Donor is behind effort to ease sex-offender rules

Reader

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
93
http://www.centurylink.net/news/rea...-donor_is_behind_effort_to_ease_sexoffend-ap/

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — As the politically connected owners of a multi-state tobacco store chain, Jon Rand and Sharie Keil have contributed thousands of dollars to Missouri politicians and even hired their own lobbyists. But the cause they are pushing right now has nothing to do with cigarettes.

The husband and wife are on a behind-the-scenes mission to pass legislation that would remove hundreds of people convicted of sex crimes as juveniles from the state's online listing of registered sex offenders. Their cause is intensely personal, because their son is among those whose name, photo and address would come down from law enforcement websites........

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill earlier this summer, warning it could endanger the public by hiding the whereabouts of violent sex offenders. But the battle is not over. Missouri lawmakers are to convene Wednesday to consider overriding the veto........

Keil and Rand's son pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse in Illinois for an incident that occurred in June 1998. He was age 17 at the time, and the girl was 12. They say their son, and others like him, deserve a shot at a normal life without the spotlight of a permanent listing on sex-offender websites.

Much more in 4p. article.....
 
Tsk, tsk. Sometimes "family values" are SO very inconvenient. 17 and 12? Pretty sick.
 
17 and 12 is not jut exploration, unless their son is badly delayed. He should be on the list. I agree about some underage offenders (those that were exploring or just did something like exposing themselves), but not somebody like that.
 
I'm surprised the state legislature passed this bill. What were they thinking?

Anytime a young man of 17 is convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a 12 year old girl, that's fairly serious. Considering her age, it doesn't sound like youthful indiscretion.

Illinois statute

(c) The accused commits aggravated criminal sexual
abuse if:

(1) the accused was 17 years of age or over and (i)
commits an act of sexual conduct
with a victim who was under 13 years of age when th
e act was committed; or (ii)
commits an act of sexual conduct with a victim who
was at least 13 years of age but
under 17 years of age when the act was committed an
d the accused used force or
threat of force to commit the act;

http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/legalresources/Illinois 5-12-16.pdf

What normal 17 yo guy wants to have sex with a 12 year old girl?
 
Um, Missourians, if you're tired of reading new Websleuths threads about new crimes committed by convicted sex offenders, please email that article and your thoughts to your legislators!!!

http://www.senate.mo.gov/

type your address into the address box and fire off an email.

Now!

Thank you,

Laughing
 
If Missouri changes its law re purge certain sex offenders off the state's registry then....

... would it be possible for a commerical website to download data from Missouri's sex offender registry website and maintain that data past the time that Missouri purges offenders off its database?
 
Wait...something doesn't make sense. These people (Rand & Keil) have money. Politicians have accepted their donations for years. A politician accepting a sizable donation would question something like tos and not want their self associated with them if something were nefarious. That's what makes me think more about the crime in this case - they want juveniles off of the registry. I question why if the crime is truly heinous then the person is dangerous. So lets look at where this stems from...their son. He was 17. What is his exact level of crime besides just being a sex offense? Was it rape? Is the media misreporting facts to serve an agenda? Why do they keep saying the victim was 12 when clearly all of the records inform victim was 13-16?
 
http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/

(Anthony Keil Rand)

2z7kaba.jpg
 
Wait...something doesn't make sense. These people (Rand & Keil) have money. Politicians have accepted their donations for years. A politician accepting a sizable donation would question something like tos and not want their self associated with them if something were nefarious. That's what makes me think more about the crime in this case - they want juveniles off of the registry. I question why if the crime is truly heinous then the person is dangerous. So lets look at where this stems from...their son. He was 17. What is his exact level of crime besides just being a sex offense? Was it rape? Is the media misreporting facts to serve an agenda? Why do they keep saying the victim was 12 when clearly all of the records inform victim was 13-16?

Thanks, Jersey*Girl....Do you have a link to those records showing the difference in the victim's age? TIA

Just from cases we've seen on the forum usually when it is 'aggravated sexual abuse', it means rape...IMO

I just checked another link and it still says she was 12 at the time of the offense. Also says some legislators are rethinking the veto:

Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard said he's not pressing for an override and is no longer sure whether he would vote "yes."

"Are we going to be letting sex offenders out that may (result in) unintended consequences?" asked Richard, a Republican from Joplin and a former House speaker......

Keil and Rand's son pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse in Illinois for an incident that occurred in June 1998. He was age 17 at the time, and the girl was 12. .......

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/donor-effort-ease-sex-offender-rules-20180702
 
Wait...something doesn't make sense. These people (Rand & Keil) have money. Politicians have accepted their donations for years. A politician accepting a sizable donation would question something like tos and not want their self associated with them if something were nefarious. That's what makes me think more about the crime in this case - they want juveniles off of the registry. I question why if the crime is truly heinous then the person is dangerous. So lets look at where this stems from...their son. He was 17. What is his exact level of crime besides just being a sex offense? Was it rape? Is the media misreporting facts to serve an agenda? Why do they keep saying the victim was 12 when clearly all of the records inform victim was 13-16?

Sometimes, if the perp takes a plea, it changes the level and also description of the crime.

My father was convicted of CSC against a 9 year old boy, but because he pled guilty to a lesser charge than he was originally charged with, all of his paperwork reads "person 12-15".
 
All of the mugshots online also state victim was 13-16. So was it consensual sex between teenagers and maybe here parents got mad & pressed charges or was it a true out & out rape against an unsuspecting victim?

If its a true rape in every sense of the word, then I don't get why Rand & Keil are behind the change in registry laws. After all, the unlicensed should be protected from monsters involved in such crimes. However, I can see their point if he participated in something nefarious such as clowning around or such (not to be taken out of context) - then maybe people like him deserve a second chance bc staying on the registry for life will forever hold them back. Should these idiots pay for a mistake their whole life if the crime doesn't fit but they have to serve their sentence based on how all sex offenders are sentenced? Now, if there was a relationship say between a 14 y/o & a 17 y/o and it was consensual but the parents were mad, them I'm against the registry altogether in that situation. So I wonder what the scenario is for his particular crime...
 
Thanks, Jersey*Girl....Do you have a link to those records showing the difference in the victim's age? TIA

Just from cases we've seen on the forum usually when it is 'aggravated sexual abuse', it means rape...IMO

I just checked another link and it still says she was 12 at the time of the offense. Also says some legislators are rethinking the veto:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/donor-effort-ease-sex-offender-rules-20180702

Don't have the official court records, only the info from the IL registry. If you google his full name, other mugshots come up for the same crime and they all say 13-16. I'm so confused. Why does the media keep printing 12?
 
Sometimes, if the perp takes a plea, it changes the level and also description of the crime.

My father was convicted of CSC against a 9 year old boy, but because he pled guilty to a lesser charge than he was originally charged with, all of his paperwork reads "person 12-15".

Oh. My. God. They can do that? How is that legal? It's misleading to the public! That's infuriating! Now maybe the articles make more sense.

How can a 17 y/o have consensual sex with a 12 y/o? Nope. That's rape.
 
Holy cow not_my_kids, makes so much more sense why the media keep printing 12 y/o now. Thank you. So now if I were a media person, I'd interview the D.A. to find out if AKR plead down and if so why change the age from 12 to 13-16 for his victim. That would be some good reporting if they do find out bc if I questioned the age then surely there are others doing the same.

Side note... Rand (the father) has contributed over $100,000 in political donations...
 
Daddy Rand made political contrib's in Missouri and hired a lobbyist in Missouri, to try to change S/O registry laws in Missouri.

The screen cap linked above (http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/ ) re son Rand shows his conviction in Sangamon County, Illinois and shows his address as out of state in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Was son Rand convicted on two different S/O's,one in MO & one in IL, for which S/O info is originating from MO & IL registries? Or is it something else?

Why would Daddy Rand lobby only for changes to MO law, if the IL S/O register would still show son Rand as a S/O? Or will Daddy Rand work on IL legislature next?

Color me confused. :facepalm:
 
Daddy Rand made political contrib's in Missouri and hired a lobbyist in Missouri, to try to change S/O registry laws in Missouri.

The screen cap linked above (http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/ ) re son Rand shows his conviction in Sangamon County, Illinois and shows his address as out of state in Souix Falls, South Dakota.

Was son Rand convicted on two different S/O's,one in MO & one in IL, for which S/O info is originating from MO & IL registries? Or is it something else?

Why would Daddy Rand lobby only for changes to MO law, if the IL S/O register would still show son Rand as a S/O? Or will Daddy Rand work on IL legislature next?

Color me confused. :facepalm:

Same here, but I found this about the MO. laws and think it is because of the federal requirement to register which would apply to both states:

Many successful challenges to sex offender registration laws in the United States have been in Missouri because of a unique provision in the Missouri Constitution (Article I, Section 13) prohibiting laws "retrospective in [their] operation."[14]

In Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 837 (Mo. banc 2006), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the Missouri Constitution did not allow the state to place anyone on the registry who had been convicted or pleaded guilty to a registrable offense before the sex offender registration law went into effect on January 1, 1995..........

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled on Keathley's appeal (Doe v. Phillips now styled Doe v. Keathley) on June 16, 2009. The Court held that the Missouri Constitution's provision prohibiting laws retrospective in operation no longer exempts individuals from registration if they are subject to the independent Federal obligation created under the Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913.[20] As a result, many offenders who were previously exempt under the Court's 2006 holding in Doe v. Phillips were once again required to register.

On January 12, 2010, Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan ruled that individuals who plead guilty to a sex offense are not required to register under Federal Law and thus are not required to register in Missouri if the date of their plea was prior to the passage of the Missouri registration law.[21] (which does not apply in this case)

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Sex_offender_registration?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

But I still don't see why the Rand parents are pushing this veto in MO, when their son's offense and record is in Ill, unless they plan for him to move back and then he would have to register in MO.???

Help! :waitasec:
 
BTW, for anyone who did not read the linked article on the first post,
here is a statement from the man arguing to change MO. S/O registry laws, so his son's info would be deleted:

"Anybody on the registry is a target for people who like to hurt other people."

Is a target? No.
Could be a target? Possibly.

He seems to be overlooking that any person on the list hurt another person.
Proven as fact, beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just possibly.
JMO

ETA:
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read/category/Us%20News/article/ap-donor_is_behind_effort_to_ease_sexoffend-ap/
 
Honestly, I don't really get the point of the sex offender registry to begin with. If someone is convicted of a sex crime there is already a publicly available criminal record of it, why the need for another? Seems a little hysterical to me.
 
Honestly, I don't really get the point of the sex offender registry to begin with. If someone is convicted of a sex crime there is already a publicly available criminal record of it, why the need for another? Seems a little hysterical to me.

Adding someone to the sex offender registry limits where they can live, where they can work, makes them easier to find for law enforcement, and gives them extra restrictions that can be put in place for the course of the offender's life, instead of just while they serve a parole or probation term. Also, if an offender committed an offense while still a juvenile, that record would be sealed, not public record. The sex offender registry make it so that we know about the dangerous 17 year old who otherwise would be able to hide their actions behind useful indiscretion. It also takes the burden for monitoring off of the state and puts it on the offender, so that they can be punished if they don't at least make sure to update their information with local authorities.
 
Adding someone to the sex offender registry limits where they can live, where they can work, makes them easier to find for law enforcement, and gives them extra restrictions that can be put in place for the course of the offender's life, instead of just while they serve a parole or probation term. Also, if an offender committed an offense while still a juvenile, that record would be sealed, not public record. The sex offender registry make it so that we know about the dangerous 17 year old who otherwise would be able to hide their actions behind useful indiscretion. It also takes the burden for monitoring off of the state and puts it on the offender, so that they can be punished if they don't at least make sure to update their information with local authorities.

There are no restrictions on where someone on the sex offender registry can live and as far as having to check in with authorities and update their information, why do we want to create reasons to punish people? If a person has served his/her sentence, well, wasn't that their punishment?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
2,203
Total visitors
2,377

Forum statistics

Threads
589,970
Messages
17,928,523
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top