Reply To: New York Times: “Vanishingly” little evidence of high re-offense rate

#8248
Avatar
Jerry

It is also sickening that the additional crimes listed as “sex offenses” have all come about due to Justice Kennedy citing an article based on an unsubstantiated evidence in a magazine aimed at the general public with no empirical value. With numerous lower courts using the same faulty wording as Kennedy in its opinions makes me ask the questions: Don’t judges and lawyers bother fact-checking sources in which court opinions are based? Why has it taken a Law Review article to point out the mess Justice Kennedy and his four brethren have caused with states and the federal sex offender registry?

We don’t put persons convicted of felonious assault or robbery at gun or knifepoint on a list; therefore, there shouldn’t be any public shaming list at all. That said, if we insist on a list for persons who have committed “real” sex offenses, the list should only be available to law enforcement and not the public like it is in Canada and other western countries, and persons after a “reasonable” period of time (based on empirical studies by psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and criminologists) should be able to come off of that list.

I assert “real” sex offenses because urinating in public, possession of naked, non-graphic or sexually posed pictures of persons under age 18, consensual sex between a 19 year-old and a 16 year-old, a Brady Bunch situation where “Bobby” plays doctor with “Cindy,” or a situation where “mom” is bathing “junior” in the sink for his first bath and “dad takes a video with his phone and mistakenly sends it to someone other than his parents or in-laws should NEVER, EVER be considered a sex crime.

I’m sick of knee-jerk reactionary laws by elected officials and courts that are based on unsubstantiated media hyperbole about the latest boogey man created by a special interest group that wants overreaction to an unsubstantiated so-called epidemic.

It is my hope that the Michigan decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals catches on before some other special interest group wants all men to have electronic devices connected to our brains so we can get put on a sex offender list for impure thoughts!