Restore sex offenders? No, policy makers prefer them dangerous

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • Author
    • #8900 Reply

      By Sandy… Published in the Washington Examiner 11/25/2016… Ten years ago, Jeffrey Roy shared a bottle of vodka and played video games with a fourt
      [See the full post at: Restore sex offenders? No, policy makers prefer them dangerous]

    • #8901 Reply
      Don Campbell

      Jeffrey and his dad should have run bandit in the race anyway. The races are usually on public roads and they could not have stopped them.

    • #8902 Reply

      Not sure why this young man was convicted of a sex crime to begin with. 14 and 16?

    • #8903 Reply

      Those in the Registry need to organize a similar race to raise awareness,

    • #8904 Reply


      Because that’s the state of Connecticut for you. When a District Attorney here sees a chance to get a conviction, that’s what they’ll do.

      What’s truly troubling me here is all this nonsensical jargon about “rehabilitation”. Rehabilitated from what, exactly? From being a typical teenager whose hormones are throbbing and getting a hold of alcohol like most of us did back in the day? So….he’s supposed to be rehabilitated from being a 16 yr old…..several years later?

      I get why we use the term “rehabilitated” even in cases that should never have been cases to begin with… for the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS of how it sounds and to use it as bait to win the sympathy of the public. The public should be told flat out – DO YOU ALL REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE TEENAGERS? And that’s that.
      And unless these grown men and women who are in fear were all raised in caves with parents that never let them out of their sights, then you’ll see a LOT of hands go up when you ask “How many of YOU got hold of alcohol and wanted to have sex with your high school sweethearts when you were teens?”

      Hypocrisy in this country is at an astonishing level of HIGH. I’m sick of it. And I’m sick of the people writing these articles in a fashion that’s aimed to be pleasing to the reader. How about a more realistic approach like John Stossel saying “Gimme A Break”!!

    • #8905 Reply

      Maestro, thank you for your input, and, yes, I agree that rehabilitated is a term that is only loosely applicable to the young man’s actual incident — although the parents of most teenagers will most likely attest that just being a teenager requires rehab! While we want to discourage teenage drinking and early sex, making it a criminal offense is definitely overkill.

      I was actually going for the broader picture there as it applies to those who commit sexual crimes in general. What research shows we need to do as a society to optimize a healthy lifestyle in the community is not what we do.

      Thank you for reading.

    • #8906 Reply

      My thoughts exactly Maestro. Rehabilitation? For what? Did the young man have a drinking problem? I don’t see any so-called “sexual deviancy” in this young mans behavior. He was 16 and the girl was 14. Perfectly normal.

      Looking at the big picture….yes, totally absurd. Shame on the gutless wonder who decided to ban Jeffrey from running. I hope Jeffrey can put this behind him because he never deserved any of this.

    • #8907 Reply
      Where is Hamilton Berger when you need him?

      Most parents are only parenting the way they were taught to parent (or whatever website they refer to for parenting info). Not condoning that because only some of it carries forward in time with applicability while other times there are more modern ways to parent. They also are projecting their own life instances and fears (as noted here) onto others which does absolutely no good because it is usually counterproductive in modern times.

      This was a DA making a name for themselves obviously. If you refer to the CT age of consent law and how it can be applied, this was a misapplication of law. There are several websites that come up when CT age of consent is entered via a search engine, but it seems 16 is the age with a 2-3 yr age difference allowed, e.g. 16 and 14 is approved –

      The key factor here should have been the alcohol, not the sex, and where did it come from, etc. Using it as a tool is what lead to this most likely. Had there been no alcohol, this probably would have been a non-starter due to CT law. This guy ought to look an appeal, if possible, this conviction with the sex grounds being tossed for inapplicability.

      As for the YMCA, all about the insurance, their good name and nothing more. It is ok to toss one man aside for the greater good – so Christian of them in the name of the good book.

      As for the registry knock – yes, same song different day – it needs to go.

    • #8908 Reply

      I think I know how they decided to make this a “sex” case issue even with the ages being ok – In any sex offender treatment group, it is made known that sex offenses can also occur between CONSENTING parties when alcohol is involved as they’ll tell you that (even if both are adults) a consensual decision cannot be made while under the influence.
      In which case, a GOOD attorney would have thrown this entire case right back in their faces by saying: “Well, your honor, the state says that the alleged victim in this case cannot give consent while under the influence of alcohol. Since both were under the influence, she’s as guilty of sexually assaulting him as he seems to be of sexually assaulting her”

      THAT would have raised a few brows to say the least and would have left the court tongue tied.

Viewing 8 reply threads
Reply To: Restore sex offenders? No, policy makers prefer them dangerous
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *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.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *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 contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

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