NC: Bans sex offenders from spots children gather

Oh goodie, the Lunsfords again… saving the children, making a living.

This here from another article:

McCrory signed the bill with Lunsford’s aunt, Susan, behind him. She was joined by several riders from the Guardians of Children, who have been advocating for the Lunsford Family.
Susan Lunsford thanked lawmakers and those in attendance for continuing to work to pass the legislation. “This is what Jessie would have wanted, she would have wanted to reach out to other children and she did,” Susan Lunsford said.”

http://www.wbtv.com/story/32499768/governor-mccrory-signs-jessicas-law

Wasn’t THAT long ago that Jessica’s brother, Joshua, pleaded guilty in Ohio to Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor (him being 18 and his victim 14). 2907.04(A)(B)(2)

Somehow he avoided mandatory Sex Offender Registration (one wonders how). Would Jessie not have wanted to protect that 14 year old child from being ‘fingered’ by this 18 year old man?

Here is more information about the case (with all public court records).

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2007/07/lunsfords-son-gets-10-day-jail-sentence.html

Copying and pasting a (very old) comment – which appears spot on:

Drew • 9 years ago
After reading the Ohio law on sex offenses and sex offender registration, which is quite wordy and complicated, it looks like it was not applied as written.

First, Joshu violated 2907.04, Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. If the offender is less than 4 years older than the victim, then the offense is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Joshua was (just barely) more than 4 years older than the victim so the crime should have been a felony in the fourth degree.

Second, Joshua pled guilty to 2907.04. A “sexually oriented offense” is defined as an offense committed by someone 18 or older involving a minor who violates crimes which include 2907.04. Therefore he committed a “sexually oriented offense”. Whether the crime is a misdemeanor or feloney is not part of the definition.

Under 2950.04, each person who has pleaded guilty to “sexually oriented offense” that is not “registration exempt” shall register with the sheriff.

“Registration exempt” means any “presumptively registration-exempt sexually oriented offense” to which a judge has not order the person registered. The list of crimes which are “presumptively registration exempt” do not include Joshua’s crime of 2907.04, Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.

Therefore Joshu has pleaded guilty to a crime for which he should have to register as a sex offender, and there is no exemption under the law.

“Because of the misdemeanor charge, he will not have to register with the state’s sex offender registry.” This explanation is simply incorrect. The press should do a better job of fact-checking.

If you live in Ohio, and do not like the fact Joshua has been convicted of a sexually oriented offense and does not have to register, call the DA’s office and demand they appeal. You can also put pressure on the sheriff. Both are usually elected officials and have to answer to their constituency.

Personally, I believe his case should never have been in court, and 10 days in jail is ridiculous for consensual sexual activity between teenagers. I also wonder about a judge imposing a “one year period of probation” when the maximum term of imprisonment is 180 days. Isn’t this extending the sentence beyond 180 days? If he is on probation, then he could theoretically go back to jail to serve the remaining 170 days months after his maximum sentence would be over.

By the way, he had better stay in Ohio, because he will need to register in most other state based on this conviction.

So, if Joshua Lunsford (expungement in hand) moved to North Carolina, would he have to re-register and be banned from all these public places by the just signed Jessica’s Law?