all as “sex offenders” in the current/present tense and reword it to something like “former offenders” or something.
Many of us have only 1 time offenses. That includes multiple romantic endeavors with the same underage teen. It was 1 person therefore it was 1 offense. Anyone with multiple offenses MIGHT be seen as a “sex offender” especially if they admit to themselves that they have such desires constantly.

Second, the tier system is horse sh*t. As you laid it out in your comment, they do it in a way that makes them seem like mind readers. And they look at paperwork which paints a convicted person in a bad light anyway. We all know this.
My state doesn’t have a tier system as far as I know since I was never informed of it. I’m glad we don’t. Here’s why… PAPERWORK. Case files. Police reports. None of them say the relationship was consensual, only the prosecutor said that in my court hearings. HOWEVER….the same prosecutor, when repeating the incident of my case said: “He then took her to a motel where he sexually assaulted her” (yes, she and I went to a motel and the incident was anything but an “assault”). See how the language/wording makes a defendant look. The word “assault” needs to be dropped from any and all laws where an offense against the law is committed when it’s RECOGNIZED as CONSENSUAL, hence the 2nd degree. MISCONDUCT would be more appropriate for this degree of offense. When people read or hear the word “assault”, they automatically assume we beat the living crap out of someone and then raped them.

Connecticut General Statute:
•Sec. 53a-71. Sexual assault in the second degree: Class C or B felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person and: (1) Such other person is thirteen years of age or older but under sixteen years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person.•

Basically it’s saying that they realize that teenagers in that age group have popping hormones and WILL consent, but the state says they CANNOT. But they do. People under 21 CANNOT drink alcohol…but they do. And many of us have.
I’m still in awe and confusion about how that law which I posted above qualifies the “actor” as a threat to the SAFETY of the public. But someone who used a weapon to rob a convenience store is NOT a threat to the public and doesn’t get tier levels and doesn’t get banished from society and doesn’t get their face plastered on a registry, etc, etc.

Ah, I forgot to mention this, this is probably how they justify their reasoning to consider people with a similar situation to be threats to public safety – when you get a charge such as 2nd sexual assault with a minor, they tack on another charge that perhaps you won’t know until you’re being sentenced, and that extra charge is: “Risk of Injury To A Minor”. And that’s how you are deemed a threat. I’d like the legislature to explain how I either injured her or risked her injury.
They claim it’s the teen’s “morals” that I injured. WHAT!!!??
What if she was previously sexual active and a teenager mother? How did I risk her injury or her “morals”?

So yeah, that’s my take on what you mentioned.
Let’s all STOP referring to ourselves as “sex offenders” in the present tense.