Lawyers fight law on sex offenders be...

Lawyers fight law on sex offenders before Ohio Supreme Court | ...

There are 10 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Nov 4, 2009, titled Lawyers fight law on sex offenders before Ohio Supreme Court | .... In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

Thousands of registered sex offenders would be subject to less-stringent reporting requirements if defense lawyers succeed in challenging parts of a 2007 state law intended to crack down on sexual criminals.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

William Killilea

Powell, OH

#2 Nov 4, 2009
There is no crime worse than rape, and tho technically rapist reoffend as often as other felons statistically speaking that is, the nature of the crime warrents the extra supervision upon release from detention. Also, first offenses are only receiveg a 5 year sentance under the new law, this crime demands more punishment than that. Rape victims lives are altered eternally. Not sure tho if child offenders need the supervision into their adulthood? probably best if restrictions are placed on them in a case by case evaluation, leaving a judge as the ultimate authority,
Sam Caldwell

Austin, TX

#3 Nov 5, 2009
William Killilea is WRONG to say "...and tho technically rapist reoffend as often as other felons statistically speaking that is,..." when in fact sexual offenders "statistically" reoffend LESS often than almost all other criminal categories.
(1) According to US Department of Justice statistics, only 5% of sex offenders released in 1994 were returned to prison for a new sex crime.
(2) According to the California Attorney General's office, "90% of child victims know their offender, with almost half of the offenders being a family member. Of sexual assaults against people age 12 and up, approximately 80% of the victims know the offender." (Citing "Facts About Sex Offenders," )
(3) States already have registries, and now the federal government is imposing its legislation on a state matter, threatening to remove 10% of federal funds from non-compliant states. This is more about money than public safety.
These laws are a bad idea.
Sam Caldwell

Austin, TX

#4 Nov 5, 2009
William Killilea also identifies his motive for supporting registration as "PUNISHMENT." This would violate the ex post facto clause contested.

Given that Mr. Killilea's arguments are common, isn't this why the retroactivity of AWA and other registration laws is wrong? When we impose punishment, shouldn't it be PROSPECTIVE? If we begin passing retroactive laws, then we enter the position where misguided individuals such as Mr. Killilea can retroactively turn parking tickets into felonies. Is this absurd? Yes. The absurdity is why retroactivity flies square in the face of our American legal philosophy.
john ohio

Cincinnati, OH

#5 Nov 8, 2009
The supreme court can only review the legal aspects and the effectivness of law; in otherwords if the sate or federal law does not make sense does not rovide the basis for the courts to address.
The Adaw Walsh and the numerous state and local sex offender registration laws have been deemed to be of no real value while costly the taxpayer and the public false security. The numerous research studies which were mainly funded by the Dept. of Justice supports that such laws of no to little valvue.
These laws are nly driven by politicians to maintain their jobs through creating illusions.
Let the facts lead the way to roer legislation.

Bryn Mawr, PA

#7 Nov 14, 2009
I agree.. you cannot just punish people again for crimes they already paid for. No individual cases were looked into before blanket rulings decided the fate of over 20,000 people in Ohio who went through H el l the first time and are trying to get on with their lives. It is a violation of the rights of these people to be punished twice for the same crime. Apply the law to all new cases, where there is a judge and jury to decide what happens.. but don't throw a bunch of people under the bus just because you are trying to look tough to further your political careers. The ex-post facto clauses to this law are unconstitutional and need to be overturned. How would you like to be punished for something you already paid for again, without anyone even LOOKING at your case?

Toledo, OH

#8 Nov 14, 2009
I agree,the law is political and are based on money and jobs, what about the rights of the already convicted? That's like imposing a new law for convicted murderers, are they likely to kill again? When one has been classified to a tier 1,2,or3 before the law changed that should remain or one should be given a chance in a public court to contest that decision, when they are classified they are evaluated by a states doctor, and then classified, so what gives the state the right to overturn that decision,what was that a wast of money? The law should be overturned and applied if necessary, to those who are evaluated and then determined what classification they are and not punish those for there crimes once again,but i guess money and jobs are more important then ones rights.

Bryn Mawr, PA

#9 Nov 15, 2009
William Killela had an interesting point.. but he is assuming that everyone who is affected by the change in law is a rapist or child molestor, and that is not the case. Sexual Battery has gone from lowest to highest severity, and it could be for something as simple as a drunken grope at a bar. Yeah, it's wrong, but it is not rape or molestation.. the fact that they do not look into the cases before they re-classify and ruin someone's life has little bearing on the condition of the "victim." Certainly, rape and molestation victims do suffer, and those that perpetrate those crimes are very very bad folks... however, since sex crimes include more than that, you cannot just qualify all as the same.(WHich AWA is trying to do.) I know someone who had a make out with a 15 year old, not even having sex.(He was 22) He didnt even have sex with her, and it was consentual. Does this guy need to be qualified the same as a rapist only because the girl's mother did not approve? I don't think so... yes it was wrong and a mistake, but the judge in that case heard all the facts and said it was blown out of proportion. Now the AWA re-punishes without even finding out what happened... and that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Baby Girls mom

United States

#10 Jan 15, 2010
I feel that the one-size-fits-all sentencing and mandatory registry for life is unfair. A 24 year old woman that had 'consensual' sex with a 15 year old gets the same time as a old man that actually rapes a child. I believe that the time served and required registering should be on a case by case basis.

United States

#11 Jan 15, 2010
could it be these lawyers are sex deviates incogneto?

Bear, DE

#12 Jan 19, 2010
CHUCKO wrote:
could it be these lawyers are sex deviates incogneto?
No..these Lawyers are doing their jobs, as they were hired to do. The fact is that the ex-post-facto clause in this bad law are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It keeps ppl like you from being punished twice for speeding tickets and other crimes you may have committed. Once the law has described punishment for your actions, they cant just PILE IT ON with no just cause.. this law punishes people twice without even examining their cases! Ohio supreme court knows it is illegal, they are just delaying to see how the Fed Supreme Court rules on the case from KY.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chesterland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christina Melaragno, westlake drug theif (Oct '14) Mar '16 SweetSummertime 42
in town for a day, need dog food. (Sep '15) Sep '15 sickashell 1
DownTown Willoughby bar scene single friendly o... (Aug '15) Aug '15 Seriouslady 2
News Bow hunting cruel, women say (Oct '06) Jun '15 zimmz 29
What James Franco gets wrong about working for ... (May '15) May '15 Unhappy parent 1
Cody Wayne Huelsman (Feb '14) Nov '14 ank 2
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (Oct '14) Oct '14 Barb 1

Chesterland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chesterland Mortgages