Chelsea King; or, what to do with sex offenders

[Liberty]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 6344.story

latimes.com

Among the gated homes, anger and fear over Chelsea King's killing

John Albert Gardner III, 30, a registered sex offender, is charged with murder. The teen's death leaves a community shaken.

By Richard Marosi and Amina Khan

March 4, 2010

Reporting from San Diego and Poway, Calif.

The joggers returned Wednesday morning to the winding trails around Lake Hodges, along with the bird-watchers and the hikers swinging their long walking sticks. They came for the same reason as always, to enjoy a rural retreat amid the bustle of suburbia.

But the park had changed. Down a worn path and around a bend was where Chelsea King, a high school senior from nearby Poway, was believed to have been attacked, killed and buried in a shallow grave. Her presumed death -- the coroner has yet to positively identify the body -- has shaken people in a place where many felt sheltered against the grimmer side of life.

"Nobody's safe. Nobody's privileged. Everybody's vulnerable," said Coleen Huang, 48, who has walked the trails for years. "This was so extreme. A girl living in a gated community. The all-American girl, attacked out in broad daylight, on a run."

At Rancho Bernardo Community Park, at prayer vigils and at schools throughout this upscale northern San Diego County community, emotions were still raw -- a sense of anger, sadness and, most of all, shock that a sex offender tucked away in an anonymous subdivision could pierce their sense of security so profoundly.

John Albert Gardner III, 30, was charged Wednesday afternoon with murdering the straight-A student, cross-country runner and French horn player. He was also charged with assault in a December 2009 attack on a 22-year-old woman in the same park. Gardner was ordered held without bail and could face the death penalty if convicted.

The slaying has "rocked San Diego, rocked all of us. And as we move forward, we need to wrap our arms around this family," San Diego County Dist. Atty. Bonnie Dumanis said at a news conference.

Poway, a self-styled "City in the Country," is the kind of place where families move to avoid crime. The schools are among the best in the county. Narrow roads loop around the hills and gated developments that attract some of the county's wealthiest residents, including baseball Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn and football star LaDainian Tomlinson.

Residents said that in such a close-knit community, where parents are deeply involved in the schools and people retain strong bonds after the 2007 Witch Creek wildfire, it was not a surprise that thousands turned out to help search for the 17-year-old girl. She had gone running at Rancho Bernardo Community Park, a couple of miles outside Poway.

The outpouring of support continued after the body believed to be Chelsea's was discovered Tuesday. About 5,000 people packed a prayer vigil at St. Michael Catholic Church, crying and holding candles as they listened to one of the teenager's favorite songs, “Vanilla Twilight.”

"One of the nicknames that I've always called my daughter is 'My angel,' " said Brent King, Chelsea's father, addressing the crowd. "She's my angel forever."

"We love you," someone in the crowd yelled.

A few hours later, anger spilled out.

The words "Chelseas blood is on you. Move out" had been spray-painted in red on the garage door of Gardner's mother's house in neighboring Rancho Bernardo.

San Diego police said Gardner's mother and stepfather have left the city. Many residents said the family didn't deserve any sympathy, and criticized law enforcement officials for failing to keep Gardner away from their community.

Gardner admitted assaulting and molesting a 13-year-old girl in 2000. He served five years of a six-year sentence and wore a global positioning device during his parole term, which ended in 2008. Police also suspect that Gardner might be linked to the disappearance last year of Amber Dubois, 14, last seen at a bus stop outside her high school in nearby Escondido.

Gardner's residence is in Lake Elsinore in Riverside County, according to the Megan's Law website, but last week he had been visiting his mother at her Rancho Bernardo home, just south of Lake Hodges. Some believe he may have been living with his mother, unbeknown to authorities.

The judges, prosecutors and police followed the letter of the law but failed in their moral responsibility, said James Fisher, 59, a real estate consultant who lives near the park. "We know there aren't enough people to monitor the activity of these offenders. We're not stupid, but we are extremely disturbed and frustrated."

Outside the downtown San Diego courthouse where Gardner was arraigned, protesters held up signs: "Castrate rapists." "Chelsea's Law: One Strike." "No parole for molesters."

Poway High Principal Scott Fisher said people felt that Gardner was able to spend time in the area because of a weakness in Megan's Law.

"You should be able to go out and jog at 2:30 in the afternoon in our own community. We've got to do something about this law because for our kids, their lives have changed forever," the principal said. "We think there's a loophole in that law that has got to be closed."

Light blue ribbons, a nod to King's eye color, adorned the road to the campus Wednesday. A small shrine had been created on a campus fence, with plastic cups arranged as Chelsea's initials, and flowers and votive candles placed nearby. Students, many wearing purple shirts, stopped at the shrine.

In a show of solidarity, students and school staff have worn similar-colored clothing this week, a different color each day, the principal said. Monday was blue, for King's eyes; Tuesday orange; Wednesday purple; and Thursday will be green, for Chelsea's environmentalism, he said.

The photo of Chelsea used on fliers was taken the day she disappeared by her friend Jade Gurule, also 17, who has the same birthday as Chelsea, July 1. "Birthday twins," Jade called them.

The photo was for a class assignment. Jade said she wanted to use Chelsea because "she's gorgeous: bright blue eyes and an amazing smile."

During the shoot, Jade said, Chelsea was "a little awkward, like she is in real life. But completely natural."

Jade said the campus seems empty without her: "We feel broken. We are numb. It hurts to cry. I can't get any more out."

Some people in the article go so far as to suggest castration for sex offenders, no parole, one strike, etc. What are your thoughts?

[Alyeska]

Treat them like any other criminal. Look at the severity of their crime. Look at recidivism rates. Create an appropriate level of punishment. And completely abolish the "Sex Offender" label as it has become absolutely worthless.

[loomer]

Stick them in a special prison for their own safety as well as that of society. Rehab mandatory if they want to ever leave - don't want to see a therapist, you can stay there.

[wolveraptor]

I don't even understand what his status as a "sex offender" has to do with this incident. Chelsea King was a homicide victim, not a molestation or rape victim. Would castrating him have made this murder any less likely to happen?

[Liberty]

And completely abolish the "Sex Offender" label as it has become absolutely worthless.

I'm intrigued; what do you mean?

[Liberty]

I don't even understand what his status as a "sex offender" has to do with this incident. Chelsea King was a homicide victim, not a molestation or rape victim. Would castrating him have made this murder any less likely to happen?

See below:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9E7FQCG1

State says Chelsea King suspect found through DNA

By ELLIOT SPAGAT (AP) – 3 hours ago

SAN DIEGO — California law enforcement officials say a convicted sex offender was linked to the death of Chelsea King through DNA matching of semen found in the victim's clothing.

State Department of Justice spokeswoman Christine Gasparac told The Associated Press Wednesday that John Albert Gardner III was identified after his DNA was run through a national database.

San Diego County prosecutors have declined to comment on the evidence.

The 30-year-old Gardner was charged with murdering and raping or attempting to rape the 17-year-old King, who disappeared last week after heading out for a run in a park.

He faces another count of assault with intent to rape another woman last December.

His attorney entered pleas of not guilty in the potential death penalty case.
___
Associated Press writer Don Thompson in Sacramento contributed to this report.

[General Zod]

And completely abolish the "Sex Offender" label as it has become absolutely worthless.

I'm intrigued; what do you mean?

You can be branded as a sex offender for things like urinating in a public place. Basically anything where an exposed penis is involved can get you that label whether any actual sex happened or not.

[hunter5]

And completely abolish the "Sex Offender" label as it has become absolutely worthless.

I'm intrigued; what do you mean?

You can be branded as a sex offender for things like urinating in a public place. Basically anything where an exposed penis is involved can get you that label whether any actual sex happened or not.

Heh not even that much is needed. Merely restraining a female can get you put on the list these days.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Internet Tough Guy-ism is just a net-based facet of Real Life Toughguyism, otherwise known as tribalism.

It doesn't matter in their minds that in this country we hold the accused to be innocent until proven guilty (not the other way 'round,) and that even if Gardner is found conclusively to be innocent (like he was caught on videotape in frisco all throughout the day in question) they'll probably still find some way to get him.

The disgusting thing is the way they started to attack his parents. Pure tribalism at work. It would be poetic justice if some member of the child of the tough guy who thinks it's appropriate to harass old parents were to go and do something monstrous and then he gets attacked for it. But that's a bit of toughguyism of my own, isn't it? Ah well.

It's a tragedy what happened to the girl, but it's just fucking disgusting, the reaction of the community. Oh, boo fucking hoo, something awful happened and showed you your pretty little gated community thing isn't 250K+ protection against Bad Things so now you want to start hacking the balls of off people? Typical well-off assholes.

I do hope they find the person responsible, I hope due process is done and, if guilty, he gets thrown under the jail. But that's not what's going to happen. They've caught this Gardner guy, the jury pool will be hopelessly contaminated regardless of what the Constitution says about an impartial trial by a jury of his peers, and he's going to be railroaded, even if he didn't do it.

Not saying that murderers and/or rapists shouldn't be dealt with, they should be. But there's no hope for this to be a remotely fair trial. And worse, if Gardner didn't do it, the real doer is getting away with having done it.

Because I bet gated community police would sooner gouge out their own testicles with their fingernails and shove them into their eye sockets than investigate the family and acquaintances when there's a convicted rapist within easy reach.

[hunter5]

Internet Tough Guy-ism is just a net-based facet of Real Life Toughguyism, otherwise known as tribalism.

It doesn't matter in their minds that in this country we hold the accused to be innocent until proven guilty (not the other way 'round,) and that even if Gardner is found conclusively to be innocent (like he was caught on videotape in frisco all throughout the day in question) they'll probably still find some way to get him.

The disgusting thing is the way they started to attack his parents. Pure tribalism at work. It would be poetic justice if some member of the child of the tough guy who thinks it's appropriate to harass old parents were to go and do something monstrous and then he gets attacked for it. But that's a bit of toughguyism of my own, isn't it? Ah well.

It's a tragedy what happened to the girl, but it's just fucking disgusting, the reaction of the community. Oh, boo fucking hoo, something awful happened and showed you your pretty little gated community thing isn't 250K+ protection against Bad Things so now you want to start hacking the balls of off people? Typical well-off assholes.

I do hope they find the person responsible, I hope due process is done and, if guilty, he gets thrown under the jail. But that's not what's going to happen. They've caught this Gardner guy, the jury pool will be hopelessly contaminated regardless of what the Constitution says about an impartial trial by a jury of his peers, and he's going to be railroaded, even if he didn't do it.

Not saying that murderers and/or rapists shouldn't be dealt with, they should be. But there's no hope for this to be a remotely fair trial. And worse, if Gardner didn't do it, the real doer is getting away with having done it.

Because I bet gated community police would sooner gouge out their own testicles with their fingernails and shove them into their eye sockets than investigate the family and acquaintances when there's a convicted rapist within easy reach.

Well it is going to be hard to explain how his semen got on the girls body. It all depends on his alibi and how good his lawyer is. For the most part you are right sex crimes like this the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

[Stofsk]

Uh... most crimes are 'accused is guilty until he proves he's not'. Sex crimes just get more publicity, though actually I'd argue that homicides get about equal coverage.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Well it is going to be hard to explain how his semen got on the girls body. It all depends on his alibi and how good his lawyer is. For the most part you are right sex crimes like this the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

I can think of a couple of ways - very few of which aren't various shades of criminal and/or reprehensible, mind - but I wasn't saying he should be released from jail Own Recognizance until trial.

What I'm saying is that there's zero chance this will remotely a fair trial. This is going to be a straight railroad, and even if it's the right iron horse, the fact is that it's still a railroading, which is a miscarriage of justice.

Uh... most crimes are 'accused is guilty until he proves he's not'. Sex crimes just get more publicity, though actually I'd argue that homicides get about equal coverage.

If anybody on this board should understand the nessessity of presuming innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (operate five letters there being "reason") and the nessessity of a jury-pool unbiased by prejudice and presumption, Stofsk, it ought to be you.


Reality is seldom ideal, but while it's acceptable to be cynical and admit that the world doesn't operate remotely closely to the ideal, it takes a true despondant person to throw up their hands and give up railing against injustices and perversions like this.

The legal presumption of innocence is vital to a working society. If one goes with a legal presumption of guilt, one may haul any person they please into any courtroom, point at the man and accuse him or her of whatever emotionally-enflaming barbarity they wish to, and if the shocked person is incapable of proving they did not do the thing in question, will be promptly sent upriver.

[Stofsk]

Uh... most crimes are 'accused is guilty until he proves he's not'. Sex crimes just get more publicity, though actually I'd argue that homicides get about equal coverage.

If anybody on this board should understand the nessessity of presuming innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (operate five letters there being "reason") and the nessessity of a jury-pool unbiased by prejudice and presumption, Stofsk, it ought to be you.

I do understand it. I just don't think most of the public understands the necessity. It's not something that people really do appreciate until they're either in the dock or in the jury pool and have to make a decision. Most people haven't been on jury duty, and most that are asked to try to find a reason to get out.

Reality is seldom ideal, but while it's acceptable to be cynical and admit that the world doesn't operate remotely closely to the ideal, it takes a true despondant person to throw up their hands and give up railing against injustices and perversions like this.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to be flippant, or even really cynical. I was more or less responding to the idea that sex crimes alone seem to have this blatant reverse standard, when really it's not the nature of the crime per se (ok, maybe it is to an extent) but rather the perceptions of the lay people who are selected for jury service. Defence barristers - hell, even prosecutors - remind the jury about the presumption of innocence and how the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution side of the bar table etc. Whether or not the jury gets it or understands it or is even goddamn awake is another thing. (I did notice one of my jurors napping... or maybe he was just resting his eyes)

The legal presumption of innocence is vital to a working society. If one goes with a legal presumption of guilt, one may haul any person they please into any courtroom, point at the man and accuse him or her of whatever emotionally-enflaming barbarity they wish to, and if the shocked person is incapable of proving they did not do the thing in question, will be promptly sent upriver.

This is usually what happens though. There are a lot of shocking crimes, mainly homicides, which have accompanying gruesome crime scene photographs. Sex crimes will have equally shocking photographs too depending on the severity and violence involved in the offence. Invariably defence barristers make submissions that certain photographs or most be excluded, while prosecutors make submissions that they don't. It all depends on whether something is probative and whether that outweighs the prejudicial effect - crime scene photographs would still be relevant though, so its a tough call for a judge to make. At the start he will give the jury a warning that such-and-such is accused of doing this-or-that and there might be shit that's uncomfortable or difficult to deal with. For a lot of lay people, seeing a crime scene photograph of a dead person or a child who has been victimised is shocking. It's one thing to see it on a TV crime show but it's another to see a photo of a real person and what another did to them. I don't envy any juror who gets asked to be impartial, and objective, and have to deal with things that is 99.9% guaranteed to be outside their experience.

[Dominus Atheos]

And completely abolish the "Sex Offender" label as it has become absolutely worthless.

I'm intrigued; what do you mean?

Along with what others have said, there's also the fact that being labeled a sex offender probably increases the likelihood that someone will reoffend. If someone has a job, friends, and normal healthy relationships they are obviously much less likely to molest or rape someone then a jobless loner who can't get a girlfriend; and sex offender status is exactly the thing to prevent someone from having those things.

And the alternative is pretty obvious: if someone does have the kind of uncontrollable compulsions that make them likely to reoffend then they should be placed in an institution where they can get the help they need, and if they aren't likely to reoffend then after serving their time they should be released just like every other criminal and be allowed to get on with their lives.

[Dominus Atheos]

Here's a relevant article:

Little did I know, She was Only 16 years old

When I was 21, I went to an 18 and over nightclub with my best friend because he just turned 18. While I was there I met a girl that claimed to be 19 and we exchanged numbers. I hung out at her house with her mom and step-dad there - They knew how old I was and everything. We went out for about 3 months and eventually had sex two or three times. Shortly thereafter, I caught her in a lie one day - She was dating another guy too and I broke up with her.

A few days later I was in the mall walking and holding hands with the girl I had started dating, and was approached by a detective. Having one nothing wrong I went downtown and talked with him. I admitted to knowing her, dating her, and having sex - CONSENSUAL SEX - with her. She had gotten into a fight with the other guy she was dating and he choked her because he had found out about me through the same mutual friend I had found out about him through. Scared, she stated that I had raped her. He told her mom and she called the police. When she talked to the detective, she had told him that she kicked and scratched me repeatedly, but when he looked at me, I didn't have a mark on me. Unfortunately for her, I knew she had told and bragged to her own cousins that we were dating and that she had sex with me - They even signed affidavits to that fact disputing her claim. Unfortunately for me, she was really only 16. She had lied to me and used her sister's license to get in the club, which was verified when the detective questioned both club owners. The detective even found her sister's license in her purse, which he showed me.

I thought I was good to go due to all the facts as I had unknowingly been tricked into committing a crime I would have never committed. To make matters worse, my attorney was a schmuck and advised me to plea to Rape 3 (statutory rape in that state) since I did have sex with her. I had never even had a speeding ticket and was scared shitless and didn't know what to do. I took the plea and due to the affidavits and her own aunt and cousins speaking up at sentencing, the judge only gave me 2 years probation and treatment. I did all of this to completion, then was advised the laws changed and now had to register.

I had a great job and was making a little over $100K a year, but as soon as my picture popped up, I was fired. To date, I have been fired from over 20 jobs, just lost my house I had worked so hard to get, and am completely broke. In two months, I'll be 40. I moved to Colorado and they want me to register for another 5 years! Got my face on the web and all my information... Been on a ton of interviews, got two jobs offers in writing, but then came the background checks and the offers disappeared. How can anyone on earth say this isn't additional punishment? Are they blind? Let me plaster your face on the web with some bullshit and let's see how you handle it!?!

Oh! And by the way, I have two boys that I am a single father to... Had them since they were 7 months and 3 years old - They're 10 and 13 now. I was awarded FULL CUSTODY by the same court that I plead to the charge in. I would just love to see your face when they tell you they would love to play football in the summer, but dad can't afford to buy them the gear and shoes. They don't know why I have a problem finding and keeping a job... They only know what it tastes like to be hungry and have no food. They only know what its like to go outside to play in tennis shoes with their toes hanging out the ends because their feet have worn through. I know they hurt because I've wiped their tears from their cheeks because other kids made fun of their shoes and clothes, or worse... Because their parents said they can't play with them anymore because their dad is "Chester".

When my dad was 16 he went to war and then married my mom when he was 17 - She was 15. My oldest brother was born when she was just 15. I find it odd that most of the people recommending new rules and laws got married young too! I find it odd that people didn't learn when they read the story about the two women claiming to both be the mother of a single child. When Soloman said that since he couldn't tell, they should both get half, the real mother screamed NO, and asked that he be given to the other woman. Soloman, be wise, used the discernment God had given him and gave the child to his rightful mother. I use this story because like Soloman, we have judges that have all of the details of each case. That judge should be capable of discernment. As such, he should be the person making the determination of each individual case and punishment. Grouping everyone into one group will one create paranoia and cause pain. It will never work and until we put the power back into the hands of our judges, we will never find peace in this matter.

Can you imagine if every murderer - including vehicular manslaughter and accidental and unfortunate matters were all of a sudden reclassified and made to register as murderers and violent offenders? Or if everyone convicted of a drug offense - pot smokers, pushers, coke heads, meth heads, and those that gave their friend or relative their prescription medications, were classifed into one big group and made to register as drug abusers? What law makers and legislators are doing is nothing new! They use a case widely publicised in the media - not telling you all the facts and truths - to scare the hell out of you and make you believe every person convicted of a sex offense is going to stalk and rape your little kid. It's out of that fear that we react irrationally. Oops! Two late... The registry is up and now vigilantes are killing those listed on the registry. Unfortunately, they just killed someone that never touched a kid, but they couldn't tell... Not a single detail of the case is published. Same or similar charge, so "they all look alike", right? We need to get a clue before we're all forced to line up and get our "mark" on us or be forced to make more decisions out of fear rather than truth.

Oh! Thought I should let you know... The girl that claimed I raped her recanted after that same guy beat her up really bad and went to prison. I found out over years after the case was closed when she tracked down a friend of mine. He told her how much damage her lie had done to my life and she wrote a letter to the Governor with the complete truth of the matter, even wrote a statement and had it notorized, then sent it to me. I appled for a pardon based on her statement. The Governor didn't even think twice... He denied it and forced me to continue to carry the burden of America's biggest scarlet letter a little longer... THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.

[Alyeska]

That sounds like a story rather than a history. Even still, the facts as presented are all quite possible and various combination's of them have happened.

[Stofsk]

If true that governor was a massive douche for refusing to pardon.

I don't really care about being soft or tough on crime, I just want the fucking authorities to be smart on crime for fuck's sake.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I do understand it. I just don't think most of the public understands the necessity. It's not something that people really do appreciate until they're either in the dock or in the jury pool and have to make a decision. Most people haven't been on jury duty, and most that are asked to try to find a reason to get out.

One time (back during college) I got notified to appear for jury duty. I saw absolutely no reason not to go, but my aunt saw differently. She told me to write in and tell them that I was a college student and an interruption in my studies would cause me academic harm.

I disagreed. I told her I would say no such thing (as it was not true), and that I was actually somewhat looking forward to it - specifically because of the way most people who get called do their best to weasel out.

My aunt went and wrote and mailed in a letter in my stead stating that, and I got another letter shortly telling me that I was excused. That still aggrevates me.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to be flippant, or even really cynical. I was more or less responding to the idea that sex crimes alone seem to have this blatant reverse standard, when really it's not the nature of the crime per se (ok, maybe it is to an extent) but rather the perceptions of the lay people who are selected for jury service. Defence barristers - hell, even prosecutors - remind the jury about the presumption of innocence and how the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution side of the bar table etc. Whether or not the jury gets it or understands it or is even goddamn awake is another thing. (I did notice one of my jurors napping... or maybe he was just resting his eyes)

Sex crimes are very polarizing. When you can point to someone who doesn't fit in - an Outsider, especially someone with a Label like "sex offender," and say "he hurt that cute, innocent, rich little white girl," you'd could have a client as innocent as a newborn babe and you'd probably advise them to plead out.

On the other hand, those big, dramatic, Law & Order: SVU style cases are by far the dramatic minority. Most sex crimes are something much more sinister, and almost impossible to get a conviction on, even less likely to be reported in the first place.

(And for simply knowing those two facts, I'm certain I'd be excused from any sex crime jury ever.)

But this is the first kind, the polarizing kind. I don't care if you ressurect Johnny Cochrane and Chewbacca himself walks into the courtroom and growls on the stand, I don't care if the defense can produce photographic and electronic trail logs proving that man was in freaking Seattle all week, he's a dead man walking already.

I don't think it's a matter of the jury 'getting it', I think in large part it's about their preconceptions.. Just like politics, it's about Story. A 230-lb, 30-year-old man with buzz-cut hair rapes and murders a sweet 17-year-old white girl - note how the media has gone out of their way to do things like pointing out her favorite songs and colors.

Honestly, I doubt there will be a single person in that jury pool whose mind isn't made up before they even lay eyes on the defendant, who's just passing time until they get to shuffle into a little room, scarf the blueberry muffins and doughnuts, take tally of everyone being in agreement, and march back out to say "We find the defendant guilty as charged." And that's the sad part.

This is usually what happens though. There are a lot of shocking crimes, mainly homicides, which have accompanying gruesome crime scene photographs. Sex crimes will have equally shocking photographs too depending on the severity and violence involved in the offence. Invariably defence barristers make submissions that certain photographs or most be excluded, while prosecutors make submissions that they don't. It all depends on whether something is probative and whether that outweighs the prejudicial effect - crime scene photographs would still be relevant though, so its a tough call for a judge to make. At the start he will give the jury a warning that such-and-such is accused of doing this-or-that and there might be shit that's uncomfortable or difficult to deal with. For a lot of lay people, seeing a crime scene photograph of a dead person or a child who has been victimised is shocking. It's one thing to see it on a TV crime show but it's another to see a photo of a real person and what another did to them. I don't envy any juror who gets asked to be impartial, and objective, and have to deal with things that is 99.9% guaranteed to be outside their experience.

Again, it's all about the Story. Maybe we should employ professional jurors, whose only task is to learn to weigh facts carefully, think logically, and reach a concensus with eleven of their coworkers?

If true that governor was a massive douche for refusing to pardon.

A pardon wouldn't have helped him. A Governor may Pardon a person, which is the same as saying "we know you did it but it's now okay that you did it, we don't care, you're cool." It's not the same as "I'm saying you didn't do it, so you didn't." IE, he still would've been put on the list and all.

And really, it is retarded. Sex Offendor Registry bullshit is the biggest bullshit ever. What, "Warning" people that potentially "dangerous" people have moved in never caused those people to do anything rash, did it? Even if what caused his "danger" is that he mistakenly put it in someone who misled him about her age, or worse, that he had to relieve himself at 3 AM and there was no way to find a bathroom?

I don't really care about being soft or tough on crime, I just want the fucking authorities to be smart on crime for fuck's sake.

Welcome to America. It almost makes me wish for a land where the poisonous animals are toothy and fangy and have more than two legs, as opposed to the state of affairs here.

[Formless]

Again, it's all about the Story. Maybe we should employ professional jurors, whose only task is to learn to weigh facts carefully, think logically, and reach a concensus with eleven of their coworkers?

I'm inclined to think so, but good luck convincing America of this. "Jury of your peers" and all that. Besides the anti-intellectualism alone, you'll have a hard time convincing people that professional juries will be unbiased (even though current juries are just the epitome of impartiality. Uh huh).

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well it is going to be hard to explain how his semen got on the girls body. It all depends on his alibi and how good his lawyer is. For the most part you are right sex crimes like this the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

I can think of a couple of ways - very few of which aren't various shades of criminal and/or reprehensible, mind - but I wasn't saying he should be released from jail Own Recognizance until trial.

Ok, but you seem to be annoyed with how the law enforcement agency is investigating this? What would you have them do? They have evidence that points to a specific person, so doesn't it make sense to pursue that until you've ruled it out. Also, you seem to be assuming that they've dropped everything and are now just focusing on this guy.

[General Zod]

A pardon wouldn't have helped him. A Governor may Pardon a person, which is the same as saying "we know you did it but it's now okay that you did it, we don't care, you're cool." It's not the same as "I'm saying you didn't do it, so you didn't." IE, he still would've been put on the list and all.

A pardon removes the need to register as an offender in most states.

[Stofsk]

Again, it's all about the Story. Maybe we should employ professional jurors, whose only task is to learn to weigh facts carefully, think logically, and reach a concensus with eleven of their coworkers?

I'm inclined to think so, but good luck convincing America of this. "Jury of your peers" and all that. Besides the anti-intellectualism alone, you'll have a hard time convincing people that professional juries will be unbiased (even though current juries are just the epitome of impartiality. Uh huh).

Forget professional juries, it will cost more. Judges and bench trials are the only workable alternative.

The only reason we have juries today is because of reluctance to let go of a centuries-old tradition. There are other reasons, too, but simply by putting the option of having a choice between having a judge or a jury would be a huge step forward. I know I would have chosen a judge in a second if I had the choice (it was pretty much one of the first questions I asked my solicitor), and from what I understand NSW has it an electable for the accused (though I don't know the fine details).

That said, professionalism doesn't imply error-free decision making. Otherwise, judges wouldn't get appealed against regarding unsafe convictions or unfair sentences. But it does leave things accountable, which is what the jury systems essentially lacks today - a jury arrives at their decision in a totally unknown way, their deliberations are not recorded or scrutinised, and you can't go 'well jury number x said this and that, therefore he was using an inadmissable chain of reasoning to support his deliberation, ergo blahblahblah he can get fucked'.

EDIT- fun fact, in Australia at least, it's also a criminal act to even ask a juror a question pertaining to a case they're presiding on or formerly presided on. This is to protect them from harassment, and also to prevent trials from turning into the kind of farces we sometimes see in America.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Again, it's all about the Story. Maybe we should employ professional jurors, whose only task is to learn to weigh facts carefully, think logically, and reach a concensus with eleven of their coworkers?

I'm inclined to think so, but good luck convincing America of this. "Jury of your peers" and all that. Besides the anti-intellectualism alone, you'll have a hard time convincing people that professional juries will be unbiased (even though current juries are just the epitome of impartiality. Uh huh).

Yep, more or less. I think that Americans would tolerate that around the time they started tolerating mandatory lobotomies at birth.

Though you can try waiving your right to a trial by jury and standing before the bench alone. Not garunteed to work, but if you're innocent-but-easy-to-think-of-as-guilty like a black man standing accused of the rape-homocide of a white teenager, or if you're guilty-but-there-might-be-mitigating-circumstances, such as you found yourself compelled to commit a crime because you had reason to believe that if you didn't a criminal was going to slaughter someone, you're probably better off going before a judge alone.

Well it is going to be hard to explain how his semen got on the girls body. It all depends on his alibi and how good his lawyer is. For the most part you are right sex crimes like this the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

I can think of a couple of ways - very few of which aren't various shades of criminal and/or reprehensible, mind - but I wasn't saying he should be released from jail Own Recognizance until trial.

Ok, but you seem to be annoyed with how the law enforcement agency is investigating this? What would you have them do? They have evidence that points to a specific person, so doesn't it make sense to pursue that until you've ruled it out. Also, you seem to be assuming that they've dropped everything and are now just focusing on this guy.

If it were a city, that might fly, but this place is a gated community of well-off people, and a poor sex offender is their prime suspect now. There is no way in hell they're doing any more than paying lip service to investigating any other avenues. About the only more obvious thing I can think of is a small town in the 1960s where a woman claims she was attacked and raped and didn't see her assailant. If there's a black man passing through town, his ass is grass unless he legs it.

I'm not saying he didn't do it. The evidence points that way, you'd certainly have reasonable suspicion to indict based on finding his spooge on the girl's shirt. But what I'm saying is that in the mind of a lot of people, especially in this kind of community (and sadly including the officers of the law therefrom,) reasonable suspicion is the same as guilty.

Therefor, if it was say, a family member, and the genetic material is there for an unrelated reason (sicko stopped off to whack it over the corpse and then buried her) or worse, it was planted, there's no way in hell justice will be served.

A pardon wouldn't have helped him. A Governor may Pardon a person, which is the same as saying "we know you did it but it's now okay that you did it, we don't care, you're cool." It's not the same as "I'm saying you didn't do it, so you didn't." IE, he still would've been put on the list and all.

A pardon removes the need to register as an offender in most states.

Fair 'nuff, I didn't know that.

Wait, most? .....

Again, it's all about the Story. Maybe we should employ professional jurors, whose only task is to learn to weigh facts carefully, think logically, and reach a concensus with eleven of their coworkers?

I'm inclined to think so, but good luck convincing America of this. "Jury of your peers" and all that. Besides the anti-intellectualism alone, you'll have a hard time convincing people that professional juries will be unbiased (even though current juries are just the epitome of impartiality. Uh huh).

Forget professional juries, it will cost more. Judges and bench trials are the only workable alternative.

The only reason we have juries today is because of reluctance to let go of a centuries-old tradition. There are other reasons, too, but simply by putting the option of having a choice between having a judge or a jury would be a huge step forward. I know I would have chosen a judge in a second if I had the choice (it was pretty much one of the first questions I asked my solicitor), and from what I understand NSW has it an electable for the accused (though I don't know the fine details).

I understand the need for jury trials, as they're a nessessary safeguard, a check and balance, should the judiciary be corrupt or utterly hostile. They also allow for a Jury to be the ultimate arbitrator of the law - if, say, a jury finds a man who stands accused of having sex with a girl a day younger than he on his 18th birthday (and she still technically 17, thus making it statutory rape,) they can say "fuck this shit" and bring back a reason of not guilty. They're not required to qualify it at all, it's called jury nullification, and (in theory) it can be used as a powerful tool for the people to tell laws they find corrupt, inappropriately applied, or simply wrong, to fuck off and die.

Sadly, they all too often wind up using that power to allow people who string those with an abundance of melanin up in trees to walk, but it's there and should remain.

However, I agree with you, you should always have the option of waiving your right to a trial by jury and standing before a judge. Especially if you wind up in like, a situation like yours where the jury was hopelessly prejudiced against you from the start.

That said, professionalism doesn't imply error-free decision making. Otherwise, judges wouldn't get appealed against regarding unsafe convictions or unfair sentences. But it does leave things accountable, which is what the jury systems essentially lacks today - a jury arrives at their decision in a totally unknown way, their deliberations are not recorded or scrutinised, and you can't go 'well jury number x said this and that, therefore he was using an inadmissable chain of reasoning to support his deliberation, ergo blahblahblah he can get fucked'.

To be fair, once a person has heard something, it's in their head and no amount of a judge saying "jury will disregard" will change that. Even a judge will have a hard time "disregarding" evidence - if the judge has seen evidence that the victim was found bound and gagged in the accused's torture room and for some reason (illegal search) it was found to be inadmissabe, they're hardly going to be able to wash it out of thier head.

[General Zod]

Fair 'nuff, I didn't know that.

Wait, most? .....

Since I don't have the ability to look up sex offender laws in every state, I'm playing it safe by saying "most".

[Formless]

Actually, I was given to believe that the bigger problem with the current jury system is that most jurors don't know shit about the law-- the system is designed to weed out anyone who might have enough braincells to be qualified to make a guilty/not-guilty decision, from the way people actively try to avoid it to the process the lawyers go through to week out people who shows relevant knowledge to the case at hand.

Forget professional juries, it will cost more. Judges and bench trials are the only workable alternative.

What makes you think that? I don't know about you, but if I were a black dude falsely accused of some violent crime like, say, rape sitting in front of an old white dude in formal regalia that was outdated a century ago and told that he will be deciding whether or not I am guilty as charged, I think I would just about shit my pants. The idea of trial by jury may be traditional, but the basic justification for it hasn't changed much since it was written down. I don't think its going anywhere for a while.