And yet he didn't go to jail and like the article mentioned, he is the youngest one in his state to be registered and one of the youngest in the country so clearly he's an outlier but somehow Duggar should be treated similarly? Their crimes were not the same BTW and the man in the story has a mother who still denies that anything happened. And once again, since the facts support the idea that sex offenders more often come from unemployed, poor people, how does being on a lifelong registry help anyone? That has nothing to do with this discussion. Trying to equate all crimes is fool's folly. You continue to say this despite the fact that nobody else has. He committed those crimes 12 years ago, as a juvenile. What can be done TODAY that hasn't already been done? And how are his victims doing with all the increased attention and re-living of those events? Other than saying they are lying and brainwashed, I haven't seen much compassion from you. You don't seem to understand the law in this regard. Prior to the Adam Walsh Act, there was no national or state registry. Since that time, only 17 states have robustly implemented all the requirements of it. In order to be on the registry for life, one must be a convicted Tier III offender and an adult. That is the most serious offender, comparable to someone who is not only a repeat offender but includes things like kidnapping, use of a child for pornography, offenses including penetration of vagina or anus, includes sex offenses that range from rape, sexual battery and murder with sexual motivation, to kidnapping of a minor to engage in sexual activity, to unlawful death or termination of pregnancy as a result of committing a felony with sexual motivation. They must have been convicted for the minimum of a 1-year prison term. Josh Duggar was not a Tier III offender, and may not have been convicted of even a Tier I offense. It is almost impossible to get a family-related conviction for sexual abuse. The victim and/or their parents have to be willing to allow them to testify and what parent wants their 5-year old doing that knowing how traumatic it can be and knowing they will later feel guilt over sending their family member to jail? It's complicated. Specifically, "Children 14 years of age or older at the time of offense are required to register only if they fit into the third (most serious) tier or were tried as adults. Such juveniles will be subject to all the same registration requirements as other Tier 3 offenders." Making a 14-year old punished for their entire life benefits no one, regardless of the crime. Lifetime registry is for the worst of offenders.
No it's not folly. To me victimless crimes aren't nearly as bad as crimes with victims. But your stance is that it was a long time ago, and he walked into a police station so it's all said and done. Move along. A friend of mine is a registered sex offender because one night he got drunk all night, went outside in the morning to take a piss and a school bus of kids drove by and saw his junk. Josh Duggar molested a 5 year old, nothing to see here.
As a side note....based on the US population and a very conservative sex abuse rate, we should have nearly 9.5 million people on the national sex offense registry. That's assuming that people tell, charges are filed, and convictions are made. We don't even have 1M.
Backtrack it all you want. Getting a speeding ticket is breaking the law. Should you be considered a liar because you got a speeding ticket? We are talking about a crime with a victim here.
What should be done to him at this point? Seriously. He's essentially on the national registry, he quit his job, he's been nationally humiliated and he's having to watch his sisters suffer.....again. So because that's wrong, the law should inflict wrong on others? What Tier offense did he violate and how long is he required to be registered? I don't necessarily agree with what happened to him but you can't have it both ways. Very childish to keep saying this. I have provided you with plenty of information and facts and you disregard because of your own personal bias. That's fine but it doesn't help advance the discussion.
Listen carefully . . . the point I'm making is that your suggestion that his crime means that he must be lying about his confession has no validity whatsoever.
I never said he must be lying. I said it is my opinion that he is lying, and that I don't trust anything he says. I never said you had to feel the same way. And the parents did lie in the Fox interview.
