How do you find out what a sex offender actually did?

[repoman]

With this new Alton Sterling case, I have read that he was a tier 1 sex offender and was convicted at the age of 20/21 for "carnal knowledge of a juvenile"



How old was the juvenile? If 16 can't call the guy a pedophile. There should be a better word for that age that is not a technical word like ephebephile that will just never stick. Jailbait predator? Statutory rapist is too axiomatic but says nothing.

From the law, looks to been between 13 and 17 years old:
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs/title14/rs14-80.html

 

[ronburgundy]

I think a better question is why are you scrounging for information about a completely unrelated non-violent crime from 17 years ago?

No matter how vile a person Sterling might have been (let's assume the worst case scenario that he had sex with a 13 year old), it has no bearing on whether the cops acted justly in shooting him or what punishment they should face.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You can contact the public records of the parish he was convicted in to find out his conviction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

With this new Alton Sterling case, I have read that he was a tier 1 sex offender and was convicted at the age of 20/21 for "carnal knowledge of a juvenile"

How old was the juvenile? If 16 can't call the guy a pedophile. There should be a better word for that age that is not a technical word like ephebephile that will just never stick. Jailbait predator? Statutory rapist is too axiomatic but says nothing.

From the law, looks to been between 13 and 17 years old:
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs/title14/rs14-80.html

Because it involves a minor, you may not be able to find out much at all. Though, if it was rape, it'd say rape.

You can search the court records. Different states have different abilities to search court records. Louisiana (Baton Rouge county) looks like it is a pay for access, as in actual pay, not some aggregate public record pay site. The county wants $50. Minnesota and Florida are nicer, you don't have to pay anything. So pay up, and search his record. That'll tell you at least jail time and general information about the case.

 

[repoman]

I think the age of the victim should at least be stated.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the age of the victim should at least be stated.

Why?

Who would benefit from such information being made available?
The state already knew when they convicted.
The violator already knows.
The victim knows.

Is any possible job prospect going to depend on whether the victim was 12 or 16?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the age of the victim should at least be stated.

The age of the victim is none of your business, because the victim is a minor and that information is protected for the "victim's" sake. The crime happened a long time ago, and while may be interesting to some, it is wholly irrelevant to the shooting. The only reason we know about the crime is because it was accessible via a public record lookup.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think the age of the victim should at least be stated.

The age of the victim is none of your business, because the victim is a minor and that information is protected for the "victim's" sake.

As I stated in my own post, I agree with you that this is irrelevant to the shooting. But I disagree with your claim that the age of a minor in such a crime is none of anyone's business. It is extremely relevant to the nature of the crime and whether most people would even consider it immoral or something that should be a crime. If a 17 year old has consensual (in every meaningful psychological sense, regardless of how the law tortures this concept), then that is extremely different in the mind of most reasonable people than if a 50 year old had sex with a 13 year old. Both those acts would be classified as the same crime and show up as identical in this public record.
The victim is not protected any more by whether their age at the time is disclosed. What matters is their name. If there is going to be any kind of publicly available record of such crimes it does more harm than good to exclude the relative ages of the person's. In fact, it is probably more relevant than knowing whether a weapon was used in an assault or whether the victim was "a minor", which makes a inaccurate big deal out of being 17 or 18, but ignores whether one is 17 or 13.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The age of the victim is none of your business, because the victim is a minor and that information is protected for the "victim's" sake.

As I stated in my own post, I agree with you that this is irrelevant to the shooting. But I disagree with your claim that the age of a minor in such a crime is none of anyone's business. It is extremely relevant to the nature of the crime and whether most people would even consider it immoral or something that should be a crime. If a 17 year old has consensual (in every meaningful psychological sense, regardless of how the law tortures this concept), then that is extremely different in the mind of most reasonable people than if a 50 year old had sex with a 13 year old. Both those acts would be classified as the same crime and show up as identical in this public record.
The victim is not protected any more by whether their age at the time is disclosed. What matters is their name. If there is going to be any kind of publicly available record of such crimes it does more harm than good to exclude the relative ages of the person's. In fact, it is probably more relevant than knowing whether a weapon was used in an assault or whether the victim was "a minor", which makes a inaccurate big deal out of being 17 or 18, but ignores whether one is 17 or 13.

Well, until LA goes back in time, changes the law to divide up 13 to 15 and 16 to 17, we have absolutely nothing to go on. The victim is (was) a minor and that is pretty much that.

Sure, a 21 with a 17 year old isn't going to rock the world too much as say a 21 with a 13 would. Though, the fact that it says carnal knowledge and not rape, definitely places the crime in to a much lesser type of sexual type crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the age of the victim should at least be stated.

Why?

Who would benefit from such information being made available?
The state already knew when they convicted.
The violator already knows.
The victim knows.

Is any possible job prospect going to depend on whether the victim was 12 or 16?

I do think the age and something of the circumstances should be given.

20 with 12 is a very different thing than a Romeo & Juliet case but the way the laws are written they can end up with the same description.


Edit: Just had a thought here. How about a simple fix:

Let the person add 50 words to the listing which a judge must find to be true and not deceptive.

 

[J842P]

I think the age of the victim should at least be stated.

Why?

Who would benefit from such information being made available?
The state already knew when they convicted.
The violator already knows.
The victim knows.

Is any possible job prospect going to depend on whether the victim was 12 or 16?

For the record, I agree with ronburgandy regarding the pointlessness of this, but I just have to state that yes, it can make a huge difference to other people. If this was 17 years ago, he was 20 years old. A 20 year old having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is very different than if the juvenile was 12 or 13.

 

[bilby]

Why?

Who would benefit from such information being made available?
The state already knew when they convicted.
The violator already knows.
The victim knows.

Is any possible job prospect going to depend on whether the victim was 12 or 16?

For the record, I agree with ronburgandy regarding the pointlessness of this, but I just have to state that yes, it can make a huge difference to other people. If this was 17 years ago, he was 20 years old. A 20 year old having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is very different than if the juvenile was 12 or 13.

In most of the developed world, a 20 year old having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is completely lawful, and nobody would bat an eyelid at it.

 

[J842P]

For the record, I agree with ronburgandy regarding the pointlessness of this, but I just have to state that yes, it can make a huge difference to other people. If this was 17 years ago, he was 20 years old. A 20 year old having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is very different than if the juvenile was 12 or 13.

In most of the developed world, a 20 year old having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is completely lawful, and nobody would bat an eyelid at it.

In most US states that is true as well. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Louisiana law in question. But the laws do vary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why?

Who would benefit from such information being made available?
The state already knew when they convicted.
The violator already knows.
The victim knows.

Is any possible job prospect going to depend on whether the victim was 12 or 16?

I do think the age and something of the circumstances should be given.

20 with 12 is a very different thing than a Romeo & Juliet case but the way the laws are written they can end up with the same description.

I agree that there's a difference, but i assume that the court knew the ages involved when they made their decisions about guilt, punishment and the possibility of parole.
Why SHOULD the rest of the world know these details?

Edit: Just had a thought here. How about a simple fix:

Let the person add 50 words to the listing which a judge must find to be true and not deceptive.

Not sure if that's going to be a 'fix' since it'll have to be available to everyone, even the real sickos. And that'll tie up further court time as they argue the judge's decision they've being 'deceptive.' Imagine Judge Moore's decisions on such defenses.

And, can the victim also get 50 words to put their spin on the crime?

 

[Keith&Co.]

but I just have to state that yes, it can make a huge difference to other people.

Yes, i just don't think it's information that 'should' be revealed. If it is, the guy is going to have his case tried over and over as these people judge the case again, even after the state has been satisified that he's paid his debt to society.

 

[bilby]

but I just have to state that yes, it can make a huge difference to other people.

Yes, i just don't think it's information that 'should' be revealed. If it is, the guy is going to have his case tried over and over as these people judge the case again, even after the state has been satisified that he's paid his debt to society.

The US system seems to be amongst the worst in the developed world in that regard; If a convict receives less than a life sentence, then the sentence implies that they should be free at its completion - and that requires that their offence is not public knowledge. Convicts have a right to keep their convictions private; If the law views a convict as an ongoing risk to society at the conclusion of his sentence, then they should have given him a longer sentence. And if they don't view him as an ongoing risk, then what he did is nobody's business, once he has served his time.

The fact that the general public are nosy, and want to pry, should give them no rights whatsoever.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

in the US our convictions are part of the public record. Currently in my state, you cannot ask about convictions on applications.

 

[Derec]

How old was the juvenile? If 16 can't call the guy a pedophile. There should be a better word for that age that is not a technical word like ephebephile that will just never stick. Jailbait predator? Statutory rapist is too axiomatic but says nothing.

So his offender page says 14.80 which is the felony statute (misdemeanor is 14.80.1). Since he still had to register in 2016 I would assume he was convicted of the felony. The text reads:

§80. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile
A. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile is committed when:
(1) A person who is seventeen years of age or older has sexual intercourse, with consent, with a person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than seventeen years of age, when the victim is not the spouse of the offender and when the difference between the age of the victim and the age of the offender is four years or greater; or
(2) A person commits a second or subsequent offense of misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile, or a person who has been convicted one or more times of violating one or more crimes for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender under R.S. 15:542 commits a first offense of misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile.
B. As used in this Section, "sexual intercourse" means anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse.
C. Lack of knowledge of the juvenile's age shall not be a defense. Emission is not necessary, and penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.
D.(1) Whoever commits the crime of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years, or both, provided that the defendant shall not be eligible to have his conviction set aside or his prosecution dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893.
(2)(a) In addition, the court shall order that the personal property used in the commission of the offense shall be seized and impounded, and after conviction, sold at public sale or public auction by the district attorney in accordance with R.S. 15:539.1.
(b) The personal property made subject to seizure and sale pursuant to Subparagraph (a) of this Paragraph may include, but shall not be limited to, electronic communication devices, computers, computer related equipment, motor vehicles, photographic equipment used to record or create still or moving visual images of the victim that are recorded on paper, film, video tape, disc, or any other type of digital recording media.
Amended by Acts 1977, No. 539, §1; Acts 1978, No. 757, §1; Acts 1990, No. 590, §1; Acts 1995, No. 241, §1; Acts 2001, No. 796, §1; Acts 2006, No. 80, §1; Acts 2008, No. 331, §1; Acts 2010, No. 763, §1.

So he probably was more than 4 years older than the "victim". As to her age, Heavy indicates that she was 14 years old at the time and that he impregnated her. Moral of the story: if you must fuck jailbait, at least wear a condom. Note that one of Alton's sons is 15, about the right age to be conceived in 2000. So is Quinyetta McMillon (the baby mama) the 14 year old in question? Is she 30 today?


Note: I think the section about "Lack of knowledge of the juvenile's age shall not be a defense" should be repealed from all such laws or declared unconstitutional. It is very easy for girls to lie about their age and many do. Many even have fake ids that identify them as older than they are. Thus girls lying about their age should definitely be a defense.

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact of the matter is, for now, people change, but not quickly or completely. Sometimes they find better reasons to not do the things they like. Sometimes they find ways to quit liking those things. Sometimes the fears and needs that drove someone to act don't apply anymore, sometimes they just learn better ways of not letting those fears of needs get out of hand.

But if someone HAS shown some combination of desire or need to do a thing, even if they learn ways to avoid it, it doesn't make them perfect. It doesn't remove the broken parts of their minds and personalities, even if they have been patched or addressed.

If someone molested a 12 year old at the age of 20, I'd say society has every obligation to keep an eye on them for the next 20 years, even if they aren't in prison. Because prison isn't about 'paying a debt', or at least shouldn't be, and no rational person has any right to view it that way. Prison is about salvaging those initial 20 years of effort spent on producing the person, and on preserving their unique perspectives on the world.

So yes. We do often have a right, and our society has a responsibility to tell us when someone could potentially 'malfunction' again, and how. It doesn't mean that we should hate them, or avoid them, or chastise them. Sometimes, even in the case of pedophiles, it means we should be a community for them and help them not do the things that they themselves probably wish they could avoid. Sadly, we still have too much ape kicking around in our DNA to be those better people. So at the end if the day, even while the best society would do things like devoting more effort and care to those who have been through the system, we are incapable of being that society.

So instead, we have to protect them from those who would judge rather than help, and trust that the people who ARE appointed to know and help, those in probationary and parole officer positions, will keep an eye on them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why?

Who would benefit from such information being made available?
The state already knew when they convicted.
The violator already knows.
The victim knows.

Is any possible job prospect going to depend on whether the victim was 12 or 16?

I do think the age and something of the circumstances should be given.

20 with 12 is a very different thing than a Romeo & Juliet case but the way the laws are written they can end up with the same description.


Edit: Just had a thought here. How about a simple fix:

Let the person add 50 words to the listing which a judge must find to be true and not deceptive.

The minor is a minor!