Andreas,<br> <br> I will take your word for it. But I do consider him to be violent.<br> <br> Best,<br> <br> _DJA<br><br><b><i>Andreas Schou <ophite@gmail.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> On 6/8/06, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 @yahoo.com=""> wrote:<br>> Andreas,<br>><br>> The definition is stated as:<br>><br>> "Any displayed, physical, or unlawful solicitation for sexual conduct with<br>> a person who is unwilling or unable to give legal consent is an act of<br>> sexual violence."--Idaho Sexual Offender Classification Board (SOCB)<br>><br>> The guy molested a girl like 6 years old. That isn't considered violent<br>> according the SOCB definition listed above? I think it is well within the<br>> definition. He is very violent. The violence may only be toward children,<br>> but it is still violence.<br><br>Okay,
Donovan? What you're quoting describes all sex offenders. What<br>the SOCB is rating is chance of reoffending, which takes into account<br>a lot of things -- but the seriousness of the crime is, in fact, only<br>one of those things.<br><br>Criticize the standards if you like, but as written, they're being<br>correctly applied.<br><br>-- ACS<br><br>><br>><br>> _DJA<br>><br>><br>> Andreas Schou <ophite @gmail.com=""> wrote:<br>> > · Steven Sitler, #79278 was not designated as a violent sexual predator."<br>> ><br>> > http://www2.state.id.us/socb/Meetings/Jan13%2006.pdf<br>> ><br>> > The question that should be asked is why he was not. This is where my<br>> anger<br>> > is, not with what school, household, church, grocery store, movie theater,<br>> > or basket ball court Steven Sitler attended.<br>><br>> Donovan --<br>><br>> There are standards for classifying sex offenders. Not all sex<br>>
offenders fall into the category of "violent sexual predator"; in<br>> fact, few do. Treatment standards and outcomes recommendations are<br>> different for violent sexual predators and other, more opportunisitc,<br>> sex offenders. The reason for classifying sex offenders differently is<br>> to make distinctions between them.<br>><br>> While I am sympathetic to the idea that, if punishments were more<br>> severe, there wouldn't be as much a need for community treatment, that<br>> is not, in fact, how our justice system works. Classification is a<br>> necessary part of the process.<br>><br>> -- ACS<br>><br>> * There is a certain amount of "killing the messenger" involved in<br>> everyone's treatment of the sheriff's department and the prosecutor's<br>> office. I don't want to let the prosecutor and law enforcement off the<br>> hook entirely, or even partially, but -- from what I see in front of<br>> me -- there are
evidentiary problems with what could be considered<br>> priveleged communications between Sitler and his pastors, the victims<br>> are largely too young to testify, and there do not appear to have been<br>> any direct witnesses. With all of those in place, this could<br>> potentially have been a difficult case to win.<br>><br>> The standard that the prosecutor's office has to meet is "beyond a<br>> reasonable doubt." This doesn't mean "50% in one person's mind", it<br>> means "100% in twelve people's minds." In this case, where I'm not<br>> sure what evidence would be available to be presented and who would be<br>> available to testify, I'm not certain that I would trade a 100% chance<br>> at a short sentence and community supervision for a 25% chance for a<br>> long sentence.<br>><br>> Plus, Idaho's sex crimes laws are an enormous, archaic mess, and they<br>> need to be reformed.<br>><br>><br>><br>>
__________________________________________________<br>> Do You Yahoo!?<br>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around<br>> http://mail.yahoo.com<br></ophite></donovanjarnold2005></blockquote><br><p> __________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com