Tallmadge HS student hazes a teammate with a straw...

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

If the victim had been your child, I don't think you would feel that way. You would be angry and outraged at what that person did. You know it's not acceptable behavior, and he did too.

Besides, being on the list is the least of his worries. Being on the list doesn't prohibit him from any thing except where he lives and works and maybe an occassional search and seizure of property. But he can explain to his future employers why he's rapist, since they'll see it every time he applies for a job.

Look, if you're going to say "put yourself in their shoes" you have to think about what you mean by that. You want me to imagine myself in a position where my emotions would almost certainly override my reason and objectivity? Do you really expect the answer I would arrive at in that state to be the correct one? Cuz I'd want to rip the kids head off and shit down his neck if it were MY child. My personal opinion of justice in that situation would almost certainly be the wrong solution, and I'd eventually regret it.

Yes, he probably knew what he was doing was wrong. He's suffering from the egotism and lack of empathy that's common in kids his age. Punish them harshly I say, but don't commit them to the dregs of civilization just yet. Being on the list is a stigma they may no longer deserve after they've matured a little more.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

If the victim had been your child, I don't think you would feel that way. You would be angry and outraged at what that person did. You know it's not acceptable behavior, and he did too.

Besides, being on the list is the least of his worries. Being on the list doesn't prohibit him from any thing except where he lives and works and maybe an occassional search and seizure of property. But he can explain to his future employers why he's rapist, since they'll see it every time he applies for a job.

Look, if you're going to say "put yourself in their shoes" you have to think about what you mean by that. You want me to imagine myself in a position where my emotions would almost certainly override my reason and objectivity? Do you really expect the answer I would arrive at in that state to be the correct one? Cuz I'd want to rip the kids head off and shit down his neck if it were MY child. My personal opinion of justice in that situation would almost certainly be the wrong solution, and I'd eventually regret it.

Yes, he probably knew what he was doing was wrong. He's suffering from the egotism and lack of empathy that's common in kids his age. Punish them harshly I say, but don't commit them to the dregs of civilization just yet. Being on the list is a stigma they may no longer deserve after they've matured a little more.

That victim's parents didn't go attack the other kid. They contacted the police like a reasonable human being would do. Even people with charged emotions manage to do the right thing daily. You just prove that people like him who can't control themselves deserve the punishment they get. If you have any sense of morality, you do the right thing, and you accept the punishment when you don't. The young man got the punishment he deserved and prescribed under the law. If you don't think certian people should be labeled as sex offenders, then write a letter to your legal representative.

He's not sorry. His parents are not sorry. It's clear from the way his mom reacted. He knew it was rape, and when you rape someone forceibly, you're not getting a slap on the wrist. If he doesn't deserve to be a level 3 sex offender, then lets take the other rapists off the list, or would you prefer we just make an exception for this piece of shit? He's got the rest of his life to explain his criminal record, and I don't think registering as a sex offender for the rest of his life is even one of his biggest problems now.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Amused
He needed to be punished, but sex offender status for life? WAY overkill.

i agree. his life hasnt even begun and he is going to be punished for a bad hazing prank at 17. he should be punished no doupt about that but not for life.


I know if the victim was my son i would be PISSED beyond belief and would want justice to fit the crime. the punishment this kid got does not fit the crime.

for me 14 days in county lock up, 120 hours community service and a letter to the victim would be plenty to send a message.

Suppose it was your daughter, and a beer bottle instead of a straw. What then? "I'm sorry, it was just a prank" "ha ha ha, that's okay. Kids will be kids. I'm going to ask the prosecutor to be lenient and only give you 14 days."

Yes, and suppose after all that they used a lawnmower to take off one of her arms. And they were all wearing clown masks at the time. Also, one of them was an albino midget with 6 fingers on one hand. And it all happened in a sauna with the distinct odor of urine, as though someone had pissed on the rocks. Oh, and it's happening in Saudi Arabia, so they won't be punished, but your daughter will be stoned to death.

What then hot shot?

You can't arbitrarily change the facts of a case and claim it's the same thing.

I only changed two facts: the sex of the victim (females have rectums too; I'm letting you know now so that you won't be surprised if you ever see a naked female), and the object.

The *act* was the same in each scenario, and it's the act which he was prosecuted for: rape. It doesn't matter what the object was: broom handle, toilet plunger, beer bottle,..., straw. The offense that was committed was rape. How dense are you that you don't realize that the object used doesn't matter? And, why would the sex matter? He did it to a teammate. There are plenty of coed sports teams, and even football teams that have females on the team.

 

[between]

 

[REDolution]

In Cartmen's word... "Weak. Not cool. Super lame."

Putting things up peoples asses who don't want things up there is sexual harassment.. no doubt.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Amused
He needed to be punished, but sex offender status for life? WAY overkill.

i agree. his life hasnt even begun and he is going to be punished for a bad hazing prank at 17. he should be punished no doupt about that but not for life.


I know if the victim was my son i would be PISSED beyond belief and would want justice to fit the crime. the punishment this kid got does not fit the crime.

for me 14 days in county lock up, 120 hours community service and a letter to the victim would be plenty to send a message.

Suppose it was your daughter, and a beer bottle instead of a straw. What then? "I'm sorry, it was just a prank" "ha ha ha, that's okay. Kids will be kids. I'm going to ask the prosecutor to be lenient and only give you 14 days."

Yes, and suppose after all that they used a lawnmower to take off one of her arms. And they were all wearing clown masks at the time. Also, one of them was an albino midget with 6 fingers on one hand. And it all happened in a sauna with the distinct odor of urine, as though someone had pissed on the rocks. Oh, and it's happening in Saudi Arabia, so they won't be punished, but your daughter will be stoned to death.

What then hot shot?

You can't arbitrarily change the facts of a case and claim it's the same thing.

I only changed two facts: the sex of the victim (females have rectums too; I'm letting you know now so that you won't be surprised if you ever see a naked female), and the object.

The *act* was the same in each scenario, and it's the act which he was prosecuted for: rape. It doesn't matter what the object was: broom handle, toilet plunger, beer bottle,..., straw. The offense that was committed was rape. How dense are you that you don't realize that the object used doesn't matter? And, why would the sex matter? He did it to a teammate. There are plenty of coed sports teams, and even football teams that have females on the team.

You can not change the facts and circumstances in one case and then use that as some sort of 'evidence' in a made up example. In your mind you think the actual scenario and your little made-up scenario are equivalent; they are not.

It is sort of mind boggling that you do not understand that facts and mitigating circumstances mean things.


Anyhow, it is a little disappointing to see that so many people are insanely short-sighted, and arguably small-minded, in looking at the repercussion of punishments that are not carried out in prudent manners.

Not allowing criminals the chance of rehabilitating themselves is a bad thing. Granted a line has to be drawn with certain crimes, but society would be better off in rehabilitating the criminal in this instance instead of giving him a life long punishment.

 

[growled]

They sure carry hazing further than they did when I was in school. What a difference a few years can make.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Amused
He needed to be punished, but sex offender status for life? WAY overkill.

i agree. his life hasnt even begun and he is going to be punished for a bad hazing prank at 17. he should be punished no doupt about that but not for life.


I know if the victim was my son i would be PISSED beyond belief and would want justice to fit the crime. the punishment this kid got does not fit the crime.

for me 14 days in county lock up, 120 hours community service and a letter to the victim would be plenty to send a message.

Suppose it was your daughter, and a beer bottle instead of a straw. What then? "I'm sorry, it was just a prank" "ha ha ha, that's okay. Kids will be kids. I'm going to ask the prosecutor to be lenient and only give you 14 days."

Yes, and suppose after all that they used a lawnmower to take off one of her arms. And they were all wearing clown masks at the time. Also, one of them was an albino midget with 6 fingers on one hand. And it all happened in a sauna with the distinct odor of urine, as though someone had pissed on the rocks. Oh, and it's happening in Saudi Arabia, so they won't be punished, but your daughter will be stoned to death.

What then hot shot?

You can't arbitrarily change the facts of a case and claim it's the same thing.

I only changed two facts: the sex of the victim (females have rectums too; I'm letting you know now so that you won't be surprised if you ever see a naked female), and the object.

The *act* was the same in each scenario, and it's the act which he was prosecuted for: rape. It doesn't matter what the object was: broom handle, toilet plunger, beer bottle,..., straw. The offense that was committed was rape. How dense are you that you don't realize that the object used doesn't matter? And, why would the sex matter? He did it to a teammate. There are plenty of coed sports teams, and even football teams that have females on the team.

You can not change the facts and circumstances in one case and then use that as some sort of 'evidence' in a made up example. In your mind you think the actual scenario and your little made-up scenario are equivalent; they are not.

It is sort of mind boggling that you do not understand that facts and mitigating circumstances mean things.


Anyhow, it is a little disappointing to see that so many people are insanely short-sighted, and arguably small-minded, in looking at the repercussion of punishments that are not carried out in prudent manners.

Not allowing criminals the chance of rehabilitating themselves is a bad thing. Granted a line has to be drawn with certain crimes, but society would be better off in rehabilitating the criminal in this instance instead of giving him a life long punishment.

That's all fine and dandy in some fantasy world. But, allow me to bring your argument back to reality. Rehabilitation of sexual offenders doesn't really have that high of a success rate. And, in any case, it's not 100%. There is a much higher probability of him committing a similar crime in the future than there is for the average person. That's the purpose of the sex offender registry. As far as immediate punishment, he's not going to jail - he got off light.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Why is there any debate over this? Have you had something stuck up your ass and thought it was nothing? If any of you were in some kind of organization where there was a hazing, would your idea to haze be to stick something up someone's ass? If I was told to stick someone up someone's ass as part of a hazing ritual I'd say no because it's gay. For this guy to even think of that and think it might be ok; he has something wrong in his brain. Like it's been said if it were a girl most of you would take a different stance. If it was you, you'd take a different stance. If it was your child, you would take a different stance.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Amused
He needed to be punished, but sex offender status for life? WAY overkill.

i agree. his life hasnt even begun and he is going to be punished for a bad hazing prank at 17. he should be punished no doupt about that but not for life.


I know if the victim was my son i would be PISSED beyond belief and would want justice to fit the crime. the punishment this kid got does not fit the crime.

for me 14 days in county lock up, 120 hours community service and a letter to the victim would be plenty to send a message.

Suppose it was your daughter, and a beer bottle instead of a straw. What then? "I'm sorry, it was just a prank" "ha ha ha, that's okay. Kids will be kids. I'm going to ask the prosecutor to be lenient and only give you 14 days."

Yes, and suppose after all that they used a lawnmower to take off one of her arms. And they were all wearing clown masks at the time. Also, one of them was an albino midget with 6 fingers on one hand. And it all happened in a sauna with the distinct odor of urine, as though someone had pissed on the rocks. Oh, and it's happening in Saudi Arabia, so they won't be punished, but your daughter will be stoned to death.

What then hot shot?

You can't arbitrarily change the facts of a case and claim it's the same thing.

I only changed two facts: the sex of the victim (females have rectums too; I'm letting you know now so that you won't be surprised if you ever see a naked female), and the object.

The *act* was the same in each scenario, and it's the act which he was prosecuted for: rape. It doesn't matter what the object was: broom handle, toilet plunger, beer bottle,..., straw. The offense that was committed was rape. How dense are you that you don't realize that the object used doesn't matter? And, why would the sex matter? He did it to a teammate. There are plenty of coed sports teams, and even football teams that have females on the team.

You can not change the facts and circumstances in one case and then use that as some sort of 'evidence' in a made up example. In your mind you think the actual scenario and your little made-up scenario are equivalent; they are not.

It is sort of mind boggling that you do not understand that facts and mitigating circumstances mean things.


Anyhow, it is a little disappointing to see that so many people are insanely short-sighted, and arguably small-minded, in looking at the repercussion of punishments that are not carried out in prudent manners.

Not allowing criminals the chance of rehabilitating themselves is a bad thing. Granted a line has to be drawn with certain crimes, but society would be better off in rehabilitating the criminal in this instance instead of giving him a life long punishment.

That's all fine and dandy in some fantasy world. But, allow me to bring your argument back to reality. Rehabilitation of sexual offenders doesn't really have that high of a success rate. And, in any case, it's not 100%. There is a much higher probability of him committing a similar crime in the future than there is for the average person. That's the purpose of the sex offender registry. As far as immediate punishment, he's not going to jail - he got off light.

Oh really? I want some links to your scientific research that shows this to be true, not some bs you read some where but can't cite.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

That victim's parents didn't go attack the other kid. They contacted the police like a reasonable human being would do. Even people with charged emotions manage to do the right thing daily. You just prove that people like him who can't control themselves deserve the punishment they get. If you have any sense of morality, you do the right thing, and you accept the punishment when you don't. The young man got the punishment he deserved and prescribed under the law. If you don't think certian people should be labeled as sex offenders, then write a letter to your legal representative.

I don't think certain people should be classified as sex offenders or I wouldn't be arguing with you. And just because something is law doesn't mean it's automatically morally sound. He'll get whatever he gets, but nowhere is it written that we must all think he deserved it just because he got it.

He's not sorry. His parents are not sorry. It's clear from the way his mom reacted. He knew it was rape, and when you rape someone forceibly, you're not getting a slap on the wrist. If he doesn't deserve to be a level 3 sex offender, then lets take the other rapists off the list, or would you prefer we just make an exception for this piece of shit? He's got the rest of his life to explain his criminal record, and I don't think registering as a sex offender for the rest of his life is even one of his biggest problems now.

I'll wager that his parent most certainly are sorry. There's no way the kid's mom was going to say something that might further incriminate her son in court. What would you do if you saw your son, the person you will love no matter what and your own genetic immortality, about to receive a black mark that would never go away? Deny, deny, deny is the name of the game when all you care about is getting your loved one out of a tight situation with the least damage possible. That goes back to what I was saying about emotions clouding objectivity. Try to put yourself in her place while we're empathizing here.

I would fully support taking any person off the list who did something comparable to what he did. Leave tier 3 to the elite few who really deserve it. He may have bigger problems now, but what about twenty years from now when he's likely a completely different person? Everywhere he goes he'll be spied by the old gossips who watch the papers like hawks and spread the word to everyone they can. When the community service and other punishments are a distant memory his status as a sex offender will be there as a constant reminder of society's knee-jerk rejection of a cruel and immature, but still salvageable, teenager.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

That's all fine and dandy in some fantasy world. But, allow me to bring your argument back to reality. Rehabilitation of sexual offenders doesn't really have that high of a success rate. And, in any case, it's not 100%. There is a much higher probability of him committing a similar crime in the future than there is for the average person. That's the purpose of the sex offender registry. As far as immediate punishment, he's not going to jail - he got off light.

The reality is you just made up information.

You assume much more than you know factually.

Is this kid a sexual predator? I find it unlikely; if he was not a football player that showed up that day during a hazing event, would he have ever done this? If he did not succumb to peer pressure would this happen?

If this crime was due to peer pressure and associated stupidity of high school hazing, can you actually make a positive correlation of him committing a "similar crime" in the future - is he going to haze somebody at work one day?

Regardless if a rehabilitation program does not have a 100% should we just not then bother at all? You seem to think so.

I do not think a life long punishment is him getting off light.

I think a more reasonable approach is for him to do the community service, the counselling and be listed as a tier 1 sexual offender. Assuming no other criminal behaviour, after the age of 21 (or some other reasonable age) the record is sealed and he taken off of the sexual offender list.

It is just ridiculous to give this guy a life long punishment.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

That victim's parents didn't go attack the other kid. They contacted the police like a reasonable human being would do. Even people with charged emotions manage to do the right thing daily. You just prove that people like him who can't control themselves deserve the punishment they get. If you have any sense of morality, you do the right thing, and you accept the punishment when you don't. The young man got the punishment he deserved and prescribed under the law. If you don't think certian people should be labeled as sex offenders, then write a letter to your legal representative.

I don't think certain people should be classified as sex offenders or I wouldn't be arguing with you. And just because something is law doesn't mean it's automatically morally sound. He'll get whatever he gets, but nowhere is it written that we must all think he deserved it just because he got it.

He's not sorry. His parents are not sorry. It's clear from the way his mom reacted. He knew it was rape, and when you rape someone forceibly, you're not getting a slap on the wrist. If he doesn't deserve to be a level 3 sex offender, then lets take the other rapists off the list, or would you prefer we just make an exception for this piece of shit? He's got the rest of his life to explain his criminal record, and I don't think registering as a sex offender for the rest of his life is even one of his biggest problems now.

I'll wager that his parent most certainly are sorry. There's no way the kid's mom was going to say something that might further incriminate her son in court. What would you do if you saw your son, the person you will love no matter what and your own genetic immortality, about to receive a black mark that would never go away? Deny, deny, deny is the name of the game when all you care about is getting your loved one out of a tight situation with the least damage possible. That goes back to what I was saying about emotions clouding objectivity. Try to put yourself in her place while we're empathizing here.

I would fully support taking any person off the list who did something comparable to what he did. Leave tier 3 to the elite few who really deserve it. He may have bigger problems now, but what about twenty years from now when he's likely a completely different person? Everywhere he goes he'll be spied by the old gossips who watch the papers like hawks and spread the word to everyone they can. When the community service and other punishments are a distant memory his status as a sex offender will be there as a constant reminder of society's knee-jerk rejection of a cruel and immature, but still salvageable, teenager.

I will only agree with you if you can honestly say if that was your son, or even daughter, and still have that cool, collected mentality and feel that way. Better yet, if it happened to YOU, and you would say, "hey forget what he did to me. think how you are going to affect him by putting this label on him for the rest of his life."

 

[DrPizza]

Here, first let me show about the best data to support that it's very successful:

Results: Recidivism rates for sexual, violent nonsexual, and nonviolent offenses for treated adolescents were 5.17%, 18.9%, and 20.7%, respectively. The Comparison group had significantly higher rates of sexual (17.8%), violent nonsexual (32.2%), and nonviolent (50%) recidivism.

Adolescent sexual offender recidivism: success of specialized treatment and implications for risk prediction
James R. Worling and Tracey Curwen
Child Abuse & Neglect
Volume 24, Issue 7, July 2000, Pages 965-982

However,

Undetected Recidivism among Rapists and Child Molesters
A. Nicholas Groth, Robert E. Longo, J. Bradley McFadin
Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 28, No. 3, 450-458

Although recidivism among dangerous sexual offenders is generally reported to be low, clinical experience suggests otherwise. In order to assess the actual recidivism rate of offenders who commit sexual as saults, we administered to a sample of eighty-three convicted rapists and fifty-four convicted child molesters an anonymous questionnaire in which they were asked a series of questions pertaining to their history of sexual offenses. The results indicate that the majority of the offenders had been convicted more than once for a sexual assault. Furthermore, on average, they admitted to having committed two to five times as many sex crimes for which they were not apprehended. This study suggests that dangerous sex offenders usually commit their first sexual assault during adolescence, and that they persist in this criminal behavior, but that the offense has low visibility. For this reason recidivism, as judged by rearrests, is not a dependable measure of rehabilitation of the sexual offender.

Psychopathy, Treatment Behavior, and Sex Offender Recidivism
MICHAEL C. SETO, University of Toronto
HOWARD E. BARBAREE,,University of Toronto
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 14, No. 12, 1235-1248

Consistent with findings in other areas of clinical practice, it was predicted that good treatment behavior (in terms of in-session behavior, homework quality, and global ratings of motivation and change achieved) would be associated with parole success and lower recidivism in a sample of 283 sex offenders. This prediction was not supported: Good treatment behavior was unrelated to parole failure or general recidivism, and it was associated with higher serious recidivism (a new violent or sexual offense) after an average time at risk of 32 months.

And, you can purchase this article if you're really intersted in an analysis of a lot of studies on treatment and recidivism. None claim 100% effectiveness. And, if there's a 10% chance that some guy who committed such a crime when he was an adolescent would commit a similar crime in my neighborhood, I would want to know so I could protect my children as best I can. http://www.springerlink.com/co...11/fulltext.pdf?page=1

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: DrPizza

That's all fine and dandy in some fantasy world. But, allow me to bring your argument back to reality. Rehabilitation of sexual offenders doesn't really have that high of a success rate. And, in any case, it's not 100%. There is a much higher probability of him committing a similar crime in the future than there is for the average person. That's the purpose of the sex offender registry. As far as immediate punishment, he's not going to jail - he got off light.

The reality is you just made up information.

You assume much more than you know factually.

Is this kid a sexual predator? I find it unlikely; if he was not a football player that showed up that day during a hazing event, would he have ever done this? If he did not succumb to peer pressure would this happen?

If this crime was due to peer pressure and associated stupidity of high school hazing, can you actually make a positive correlation of him committing a "similar crime" in the future - is he going to haze somebody at work one day?

Regardless if a rehabilitation program does not have a 100% should we just not then bother at all? You seem to think so.

I do not think a life long punishment is him getting off light.

I think a more reasonable approach is for him to do the community service, the counselling and be listed as a tier 1 sexual offender. Assuming no other criminal behaviour, after the age of 21 (or some other reasonable age) the record is sealed and he taken off of the sexual offender list.

It is just ridiculous to give this guy a life long punishment.

I never said not to try to rehabilitate him. It's better than nothing, however does not reduce the risk of recidivism to zero.

Similar crime in the future? First of all, this goes way beyond a "hazing incident." Call it that all you want if it makes you feel better. But, quit pretending that it wasn't a rape. Peer pressure is what makes someone take a puff from a cigarette. Peer pressure to forcibly insert an object into someone else's rectum... repeatedly? No, that's not peer pressure, that's "this kid is fucked in the head."

You seem to dismiss that he could ever be in a similar situation again, jumping right to "haze somebody at work one day." How about college? College football team maybe? College fraternity? Wouldn't it make you feel better knowing there's someone out there who could give the advice, "go ahead, stick it in his ass. If he reports it, the worst you'll get is some community service."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Sedition

You saying it is wrong to label him a rapists means that you obvious believe it isn't rape. You are therefore defending his actions.

"Rape" is a legal term of art whose definition varies in each state. My own state doesn't have a crime known as "rape."

Your argument reflects a certain lack of nuance (which is certainly forgivable - we can't all be lawyers, thank God). Even if I were saying this isn't rape (which I didn't - I just said I didn't think this guy could accurately be called a "rapist"), that would not mean I was defending his actions - just saying they didn't meet the elements of that offense. By way of illustration, someone who beats the crap out of another person, without the intention of killing him, is not guilty of attempted murder - he's guilty of assault and battery, a different offense.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Anyone who thinks this guy is a Level 3 sex offender should read this appellate decision, upholding a case I prosecuted when I was in the service. Kelly Erickson is a Level 3 offender in every sense of the word. His crimes included the following:

Erickson admitted to a number of sexual offenses that occurred between 1996 and 2002, including the rape of his older daughter and rape, sodomy, indecent acts, indecent liberties and using indecent language with his younger daughter. During sentencing, the Government introduced Stipulations of Expected Testimony from the two girls as evidence in aggravation. The older daughter stated that when she was about eight years old, Erickson would kiss and fondle her, put his hands down her pants and penetrate her with his fingers. On one occasion he had sex with her after offering her gifts. He later told her not to tell anyone about his conduct or he would go to jail.

Erickson abused the younger daughter starting when she was five and continuing until she was ten. He had sex with her as often as several times a day; had oral sex with her; attempted anal sex; fondled and kissed her; took showers and baths with her; penetrated her with a dildo; showed her pornographic videos; placed her in sexual situations with her brother and the family dog; took naked pictures of her; and had phone sex with her.

The young man referenced in the OP isn't even close, and if you think he is, please explain why society benefits from him being treated the same as Sgt Erickson.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Anyone who thinks this guy is a Level 3 sex offender should read this appellate decision, upholding a case I prosecuted when I was in the service. Kelly Erickson is a Level 3 offender in every sense of the word. His crimes included the following:

Erickson admitted to a number of sexual offenses that occurred between 1996 and 2002, including the rape of his older daughter and rape, sodomy, indecent acts, indecent liberties and using indecent language with his younger daughter. During sentencing, the Government introduced Stipulations of Expected Testimony from the two girls as evidence in aggravation. The older daughter stated that when she was about eight years old, Erickson would kiss and fondle her, put his hands down her pants and penetrate her with his fingers. On one occasion he had sex with her after offering her gifts. He later told her not to tell anyone about his conduct or he would go to jail.

Erickson abused the younger daughter starting when she was five and continuing until she was ten. He had sex with her as often as several times a day; had oral sex with her; attempted anal sex; fondled and kissed her; took showers and baths with her; penetrated her with a dildo; showed her pornographic videos; placed her in sexual situations with her brother and the family dog; took naked pictures of her; and had phone sex with her.

The young man referenced in the OP isn't even close, and if you think he is, please explain why society benefits from him being treated the same as Sgt Erickson.

does the punishment fit the crime?

maybe not to you, but then again you were not held down and something inserted up your ass against your will either no were you?

As someone who was not the victim nor the father, mother, sister, or brother of the victim of such an act you can't really speak for them now can you?

This guy was made an example of....you gotta start somewhere, why not with this kid? or should they wait until the next guy decides to pull such a prank THEN prosecute him?


it's been laid out pretty simple....you don't want to be a tier 3 sex offender?

Don't hold down another human being and repeatedly force an object up their ass against their will. If you think about it, it's really not that hard to keep from committing such an act and if it is difficult for someone to keep themselves from doing something like this, then the label fits.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

does the punishment fit the crime?

No, it doesn't.

maybe not to you, but then again you were not held down and something inserted up your ass against your will either no were you?

No, but you can't legislate based on the perceptions of a crime victim, and to the extent you do, and say that this guy is a Level 3 sex offender, you are essentially saying that his victim's ordeal is comparable to that of Sgt Erickson's daughter, who was raped literally more than 1,000 times between ages 5 and 10 and mated with a dog, among countless other indignities.

As someone who was not the victim nor the father, mother, sister, or brother of the victim of such an act you can't really speak for them now can you?

The law isn't based on the perceptions of family members, either. They have input in sentencing but they don't get to decide the sentence (at least not in countries not run by the Taliban). I have worked in the criminal justice system enough to know that I would not call to have someone branded as the most serious category of sex offender for life because he and his teammates shoved a straw up my relative's butt in the context of a hazing incident, in any case.

This guy was made an example of....you gotta start somewhere, why not with this kid? or should they wait until the next guy decides to pull such a prank THEN prosecute him?

The law does not have the resources to treat every person who commits a crime that is quasi-sexual in nature as the most serious category of sex offender, and even if it did, it would be stupid to do so, because you'd have no way of distinguishing between people like this guy, who are very unlikely to reoffend, and serial pedophiles and violent rapists, who are very likely to. If you want to "make an example" of someone, start with someone who deserves it.

it's been laid out pretty simple....you don't want to be a tier 3 sex offender?

Don't hold down another human being and repeatedly force an object up their ass against their will. If you think about it, it's really not that hard to keep from committing such an act and if it is difficult for someone to keep themselves from doing something like this, then the label fits.

This is where you and I simply differ. I've been involved in handling dozens of sex offense cases, and this guy is on the low end of the low end, yet he's being treated like he's Richard Ramirez. Hell, my mother has sentenced teenagers who were guilty of serial rape of multiple strangers - you want this guy treated the same way as those guys (and rapists of adult women who are strangers are among the most dangerous, likely to recidivate offenders). As a taxpayer and civil libertarian, this whole line of argument is just stupid, and you've done nothing to change my mind.

By way of illustration, in Saudi Arabia they'll cut off your hand if you're caught shoplifting. If that law were enacted here, I'd say, "That's crazy and wildly disproportionate punishment for a minor offense." Your response, based on this post, would be "You don't want your hand cut off? Don't shoplift!"

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't think he should have to register for life, because I don't think he's more likely to commit a real sex crime than anyone else.

I do think he needs to be punished pretty severely, because forcibly sticking any object in someone's ass is not cool.

My ex begged for it in the pooper on a regular basis....

Good for him. :thumbsup:

:laugh:

Son of a bitch....

I walked right into that one mugs... :beer:

I meant my ex-gf though 😉

Your ex begged you to forcily stick objects into her ass? Were you into S&M?

Have you ever done anal? If you have, you would know it's usually a tight fit and requires some force to get it in the hole.

This makes me doubtful of the story. Straws are not tough. I've broken straws putting them in tops on fountain drinks so how do you stick one up someones ass being a such tight fit?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: So

While I agree that this is not a "serious" rape, it's still a rape. The fact that a sports team was involved or that it was a "hazing" has no bearing on the matter. Rape should not be tolerated, ever.

Now, as to the utility of sex offender lists and the question of whether such offenders can be rehabilitated is another matter entirely.

The fact that a sports team was involved and that it was a "hazing" is not only relevant but critically important to determining whether the offender is a dangerous sex offender deserving of a Level 3 label (which is the topic of the whole thread).

I for one am not - at all - saying this guy didn't break the law or that his offense wasn't serious. I just think it's absurd to call this a Level 3 offense. Try looking up the Level 3 offenders in your own community (they are searchable online most places). You'll see serial rapists, rapist/murderers, multi-time pedophiles, and people of that ilk. You won't (generally) see one-time date rapists or carnal knowledge offenders (i.e., people who've had consensual sex with underage persons), because they aren't perceived as dangerous enough to warrant that stigma and administrative burden.

I have a problem with the whole classification anyway, even for the most predatory offenders.

If they are really a danger why not keep them locked up rather than classify them? Classification does not stop the next rape.

If they have done their time, as society deemed appropriate, why should they not be free like any other criminal?

What makes sex offenders a special class of criminal and does this violate any constitutionality?

Just asking legal and moral justification here for the whole registered thing. THX Vito!

 

[Oceandevi]

In my 1 football year, we would stick grass in the ear holes of the helmets of other players. That was about as far as it went.

 

[Zebo]

Up for Donvito

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I don't believe he is a rapist but, I do believe he is a bully. Like rapists, bully's can't be rehabilitated because they lack the ability or desire to put themselves in the other persons shoes. When they are forcefully controlled, they can function in society but, it only reinforces their view that might makes right. I'm not saying that bullies = rapists, I am saying that their psychology has similar traits. In this particular case, I believe any continued censure of the young man by society is the only way to prevent repeat offenses that may escalate.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Zebo

I have a problem with the whole classification anyway, even for the most predatory offenders.

If they are really a danger why not keep them locked up rather than classify them? Classification does not stop the next rape.

If they have done their time, as society deemed appropriate, why should they not be free like any other criminal?

What makes sex offenders a special class of criminal and does this violate any constitutionality?

Just asking legal and moral justification here for the whole registered thing. THX Vito!

Ah - didn't see your questions.

The classification system exists primarily for political reasons IMO. People want to feel there is some layer of protection between them and these offenders. I do think it serves a legitimate purpose as it relates to the worst offenders, since as a matter of economy and public policy we do not execute sex offenders or, in most cases, put them in prison for life. At least classification provides a means for monitoring them and, in the case of Level 3 offenders, warning the public when an offender is living nearby.

I don't know that there is a fair justification for treating sex offenders dramatically different from other criminals by imposing a registration system, but it is certainly true that some convicted sex offenders are released and go on to commit heinous crimes.

I do not know whether the constitutionality of the registration system has ever been challenged, but my guess is that it has, on the grounds that it might constitute cruel and unusual punishment. I know that the parallel system, employed here in MN and elsewhere, of civilly committing sex offenders upon the conclusion of their sentence (which I think is patently unfair) has been ruled constitutional, so by extension I doubt there is a viable constitutional challenge to registration.