1. Yes, it's a whole new look! Have questions or need help? Please post your question in the New Forum Questions thread Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Seeing tons of unread posts after the upgrade? See this thread for help. Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice

Registered Sex Offenders in Broadlands

Discussion in 'Broadlands Community Issues' started by OSimpson, Mar 18, 2015.

  1. K8467

    K8467 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hardly.
     
    chris67 likes this.
  2. K8467

    K8467 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    3
    Mature, real mature.
    Hardly.
     
    chris67 likes this.
  3. K8467

    K8467 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    3
    I understand what you are saying and respect your opinion. Having closely dealt with a sex offense case over the last few years, I agree that you can find a lawyer, commonwealth attorney, public defender, etc. to to argue ANYTHING in court. Now, you've peaked my interest...In your opinion as a former federal prosecutor why is specific intent not considered in sex offense crimes? For example:
    Person A goes online, seeks out an escort, finds out the escort is a minor, still decides to meet up with the minor but is stopped by the police because it turns out it is a police bust. This person's intent was to still engage in sexual contact knowing it was a minor but in VA is classified as a "non violent sex offender" because there was no actual contact with the minor.
    Person B meets a minor but is led to believe that the minor is, at least 18, and engages in sexual contact. Person B was not ignorant of the law and had no intentions of engaging in sexual contact with a minor but was rather tricked into believing the minor was of age. Now, in VA, Person B is classified as a "violent sex offender" because there was actual contact with a minor even though the intention was never to engage with a minor.

    It doesn't seem fair that Person B ends up on the registry for life and is classified as a "violent sex offender" and Person A is classified a "non violent sex offender" when their intentions were vice versa. It seems a bit backwards and is one of the issues I have with the current state of the registry. Thoughts?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2015
  4. mikebnllnb

    mikebnllnb Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    26
    What adjective would you, in your vast wisdom find non-intimidating? Surprising? Astounding? Stupefying? Give me a break! :screwy::screwy::screwy::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  5. K8467

    K8467 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Qb, post: 185479, member: 4186"]What adjective would you, in your vast wisdom find non-intimidating? Surprising? Astounding? Stupefying? Give me a break! :screwy::screwy::screwy::rolleyes::rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
    It doesn't matter what adjective I find non-intimidating because I wouldn't have used an adjective (or emoticons) at all for the simple fact that it could be construed either way. I merely would have reposted the information.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  6. redon1

    redon1 aka Aphioni

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    5,929
    Likes Received:
    69
    it was a jooooke. lighten up.
     
  7. mikebnllnb

    mikebnllnb Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    26

    Clearly it does matter to you, that was the whole point of your nonsensical post. Only someone wound way too tightly would equate the OP with harassment or intimidation.

    In addition, the OP never states what they find alarming nor do they give their alarm context.


    And Redon1's "You Moved My Victrola?" Actually made me laugh out loud.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
    redon1 likes this.
  8. K8467

    K8467 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    3
    You missed my point.
     
  9. T8erman

    T8erman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    249
    No, I do not think anyone missed your point. However, it appears that you are the only one "alarmed" that someone used the word "alarming" in a comment regarding Sexual Offenders. I really do not think you will garner much sympathy in, what appears to be your defense of, I am guessing here, someone you most likely know on the Registry.
    Now, I am also for getting those individuals off the Registry that truly do not belong and think our legal system needs seriously looked at with regards to what is and isn't a sexual offense that needs to be published.
     
    redon1 likes this.
  10. JAGMAN

    JAGMAN Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    13
    @K8467 -
    The facts described for Person B relate to a general intent crime. General intent crimes do not require proof that a person intended the precise harm or result that occurred. Rather, the Commonwealth only needs to prove that the act was committed and it was not an accident. In addition, statutory rape (and other sexualy-related crimes against children) fall within a subset of general intent crimes know as strict liability crimes that require no mental state to prove a person liable for the crime. Rather, the State only needs to prove that the person committed the crime. Strict liability for statutory rape is based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual. However, the attorney representing Person B can plead the assertion that B was tricked into engaging in sex with the minor as a matter in extenuation/mitigation as it relates to sentencing but this probably would have no affect on whether B is placed on the Registry.
     
  11. K8467

    K8467 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    3
    Good to hear (re: your second paragraph)!
     
  12. K8467

    K8467 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thank you for the insight!
     
  13. blunoz

    blunoz Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    23
    That's pretty interesting JAGMAN, thanks for that explanation.
     
  14. OSimpson

    OSimpson Certified Master Naturalist

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    21
    Wow - I shared this information that just to create awareness to those who may be interested. We are not at all overprotective of our children but - awareness of any kind of potential risk is worth to know. No intention to go to search for these people on the list on the other hand we do talk to our kids about this to make them aware as well.

    I thinks it's good to have the kids to be "cautious" with a real reason we can talk about.

    Best,
    Oya
     
    TeamDonzi likes this.
  15. TeamDonzi

    TeamDonzi ShowMeTheMoney!

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    5
    That PETCO guy now works at DULLES CENTER PETCO. I see him there all the time. Not sure about the other creeps
     
  16. TeamDonzi

    TeamDonzi ShowMeTheMoney!

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    5
    YOU Should read the charges attached to each man.
     
  17. TeamDonzi

    TeamDonzi ShowMeTheMoney!

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    5
    THANK YOU OYA. I've very happy to know this information.
     

Share This Page