I'm curious people's views on them. My best friend Eric in college found himself in trouble for having some pictures of teen girls from our high school nude on his computer. To make a long story short, in 2003 he had to register as a sex offender. Fast forward to 2007, and our state passed a law that said he now has to have, in big orange letters, "SEX OFFENDER" on his drivers license. He says, "had I known that this law would have come up out of nowhere, I would have pled not guilty and made them bring me to court." Well, when he pled out 10 years ago this wasn't the law, and it was applied retroactively to all sex offenders, even those who were convicted prior to the laws enactment. Of course, being a sex offender, society doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what he has to do but it's a dangerous precedent to set. Imagine if all of a sudden your state passed a law that said all DUI offenders must have the orange label "DRUNK DRIVER" on their licence, even if they had been convicted 10 years prior. Imagine the uproar. I don't think this is right, because he is now FORCED by the state to buy an ID with this on there EVERY SINGLE YEAR and pay for it out of his own pocket. If he wants to drive, he must have a drivers licence with the same label. He must renew IT EVERY YEAR as well. He can't have either, he must have the ID and if he wants to drive, the licence as well. This comes to over 50 dollars a year. First of all, how can the state force someone to buy something they didn't have to buy before? Second, how can they retroactively enact a law in a state whose constitution specifically states "No retroactive law shall be passed?" They are saying that this new law isn't "more punishment" and thus is not punitive. However, if he refuses to buy the ID with that on there, he will be charged with a felony. What kind of a country do we live in?
It's not really retroactive. The law applies to people who have a sex offense on their record. It is not part of the penalty for a sex offense, it is a law enforcement tool. I hadn't heard of a state requiring an ID and driver's license with 'sex offender' on them, but in my state sex offenders are: (1) subject to imprisonment even after they have served their term if they can't satisfy a psychiatrist/psychologist they are no longer a danger to society; and (2) required to register with local law enforcement. These registries are public and can be searched by the public.
That's unconstitutional. I'd sue. And never under any circumstances pleade guilty to any form of sex offense. You'll be dragged into the mud any way they can. And do not register yourself, no matter what those retarded authoritarians try to do to you.
Absolutely it's retroactive. Yes, the law applies to sex offenders, however, it applies to people convicted BEFORE the law passed. That means, at the time the person pled out, the law didn't exist. They could easily make the case "If I had known this law would exist 5 years later, I would have pled not guilty and made them try me in court." But since he can't go back and re-plea, they shouldn't be able to add mandatory actions that he has to follow because of his past offense. That is the definition of retroactive.
Had I bought my car prior to the requirement to insure cars in order to drive them, would a law that requires me to insure my car be ex post facto? I was born well before the ACA. Is the ACA an ex post facto law?
The information about being a sex offender is public record. I don't see this as an extra punishment.
It's absolutely disgusting that he was branded a sex offender for that. We have similar populist nonsense over here, perhaps more. Democracy promotes this kind of stuff (eg: killing Socrates).
Buying a car is a choice. And if I wish to not buy insurance, I can choose not to drive the car. He has absolutely no choice in this matter whatsoever.
It's not the information, it's the REQUIREMENT to purchase and the label being forced to be put on these licenses and ID's, even when the law wasn't in effect at the time. Failure to oblige by this law is a felony. How can that NOT be additional punishment? Failure to purchase auto insurance is legal if you dont drive, and failure to pay obamacare is not even a crime.
It's tantamount to a "scarlet letter". The purpose is to shame him every time he has to show ID, and that IS extra punishment. As you point out, it's already public record, so that refutes the notion that it's a "law enforcement tool". The cops already know. Why does every gas station cashier need to know when he buys cigarettes or beer, or writes a check?
He should file a lawsuit against it or move to another state that has no such law if that be the case. Personally I think sex offender lists should be abolished. Sure if someone is a pedophile or a violent rapist they are fine, but in cases like your friend's or when some 18 year old gets tagged for having sex with his slightly underage GF then it has gone to the absurd.
At least in FL, the specific offense is mentioned in the sex offender registry. In terms of the local sex offenders (in my zip code), I haven't seen one that was a case of the above, unless you view under 12 as "slightly underage GF". Every single one was either an under 12 offense, or a violent rape. - - - Updated - - - It makes it easier for the local school to check on him when he comes to volunteer. - - - Updated - - - It's called child porn.
Oh, so we give him a scarlet letter on the off chance that he volunteers at schools? Last I checked, schools have the internet, so they could just check the online database. See, places with an actual interest in knowing already have no problem finding out. There's no need for every random store clerk and bank teller to whom he shows his ID to know his criminal background.
He should have fought it. There is case law by the Supreme Court that says naked does not necessarily equal pornographic.
I never said anything about a cell phone pic. Back when those pics were taken, cell phones could hardly fit in a purse and none contained cameras. Can you tell me why, if its such a good idea, does Texas not do it, Arkansas not do it, Mississippi not do it, in fact only a hand full of states in the USA actually do this. And what you must remember is that while some of these sites mention the age of the "victim", in NONE of the cases do they mention the age of the perp at the time of the offense. Here in Louisiana, a 14yo boy having sex with a 12yo girlfriend will put him on the sex offender registry. His site would say "victim age: 12" The problem with that is in 40 years, it would say "victim age:12". It doesn't say "perp age at time of offense: 14". So while the age of the victim doesn't change, the offender gets older and older making him go from a young teen boy who was horny at middle school to a dirty old man who fondles little girls. It can also be where a guy is 18 his girlfriend is 17 but when she was 12 they had sex. He is convicted and the victims age is 12. He can also later marry his "victim" and have children with his "victim" and the internet would still show him as a child rapist. Sex offender lists should be abolished. Or why stop at sex offenders, why not DUI offenders? I mean wouldn't it make more sense to put "DUI offender" on a DRIVERS LICENCE rather than sex offender? That makes no sense at all. How about murderer? Someone convicted of murder and who does 20 years in prison can get out and live next to a school, get a clean drivers license, etc. Yet society has no problem with that. Personally, I'd rather receive a community notification that my neighbor next door is a murderer than a kiddy fiddler, but thats me. Schools already run background checks on everyone, so the label does no good. Otherwise, the 48 states that don't do this would have overwhelming numbers of child molesters volunteering at schools, which they don't. So that's a moot point.
Pleading guilty is a choice. Committing a crime is a choice. Certainly he has a choice; he can leave the state. Living in a particular place is also a choice.
No it's not. You hit a slick patch on the road and spin into a crowd of people killing a few, you have committed vehicular manslaughter. Wasn't a choice, but it was a crime. That's just it. When he pled guilty, this law didn't exist. Are you saying he should be able to see into the future? That because his crystal ball was broken that week, that he should be subject to all laws passed after the fact? Really?
In your example of killing people with one's car, killing them may not have been the intent, but it was the effect of not having the driving skill to be out in such conditions. Ergo, still a choice. Your friend doesn't have to remain where he is. In other states, other laws apply. Obviously, your friend is satisfied with the situation. As I understand the situation, your friend basically pled guilty to kiddie porn. This gives cause to believe he's a pedophile. Pedophilia is a disease. It is very hard to cure. In the interests of protecting people from the consequences of pedophilia, it seems reasonable to identify them to the population at large and to law enforcement in particular. Kind of a loose quarantine.
Ok, you apparently have no idea what pedophelia is. 1. It's not 17 year olds. 2. My friend was dating these girls when they sent him nude pics of themselves. He kept the pics. He was YOUNGER than some of the girls in the pics!! As he got older, the age of the girls in the pics didn't. 3. Pedophelia is the sole sexual attraction to prepubecent children. Not having pictures of nude girls you dated in high school on your laptop.
If the terms of the matters are exactly like the OP presents them, the authorities issuing that rule are against the basic principals of right. Penal laws cannot be retroactive, by principal, also regarding punishments or endorsing rules. The reason is clear ... breaking a law has got social consequences and the society reacts [by means of laws and justice systems], but the behaviors beyond the laws cannot be stated after that a condemnation has been issued by a court. Mundane example: it's prohibited to drive a blue car, so I drive a green car. In 5 years I change it with a red car. The law changes and the prohibition is enlarged also to green car. They put me in jail because I had a green car when it wasn't prohibited! Now, about consequences: the social impact of the exposition of the condition of an individual cannot be underestimated and this has to be stated in the moment of the condemnation, not after [otherwise we enter the field of undetermined right: should or shouldn't a sex offender be signaled to all? Well, this has to be stated when he/she has condemned or registered as sex offender].
I was using it in its popular sense, meaning sexual attraction to a child. Whether your friend was dating these kids or not is immaterial. Keeping nekkid pictures of kids is kiddie porn. It is too bad your friend got caught up in a net that was, perhaps, cast too widely. However, most of his 'punishment' seems to be embarrassment.
Whose right? The rights of child pornographers to be free of embarrassment, or the rights of children to be protected? A society has the right to protect its members. Kids lack the ability to protect themselves as effectively as adults would. Ergo, they need special protections. Child pornographers and pedophiles tend to have a higher rate of recidivism than other crimes as well. It only makes sense to have this information readily available to law enforcement. This is not a punishment. Why force the taxpaying public to pay for this database? They (for the most part) haven't committed the crimes that make it necessary. Make the offenders pay for it. Call it a 'sexual offender tax'. This isn't quite what the OP is about. The OP cites increased punishment after sentencing for a crime, not retroactive criminalization. Why should an adult who violated the rights of children be considered to have any rights at all? Is it not better for society if he is exposed for what he is? Nor is exposition an additional punishment. Provided the offender is not a minor, his criminal record is public. Anyone with a computer can google anyone else and find all sorts of uncomfortable facts.
