Saturday, April 21, 2012
They say this will also help with the global warming issue that is killing the planet and could potentially kill us all.
Anybody who is aware of a neighbor who is having sex is urged to contact the local police and file a report.
The new law will go into affect on May 1st, 2012, and anybody who is convicted of having sex will be arrested, thrown into prison for 25 years to life, and forced to register with the local police (for life) for inclusion on the states sex offender registry.
Once enough people have died and the world population is under control, then the ban will be lifted and people can start having sex again. In the meantime, it has been suggested that people learn how to pleasure themselves until the ban is lifted, or get a robot prostitute.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit to fight this law that they are calling a "gross disregard for human rights," and "a violation of everything that is moral!" They are asking everybody to get on board, contact them, and join in on the lawsuit to stop this madness.
For more on this story, check your local news media.
This is just insane! 20 or so years ago this was called "growing up" now it's a crime. At most, they should have been suspended for a couple days, not ruined for life! And I cannot believe parents are so darn clueless and ignorant!
SPRINGBORO - The 14-year-old boy charged with rape after having consensual sex with a 12-year-old girl is out of juvy and back home with his parents. But the young man's problems extend far beyond the charge.
Parents are appalled the pair was able to sneak out of class at Springboro Junior High to have sex in the bathroom.
"It was a stupid mistake," said Annette White, a mother of three children.
But now the boy is charged with rape. If convicted he could be committed to the Department of Youth services until he's 21. He would also have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
- Why is it always the males problem? If it was consensual, and both agreed, then why isn't both charged with a crime? They both had sex with an underage child! Although, like I said at the top, this is insanity and they should not be ruined for life because of being kids!
"I think they're too young. I think it was a mistake. Kids having sex at that age is awful really. But I don't think he should have to register as a sex offender. That will be with him for life," said Annette's husband, David White
"It's awful because his life is ruined forever. Once you place that strong a label, you can't go back," said grandmother Sandy Hays
The Warren County prosecutor says the sex was 100% consensual. But Ohio law says anyone under the age of 13 years old is unable to consent. It doesn't matter that the boy is only 14 since the girl is 12. But most parents disagree. They believe a school suspension for both children would be a more appropriate punishment.
- Yes, and since that is an insane law, why aren't both being charged with a crime? They both broke the law!
"I think we need to look more closely at things that can ruin children's lives," said grandfather Tim Hays.
"There are some really bad sex offenders and this isn't. This isn't," agreed Sandy.
The boy will in juvenile court for his preliminary hearing on April 25th.
NYU School of Law; Brooklyn Law School
Legal Theory, Vol. 18, p.1, 2012
NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-10
Criminal law theorists overwhelmingly agree that for some conduct to constitute punishment, it must be imposed intentionally. Some retributivists have argued that because punishment consists only of intentional inflictions, theories of punishment can ignore the merely foreseen hardships of prison, such as the mental and emotional distress inmates experience. Though such distress is foreseen, it is not intended, and so it is technically not punishment. In this essay, I explain why theories of punishment must pay close attention to the unintentional burdens of punishment. In two very important contexts — punishment measurement and justification — we use the term “punishment” to capture not only intentional harsh treatment but certain unintentional harsh treatment as well. This means that the widely accepted view that punishment is an intentional infliction requires substantial caveats. It also means that any purported justification of punishment that addresses only the intentional infliction of punishment is woefully incomplete.
By Blair Tellers
The sentencing date for a former San Jose police officer from Gilroy charged with illegal sexual contact with two teen boys has been moved from April 30 to May 7.
Patrick D'Arrigo, 44, was originally charged with three counts of unlawful sexual contact with minors which allegedly occurred between December 2008 to March 2009.
D’Arrigo pleaded “no contest” to two of those counts the afternoon of March 15 at the South County Courthouse in Morgan Hill. These two counts include:
- Count one: A felony violation of lewd or lascivious acts on a child age 14 or 15. Count one requires that D'Arrigo fulfill a lifetime registration as a sex offender.
- Count three: A felony violation for oral copulation of a minor; an alleged victim who was referred to as “Marc Doe” in court.
“Do you understand that for the purposes of these proceedings, pleas of ‘no contest’ is exactly the same as guilty?,” asked Judge Kenneth Shapero during the March 15 hearing.
“Yes your honor,” said D'Arrigo, a former patrol veteran for the San Jose Police Department and former campus officer at a San Jose high school.
A plea of “no contest” means the judge can sentence up to the maximum prison time, which is three years and eight months of state prison, according to Deputy District Attorney Stuart Scott, who prosecuting D'Arrigo's case.
While D’Arrigo was originally charged with three counts of unlawful sexual contact with minors, Scott explained count two will be filed for dismissal since it’s a lesser related offense to count one.
“You can get the same time for it, it’s essentially the same thing,” he explained. Count three however, is a separate act and a separate victim.
According to court records, D'Arrigo met a teenage boy through Craigslist in December 2008 who later introduced D'Arrigo to the alleged victims, a 15-year-old boy and 17-year-old boy.
D'Arrigo allegedly bought gifts for the teen boys, including a $300 iPod in 2008. And it was between December 2008 and January 2009 that he had several parties at his home in Gilroy where he provided alcohol to four teen boys, and allegedly engaged in sexual activities with two of the teens.
The teens testified they had conversations with D'Arrigo about their ages, including where they went to school and what grades they were in.
"He knew," testified one of the alleged victims, referred to only as "Marc Doe," during a secret Aug. 30 grand jury hearing that lasted more than two hours and cemented D'Arrigo's indictment, arrest and raid on his home by police the following day. When asked if D'Arrigo also knew the boys' ages, Marc Doe testified, "Yeah. Due to his profession, you know, he should know."
The booze and sex episodes descended from a friendship sparked on an ad in the fall of 2008, when D'Arrigo responded to a posting in the male-seeking-male category authored by a 16-year-old Gilroy boy, according to the boy's testimony.
The four teen boys testified in August in front of a secret grand jury and an indictment was handed out Aug. 31, 2011. D’Arrigo was arrested on a $100,000 warrant Aug. 31, 2011 by the San Jose Police Department, the same day his home in Gilroy was searched by the Gilroy Police Department. He posted bail the following morning.
On Sept. 2, 2011 D'Arrigo originally pleaded “not guilty” to all three counts.
D'Arrigo's last day with the San Jose Police Department was Feb 28. 2012 according to Tom Norris, the City of San Jose public records manager. He served as a sworn officer for 17 years. Norris said D'Arrigo was not listed as a retiree in the city's retirement center and is not drawing any benefits.
In 2008, a criminal grand jury declined to indict D'Arrigo and SJPD Sgt. Will Manion following accusations they attempted to cover up a DUI incident involving Sandra Woodall, an investigator with the DA's office. D'Arrigo and Manion were fired in January 2010 for their roles in the investigation, but were reinstated following arbitration.
D'Arrigo had been on administrative leave since he was arrested in Aug. 31, 2011 at the SJPD. While on leave, he continued to receive paychecks toward his $97,198 base salary.
13 years ago, John and Michael Arena were arrested and accused of molesting their 9-year old cousin, Stephanie. But believe it or not, this isn’t a story about a family that wants to hurt each other. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite.
Texas Voices is a nonprofit that is fighting for John and Michael’s case.
Check out what you can do to help by checking out their site: http://www.txvoices.com/
CANADA - An Alberta vigilante group claiming to be "Christians" are naming and shaming ex-sex offenders
This is just the typical vigilante group using the "Christian" label to make themselves look better. I do not think Jesus would approve of what they are doing. Did Jesus want to name and shame the prostitute who came to him for forgiveness? No! So why are they?
CALGARY - A "Christian" advocacy group launched a website Friday that identifies convicted pedophiles, but a civil liberties association said it has concerns about vigilantism and people being falsely accused.
Canada Family Action, a Calgary-based organization, launched [site withheld] — the name was originally to be [site withheld] — and claims to identify people who have been convicted of sexual assaults.
- From looking at the site, it doesn't appear to me like that, it appears to me like they think all ex-sex offenders are pedophiles.
It is searchable by province and includes information of people the site says were previously convicted. Many profiles include photographs. Most information appears to be gathered from news sites.
Despite threats of lawsuits, the group went ahead with the launch.
In Canada, the national sex offender registry is only available to law enforcement agencies.
- So yeah, that would define a vigilante in my book.
The Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association said there are concerns with the site, but Calgary police Supt. Sat Parhar does not see any issues with it.
- Of course not, he's a cop!