Child kidnapper fights sex offender label

[Ang50]

Karl -

I would completely support a violent offender registry and tracking system. There was a post in the Jury Room about a woman who lives next door to a convicted murderer. He's not on any list.

As far as the tub pics - if that's all there is to the story - then it's a case of misuse of prosecutorial discretion. As far as the murderer 24 year old - I do agree that states should have laws where there is no statutory rape if the act is consensual and the participants are within 2-3 years of each other. Again, though - that's prosecutorial discretion.

 

[Ang50]

Until we have a violent offender system, or a tracker of predators (sexual and non-sexual) of children, then I think that I'd rather err on the side of putting a couple people on it than leaving someone off.

I'm very sorry that the purpose of the registry is misused for harassment and killing. Obviously, that's a crime for the people committing it. But it doesn't mean that the registry should be given up.

I don't know current laws regarding what can be given for the circumstances of the crimes. In some cases, it would be pretty terrible to disclose this because the victim could be inferred. But in general, I agree more info to help assess risk would be better. However, that requires discretion and someone's judgment... and my previous post shows how that can go wrong.

 

[Ang50]

Well - most states have electronic records. WI allows public access to civil and criminal records. You can't get juvenile records, and they allow some stuff to expire (1st drunk driving convictions) and not be listed.

I've found people in the registry, then looked them up in the public records. Surprise - most of these guys have LENGTHY records and need to be off the streets. However, the online records also have very sparse information about the circumstances - you'd need to go to the courthouse to get any reports, etc.

 

[KarlK]

your idea has merit but it would take time and money. it has not been easy to get every state to have a SOR. to get every state to have all felonies listed with all the facts behind the crime would be near impossible.

In this day an age obtaining this information is easy because it already exists in the required format, but they make you pay for it so most people don't bother. States who claim that this would require further legislation are right however, but by this they implicitly admit that putting people on the sex offender registry who don't belong there is probably illegal as well but as long as no one challenges it it's okay. That approach usually backfires somewhere down the road. If the ex-con from NY wins his case it could have very costly repercussions in many states. IMHO the best approach in justice is the legal one. May sound funny but in most states there is no law that says passing illegal bills is illegal. Illegal laws are considered legal until challenged at which point they are declared illegal.

Like someone above said keep on adding irrelevant records to the registry and ultimately the whole thing will come apart.

 

[Ang50]

"Legal" in this case is as defined by the legislature and as interpreted by the courts. This guy is not likely to win b/c the legislature said the registry includes kidnappers. Therefore, it's "legal". The only way a court would overrule it is if it somehow violates his constitutional rights (state or US). Due process privacy rights are shaky, esp. for criminals, there's really not an equal protection claim because it would go under rational basis...

So he's SOL. NOW - if the legislature hadn't specifically said kidnappers, and yet he was on it just b/c of the nature of his crime - then he'd have an argument.

 

[southcitymom]

I doubt that. It's probably because of harassment issues. While I have little sympathy towards kidnappers-for-money I have even less sympathy for child abusers/molesters even when they are the victim's parents. I can see why this man wouldn't want to be labeled as the latter. In a way it's like making someone pay for someone else's crimes. As far as I know this guy has neither molested nor harmed the child physically and he has done his (deserved) time for the kidnapping. He has never been charged with nor convicted of a sex crime so logically, he shouldn't be labeled as a sex offender, which is certainly worse than being a 'simple' ex-con, which he is. The sex offender registry shouldn't be used for other purposes than that of keeping track of a category of criminals (sex offenders) who are prone to re-offend and therefore constitute a specific threat the community needs to be aware of. Other than those, marginalizing other categories of criminals who have paid their debt to society will hamper their rehabilitation and could pressure them into reverting to a criminal lifestyle therefore creating a new threat rather than neutralizing one. The way things go I wouldn't be overly surprised if someday unpaid parking tickets will be all it takes to label one as a potential sex offender and add his/her name to the list 'just in case'.

This is an interesting topic with lots of good posts. I agree with KarlK. The sex offender registry should track sex offenders. I'm no fan of those who exploit children, but I think this guy has a valid point.

 

[txsvicki]

People who do time on a regular basis for beating their kids to a pulp or even murdering them don't end up on the registry either, as long as they haven't been convicted of sexual abuse. If you want to put other categories of criminals on the sex offender registry then don't call it a sex offender registry. Criminal records exist for a reason.

I agree. Those who kill and hurt children during sex crimes are the lowest scum of the earth and should be in a certain category. How will laws ever change to properly punish these freaks if it's not recognized separately as the worst of all crimes committed.

 

[KarlK]

"Legal" in this case is as defined by the legislature and as interpreted by the courts. This guy is not likely to win b/c the legislature said the registry includes kidnappers. Therefore, it's "legal". The only way a court would overrule it is if it somehow violates his constitutional rights (state or US). Due process privacy rights are shaky, esp. for criminals, there's really not an equal protection claim because it would go under rational basis...

So he's SOL. NOW - if the legislature hadn't specifically said kidnappers, and yet he was on it just b/c of the nature of his crime - then he'd have an argument.

He won't win in lower courts because his only option is to challenge the legality of the state's decision to include kidnapping as a de facto sexual offense for the purpose of including kidnappers-for-money on the state's SOR. A final, binding decision on this matter can only be rendered by a state's highest court, in this case the New York Court of Appeals whose decisions can only be reversed by the US Supreme Court. But even if it doesn't make it to the Supreme Court a decision by the Court of Appeals will have consequences on other states as it can be used as a legal precedent. One thing is certain, the Court of Appeals can declare any law passed by the State Legislature illegal. There are no juries at that level, it's pure legal rhetoric and sometimes makes little practical sense.

 

[KarlK]

I agree. Those who kill and hurt children during sex crimes are the lowest scum of the earth and should be in a certain category.

They should also be in jail. A registry with narratives would allow the community to know exactly who's out there on the loose that shouldn't be. Right now there are only limited ways to tell if someone who is on the registry is actually dangerous. I believe many are not a threat and the community would be better off if there was a way to tell otherwise over generalization occurs which leads to either paranoia or complacency, neither of which is healthy.

 

[sherri79]

He won't win in lower courts because his only option is to challenge the legality of the state's decision to include kidnapping as a de facto sexual offense for the purpose of including kidnappers-for-money on the state's SOR. A final, binding decision on this matter can only be rendered by a state's highest court, in this case the New York Court of Appeals whose decisions can only be reversed by the US Supreme Court. But even if it doesn't make it to the Supreme Court a decision by the Court of Appeals will have consequences on other states as it can be used as a legal precedent. One thing is certain, the Court of Appeals can declare any law passed by the State Legislature illegal. There are no juries at that level, it's pure legal rhetoric and sometimes makes little practical sense.

after rereading the story i think there may be a missunderstanding about this case. when released in that state they look at each felon. then they clasify they felon based on risk. level 1 level 2 and so on. level 3 is highest risk. if you are placed as a level 2 or 3 you can appeal. this law has already been challanged at a federal lvl. they said you must allow the appeal but did not do away with the law. the judge who reviewed the case said he did not think the law should apply to this man. a 4 judge panel overruled him.

a four-judge panel with the state's Appellate Division found that the kidnapping of children by strangers is, "a frequent precursor to a sex offense," and that "the absence of a sexual element from the kidnapping may be the merely fortuitous result of the interruption of the offender's plan."
The panel also ruled that the title of a law was "of little significance," as long as the wording of the actual law was not ambiguous in its meaning.

"

Whether in common parlance the defendant is a sex offender, or his offense is a sex offense, is of no legal significance where, as here, the Legislature has rationally chosen to categorize him or his offense as such," the panel ruled.

at this time...

Moore, whose registration has been postponed pending the outcome of the case, is waiting to hear whether the new York State Court of Appeals will consider his case.

 

[sherri79]

Assemblyman Michael Spano, R-Yonkers, a longtime advocate of enhancing legislation aimed at child sex offenders, said he favored the Appellate Division's ruling and said the registration process was fair because Moore's convictions would be accurately posted on the state's sex offender Web site.

so when you look at the registry you will see why he is on it.

 

[KarlK]

after rereading the story i think there may be a missunderstanding about this case. when released in that state they look at each felon. then they clasify they felon based on risk. level 1 level 2 and so on. level 3 is highest risk. if you are placed as a level 2 or 3 you can appeal.

By this they likely mean a released felon can appeal the decision of putting him/her on the SOR to the review board of the body that decided he/she should be put on the registry. In some states that body is the Parole Board, I'm not sure who does it in NY. This would be an administrative appeal, not a judiciary one. There is a federal body regulating administrative tribunals which can be appealed to but these courts do not have competence to rule on the legal status of laws.

a four-judge panel with the state's Appellate Division found that the kidnapping of children by strangers is, "a frequent precursor to a sex offense," and that "the absence of a sexual element from the kidnapping may be the merely fortuitous result of the interruption of the offender's plan." The panel also ruled that the title of a law was "of little significance," as long as the wording of the actual law was not ambiguous in its meaning.

This is what the Court of Appeals would have to rule on, since the Appellate Divisions is the last intermediary step towards Appeals. Appellate justices can render decisions that they know should be final but if they feel that the case at hand should generate a ruling on the very legality (in some states they call it constitutionality) of laws they will usually issue a verdict that will force the issue to come before the Court of Appeals, unless the defendant declines. Appeals Justices are almost always scholars with a background in constitutional matters rather than former criminal attorneys or prosecutors like judges in lower courts so it's often difficult to predict how they will rule simply based on lower courts rulings, even Appellate Divisions (that's why NY bookies distrust Appeals lol) and they have little consideration for the parties involved even in high-profile criminal cases, which is not the case here. In this case Appeals will have to issue a verdict regarding the very legality of the law that allows putting non sex offenders on the SOR. If indeed the ex-con takes his case there, as his attorney will likely counsel him to do, I believe it will be the first time since the SOR exists that laws pertaining to its regulation will be put to the test. Certainly a case to follow.

 

[KarlK]

so when you look at the registry you will see why he is on it.

When Spano says that "Moore's convictions would be accurately posted" on the registry he's not saying anything new, the convictions are already included on the SOR. Moore's entry will say "kidnapping" and since it's on the SOR most people will think "this kidnapped and raped a kid" when in fact that's not what happened. A narrative, even a short one, would avoid this. If someone wants to beat him up for the kidnapping so be it! He's done it after all, but he didn't rape anyone and shouldn't be made to be perceived as if he had.

 

[Amraann]

When Spano says that "Moore's convictions would be accurately posted" on the registry he's not saying anything new, the convictions are already included on the SOR. Moore's entry will say "kidnapping" and since it's on the SOR most people will think "this kidnapped and raped a kid" when in fact that's not what happened. A narrative, even a short one, would avoid this. If someone wants to beat him up for the kidnapping so be it! He's done it after all, but he didn't rape anyone and shouldn't be made to be perceived as if he had.

I agree there should be a narrative and not just for cases like this but also to distinguish the 17 who is convicted for having sex with his 16 YO GF as opposed to a true pedophile.

 

[Details]

I agree with him - the sex offender registry is for a special group who has shown to be very likely to reoffend. We shouldn't be adding people to that list who don't fit that category (even though we've already got problems with that - like the 19 year old with a 16 year old). If we want an ex-con list, or a violent felony list - let's make that list.

 

[angelmom]

Personally I find it a little frightening that someone is saying, well, you didn't actually commit a sex crime, but the crime you did commit is a common precursor to a sex crime, so we are going to label you a sex offender anyway. I mean, does that not bother anyone else???

 

[sherri79]

Personally I find it a little frightening that someone is saying, well, you didn't actually commit a sex crime, but the crime you did commit is a common precursor to a sex crime, so we are going to label you a sex offender anyway. I mean, does that not bother anyone else???

for me its a case by case basis. if they changed the law so they can put a bank robber on it i would be livid. the fact that the law says a kidnapper of a non related child can be listed is cool with me. with the rampant use of plea deals it is very cool with me.

 

[LovingTheChaos]

I agree with him - the sex offender registry is for a special group who has shown to be very likely to reoffend. We shouldn't be adding people to that list who don't fit that category (even though we've already got problems with that - like the 19 year old with a 16 year old). If we want an ex-con list, or a violent felony list - let's make that list.

I think we do need a separate list, perhaps, or rankings for people ie 3 = sex offender of children under 12. 4 = violent offender against children, etc.

In the case of my Brother in law, he had been terrorizing my sister for years. Almost from the time they were married. In the end, she was recording every conversation with him, & also keeping all the voice mails he left (there were some doozies). The last straw for him was kidnapping the children & threatening to kill them. There were a few cases back then of fathers murdering their own kids to punish the mother.

He was not supposed to get out of jail for at least another 5 years, but thanks to a technicality he is walking free. Putting him on the registry gave my sister a way to keep track of where he lives & works, & she can see a recent picture.

The prosecutor made the deal with the understanding that it was very likely that this man would get out of prision & attempt to contact my sister, & possibly hurt or kill her & my nieces. He has been out for a year, & so far, he has been on good behavior. As long as he minds his own business, he will be taken off the list. We live with the fear every day that he will decide to carry out the threats he made 7 years ago...

 

[angelmom]

for me its a case by case basis. if they changed the law so they can put a bank robber on it i would be livid. the fact that the law says a kidnapper of a non related child can be listed is cool with me. with the rampant use of plea deals it is very cool with me.

That's actually not too far off in this case...not saying he's not a bad guy, but nothing to indicate he's a risk as an SO.

http://www.nyjournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/NEWS02/705150332

"There was no sexual component to this crime. There was never any suggestion that there was a sexual component to this crime," said Jeanne Mettler, one of Moore's court-appointed lawyers who is fighting to get his Level 3 sex offender designation rescinded.

<snip>

Before Westchester County Judge Rory Bellantoni in 2005, Moore argued that the law shouldn't apply to him, and the judge agreed, ruling that he would not have to register.

But that decision was overturned last month after an appeal by the Westchester County District Attorney's Office. Mettler said she would challenge that decision in the state's highest court.

Moore, also known as James Taylor, was 21 years old in May 1975 when he and three other men broke into a house on Sheldrake Lane wearing masks and carrying loaded guns intent on robbing a man named "Jimmy," who according to court transcripts was a drug dealer who owed them money and had gotten a friend of theirs killed.

"Jimmy" wasn't home, but his wife and three young children were. Moore and his accomplices beat the woman, tied her up and locked her in a closet after telling her that they were taking her daughter and wanted $500,000 for her safe return. Moore and an accomplice were seen fleeing by New Rochelle police, who chased them into Eastchester, where they were captured within five minutes.

The child was unharmed. The two other robbers escaped.

"I remember the case. It was one of those situations where if they would have just left and not taken the baby, the mother probably would have never even called us," said New Rochelle police Capt. Kevin Kealy, who was a rookie cop at the time.

<snip>

During his testimony, Moore said that the idea to kidnap the child was not his and that he did not even know whether it was a boy or a girl until he and his accomplice got into the getaway car. When asked what he planned to do with the child, he said he and Curton were going to take her to a woman's house in Brooklyn for safekeeping until they got their ransom money.

<snip>

Bellantoni, during the hearing and in his final ruling, was not convinced that the law made sense as applied to Moore.

"SORA's purpose, as derived from the statute's bill jacket, is to provide the public with information regarding sex offenders, not simply those convicted of felonies," Bellantoni wrote. "But the legislation isn't necessarily consistent with the risk assessment instrument. ... The risk assessment instrument is an instrument designed to determine whether this individual is at risk to reoffend sexually and his argument is how can I be at risk to reoffend sexually when I have never sexually offended."

In overturning Bellantoni, a four-judge panel with the state's Appellate Division found that the kidnapping of children by strangers is, "a frequent precursor to a sex offense," and that "the absence of a sexual element from the kidnapping may be the merely fortuitous result of the interruption of the offender's plan."

 

[sherri79]

the fact their was no sexual aspect to this crime does not change the fact he kidnapped a 2yr old. that is diffrent from just robbing some place. had he beat up the mom and robbed the place he would not be here. its the child kidnapping that went over the edge. i know he says he did not plan to hurt the child he took. i will let the DA's words expess my feelings on that.

Attorney Judith Berger argued that while Moore claimed he never intended to harm the child, he also claimed he never intended to kidnap the child, which he ultimately did.