Sex offender category method

December 16, 2009

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/convict-faces-year-jail/

A student, Matthew Freeman, aged 17 became a registered sex offender by having consensual sex with a 15 year old.  He was given permission to live at home near a school.   Another cop arrested him for violating the terms of his parole.

Comment posted at The Raw Story

There needs to be a sort of parole board to clear through these lists.  They need to be narrowed down to those that are the real risk.  You are worried about a sex offender in your neighborhood molesting your children.  So that should be the primary ones on the list.

Then violent rape is the next concern.  That has nothing to do with schools and the person has to live somewhere.  So information is the primary preventive available by publishing the risk. You can’t say a man who raped someone can’t live within 1 mile of any woman.  Or a man if that is the case. And if a man and a woman within a mile of any person or go within a mile of any person.

A teacher who has sex with a student should be barred from teaching school.  There is no reason to think they are going to molest children in the neighborhood.   Restrictions should be based on the category.  To go outside the category should require statistical proof as well as significance relative to the broad stream of crime risk.

So the category of student with student consensual would be limited in any remedy to that category.  This would mean for example, that the offender could not go to class with underage students or go to the same school.  It would not mean they are put in the same category as neighborhood rapist.

The lawyers should appeal this case on these grounds.  The broad based punishment does not meet Constitutional standards because its excessive by both community standards and a rule of reason.

The state should also have authority to grant exceptions which are binding on the state.  This should apply to almost all situations, i.e. state action is binding on the state.

Post confinement restrictions that go beyond the category of actual conduct are excessive and cruel punishments.   The case of a man not allowed to live or go within a mile of a woman would be an example.  How does he go to the ER?  Is he denied medical care for life because of his rape?  That is a cruel and unusual punishment.  Its beyond any rule of reason or community standards.  Its not based on a rationale backed up by facts or data.

As an adversary system, the legal system needs a clean up system to offset its tendency to extremes and cruelty.  Those in power to punish become punishers.  There most be others who engage in the opposite task. They need to have legal authority as well.   Judges have a tendency to become punishers on net.  This is why a system of checks and balances is needed to filter out the extreme punishment cases.

We need a high signal to noise ratio.  Outside of category restrictions not backed up by fact or statistics relative to the norm of statistical variation of crime should receive a strict scrutiny standard that typically throws them out.  Like all rules this has to be monitored and revised as data builds up or changes.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: