It's the next step on the slippery slope. At first, the sex offender registry was just that, a registry of sex offenders for the benefit of law enforcement officers. Then, we added community notification, which warned neighbors but also encouraged vigilantes. Then we enacted "commonsense" restrictions on where sex offenders could live.
That's when the slippery slope increased its angle. We made more & more places off limits to sex offenders, regardless of whether the restrictions made sense in light of their crimes. Pretty soon, they won't be able to live anywhere. What then? Maroon them on a deserted island? Maybe just kill them outright?
We aren't solving any crime problem this way, we're just rearranging criminals to give ourselves a false sense of security. Most sex offenses against other persons are committed by those they know, respect, and even love, not some alien class of sex offenders. We're not making ourselves safer with these laws, just making ourselves less forgiving & more intolerant.
So you're unaware of how a society of people works? We owe allegiance to our community, and that includes respecting the liberty of even the individuals we dislike, rather than pandering to emotional outbursts instead of logic & reason. Most sex offenses aren't committed by strangers, but by people the victim knows, trusts, or even loves. We won't be safer by directing our fear & loathing at registered sex offenders when they're not the source of the problem.
The majority of citizens cannot take away an individual's rights just because they're the majority. This is a Republic, after all, not a pure democracy. This ridiculous kabuki theater exercise will make people feel safer, but that's all it will do. Most sex offenses are not committed by strangers, but by those people the victim knows, trusts, and even loves. True protection comes from empowering those who might otherwise become victims, not by placing the community's unreasoning fears onto a scapegoat, then driving it out of town.
Actually, it does. "Disorderly conduct" is an offense that can only be committed in public. Remember the Harvard professor who was charged with the same offense? One of the reasons the charge wouldn't stick is that the man was in his own home. As long as this former judge was within his own private premises, he's not committing the crime of disorderly conduct. The presence of a police officer doesn't change the law in this regard. One liberty we still have in this country is that we can get falling-down-drunk and act a fool in private, while such conduct would be illegal in public. Let's not give that up too easily.
The charge is ridiculous. How can he be guilty of disorderly conduct while on his own premises? I hope the prosecution has the good sense to dismiss this charge and spare the public the expense of an ill-conceived trial.
A no contest plea only signifies that the defendant doesn't contest the offense charged; It is not an admission of any act or failure to act. He had every right to offer mitigating circumstances as the judge was considering sentence.
Well, it looks like Hankins is taking a plea bargain down to a single count of misdemeanor sexual imposition, a charge not involving an allegation about the victim's age. This case seemed weak to start with, so potentially, this is the best way out for Mat Heck. Still, making headlines by overcharging Hankins in the first place seems like an ill-intentioned move for our prosecutor.
Well, as of the 28th, the county prosecutor has charged Hankin with a much less serious offense, sexual imposition, a misdemeanor. So far, none of the felonies he was arraigned on have been charged. I'm starting to think there's more to this story than has originally been let on. I'm taking a wait-and-see approach in light of these new developments. Somebody's not telling the whole story here.
Bill of Information:
http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/index.as...
Ohio Revised Code 2907.06(B)(2) - Sexual Imposition:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.06
How old was Hankins & how old was your relative at the time?
As for his age on MySpace, it's true that a lot of people lie about their ages on MySpace, in personal ads, etc. However, how many of them are accused of a sex offense by a 14-year-old boy? Even though 28 & 38 are both "old" to a 14-year-old, Hankins' lying about his age looks very different in light of what he's done.
My word! I can't imagine the worry and pain that you've been subjected to. I think there's a natural tendency for you and your son to be blaming yourselves, to some extent, for this situation. Please keep in mind that this adult man, Danny Hankins, was in the best position to prevent any of this from happening. He knew the situation in a way that you did not, and had the adult faculties of discernment and moral judgment that your son does not yet possess. My heart goes out to you. When I think about how he was able to approach your son not once, but twice, it simply leaves me speechless. How can anyone do such a thing? Thank God something possessed him to call the police, which helped bring this incident to a conclusion. I can't imagine how he could've approached your son on two occasions and not gotten caught. then again, I can't image how any adult could abuse a child. It's inconceivable to me.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Opus