Ga. Court Overturns Sex Offender Law

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Ga. Court Overturns Sex Offender Law

Wednesday November 21, 2007 6:16 PM

By GREG BLUESTEIN

Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA (AP) - Georgia's top court overturned a
state law Wednesday that banned registered sex
offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools,
churches and other areas where children congregate.

“It is apparent that there is no place in Georgia
where a registered sex offender can live without
being continually at risk of being ejected,” read
the unanimous opinion, written by presiding Justice
Carol Hunstein.

The law had been targeted by civil rights groups
who argued it would render vast residential areas
off-limits to Georgia's roughly 11,000 registered
sex offenders and could backfire by encouraging
offenders to stop reporting their whereabouts to
authorities.

State lawmakers adopted the law in 2006, calling
it crucial to protecting the state's most
vulnerable population: children.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7094466,00.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. at last. reality hits the recent "save duh childrens" movement.

Your first suspicion should have started up when Gonzo claimed that he was concentrating on protecting childrens. He repeated the claim after the DOJ firing scandal broke. Seriously, when someone in this admin claims they are doing good, your internal radar should be going into alarm mode.

There has been almost a hysterical reaction to what comes natural to most children. Investigation, curiosity, natural drives, and sexual cravings - AMONG children. Between abstinence policies that do not work, and are still funded by congress (in fact the Dems INCREASED funding) and splashy prosecutions of cute female teachers falling in love and in bed with their 16 yr old students, the nation's curious and often crazy sex-based splurge calling all sorts of acts sex crimes was bound to hit a limit. What surprises me is that Georgia is the first state to see the light on reality.

First a list of what really constitutes a sex crime.

Incest
Pastor/priest/nun child predators
rape
statutory rape (15 or earlier).

that should be the end of the list. It no longer is in most states. Too many GOP candidates for higher office campaigned on criminalizing sex as a campaign platform, without any thought to the consequences.

An adult deliberately seeking sex with a child. After the age of 15-16, there is a real physiological, social, medical, and psychological issue of what is proper behavior, and what is not. Recall that the average age of childbirthing 200 yrs ago was closer to 15. In 1970, the average age for a first-time mother was approximately 21. Today, a first time mother is more likely to be 25 to 29 years old. That is double the age in just 200 yrs.
Go backwards in time, it was even younger.

Has the female body changed in 200 yrs, making sexual urges illegal among 15 yr old girls? I doubt it.

The list of what constitutes a sex crime, meaning that a person convicted or pleading guilty of that crime will forever be tagged a sexual predator, has tripled even in a state like Illinois. Some of the crimes are pretty far afield, meaning that there are thousands of unsuspecting folks who did not have the resources to hire an attorney and who are now labeled predators.

According to some sociologists, there is a small, core group of sexual criminals and predators, but their numbers are far smaller than the conviction rates reflect. The problem is that many folks are labeled sexual predators for no good reason, and worse, for many bad ones.

This decision is one small step forward. At long last.

[tammywammy]

2. Good this needs to happen everywhere

It's ridiculous. Most children that are molested happens by someone the family knows not a stranger.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. But I thought we wanted sexual predators to be severely restricted

so that they would stop cooperating with their POs, and become homeless, rootless and unemployable. Aren't we so much safer that way?

[Kittycat]

4. The law was 1000 feet, not 1000 yards or miles.

It's merely a restraining order or order of protection for the schools, and I see nothing wrong with it.

[alarimer]

5. The court disagrees

And I am glad.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Well, I happen to live in an urban area and I walk for my health

every evening, and I know that in just about any direction I walk I am within 1000 feet of a school, church, playground, or park. If I were a predator, I could literally not live downtown at all - and I'm talking about anywhere with at least 5 miles of the city center.

What does that mean? It means that predators will be forced out to suburban or ex-urban areas, where there are fewer resources, fewer jobs, and LESS POLICE OVERSIGHT.

Is THAT what you want?

The vast majority of 'sex offenders' are not predators. Most sex offences occur within the family. A great number of them are where a 19 year old kid has a 15 year old girlfriend - a couple generations ago that would presage a wedding, not a lifetime criminal record. But the law made no distinction, so the actual predators, and there are some of them out there, were forced to become homeless and stop reporting to their POs, or were driven out to communities that did not have the resources to watch them, and THAT is when there are further offenses.

[Tab]

6. I'm okay with it

I don't have any soft spots for sex offenders, but the number of true predators isn't high - most are family members and know the victim. We've created an environment where they can't live anywhere, and sometimes it's for kids who were 18 when they slept with their 15-year-old girlfrind.

Now when I read letters to Dear Abby (yes, I read it sometimes) that complain about weddings that say children are not allowed, I wonder if it's really just the couple, or if there's someone in the wedding party or invite list that could be arrested if found withing a certain range of a child.

If you have a true predator, they should be locked up. Most offenders, though, are limited in scope and time, and this accomplishes nothing. I know the religious right wouldn't agree, but I don't give a damn. They can suck on it. This article makes it sound like it's outrageous, but I have to say I think it's the right thing to do.

[jaysunb]

8. Common sense coming from Georgia ?

Did they put Catwoman on the court or something ? :rofl:

Seriously, this needs to happen across this country. The "pussy police" have run amok too long now.

[seriousstan]

9. I have no problem with this if the sentence for a second offense is DEATH!

[Recursion]

11. A judge can still order more restrictive limits on a case-by-case basis

The problem is "sex crimes" include, say, a college kid mooning someone. Or, until Lawrence v. Texas, being gay.

[rodeodance]

10. an article talked of how 1/3 are homeless-------. Leaving them without a means to

support themselves in not good.

article last week I DU

[Froward69]

12. True story

Boy meets Girl. He=17 she=16 junior and sophomore in HS. always together he graduates goes off to college, she finishes senior year of HS. Christmas break his freshman year in college, she a senior in HS. he was 18 she was 25 days short of 18. her mom called the cops. he goes down, statutory rape. conviction. he is labeled a sexual predator, is expelled from college. she goes off the deep end. they were found in her moms car, murder suicide. true.

Moms vindictiveness + the law = tragedy.

glad a small step has been taken to possibly advert more tragedy...

Romeo & Juliet were teens.

[toopers]

13. What is also interesting about the Georgia case . . .

is that the sex offender in question actually moved to a somewhat rural area, well away from children's facilities. He bought a house, and started a successful business. Guess what, things started to grow up around him. Someone opened a school/daycare facility within the 1000 feet of his house, and his business. That is why he was initially forced to move. He was obeying his sentence.