I am sure the pedophiles in Massachusetts are up in arms. I have done some research into whether or not the FMSwordF is lobbying against this. I haven't come up with anything about this yet. I will be reviewing other sites that are as frustrated with the FMSwordF as I am. They, actually have been at trying to expose the FMSwordF for over 20 years. I am a relative newbie. I will also look on sites that are against the sexual offender registry. Believe it or not there are tons of blogs and websites that are against the sexual offender registry. To be honest some with good intentions others not so much. Some anti-sexual offender registry people have the same type of delusional thinking that pedophiles do. They feel if someone has served their time they shouldn't be stigmatized for the rest of their lives.would eliminate time restrictions on prosecuting perpetrators of sexual abuse against children
While I agree that there are instances of people who are on the registry for issues such as; teenagers engaged in consensual sex that are very close in age, that probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. Although if you are 4 years older then the minor you are engaging in sexual relations with, you should have to deal with the consequences. If it was forced sexual contact then IMO it doesn't matter how close in age the teenagers are. If someone forces another person to have sex that is rape and again the person should suffer the consequences teenager or not. Of course I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who sexually abuses a child. I don't think pedophiles should ever be off of the registry once they are on it. The reality is that even though most pedophiles who are arrested for child sexual abuse are first time offenders. It doesn't mean they didn't offend prior to getting caught. I have been told that by the time a pedophile gets caught the first time he has offended up to 100 times. I want to commend Majority Leader Ronald Mariano for taking this issue on. Thank you Mr. Mariano, Rosie
By Kyle Cheney / State House News Service
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 -
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 -
House
lawmakers are working to redraft a plan that would eliminate time
restrictions on prosecuting perpetrators of sexual abuse against
children, Speaker Robert DeLeo said Monday, indicating that a
“constitutionally correct” version of the proposal could be passed into
law by the end of July.
“At the end of the day, we have to come up with a bill that will pass constitutional muster and you know that has to be something of a concern,” DeLeo told reporters after exiting a meeting with Gov. Deval Patrick. “Because at the end of the day if we do not do that, then the first time this bill is tested and is thrown out, you know, it will come back to fall on the Legislature as to why so-and-so wasn’t convicted because the statute wasn’t constitutionally correct.”
“We’ll take some more time and make sure at the end of the day we’ve got a bill that has that balance,” he added. “Some of the attorneys representing some of the victims have been to my office expressing concern. I’ve got some folks in my district expressing concern ... Hopefully we’re going to be able to get something done.”
Eliminating the so-called statute of limitations for sexual abuse crimes against children has been a wrenching issue on Beacon Hill over the years, with victims of abuse, and their attorneys, deluging lawmakers with appeals to loosen the statute of limitations or repeal it outright. In recent weeks, supporters of that change have claimed that more than 100 members of the 160-member House have signified support for the proposal (H 469) sponsored by Majority Leader Ronald Mariano.
In 2006, legislators extended the limit from 15 years after an alleged victim’s 16th birthday to 27 years. But victims have continued to step forward, arguing that even the extended limit failed to give them recourse against the sexual predators that had harmed them decades earlier.
The issue flared last week, when Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty, co-chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, took exception to a Boston Globe column that portrayed him as an obstacle to advancing a bill that would eliminate the statute of limitations. O’Flaherty has questioned the policy and defended the importance of prosecutorial limits, but he has denied singlehandedly blocking the bill’s passage. Several days before the column, written by Kevin Cullen, the Judiciary Committee released the bill.
The exchange prompted O’Flaherty to indict the legislative process, which he said has been increasingly driven by emotional, reactive politics, rather than sober decision-making. He also argued that proponents of certain policies have taken to personal attacks and vilification as tools to advance their agenda.
Asked about the contentions, DeLeo called the 2011-2012 legislative session unusually packed with hot-button issues.
“I think that this year for whatever reason it seems that we’ve had a whole host of more issues that maybe have been more emotional, shall we say,” he said. “I use emotional but I mean if anyone’s involved with having a -- whether it’s a child abuse story or whoever it may be abused, obviously it’s going to be an emotional issue. I think some of, maybe, people who have been on [O’Flaherty’s] case, so to speak, relative to movement of the bill, can be difficult. On the other hand, he is the chair of judiciary, some very difficult decisions to make. “
http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20120327deleo_sees_path_for_constitutionally_correct_child_abuse_bill
“At the end of the day, we have to come up with a bill that will pass constitutional muster and you know that has to be something of a concern,” DeLeo told reporters after exiting a meeting with Gov. Deval Patrick. “Because at the end of the day if we do not do that, then the first time this bill is tested and is thrown out, you know, it will come back to fall on the Legislature as to why so-and-so wasn’t convicted because the statute wasn’t constitutionally correct.”
“We’ll take some more time and make sure at the end of the day we’ve got a bill that has that balance,” he added. “Some of the attorneys representing some of the victims have been to my office expressing concern. I’ve got some folks in my district expressing concern ... Hopefully we’re going to be able to get something done.”
Eliminating the so-called statute of limitations for sexual abuse crimes against children has been a wrenching issue on Beacon Hill over the years, with victims of abuse, and their attorneys, deluging lawmakers with appeals to loosen the statute of limitations or repeal it outright. In recent weeks, supporters of that change have claimed that more than 100 members of the 160-member House have signified support for the proposal (H 469) sponsored by Majority Leader Ronald Mariano.
In 2006, legislators extended the limit from 15 years after an alleged victim’s 16th birthday to 27 years. But victims have continued to step forward, arguing that even the extended limit failed to give them recourse against the sexual predators that had harmed them decades earlier.
The issue flared last week, when Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty, co-chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, took exception to a Boston Globe column that portrayed him as an obstacle to advancing a bill that would eliminate the statute of limitations. O’Flaherty has questioned the policy and defended the importance of prosecutorial limits, but he has denied singlehandedly blocking the bill’s passage. Several days before the column, written by Kevin Cullen, the Judiciary Committee released the bill.
The exchange prompted O’Flaherty to indict the legislative process, which he said has been increasingly driven by emotional, reactive politics, rather than sober decision-making. He also argued that proponents of certain policies have taken to personal attacks and vilification as tools to advance their agenda.
Asked about the contentions, DeLeo called the 2011-2012 legislative session unusually packed with hot-button issues.
“I think that this year for whatever reason it seems that we’ve had a whole host of more issues that maybe have been more emotional, shall we say,” he said. “I use emotional but I mean if anyone’s involved with having a -- whether it’s a child abuse story or whoever it may be abused, obviously it’s going to be an emotional issue. I think some of, maybe, people who have been on [O’Flaherty’s] case, so to speak, relative to movement of the bill, can be difficult. On the other hand, he is the chair of judiciary, some very difficult decisions to make. “
No comments:
Post a Comment