Common sense prevails, I think. I wish they would have included a little more about his "statutory rape" conviction, and whether he was 19 and she was 17 or if there was a ridiculously huge age discrepancy that would necessitate concern regarding his living near a middle school.

Goodrich, who was released from probation on Thursday, was charged originally with statutory rape in connection with a Jan. 18, 2004, incident in Niagara Falls.

Way to bury that at the bottom. That charge usually means someone got their panties in a twist because their 16 year old lied and was farking a 30 year old.

TFA said he was 39 now & the incident happened in 2004...

I'm a little conflicted over the decision of the judge. The city attorneys said it was ok but his probation officer warned him against it. Also the judge said that he could keep it mainly because he would have a hard time selling in this economy.

Valid points on both sides but this guy sounds like he may be better off staying away from teenage girls.

From TFA:
- He checked local laws only with the city attorney.
- He was warned to not purchase the house by his probation officer
- He didnt check state laws

Sounds like he was being willfully ignorant. My armchair quarterback: Toss the book at him.

me texan: From TFA:
- He checked local laws only with the city attorney.
- He was warned to not purchase the house by his probation officer
- He didnt check state laws

Sounds like he was being willfully ignorant. My armchair quarterback: Toss the book at him.

What book? Why? Because he slept with someone under 18 but was obviously in a consensual relationship (otherwise the charge wouldn't have been statuatory rape)? For that he's on probation for the rest of his life, gets persecuted, and has to go through ridiculous hoops just to find a place to live.

Megan's Law is the dumbest thing on the books. Should never have been passed.

Recoil Therapy: Also the judge said that he could keep it mainly because he would have a hard time selling in this economy.

Just to clarify, this wasn't one of the "valid points". I just wanted to mention it because I had never heard of a "the economy's bad, you don't have to move" judgement before.

/good point about state laws me texan

brigid_fitch: What book? Why? Because he slept with someone under 18 but was obviously in a consensual relationship (otherwise the charge wouldn't have been statuatory rape)? For that he's on probation for the rest of his life, gets persecuted, and has to go through ridiculous hoops just to find a place to live.

Megan's Law is the dumbest thing on the books. Should never have been passed.

Basically, that's the case. We don't know the details, but he's not some kiddie molester, and one of two things happened: he was willfully sleeping with a girl who was 15-17 or so, or he didn't even know he was because she said she was 18 ... and her parents found out. That's where statutory charges come from... you don't get that if you're wandering the streets looking for 8-year-olds to rape.

Sex offender laws are ridiculous. "Wouldn't you want to know if you were living next door to a rapist?" No more so than I'd want to know if I were living next door to a jewel thief or a murderer or someone who was convicted of multiple assaults or a bank robber or someone who set up a meth lab in their last residence... yet the people who served their time for those crimes aren't on any list, and are able to have some semblance of a normal life after paying their debt to society.

I'm not saying "yay! go sex offenders!" but the way these people are treated is wrong. I've said it before: if they can't be rehabilitated enough to return to society, then change the law so it's a life sentence. They've paid their debt to society as the laws see it, and that should be enough, since it is for pretty much any other crime.

serpent_sky: I'm not saying "yay! go sex offenders!" but the way these people are treated is wrong. I've said it before: if they can't be rehabilitated enough to return to society, then change the law so it's a life sentence. They've paid their debt to society as the laws see it, and that should be enough, since it is for pretty much any other crime.

But half of the fun is making new ex post facto punishments because no one is going to call them on it.

serpent_sky: I've said it before: if they can't be rehabilitated enough to return to society, then change the law so it's a life sentence. They've paid their debt to society as the laws see it, and that should be enough, since it is for pretty much any other crime.

I agree with this - but until that day happens they still have to obey the laws. Breaking one law because you dont agree with the other one you broke shows that the person isn't willing to take the responsibility of being in a society but wants to have the benefits of being in one. You cant have it both ways.

Recoil Therapy: TFA said he was 39 now & the incident happened in 2004...

Hrm. Looks like I didn't read closely-enough. Though I still stand by my original point, and I think the age of the victim should be taken into account. Was she 16? 17? If so, don't worry about him - he won't go after the pre-pubescent girls any more than anyone else would.

me texan: I agree with this - but until that day happens they still have to obey the laws. Breaking one law because you dont agree with the other one you broke shows that the person isn't willing to take the responsibility of being in a society but wants to have the benefits of being in one. You cant have it both ways.

I don't think that day will ever happen -- people are terrified of sex offenders, regardless of what they may have done to end up on the list. The hysteria has pretty much converted them all to lurking child molesters out to kidnap and molest babies in the eyes of the people who support these restrictions on them, post-jail.

That, and what politician/lawmaker is going to take a stance that people will see as not only being easy on crime, but being easy on child molesters? They'd never be re-elected and if anything did happen, they'd be blamed by the public.

The irony is, these laws don't really stop anyone who is determined to re-offend. Just because someone can't buy a house somewhere doesn't mean they can't go there. If they're determined to re-offend, they're really not going to be worried about something like where they aren't allowed to be, since their plans include breaking a much bigger law. A rapist, for example, isn't going to say, "I can't buy a house in that town... so I better not go there to rape someone tonight... I'll just rape elsewhere, where I'm accepted."

Wasn't there a story about some people on a sex offender registry who were living under a bridge because there was no place in the city where they could legally live? Something about school and playground density making it impossible to live a certain distance from either.

All sex offenders are predatory child rapists who will forcibly rape and sodomize your precious snowflakes the first chance they get.

Psychotropic: All sex offenders are predatory child rapists who will forcibly rape and sodomize your precious snowflakes the first chance they get.

That's right!!!


And don't forget that if you've ever even seen a naked picture of someone under 18 (even yourself, out of the corner of your eye) you are (or will soon be) a sex offender!!!!

Let alone if you are one of those sick people who has an uncontrollable compulsion to play with the private areas of an infant to, presumably, remove urine and fecal matter several times a day.

/The baby powder just proves how far your sickness goes...

brigid_fitch: me texan: From TFA:
- He checked local laws only with the city attorney.
- He was warned to not purchase the house by his probation officer
- He didnt check state laws

Sounds like he was being willfully ignorant. My armchair quarterback: Toss the book at him.

What book? Why? Because he slept with someone under 18 but was obviously in a consensual relationship (otherwise the charge wouldn't have been statuatory rape)? For that he's on probation for the rest of his life, gets persecuted, and has to go through ridiculous hoops just to find a place to live.

Megan's Law is the dumbest thing on the books. Should never have been passed.

Yup. Potential predators can see it as a phonebook for others intrested in the same crime for tips and help.

Idiots.

brigid_fitch: Megan's Law is the dumbest thing on the books. Should never have been passed.

Obviously, you love sex offenders.

/actually I agree with you. It's the product of a witch hunt.

If he is that farking dangerous to society, put him in jail. Otherwise leave him the fark alone and let him have a life.

"Sex offenses" = the modern day witch hunt/McCarthyism.

That, and "terrorist"/"Arab".

Remember, "sex offense" includes such decidedly non-sexual offenses as public nudity and streaking.

"Level 1" means a doctor once saw his penis.

He is a 39 year old who humps em before they turn 18.

Here on FARK that makes him a libtard's hero and a victim of society.

With the exception of fomenting fear and hatred and generating business for the courts and private attorneys has any sex offender registry ever actually done any good?

Who would you rather not live next to you, a guy who killed his wife with an axe because his rosebush told him so or some guy arrested for peeing in an alley?

Since there's NO differentiation between a guy who brutally sodomized a paraplegic three year old and the former (or a teen who took nudie pics of herself or an adult male - in Maine anyway - who merely LOOKED at a child other than his own, etc etc, etc) (in terms of public perception and/or the disclosure of actual details) it waters down the idea to the extent that any reasonable person would be hard pressed to take too seriously the fact that someone is a "sex offender."

mikaloyd: He is a 39 year old who humps em before they turn 18.

Here on FARK that makes him a libtard's hero and a victim of society.

Oh? Could you share the court documents on this case since you have it all figured out and, obviously, know everything there is to know about the circumstances of the case?

/No? Didnt think so. kthxbye
/ I'll give you a 5/10 just because I felt like responding to it...

serpent_sky: me texan: I agree with this - but until that day happens they still have to obey the laws. Breaking one law because you dont agree with the other one you broke shows that the person isn't willing to take the responsibility of being in a society but wants to have the benefits of being in one. You cant have it both ways.

I don't think that day will ever happen -- people are terrified of sex offenders, regardless of what they may have done to end up on the list. The hysteria has pretty much converted them all to lurking child molesters out to kidnap and molest babies in the eyes of the people who support these restrictions on them, post-jail.

That, and what politician/lawmaker is going to take a stance that people will see as not only being easy on crime, but being easy on child molesters? They'd never be re-elected and if anything did happen, they'd be blamed by the public.

The irony is, these laws don't really stop anyone who is determined to re-offend. Just because someone can't buy a house somewhere doesn't mean they can't go there. If they're determined to re-offend, they're really not going to be worried about something like where they aren't allowed to be, since their plans include breaking a much bigger law. A rapist, for example, isn't going to say, "I can't buy a house in that town... so I better not go there to rape someone tonight... I'll just rape elsewhere, where I'm accepted."

Actually, that's not true at all. People tend to commit crimes in a close proximity to where they have a residence. Even worse, you're more likely to be the victim of a crime by someone you know than complete stranger.

Sex offender registries are the most ridiculous notions ever conceived. Politicians just love them because soccer moms and the ignorant (the two are not mutually exclusive) will vote them into office for appearing "tough on crime" by suggesting them.

/subby

Level 1 sex offender? How many experience points does he need to reach level 2?

evildick: Oh? Could you share the court documents on this case since you have it all figured out and, obviously, know everything there is to know about the circumstances of the case?

Goodrich, who was released from probation on Thursday, was charged originally with statutory rape in connection with a Jan. 18, 2004, incident in Niagara Falls.

What exactly do you think statutory rape is? What do you think your 39 year old hero did?

I'm guessing they mean Niagara Falls, NY not Niagara Falls, ON. She'd have to have been under 14 for the ON one. (It's 16 now).

Goldeneye007: serpent_sky: me texan: I agree with this - but until that day happens they still have to obey the laws. Breaking one law because you dont agree with the other one you broke shows that the person isn't willing to take the responsibility of being in a society but wants to have the benefits of being in one. You cant have it both ways.

I don't think that day will ever happen -- people are terrified of sex offenders, regardless of what they may have done to end up on the list. The hysteria has pretty much converted them all to lurking child molesters out to kidnap and molest babies in the eyes of the people who support these restrictions on them, post-jail.

That, and what politician/lawmaker is going to take a stance that people will see as not only being easy on crime, but being easy on child molesters? They'd never be re-elected and if anything did happen, they'd be blamed by the public.

The irony is, these laws don't really stop anyone who is determined to re-offend. Just because someone can't buy a house somewhere doesn't mean they can't go there. If they're determined to re-offend, they're really not going to be worried about something like where they aren't allowed to be, since their plans include breaking a much bigger law. A rapist, for example, isn't going to say, "I can't buy a house in that town... so I better not go there to rape someone tonight... I'll just rape elsewhere, where I'm accepted."

Actually, that's not true at all. People tend to commit crimes in a close proximity to where they have a residence. Even worse, you're more likely to be the victim of a crime by someone you know than complete stranger.

Thanks for that, Dr. Reed.....

Skail: Common sense prevails, I think. I wish they would have included a little more about his "statutory rape" conviction, and whether he was 19 and she was 17 or if there was a ridiculously huge age discrepancy that would necessitate concern regarding his living near a middle school.

Yeah. I am all for strict sex crime laws, but we need to narrow down what exactly a sex offender is.

People having consensual sex with someone 2 years younger than themselves, urinating in public or streaking college game should not be lumped in with pedophiles and rapists.

me texan: Breaking one law because you dont agree with the other one you broke shows that the person isn't willing to take the responsibility of being in a society but wants to have the benefits of being in one. You cant have it both ways.

Well, we, as a society, recognize that laws aren't always fair or fairly applied.

This is why we have judges and juries to actually use some judgment.

In this case, it seems like common sense prevailed.

As an aside, each and every one of us break laws every day due to our willful ignorance regarding the tens of thousands of pages of local, state, and federal laws on the books.

Nemo's Brother: People having consensual sex with someone 2 years younger than themselves, urinating in public or streaking college game should not be lumped in with pedophiles and rapists.

Seeing as how we've rounded off all sharp corners and bubble-wrapped all the kids in our nation, Darwin's been taken out of the picture.

The environment used to be Darwin's tool for getting rid of the especially stupid and/or weak kids.

Now, greasy guys named Ted driving vans with no windows are Darwin's tools for getting rid of the especially stupid and/or weak kids.

bingo the psych-o: Level 1 sex offender? How many experience points does he need to reach level 2?

5500. He is probably out in the woods near his house grinding towards level 2. Rebellious Middle School Girls give 20 xp, Well Behaved Middle School Girls give 50 xp but they are only 1 out of every 10 mobs so he will probably be in the woods awhile.

Maybe one of the higher levels he met in his Sex Offenders Guild that was created using Megan's Law information will come down from the Elementary school (higher level area) to help.

mikaloyd What exactly do you think statutory rape is? What do you think your 39 year old hero did?

I don't think he's a hero, but i KNOW statutory rape is a consensual sexual relationship between a person over 18 and and a person under 18 (usually it's only a crime if the guy's the older one) I also know that in many states, statutory rape is a strict liability offense, which means even if she lied and said she was over 18, and she looked over 18, and a reasonable person would have thought she was over 18, the man is screwed. I oppose strict liability offenses that ruin a person's life. That category should be reserved for offenses carrying only an administrative penalty.

Psychotropic: All sex offenders are predatory child rapists who will forcibly rape and sodomize your precious snowflakes the first chance they get.

Especially the streakers and road side pissers.

mikaloyd: What exactly do you think statutory rape is? What do you think your 39 year old hero did?

I'm not saying he's a hero. Apparently your reading comprehension fails.

The point is, you don't know the circumstance of the case and since they charged him with a relatively minor charge in this age of over reactive witch-hunts, I'm guessing there was some indisputable evidence that the crime was, essentially, victim-less.

What if he picked up a chick with a fake ID in a bar, for example?

Should you be so quick to judge? I mean really?

What if, for example (and this is just hypothetical) you're a 48 year old guy named Phil who was sent some child porn on your phone by some anonymous a-hole and, for some reason, get caught and convicted for possession of it.

Would you want some judgmental farker making blanket statements about you?

Saborlas: Wasn't there a story about some people on a sex offender registry who were living under a bridge because there was no place in the city where they could legally live? Something about school and playground density making it impossible to live a certain distance from either.

I think there was an article on Fark a couple of years ago where a guy did all his homework, moved to a place that met all the requirements of his probation, including not living within x feet of a bus stop. Once the powers that be realized this, they put a bus stop within the forbidden range (1000 feet?) for the express purpose of forcing him out.

The only way to get rid of the witch hunt that is the sex offenders list that I see is this:
Make it a law so that all criminals are required to be on a list. We can call it the criminals' list. Smoke a little bit of pot? You're required to tell everyone you are a registered criminal.
Extend it. If you were simply TRIED you go on this list as well.
Eventually, some people will get fed up with this and it'll get voided.

evildick: What if, for example (and this is just hypothetical) you're a 48 year old guy named Phil who was sent some child porn on your phone by some anonymous a-hole and, for some reason, get caught and convicted for possession of it.

That is not the same thing as a 35 year old screwing a minor is it?

LMark: I also know that in many states, statutory rape is a strict liability offense, which means even if she lied and said she was over 18, and she looked over 18, and a reasonable person would have thought she was over 18, the man is screwed.

That's always been a funny one:

You think you're getting a 20-year-old, but she's actually 16. You go to jail because intent doesn't matter. All that matters is the chick was actually 16.

You think you're getting a 16-year-old, but she's actually 35. You go to jail because intent is all that matters. It doesn't matter that the chick is actually 35.

The courts change their legal logic from case to case depending which logic allows them to most easily gain a conviction.

LMark (usually it's only a crime if the guy's the older one)

I should have said "it's only treated as a crime if the guy's the older one." The statute is usually gender neutral.

Zimmy: The only way to get rid of the witch hunt that is the sex offenders list that I see is this:
Make it a law so that all criminals are required to be on a list. We can call it the criminals' list. Smoke a little bit of pot? You're required to tell everyone you are a registered criminal.
Extend it. If you were simply TRIED you go on this list as well.
Eventually, some people will get fed up with this and it'll get voided.

Isn't this the tactic they used in Britain for the biometric database the government wanted to build?

mikaloyd: What exactly do you think statutory rape is?

Consensual sex that society deems to be inappropriate.

mikaloyd: evildick: What if, for example (and this is just hypothetical) you're a 48 year old guy named Phil who was sent some child porn on your phone by some anonymous a-hole and, for some reason, get caught and convicted for possession of it.

That is not the same thing as a 35 year old screwing a minor is it?

Of course not. In this day and age, it would be worse.

me texan: serpent_sky: I've said it before: if they can't be rehabilitated enough to return to society, then change the law so it's a life sentence. They've paid their debt to society as the laws see it, and that should be enough, since it is for pretty much any other crime.

I agree with this - but until that day happens they still have to obey the laws. Breaking one law because you dont agree with the other one you broke shows that the person isn't willing to take the responsibility of being in a society but wants to have the benefits of being in one. You cant have it both ways.

Actually, you can only have it one way. Try living outside of a society and it's laws and you become, by definition, an outlaw, to be hunted down like the dog you are.

Oh, and according to this (new window), he's a postmaster. Postmaster, pedophile, lets call the whole thing off.

/just delivering her his package
//speedy delivery from Mister McFeely
///slashies

qwave54: Goldeneye007: serpent_sky: me texan: I agree with this - but until that day happens they still have to obey the laws. Breaking one law because you dont agree with the other one you broke shows that the person isn't willing to take the responsibility of being in a society but wants to have the benefits of being in one. You cant have it both ways.

I don't think that day will ever happen -- people are terrified of sex offenders, regardless of what they may have done to end up on the list. The hysteria has pretty much converted them all to lurking child molesters out to kidnap and molest babies in the eyes of the people who support these restrictions on them, post-jail.

That, and what politician/lawmaker is going to take a stance that people will see as not only being easy on crime, but being easy on child molesters? They'd never be re-elected and if anything did happen, they'd be blamed by the public.

The irony is, these laws don't really stop anyone who is determined to re-offend. Just because someone can't buy a house somewhere doesn't mean they can't go there. If they're determined to re-offend, they're really not going to be worried about something like where they aren't allowed to be, since their plans include breaking a much bigger law. A rapist, for example, isn't going to say, "I can't buy a house in that town... so I better not go there to rape someone tonight... I'll just rape elsewhere, where I'm accepted."

Actually, that's not true at all. People tend to commit crimes in a close proximity to where they have a residence. Even worse, you're more likely to be the victim of a crime by someone you know than complete stranger.

Thanks for that, Dr. Reed.....

I don't get the reference. What are you implying?

If a person is still a threat, keep them in jail.

If they are out of jail, then they should have the same civil rights as anyone else.

Why is this so farking hard for you retards to understand?

oh, yeah, and this:

Sex Offenders are less likely than any other criminal (outside of murderers) to commit another crime.

Can we please, as progressive and intelligent individuals, not justify or apologize on behalf of someone who gets their socks off on children under 18. I don't care what the circumstances were, I don't care if the child lied, or if our biology tells us to be attracted to them. In the modern society we live in, childhood and responsibility of choice has been extended to 18 - if you're demented enough to take advantage of someone's innocence in a sexually perverted way, you don't belong in our society. Frankly, you don't belong sharing the same air as us.

I was rather freaked out today, stopping in the restroom at Wally's World (walmart). Stepping away from the urinal and adjusting myself, I was shocked to see a girl of about 6 or so standing about 5 feet away watching me. Turned out her dad didn't want to leave her alone so he brought her into the washroom. I mean, I can sympathise in a way but jesus effing christ, can't he have just told her to turn and face the wall?
I'm sure there's states out there who would try to jail me for "exposing myself to a minor".
Ugh.

bingo the psych-o: Level 1 sex offender? How many experience points does he need to reach level 2?

The 12 year olds I rape look at me confused when I scream "DING" while climaxing.

SchlingFocker: mikaloyd: What exactly do you think statutory rape is?

Consensual sex that society deems to be inappropriate.

Murder is just drumming up funeral parlor business in a way that society frowns upon too. The way society finds particularly wrong acts inappropriate is with a codified set of rules called laws. Its a totally confusing system but the short version of it is that if a behavior is deemed inappropriate enough (like a 35 year old screwing minors) society punishes the behavior. It seems harsh on the surface of it but in the long run things get even worse without these buzz killin' law things.