I Read the News Today, Oh Boy!
I woke this morning at 7 a.m., stumbled out of bed, turned on the coffee, let the dogs out, shoveled a path through the snow, cleaned off my wife's truck, went around to the front porch, grabbed today's Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, and here's what I saw on the front page:
New sex offender law takes effect in Ohio (click the link to read the article)
I admit to being somewhat biased, though I do try to really understand where people on the other side of the issue are coming from. But I must say, this article was a fairly balanced and honest look at the new law. Still, it got me a bit fired up. Though a few other issues have distracted me this morning, I will be responding with a letter to the editor as soon as possible. And because it is an Associated Press piece, I assume most of the newspapers in Ohio have carried it. They will get the same letter.
I encourage you to respond as well, if you are so inclined. As I've pointed out in recent blogs - especially New Ohio Sex Offender Laws (Part One) - this law is largely a political ploy that looks like a good idea on the surface, but might actually do more harm than good. It targets the offenders judges have determined to be the lowest risk, while doing nothing more than the old law to actually protect our children from real predators.
I hope in future blogs to address several completely different reasons why Ohio's Senate Bill 2 and similar laws are misguided.
New sex offender law takes effect in Ohio (click the link to read the article)
I admit to being somewhat biased, though I do try to really understand where people on the other side of the issue are coming from. But I must say, this article was a fairly balanced and honest look at the new law. Still, it got me a bit fired up. Though a few other issues have distracted me this morning, I will be responding with a letter to the editor as soon as possible. And because it is an Associated Press piece, I assume most of the newspapers in Ohio have carried it. They will get the same letter.
I encourage you to respond as well, if you are so inclined. As I've pointed out in recent blogs - especially New Ohio Sex Offender Laws (Part One) - this law is largely a political ploy that looks like a good idea on the surface, but might actually do more harm than good. It targets the offenders judges have determined to be the lowest risk, while doing nothing more than the old law to actually protect our children from real predators.
I hope in future blogs to address several completely different reasons why Ohio's Senate Bill 2 and similar laws are misguided.
Hey there John, having lived in Ohio, Toledo to be exact i can see where quite a few of the politicians out there have there own political agendas in mind before anything else. Attempting to cover the state in a blanket of fear and disillusionment will definetly cloud some voters' minds but i'm hoping that the majority will have the sense to decide for themselves when the next election comes, even though the damage may already be done.
Peace out Munchie
Reply to this
That's why I like having an open dialog about these matters. We should analyze and expose the strengths and flaws of such laws (preferably before they're passed), because a well-informed public is essential to our democracy, freedom, and security.
Reply to this
now they know how many holes it takes to fill the albert hall...
i love this letter...
Comment from Paul
January 2, 2008, 9:00 am
I totally agree with Arby’s comments when it comes to children being victims of these people. However, this law effects people who have been convicted of crimes against adults as well. I dare say that the majority of those convicted of sex related crimes are against adults and NOT children. As a law enforcement officer for over 31 years of experience I will be the first to tell you that this at times is a very grey area of enforcement. I have seen cases that should have been dealt with better in domestic court between “then” consenting adults, be taken to criminal court. The end result is that the “complaintant/victcim” changes thier mind and/or story but it is to late. A person is then convicted or plea bargains to a lessor crime and is then technically a sexual criminal. Both men and women. I think that society should take a minute to think what it really wants to do in these cases and let the Judge decide who is and who is not a sexual criminal on a case by case basis. If we would do the same to traffic offenses we would all be labled as reckless operators. Let the merits of the case serve as the deciding factor as who is and who is not a risk to society. As it is now the Judge has their hands tied and otherwise law abiding citizens will now have to deal with this in public for the rest of their lives. What if it was you, or your adult child who became involved in a very stupid situation, would you want them to have to register for the rest of their live and have this hang over their heads? I am not talking about everyone, but that is what the law reads. EVERYONE, not a case by case basis. This in my opinion not what justice is about.
blanket coverage insurance does cover things like floods and "acts of god".
laws shouldn't either.
Reply to this
I agree, MB! Thanks for reposting this from the C-T website. Kudos to both you and Paul!
Reply to this
kudos to you as well!
i put the last bit about insurance on the paper's site.
p.s. i typed in judos instead of kudos at first. spell check would not have caught that *grins*
Reply to this
I wonder... since we seem to have this Beatles theme going... if Paul would mind us calling him "the walrus" just for today. (Just kidding, Paul... if you're reading this.)
"Here's another clue for you all,
The walrus was Paul."
- Lennon
Reply to this
ditto on the beatles thing.
it's getting better all the time.
maybe you and paul can be the newest version of john/paul
Reply to this
That song ("Getting Better") always puts me in a good mood. (-;
Reply to this
These blanket laws are creating real dangers. They are becoming much like the Government's terror alerts which were once terrifying and are now boring. When the community comes to doubt the process that labels someone a sex offender, the public is going to ignore any warning that would go with that label. There was a time when I would have been alarmed to find I was living in a neigborhood with a sex offender. In light of what you have shared, I am much more cynical now. I have to ask, "What kind of sex offender? What was the basis for labeling this person a sexual predator? Can I trust the people that made these laws to be honest about what causes a person to make the sex offender list? It is very disturbing to realize that victims of sexual abuse are being used to garner political favor while the real needs of the community are ignored. I would have assumed that the Adam Walsh Law would apply to violent sexual crimes against children, and if so I would have been completely wrong. I hope that the public is not going to allow the Government to continue to grandstand that they are tough on crime when what they are actually doing is making more work for law enforcement who has to keep track of all these people, too many of whom are not a threat. The sexual offender should be an exclusive "club" of dangerous people who are likely to reoffend and not a machine that sorts people based on the most broad criteria and then slaps labels on these people that in an alarming number of cases do not fit. Why have Judges and Juries when the legislature is making all of the judgments and dictating all of the sentences? One of the reasons for a Judge and Jury is so that each case is adjudicated fairly, impartially and with consideration to the particular facts at hand. Mandatory sentencing is the death of judging people based on what the individual has done and the birth of forcing people to fit a very few indiscriminate categories. This is how the 19 year old who had sex with a sixteen year old ends up with the same punisment as the serial child molester/murderer.
Reply to this
I agree, Tara. You make some very good points. Believe it or not, I just had a retired Chief of Police here at my house, and even he agreed that the broad one-size-fits-all retroactive application of these sorts of laws should be unconstitutional. Alas....
Thanks for sharing your remarkable insights! I'm extremely grateful.
Reply to this
God.... this is great to read John. There so much here I only knew a little about because I joined your page just a few months ago. So have tried to pick up things that have happened in your life or things about you by inference or as they are mentioned. So thanks for sharing. Your struggles have a unique and frustrating twist to them... I really hope 2008 brings something rewarding your way.... the world is missing out by you not being able to fully participate... my own humble opinion.
Thanks for posting this... it was a great read.
Chris
Reply to this
Well I managed to leave my previous comment on the wrong blog when I came back. Sorry.... LOL...
I'll get used to this all in a short while....
Reply to this
I'm still getting used to this, too, Chris! (-;
The worst part for me is that I have to sign in three times - once for the blog, once for the rest of the website, and once for the web-mail everytime I get on the site to check on things... lol. On MySpace one sign-in covered it all.
Reply to this