EDITORIAL: Sex offenders - Opinion

SAVE THIS

EMAIL THIS Print

PRINT THIS Popular

POST A COMMENT

Jul. 03, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Sex offenders

No classification of criminal attracts less public sympathy and more attention from authorities than sex offenders. Such evils run so afoul of societal norms that punishments extend far beyond prison terms, to post-incarceration registration and, for those deemed most likely to re-offend, the posting of their identities, residences and locations of employment.

But how far can lawmakers and authorities go? Can they enact new punishments and apply them retroactively to offenders who have already served their sentences? Can they set aside the constitutional rights of a small minority based on the revulsions and fears of the majority?

Most Popular Stories

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name

EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

Our politicians are the greatest, all right

EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

These important questions will play out in Las Vegas courtrooms in the coming months after state and federal district judges blocked Nevada's new sex offender law from taking effect. AB579, known as the Adam Walsh Act, would have reclassified sex offenders based on the nature of their offense as opposed to their perceived risk of re-offending.

Doing so would have boosted the number of Tier 3 sex offenders in Nevada from about 165 to a little more than 2,500, requiring them to register with authorities every 90 days and submit to fingerprinting. Some of the reclassified would have to wear GPS monitoring devices, and all would have their photos and personal information posted on the state's sex offender Web site.

A handful of affected offenders, represented by attorneys Richard Schonfeld, Robert Langford and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, argued that the law is overly restrictive and disciplines people anew for crimes already paid for.

On June 27, District Judge David Wall granted a preliminary injunction against the law's enforcement in Clark County and scheduled arguments on its constitutionality for Aug. 29. Then, on Monday, U.S. District Judge James Mahan issued an injunction statewide, scheduling arguments on the constitutionality of the law for Aug. 26. Both judges held that if thousands of people had their identities posted, only to have the law later determined unconstitutional, they would lose their due process rights and be unable to regain their anonymity and whatever lawful reputations they might have spent years building.

There are also legitimate public policy questions to be answered. Police and prosecutors have made great efforts to identify those felons who pose a legitimate threat to the community at large. But due to legislative fiat, the state is now suddenly swarming with 2,500 rapists and molesters at the same risk of re-offending?

These issues deserve rigorous debate next month. Thus far, the judiciary has met its principal responsibility in protecting the rights of all citizens -- even sex offenders.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	16 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Chris wrote on February 01, 2009 07:57 PM: I have to say I am a sex offender. in 1993 I was playing tennis in a new park that was open to the public. The restrooms were locked so I had to pee by my car. I was seen by a mother, father and their son. I was charged with a Lewd Act in the Presence of the minor but NOT the adults. I have NEVER been arrested from this date not even a traffic Ticket. But yet I am listed online. So I think they need to make laws to put someone like me away from someone who actually raped someone. It's not fair. One community I lived in vegas went nuts and some neighbor printed me off the internet and posted me all over the community mail boxes making out to be some sick freak. Yes I was young and dumb when I took the pee by my car and I can promise I will and have never thought of doing that again anytime in my life. Jagmodelx@aol.com cj wrote on July 03, 2008 07:18 PM: So, if hookers get busted, and they get put on the list, then we can see who they are, know they are for real and don't have to worry if they are cops when we ask them for a "date". Heck yeah!!! Let's do this. hss wrote on July 03, 2008 03:07 PM: Lets be rational ppl. There are at least 3 issues to look at. Firstly, if we are going to list ppl by virtue of the offense and not the likelihood of offending, you wind up with ridiculous anomalies. Like the 11 yo convicted of lewd behavior for mooning his friends in public being treated the same as a adult "weenie wagger". You have to take all the fact into consideration. Next you can't change the rules in the middle of the gam. Once they person has done the deed, the applicable rules can't be changed. But most importantly, someone might actually get value of a list that 165 names long but at 2500 today and growing, the list will eventually be so long that no one can make effective use out of it. And who's going to pay for it? I'd rather have new text books than a longer sex offender registry. tj wrote on July 03, 2008 01:49 PM: So what all counts as a sex offender? I have heard that people urinating in public will be listed. I picture a drunk guy on the strip, peeing in an alley or stairwell, although gross and lewd, not what I picture as a sex offender. What about internet porn as one previous poster has indicated. If that is the case, then I am sure most everyone on this forum or who reads the LVRJ has the potential to be listed, (oh don't try and deny it, you all know it). What about the hookers and their john's? Will they too be listed? I mean, yeah it's illegal but they are consenting adults, should they be thrown in the same category as child molesters? I know not all "sex offenders" are child molesters but when I hear the term sex offender, I think child molester, not of the people above. I also become biased when I hear sex offender, even though I know it is wrong until you know everything but it does evoke a certain feeling of ill will towards the person to whom it is assigned. I agree with some of the other posts, if someone has done their time, let them be. And why only sex offenders, why not rapists, drug dealers, drunk drivers, etc. No victim wrote on July 03, 2008 12:37 PM: Cindy, not all SOs have victims! Not all SO hurt another person. There are SOs who peed in public, flashed boobs at concerts, were 18 when they had sex with their 17 year old girl friend with concent, internet porn where no one leaved their home is just rediculous - why don't they arrest the people taking the pictures? Thats like arresting people for watching (and enjoying) violent movies. Inmates who are caught masterbating are given another year on thier sentance, another felony on their record and are now "Sex Offenders" for having sex with themselves in their cel. When we are not free to have sex with our selves (in a private) we have gone way too far. Rob L. wrote on July 03, 2008 11:12 AM: "I'm for listing ALL of them online with addresses and photos. They have already shown they are capable of such behavior and law-abiding should be allowed to know who and where they are. And so what if it is an inconvenience to the offender?" Your desire for revenge is trumping security. I would much rather have the focus on the percentage that are a REAL danger as opposed to the guy who was convicted 25 years ago and has been living a decent life since. This is yet another feel-good piece of legistlation that does not to better protect the public and in fact makes us less secure. Another point... using your logic, why shouldnt we post the pictures of bank robbers and murderers living in our midst? I would be far more concerned about the guy who knocked off a liquor store last year than a guy who committed a sex offense 10 years ago. Sad Summerlin wrote on July 03, 2008 10:09 AM: Hmmm... George.... Why did you chose the "homosexual" comparison rather than the interracial one? As I recall it was also illegal for a white to marry a black in some states... but I guess its no longer allowed to be a bigot in that regard... There are many different levels of sex offenses and each should be treated according to their degree. A man and woman caught having sex in the park should not be registered in the same manner as the predatory female teacher who has sex with her 12 year old student... The "threat to the community" aspect is the key wording here... we need to identify the threats, post their pictures, and be mindful of people who can cause our children and our community harm. But even I have to agree with GEORGE on some aspects.... this is a slippery slope, and if people like GEORGE are put in charge... anyone caught doing anything but the missionary position will be identified as an offender and the SCARLET LETTERS will return... Shannon wrote on July 03, 2008 09:48 AM: Cindy: I don't have a problem with posting pictures, addresses, etc. However, the court is right in this instance...you can't change the rules after someone has been convicted and served their sentence. It cannot be retroactive. Cindy wrote on July 03, 2008 09:18 AM: I'm for listing ALL of them online with addresses and photos. They have already shown they are capable of such behavior and law-abiding should be allowed to know who and where they are. And so what if it is an inconvenience to the offender? They could have avoided that inconvenience had they not chosen to harm another human being -- and their reputations wouldn't have needed to be rebuilt in the first place. Travis wrote on July 03, 2008 09:02 AM: "he will appoint someone who is so far left that sex offenses against children MAY become legal." Wow, legalizing pedophilia. That is an EXTREME stretch. Read All Comments