Sex offender law mindlessly harsh

  • Follow Editorials

Should the law punish a motorist who is ticketed for a broken tail light as harshly as it punishes a drunken driver with multiple offenses who's found guilty of causing a fatal crash?

Of course not. Traffic law violations, like other crimes, are punished according to the seriousness of the offense. But that's not necessarily true when it comes to Georgia's sex offender law. Just ask Wendy Whitaker of Harlem.

More than 10 years ago, when she was a 17-year-old high school student, she engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old male classmate. In 1997 she pleaded guilty to sodomy and was put on five years' probation.

Since then Whitaker has gotten married and been free of any hint of misconduct. Yet she still must register each year as a sex offender. Her photo appears on the sex offender Web site and she is subject to a Georgia law that prohibits convicted sex predators from living within 1,000 feet of places where children gather, such as schools, parks and day care centers.

Her Harlem home is within 1,000 feet of a day care center, which as of now means she'll have to leave that home this week. Federal Judge Clarence Cooper denied Whitaker's motion last week to halt enforcement of that part of the state law that would force her out.

Before she and her husband moved into their Harlem home a few years ago, the couple had to move several times because of the sex offender law. It's very difficult to find a place to live that's not within 1,000 feet of where children gather, a point Whitaker's lawyer made to the federal judge, but to no avail.

The main point ought to be that the sex registry law shouldn't apply to Whitaker. She's clearly not a pedophile who preys on teenagers, and it's a travesty of justice that she's being treated like one.

Adding to Whitaker's pain is that the law she was sentenced under was repealed by the legislature shortly after her guilty plea and was replaced by a law that is much lighter on teenagers having sex. Had she been sentenced under the new law, she would not have to register as a sex offender or move out of her home.

Clearly, the toughest provisions of Georgia's sex offender law should not apply to persons like Wendy Whitaker. Distinctions must be made between nonviolent sex offenders -- particularly those with no record of repeat offenses -- and potentially dangerous predators.

One-size-fits-all justice does not work in sex predator cases any more than it would in traffic cases. We want strong laws against sex predators, but not at the exclusion of common sense. Judges must have the authority to make distinctions between the severity of sexual offenses -- and impose punishment accordingly.

Georgia's children won't be any safer because Wendy Whitaker is forced out of her home.

Comments

rbk

While I have no sympathy for real sexual predators and think they should be punished appropriately, I agree with this writer that there should be different degrees of punishment depending on the type of offense. The case the the writer mentions is a prime example of overkill. From what I have been led to understand, if you think you are alone in the middle of the woods, and someone happens to be nearby and sees you urinating, you can be prosecuted as a sexual offender. That is totally stupid. I guess you are supposed to just wet your pants, rather than take a chance on being seen. As for the real predators, we may as well plan on just housing them permanently at tax payer expense, because we are becoming so densely populated that there are few places where they can live and not be in violation of the law

Trouble1

rbk, i think it is a great idea to house the real sexual prredators at tax payers expense for the rest of their lives, then they will never have the opportunity to reoffend.

Talkatoast

America is just getting extremely ridiculous with all of it's laws in the first place. If you can't pee in the woods, then where can you pee? Pretty soon if people catch you peeing in your own bathroom you'll be labelled as a sex offendor!

patriciathomas

The term "sexual offender" needs to be defined. To some it's a leering glance in the office and to others it child rape. A law with such a phrase as a foundation is just plain stupid. This case proves it.

I4PUTT

Lack of common sense in politics is pervasive. This law was never intended to punish folks with in 3-4 years of age for consensual sex. Much like politicians have no sense of fiscal responsibility, see previous artice about Lake Oconee trip, they certainly have no sense of fair treatment under the law. Reminds me of zero tolerance in schools.

Republicant

If I recall correctly, many of the posters on this subject that are defending Wendy Whittaker were ready to hang Genarlow Wilson for the same offense. Strange...

Riverman1

Another example of a form of zero tolerance gone awry.

I4PUTT

There was no dirt bag with a camera in this situation. Nor was there a room full of people. You can look back at my posts. I took the same stance about the law in Genarlow's case.

Republicant

So charge the dirtbag with the camera for child pornography.

I4PUTT

I agree!

Signal Always

Just a BJ, right? I thought that wasn't sex? I could have sworn I heard that somewhere before.

Signal Always

Not me, Republicant. Both instances are a buncha BS. "I" would be considered a "sex offender" if this was the criteria, as would probably about half the people that post on this board. I wasn't exactly innocent until I turned 18. I seem to remember high school being 30% learning and 70% adrenaline and hormones.

Republicant

I think it's bs myself. Just looking for consistency from people.

double_standard

A sex offendner is a sex offender. This woman is sick. What if it was your child. You people only make excuses for who yall want to make excuses for. Yall wanted to hang Wilson and that was consensual.

Republicant

what is the race of the ms whittaker?

Signal Always

How is she sick, Double Standard? She was a 17 Y/O in friggin' High school at the time. The guy was ALSO in high school. Some of you people scare me as I'm sure you probably vote.

Signal Always

BTW, this instance was ALSO consensual.

imdstuf

There seems to be little common sense, and the judges and politicians act like their hands are tied. It makes me think about the scene in Coming to American when the king tells his wife, "It is tradition, who am I to change it?" Then she replies, "I thought you were the king." Our politicians will cry that they are afraid to make the law retroactive because it could bring up some red tape with other past cases, but they will have to learn to deal with that.

rufus

The law was changed to make her offense of giving or receiving oral sex as a teenager not a sex crime. The issue has been addressed. Her lawyers were arguing the wrong issue.

Signal Always

Well, apparently it's still an issue as she's still on the sex offender roles. Her lawyers are irrelevant.

rufus

Her lawyers were arguing for an exception to the residency requirements for a sex offender. If they would have argued for a change in her status as a sex offender under the new law she may have been taken off the list.

disssman

Just remember that any legislater that had voted against this law would have been labeled as "not against Child Predators" because the citizenry aren't smart enough to read between the lines! Just look at the three amendments that were passed on the ballot, and tell me exactly what they said and their true meaning! No one knows what they meant down the road, but people voted for them anyway! This is what we get for constantly electing LAWYERS to be our representatives!!

WW1949

I would reather have her living next to me than someone who murdered and was released.

FallingLeaves

I learned of a fellow high school student that got one of the teachers pregnant when her husband was overseas. The student didn't get in any trouble at all. She got fired and divorced. That was the end of that. Another student was openly dating the high school female coach. He got nothing but pats on the back and high five's. I had no idea it was inappropriate, just thought it was stupid to date a teacher while a student and could see that it might cause conflicts. I didn't know there was a rule against it. I just thought commonsense should have been enough. The coach broke the student's heart. He loved her as much as a 17 year old could. That was enough punishment right there. I don't think any of these women qualified to be sex offenders. I don't think any of these participants in inappropriate sexual relations were sexual predators, just immature, lonely and ignorant of the law. The sex offender mindset does not seem to fit these cases.

FallingLeaves

I would rather have this Ms. Whitaker living next to me than the cocaine traffickers and their foul-mouthed baby's mama, their co-dependents and customers, who polluted the neighborhood atmosphere with verbal abuse (profanity, racist slurs and threats), noise pollution, littering, vandalizing and thievery. It would be a relief.

rufus

I'd like to live next door to a divorced woman who owns a liquor store and a bass boat

merlin

this is totally ridiculous! they need to make it to where a daycare can't be built if their is a sex offender within 1,000 feet. just say wendy already lived there and then the daycare was built and now they are making her move. not right! someone needs to be working on amending that law for this exact situation! they need to let her stay until they do. i don't even know her and can only imagine what her and her family are going through. i will be praying for them!

realistineducation

just goes to show you the ignorance and stupidity of the georgia legislature. this is ridiculous. leave the woman alone, she is no threat to society.

double_standard

I would not want this disgusting piece of trailer trash living next to me or a daycare where my child is while I am at work wonderins if she standing at the fence looking at the children. You people who think this woman is treated unfairly are sick. But maybe she gets the pass cause she's _________.

Signal Always

So, is that your opinion of Genarlow Wilson as well, DS? Or is it different because he's ________?

Top headlines

Michaux: Tiger-Phil duel whets Masters appetite

For all the intrigue generated by some fresh faces in golf the last couple of years, nothing injects life into a season like an old-fashioned Tiger-Phil duel.
Online Database by Caspio
Click here to load this Caspio Online Database.
Loading...