<p>[Convicted</a> Steubenville teen classified as sex offender - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/justice/ohio-steubenville-sex-offender/index.html?hpt=hp_t3]Convicted”>http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/justice/ohio-steubenville-sex-offender/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)</p>
<p>Can’t believe CNN left these facts out of the story:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am satisfied that Mays is being punished. </p>
<p>I am also glad that for an offense he committed at age 17 and is unlikely to repeat again, that he has the opportunity to not have the sex offender classification hanging around his neck for the rest of this life.</p>
<p>The adult facilitator of the misogynism, on the other hand, gets rewarded
<a href=“http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/steubenville-football-coach-contract/64435/[/url]”>http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/steubenville-football-coach-contract/64435/</a></p>
<p>Oh…just want to make clear that I wasn’t expressing an opinion one way or the other as to whether Mays should be able to apply for a change in his sex offender status. I just think it’s poor reporting by CNN to leave that fact out of the story.</p>
<p>Okay, </p>
<p>I did a little googling and the results were disappointing:</p>
<p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Jonri, I’m struck by the excuse that he “didn’t know he was undergoing an assessment.” To me, the lawyer is implying, perhaps inadvertently, that if he had known he would have been prepared to lie and produce the desired faux emotions. Instead, he let his real feelings be known.</p>
<p>GMT, in general I agree, but in his case it seems quite likely that he WOULD re-offend. Almost certainly if he hadn’t been caught, and even now he denies culpability. I hope that they manage to get through to him.</p>
<p>Astonishing that the school board did not at least table the matter of the coach’s contract pending the results of the investigation.</p>
<p>@Consolation, I think he’s unlikely to re-offend now, not because he is remorseful (I doubt he has a shred of remorse), but because he doesn’t enjoy being punished.</p>
<p>Even lab rats can be conditioned to deliberately avoid a nasty electric shock.</p>
<p>Sex offender lists were not supposed to be punishments in themselves. They were intended to protect the public from individuals who have a propensity to commit additional sex offenses. If the two boys are not likely to commit future sex offenses, they should be removed from the list.</p>
<p>The purpose of punishment, you learn (or should learn) in law school is:</p>
<ol>
<li>Deter the person</li>
<li>Deter others</li>
<li>Express moral outrage</li>
</ol>
<p>Registry as a sex offender is more about 2 and 3 than 1.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>42 USC 16901. </p>
<p>Congress says to protect the public.</p>
<p>There are two clauses: protecting the public is just the first one.</p>
<p>
Maybe its time for Congress to refine the law</p>
<p>The deterrence of others is part of protecting the public. If you read the entire purpose section of the law, it begins with these lines:</p>
<p>“In order to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children, and in response to the vicious attacks by violent predators against the victims listed below.” It then lists 17 children who were assaulted and sometimes murdered going back as far as 1989. </p>
<p>A court would interpret the language as referring to the standard usages of criminal law: to deter the person, deter others and to express moral outrage. That is, crimes of this nature shock the conscience and thus deserve punishment (3), listing on a register may make it easier to identify any of these people if they reoffend and it warns the public so they can take steps to avoid being victims (2) and it serves as a warning to future offenders that they will be punished over a period of time (1). It’s pretty straight-forward criminal law.</p>
<p>The only controversial part has been - now was - the part that a list tells people a criminal is in their neighborhood. Part of the process of legal rehabilitation has been that crime is “forgiven” and an offender, once released, need not walk around with some special uniform or other markings. A list is a form of marking. I can look up sex offenders in my area on crimereports.com and other sources. The inclusion of public warning was an issue for a time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you cite one that says that? </p>
<p>There are many states with sex offender registries that existed before the federal act. Not all states have adopted the federal standard. If sex offender registries are considered in the criminal law context such as the punishment, deter the person, deter others, express moral outrage, etc. they are likely cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the US constitution. If the Adam Walsh act is treated as a criminal law, then placing existing state offenders on the lists risks ex post facto violations. If they are treated as civil considerations such as involuntary commitment (protecting the public), they can pass the constitutional test.</p>
<p>I don’t think the sex offender registry is controversial . When we bought our house there were certain neighborhoods I would not live in because I had small children at the time and there was no way I was going to take a chance that one of my kids might end up a victim.
Sure its possible one might buy a house in my neighborhood and I can’t protect my kids from everything but trying to keep them away from registered sex offenders is seems like common sense to me.</p>
<p>Ma’Like’s attorney is challenging the constitutionality of the whole way in which Ohio law deals with juvenile sex offenders–at least that’s my understanding from the news accounts. </p>
<p>I think the argument Mays’ attorney made–that he didn’t realize he was being evaluated-- was just plain dumb. The judge’s response was that Mays hasn’t begun rehab yet, implying that rehab may be successful in convincing Mays that what he did was wrong. </p>
<p>I hope he’s right.</p>
<p>Regarding registries, does anyone remember the case in Maine where a disturbed individual selected a couple of men from the list and murdered them, then tried to escape to Boston on a commuter bus and killed himself? One of the people he killed was, if I am not mistaken, a young man who was found guilty of statutory rape because he had sex with his 15-yr-old GF when he was 19. (As has been pointed out, this could easily be two HS students.) The state registry did not specify why the individual was on it. We also had a movement in recent years to make listing on the registry retroactive to people who were convicted of or plead to crimes before the list existed. I personally have a problem with this. There are certainly people who agreed to plead to crimes who would never have done so had lifetime registry been on the table.</p>
<p>
The registry is controversial, because teenagers get caught by the ‘age of consent’ laws.
[Statutory</a> Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements: Summary of Current State Laws](<a href=“http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/summary.shtml]Statutory”>Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements | ASPE)</p>
<p>If a 16 y.o. and 15 y.o. boyfriend/girlfriend are caught having sex w mutual consent, the 16 y.o. can be charged w statutory rape and have a sex-offender albatross around the neck for the rest of his/her life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you cite any case where that has happened? I only know the law in one state, but here there has to be at least a 3 year difference in age. I don’t know of any state where a 16 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old could end up on a registry.</p>
<p>Maybe there is one…if so…please tell me which state’s law would allow this.</p>
<p>It’s not ex post facto because the laws either exist or don’t when the act is committed. As to criminal or civil, I don’t know enough about the exact history of this act but the chapter 42 USC contains a huge mix of stuff that includes civil and criminal issues (like a federal death penalty, whatever gun bans have existed, etc.). So I really don’t know what the distinction would be, if any. As to how the laws are interpreted, this is how we are taught they are and this is how we see it done in practice. The reasons for punishment are ancient. They precede the US system. As for making the argument, there are rafts of studies and tons of cases in which the lack of deterrent effect has been argued, notably in death penalty cases because those usually involve passion, murder committed during other crimes (felony murder) or, frankly, some form of mental problem the courts don’t recognize as excusing guilt.</p>
<p>I would be surprised if sex offender laws were applied retroactively to crimes committed before the date of the law. I can’t see how that would be constitutional. </p>
<p>As I remember, the main issue about sex offenders was retention in a facility after the term had been served. That involved discussion about the nature of imminent harm. I honestly don’t remember how that played out.</p>