Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
From W.A.R.'s Vicki Henry
Please comment here on this preposterous proposal before the voters in November..
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2014/9/3/new-bill-a-powerful-tool-to-imprison-sex-offenders/
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2014/9/3/new-bill-a-powerful-tool-to-imprison-sex-offenders/
New bill a ‘powerful tool to imprison sex offenders’
Amendment 2 would allow past cases to be used in court.
By Jennifer Prohov
Sept. 3, 2014
Tags
court
Missouri
Missouri legislature
Share via
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
In the upcoming general election, voters will have many important decisions to make, one of which might make it easier to prosecute sex offenders.
The action, Missouri Evidence in Sexual Crimes Against Minors or Amendment 2, would allow prosecutors who are trying a case against an alleged child sex offender to use relevant past criminal activity as evidence against the defendants.
This means that if an alleged sex offender had been accused, but not found guilty, of a past crime, a prosecutor could still introduce the record of that accusation to the court as evidence against the defendant under Amendment 2.
The amendment has been seen as controversial, as it might make it easier to reach a guilty verdict in those types of cases.
“Due to some Supreme Court decisions, prosecuting attorneys were unable to try many cases of child sexual abuse in our state,” Rep. John McCaherty, R-Mo., said. “As a member of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee, I see the amendment as a positive step to give prosecutors the tools they need to protect our children, and to see those that prey on them prosecuted. There has been no opposition to this legislation, and I was proud to sponsor it.”
McCaherty is the primary sponsor of the amendment, which recently received approval from the Missouri House of Representatives to be placed on the ballot in November.
McCaherty said he felt the bill would address an important gap in Missouri’s justice system, giving prosecutors a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders.
He said there should be no violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which forbids double jeopardy, secures the right to a grand jury and protects against self-incrimination, or the Sixth Amendment, which includes the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the rights to a lawyer and an impartial jury and the right to know who your accusers are.
“Of course there have to be safeguards in place as well, so a defendant can receive a fair trial,” McCaherty said. “Not all evidence is relevant to every trial. This is the responsibility of the judge to determine the relevance in each case.”
The amendment has gained local attention and a Protect Missouri Children Committee formed to support the measure. The group believes that the amendment will protect children and aid in putting dangerous criminals behind bars.
The group is co-chaired by St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch and Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd. Jasper County Prosecutor Dean Dankelson is the group’s treasurer.
According to the group’s website, www.protectmissourichildren.com, Dankelson believes that the passage of this amendment is crucial.
“Passing this constitutional amendment is probably the most important thing we can do to protect Missouri children from the most dangerous child sex predators,” Dankelson said in a news release.
Dave in the Philippines
Please comment here on this preposterous proposal before the voters in November..
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2014/9/3/new-bill-a-powerful-tool-to-imprison-sex-offenders/
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2014/9/3/new-bill-a-powerful-tool-to-imprison-sex-offenders/
New bill a ‘powerful tool to imprison sex offenders’
Amendment 2 would allow past cases to be used in court.
By Jennifer Prohov
Sept. 3, 2014
Tags
court
Missouri
Missouri legislature
Share via
GOOGLE+
In the upcoming general election, voters will have many important decisions to make, one of which might make it easier to prosecute sex offenders.
The action, Missouri Evidence in Sexual Crimes Against Minors or Amendment 2, would allow prosecutors who are trying a case against an alleged child sex offender to use relevant past criminal activity as evidence against the defendants.
This means that if an alleged sex offender had been accused, but not found guilty, of a past crime, a prosecutor could still introduce the record of that accusation to the court as evidence against the defendant under Amendment 2.
The amendment has been seen as controversial, as it might make it easier to reach a guilty verdict in those types of cases.
“Due to some Supreme Court decisions, prosecuting attorneys were unable to try many cases of child sexual abuse in our state,” Rep. John McCaherty, R-Mo., said. “As a member of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee, I see the amendment as a positive step to give prosecutors the tools they need to protect our children, and to see those that prey on them prosecuted. There has been no opposition to this legislation, and I was proud to sponsor it.”
McCaherty is the primary sponsor of the amendment, which recently received approval from the Missouri House of Representatives to be placed on the ballot in November.
McCaherty said he felt the bill would address an important gap in Missouri’s justice system, giving prosecutors a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders.
He said there should be no violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which forbids double jeopardy, secures the right to a grand jury and protects against self-incrimination, or the Sixth Amendment, which includes the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the rights to a lawyer and an impartial jury and the right to know who your accusers are.
“Of course there have to be safeguards in place as well, so a defendant can receive a fair trial,” McCaherty said. “Not all evidence is relevant to every trial. This is the responsibility of the judge to determine the relevance in each case.”
The amendment has gained local attention and a Protect Missouri Children Committee formed to support the measure. The group believes that the amendment will protect children and aid in putting dangerous criminals behind bars.
The group is co-chaired by St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch and Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd. Jasper County Prosecutor Dean Dankelson is the group’s treasurer.
According to the group’s website, www.protectmissourichildren.com, Dankelson believes that the passage of this amendment is crucial.
“Passing this constitutional amendment is probably the most important thing we can do to protect Missouri children from the most dangerous child sex predators,” Dankelson said in a news release.
Dave in the Philippines
Rep. John McCaherty,we know that this a political year and this is the epitome of pitiful political posturing.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), in 2003 there were 75,573 cases disposed of in federal district court by trial or plea. Of these, about 95 percent were disposed of by a guilty plea (Pastore and Maguire, 2003). While there are no exact estimates of the proportion of cases that are resolved through plea bargaining, scholars estimate that about 90 to 95 percent of both federal and state court cases are resolved through this process (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005; Flanagan and Maguire, 1990).
There are a few theories as to whether the plea bargaining process is fair and equitable. Proponents argue that docket pressures are too great and that prosecutors lack the time to pursue all indictments because there are simply too many (Stuntz, 2004).
These studies have found the following:
1. Defendants tend to receive harsher sanctions if they exercise their right to a jury trial.
2. There is a wide range of prosecutorial discretion, and this varies greatly by region.
3. Punishment is determined by the seriousness and type of offense, prior criminal history, and the contextual characteristics of the court, including caseload volume, court community size, violent crime rates, and size of the region’s black population.
Overall, the majority of evidence illustrates that those who accept a plea are likely to receive a lighter sentence compared with those who opt for a trial. This disparity exists because prosecutors are granted wide discretion when reducing charges. These findings are problematic because they demonstrate that if a defendant opts to invoke the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury, he or she will likely have a more unfavorable outcome.
So, please tell me again why this collaboration of the our legislative body is necessary to protect the public?
When you start using accusations as a means of punishing a citizen you have, without question, crossed the line and are using the public fear to do so which is unconscionable for most but evidently not all...
Vicki Henry, Women Against Registry dot com
So now we are punishing people for mere accusations, but no conviction?
What if the victim recanted? What if there was not enough evidence to prosecute? What if the case completely fell apart at some point and the prosecutor dropped that charges? Does that even matter anymore?
Why do I have a feeling that this new type of legislation will only include sex crimes?
Along with this is the concept of "attempted" receipt of child porn and all the other "attempted" crimes. It is like a pregnant women---she is either pregnant or she is not. There should be no charges that begin with the word "attempted." As Independent said on an earlier post, "attempted distribution of child porn" will be next.
But welcome to America. The land of revenge and ignorance. Anything for a conviction and to put more people behind bars.
rewdiazepam
That must be a rhetorical question, as the answer is obvious to those of us in this fight.
This pending legislation has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the public, but everything with the politicians getting re-elected by their "tough on crime" and especially the "tough on sex offenders" stance.
Let's see if the same type of legislation is ever introduced regarding murderers, drug dealers, kidnappers, etc. I can bet that it won't, that the only legislation that will be discussed in this manner will be for sex offenders. That should tell everyone something---that this is all political showboating.
Mrs. Henry is using common sense to ask for an answer to her question, but legislation involving emotion is never based on common sense. If it was, there would not even be a sex offender registry in the first place.
rewdiazepam
rewdiazepam
There was an old joke in prison that anyone born in Oklahoma should be given a DOC number at birth. Sounded silly at the time, but it is not so silly now.
rewdiazepam
and Rew you are so right that this new 'law' will be used to target anyone who has been arrested or ever been charged on SOL's. and irregardless of the outcome of the charge or arrest. how many times have we read of cases going to court and previous records not being allowed or permissible in court because in doing so would sway the jury and predispose them to a guilty verdict?
My experience tells me that they pile on every little thing they can and settle for one plea.
What people dont realize is that the things that they didn't take a plea on are still on their record.
EG. If they charge a person with CP but he takes a plea for electronic communication with a minor the CP charge is never removed from the record. .
I'm not usually a pessimist, but I don't think there's a chance it doesn't get passed. :(
They may show an arrest for CP, but it will not show a conviction for CP, big difference there.
My question is why stop with only sex offenders? Why not allow all prior bad acts in with all defendants, proven in a court of law or not? Are prosecutors really hurting all that much trying to prosecute sex offenders? I mean gee golly it is so difficult, I mean what when you have all the rules on your side. If you cannot get a conviction against someone accused of a sex crime, you know what, go burn your law card. You are not worthy of being a lawyer, seriously.
Let's just make it that upon suspicion, people convicted of a sex crime are guilty until proven innocent, that way no prosecutor ever has to lose one of their cases.
What other rights can we take away from those accused of a crime? What else can we do to trample the spirit of the constitution. Because this won't affect any of our enumerated rights, but it sure tramples the heck out of the spirit of the constitution.
I have said it before - one of my favorite quotes is from captain Picard from star trek the next generation :
When he was talking to the leader of a planet and the leader said that the action of imprisoning a certain group of people was for homeland security (it was not homeland security but it mean the same thing) the captains response was something like - homeland security, the age old cry of the oppressor..
There is not a Constitutional Right that I could not show you some example of it being violated in our country today. The freedoms my Father dedicated his life to protecting do not really exist anymore.