I want to start of this article with a bit of a warning. Most of us either know a registered sex offender or a victim of one, so I am trying to approach this topic with a little discretion. If you choose to respond, please keep that in mind when posting.

The death of Chelsea King is the latest in a string of children being killed after assaulted by a registered sex offender. With each death, the wounds held by past victims and their families re-open, making them relive the experience all over again. The responses to these actions are usually that of a mob-mentality, with calls for stonings, hangings, or at a minimum life in prison. However, the first two are not acceptable in a civilized society, and the latter can be viewed as harsh by others.

Brent King, the father of Chelsea, has called for changes in the current laws. He stated on the Today Show, “Kids [need to be] kids and be safe … and predators should not be allowed within their reach.” I can’t think of anyone that would disagree with that statement. As we grow older, we often think back to the days of our innocence, were we would go out and play, with the only worry on our mind is if we’ll be discovered in a game of hide-and-seek. Children shouldn’t be forced to live with the emotional scars of an attack or live in fear of it happening again.

The Sexual Offender (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994, also known as Megan’s Law, was designed to help communities deal with registered sexual offenders living in their neighborhoods. Sex offenders have to register with the local community when they move into the area, and that information needs to be made available to the public. Many states and organizations have created websites that compiles this information, so residents can screen their neighborhoods to see if there are any sex offenders nearby.

This practice is handy, but it isn’t fool proof. How can you disclose where a sex offender lives when the person is homeless? In Michigan, State Senator Bill Hardiman thinks he has the answer. He introduced legislation this week that would require the homeless sex offenders to site what area they are living in. That way, the residents would at least know that there is an offender somewhere in the region, even though that can’t pin-point the address. But even still, sex offenders are not under house arrest, so even if they did live in a house, the person could be a threat elsewhere in the area.

One of the ways to keep the movements of sex offenders away from where children are is by limiting their access to housing around schools. But as noted above, sex offenders are allowed to walk around in public, placing them in proximity with children. State Senator Bruce Burns of Wyoming is all too aware of this. Sex offenders currently cannot live within 2000 feet of a school in Wyoming, but in a state where there are many small towns; there are sometimes no places for offenders to live. He has submitted legislation to reduce this radius to just 1000 feet, giving a wyoming sex offender more flexibility in finding a residence.

So how do you balance the rights of the sex offender with that of the general public? You can’t just build a commune and expect all sex offenders to be moved to these “reservations.” Nor can you place a proximity alarm on a sex offender so that it goes off if he is too close to a school, especially if the only grocery store is on the other side of that perimeter.

This is the challenge of the law enforcement and legislatures around the nation. What rights do sex offenders have, and when are we allowed to infringe on them? Any suggestions?

Another problem with

I want to pose to you three different cases of violence that have occurred in the past two weeks, and I would like you to tell me if they are acts of domestic terrorism, hate crimes, or something else. After describing the incidents, I will give you my opinion, but I want to hear from you. Your responses will highlight a conclusion I want to make in my next post on the subject.

The cases that I will cover all involve a shooting that resulted in death, a highly public location, and the capture of the assailant. If you haven’t guess which news stories I am talking about, they are the killing of George Tiller (the late-term abortion doctor), William Long (the Private killed in front of a recruiting center), and Steven T. Johns (the security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum). Before we delve into the cases, let us first cover what qualifies as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime.

According to the USA Patriot Act, Domestic Terrorism is defined as follows:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED.—Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
…‘‘(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that—
……‘‘(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of
……the United States or of any State;
……‘‘(B) appear to be intended—
………‘‘(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
………‘‘(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
………‘‘(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,
………or kidnapping; and
……‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’’.

According to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, hate crimes are defined as:

(b)(1) Under the authority of section 534 of title 28, United States Code, the Attorney General shall acquire data, for each calendar year, about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.

With those two terms defined, let us review the cases:

1) George Tiller: Mr. Tiller was one of a handful of doctors in the United States perform controversial late-term abortions. For years he was the focus of anti-abortion groups, often finding his clinic being blocked by protestors that would try to keep him and his patients out of the building. Two weeks ago, Scott Roeder entered the church Tiller attended and gunned him down. He was captured later on after fleeing the scene.

2) William Long: Army Privates William Long and Quinton Ezeagwula were outside of an Army Recruiting Center in Arkansas when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (formerly Carlos Leon Bledsoe) pulled into the parking lot and shot both men. Long died from a single bullet wound, while Ezeagwula survived despite being shot three times. Muhammad was captured later on with a vehicle full of weapons and ammunition.

3) Steven T. Johns: Working the front entrance to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, security guard Steven T. Johns was shot by James von Brunn. Johns opened the door for the elderly von Brunn when he was shot in the chest. Two other security guards quickly drew their weapons and shot von Brunn multiple times before he had a chance to kill anyone else.

My opinions:

1) George Tiller: In this case, Roeder’s act does not meet the qualifications of a hate crime, since Tiller was targeted over his abortion practices. On the other hand, it could be considered an act of domestic terrorism since it could be argued that Tiller’s graphic death would “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” If women were now fearful of obtaining a late-term abortion due to the risk of someone murdering, then Roeder’s actions would qualify the requirement in that sense.

2) William Long: While Muhammad’s actions were based upon his religious beliefs, Long and Ezeagwula were not targeted for their own religious beliefs but rather their uniform. With that being the case, I would say this doesn’t qualify as a hate crime either, even though the two Privates represented an institution that was targeted. It could be argued that Muhammad’s act is a case of domestic terrorism on the grounds that he wanted “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” through the targeted killing of uniformed service men and women.

3) Steven T. Johns: The intent of the actions by von Brunn meets the classical definitions of a hate crime. He went to the Holocaust Museum because of what the facility represented – a memorial to the Jewish people systematically murdered during World War II by Nazi Germany. However, it could be argued as not being a hate crime since Johns, a black man, might not have been the intended target. While I don’t think that argument would convince a jury, it is a plausible position to base a defense on.

In summary, like I said after the killing of Tiller, murder is never the answer. All you are doing is proving the position and ideology of the victim to be the correct one, while discrediting yourself and your message in the same process. I am hopeful that this rash of extreme ideological violence passes soon, rather than the start of a very ugly age in the Chapter of American history.

Related articles:
Yahoo News – “For accused museum shooter, a downward spiral”
The Arkansas Leader – “Private still hurting after terror attack”
Arkansas Democrat Gazette – “Family praises slain GI, calling him soldier, hero”
The Washington Post – “Family of Slain Doctor Shutters Abortion Clinic”

It was a Sunday morning. Light winds were blowing from the West, while the 68 degree air continued to cool. The date was October 29, 2006. The place … Cabazon, California.

What started off as your typical California morning quickly turned into hell on Earth as the countryside erupted in flames. In 24 hours, flames higher than 70 feet tall and hotter than 1,300 degrees were fanned by the Santa Ana winds, destroying over 60 square miles and 50 buildings. In all, over $9 Million in damage was inflicted by the blaze, but there were greater losses that can not be measured in dollars.

Firefighters from all over the region descended on the inferno, aiding in the quick containment and eventually extinguishing the blaze. While 50 buildings were destroyed, many more were spared. Brave men and women picked their battles against the fire, at times being successful while other times not. In one instance, the fire gained in strength and overwhelmed the firefighters. Five men were trapped while defending a newly constructed home and eventually perished.

An investigation into the fire revealed that an arsonist set the blaze. Within a few days, the Sheriff’s Department arrested Raymond Lee Oyler, charging him with a dozen counts of arson. This week, the jury that heard the case came back and recommended that Oyler be awarded the death sentence for his actions. To my knowledge, this is the first time an arsonist responsible for a wild fire has been punished to this level, bringing us to the question of the day.

I should start off this section by stating that I do believe there are times where the death penalty is warranted. In cases of premeditated first-degree murder, where the individual is in full control of their faculties and of sound mind, the murderer should be eligible for capital punishment, even if it is their first offense. With that said, I am not sure that Oyler should be subjected to death.

Doing some research on California capital punishment, I found the following in the states penal code:

190.2. (a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of the following special circumstances has been found under Section 190.4 to be true:

(9) The victim was a firefighter, as defined in Section 245.1, who, while engaged in the course of the performance of his or her duties, was intentionally killed, and the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the victim was a firefighter engaged in the performance of his or her duties.

He bolded section is what bothers me. Did Oyler set out to intentionally kill anyone, especially firefighters? In my research online, I did not find anything citing Oyler’s intentions. Say for the sake of the argument that he did not, and that the deaths were an unexpected side effect of his actions. Do you think you would award him the death penalty?

While reading about the case today, I couldn’t help but think back to last year when a case of street racing killed 8 bystanders. People gathered along side the highway to watch a race when a car plowed through the crowd. Street racing is known to be a dangerous sport as well as an illegal activity. Drivers sometimes lose control of their cars and hit other vehicles or property on the side of the road, and unfortunately sometimes people. Even though the driver knew that hitting someone at that speed would be lethal, would it be considered first-degree murder even though the driver did not intend to kill?

While the two cases are vastly different, they do share a similar premise. A person engaging in an illegal act that results in people dying. When murder isn’t premeditated, should the death penalty still be an option? I have a feeling that Oyler’s appeal will be based upon this argument, and it should be something that the courts should consider overruling. Otherwise, this case my may serve as precedent for the future where the criminal act is even less cut and dry as this one.

Related articles:
Yahoo News – “Calif. man gets death sentence in 5 arson murders”
MSNBC – “Death sentence in 5 Calif. arson murders”
WJLA TV – “Death sentence in arson murders of 5 firefighters”
CBS News - “Maryland Drag Race Crash Kills 8 Fans”