Around the Web

The Greensboro News Record has an editorial discussing a sex offender registry loophole in North Carolina law.  The op-ed discusses a case where a woman, "convicted in 1995 of taking indecent liberties with a child, registered her address as required. For several weeks, however, she spent most nights at her parents’ home in another town, returning during the day to check her mail and do household chores." The authorities charged her with violating the registration requirements and she was convicted.  The North Carolina appeals court "overturned the conviction, ruling the state did not provide enough evidence to show she had moved her actual residence." I have no idea what the so-called "loophole" is, but like the word "technicality" it is often used by media to describe an outcome they don't like.

Many blogs have noted this announcement from Concurring Opinions, which states that "Concurring Opinions, like A.I.G. and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac before it, is now too big too fail. We expect that should our blogging rate slow, or the general market conditions to lead to a run on our host, the Feds will step in ensure market stability." Clearly, Sex Crimes must find a merger partner so that it can similarly protected by the Feds. Maybe we should contact Goldman to find an appropriate match in these troubled economic times.

FoxNews has an editorial which calls on Congress "to fully fund the sex offender registry and notification system they created two years ago under the Adam Walsh Act...."  The op-ed also asserts that Congress has "fallen short in providing money for federal law enforcers to carry out their responsibilities under the Adam Walsh Act, such as hunting down, arresting and prosecuting unregistered sex offenders."

Comments

[Ilah]

"I have no idea what the so-called "loophole" is, "

My guess is it lies in the legal definition of "residence," along with the time alloted to register a new addresses, mixed with the number of days in a month and/or the number of consecutive days of "residing" it takes to make a residence.

I still want to know precisely what lawmakers had in mind when they wrote "where the offender spends the night" as the most common definition of residence. Does someone who works 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM "reside" at his place of employment? What, then, would that make his home? How could failing to register the home address then be a crime?

FoxNews was smart not to allow comments. Kind of like Palin not facing the media.

[Dave]

A responsible news outlet would have questioned why the government doesn't seem to have the money to implement these laws they are passing.

Of course, when was the last time you saw the words "Fox News" and "responsible news outlet" together in the same sentence?

[timothy moriarty]

Dear Friend:

Are you ready yet for the November 4th Elections? How about your friends, family, and neighbors?

More Americans are expected to vote this year than ever before in history, so don’t be left out! Be sure to ask everyone you know the following questions:

Are you registered to vote? If you moved recently, have you updated your voter registration?
Did you apply for an Absentee Ballot? Do you know your state may not require any reason?
Can you find your local Polling Place? Do you know it may have changed from last time?
The answers to these questions -- and all your voting needs -- can be found at www.StateDemocracy.org

[none]

The residence "loophole" story exposes the inanity of caring where the sex offender is sleeping as opposed to where they spend their day...

[disillusion1998]

I am listed on one of this country's glorious Sex Offender Registries. It doesn't matter what the various criminal governments choose to Register or how, they will never know where or how I spend my time. I have made keeping that a fact a moral obligation to myself.

All people listed on these Registries have a moral obligation to never cooperate with law enforcement or criminal governments, spend as much time as possible around children, and work to ensure that the Registration laws, and all the laws that those laws have enabled and wrought, exist only at the highest possible cost of time, effort, and money. THAT is what Registration, etc. is getting us, not the lie of "public safety" or "protecting children". And one other thing - people listed on these Registries have zero obligation to be good citizens.

disillusion1998,

People listed on the registries are hardly citizens at all. Probably all RSOs rebel in a sense even if only unexpressed frustration. It can go to the other extreme though. The problem is no one to fight. Me v. U.S.A.. There is an enemy though and it can be fought. The vigilantes are like the Parents Television Council, well organized and loud and so effective the FCC thought their complaints were a real cross-section of real public opinion. Like them, the vigilantes can flood the comments of a news articles and make it appear to be the majority view. However, if the audience is wide enough, like with John Stossel's "Age of Consent" 202/20 program on ABC, the real majority has the chance to speak. How to fight?

When the vigilantes flood comments, reply with facts, studies and the law. Stay calm. Make them overreact or ignore the facts. Either will make them look dumb and ignorant. If vigilantes are harassing, keep records and take pictures. If they are following someone, take them on a wild goose chase. Make them waste time and resources without any gain, but keep the hook in them to make them think they aren't wasting their time.

It is also necessary to acknowledge that society has a valid interest in public safety and protecting children, so avoid doing anything that will feed the machine.

Putting the vigilantes in perspective puts the law in perspective. That is the real war and every RSO, their friends, families and those who want to protect the Constitution can fight this war.