Sex offender legislation is always a good thing (odd way to word it on my part, but whatever). Sometimes, it goes too far.

In Georgia, they recently passed a law that all people who were ever convicted of a sex crime cannot live within 1000 feet of a schoolbus stop and other places where children gather.

Sounds good, right?

The problem is that it also covers people who were convicted of sex crimes that are no longer crimes... such as getting caught giving or recieving oral sex.

It sounds good, but it needs to be refined.

Where's the ACLU?

Where's the ACLU?

The problem is that it also covers people who were convicted of sex crimes that are no longer crimes

So are you saying if some act is decriminalized that all those previously convicted should have their records purged and we should pretend they did not break the law? Retroactively? Really?

Rev.-

So, you think that a girl who got caught giving a guy a blowjob in 10th grade should be treated the same as a person who rapes 12 year olds?

Question... when was the last law against giving or receiving oral sex rescinded? Even when it was against the law, I would guess it would've been rather hard to prosecute, since the perpetrators would pretty much have to have been caught in the act.

Even in the worst case scenario, this would be a problem for very few people.

Another thought... does the law specifically state that it includes that category, or just not specifically exclude it? In compiling the lists of those who must comply with this law, is it really reasonble to believe that the police will include those convicted of something that, as you say, is no longer a crime?

I'm sorry, but this scenario sounds to me like much ado about nothing.

such as getting caught giving or recieving oral sex.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Im sorry, but people are not walking the streets these days, after getting out of jail for having consensual oral sex. LOL And even if that was the case, that act alone is not a threat to others around.

If they are in jail and that sex act was performed, it was more then likely a rape or incest or prostitution. And prostitution does not make oral sex the crime, its the prostitution that is the crime.

While the frawg has fallen into the typical Lib trap of setting up a straw man so he can shoot it down, I find myself agreeing with what he may have been trying to say.

I am totally in favor of slamming the door on true sex offenders. As they have not shown any propensity for rehabilitation, I think we should just keep them out of society in general.

But...BUT...there are situations in which a person can be labeled a sex offender without ever having been a threat to society. The example I can most sympathize with is the guy who has had consensual sex with his girlfriend since he was 15 and she was 14---but when he turns 18, he becomes a criminal. I have read stories of boys being convicted of sex crimes for having consensual sex with girls who were very close to them in age, and I just don't see this as the kind of problem we need to punish into middle age.

And consent from an underage girl is not legally admissible as a defense. She's too young; he raped her. That's the law.

I think horny young boys and girls "in love" create more fake sex crimes than any number of sodomites or oral sex fans from way back. And I would like to see a category for this kind of "sex crime". Because unless the boy continues to hunt down very young girls, this is the kind of thing that is a factor of age more than perversity.

Al-

Actually, there is a local atlanta magazine that features a woman who that actually happened to who has to register as a sex offender every year because she got caught giving oral sex when she was in 10th grade.

So, you think that a girl who got caught...

That is not what I said and I see that you've failed to answer my question(s) and instead tried to reply with another question. The reality is this:

If a person is convicted of violating a law, and the activity that was considered illegal is later legalized, should all traces of that person's conviction be erased? I say no, and that is based upon the fact that the law, when it was the law, was broken. The person made a conscious decision to break the law. As they say in legal circles, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So in the eyes of the legal community, the person broke the law.

If as part of the conviction the sentence says you must register as a sex offender, then you must. So far, I am having a hard time finding some way to justify any other action. Now, assuming that the conviction was based on a since-rescinded law, the convict (yes that is the right word) should be able to petition the court for some relief from the requirement to register. But, again because the person broke the law willingly in the first place, the onus is on that person to get their status changed.

Now using such a fringe case to serve as some justification for criticizing the legislation the President just signed into law is not valid. Every law causes someone problems and even some unintended consequences. But the law is there for the vast majority of sex offenders that police and psychologists agree continue offending over and over. Absent laws like this, they can fade into the woodwork and strike again without warning. My children are grown up now and I don't fear for them but if you have children or grandchildren, this law should make you sleep better at night and save bunches of children from being ravaged by repeat sex offenders. If the price we have to pay is that some girl like the example given who broke a law as a 10th grader is inconvenienced, I am willing to pay that price.

Rev.-

I wasn't using it to criticize President Bush's law, I was using it to criticize a state law passed in Georgia.

Having to move because of a blow job hardly seems just.

Gotta agree. The sex offenses covered should be rape, peeping tom, stuff against kids. Not gay sex or oral sex.

What about animals though? That one's got me stumped. And what about possesion of pornagraphy? Still a crime lots of places.

Georgia Frawg... When you first started to post on B4B I thought most of what you wrote was trash and a big detraction to the overall positive direction of true debate. I must admit, many of your recent posts have merit, quality and add to the true debate. I’m not sure what swayed you to this direction, but I hope it has much to do with seeking the truth and being open to it. Too often some posters repeat trash and lies believing they are “making a point” but only paint themselves as poor intellects filled with hatred and emptiness.

Having said that, I believe you have a point. Many times when an over due law finally deals with very destructive aspect of human behavior otherwise known as crime, most of us have a sigh of relief and tell ourselves “about time”. But there are times, when we get around to prosecuting those guilty of the new law, when many aspects come up that were not thought of, we inadvertently create problems not intended by the original law.

I’m familiar with another similar situation where an 18 year old male had sex with a girl who told him she was 18 also. Turns out she lied. Under the law being mentioned here, he would still be guilty of being a sex offender – FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE! Certainly not what we’re trying to create here, at least I don’t think so.

While we do need to deal with REAL sex offenders in a very loud, clear and direct way, be sure we’re not damaging some unintended person(s) due to a poorly written law.

I also want to add that I’m truly grateful to the many posters on B4B who add substantially and shed light on the truth, who impart knowledge, wisdom and courage for those of us who come here to learn. My father was one of the founding members of our local conservative party many years ago. I hated election time when my brothers and I had to deliver literature door-to-door. When I became a teenager I watched my father continue well past election time and spend his own money and time to correct a wrong. Many times he worked to exposed the deceitful practices of others we put in office and judgeships. In spite of the fact that he was sometimes a target, he shielded his family from the ugliness of politics. Still I saw that he made a difference sometimes in small ways sometimes big. The 2 biggest things I think he taught me were;
A.) If you wait for someone else to do it they will, but you might regret the direction they took. In other words, we must be proactive to make a righteous difference.
B.) Though we make mistakes we must seek the truth to know what direction we need to take to achieve good for what ever action we decide to take (see A).

B4B has been instrumental in helping me and many others in understanding the truth, understanding the things not found in the MSM. We acquire a clearer and more encompassing picture of the reality of the state of the world.

I wish to thank you and ask that you not get discouraged from those who intend to spread hate, despair, emptiness and lies. Your words are beacons of light to those who yearn for it but do not know where to find. Find peace in your hearts and a strength to shine brightly for those who need that light. God will take care of the rest!

I think we ought to keep the government out of our private lives and let the market deal with this issue.

Almiranta, I know a rant when I see a rant...

I wasn't using it to criticize President Bush's law, I was using it to criticize a state law passed in Georgia.

First off, it ain't President Bush's law. He can't make laws. Congress wrote the law, he just signed it after it passed both houses. Second, if your comments weren't in relation to the law Bush just signed, then why make them at all? This is a thread about the law he DID sign, and if you make such comments, one can only imagine that you are using your references to the Georgia law in the context of this story. What I got from your comments was that we have to be careful that when we enact laws like this that they don't require tracking of people who fall into the category that you mentioned. If that was not your intention, then you were either creating a straw man or you were trying to derail the comment thread away from the posted subject. Or, perhaps, there is some other reason you brought it up of which I am not aware nor did I "get."

If you position is that a person convicted as a sex offender for some offense that is no longer illegal probably should not be tracked by this law, you may have a point, but the onus is STILL on the person, who willingly broke the law when it was a law, to petition to get out of the monitoring system. I am certain that the point of this law is to stop repeat offenders and predators on children, not someone like you described and they would likely agree to remove them from their lists.

If your position, as I understood it, was to retroactively purge the records because the law has been removed from the books, I could not disagree more. I should not be a difficult exercise to think of many, many laws where that would lead to terrible miscarriages of justice.

ASH: I think we ought to keep the government out of our private lives and let the market deal with this issue.
*************************
Ash? Are you serious? You advocate the government meddling in the affairs of the world when you think it's good for the world... engage North Korea, Engage Iran, and diplomacy and this and that.

Be HONEST DUDE... admit it... you want the government to mettle plenty, BUT, just when it's what you agree with. And to say any different would show the height of hypocrisy.

Just as if I made the statement you did would be me being a hypocrite.

Hmm... again I've got another former roommate this would apply to. (This is what I get for having wierd roommates) When he was like 16 he had sex with a 14 year old. He still has that crime on his record which has prevented him from getting into the military and the like.

I do see "unintentional consequences" to this law, I'm sure exemptions can be made in the future after some judicial review.

Ash makes Republican funny joke. Con approves. Guffaw, guffaw... snork!

In the accompanying signing statement, President Bush made it clear that he, and he alone, would determine through extensive videotape review, whether the sex was offensive or not, bypassing local law enforcement when the good of the nation was threatened by due process.

Thank you and goodnight.

Ash makes Republican funny joke. Con approves. Guffaw, guffaw... snork!

In the accompanying signing statement, President Bush made it clear that he, and he alone, would determine through extensive videotape review, whether the sex was offensive or not, bypassing local law enforcement when the good of the nation was threatened by due process.

Thank you and goodnight.