Teen Feels Snared In Sex Offender Law - Ricky

[MSLGWCEO]

Very interesting article from News channel 6, Tulsa. Lori Albright did an excellent job.
http://cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=215%3Ateen-feels-snared-in-sex-offender-law-ricky&Itemid=1

[zstyles]

I guess we are suppose to feel sorry for him??

[Wilbur]

Bummer for him and he won't be the first.  It's his responsibility to check.

[sgrizzle]

This is why I believe the sex offender registry has issues. While it was his fault, it was not a purposeful violation and his chance of repeat offense are very low.

[dbacks fan]

quote:Originally posted by zstyles

I guess we are suppose to feel sorry for him??

He made a mistake. From the article it seems that he wasn't out trolling for 13 year olds. Now he branded for life. Yes I feel bad for him.

[MSLGWCEO]

It's my understanding that Fox here in Tulsa is going to do a follow up on this story called "Age of Consent" sometime towards the end of the month.

[cannon_fodder]

The sex offender registry is dangerously worthless.  A man on the list could be a drunk who was peeing in an alley behind a bar - or someone who exposed himself to an 8 year old.  I see a difference.

And yes, it is the kids job to check.  But have you ever ID'd someone you had sex with?  If I was in a 21 and over bar I would assume the person was 21.  If they had an ID that could fool the bartender/bouncer, certainly I could not be faulted for buying it even IF I ID'd her.  Same basic instance here - she was in a 16+ club.  She fooled the club and thus fooled him.

But, as written, it is a strict liability rule.  It does not matter if she presented a fake birth certificate, driver's license, and a voter registration card.  No matter how well he checked, he is still guilty.  So the "it's his job to check" rule simply does not apply.

There is a Jane Doe who has slept with THREE older men (that we know of) and in each instance they have been convicted.  She used a fake ID on dates with them to Casinos, bars, and the like.  Turns out she was 17, too young in some states to have sex with a 25+ year old. I wish I had the link, but I no longer do.

In any event, it is hard to blame a 16 year old for having sex with someone who looks to be a 16 year old and has ancillary verification as well as an admitted lie both backing up that claim.  We can't tell how old Chinese gymnasts are, but this boy is supposed to be able to tell the difference?

Go ahead and preach to me that he doesn't have to have sex with anyone and on and on.  But the majority of people will have sex with someone at some point in their life with only that persons word, or an assumption as to their age.  To be branded a child rapist for the rest of your life for such an act is against the intent of the law.  The situation should be looked at in the totality of circumstances.

And what punishment did the girl get for sneaking into a club, lying about her age, and seducing this young man?

Oh right... young girls are stupid and have no control over themselves.

[MSLGWCEO]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The sex offender registry is dangerously worthless.  A man on the list could be a drunk who was peeing in an alley behind a bar - or someone who exposed himself to an 8 year old.  I see a difference.

And yes, it is the kids job to check.  But have you ever ID'd someone you had sex with?  If I was in a 21 and over bar I would assume the person was 21.  If they had an ID that could fool the bartender/bouncer, certainly I could not be faulted for buying it even IF I ID'd her.  Same basic instance here - she was in a 16+ club.  She fooled the club and thus fooled him.

But, as written, it is a strict liability rule.  It does not matter if she presented a fake birth certificate, driver's license, and a voter registration card.  No matter how well he checked, he is still guilty.  So the "it's his job to check" rule simply does not apply.

There is a Jane Doe who has slept with THREE older men (that we know of) and in each instance they have been convicted.  She used a fake ID on dates with them to Casinos, bars, and the like.  Turns out she was 17, too young in some states to have sex with a 25+ year old. I wish I had the link, but I no longer do.

In any event, it is hard to blame a 16 year old for having sex with someone who looks to be a 16 year old and has ancillary verification as well as an admitted lie both backing up that claim.  We can't tell how old Chinese gymnasts are, but this boy is supposed to be able to tell the difference?

Go ahead and preach to me that he doesn't have to have sex with anyone and on and on.  But the majority of people will have sex with someone at some point in their life with only that persons word, or an assumption as to their age.  To be branded a child rapist for the rest of your life for such an act is against the intent of the law.  The situation should be looked at in the totality of circumstances.

And what punishment did the girl get for sneaking into a club, lying about her age, and seducing this young man?

Oh right... young girls are stupid and have no control over themselves.

I remember that situation. The girl posed as a 19 year old divorcée and ended up sending 3 men to prison and when they get out they will have to register FOR LIFE. This world has gone insane.

The entertainment news media and politicians for ratings and votes have spread myths, lies and hysteria. In return they have laws on the books that actually endanger children and the whole of society.

Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team sais,â€?Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful â€" the laws as they are now,â€?

�I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are NOT protecting children,� he said. “They are doing more harm than good.�

Oklahoma’s law is having an adverse effect and needs further changes.

�The least number of people should be in the worst tier, but the most number of people are going to be in the worst tier under the new law,� Sgt Stansill, Tulsa Police Department.

The loss in funding is part of the reason the state has moved to comply with the federal law, Another reason is consistency.

The residency debate: Lopp said he doesn’t believe that the offense-based assessment is the the best way to categorize offenders. He thinks a tiered system is a step in the right direction but that it should be based on the RISK OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

Some states have REFUSED federal funds so they can continue to develop risk-based assessments, he said.

A risk-based assessment could then correspond with the residency restrictions, which have created headaches for law enforcement agencies across the country.

What will it cost Oklahomians to comply with the AWA??

An example of what a state would have spent and received Prior to the cuts:
States stand to lose 10 percent of Byrne Grant money if they do NOT implement SORNA.

Oklahoma Cost of Implementing SORNA ……..$ 5,867,138
Oklahoma Byrne Money 2006……………………………….$2,790,472
Oklahoma 10 percent of Byrne money……………………..$279,047

Oklahoma 67% Byrne cut leaves 33% or…………..$92,085

On December 27 President Bush signed the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, a $555 billion domestic spending package that included short-term funding for US troops and an estimated $10 billion in pork-barrel projects. The raft of earmarks prompted Bush to say he was “disappointed� by Congress’s inability to “rein in government spending.�

But the bill did include major funding cuts, including, notably, a 67 percent reduction in appropriations (from $520 million to $170 million) for the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. According to the Justice Department, the program “allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system.�

How will this cut affect states’ and municipalities’ ability to protect public safety? That’s a supremely wonky (and supremely politicized) questionâ€"but it’s a good one, I think.

Walter Phillips Jr., chairman of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, offered a tentative answer today. Pennsylvania received $11.7 million in Byrne JAG funds in 2007; the two-thirds reduction for 2008 drops that number to $3.9 million. “Let there be no mistake,� Phillips warned, “this cut in federal funding will hamper justice improvements and innovations which ultimately help to protect our citizens.�

Wisconsin, too, has weighed in. The state’s Office of Justice Assistance (which is charged with disbursing federal justice and homeland security grant funds) says it uses Byrne JAG funds to “support the operations of multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, prosecutors, help crime victims and reduce racial disparities in Wisconsin’s justice system�; it is facing a $4.1 million cut, from $6.48 million to $2.37 million. David Steingraber, who directs Wisconsin’s Office of Justice Assistance and serves as president of the National Criminal Justice Association, said recently that “communities everywhere� will suffer from the cuts. “Congress has just made the job of every police officer in this country more difficult,� he adds.
http://cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=155:federal-domestic-spending-bill-cuts-crime-funding-program-by-67-percent-i&catid=38:news-articles&Itemid=80

[MSLGWCEO]

Bottom line is this. In order to save $92,085, Oklahoma will have to spend  ..$ 5,867,138.

That's not counting, As evidenced by these summaries, states can expect to incur significant costs as they attempt to comply with
SORNA. States should consider all possible areas in which increased expenditures will occur.
• New personnel
• Software, including installation and maintenance
• Additional jail and prison space
• Court and administrative costs
• Law enforcement costs
• Legislative costs related to adopting, and crafting state law.

Ohio determined that the cost of implementing new software to create a registry would approach a half million
dollars in the first year.2 The total estimated cost for complying with SORNA exceeds the Byrne funds Ohio would
lose if it did not comply.
• Installing and implementing software alone would cost $475,000 in the first year. The software would then cost
$85,000 annually thereafter for maintenance.
• Certification of treatment programs based on new standards and providing a description of a person on the registry to
the state’s Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation would cost another $100,000 annually.
• Ohio also lists other factors that would increase the cost of implementing SORNA, including salaries and benefits for
new personnel, new court and administration costs, and costs to counties and municipalities. These costs are in
addition to the $475,000 needed for software, but have not yet been quantified by the state.
• If Ohio chose not to implement SORNA, the state would lose approximately $622,000 annually from its Byrne
funds. However, the total estimated cost of software, certification of treatment programs, salaries, and benefits for
new personnel would exceed the lost Byrne funds.
Virginia determined that the first year of compliance with the registry aspect of SORNA would cost more than $12
million.3
• The first year of implementing SORNA would cost the Commonwealth of Virginia $12,497,000.
• The yearly annual cost of SORNA would be $8,887,000. Adjusted with a 3.5 percent yearly inflation rate,4 Virginia
would be paying more than $10 million by 2014.
• If Virginia chose to comply with SORNA, the state would spend $12,097,000 more than it would if it chose not to
implement SORNA and forfeit 10 percent of its yearly Byrne grant, a loss totaling approximately $400,000

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by zstyles

I guess we are suppose to feel sorry for him??

Please restrain your compassion... [B)]

It's a sure sign of a broken system when the parties involved meet and settle their differences, yet the local DA decides to use it to advance his career.
I doubt this kid will ever trust a cop again, either.

[MSLGWCEO]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by zstyles

I guess we are suppose to feel sorry for him??

Please restrain your compassion... [B)]

It's a sure sign of a broken system when the parties involved meet and settle their differences, yet the local DA decides to use it to advance his career.
I doubt this kid will ever trust a cop again, either.

Actually Ricky's record has been expunged in Iowa. There is NO RECORD whatsoever.

How ever Oklahoma has him on Tier III predator status for the rest of his life.  
This is suppose to be America, the land of second chances. And Oklahoma is suppose to be the center of the BIBLE belt. What a joke! Where is the Christian mercy and grace at. Our laws ought be compassionate but they are not. HYPOCRITES!!
www.cfcoklahoma.org

[Wilbur]

Your complaints need to go to your state representatives, but imagine the problems of trying to put exceptions into the law.

1.  I swear I thought she was 18!

2.  She told me she was 18!

3.  I'm only 19 and she told me she was over age!

What exceptions work for one person must work for everyone.

While it's a bummer for that dude, he was bangin' a 13-year old!  Come on.  Put yourself in her parent's place.  I doubt any of you dads would be saying 'well, my daughter said she was 18.'

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

Your complaints need to go to your state representatives, but imagine the problems of trying to put exceptions into the law.

1.  I swear I thought she was 18!

2.  She told me she was 18!

3.  I'm only 19 and she told me she was over age!

What exceptions work for one person must work for everyone.

While it's a bummer for that dude, he was bangin' a 13-year old!  Come on.  Put yourself in her parent's place.  I doubt any of you dads would be saying 'well, my daughter said she was 18.'

you need to reread the article. He was 16 when it happened and he met her in a club that you had to be 16 to enter. He says she claimed she was 16.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

Your complaints need to go to your state representatives, but imagine the problems of trying to put exceptions into the law.

1.  I swear I thought she was 18!

2.  She told me she was 18!

3.  I'm only 19 and she told me she was over age!

What exceptions work for one person must work for everyone.

While it's a bummer for that dude, he was bangin' a 13-year old!  Come on.  Put yourself in her parent's place.  I doubt any of you dads would be saying 'well, my daughter said she was 18.'

you need to reread the article. He was 16 when it happened and he met her in a club that you had to be 16 to enter. He says she claimed she was 16.

Okay, whatever.

1.  I swear I thought she was (insert age here).

2.  She told me she was (Insert age here).

3.  I'm only (Insert age here) and she told me she was over age!

4.  I was in a (insert age here)-year old club so she should have been (insert age here).

It doesn't matter.  SHE WAS 13!

[TeeDub]

That is too bad that the teen feels snared.

Maybe he should have invested in a better attorney.