A Jury Rejected the Charges, but He Still Has to Register As a Sex Offender for Life

Jex117 · 2018-04-30T19:01:04+00:00

Reminds me of this case in Ontario - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/ontario-sisters-must-pay-uncle-125k-for-false-sex-abuse-claims-1.1364688

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-a-sign-of-hope-for-the-falsely-accused

It's scary that men can be convicted and labelled sex offenders based only on an accuser's word with no evidence. I used to sort of regret not having nieces or nephews because I never had kids of my own and I thought I could have been a good uncle but now I'm glad I don't.

jaheiner · 2018-04-30T21:31:09+00:00

So let me get this straight, another family member straight up said that this little girl was with her the entire night that the girl claims she was attacked. The 11 year old made up two different stories, one claiming he was too big and one claiming that a grown man had sex with her for 10 minutes which I'd like to think would be very easy to confirm on an 11 year old as she'd likely be damaged.

Then we also have a cop who lied and claimed he got a confession that he has no proof of.

How exactly are they going to take the word of an 11 year old with 0 evidence who is giving conflicting stories as grounds to permanently fuck a mans life.

bakedpotato486 · 2018-04-30T18:15:13+00:00

When the court system lends itself to abuse and becomes weaponized, it's time for it to be taken apart.

IronJohnMRA · 2018-04-30T19:29:16+00:00

Britton denied any inappropriate behavior, and his mother said A.B. had spent the whole evening watching TV in the living room with her.

The jury had an eyewitness. They ignored an adult's testimony in favor of two children who told conflicting stories. And now someone is a registered sex offender for life. Words cannot begin to describe the negligence these people demonstrated during the course of this trial. IMO, it's criminal.

alecesne · 2018-04-30T21:01:56+00:00

So stay away from all women then, even family.

Got it.

Thanks government!

2018-04-30T18:04:10+00:00

That is BS.

DR_JDUBZ · 2018-04-30T22:54:04+00:00

Its fucking disgusting that a person who is charged but not yet convicted of a crime gets their name plastered all over the news.

aesopstortoise · 2018-04-30T18:29:09+00:00

This is complicated. From the article,

"Finally the jurors emerged with a verdict that seemed to split the difference between those inclined to believe Britton and those inclined to believe A.B. They found Britton guilty of second-degree sexual abuse, a misdemeanor, based on the allegation that he kissed A.B.'s breasts, but not guilty of three felonies: first-degree rape, based on the allegation of penetrative sex, and two counts of a first-degree sexual act, based on allegations that he performed oral sex on the girl and forced her to perform oral sex on him.

"During a post-trial hearing, the judge nevertheless assumed that Britton had committed the felonies and therefore assigned him to risk level two under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), which triggers lifetime registration. Had the judge considered just the crime of which Britton was convicted, he would have been assigned to risk level one, which requires registration for 10 years."

2018-05-01T00:24:10+00:00

He was convicted on lesser charges in he-said she-said case because some jurors just had to take her word for it. Several jurors were so sure she was telling the truth they wanted to convict him of all charges. No physical evidence. No witnesses to corroborate her tale and one witness to corroborate his.

Amazing.

Mode1961 · 2018-04-30T21:58:41+00:00

I believe SALEM called and they want their witch hunts back.

2018-05-01T00:25:45+00:00

Now... based on what's in the article, it seemed like he should have been considered innocent (not guilty) quite easily.

But the jury did find him guilty of kissing a minor's breasts, and although it is a 'midemeanor', I feel like putting this guy on the sex offenders list seems reason based on that finding.

So the title is misleading because they didn't reject all the charges.

However, what this jury (and this is fucked) essentially says is that an officer, without any documentation or proof, can claim to have a confession and the jury will take that as a fact. That is fucking terrifying. And that has happened before. I don't know if there is something else that wasn't in the article, but that is scary.

The mother say the girl was in front of the TV the entire night.
The brother says she had a different story with him.
The accused says he didn't do it.
There is no physical evidence.
The girl has given contraditory evidence.

I read that, and I think: How did this even go to trial? Is it only because the cop says he had a confession?

Also... it seems fucked that the jury was dead locked and the judge kept making them go back. At that point, the jury members likely just said "fuck it; I don't think he did it, but I'll say yes to get the fuck out of here." That seems like there is a degree of duress on them.

TL;DR: It seems reasonable for the courts to put a person on the sex offenders list if they are found guilty of kissing a minor's breasts; however, it seems pretty fucked that you can get a conviction with seemingly no evidence other than a cop say "He said he did it, but I can prove that he said it."

AmbitiousPlankton · 2018-04-30T23:41:09+00:00

NYS is a "test state". Look to Australia and the UK and you will generally see it show up in NYS and California next. Just an FYI.

Gambizzle · 2018-05-01T00:43:07+00:00

In a 6-to-1 ruling last week, the New York Court of Appeals upheld Britton's classification, noting that it was supposed to be based on "clear and convincing evidence," a less demanding standard than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction. It is possible, in other words, for an alleged crime to figure in a defendant's risk level even when there is not enough evidence for a guilty verdict.

Odd that there’s two tests IMO (with a lower standard for inclusion on a list that’s supposed to just be a transcription of the higher standard).

This might not be the best example, but perceivably one could (for example) have consensual sex (not here because it was a minor and he did actually get convicted, lets not forget that), get accused of rape, be found 100% innocent and then on the same evidence (but a lower standard of proof) be put onto the register.

Stupid system! IMO if they HAVE to have a register (I disapprove of them in general), it should just be part of the criminal conviction (tested against the criminal standard) and not a separate standard. For example your max penalty might be ‘max 5 years in prison with 10 on the sex offenders register’. Based on submissions to te court one could then say ‘can I have more time in prison and less time on the register’, for example.

thrway_1000 · 2018-04-30T23:17:56+00:00

The courts have become corrupt. Soon people won't trust the system at all if they keep going this way.

Archive -- https://archive.is/Vclsk

Exitbuddy1 · 2018-05-01T00:02:17+00:00

He was convicted of “kissing the girls breasts” so I would assume that would mean you still had to register correct?

Atlas88- · 2018-05-01T01:36:51+00:00

This title is a little misleading. He was convicted of second degree sexual assault which requires registering for 20 years. The key difference is they made his registration for life despite the fact that the felonies were dismissed leaving only the one lesser charge.

So this Uncle either has to register for 20 years or life. Not much of a distinction at his age. However it is technically wrong and only should have been the 20 years.

The title omits this fact which creates the appearance of someone found completely innocent and vindicated of all accusations still having to register.

CptFizz · 2018-04-30T23:21:48+00:00

Her selection to New York's highest court was controversial. Rivera was the first nominee in history to be advanced out of the New York State Senate's Judiciary Committee without recommendation. Nevertheless, she was confirmed by the full Senate on February 11, 2013.

Affirmative action hire.

B00TYMASTER · 2018-05-01T01:14:29+00:00

....... why

2018-05-01T03:39:45+00:00

Why?

antilopes · 2018-05-01T08:37:13+00:00

The title (copied from the article) is misleading. The jury found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kissing her breasts and he was convicted of that, which earns 20 years on the sex offender registry.

The jury did not convict on the three felonies. (Juries do not "reject" charges).

However registration as a sex offender *for life* was ordered by the sentencing judge because he judged a felony *probably* took place.

In a 6-to-1 ruling last week, the New York Court of Appeals upheld (the judge) Britton's classification (affecting sex offender registration), noting that it was supposed to be based on "clear and convincing evidence," a less demanding standard than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction.

The dissenting appeal judge felt the evidence for any of the felonies did not reach the "clear and convincing" level. It is her right to dissent, and she was outvoted 6-1. So far so good.

But a defence attorney blogger is quoted claiming sexual assault trials uniquely sneak in this lower standard of evidence, which he feels should not happen.

It is not exactly the same thing but every sentence involves consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors, and these are judged at standards of evidence below the "beyond reasonable doubt" used for conviction.

The blogger is using a false dichotomy, claiming the jury either do or do not believe the girl. They believe to a certain level, is more likely. In any case sentencing is for the judge to decide not the jury.

I don't have any comment on the facts of this case, but I will just say that in a case of this type the mother's testimony does not carry a lot of weight since it is common for parents to disbelieve or pretend to disbelieve their own children and defend the adult family members and friends involved.

The different story allegedly told to the girl's brother and police is not unusual either. Nor would it be unusual for the parents to coach the girl's brother.

The only things about this I'm sure of is that girl needs to live with a parent figure she can trust, and unless the girl was lying her mother can not fulfil that role. Maybe she never could. Like school bullying, rape can be partly a symptom of parenting problems.

Title	A Jury Rejected the Charges, but He Still Has to Register As a Sex Offender for Life
Author	WanktheMank
Upvotes	1277
Comments	87
Date	April 30, 2018 5:48 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8g1dbl/a_jury_rejected_the_charges_but_he_still_has_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-jury-rejected-the-charges-but-he-still-has-to.902001 https://theredarchive.com/post/902001

Comments