Monday, July 15, 2013

LA - Sulphur may raise (extortion / punishment) fees on sex offenders

Sulphur may raise feeds on sex offenders
Original Article


SULPHUR - The city is considering boosting the registration fees it charges sex offenders.

Councilman Stuart Moss said he will offer a proposal to increase the fee when the City Council meets in August.

According to the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office, Sulphur has 74 registered sex offenders — one out of every 240 residents.

I have a concern that every time I open the (newspaper), I see more and more pictures of these sexual offenders,” Moss said.

Here we sit on a gold mine of parks and recreation and great schools. I just don’t think we are on an equal playing field when it comes to sexual offenders living in the city of Sulphur.”

Moss said Lake Charles’ action to raise its registration fee to $600 may convince sex offenders to “move somewhere where it’s a lot cheaper to register.”
- And once again we have another politician showing the purpose of the sex offender laws is punishment!

He said an increase in sex offender registries in Sulphur appeared to follow after Lake Charles raised its fees in 2011.

Moss said his proposal for Sulphur’s registration fee will not be less than the fee charged in Lake Charles.

His proposal will come before the council on Aug. 12.

1 comment :

Loneranger said...

Wait a minute hold on what the heck. Ok you know i'm not that surprised that they want to manipulate the system. the fact that most sex offences go unreported and or prosecuted one has to wonder why these people think they are in need of this. fact is they should include in their stats the potential sex offenders not just the ones on the list. However the ones that are listed make their property values go down, It has nothing to do with them not being safe as how safe can you be only knowing ten percent of the offenders in any given area. And that is if they publicize everyone that has ever been convicted. So in reality should the numbers really look like one in 24 instead of one in 240? It's a given the ones that will be prosecuted are mostly male. So you reduce the one in 24 to one in 12. Adjust this population using age as a factor and you can once again reduce this by a third leaving a potential of one in 8 males that have already committed a sex crime and no one knows. If you consider this over a lifetime you might as well reduce this again to one out of three will have done something that could require registration considering you can land on it for something as simple as urinating behind a bush. remember laws change and what you might have done in the past that you thought consensual maybe a chargeable offence now and the fact that you did it is all that matters. If you have committed a chargeable offence in the past you are a sex offender. It makes no difference if you have been prosecuted or not. In fact if you have not been you are much more likely to reoffend. So how safe are we? Does knowing the small percentile of people on the list do that for us? Or does this list only produce a false security? Reality isn't always something we want to embrace but maybe it's time we start.
these people wouldn't possibly even think about this if it didn't affect their property values.