« Should the NAACP and others really be concerned about the sentencing of the Barbie bandits? | Main | CSM piece has latest crack retroactivity news »

April 8, 2008

Louisiana getting even crazier about sex offender sanctions

As detailed in this AP article, the folks in the bayou region cannot get enough of getting tough with sex offenders:

Masking at Halloween or Mardi Gras could become a forbidden tradition in Louisiana for people convicted of sex offenses under one bill approved Monday by a state Senate committee, and castration could become a sentencing option in some sex cases under another measure approved by the panel.

Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Meaux, sponsored the bills, both of which go next to the full Senate for debate later in the legislative session. Also Monday, the Senate was set to discuss a separate package of bills, backed by Gov. Bobby Jindal, that would raise the minimum jail sentence for molestation of a juvenile from one to five years and require such convicts to register with the state as sex offenders for life, instead of the current 15 years.

Gautreaux's castration bill, involving both physical and chemical castration, applies to a range of offenses including aggravated rape, simple rape, incest and indecent behavior with a juvenile.  A judge would have the option of sentencing a first-offender to treatment with the drug medroxyprogesterone acetate, with the aim of diminishing his sexual impulses.

On a second offense the treatment would be mandatory, though in each case a medical expert would have to determine for the court that the treatment would be effective. Once ordered to undergo the treatment, the offender would have the option of physical castration — which Gautreaux said some offenders might prefer to avoid any drug side effects or in hopes of permanently curbing impulses that led to his offense.

Nobody spoke against the bill in committee Monday but committee members raised questions, including whether drug treatment would be mandatory under the bill for female sex offenders. Gautreaux said he would research the issue and deal with it when the bill comes up for floor debate.  After the hearing, a lobbyist said the bill will be opposed. "It is state-sanctioned mutilation and that is cruel and unusual punishment," George Steimel, lobbyist for the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said Monday afternoon. 

April 8, 2008 at 06:38 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Louisiana getting even crazier about sex offender sanctions:

» Coverage of Kennedy Case Ramping Up from Sex Crimes
As Doug Berman notes, the coverage of Kennedy v. Louisiana has begun with oral arguments on the horizon (April 16). Sex Crimes will be covering the case extensively starting this Monday. In the meantime, I'll be constantly updating the Kennedy [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 9, 2008 10:54:29 AM


Jesus Christ. Just let them rape a few kids here and there and get over it. It's inevitable (though not nearly as pervasive as the media would have us believe). Enough with the crazy sex offender sanctions. Deal with it. Yeh it's gross, yeah it's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. The problem is that everyone thinks their kids are so wonderful and special. They're not. In fact, being a rape-toy for a pedophile is probably the most useful thing most children will ever be. The rest of the time they will just be loud, obnoxious little vandals.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 8, 2008 9:38:57 PM

Bruce: ummm, wow...

Posted by: | Apr 8, 2008 10:57:23 PM

Too blunt?

Posted by: bruce | Apr 8, 2008 11:34:30 PM

Ha! Bruce, you kill me!

Humor, People! Have you forgotten??? :)

Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 12:32:32 AM

Humor or not. Not funny. Have you ever been around a child who has been sexually abused? What if this were your child would you still say the same idiotic thing?

Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 8:25:33 AM

Yes, I would. I'm sick of people acting nuts because it's "their child."

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 8:42:50 AM

Obviously this type of humor amuses you. I am sure you can find other blogs to write about your sick humor!

Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 9:27:05 AM

I'm not trying to make you laugh, I'm taking an position on the opposite end of the spectrum. If only one extreme is heard, with a few people arguing for something in the middle, then society will settle on a position at, or close to, that one extreme. That's why pro-lifers will eventually win and get Roe v. Wade overturned. They're taking extreme positions - no abortions, not even for rape an incest - and the pro-choice people are just sitting around trying to compromise. If the pro-choice people were arguing for free, government subsidized abortion clinics on every street corner, abortions permitted until the fetus is 18 years old, and mandatory abortions for pregnant women who can't afford another child, society would settle on a middle ground that makes some sense.

So, when sex offender punishments keep getting wackier and wackier, someone simply has to stand up and say take the opposite position. I really hate children, especially the children of the person I'm speaking to, so I'm more than happy to do it and defend the "sexual predators" the media keeps scaring people about. Fact - not every abused child grows up to have problems. Some do, some don't. Insofar as society only learns about paticular instances of sexual abuse because the child grows up to have problems, you have a selection bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not actively encouraging sexual abuse of children. But it's such a small problem, like terrorism (though the media would have you think "sexual predators" and "terrorists" are out there looking for your children everywhere they go), that it's not worth throwing away principals like due process and fair trials and bars on cruel and unusual punishment to prevent. The bottom line is it's worth a few kids being sexually abused each year to live in a country that still has guiding principals controlling and limiting its criminal justice system.

Finally, most people like the idea of fearing that their children are in constant danger of being raped by a sexual predator. It's a perverse way of thinking your kid is so great. Parents are walking around thinking their kid is so cute and attractive that adults all over the place will find them so appealing and irresistable that they'll snatch them up to have sexal intercourse with. In reality, chances are your kid is so fat and ugly and smelly, with chocolate icecream dripping from his/her face, that not even the most out-of-control sexual predator would want to touch it, let alone risk prison to do so. But "knowing" that everywhere their kids go they are in "danger" from sexual predators makes most parents feel good about their children. It's a perverse form of "my kid is an honor roll student".

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 9:43:39 AM

bruce it is lewd, distasteful, and calloused to joke about children being molested. If that is a measure of your humor, I certainly would not want you around my little girl and I am saddened that you would joke in such a fashion about your child. To trivialize something like child rape being too personal and fun makes me wonder what your sexual appetites are. You are a sick little puppy bruce...

Posted by: Jesse | Apr 9, 2008 9:45:02 AM

You know Bruce, the problem with your tacit here is that nobody will take your seriously. You forget that much of what's behind the "hysteria" surrounding sex offenders has to do with their crimes and high recidivism rates. I believe Erickson over at C&C has blogged quite a bit about this.

Sure it may be fair to say that parents are somewhat responsible for the problem when they allow their kids to dress in a sexually provocative manner; but saying "being a rape-toy for a pedophile is probably the most useful thing most children will ever be" just makes you an ass or a lunatic - neither of which is helpful in making your point - whatever it might be.

Posted by: Joe | Apr 9, 2008 10:02:21 AM

I don't know all the details of this bill, but let us not forget that "sex offense" does not necessarily or always equal pedophelia.

Often, and in many states, people who committed consensual, statutory offenses at 18 with their 16-year-old boy/girlfriends end up on a registry and deemed a "sex offender." Should that person be castrated?

Rape and sexual battery also happens to adults, as well. This includes date rape - which is not excusable or appropriate - but some might view this very differently than a vicious assault.

Posted by: Rogue | Apr 9, 2008 10:29:20 AM


I have read and enjoyed many of your posts in the past. I had a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. Today, however, I found your take on this subject to be heartless, unthinking and completely despicable.

Humor? How can anyone apply humor to something such as child rape? The sheer fact that you can integrate the two in your mind is both shocking and saddening. You should be deeply ashamed.

While I do agree that some parents are overtly paranoid & see danger under every rock (something we can partially blame on mass media fear tactics), this does not warrant the kind of “get over it” attitude you’ve displayed here. Paranoid or not, the fact remains that people want to protect their children. If someone intentionally hurts their child, any child, they’ll want swift & violent action taken against them. It’s human nature. You are human, aren’t you? If someone did something this heinous to my child, they had better pray the police get to them before I do.

Of course all parents think their child is special and unlike any other. Didn’t your parents think you were wonderful and beautiful and love you unconditionally? If not, I am truly, deeply sorry. But do not dare to take offense at a parent who sees their child this way. Had all parents loved their children this way, perhaps some children would not grow into adults who defile other innocent children…perhaps the number of these nauseating crimes would decrease.

So, while this is a free country and you are certainly entitled to your opinion on this or any subject, know that in this instance, your opinion is deplorable.

Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 10:55:28 AM

bruce's post is reminiscent of Doug Stanhope - MySpace Pedophiles (youtube).

The big picture I think is that people are rebelling as well they should, but the ultimate goal of email address registration could be to circumvent that avenue of rebellion on the Internet. That of course includes sex offenders who are hopefully rebelling through political debate or through the courts. It's the ones who do not have the wherewithal to so rebel that I worry about, and then if they recidivate in any way the government can say, "See, told you so." And pass more and more and more laws. In the end, better to blow up trains to Auschwitz rather than get on them. That's the American way.

Posted by: George | Apr 9, 2008 11:35:47 AM

“Humor? How can anyone apply humor to something such as child rape? The sheer fact that you can integrate the two in your mind is both shocking and saddening. You should be deeply ashamed.”

Obviously you have never worked near the subject. People employ humor in order to 1) memorably convey ideas; or 2) comfort themselves or others by showing the irony of the situation. Unfortunately, while humor is everpresent in our society, some people feel they can get the upper hand over others by saying that some subjects should not be joked about by anyone, any time, for any reason.

The most disgusting thing on this blog seems to be that some people have such a visceral reaction to an idea and the way it is expressed that they are not only unable to offer a couterveiling opinion, but they are so afraid that the idea that they hate will convince people that they think the idea is not worth thinking. This practice is unAmerican and pretty much worse than any crime I can think of.

Posted by: S.cotus | Apr 9, 2008 1:09:34 PM

I realize my opinion is callous and deplorable. But the alternative is worse. We can either "just deal with" the occasional child molestation/rape/sexaul abuse and treat it like any other crime. OR, we can live in a country where certain people (who have served their time) are kicked out of their homes, required to have their gonads chopped off, forced to live under bridges, forced to walk around in public with scarlet letters of shame, and made to fear for their lives due to public registries with their names on it.

The lesser of the two evils is for a few kids to be brutally raped each year. That's just the way it is. Of course, if no kids had to be raped and no people had to have their basic human rights violated I'd much prefer that. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a option.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 1:11:26 PM

The word, S.cotus, is "countervailing", not "counterveiling".

Posted by: federalist | Apr 9, 2008 1:13:31 PM

Thanks for the tip.

Posted by: S.cotus | Apr 9, 2008 1:28:38 PM

S.cotus: i didn't catch your last comment b/c you posted it while I was writing. Well said. Very well said.

While I find my comment quite amusing, I wasn't trying to make anyone else laugh. Just wanted to clear that up.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 2:16:20 PM

S.Cotus just when I think you can say nothing more insane than " society has failed when they allow felons to be born" you jump on these very insensitive comments. I wonder how many people are taking you serious? My guess not many.

Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 3:12:35 PM

...sayeth the anonymous poster

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 3:28:18 PM

S.cotus is one of those people who think cleverness and snark is a substitute for intellectual rigor.

Posted by: federalist | Apr 9, 2008 3:29:18 PM

I have to agree with the anonymous person above about your very insensitive remarks and the fact that you find them amusing says even more about your character. Your callous remarks sound like you and S.Cotus have a lot in common.

Posted by: USMC | Apr 9, 2008 3:42:21 PM

The same can be said for anyone here that has jokingly commented about someone they dislike going to prison and getting raped in the shower room. Why is one ok and the other isn't?

I think the way he put that was "crude' but he makes a good point. We see everything as horrible as long as it happens to someone we care about. When it happens to someone we don't like you get people encouraging it, indifferent about it or suddenly becomes something that is acceptable to joke about.

Whats with this miracle age of 18 that turns the whole issue from horrible to (as long as he did something to deserve it) its ok?

Posted by: Mark | Apr 9, 2008 4:53:19 PM

The difference, of course, Mark, is that a child sex victim is innocent and a prisoner getting raped in the shower obviously did something to be imprisoned. So, I probably wouldn't lose a ton of sleep over a violent criminal being victimized in the joint, and I can see some humor in "don't drop the soap". And, there is a qualitative difference between advocating prison rape and joking about it. Bruce advocates the rape of children and calls it a lesser evil than what we are doing with sex offenders. Jokes about "soap-dropping" are in bad taste--not the mark of a vile person.

That said, prison rape is unacceptable. People are sentenced to prison, and not rape. Moreover, the casual acceptance of prison rape does not set a good example for prisoners, as it merely shows that jail authorities are tolerating a "might makes right" culture and is exactly the thing we don't want criminals to think when they get out.

Prison rape, for many reasons, needs to be taken a lot more seriously. We should never tolerate it, and it should be prosecuted. But a joke now and then about it isn't anywhere close to the nonsense Bruce is spewing. Bruce is a sick puppy. Bruce, I hope you get some help.

Posted by: federalist | Apr 9, 2008 5:04:56 PM

Apr 9, 2008 3:12:35 PM, I didn’t say that society failed when it allows felons to be born (though now that you mention it, that is an idea that deserves some thought). I said that society has failed when it produces (via birth, education, nurturing, discipline, etc.) felons.

Federalist, If you ever want to contribute substantively, go ahead. However, Bruce’s comments raise serious issues and apparently have struck a nerve with people that have never seriously considered the merits of their own positions.

USMC, So what if comments are “insensitive.” Every time someone is sent to jail (which happens a lot), such decision is “insensitive” to the need of the convicted person not to be in jail, or to the needs of people that would rather he not be in jail. Sensitivity really has no place in serious discussion.

And, I think the “shower jokes” do raise a good point. Why is it that it is always okay for people to joke about the terrible things that will happen to convicts in prison?

In truth, those people that actually DO practice criminal law DO have a sense of humor. Unfortunately, those others DO NOT (i.e. people that wish they were prosecutors or people that are trying to ride the Victims Rights gravy train). For example, most of the “dumb cop” jokes (or rather antidotes) I know came from prosecutors who were making light of the fact that their cases are have fallen apart due to other’s stupidity. Likewise, most of the “dumb criminal” jokes that were told to me came from the defense side for pretty much the same reason. I am sure Professor Berman, if you get him liquored up, knows a bunch of “dumb law school professor” jokes. (The constant drumbeat of “dumb criminal” jokes shared with non-prosecutors in public is more of a public relations ploy to try and convince lay people that they don’t have much in common with criminals.) So, humor can be the best medicine.

And, of course, lost in this stupid debate over whose ideas were just too dangerous for a blog, is the ideas themselves.

Bruce was making a very normal point: that crime in probably inevitable, and society must accept some crime. We do in the United States. Our constitution assumes that people will get away with some crimes. Likewise, since we need to spend money on more important things than law enforcement (like the war and building more glorious prisons) must set a tolerable level of crime. Does anyone disagree with me? Does anyone seriously say that we should devote all of our resources to achieving a 0% crime rate?

Assuming the answer is no, we must accept that EVERY crime on the books will be committed at some time or other. There will be murders. There will be thefts. There will be rapes. There even will be violations 18 USC 2279 (Sailormongering)!!!!!

In fact, the only sure way to eliminate a specific crime is to simply legalize it.

Posted by: S.cotus | Apr 9, 2008 5:14:52 PM

Many kids enjoy being raped. Every 16 year old boy who has had sex with his hot 28 year old schoolmarm (who is later arrested and charged with statutory rape and forever labeled a sex offender) not only will not be psychologically harmed from the "child rape" he experienced -- it was the single greatest moment of his life. And he'll become the most popular kid in school because of it.

Good point Mark re: the casual way everyone jokes about prison rape and "being put in a cell with a big hairy guy named Mozel." Har har, rape of bad people (especially by dark-skinned minorities) is funnnnny, but rape of cute little blond-haired blue-eyed white children is so horrible it can't even be discussed except to be condemned.

Federalist: rape is not a sentence, so no matter what the person did to land in prison, he does not deserve to be raped any more than a child. Given the choice between a 16 year old boy being raped by his hot blond schoolteacher (per my example above) or a prisoner being raped by his cellmate, I'd choose the 16 year old.

Bruce advocates the rape of children...

No Bruce made abundantly clear that he does not advocate the rape of children. I'm simply saying we just need to deal with it and realize it's nowhere near as pervasive of a problem as the nightly 10 o'clock news or dateline make it out to be. It's quite rare that a stranger snatches a child and rapes him/her. When I'm intentionally blunt in what I say, you can at least give me the courtesy of not putting words into my mouth.

The people forcing sex offenders who have served their time to live under a bridge in Florida, or kicking them out of their homes in Georgia, or wanting to chop their balls off in Louisiana are not parsing their words and they're not worried about offending or hurting anyone. Neither am I. If we can't talk bluntly, no matter how sensitive the topic, then there's no point in talking. All this "the sex offenders are after our children!" hysteria needs to end, and it needs to end yesterday. The problem is as long as it sells advertising, the media will continue to milk it keeping parents in a frenzy. And like I said before, no parent is capable of recognizing that their fat, smelly, ugly, sticky, greasy porkster of a child is simply not a target of pedophiles. Your kid is safe because he's ugly, so chill. If childhood obesity rates in America continue to climb at current rates, eventually all the pedophiles will simply move to Thailand and our precious children will be forever safe.

Finally... cleverness/snark and intellectual rigor are not mutually exclusive. I strive for both.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 5:28:31 PM

"Just let them rape a few kids here and there and get over it."

Get some help, Bruce. You need it.

Posted by: federalist | Apr 9, 2008 5:43:28 PM

federalist, there is a big difference between "do it" (advocating something) versus "deal with it" (tolerating something).

1990 Texas gubanatorial candidate Clayton Williams, Jr. said during his campaign that rape is like the Texas weather--"it's inevitable so relax and enjoy it." Those were the days.

I'm not even saying we should "relax" or "enjoy" the fact that kids are being raped. I'm saying we should treat it the same way we treat drive-by shootings and bank robberies.

The choice presented is either "let them rape a few kids here and there and get over it" or chop off their balls, force them to live under bridges, require them to stay 100 feet away from everything, require them to have their photos, names and addresses on public websites so people can vandalize the place they live (if they're lucky to be allowed to live someplace with an actual address), and require them to wear huge GPS monitors on their legs. That's the choice. I choose the former.

The choice should be between letting it occur and treating it like any other serious felony. If that were the chioce, I'd choose the latter. But people like yourself literally want blood.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 5:58:52 PM

Actually Bruce, The new fad of residency restrictions brings out an even colder side to how people view children, sex, and rape. You could even say people are starting to deal with the fact they can not stop all sexual abuse, so instead they are resorting to 'protecting their own' with the residency restrictions. Politicians have publically stated they don't care who gets them as long as those sex offenders aren't living in their state, and the people cheer them for it and reelect them.

IMHO: its "let them rape a few kids here and there as long as they don't do it in our town"

Posted by: Mark | Apr 9, 2008 6:42:31 PM

The problem is that everyone thinks their kids are so wonderful and special. They're not. In fact, being a rape-toy for a pedophile is probably the most useful thing most children will ever be. The rest of the time they will just be loud, obnoxious little vandals.

Finally, most people like the idea of fearing that their children are in constant danger of being raped by a sexual predator. It's a perverse way of thinking your kid is so great.

Pause for a moment and read the above sentences you wrote. These are opinions that cannot possibly be argued as facts. Read them a second time! Then call S.cotus and discuss what asses you are making of yourselves.

Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 6:48:44 PM

That's a good point, Mark, I never thought of it that way. I guess there are two types of restriction, the "not in this part of town" or "not in this county" restriction, and then there's the "not within 1000 feet of schools, churches, playgrounds, shopping malls, grocery stores, golf courses, video arcades, hospitals, swimming pools, gyms, and restaurants" that works as a de facto restriction on living in a particular place. There may be 5 square feet that are legal to stand in, otherwise it's "another sex offender who violated the terms of his probation" - right back to prison. But insofar as it's a "not in my backyard" issue, implicit is that it's perfectly fine in someone else's backyard. Never thought about that.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 6:51:15 PM

I take it you haven't been around any children lately (other than your own). There is no evil more pure than that of a child.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 7:05:12 PM

Bruce: You quoting that nefarious advocate of original sin and child rape, St. Augustine?

Posted by: Alec | Apr 9, 2008 7:34:23 PM

Alec: Not intentionally, what quote are you talking about?

If anything, I'm paraphrasing Bill Hicks.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 7:44:56 PM

Not a quote, I guess. Just, you know, the belief that unbaptized infants are wrotten, wrotten beings who will burn in hell if they are not, you know, "saved." I had a professor in undergrad who loved mocking Augustine on that point.

Posted by: Alec | Apr 10, 2008 12:10:03 AM

Alec I'm not talking about original sin or anything like that. Just watch kids playing on a playground and unless your blinded by their cuteness, you'll see that they're evil little creatures.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 10, 2008 7:34:53 AM

in one of the first few posts someone said this:

"You forget that much of what's behind the "hysteria" surrounding sex offenders has to do with their crimes and high recidivism rates."

Actually Sheriffs, Probation Officers, and of course the numbers from the Department of Justice all say that sex offenders have one of the lowest rates of recidivism among all criminals.

But it's the local news, papers, and politicians that have spread the "high" recidivism myth. Why? I don't know, but I do know that it is simply not true. People sure do love to eat it up though, and believe it as fact. That is just one of many ridiculous lies that are fueling this whole thing. I'll go ahead and post my story:

Posted by: John | Apr 11, 2008 5:07:54 AM

Years ago, I was at a party and slept with a girl who I had no idea was underage. Turns out her dad was a cop, too. This happened in GA. On June 2nd, 2003, I accepted a plea bargain. I was sentenced to 10 years probation, ordered to stay away from all females age 13-17, granted "First Offender" status, and told that I would NOT be made to register with the state's Sex Offender Registry. I had just finished college, so I got a job and eventually even bought a house. Then the law changed.
I was made to register in June of 2005, because of HB106. At the time of my plea and sentencing, the law specifically stated the "First Offenders will NOT be subject to the registration laws of this section." That was a big part of my taking the plea. Then, 2 and a half years later, the word "not" was crossed out on the new bill, applied retroactively, and I was forced to register.
I would now be subject to a whole slew of new restrictions that apply to anyone on the registry. Soon thereafter, HB1059 was drafted with even more restrictions. I lost my job and soon my house went into foreclosure.
With the help of family and friends, I was able to keep my house, and in April of 2006, the law changed again. The case of "State v. Plunkett" removed all first offenders from the registry. I obtained a court order, went back to work, and tried to rebuild my life.
Then, in 2007, the appeals court reversed the Plunkett decition. In the case of Peters v. Donald, it was decided that all first offenders must go back on the registry. I appeared in court and was ordered to register.
This amounts to the third time that I am being punished for the same crime. Each time the law changes, so does the course of my life, my ability to work, and my ability to plan for the future. I did break the law and have tried may best to show that I am truly sorry for having done so. I was specifically told many times that I would not be forced to register because I was shielded by my First Offender status. I have been told that it is not considered a punitive action to be placed back on the registry, but a regulatory, civil action, there not retroactive punishment. However, failure to comply with any of the several living and work restrictions that go along with being on the registry could result in my being imprisoned for a minimum of ten years. It's like the legislature is just playing ping-pong with my life.

Posted by: John | Apr 11, 2008 5:10:06 AM

John, i'm really sorry to hear about what's happened to you. Your story is a great example of why I stand by my brutally harsh point. A kid being snatched and raped is not worse than an adult having his life destroyed for no reason, or for a bad reason. It's worth a few dozen kids being raped to not have thousands of stories like yours.

As your story points out, "Sex offender" includes a horrendously wide disparity of offenses. Only one subset has a high recidivism rate, that being the really wacky pedophiles who just can't resist. But there are so few of those, and the fact that they can't resist implies recidivism at the outset. We've created so many "sex offender" crimes that just picking up the phone and saying the wrong thing to the wrong person could get you blacklisted for life, forced to move out of your home, and forced to risk vigilante violence due to public registries.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 11, 2008 2:23:56 PM

It's worth a few dozen kids being raped to not have thousands of stories like yours.

I agree that John has been wronged by our system but in your attempt to make a point you turn your audience off with statements that seem to make one believe that you cannot be taken serious! Use your talents more wisely to make your points.

Posted by: Recon | Apr 11, 2008 6:45:47 PM

Awesome blog, I've been a reader of your blog for a while now, probably one of the best I have come across, very informative.. Keep up the great work, Josh.

Posted by: Stag Parties MN | Apr 12, 2008 2:40:05 PM


Between 1995 and 1996, more than 670,000 women were the victim of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
(now read below to see the child rape and assault stats) a few dozen? you royal shithole. also 1 in 33 men are the victims of sexual assault as well. 22% of females raped are under the age of 12. 44% OF RAPE VICTIMS ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 according to a US Senate Judiciary Committe only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. How is this a small problem you STUPID piece of shit?

Hello !! take a look at these statistics. 126,000 children in one year. a few dozen? almost 40,000 were between the ages of 4 and 7. a small problem? Of course it's always a man who advocates letting rapes pass. so we won't have to hear about "thousands" of lives being destroyed like his????????? of course 99% of rape victims are women, so quite frankly i don't think ANY man should have a fucking say in the laws that might help protect women and children. I would say quite likely our friend bruce has some underage predilictions of his own or he wouldn't sound so fucking stupid. I love hearing the abusers talking about how the victims aren't suffering and it's more important to stop the suffering of abusers. People who rape show that other peoples lives, bodies, feelings, well-being and all that are not their own, but are equal only to an object or something disposable. Outcome? promiscuity, prostitution, alcoholism, drug abuse, cycle of child abuse continues, death, suicide, murder. Even the alledged people who don't have "problems" have problems you can't see, phobias and nightmares, etc. Bruce you suck ass (probably literally) and are probably a card carrying member of NAMBLA (the north american man-boy love associatin whose motto is "sex by eight or it's too late"...of course, it's such a small problem

In 1995, local child protective service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse; of these, 75% were girls. Nearly 30% of child victims were between the ages of 4 and 7.
- Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Child Maltreatment, 1995

• Approximately one-third of all juvenile victims of sexual abuse cases are children younger than 6 years of age.
- Violence and the Family; Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996

• According to the Justice Department, one in two rape victims is under age 18; one in six is under age 12.

• In 1996, only 31% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials - less than one in every three.

Posted by: Rebecca | Apr 15, 2008 11:14:07 AM

Hey Trolls!!!

Posted by: bob nob | Apr 23, 2008 7:14:24 PM

Wow. I have spent the last 30 minutes reading down this chain of blogs here. There a number of excellent points here. Bruce is obviously a very intelligent person and makes a number of excellent points but does it in a very crude way. His crudeness puts him on one end of the spectrum. Rebecca is obviously a very intelligent woman and likewise has some excellent points but is just as extreme as Bruce with all of her spewing of anger and foul language and therefore she falls on the other end of the spectrum.

Whatever happened to common sense folks? That is what this problems needs. We need common sense laws that protect the public from the real dangers of society and don’t put people like John in the same category. This one size fits all mentality is just not practical. Why must it be one way or the other? I am just an average person, I don’t consider myself especially intelligent, and I have not found the cure for cancer or written any best selling novels but this issue seems so obvious to me. There has to be middle ground that protects the public and doesn’t violate the rights of people who are not threats to society or have proven and earned their right back into society. What’s is it going to take for society to stop listening to the Bruce’s and Rebecca’s of the world and take a common sense approach to this problem?

Posted by: Anthony | Apr 24, 2008 12:53:01 AM

I wouldn't say that Rebecca sounds intelligent. In fact, she completely missed Bruce's point - he's not saying there are only a small number of child rapes, he's saying that the incredibly harsh rules that are tailored only towards these cases only prevent a small number of additional rapes.

It's neither a controversial nor a complex point, though it appears that many can't get past their visceral reactions to bruce's admittedly poor phrasing.

Posted by: | Apr 28, 2008 12:06:56 PM

I agree with Anthony, incredibly harsh rules for everyone is just spitting in the eye of our constitution. What every happened to judges deciding how socially damaging a criminal act was? The judge has heard all the evidence, and is the best person to decide whether society will be better protected with that person in prison, on the sex offender list, castrated, or killed. That way Jack, who was 18, will not spend the next ten years living under a bridge in Florida, unemployable because he has sex with his 16-year-old steady girlfriend. This one-size fit all approach is unnecessarily punishing to offenders and isn't making us any safer.

Posted by: Larry | May 9, 2008 12:30:21 PM

Love this area here. I read with interest all of your posts. The laws have to be repealed. They bunch all of these "kids being kids" with the REAL predators. I constantly refer people to the Human Rights Watch 146 page article/book "No Easy Answers". It shows that these restrictions don't work and it HIDES the real predators. The fact is the registry has not been proven to work, it has "killed" over 50 sex offenders because of the vigilantes out and about in America (and beyond). My son was chatting online as a 22 year old with a 15 year old (don't tell me that's abnormal, when I was 16, I only dated guys in their 20's and NO I didn't sleep with them, their maturity level was the same as mine and most of us girls!). The "daddy" caught them and punished his daughter and turned my son into the law. He's in prison now in Louisiana and will get out for 20 months of "hell" (parole) and then registers for 10 years -- but then, 25 years came into effect in January and now Jindal is pushing his "crime" into lifetime registration. The whole deal is sick CRAP and I will continue to fight because there is a difference in saying "I want you to be my sex slave" or some kind of REAL predator and what this gal and my son said -- he told her often "I wish you were legal" -- he NEVER MET or ATTEMPTED TO meet her! THAT is different than a predator! Should he be punished, SURE, should he have to register at all? NO, give him (and her) the opportunity to get some counseling for internet addiction, charge them both with a misdemeanor (basically to scare them straight, it sure worked for my son, one night in jail and his entire life changed, for the good) or even just charge him but get her some counseling. Remove BOTH of them from the net for awhile (cold turkey) and then evaluate them after awhile--if they're doing good (or just my son), let them get back into society and live their lives. If he screws up, smack his butt into something different! First time offenders who were chatting consensually is FAR different than what the governor and other idiot lawmakers are pushing as a "real threat". They had to catch my son and make sure he went to prison so they could "prove" that "it's working". I could fix this mess so fast, and I wouldn't care what people said. The facts are facts and if it can be backed up, I'd vote and create laws on FACTS. I could go on and on...I'll shut up now. I'm an angry Mom who will fight until I die, it's unconstitutional and cruel and unusual punishment and OH, don't start me on the Supreme Courts decision saying the "registry" isn't a "punishment" but "regulatory" -- They should go to prison for trashing our Constitution! (and the lawmakers too!)

Posted by: Hats | Jun 12, 2008 1:30:51 PM

my girlfriend is 15 she never told me till after we had sex i am looking all around the internet trying to find how much prison time i can get for having sex with her im only 20

Posted by: Rodney | Jul 11, 2008 10:52:49 PM

Man, lots of heat but very little light here. First off, there is no question that molestation of children is a criminal matter deserving punishment. That being said, Louisiana's approach is fueled by mindless fear that does little to address steps that could be taken to REALLY reduce the frequency of these crimes. After spending a tremendous amount of time on the net looking at study after study done by government and academia, I am amazed at how misguided Louisiana's justice system can be. Here are some themes repeated over and over in these studies.

1. Stranger danger is extremely rare! Abusers are almost always known, and known well, by the victims, and their parents.
(This is not a very comforting fact for parents to ponder. It is much easier to believe that my friends and relatives are good people, and it is "those other people" I have to worry about and they are all locked up or castrated. Louisiana laws do nothing to address the real profile of sex offenders, but these laws do get politicians elected and provide a false sense of comfort. Righteous indignation does feel good even if misguided!)
2. Recidivism is very low among sex offenders. Study after study shows this. Even if you don't believe the studies, there is still enough evidence to make belief in the inevitability of repeat offenses highly debatable. I am amazed at how often the myth of high recidivism is spoken of as fact on news programs and no one ever actually mentions ANY studies that support these “FACTS??”.
3. People with inclinations towards sex crimes have no hope and no help. There is no way that they can get help short of being sent to jail. Mental health care professionals cannot work with sex offenders short of prison without being implicated in the crimes of their patients. Doesn’t it make more sense to prevent the crime before it happens rather than having to deal with the damage to everyone involved after that act is committed?
4. Sex offenders are an extremely diverse group. For the most part, the criminal justice system treats them all as exactly the same. As has been mentioned earlier, an eighteen year old boy who gets involved with an underage girl is labeled with the scarlet letter and his life is over. There are all sorts of crimes and personality types involved in this very broad area of criminal activity, and the prognosis for these offenders is very different based on many factors. It should be unconstitutional to sentence someone for crimes not in evidence that haven’t even been committed when nothing about the defendant as an individual is being taken into account.
5. Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the nation, and the United States has a very high incarceration rate among developed countries. Is it just possible we are doing something wrong? Further, Louisiana spends very little on housing and caring for its prison population. Very few Louisiana inmates come out of the system better than when they went in. It could be said that Louisiana is participating in its own crime problem.
6. When sex offenders do come out of prison, society and the legal system so persecutes them it is virtually impossible for them to live. I have read that the stresses placed on a sex offender who reenter society are so great that this alone can lead to criminal activity of all types.

Finally, let me point out that nowhere in my post have I denied that these deplorable acts are crimes and are deserving of punishment. The point is, Louisiana’s approach is not well thought out and is fueled by mindless hysteria that has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with pandering to the public’s fears and paranoia.

Posted by: Kevin | Jul 15, 2008 12:34:38 PM

well if this is the way that we're going to go- why don't we cut the hand off of thieves? And if they looked at inappropriate pictures- just burn out their retinas? Have we become so barbaric that we no longer realize that it is a crime of the mind and something that needs counseling? No, instead right now our catch all is if a crime disgusts us then we throw them in prison when really all that is going to do is make them hardened and afraid for their lives within the prison walls. I know that we are reaching for a solution, this crime is something that I don't understand, but in my lack of understanding I still see that we are going TOO FAR.

Posted by: sb | Aug 27, 2008 9:01:14 AM

Ex post facto application of Any law is unconstitutional.
When an ex-offender is forced to move from his/her home, thus having to sell it, cannot find another home within the law due to the residency “buffer” zones, get fired from their jobs due to being on the registry, cannot find a new job due to being on the registry, their husband/wife lose their jobs due to a significant other being on the registry, their children lose their friends and are harassed and bullied in school due to a family member being on the registry, thus destroying the children’s lives, ex-offenders are forced into homelessness and to live under bridges, harassed by police, neighbors and probation/parole officers, have to wear “I’m a sex offender T-shirt” or have a neon green license plate on ALL their cars, have “sex offender” on their drivers license and forced to renew their licenses every year, forced from shelters during tornadoes or hurricanes, cannot give blood at some places due to being discriminated against for being on the sex offender registry, denied housing due to being on the registry, signs placed in their yards inviting harassment and ridicule from the neighbors, forced to move when the neighbors start picketing outside the ex-offenders home, the list is endless.


If someone has served their time for a crime many years ago, and now the states come along with new laws… that punish that same person again for that one crime committed and served many years ago… that action is totally unconstitutional

What parent would punish their child again years later for someting they did many years ago?

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand this principle, so why do our legislators persist in holding to these unconstitutional laws? VOTES and Ignorance… that is why.

It is clear they care absolutely NOTHING for the children, men and women.. whole families who are devestated by these draconian laws.

The Constitution says in Article I, Section 10, that "no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." In the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, Harvard's Professor Laurence H. Tribe has defined a bill of attainder as a legislative act "that inflicts punishment without a trial." The late Edgar Bodenheimer, professor emeritus at the University of California, identified an ex post facto law as a statute "that prescribes a greater punishment for a crime already committed."


Posted by: lamomof3 | Sep 15, 2008 11:56:16 AM

I am 33, two years ago my husbad and i decided to try a 'threesome'. he was in the room but i was the one performing oral on the 16year old(whom we were told was 18). I was slapped with felony carnal knowledge and labeled a sex offender. Now the teen purposly lied to us about their age and then went and 'told' on me. Now my husband did not touch them he was just watching, but my point is this If you were to ask 100 people what was the first thing in their thoughts when you say sex offender you will have about 95% if not more say pedophile. when in all actuallity only a samll single digit ercentage of 'convicted sex offenders' or pedophiles or child rapers and molesters. the larger portion of sex offenders fall under categories of sexual assualts, rape, and the above mentioned attraction of 15,16,17 year olds claiming of age for the express purpose of sex with and older person. Most teens these days are more sexually active than 1 or 2 generations ago. Why? Gee I wonder look at outr movies and TV shows. Our childrens "idols" i.e. Brittney Spears. I have a 16 year old cousin who looks and acts around 20 years old. All i can do is shake my head and wonder about her parents. The sex offender laws are good in the fact that there should berules and regulations but it should not be promoted across the board as in the case of myself John and MRS. Hats son and others of our ilk. And yes in agreement with kevin, in the fact that most sex offenses are commited by someone known to the victim. Im not here to say i did no wrong. I could have checked ID but how easy is it these days to get a fake one( still would be in the same boat i am now) because ignorence is no excuse. in the context did I have sex with a 16 year old? yes i did. Did i try to cover my arse by asking age? yes i did. But it wasn't enough. I register once a year and can not partake in my childrens school activities. do I regret it? yes.But if my husband and I had not been 'lied' to i would not be in this mess. The laws need to be re-examined and pro-rated(for lack of a better word at the moment) to fit the case as is. which is done in the cases of murde (i.e. 1stdegree, 2nd degree) Such should it be case by case for sex offenders, instead of the'lets make sure we get everyone' attitude.

Posted by: rose | Sep 19, 2008 3:21:06 PM

i am a sex offender yes the requirement the state of la puts on us are worthless. the only way i donot reoffend is i choose not to do so.why put sex offender on our driving lin.that not going to stop me or even slow me down.what does help is a good support group which we are required to take part of.having a good friend who holds you accountable for any questionable acts.and the desired not to go back to jail.watch me but at same time allow me to prove that my action show that i have truly changed.

Posted by: jmn | Nov 13, 2008 12:20:16 AM

The difference, of course, Mark, is that a child sex victim is innocent and a prisoner getting raped in the shower obviously did something to be imprisoned. So, I probably wouldn't lose a ton of sleep over a violent criminal being victimized in the joint, and I can see some humor in "don't drop the soap".
On such sentiments are societies justifiably burned.

What we have here is such an absolutist level of intolerance that it's almost a violence against the person to read it. Innocence and guilt are defined not as actions or as points on a scale but as intrinsic properties. Children are absolutely innocent, criminals in prison are guilty of "something" and whatever it is this means we can laugh at their forced sexual abuse. Got busted three times for having a dime bag of weed? Anal rape for you! And America will laugh while you bleed.

The self-righteous harrumphing and clutching of hankies to bosoms over Bruce's opinions (which are actually, in full context, nothing especially out of the ordinary in political theory terms; the question of how many crimes can or must be allowed in order to prevent a dangerous cycle of authoritarian state violence against the citizenry is not exactly new) would be a lot easier to palate if the absolute blindness of the commenters to their own violent bigotries weren't laid out for all to see. The base irrationalism of it all, the fetishisation of youth and "innocence" and the countervailing assumption that anyone who is a criminal - a violator of state or federal law, lest we forget, no matter how just or unjust that law may be - must be somehow subhuman and unworthy of any compassion or respect of even their most fundamental rights, is so laughably primitive and tribalist that I'm sore tempted to say you're not even qualified to have an opinion on the matter until you grow up by a couple of centuries.

2.5 Million Americans in prison, and they all "deserve" to be brutally raped. Yet someone saying that about poor innocent children is nasty and monstrous. I'm not here to advocate child rape, just advising you to take the plank out of your eye before you chastise other commenters for the splinters in their own. If you can see your way to joking about one kind then fuck the fuck off with your moral opprobrium if someone jokes about another. Either have the cajones to stand up against the countervailing culturally accepted forms of rape as well as those which are currently fashionable to cast as lepers, or sit your unimaginative, socially-hypnotised, homophobic punk ass down.

Posted by: McDuff | Jan 16, 2009 10:31:08 PM


I seem to have randomly commented on an unrelated thread, just trying something out.

Posted by: McDuff | Jan 16, 2009 10:38:54 PM

Comments after posting appear entirely different to those prior to posting. What on earth is going on with the software here?

Posted by: McDuff | Jan 16, 2009 10:40:27 PM


Posted by: GT | Jan 4, 2017 4:19:28 AM


Posted by: GT | Jan 4, 2017 4:19:57 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB