Registry Matters on a Wednesday? We tackle a listener question regarding a foreign conviction and how that translates to strict liability; Legislator has an epiphany after getting mandatory minimum; News revelation – civil commitment is wrong, expensive and ineffective; Florida felons registering to vote after voter rights restored; Alaska says you can’t use common lie detector results in court; Man arrested for failure to register dies in jail; SCOTUS is not itching at the chance to reverse Smith v Doe
[43:30] https://ktvo.com/news/local/southeast-iowa-sex-offender-dies-in-jail
[47:00] https://floridaactioncommittee.org/supreme-court-denies-cert-in-all-three-cases-we-were-following/
The cases were Bethea, Vasquez and Prison Legal News
Share the podcast with those you know so that we can continue to grow our audience! We continue to receive a lot of positive feedback. Help us grow!
https://www.Registrymatters.co/podcast/rm59-three-supreme-court-cert-denials
747-227-4477
registrymatterscast@gmail.com
https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters
Discord server? https://discord.gg/DAmupkf
https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters
iTunes, Google Play Music, RSS, Spotify
Sadly, the excessive expense approach won’t work either. Most of the public would probably say, “I don’t mind my tax dollars going to keep these pervs locked up for good! In my book it’s money well-spent!!” Most won’t care how much it costs to keep sexual felons locked up indefinitely, especially the child molesters, child rapists and violent serial rapists.
The case Larry had a “brain fart” on is Gundy v. United States.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gundy-v-united-states/
What constitutes a conflict of interest for a Supreme Court justice? If the architect of the Alaska registry is now a SCOTUS justice, he should have to recuse himself because he has a personal stake in the legislation being challenged.
Justice Roberts should NOT have a dog in this fight. This is the very definition of a conflict of interest. He doesn’t want to see “his baby” go down in flames.
Strict liability laws are wrong on one very crucial point. Mens Rea does not have to be proven to any degree. All that matters is you commited act x. Intent or lack thereof does not matter. All that matters is you did it. That’s what a statutory rape law is. When they intentionally omit the one affirmative defense, they don’t intend to give the accused any semblance of a fair playing field.
It galls me to think that a teen-age boy or girl who looks older than they really are can illegally obtain fraudulent identification documents with the clear intent to misrepresent their age so that they can gain admittance to venues that are by law off-limits to minors can do all of that, lie about their age, have sex with an adult. The adult truly believes they’re sexual partner is of legal age because they’re in a place where any reasonable person would NOT expect minors to be present. And yet the adult is still charged with a crime of stat. rape with no mention of the teen knowingly putting themselves into a position where they will have sex.
The teen who KNOWINGLY AND WITH PREMEDITATION broke at least two laws doesn’t have to answer for one bit of what they did to contribute to the situation.
They at least committed the following crimes:
1) Obtained fraudulent identification documents with premeditation.
2) Obtained fraudulent access to a venue legally off-limits to minors.
Once inside the adult club, they probably consumed alcohol knowing that is against the law as well.
They solicited an older man or woman for sexual intercourse or if approached and propositioned accepted the offer and had sex knowing they were breaking the law at every turn.