I agree, @momofthreeboys - the sex registry, with all its lifelong implications, is very troubling. Like those three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws that put people in prison for 20 years for stealing a pizza. It borders on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
In NH, the sex offender registry doesn’t have to be for life. One can apply to be removed after 15 years.
" Labrie will be able to apply to be removed from the registry 15 years after serving his sentence."
http://www.wmur.com/news/owen-labrie-appears-on-vermonts-sex-offender-registry/36630752
Just an FYI, QuantMech… I am not a lawyer, but I occasionally deal with this stuff of “looking at the law” (not in crim. cases context). To “look at the law,” one really needs to go into the weeds of prior appellate court decisions to see how that statute have been interpreted and applied in the past. I am sure the lawyers on both sides combed Lexis for cases supporting their side’s arguments.
I remember reading and hearing comments from several legal experts back in the spring when the defense first filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds of ineffective counsel. The consensus was that it was unlikely to be successful. Can’t find details on all the references but here is one:
"Legal expert Kristen Wilson said that a claim of ineffective counsel allows the prosecution to see once-privileged information between the former attorney and client. Wilson said that winning a new trial with the strategy is an uphill battle.
“Under the law, the courts give wide latitude to what’s reasonable representation,” she said. “It’s a very difficult burden to prove, and it’s often impossible to succeed on an ineffective claim.”"
Labrie fired two sets of lawyers before settling on the ones who ended up trying his case. I’m deeply unsympathetic to a person who shops around for a lawyer who will tell them what he wants to hear, then complains of ineffective counsel when the trial doesn’t turn out the way he wanted it to.
Good point, BunsenBurner, #1822.
Also, I would be very sympathetic to Labrie, if he were an 18-year-old in love with his 15-year-old girlfriend (a scenario mentioned by momofthreeboys in #1819). In fact, only the ages in that scenario are the same as in this case.
Well then you have never bothered really looking at the sex offender registry. Next to each person’s name you will have a picture, his/her address and the exact nature of the offense they committed – ex." sexual abuse of children." You will also be given a link to the statute that defines that offense in that particular jurisdiction.
“if he were an 18-year-old in love with his 15-year-old girlfriend”
Right. That scenario is more like the Zach Anderson case in Michigan, where a 19-year-old had sex with an enthusiastic 14-year-old who said she was 17. They weren’t in a relationship or in love, but they were both doing what they wanted. She and her mother both testified on his behalf at trial, saying he shouldn’t be punished at all. He got 25 years on the sex offender registry.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/19-year-spend-25-years-registered-sex-offender/story?id=32783206
I’m unconvinced that the sex offender does any good for anyone, ever. Even for people convicted of vile offenses, if they’re off parole they’ve paid their debt to society.
Zach Anderson has been taken off the Michigan sex offenders list and I believe removal from Indiana is in the works.
I hadn’t heard that! Good news.
Absolutely. He was forbidden from using a mobile phone or the internet among other things. Who on this earth would create a situation where a young person can’t use a phone or the internet? It’s nuts. How on earth would someone move on and rejoin society as a contributory member without a phone or internet? I can see sentencing where the sex (offender) registry is used in selective cases of serial pedophiles and rapists, but for teenagers it seems an harsh and unnecessary punishment especially if it’s legal for two teens to have sex, but illegal if two teenagers have sex and when one of the two is 18 can get you decades to life on a sex offense registry. Really we don’t care if a 14 year old and 17 year have sex, but we want to punish for a life or even twenty years an 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old? And even more importantly we would use the sex registration for kids using cell phone and computers to set up their liaison when using those devices is as natural as breathing to this age group? It’s just really strange.
^ ^
Not necessarily if the individual concerned was convicted of a crime involving the use of computers, internet, and/or mobile phones.
For instance, I know of a few older HS alums who have been banned from using computers, internet connectivity devices, mobile phones, and more for a decade or more as one of the conditions of their sentence and probationary period after being released because they were convicted of crimes involving their use(phone phreaking, hacking, etc) back in the late '80s.
This is different case but I’m equally apaled by this judge.
http://us.cnn.com/2016/09/12/world/robin-camp-rape-comments-trnd/index.html
What has happened to Ikpeazu? Has he been allowed to matriculate to Penn while the case is pending?
His admission was on hold pending resolution of the lawsuit as of July. The lawsuit isn’t resolved.
http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/07/chukwudi-sexual-assault
He is not on Penn’s track & field roster.
“Lawyers for Owen Labrie, the former prep school student who was convicted of sexually assaulting a classmate, have requested a new trial on the grounds that Labrie’s conviction under a state computer crime law should be thrown out.”
“Labrie’s attorneys argue that Labrie contacted his then-15-year-old accuser…on a school email system, or intranet, that was limited to campus servers and therefore may not be covered under state law that specifies internet service, but not intranet”
"Labrie’s lawyers are now arguing that his trial lawyers should have pursued the intranet vs. internet distinction, according to court documents.
“Failure to investigate the email communication relied upon by the State to convict Mr. Labrie of a serious felony charge in the face of evidence that such communication would not qualify as one utilizing an ‘on-line’ service was a catastrophic failure by trial counsel,” according to the court filing."
“The next hearing for Labrie’s appeal is scheduled for February 2017.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/owen-labries-lawyers-request-trial-sexual-assault-case/story?id=42746886
I am no fan of Labrie, but I continue to think that that charge was ridiculous. I wish it could be reversed without putting the victim through another trial.
Ridiculous because he didn’t violate the statute as written, or ridiculous because there should not be such a law?
Ridiculous because that application of the law was clearly not in the least what was intended. It is meant to apply to creepy predators looking for kids to groom over the internet, not for teens who know each other communicating by text or email or whatever. And frankly, if the law is actually written to encompass the latter, then it needs to be significantly amended.
This is like the “adverse possession” law which was intended to address drug mules driving up the I95 corridor from FL and the like. Instead some prosecutors will try to apply it to individuals who happen to be in a car or a room with someone who has a joint in their pocket or whatever. Simply ridiculous.
(editing to remove word that inadvertented triggered the asterisks)