Steubenville Verdict is in...

[R. U. Sirius]

It's highly doubtful that either of them will manage any of the dreams that they may have had, or accomplish anything outside of quietly living alone with minimal interaction with a community that fearfully hides their children from them.

While I agree they deserve to be punished, I can't help thinking that this and the shaming and lifelong ostracism the label "sex offender" carries go beyond the pale. Considering that in many states you can now be labeled a sex offender for such things as urinating in public or a 17-year-old having sex with their 16-year-old SO, I think that label has been watered down to the point of uselessness, while at the same still being considered synonymous with "violent child molester".

Consider the following:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOlrC4ChgE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOlrC4ChgE</a>

This is a case where a good-intentioned, if misguided law has been turned into a weapon to inflict extra punishment on people who have already legally paid their debt. Studies have shown that residency restrictions and public notification actually INCREASE the chance of a sex-offender reoffending, because they have so much less to lose than if they actually had a chance to build a somewhat normal life again. On top of that, they do nothing to reduce actual sex crimes committed, particularly since the vast majority are committed by people the victim knows and trusts, in direct contradiction to "stranger danger".

What these boys did is horrific. They deserve to be punished for it. Once they're out of prison, law enforcement should be able to keep an eye on them. But lifelong public shaming can't be called anything other than "cruel and unusual." Why do we not have public registries of drug dealers, who inflict far more damage and are much more likely to reoffend and to hurt strangers with their crimes? For that matter, if we're going to insist a category of criminals be forever separated from society, why not make like 19th-century England with transportation?

Honestly, how is putting someone on a registry that makes it all-but-impossible to find friends, get a job and build a stake in a community supposed to make it less likely for them to reoffend?

Modified to add a source:

http://fairregistry.org/download/importantdocs/FAIR%20Public%20Brochure%203-2012.pdf

[chitoryu12]

For that matter, if we're going to insist a category of criminals be forever separated from society, why not make like 19th-century England with transportation?

Because those Australians made a civilization when we had our backs turned.

[Art Vandelay]

Weren't there others besides these two who raped her? Maybe I'm remembering the original story wrong, but why are these two the only ones being given any sort of sentencing?

[Auggziliary]

Weren't there others besides these two who raped her? Maybe I'm remembering the original story wrong, but why are these two the only ones being given any sort of sentencing?

The others were dropped, it was part of the whole coverup. Also there might have not been enough evidence in the videos.

[chitoryu12]

Weren't there others besides these two who raped her? Maybe I'm remembering the original story wrong, but why are these two the only ones being given any sort of sentencing?

From what I can find, that was what was going around at the initial arrest but had no confirmation. The current story is that the two boys were the ones who raped her and took pictures while dragging her around until she finally woke up naked in someone else's house with her phone, underwear, and earrings missing.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

It's highly doubtful that either of them will manage any of the dreams that they may have had, or accomplish anything outside of quietly living alone with minimal interaction with a community that fearfully hides their children from them.

While I agree they deserve to be punished, I can't help thinking that this and the shaming and lifelong ostracism the label "sex offender" carries go beyond the pale. Considering that in many states you can now be labeled a sex offender for such things as urinating in public or a 17-year-old having sex with their 16-year-old SO, I think that label has been watered down to the point of uselessness, while at the same still being considered synonymous with "violent child molester".

Which is a topic for another discussion.

This is a case where a good-intentioned, if misguided law has been turned into a weapon to inflict extra punishment on people who have already legally paid their debt.

Or to make people aware that there are rapists/child molesters in their neighborhood and allow the police to keep tabs on them.

But lifelong public shaming can't be called anything other than "cruel and unusual." Why do we not have public registries of drug dealers, who inflict far more damage and are much more likely to reoffend and to hurt strangers with their crimes?

Personally I feel that I can call the sex offenders registry anything other than cruel and unusual. And I also don't think that drug dealing is an analogous crime to rape/molestation. At least in the case of purchasing drugs, people have a choice in whether or not they do so. Is that the same as when someone forces themself upon you sexually?

Modified to add a source:

http://fairregistry.org/download/importantdocs/FAIR%20Public%20Brochure%203-2012.pdf

Which, when I click it, tells me I'm not allowed to access it.

[chitoryu12]

The problem with a sex offender registry is not its existence, but rather how easy it is to get on it. As Sirius said, even something like two underage kids being caught screwing in the school bathroom or drunken public urination can have you landed on the list. That's the kind of thing that needs to be fixed. But I personally would like communities to actually KNOW when a convicted rapist or pedophile moves into the neighborhood, considering that rape isn't exactly a one-time "Oops, sorry" crime. A person who commits sexual assault clearly has something very wrong and potentially dangerous with how they view other human beings.

[R. U. Sirius]

This is a case where a good-intentioned, if misguided law has been turned into a weapon to inflict extra punishment on people who have already legally paid their debt.

Or to make people aware that there are rapists/child molesters in their neighborhood and allow the police to keep tabs on them.

This reply makes me suspect that you didn't bother to watch the video clip I posted, in which a city councilman specifically says that the reason he's sponsoring "pocket parks" is to drive sex offenders from their homes.

Modified to add a source:

http://fairregistry.org/download/importantdocs/FAIR%20Public%20Brochure%203-2012.pdf

Which, when I click it, tells me I'm not allowed to access it.

My apologies; I didn't know it was blocked to non-members. I'll find ones that are more freely accessible.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The problem with a sex offender registry is not its existence, but rather how easy it is to get on it. As Sirius said, even something like two underage kids being caught screwing in the school bathroom or drunken public urination can have you landed on the list. That's the kind of thing that needs to be fixed. But I personally would like communities to actually KNOW when a convicted rapist or pedophile moves into the neighborhood, considering that rape isn't exactly a one-time "Oops, sorry" crime. A person who commits sexual assault clearly has something very wrong and potentially dangerous with how they view other human beings.

Like I said, the relative ease with which one makes it onto the list (which I acknowledge is a bad thing) is a discussion for another thread. All in all I agree with your statement though.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

This is a case where a good-intentioned, if misguided law has been turned into a weapon to inflict extra punishment on people who have already legally paid their debt.

Or to make people aware that there are rapists/child molesters in their neighborhood and allow the police to keep tabs on them.

This reply makes me suspect that you didn't bother to watch the video clip I posted, in which a city councilman specifically says that the reason he's sponsoring "pocket parks" is to drive sex offenders from their homes.

Yes, you have one city councilman saying one thing. Is that now indicative of why we have a sex offender's registry in the first place?

[dpareja]

Some of the others had the charges dropped in exchange for testifying against the two accused.

[chitoryu12]

The problem with a sex offender registry is not its existence, but rather how easy it is to get on it. As Sirius said, even something like two underage kids being caught screwing in the school bathroom or drunken public urination can have you landed on the list. That's the kind of thing that needs to be fixed. But I personally would like communities to actually KNOW when a convicted rapist or pedophile moves into the neighborhood, considering that rape isn't exactly a one-time "Oops, sorry" crime. A person who commits sexual assault clearly has something very wrong and potentially dangerous with how they view other human beings.

Like I said, the relative ease with which one makes it onto the list (which I acknowledge is a bad thing) is a discussion for another thread. All in all I agree with your statement though.

Actually, it does fit the topic well: this is a case about two youths being convicted of rape, and a good discussion is exactly how far-reaching their punishment is and whether they deserve it.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The problem with a sex offender registry is not its existence, but rather how easy it is to get on it. As Sirius said, even something like two underage kids being caught screwing in the school bathroom or drunken public urination can have you landed on the list. That's the kind of thing that needs to be fixed. But I personally would like communities to actually KNOW when a convicted rapist or pedophile moves into the neighborhood, considering that rape isn't exactly a one-time "Oops, sorry" crime. A person who commits sexual assault clearly has something very wrong and potentially dangerous with how they view other human beings.

Like I said, the relative ease with which one makes it onto the list (which I acknowledge is a bad thing) is a discussion for another thread. All in all I agree with your statement though.

Actually, it does fit the topic well: this is a case about two youths being convicted of rape, and a good discussion is exactly how far-reaching their punishment is and whether they deserve it.

But they don't have to register for urinating in public or some such nonsense--the have to for a genuine sex crime. Hence anything else just distracts from the subject at hand.

[kefkaownsall]

CNN god has this to say to you 

[chitoryu12]

Made a spinoff thread here for anyone who wants to discuss things.