[Vision2020] Place your anger properly

[Andreas Schou]

On 6/8/06, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andreas,
>
>  The definition is stated as:
>
>  "Any  displayed, physical, or unlawful solicitation for sexual conduct with
> a  person who is unwilling or unable to give legal consent is an act of
> sexual violence."--Idaho Sexual Offender Classification Board (SOCB)
>
>  The guy molested a girl like 6 years old. That isn't considered violent
> according the SOCB definition listed above? I think it is well within the
> definition. He is very violent. The violence may only be toward children,
> but it is still violence.

Okay, Donovan? What you're quoting describes all sex offenders. What
the SOCB is rating is chance of reoffending, which takes into account
a lot of things -- but the seriousness of the crime is, in fact, only
one of those things.

Criticize the standards if you like, but as written, they're being
correctly applied.

-- ACS

>
>
>  _DJA
>
>
> Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > · Steven Sitler, #79278 was not designated as a violent sexual predator."
> >
> > http://www2.state.id.us/socb/Meetings/Jan13%2006.pdf
> >
> > The question that should be asked is why he was not. This is where my
> anger
> > is, not with what school, household, church, grocery store, movie theater,
> > or basket ball court Steven Sitler attended.
>
> Donovan --
>
> There are standards for classifying sex offenders. Not all sex
> offenders fall into the category of "violent sexual predator"; in
> fact, few do. Treatment standards and outcomes recommendations are
> different for violent sexual predators and other, more opportunisitc,
> sex offenders. The reason for classifying sex offenders differently is
> to make distinctions between them.
>
> While I am sympathetic to the idea that, if punishments were more
> severe, there wouldn't be as much a need for community treatment, that
> is not, in fact, how our justice system works. Classification is a
> necessary part of the process.
>
> -- ACS
>
> * There is a certain amount of "killing the messenger" involved in
> everyone's treatment of the sheriff's department and the prosecutor's
> office. I don't want to let the prosecutor and law enforcement off the
> hook entirely, or even partially, but -- from what I see in front of
> me -- there are evidentiary problems with what could be considered
> priveleged communications between Sitler and his pastors, the victims
> are largely too young to testify, and there do not appear to have been
> any direct witnesses. With all of those in place, this could
> potentially have been a difficult case to win.
>
> The standard that the prosecutor's office has to meet is "beyond a
> reasonable doubt." This doesn't mean "50% in one person's mind", it
> means "100% in twelve people's minds." In this case, where I'm not
> sure what evidence would be available to be presented and who would be
> available to testify, I'm not certain that I would trade a 100% chance
> at a short sentence and community supervision for a 25% chance for a
> long sentence.
>
> Plus, Idaho's sex crimes laws are an enormous, archaic mess, and they
> need to be reformed.
>
>
>
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com