New York state doesn’t want to be too harsh on those convicted of crimes.
That thought applies to the intransigence of state Democrats to broach the idea of tweaking their much-criticized criminal justice reforms just as it does to a piece of common-sense legislation that has been introduced for the past six years in the state Legislature without ever becoming law.
Past history didn’t stop Assemblyman Fred Thiele Jr., R-Sag Harbor, from reintroducing legislation that would make it harder for prosecutors and defense attorneys from making plea bargains in felony sex offense cases. While it’s not likely, A.8803/S.1338 should become law.
Thiele’s proposal is to require that any guilty plea to satisfy a felony sex offense charge include at least a guilty plea to a felony sex crime. When felony sex abuse cases are pleaded down to non-sex offenses, it means defendants are not treated as sex offenders, not required to undergo sex offender treatment or evaluation and are released into the community without notification.
This only applies to crimes that are sexual in nature? Not a closed fist beating of a women or a child? or if you stab someone? Or a DWI with severe injury? Nonsensical, Silly & Stupid.
I like that idea! So the prosecutors and defense can’t just sweep it under the rug! Both have to dig in to find the truth. And one more thing that should be add in a hearing is the cops should not testify on behave of the victim. It is Hear Say! Not seen by the cop! Well the person told me this! But did you see this happen? NO!! Could the victim be lying to you? Don’t know! Ok! When talking to the accused did he or she seem strange! Yes! How? Well the defendant would not talk to me So he must be hiding something!! Why are we putting people in jail over Hear Say? That really needs to be fixed!!!! S##t like this happens all day long in the courts! Hear Say needs to be wiped out! It need to be word for word not a outsiders words
Once again the centerpiece and justification for this legislation is based on the false presumption that when sex is an element the recidivism risk is both “frightening and high”. It is now clear that there is no factual basis to support this mass hysteria. The sex offender registry is the vehicle to get the legal precedents in place to abandon the constitutional approach in favor of “civil regulatory “ schemes that pay mere lip service to the Mendoza Martinez factors. I believe we as a nation have been conditioned to believe the lies that feed the hysteria and that leads me to believe that the original intent was to exploit a class of people to create a vehicle to transform the legal system to something free from the confines of the constitution.
Now that the the senators and such had adequate time to increase penalties they want to pursue blocking plea bargains when it may be the right move for the Defense.
Not to mention what crooked tricks will ensue with mental unfit…hence BEING COMMITED, THEN MANDATORY CASTRATION, THEN A VERY LONG AND ARDUOUS APPEAL, OR SPECIAL HEARING OR TO OVERTURN JUDGEMENTS…etc.etc…
Uuhh !!
WHO HERE KNOWS THE LAW WAS NOT RIGHT WHEN IT IMPLEMENTED A SYSTEM OF RESTRICTIONS WITHOUT REGARDS TO PREDETERMINED AVENUE OF RELIEF FROM SUCH LEGAL MATTERS..!!!
HOW DID THIS EVEN LAW EVEN BE ALLOWED WITHOUT REGARDS TO LEGAL RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION !!
Wow !
It is unbelievable to live in a Country Proclaiming to be Of God and of The Constitional Rights of BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE ….Just …WOW !!!!!!
When felony sex abuse cases are pleaded down to non-sex offenses, it means defendants are not treated as sex offenders, not required to undergo sex offender treatment or evaluation and are released into the community without notification.
So in other words, not harassed and mistreated for life………….
I’m not a lawyer, but my first impression was that this violates equal protection by singling out a class and denying procedural processes enjoyed by everyone else. Granted, there is no constitutional right to a plea bargain. However, I’ve never heard of a legal privilege being legislatively denied simply to insure non-punitive collateral consequences, e.g. community notification and registration. I also wonder about the separation of powers question. The legislature may be usurping executive prerogative to bring and dismiss charges. They are setting themselves up for a long appellate slog up through the Supreme Court.
This law would undoubtedly induce more persons to roll the dice and opt for trial, creating a lot more work for the state. These sponsoring legislators are simply trying to reap political points by being tough on crime. No one has ever been elected by running on a platform of being “rational” on crime.
Let’s not resign on how the narrative will go for Registrants and the Registry. The past does not predict the future.