TYT: Sex Offender Wins Lotto - Does He Deserve To Keep Money? (Ear-Muff The Kids)

[ihavenobias]

Run time: 02:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP4W5fa9Ds8   Posted on YouTube: January 17, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 18, 2009 By DU Member: ihavenobias Views on DU: 2373

 
Also check these out these 7 clips (the first one is awesome):

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

PS---Be sure to watch and the video where

Finally, keep in mind that you can always catch The Young Turks weekday mornings on XM 167 and 24 hours a day with (free) streaming video at www.theyoungturks.com

[doc03]

1. He won, apparently he paid his debt to society

unless they stipulated people convicted of sex crimes couldn't buy tickets I don't see how they can not pay him.

[Whoa_Nelly]

2. US sex offender wins lottery $10m

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7240683.stm



Undated photo of Daniel Snay


Snay won $10m through the Massachusetts state lottery
A convicted sex offender has won $10m in the Massachusetts state lottery in the US, but could face jail for failing to tell police he had moved.

Daniel Snay's win attracted the attention of the police in Connecticut, where he had lived for many years. They say he never informed them of his move.

He faces up to five years in prison if convicted of failing to notify authorities of his change of address.

His lawyer says when Snay moved, he registered only in the new state.

"If that is incorrect, we'll have to fix it," lawyer Joseph Fabbricotti said. "He wasn't running. He's been living here for four years."

Connecticut police said Snay had not confirmed his address for the Connecticut sex offender registry since 2004.

"We're trying to determine when he moved, why he didn't register with us and whether any charges are warranted," a spokesman said.

<snip>
The 56-year-old was convicted several times of indecent assault and battery in the 1970s and 1980s, with two of the assaults involving a child under the age of 14.

But he is not banned from gambling.

He is classified in Massachusetts as a Level 3 offender, which puts him in the category of most dangerous or most likely to reoffend.

[bluestateguy]

3. The law imposes no restrictions on winners based on felony convictions

If you don't like it, change the law so that it does not happen again. But this man is legally entitled to his money.

They can take the money if you owe alimony, student loan debt, child support, or you owe on a court judgment, but that is about it.

If he was smart, he'd get rid of that money ASAP into Swiss bank accounts before his victims start suing him.

[MindMatter]

14. Quite the opposite. The lottery PREYSS on the lowest demographic

and a whole bunch of them have some incarceration in their past. This isn't ironic, or even a great coincidence. It is their freaking TARGET MARKET.

People with brains enough to take care of themselves without committing felonies are also smart enough not to give the state their money through the stupidity tax, aka the state-operated lottery.

[CherylK]

4. What are the odds?

A sex offender wins a lotto for a charity for the victims of sex offenders?! That is crazy!



:puke:

[ihavenobias]

11. Exactly, that's what makes this story different.

It's not *just* that a sex offender won the lotto, it's the fact that he won this particular lotto. And as much as it sucks, he should legally have the right to the money.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. Everything about this situation was ironic...

The lotto, the first of its kind in Alaska, was conducted to benefit S.T.A.R., Standing Together Against Rape, to call attention to the fact that Alaska has the highest per capita rate of sex assaults in the country. The winner, Mr. Ahsoak, did indeed have two prior convictions for 2nd degree sexual assault of a minor, but he did say that he is in treatment, is trying to turn his life around and that he was planning to give $100,000 back to the charity. Meanwhile, the father of the first victims, a rather sleazy-looking character himself (although he's allegedly some kind of pastor) said that he planned to sue. THEN two days after that Mr. Ahsoak was confronted downtown by a 21-year-old man and asked if he was the lottery winner. A few minutes after he confirmed that he was, the guy came back and beat him severely with a tire iron. Turns out the 21-year-old was a fugitive from an assault charge from California who had just recently arrived in Alaska, fleeing his bail conditions.

So now once he faces and deals with his charges here for assaulting the sex assaulter, he'll be extradited back to California to do some more time.

I'm sure it wasn't supposed to turn out like this. I'm kind of the opinion that since he's done his time and he paid for the lottery ticket, he's entitled to the winnings.

More here :

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/story/652128.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/652748.html

http://www.adn.com/front/story/654547.html

[Azlady]

18. Sadly it is his win, makes me sick

[pleah]

6. He won, he can keep it. n/t

[ejbr]

7. K & R n/t

[localroger]

8. Ana does not seem to understand this 'gambling' thing

A bet is a contract. In the case of a lottery it is a horrible contract for the ticket buyer, but still that contract says nothinga bout whether you're a sex offender or anything else. You paid your buck, you get your chance, period. Frankly he should not give the $100K to the charity; he should take his winnings as is his right. If he can't, it is the end of all forms of gambling everywhere, if the state can step in after the resolution and say "oh this bet isn't valid" then no bet is ever valid.

Incidentally, there is a nearly sacred trust among the sleazy underside of the prop betting community, where people who are in arrears to every form of creditor will pay you if you have a bet with them. I stand to collect $50 from one of those people on Tuesday.

[norepubsin08]

9. Tough fucking shit

a. he payed his debt to society b. he played fair and square c. there was no stipulation that a conviction would disqualify you from being to participate or win.

While we're at it, this brings me to another subject...if we wish to disenfranchise convicted felons from voting, (after they are released from jail) then we should also not require them to pay taxes...otherwise it is just taxation with out representation

and before anybody gets all up in my grill...yes, I think that sex abuse is an abhorrent crime.

[bitchkitty]

10. If he gets to keep it, his victims should sue him. n/t

[Jkid]

13. Good compromise. n/t

[OhioChick]

12. Maybe he can pay for some damn good, intensive therapy then. n/t

[rpannier]

15. He won he should get to keep it

The 'I'm outraged crowd' needs to be reigned in.

Their answer to everything seems to be 'keep on punishing people to the grave.'

[Connonym]

16. it's not about deserving anything

The lottery isn't meant to go to those who deserve it, it goes to people who bought a ticket and won. End of story. But while we're on the topic, I think it's unethical to continue to punish people for the rest of their lives for a crime. I was a childhood victim of sexual abuse and I'm as skeeved out about the subject as a person can be but I don't think it's fair to not allow someone a chance to become rehabilitated and if they're really that much of a risk for repeat offense then perhaps we should keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

[Seldona]

17. It sucks, but I agree. He should get his money.

Perhaps next time they could bar those who are registered sex offenders from participating if they can make it stand up legally? But so far they took his buck or whatever, they made the contract, they should pay the guy.

[Zodiak]

19. He should keep his money...fair is fair

That being said, sex crimes are particularly heinous crimes, and those that do such a thing deserve to be punished harshly. However, lately there has been a law-enforcement obsession with sex criminals and a "punish them till they die" attitude that I think erodes the American system of justice and makes our society less free. If this was the only thing targeted, then I would perhaps be more comfortable with it, but after the war on drugs, the three strikes rule in California, the encroachment of the police state, tasing people to death, labeling leftist groups "terrorist", etc., I am leery of whatever is done in response to the crime of the month.

All crimes are horrible...that is why they are crimes. Peoples lives get destroyed from practically all crimes with victims. Even a person whose home is robbed while they are not home will never be the same afterwards. I do not think that tweaking our system to produce more punishment and ignore rehabilitation has done us any good. In fact, it has made things worse.

This guy offended 25 years ago and has paid his debt, and regardless of his classification, it seems that he has not re-offended in those 25 years. Give him his money.

[lame54]

20. It depends how he scratched the ticket

[snot]

21. Here's how it should work:

Hopefully his victims from long ago sued him for damages and obtained judgments, filed liens, and have maintained them. If so, now that he had money, they can collect their recoveries.

Sad thing is, I'm guessing they didn't -- I'm not sure it's even possible to keep a judgment lien alive that long.

[Jim Lane]

22. Odds are the victims didn't sue

He was presumably "judgment-proof", the lawyer's way of referring to someone who has no significant assets and who can't pay a judgment if one is obtained.

The victims, not knowing that the guy would later come into a fortune, wouldn't pay a lawyer to fight the case when the only reward would be a worthless piece of paper, and no lawyer would take it on contingency for the same reason.

[snot]

23. yeah, I was thinking that, too.