TexasCHLforum.com

Mike1951 wrote:If the science was advanced enough to separate repeat offenders, I wouldn't object.

I'm not defending predators. I just think that the current law casts too wide a net.

with that.

As those who remember the 90s will remember. "Its for the children"

I might need professional help,but in the case of the 13 yr old girl vs. 12 yr old boy where the supreme curt likened the charges to dueling where both parties could be a victim and a defendant,had they taken 10 paces apart before "dueling" i don't think they would be in trouble

Mike1951 wrote:I'm not defending predators. I just think that the current law casts too wide a net.

What? Aren't you terrified of the sort of person who would cohabitate in Michigan? If nothing else, when they started pushing this garbage, it should have been with a strict, standardized set of guidelines as to what constitues a registration offense.

I count 41 in my zip (77006)...

<sigh> Rug

Mike1951 wrote:

laawrnk wrote:Agreed, there are differences...like that fellow above. but When I see a 40 year old man living in my area who had sex with a 9 year old? I'm not going to forgiveness on that stuff.

I couldn't agree more! But how about a 17YO having consensual relations with his 16YO girlfriend?

Should that be treated the same?

Does it warrant branding for life as a sexual predator?

Should be legal in my eyes

I just looked at the list for my area, there is a 26 yo guy not too far from where I live on there for having sex with a 14 yo. Scary right?

Then I looked at the date of the conviction, he was only 17 at the time. Not so scary after all. I feel bad for the guy now. Not that I agree with 17 yo's having sex with 14 yo's but I can easily see how he could be put in a situation where he had no idea she was only 14 at the time.

Mike1951 wrote: I couldn't agree more! But how about a 17YO having consensual relations with his 16YO girlfriend?

Should that be treated the same?

Does it warrant branding for life as a sexual predator?

In Texas there is a defense to prosecution if the person was within 3 years of age as the "victim". It's so widely known and accepted that DAs will never take a case put before them where there is only on years differance.

Thanks for the heads up on the links. Especially useful as we recently moved into a new neighborhood...already there is one convicted not 1/2 mile away...sigh

The national registry is good as well...I'm looking up all the zipcodes I have family/friends in to give them a heads up.

HOLY SMOKES! It turns out that the guy across the street and 2 doors down from me is a registered sex offender for a 2002 offense of "Poss. Promotion of Child Pornography!" It appears that he got paroled from a 20 year sentence. Geeze, I've met the guy several times, and he seems so normal. He is, BTW, married and seems like a solid nice guy. He's also a local business owner and a hard working man.

I checked out the link provided in the OP just out of curiosity. I almost wish now that I hadn't.

The Annoyed Man wrote:HOLY SMOKES! It turns out that the guy across the street and 2 doors down from me is a registered sex offender for a 2002 offense of "Poss. Promotion of Child Pornography!" It appears that he got paroled from a 20 year sentence. Geeze, I've met the guy several times, and he seems so normal. He is, BTW, married and seems like a solid nice guy. He's also a local business owner and a hard working man.

I checked out the link provided in the OP just out of curiosity. I almost wish now that I hadn't.

First off, I'm not defending this guy. Child porn is some seriously horrible stuff, and people who promote and create it need serious punishment and rehabilitation.

All of that said, there are a lot of technicalities that can make mere possession of this stuff turn into more serious charges. Child porn laws were created before the widespread use of the internet. When they were created, having multiple copies of the same image was considered intent to distribute. Having multiple hard copies... this makes sense. Now, having a single copy of something on a computer can turn into multiple copies very quickly. Viewing in a web browser puts an additional copy in cache. Saving an image from e-mail directly to a hard drive puts does the same thing... the original still remains in the e-mail and the saved copy counts as an additional image, upping charges to intent to distribute. Having a mail client such as Outlook makes it unsafe to preview attachments in the program itself, and many people save attachments separately for viewing as SOP. There are so many technicals involved in this kind of crime that it is easy to go from accidentally having received an image to being charged with an intent to distribute. There's also the issue of other users (such as teenage kids) viewing this kind of thing on a shared computer. If that system crashes and is taken into a shop for repair, the images can be found inadvertently and then the police are called. This puts the owner in a lot of hot water for activities that he had no idea were happening. As he's the one in possession, charges are pressed against him.

Court proceedings should be public record, so if you're very concerned about this fellow, I'd see if you can find out what really happened in his case. I'd certainly still be cautious and wouldn't send kids over to his house to play or anything, but also understand that the state of the laws we have often don't reflect the actuality of a situation in public record. As was mentioned previously, many people on sexual offender lists did nothing more than have consensual sexual relations with someone a year or two younger.

I agree with the sentiment of others. People's lives are being ruined by ill-defined and all-encompassing policies that put relatively innocent people who made minor mistakes in their youth in the same category as sexual predators. This really should be addressed.

NcongruNt, I'm not arguing your latter point. I'm just sorry that I now know this about a guy whom I otherwise know to be a fine man. He hosted our block's Christmas party a year ago. He's a good guy. And truth be told, although I don't have an arrest record, I've done things in my life years ago that I am not proud of today, and that, if I could go back and make them right, I would do it. The only reason I forgive myself today is my believe that God forgave me my sins when I accepted his Son as my Lord and Savior. I judge the sin, and not the sinner. Judging the sinner is God's prerogative, not mine.

That being said, I can see how the OP link could be a useful tool, particularly if you have small children to protect, but my counsel is be prepared to see something that you might not want to see. That's all I meant.

And, although the recidivism rate is extremely high among all classes of sexual offenders, and most particularly among the sexual abusers of children, the state of Texas has evidently determined that my neighbor's debt to society has been paid. I can do no less than continue to accept him as my neighbor, but remain aware of his past.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm just sorry that I now know this about a guy whom I otherwise know to be a fine man. ...

The problem I see is that half the time, when someone is found to be a pedophile or cannibalistic serial killer, the people who know him come up with some variation of, "I can't believe he was capable of that."

The BTK killer had a wife and kids, a house, a job, and he was a church elder.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm just sorry that I now know this about a guy whom I otherwise know to be a fine man. ...

The problem I see is that half the time, when someone is found to be a pedophile or cannibalistic serial killer, the people who know him come up with some variation of, "I can't believe he was capable of that."

The BTK killer had a wife and kids, a house, a job, and he was a church elder.

- Jim

Like I said, I really don't have any choice but to accept him as a neighbor but remember his past. Hopefully, his past will stay in his past and not rear its ugly head again.

The Annoyed Man wrote:NcongruNt, I'm not arguing your latter point. I'm just sorry that I now know this about a guy whom I otherwise know to be a fine man. He hosted our block's Christmas party a year ago. He's a good guy. And truth be told, although I don't have an arrest record, I've done things in my life years ago that I am not proud of today, and that, if I could go back and make them right, I would do it. The only reason I forgive myself today is my believe that God forgave me my sins when I accepted his Son as my Lord and Savior. I judge the sin, and not the sinner. Judging the sinner is God's prerogative, not mine.

That being said, I can see how the OP link could be a useful tool, particularly if you have small children to protect, but my counsel is be prepared to see something that you might not want to see. That's all I meant.

And, although the recidivism rate is extremely high among all classes of sexual offenders, and most particularly among the sexual abusers of children, the state of Texas has evidently determined that my neighbor's debt to society has been paid. I can do no less than continue to accept him as my neighbor, but remain aware of his past.

We are in agreement as far as I can tell. I wish you best of luck in your interactions with your neighbor. It certainly would be a bit awkward if I were in your situation. I applaud the integrity of your actions regarding your decision to continue to accept him as your neighbor while being aware. Not everyone would do the same.

To expound a bit further on the registry and mapping tools:

The tool is useful, but its implementation and the system behind it is terribly flawed, IMO. There are points which are pretty obviously useful, such as sexual assault convictions and the like. The problem I have is that the tool has no discernment between those offenders and those with relatively minor convictions (like the consenting teens mentioned earlier) - on a list where the common person has no way to distinguish the difference. It takes considerable effort and research to find out the differences between these folks, and I'm inclined to think that most people who look at these lists don't put forth that effort. The net result is an OMG reaction that we are surrounded by sexual perverts and predators because the data given is incomplete and often does not reflect on the nature of the entirety of the case and conviction.

I've seen several friends have the same reaction when pulling up lists of offenders in their neighborhood. Further research on these lists found that a good number of these people listed were in fact relatively minor offenders, many of which were convicted of things like statutory rape and the like when the offender was 19 and the "victim" was 17. There are still plenty of violent and predatory offenders on the list to be sure, but I believe it a disservice that more specific data is not readily available to discern between everyone listed. What could be useful data on knowing exactly who is around you and what kind of risk they present does little more than provoke knee-jerk emotional response by providing inadequate data to make a logical assessment of risk.