Child kidnapper fights sex offender label

[pedinurse]

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 had pretty much the same thoughts. It is kind of the "principal" of the thing. I don't know how to explain it but I guess I can kind of see what the guy and his lawyer are making a case for.
I do think, however, that he should NEVER ever be allowed to work around kids, ect. He victimized a two year old baby. I think that he should "suffer" the same punishment as the people on the registry with the same restrictions.

 

[pedinurse]

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."

I agree and I like the proactive stance that the judges are taking. How else are we going to protect our children? We can never, ever know. How many times do people say "I never intended to rape that woman, just rob her?"
A lot of the time these crimes are the result of a power motive than a sexual motive. It could easily have progressed to sexual abuse, and we will never know what might have happened if he hadn't been caught. They might have killed that baby in the heat of the moment.
I think he's lucky to just be out in the first place. We could just lock him back up and forgo putting him on the registry. How does that sound?

 

[sherri79]

I agree and I like the proactive stance that the judges are taking. How else are we going to protect our children? We can never, ever know. How many times do people say "I never intended to rape that woman, just rob her?"
A lot of the time these crimes are the result of a power motive than a sexual motive. It could easily have progressed to sexual abuse, and we will never know what might have happened if he hadn't been caught. They might have killed that baby in the heat of the moment.
I think he's lucky to just be out in the first place. We could just lock him back up and forgo putting him on the registry. How does that sound?

kool with me.

 

[KarlK]

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???

It bothers me and from what I've heard it may also bother the NY Court of Appeals. A "common precursor" clause could easily be abused and is misleading because it can be interpreted as meaning that most people who commit such type of crime or enjoy such type of shady activity are very likely to commit a more serious one therefore they should be treated as if they already had, when in fact this is not true. A few examples: while it's true that most people who are addicted to hard drugs have started out by drinking booze and smoking pot it's not true that most people who drink and/or smoke pot become junkies. Many serial killers enjoyed killing small animals as kids but it's not true that most kids who shoot birds and squirrels become serial killers. Many rapists enjoy *advertiser censored* movies and magazines but it's not true that most men who enjoy these become rapists, etc.

 

[angelmom]

It bothers me and from what I've heard it may also bother the NY Court of Appeals. A "common precursor" clause could easily be abused and is misleading because it can be interpreted as meaning that most people who commit such type of crime or enjoy such type of shady activity are very likely to commit a more serious one therefore they should be treated as if they already had, when in fact this is not true. A few examples: while it's true that most people who are addicted to hard drugs have started out by drinking booze and smoking pot it's not true that most people who drink and/or smoke pot become junkies. Many serial killers enjoyed killing small animals as kids but it's not true that most kids who shoot birds and squirrels become serial killers. Many rapists enjoy *advertiser censored* movies and magazines but it's not true that most men who enjoy these become rapists, etc.

That's what I was trying to say. Thanks for doing a better job. I couldn't come up with the excellent examples you gave.

If a child harms an animal, are we going to lock him up and throw away the key forever? While I agree that this is a major flashing warning light (with sirens), I don't think anyone would want that. What if it were really an accident? What if it were untrue?

And the "pornmonger" police on Angarella's street could lock up a lot of people, from the looks of things. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48714

I think the registry should be what it is really for. It shouldn't exist anyway b/c these guys should never get out, and then we wouldn't have this conversation.

 

[KarlK]

If a child harms an animal, are we going to lock him up and throw away the key forever? While I agree that this is a major flashing warning light (with sirens), I don't think anyone would want that. What if it were really an accident? What if it were untrue?

Right, and even if it's true we must keep in mind that as it is the case for all predatory species, and humans are definitely a predatory species, children are naturally cruel (some would say desensitized to violence) until properly socialized.

 

[Ang50]

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.

Legal precedent in other states, but not BINDING legal precedent. The Court of Appeals can declare anything illegal, but there must be grounds. This will be reviewed with constitutional arguments - but it will be rational basis review (b/c he's not a protected class), which will mean that the law has to be rationally related to the stated governmental objective.

Objective would be protecting kids, and this law does it. I understand the point or concern about "watering down" an SOR, but as I've stated earlier, I'd rather it be broader as concerning children and NOT draw a line between child kidnappers and child rapists. The state's philosophy makes sense - you may have abducted the child for sexual purposes but we caught you early enough.

Let's look at it the other way - imagine the public outrage (and outrage here) if the guy gets out, kidnaps, rapes and kills a child. The news headline will say "Child kidnapper finds loophole in SOR laws... no registration and tracking required."

That's not the outcome we want.

(BTW - KarlK - excellent rundown of judicial review and power... how might you know this type of info?)

 

[Ang50]

It bothers me and from what I've heard it may also bother the NY Court of Appeals. A "common precursor" clause could easily be abused and is misleading because it can be interpreted as meaning that most people who commit such type of crime or enjoy such type of shady activity are very likely to commit a more serious one therefore they should be treated as if they already had, when in fact this is not true. A few examples: while it's true that most people who are addicted to hard drugs have started out by drinking booze and smoking pot it's not true that most people who drink and/or smoke pot become junkies. Many serial killers enjoyed killing small animals as kids but it's not true that most kids who shoot birds and squirrels become serial killers. Many rapists enjoy *advertiser censored* movies and magazines but it's not true that most men who enjoy these become rapists, etc.

These examples are "correlations" - and don't function as true predictors. And that's your point.

I understand that kidnapping a child doesn't mean you will sexually assault that child or another. Or reoffend w/ kidnapping even. We do a SOR b/c of the proven propensity of child molesters to reoffend - it's the policy reason for such an intrusive, ongoing invasion of the private lives of people who have served their time.

We don't have those stats on child kidnappers - whether they're likely to kidnap again. But I personally believe those who will victimize children are dangerous enough in any form to put them on a registry. Anyone who has kidnapped a child has forfeited their right to privacy and thus should be on a registry because they are dangerous.

Two registries means potential for errors and for people to get lost in the cracks. Two means two places people have to look, thus are less likely to look.

As I've said before, I'd gladly forgo all registries for criminals who pick adult victims (sexual or otherwise) in order to have a registry for anyone that commits crimes against kids. Until that happens, then states should make their SOR do extra duty.

 

[KarlK]

These examples are "correlations" - and don't function as true predictors. And that's your point.

My point is that following this logic one can practically include anyone with a criminal record on the SOR, the rest is semantics. I guess we will have to agree to disagree