Girl provoked pedophile - judge

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

Politicians should butt out of the judicial process - that's what's needed.

Since politicians write the laws that is kind of hard to do.

Then you have to expect this sort of thing. Legislature should have limited influence over sentencing - especially if this is the result. The example I posted above is the direct result of a government initiative to dole out homogenous punishments regardless of the extenuating circumstances of the case - to the effect that the judge could not pass down a higher sentence (even though he wanted to).

Minimums and maximums work both ways. The politicians can write the laws, but the judges need discretion in applying the laws, otherwise it puts all the power in the hands of the politicians. With discretion, the power is shared.

Then you have to expect this sort of thing. Legislature should have limited influence over sentencing - especially if this is the result. The example I posted above is the direct result of a government initiative to dole out homogenous punishments regardless of the extenuating circumstances of the case - to the effect that the judge could not pass down a higher sentence (even though he wanted to).

I would like to see the crime and punishment chart of the state where the man recieved 6 months for raping the child.

The lenient sentence might be handed down for instance, because the person involved had either pleaded guilty or had completed (or had agreed to complete) a treatment programme. But again its arguable whether or not the judges determination was made out of sheer incompentence or because he was forced to factor that into the sentencing because of the initiatives by the legislature. As for whether its right - I'm not going to comment, but I think that the assumption that the judge is always to blame isn't accurate.

[GaryC 7]

This is what we need in every state.

'Jessica's Law' Eyes Sex Offenders

CBS) In response to the recent kidnapping and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, Florida lawmakers are taking unprecedented action. They're working on a law that would require registered sex offenders to wear electronic tracking devices at all times.

CBS News Correspondent Kelly Cobiella notes that the search for Jessica lasted 30 days and, in the end, the answer was apparently close to her home.

Police say John Couey confessed to taking Jessica from her bedroom, raping and killing her. He is a registered sex offender, but police had lost track of him weeks earlier, because he was staying with his sister, yards away from Jessica's home.

It was a wake-up call for Florida legislators. The Jessica Lunsford Act would put an electronic monitoring device on every sexual predator released into the community, for as long as 30 years.

Fla. State Rep. ####### Kravitz says, "It adds another layer of protection to our most vulnerable, our kids."

The bill plugs the holes in Megan's Law, which requires sex offenders to list their addresses in a public database.

Megan's law only works, Cobiella explains, if the sex offender lives at his registered address. And it's incumbent upon the public to check. The Florida measure would allow law enforcement to track an offender's every move, no matter where he or she lives.

"We will be able to find them, we will be able to know when they are within a thousand feet of those daycare centers, and those schools, and other places they don't belong," says Ron Book, the father of a victim of a sexual predator.

The legislation wouldn't apply to the 30,000 sex offenders already registered in Florida -- not a perfect solution, lawmakers admit, but a step closer to protecting children like Jessica from sex offenders.

Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, tells co-anchor Hannah Storm on The Early Show that this is a nationwide problem.

"There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States," he says, "and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing. They're supposed to be registered, but we don't know where they are and we don't know where they're living.

"Certainly, someone like John Couey should not have been on the streets. There are too many of these offenders who are getting multiple bites of the apple (committing multiple offenses). ...We need to have meaningful systems for follow-up, for identification, for tracking and for protecting families.

The answer, Allen says, is to "figure out how we can do a better job enforcing these laws, and GPS is certainly technology that can help us do that. Ultimately, whether it's law enforcement, whether it's people follow-up or whether it's technology-based, the reality is at a minimum, we need to know where (sex offenders) are and we need to what they're doing."

He also says "Megan's Laws" aren't perfect: "Every state has a Megan's law, but only 30 states require active notification of the public. So, in the other states, a family has to think, has to know first to go to a Web site and find out where offenders are in their neighborhoods. We believe it needs to be more uniform, more consistent and every state needs to have a system for active notification."

What can parents do to protect their kids? "Every parent ought to go to the state government Web site or to FBI.gov, identify who those registered offenders are in the community, and then watch your children when they're small and as they get older, talk to them about their safety. Empower them and make sure they have the right to say, 'No.' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/31/...ain684190.shtml

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think we should be arguing for minimum sentencing solely on the basis of 'extreme' crimes that inspire an equally extreme emotional reaction.

[archie07 0]

This is what we need in every state.

'Jessica's Law' Eyes Sex Offenders

CBS) In response to the recent kidnapping and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, Florida lawmakers are taking unprecedented action. They're working on a law that would require registered sex offenders to wear electronic tracking devices at all times.

CBS News Correspondent Kelly Cobiella notes that the search for Jessica lasted 30 days and, in the end, the answer was apparently close to her home.

Police say John Couey confessed to taking Jessica from her bedroom, raping and killing her. He is a registered sex offender, but police had lost track of him weeks earlier, because he was staying with his sister, yards away from Jessica's home.

It was a wake-up call for Florida legislators. The Jessica Lunsford Act would put an electronic monitoring device on every sexual predator released into the community, for as long as 30 years.

Fla. State Rep. ####### Kravitz says, "It adds another layer of protection to our most vulnerable, our kids."

The bill plugs the holes in Megan's Law, which requires sex offenders to list their addresses in a public database.

Megan's law only works, Cobiella explains, if the sex offender lives at his registered address. And it's incumbent upon the public to check. The Florida measure would allow law enforcement to track an offender's every move, no matter where he or she lives.

"We will be able to find them, we will be able to know when they are within a thousand feet of those daycare centers, and those schools, and other places they don't belong," says Ron Book, the father of a victim of a sexual predator.

The legislation wouldn't apply to the 30,000 sex offenders already registered in Florida -- not a perfect solution, lawmakers admit, but a step closer to protecting children like Jessica from sex offenders.

Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, tells co-anchor Hannah Storm on The Early Show that this is a nationwide problem.

"There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States," he says, "and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing. They're supposed to be registered, but we don't know where they are and we don't know where they're living.

"Certainly, someone like John Couey should not have been on the streets. There are too many of these offenders who are getting multiple bites of the apple (committing multiple offenses). ...We need to have meaningful systems for follow-up, for identification, for tracking and for protecting families.

The answer, Allen says, is to "figure out how we can do a better job enforcing these laws, and GPS is certainly technology that can help us do that. Ultimately, whether it's law enforcement, whether it's people follow-up or whether it's technology-based, the reality is at a minimum, we need to know where (sex offenders) are and we need to what they're doing."

He also says "Megan's Laws" aren't perfect: "Every state has a Megan's law, but only 30 states require active notification of the public. So, in the other states, a family has to think, has to know first to go to a Web site and find out where offenders are in their neighborhoods. We believe it needs to be more uniform, more consistent and every state needs to have a system for active notification."

What can parents do to protect their kids? "Every parent ought to go to the state government Web site or to FBI.gov, identify who those registered offenders are in the community, and then watch your children when they're small and as they get older, talk to them about their safety. Empower them and make sure they have the right to say, 'No.' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/31/...ain684190.shtml

Sexual Assault

Felony, Up to Life

I took this from the vermont crime and punishment chart. Jessica Lunsford played with my cousins children. She lived one block away. I knew the rapist and murderer from eating at the restaurant he worked in. The FBI searched my cousins yard and garage and the entire neighborhood looking for jessica. She was actually alive in the closet when the police went to his house. Such a shame they didn't enter his house and search for her.

Back in I believe 1981 on my way up to this same restaurant where this rapist worked I stopped in a little bar for a cold one. I was introduced to the man sitting next to me. His name was Billy Mansfield. Never in my life did I encounter someone with eyes as cold as his. It was as if I saw the devil. I believe he is still serving his sentence in a california jail.

[archie07 0]

I don't think we should be arguing for minimum sentencing solely on the basis of 'extreme' crimes that inspire an equally extreme emotional reaction.

I think when it happens in your own back yard you have a different perspective in regards to the punishment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think we should be arguing for minimum sentencing solely on the basis of 'extreme' crimes that inspire an equally extreme emotional reaction.

I think when it happens in your own back yard you have a different perspective in regards to the punishment.

That has nothing to do with it. You also succeeded to simultaneously miss and entirely prove my point.

I just don't think we can have an honest debate on this issue because an extremely reviled crime* that inspires violent and irrational emotional reactions is being held up as the justification for making large-scale changes to the ability of judges to perform their duty.

The justice system is the way it is because it was designed by cooler heads than the "hang 'em high" crowd. I'd rather we didn't turn our judicial process into a something worthy of the middle-east.

*though one which is statistically quite rare - for all the coverage it gets on network news.

Edited July 1, 2007 by erekose

[archie07 0]

I don't think we should be arguing for minimum sentencing solely on the basis of 'extreme' crimes that inspire an equally extreme emotional reaction.

I think when it happens in your own back yard you have a different perspective in regards to the punishment.

That has nothing to do with it. You also succeeded to simultaneously miss and entirely prove my point.

I just don't think we can have an honest debate on this issue because an extremely reviled crime* that inspires violent and irrational emotional reactions is being held up as the justification for making large-scale changes to the ability of judges to perform their duty.

The justice system is the way it is because it was designed by cooler heads than the "hang 'em high" crowd. I'd rather we didn't turn our judicial process into a something worthy of the middle-east.

*though one which is statistically quite rare - for all the coverage it gets on network news.

Vermonts crime and punishment chart states sexual assault is a capital felony with a sentence of life in prison. If the judge isn't to be blamed for the 6 month sentence then who is?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think we should be arguing for minimum sentencing solely on the basis of 'extreme' crimes that inspire an equally extreme emotional reaction.

I think when it happens in your own back yard you have a different perspective in regards to the punishment.

That has nothing to do with it. You also succeeded to simultaneously miss and entirely prove my point.

I just don't think we can have an honest debate on this issue because an extremely reviled crime* that inspires violent and irrational emotional reactions is being held up as the justification for making large-scale changes to the ability of judges to perform their duty.

The justice system is the way it is because it was designed by cooler heads than the "hang 'em high" crowd. I'd rather we didn't turn our judicial process into a something worthy of the middle-east.

*though one which is statistically quite rare - for all the coverage it gets on network news.

Vermonts crime and punishment chart states sexual assault is a capital felony with a sentence of life in prison. If the judge isn't to be blamed for the 6 month sentence then who is?

I don't know - Perhaps you should read more carefully into the specifics of the sentencing. But to assume that the judge is always at fault when the legislature has just as much influence over sentencing as they do isn't fair IMO. Meanwhile the judges of course take all the flak. Of course, I won't (and haven't) deny that there are incompetent judges, just as there are incompetent doctors or politicians.

[GaryC 7]

That has nothing to do with it. You also succeeded to simultaneously miss and entirely prove my point.

I just don't think we can have an honest debate on this issue because an extremely reviled crime* that inspires violent and irrational emotional reactions is being held up as the justification for making large-scale changes to the ability of judges to perform their duty.

The justice system is the way it is because it was designed by cooler heads than the "hang 'em high" crowd. I'd rather we didn't turn our judicial process into a something worthy of the middle-east.

*though one which is statistically quite rare - for all the coverage it gets on network news.

No, it is quite common.

Child Molestation - A National Crisis

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are four million pedophiles in the U.S. However, measuring is a tricky business, because many child molesters are not caught.

In fact, it's not known exactly how many people are pedophiles. But researchers are studying the problems and they say that child molestation is a major public health problem. If child molestation were a flu, it would be treated like an epidemic.

Dr. Gene Abel has directed six U.S. government research projects on sexual violence and published over 100 scientific papers on the subject, according to the CNN Special Report "Thieves of Childhood." He estimates that between one and five percent of our population molests children. Each child molester creates many, many victims. "A conservative figure would be at least 20 percent of all females and at least 7 percent of all males have been molested," notes Abel.

The U.S. Dept. of Justice is less conservative. It reports that one in four girls and one in seven boys will be sexually abused before the age of 18.

http://www.stopsexoffenders.com/childsafet...articles6.shtml

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That has nothing to do with it. You also succeeded to simultaneously miss and entirely prove my point.

I just don't think we can have an honest debate on this issue because an extremely reviled crime* that inspires violent and irrational emotional reactions is being held up as the justification for making large-scale changes to the ability of judges to perform their duty.

The justice system is the way it is because it was designed by cooler heads than the "hang 'em high" crowd. I'd rather we didn't turn our judicial process into a something worthy of the middle-east.

*though one which is statistically quite rare - for all the coverage it gets on network news.

No, it is quite common.

Child Molestation - A National Crisis

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are four million pedophiles in the U.S. However, measuring is a tricky business, because many child molesters are not caught.

In fact, it's not known exactly how many people are pedophiles. But researchers are studying the problems and they say that child molestation is a major public health problem. If child molestation were a flu, it would be treated like an epidemic.

Dr. Gene Abel has directed six U.S. government research projects on sexual violence and published over 100 scientific papers on the subject, according to the CNN Special Report "Thieves of Childhood." He estimates that between one and five percent of our population molests children. Each child molester creates many, many victims. "A conservative figure would be at least 20 percent of all females and at least 7 percent of all males have been molested," notes Abel.

The U.S. Dept. of Justice is less conservative. It reports that one in four girls and one in seven boys will be sexually abused before the age of 18.

http://www.stopsexoffenders.com/childsafet...articles6.shtml

If you look at recorded crime statistics the reported incidences of this crime (yes, I know its not always reported) are a relatively low percentage of sexual crimes, which are themselves a low percentage of violent crimes. I believe we've had these discussions before - though we can always look up the FBI stats (again). Crime is generally overreported in the news media giving a false impression that it is more prevalent than it actually is.

I wonder where they pulled those stats from - as I didn't come across any figures like that on the DOJ website. And that's a pretty specific number so reasonable to wonder what its based on...

[archie07 0]

I don't think we should be arguing for minimum sentencing solely on the basis of 'extreme' crimes that inspire an equally extreme emotional reaction.

I think when it happens in your own back yard you have a different perspective in regards to the punishment.

That has nothing to do with it. You also succeeded to simultaneously miss and entirely prove my point.

I just don't think we can have an honest debate on this issue because an extremely reviled crime* that inspires violent and irrational emotional reactions is being held up as the justification for making large-scale changes to the ability of judges to perform their duty.

The justice system is the way it is because it was designed by cooler heads than the "hang 'em high" crowd. I'd rather we didn't turn our judicial process into a something worthy of the middle-east.

*though one which is statistically quite rare - for all the coverage it gets on network news.

Vermonts crime and punishment chart states sexual assault is a capital felony with a sentence of life in prison. If the judge isn't to be blamed for the 6 month sentence then who is?

I don't know - Perhaps you should read more carefully into the specifics of the sentencing. But to assume that the judge is always at fault when the legislature has just as much influence over sentencing as they do isn't fair IMO. Meanwhile the judges of course take all the flak. Of course, I won't (and haven't) deny that there are incompetent judges, just as there are incompetent doctors or politicians.

I didn't read the entire story, your right, perhaps I should read it and not have a lynch mob mentality. I don't know if it's the judges or the legislature but someone up there seems to think it is a serious crime to pass the Adam Walsh Act.

[GaryC 7]

I am willing to give a little on my opinion here. I still want mandatory minimum sentences but with some sort of a review board with the power to waive the minimum if there are extenuating circumstances. That way we have the minimum penalty given but if some weird set of events happen (like that 17y/o that got 10 years for a bj from his girlfriend) it can be changed. I just want the child rapist to go to jail for a long time.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Heracles 417]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

Politicians should butt out of the judicial process - that's what's needed.

Why, considering we elect these politicians to represent us. Who picks the judges, we the people certainly don't.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

Politicians should butt out of the judicial process - that's what's needed.

Why, considering we elect these politicians to represent us. Who picks the judges, we the people certainly don't.

I was meaning in terms of sentencing.

[Heracles 417]

I was meaning in terms of sentencing.

I understand.

Sentencing is something that we the people should decide. The judge went to school to interpret and apply the law. They are not there to speak out for the people let alone represent their views.

On the other hand while some judges have common sense others clearly do not as in the case of that idiot judge suing a cleaner for $53 million for a pair of pants.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Infidel