Rape victims have to live with it for the rest of their lives, so how is it not fair that the offender should have it continue to affect him, just like his past actions continue to affect his victim. I do think that some offenses should not necessarily place one on the registry, for example some cases of indecent exposure or statutory rape. A college student mooning people doesn’t necessarily indicate a risk, just stupidity. Likewise, a 19 year old boy having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend doesn’t mean that he is a future threat to others. Violent rapists, child molesters, and similar criminals are very likely to repeat and the public has a right to be warned of the danger.
Laws vary from state to state on making application to be removed from the registry. Ohio, the state in which Brock Turner currently resides, is in the process of revamping their sex offender laws. One of the recommendations on the table is to redefine the Tier lll offense. It is much harder to apply for removal from the registry if you have been convicted of a Tier lll offense. The proposition that Ohio is considering is to include in Tier lll only those offenses that involve children.
Yesterday Turner’s attorney argued to appellate court that his client having been found fully clothed did not have intent to commit rape (ie intercourse/penetrate), but he was trying engage in “outercourse”, a form of safe sex.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/attorney-argues-brock-turner-s-sexual-assault-conviction-should-be-n894396
I could look at a pretzel and it would be less twisted than that!
I’ve heard that it helps an attorney to make one’s argument with a straight face. Hopefully attorney didn’t smirk or wink, wink at court while arguing “outercourse”
Pathetic!
I can’t understand how this appeal is any different than, “I’m appealing because I didn’t do it.”
But the jury already decided that he is guilty.
I’m still fascinated by the irony of seeing Brock Turner’s name and the word “appealing” in the title of this thread. Maybe “appalling” would be a better adjective (I do understand the original usage is a verb).
“Rape victims have to live with it for the rest of their lives, so how is it not fair that the offender should have it continue to affect him, just like his past actions continue to affect his victim.”
I hesitate to measure punishments according to this theory. Not every rape survivor experiences long-term suffering as a result, while many survivors of other crimes, like burglary or battery, do. People who are vulnerable to PTSD can have serious, life-long struggles following any kind of trauma. Why shouldn’t we have a stabbing registry, too? Everyone who’s been stabbed has to live with it for the rest of their lives. Some are in daily agony and some rarely think about it and some are in between.
The good reason to separate sex crimes from other crimes and require a registry only for sex offenders would be if recidivism patterns really are different and the registry is protecting the community from a special, higher risk. So far, there isn’t much evidence that the registries make us safer.
@Hanna, I thought that was exactly the logic – that sex offenders’ recidivism rates are so high, so we the public should be able to protect ourselves by knowing who these people are. There’s no evidence they help? Wow.
And the recidivism rate varies tremendously with the type of sexual misconduct. It was started primarily for pedophilia and has gone off in all kinds of directions and captured all kinds of people for all kinds of things that have statistically an extremely low rate of recidivism. Whether or not he withstands this challenge I do believe that the registries should have flexibility, much like parole does. In many cases after a period of time, the registries effectively punish the spouses and children. It’s a travesty, especially in Michigan which is sustaining lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit over the implementation of Michigan’s registry. It’s one of the worse nanny government rules that exists IMO. The appeal is weak for Turner, but I’m sure the desired outcome is to get off the registry.
https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html discusses recidivism rates among sex offenders.
But note that sex offender registries may include those convicted of crimes that are not the most serious or associated with higher levels of recidivism. In Georgia, the crime need not even be a sex crime at all. https://gbi.georgia.gov/sex-offender-registry-frequently-asked-questions#goone indicates that any criminal offense against a victim who is a minor counts (so conviction for stealing something from a minor or an 18 year old high school student getting into a fight with a 17 year old high school student counts). Diluting the sex offender registry in this way may make it much less useful for its stated purpose (while greatly increasing public fear of crime “because there are so many sex offenders everywhere”).
I’m glad Turner was convicted because I believe he’s guilty, but I’d be glad if we got rid of sex offender registries for him and for everyone else. I haven’t seen any evidence that they are doing any good. Seems to me if the offender has served their sentence and their probation, they’re done and they should face no further punishment.
Michigan is about as bad as Georgia it sounds like. I just hate to see the punishment of spouses and children 5, 10 or more years later down the line which will be the situation Brock Turner will be in. A financial burden on society and a cement rock on his future spouse and children. That seems very heavy handed and ill distributed detriment to society. He committed a crime, not his future spouse, not his future children, not the taxpayers who all will end up losing. Sigh.
The thought Brock will have a future spouse…I can’t imagine what woman would be like “Hey! I want to marry that guy who raped the unconscious girl by the dumpster in college!”
The registry is the last thing I’d be concerned about.
@“Cardinal Fang” If the sentence includes a term of imprisonment, a term of probation, and a term of sex offender registry inclusion, I have no problem with that. The easiest way to avoid a penalty that might follow you the rest of your life is to treat others with the respect they deserve - pretty sure that would include sex crimes by anyone’s definition.
When I read the entire police report I did NOT get the feeling that the victim was raped. The story was she left the party to have sex with this boy. She went willingly with him, after kissing him at a party. She fell asleep, during sex, and there was no semen found on her body. I believe she left the party with him willingly. She fell asleep, and he did not stop. In California that is rape, but in other places, maybe not! Also, she may not have been asleep during the beginning of their encounter, she fell asleep by the time the two other bicyclists found them having sex outdoors.
He has a valid reason to appeal the decision. The girl was not from Stanford and much older than him,
and she came to the party specifically to have sex with an inexperienced freshman like him.
I don’t see it based on reading the police report about five times . I do not think he raped her, but he kept going after she was asleep.
Stanford allows random women into their parties, and maybe thats not fair to freshman so much, who are under pressure to lose their virginity like Brock was!
Also how did Brock get drunk, he was underage!
Does Stanford have a responsibility to protect freshman from alcohol abuse? I believe they do.
Stanford is a high pressure social environment, I would not send my sons there, after this incident. Its a bad place
for a midwestern white kiddo.
I guess I missed this information in all the reading I’ve done on this case.
@Coloradomama where does it say that
?
Fell asleep?
It was not that clear cut. She had helped to remove her underwear which was somewhat surprisingly glossed over in trial, but there was some heaving petting to use a delicate word - somewhere along the line from her lifting her butt so the underwear could be removed without any struggle or dragging on the ground or any of his DNA on her underwear she passed out and he continued - that is a probably never to be determined point in time that moved the event to a sexual assault and he should have stopped the minute she passed out. It is possible he was so drunk he didn’t know, but tbeing drunk cannot be used as an excuse in court by him, only for her. So I do believe he technically assaulted her, raped her no I don’t think so under the narrow definition of law at the time and I do believe his jail sentence and probation were reasonable. But then I have those crazy midwestern sensibilities and a pragmatism that goes along with it.