I needed a break from the topic of sex offender laws
Click here to read: Burden grows for sex offenses
By the way, I am NOT the John mentioned in the article, though his case and mine have several similarities.
Here's what I wrote in response to the article, though there are other issues I want to raise in another response when I have time:
[January 7, 2008, 5:15 pm]
"With all due respect, Representative Barrett appears to advocate having the SAME standards in every state, with little regard for whether they’re SANE standards.
The new law increases registration requirements on 60% of the lowest risk offenders - offenders who judges have already determined are low risk. Does this mean our children are more protected? The same law does NOTHING to increase the length or frequency of registration requirements imposed on high-risk offenders who judges have already determined are predators under the old law. In fact, the new law, by disposing of judicial discretion and “likelihood to reoffend” in determining sex offender classification, effectively DECREASES the registration requirements on many high risk offenders who judges have previously labeled predators, while INCREASING requirements only on offenders who have been determined to be low-risk.
Does this make anyone safer?
The above article mentions the case of Rafael Rios. But the new Ohio S.B. 10 would not have protected anyone from Mr. Rios. Under the old law, he was ALREADY required to register with authorities upon moving to Ohio. I imagine he would ignore Adam’s law just as he ignored Megan’s law. S.B. 10 will only increase supervision of law-abiding ex-offenders. The ones who ignored the old registration law and are inclined to ignore laws against committing future sex offenses will also ignore the new registration laws. Meanwhile significantly greater law enforcement resources will have to be devoted to checking up on the low-risk ex-offenders who ARE abiding by existing laws.
Add to this the fact that ex post facto punishment is unconstitutional.
-John, a.k.a. Jesus Crisis
I wish there was more I could do. it would be nice to see you smile.
Reply to this
Thank you, Terese! I do have a lot to smile about, I suppose, if I don't focus on just this topic. I have a court date scheduled this month, and I'm challenging the retroactive application of this law - as well as their desire to hand out flyers to my neighbors. It hasn't been necessary yet - so why should it be necessary now? I think I have a good chance, though it may be a long process.
Reply to this
i am still willing to tap into my resources for getting a legal petition going for you that can be electronically signed.
rep. barrett makes me ashamed that i am a registered democrat.
you are right, people like rafael rios are not going to be taken off the streets just because of this new law. if anything, i would imagine adam's law would be something to keep him even further away from registering.
i think i need i to go see how my representative feels about this law on his site. frank wolf is a republican, but is actually not terrible
Reply to this
Exactly... Barrett is looking for publicity and saying whatever he thinks voters want to hear. The fact that this is a staunchly Democratic County might have something to do with why he chose his party. I smell opportunism. That said, I really don't know him, so I could be wrong. But earnest or not, he obviously does not understand the ramifications of this new law. Making a larger number of people register for longer might sound like a slam-dunk in terms of making people safer... in the same way as having the FBI wiretap every Muslim in America might seem like a slam dunk way of protecting us from terrorism. But when you figure that FBI resources are going to be so strapped watching the much larger numbers of innocents that they can no longer pay as much attention as they should (and as they have in the past) to the truly dangerous minority... then what?
Reply to this
*points to her nose* this is exactly why i did not change my name to meribeth nasrallah hutto, nasrallah being my mom's maiden name (no, this not a security question i use). i fear for my own family who have the last name nasrallah. win with god... ha.
Reply to this
I think they have it all backwards anyway...
S.B. 10 is a misnomer.
In some ways, B.S. 10 seems more fitting.
Reply to this
i'm laughing now...
Reply to this
duh moment this morning! i remembered how i could easily find the letter i wrote to frank wolf, because i clicked on the link in this blog and posted the letter in the newspaper.
i think the original is saved as an email draft without a heading, and well, i've only 144 drafts in that particular folder...
Reply to this
15 years ago a 15 year old girl lied under oath. The jury convicted you of rape and it was a FALSE conviction based only on the lies of a minor. I hope if you have a lawyer that the beginning of all of your punishment began with a lie. If the truth is sacred to our justice system it should be evident in your case. There was no DNA. There was nothing but lies under oath. I believe in your innocence and will always believe this. I hope that somehow and in some way you will be freed from this charge and will be able to go on with your life as a FREE man. I will always stand by you and will care. I think you know that by now. Yes it is BS 10 and just another impediment to all of us who care for you. It not only affects you but your family and friends and this isn't right. xoxox
Reply to this
There is a great danger in passing a bunch of laws because they have a good ring to a voter's ear. It is frightening how a state, and I'm sure Ohio is not the only one, can be so short sighted when legislating that it passes laws that weaken existing laws and spreads resources so thinly that the law is only curtailing the freedom of those willing to abide. I would be interested to know how many convicted sex offenders in the State of Ohio have not registered as they are required to do, what the determined threat of these individuals is and what the State is doing, if anything to track these people down. I remember the case in Florida of the man who kidnapped, raped and murdered the little girl he abducted from a shopping mall. He was a violent psychopath who had attacked in the past, but he was not registered as he was required to be under Florida law. I would propose that instead of making new laws that make no sense, the laws that came before should be enforced. That would be more productive than writing legislation that weakens the existing system.
Reply to this
Some excellent points, Tara! And I certainly agree.
I can't answer all your questions, but I do know that not long before I got out in 2004, Ohio passed a law making it a felony (punishable by up to two years in prison) for a sex offender NOT to register with authorities. I don't know how they go about tracking them down - but there are men in Ohio prisons now for nothing more than failing to register. This is a good thing, I think. The potential penalty may not influence EVERYONE who's supposed to register to actually do so. Would I register if that penalty was not in place? Maybe not.... So I have to think it makes a lot of guys a lot more likely to comply. You're right that the authorities need to make sure they can adequately enforce the worthwhile laws that are already in place before they start passing more laws that make less sense and are less enforceable.
Reply to this
The laws of this country get so tangled by this political pandering that they become less and less effective.
Just like gun laws. We keep adding more and more on top of each other that they become imposable to enforce.
Retroactively changing sentences seems to me seems to create all kinds of problems as well as changing the possible sentince may have very well changed the outcome of the trial in the first place.
Preventing judges from selecting the punishment also prevents the punishment being tailored for the crime.
The use of the judicial system for political leverage is slowly and systematically destroying the fairness and usefulness of the system. It is creating a prison system filled to the breaking point with people that shouldn't be there.
MM
Reply to this
I agree, MM... on all points!
Thanks for sharing your insights!
Reply to this
I enjoyed this blog, and all of your blogs, John. You are an excellent writer, and you present many valid points. First, I agree that all-encompassing laws which take the discretion away from sentencing judges and those who actually had knowledge of the particulars of the case don't work. Laws are rarely made retroactive, and in the cases where it is impossible to maintain aspects of both laws, usually only the provisions which HURT offenders are maintained, and those from the new law which may help, such as those from H.B.261 when S.B. II took effect on 7-1-96, are not applied... that comes from someone who was sentenced to 20 to Life for a first time non-violent LSD offense who had served 3 1/2 years of that sentence when S.B.II came into effect and reduced the punishment to 3 years flat, who had to do another 7 years to get to the parole board to have a chance to get out. Two, in the case of Mr Barrett, as with many politicians, they often invent platforms to get themselves elected or prove their worth once in office. It's easy for them to go after sex and drug offenders. They do this to appear "tough on crime" and perpetuate their own infallible holier than thou morality. Politicians, by nature, like to create laws... it gives them a sense of accomplishment. All they usually accomplish is a vain attempt to reinvent the wheel, and end up breaking things which don't need fixing. Let's all support F.A.M.M. and all prisoner's advocacy organizations which fight mandatory minimum sentencing, and fight to put the sentencing decisions in the hands of those who actually prosecute the cases... not in the hands of politicians who don't know shit from Shinola. Good piece, John... but what else could I expect from you, old friend! ~ Dave
Reply to this
Thank you, Dave! I appreciate you sharing your story. As unjust as my story seems - at least the conviction in my case was rape. It's even more shocking that you received a LIFE sentence and served at least as much time as I did for a non-violent LSD offense.... Just goes to prove that politically expedient, one-size-fits-all laws are inane, and in many ways as destructive as they are productive. Murderers often do less time.
I, too, would have been positively effected if S.B. 2 from 1996 had been retroactive. Under S.B. 2, the maximum I could have received for "rape" without a violent specification was 10 years. But since I, unlike more recent "offenders," was still under the old law and subject to parole guidelines - I was required to serve 11 years before I was even eligible for parole. (Nevermind that the parole board guidelines that were in effect when I was sentenced, and which only required me to serve 4 and a half years before being eligible for parole, were changed in mid-sentence - and the more punitive guidelines were applied to me retractively, while Senate Bill 2, also passed mid-sentence, was not applied retroactively.) We even went to court to have my sentence adjusted to be in line with S.B. 2, which would have released me after 10 years - but the judge told my lawyer he although he thought I "should have been out of prison long ago," the law had stripped away his discretion, since mine was a first-degree felony, and left him helpless to dispense justice as he saw fit.
Reply to this