In a speech on sex-offender laws, Judith Levine noted that registries don’t describe the crimes for which offenders must register from 20-years to life by disclosing the objective facts, not specifically or concretely or, in many instances, even vaguely. Given how the crime or crimes of which they were convicted are defined by law and thus on various registries, those viewing the registries have little or often no idea of what the sex-offender did to their de facto or purely de jure “victims,” or whether he/she are guilty of mala in se or mala prohibita felonies/misdemeanors.
One particularly egregious and glaring example of this is the 1997 Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. All the registry says about her crime or crimes is that she was convicted of “second-degree sexual assault of a child.” This amorphous and abstract definition says nothing about the nature and details of the crime or crimes for which she must register for life as a uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal.
“Sexual assault of a child” implies the use of violence or threats of same to compel the submission of a victim or the molestation of a prepubertal child too young and innocent to consent in a meaningful and comprehending sense. To anyone ignorant of the objective realities, she could be guilty of anything from molesting a 5-year-old boy to aiding and abetting a male in abducting and raping a 10-year-old girl to seducing a 15-year-old biological man.
In fact, she isn’t guilty of any of these offenses, not even the latter. A former teacher at an “alternative high-school” for “juvenile delinquents,” she was convicted of “second-degree sexual assault of a child” and sentenced to 4-years in prison and registration for life as a uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal because she foolishly assented to sex with a criminal and biological man of 15 who constantly harassed and molested her at school and ultimately raped her when she visited him at his home on school business, apparently when no one else was home.
Then contrast her crime(s) with that of two Mexican immigrants, possibly illegal aliens, Juan Neito and Gregario Morales, who abducted a young mother of two children from the parking lot of a working-class tavern in Green Bay, WI, drove many miles to another county, gang-raped her for hours, beat her savagely, and tried to murder her by dousing her with lighter-fluid and setting her on fire. All the registry says about this atrocity is that they’re guilty of “second-degree sexual assault” and must register for life as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, just like Cassandra. Legally, Cassandra and these sadists and monsters are both guilty of “second-degree sexual assault.” The only difference is that she’s guilty of “second-degree sexual assault of a child” while they’re only guilty of “second-degree sexual assault,” which suggests that her crimes are more serious and that she’s more deviant and dangerous!
Moreover, they’re only on the registry because of the “second-degree sexual assault,” not the kidnapping, enslavement, aggravated assault, torture, disfigurement, and attempted murder. If they had “only” abducted her, beat her savagely, tortured her in a nonsexual fashion, and succeeded rather than failed in killing her by setting her ablaze, they wouldn’t be on a registry for uniquely vile and execrable and dangerous criminals, along with monsters like Cassandra.
Michigan’s registry is a partial exception. Abigail Simon’s public shaming webpage says she is guilty of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” which by itself tells one nothing, specifically or concretely, but suggests that she is guilty of a monstrous transgression, “first-degree” acts of violence, possibly sadistic and vicious and brutal, and/or depravity. But (relationship) is in parenthesis, thus disclosing that she didn’t use a knife or gun or her superior size and strength to compel the submission of her “victim” and also implying that her “victim” was not a prepubescent child. But it doesn’t mention that her “victim” was a 6’3″, 220 lb. football star and biological man of 15 whom she claims was not only the aggressor in their intrigue but also forced himself on her. Nor does it reveal any other details about their liaison that people might consider pertinent or even mitigating and exculpatory.