Man Found NOT GUILTY of Sex Offense Must Give Cops 24-Hour Notice Before He Has Sex

If you had a sneaking suspicion that our sex offender laws have gone overboard, here’s the naked proof: A British man found not guilty of rape must nonetheless give the authorities 24 hour notice before he engages in sex.

I’ll type that again: The guy must let the cops know when, where, and with whom he is going to engage in intimate relations. This notification rule goes into effect in August and The Mirror reports that the police are going to ask that it become permanent.

Now the man, who is single, is threatening to go on a hunger strike.

The 40-year-old man, who legally cannot be named, was given a retrial in 2015 and acquitted of rape. Despite the ruling, police issued a “sexual risk order” against him. Under the order, the man must “disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth… at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place.”

“I protest that even though a jury found me unanimously not guilty, after nearly two years I still find myself being punished for a crime that never happened,” the York man wrote in a statement to the press. “I protest to being subject to an order that is unlawful in almost every syllable, is unjustified and is so extreme as to be utterly unlivable.”

The Telegraph reports that this isn’t just a rule for folks found guilty of a sex crime. It’s actually for those NOT found guilty. That’s Kafka on a stick with sprinkles!

Full sexual risk orders last for a minimum of two years and breaching an order can lead to a prison sentence of up to five years.

They are used when someone has not been convicted of a sexual offence, but the police convince a court it is necessary for one to be made against the person to protect the public from him or her.

As insane as that law sounds, I’d add that even if he was found guilty of rape and had served his time, this rule would be utterly untenable. Somehow we allow bank robbers to go to the bank after they are out of prison, and murderers, once freed, are allowed to buy meat cleavers. Former arsonists are not required to notify the cops 24 hours before they fry an egg.

Yet we treat sex offenders—and apparently even those found not guilty of sex offenses, but tainted by the mere accusation—as if they are insatiable recidivists, bent on violating every living being they approach. This is why we forbid people on the sex offender registry from living near parks and schools, even though these residency restrictions have been found to have “no demonstrable effect” effect on child safety.

What’s more the idea that sex offenders re-offend more than other criminals is completely wrong. A study by the Department of Justice found a 5.3 percent recidivism rate among sex offenders—lower than any other group except murderers.

The Mirror reports that the man in this story “admitted to previously having an interest in sado-masochistic sex and used to visit a Fifty Shades Of Grey-style fetish club with an ex-partner.”

So what? our sex offender hysteria is so great that the man has had virtually all his freedom taken away under the guise of keeping the public safe:

He said there was “no prospect” of a relationship at the moment.

He said: “Can you imagine, 24 hours before sex? Come on.”

The man has been charged with breaching the terms of the order by refusing to give police the PIN to his phone.

He decided, having taken legal advice, not to give them the code as a point of principle, because he said the terms of an SRO were supposed to be prohibitive, not obligatory.

He was arrested and held in police custody overnight.

The terms of his SRO mean he cannot use any internet-enabled device that cannot be later checked by police.

He said that banned him from using certain fridges and lifts that are connected to the web.

Yes, think of all those sex offenses involving smart refrigerators.

The wording of the order also stops him from using an intercom such as those used to get into a nursery or a flat.

He said: “I’m in a state of shock, I cannot believe this is how the justice system works. “I thought the police were interested in finding out the truth, the only thing the police are interested in is securing convictions.”

Beyond that, I’d wager the police and authorities want to score a sexual victory: They can tell the public they have kept a predator at bay… even if the predator was an ordinary guy, not preying on anyone.

So who are the real predators here? – L

.

Hi, officer! Guess what I'm going to do in 24 hours?

Hi, officer! Guess what I’m going to do in 24 hours?

.

, ,

45 Responses to Man Found NOT GUILTY of Sex Offense Must Give Cops 24-Hour Notice Before He Has Sex

  1. HKQ451 July 7, 2016 at 12:12 pm #

    This does sound horrendous. But it’s used (very rarely) when someone preys on vulnerable adults who have the right to a sex life but are susceptible to coercion and are not credible witnesses because of their disabilities.

    So while it does worry me, I think, given the appalling state of our criminal justice system for tackling rape after the fact, it may be justified to protect very vulnerable people.

  2. fred schueler July 7, 2016 at 12:17 pm #

    and does this still apply if he chastely becomes a married man?

  3. John B. July 7, 2016 at 12:19 pm #

    Goodness, gracious sakes, and I thought the U.S. had some crazy sex offender laws and restrictions.

  4. jb July 7, 2016 at 12:23 pm #

    What if he files that notice and, during the ensuing 24 hours, his partner changes her mind?

    Will they go after him for fraud/false filing?

  5. John B. July 7, 2016 at 12:24 pm #

    @HKQ451

    The man was found NOT GUILTY of a sex offense. There is absolutely NO justification for imposing this restriction on him.

  6. BL July 7, 2016 at 12:25 pm #

    @HKQ451
    “But it’s used (very rarely) when someone preys on vulnerable adults …”

    This man was acquitted of rape. A jury trial has no meaning if the acquitted can be punished by law.

  7. Mandy July 7, 2016 at 12:39 pm #

    This man needs to take this to court and fight this. Surely there is a lawyer who is willing to do this pro bono – not guilty means “not guilty “

  8. HeadyMess July 7, 2016 at 12:43 pm #

    This sounds like a blog post someone would post on .

  9. HeadyMess July 7, 2016 at 12:44 pm #

    Seriously? Couldn’t I at least get a warning that I couldn’t post links here?

  10. Miriam July 7, 2016 at 12:56 pm #

    I’m happy that sex offenders are given a hard time. Even ones who had at some point a doubt about being sex offenders.
    But this law is ridiculous.

    I believe the full story is probably in the grey area pun not intended), but this ruling is not the way to handle it.
    It is impossible to keep, and impossible to enforce.
    If you have a doubt – put him in jail. Or cut his balls off (I do believe most sex offenders are not punished nor caught, but current “punishments” or means to keep the public safe are completely useless). But don’t suggest ridiculous “solutions” to please the public.

  11. sexhysteria July 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm #

    At least the police aren’t asking to watch (yet). What more can we expect?

  12. Resident Iconoclast July 7, 2016 at 1:10 pm #

    Isn’t this basically the same as the new “yes-means-yes” law in California? After all, if you can’t prove “yes,” you’re guilty of sexual assault. So therefore, you must obtain a contract or a recorded record. And, in the U.S., isn’t recording something with your phone basically the same as telling the police or the government?

    The absence of a yes is equal to guilt. This is not the same as the presence of a no. So I don’t see the difference, between California and this UK man’s predicament.

    Of course, the order appears to apply to females. Maybe he should think of going gay.

  13. Yocheved July 7, 2016 at 1:12 pm #

    What about the confidentiality of the potential partners? Do women really want to be on a registry of “sexual contacts” with this guy?

    They’ve basically castrated him with red tape.

  14. MichaelF July 7, 2016 at 1:31 pm #

    If there is an American counter-part to this I would be more concerned, although if it happens there it can certainly be brought here. Although I doubt this would really survive a determined lawyer, or an ACLU motion against.

    Since sexual crimes are now the exception to the rule, guilty before you prove you are innocent, how much longer until this creeps into areas that are not already covered by existing Patriot Act-esque laws….

  15. Steve July 7, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    @Resident Iconoclast

    “Of course, the order appears to apply to females. Maybe he should think of going gay.”

    I’m told that its impossible for a man to ‘go gay’, he has to be born that way…

  16. KAte July 7, 2016 at 2:20 pm #

    This is silly to portray sex offenders/rapists as not a serious criminal. I know your intentions but laughing hit off as…. he wasn’t even found guilty but even if he was….. yeah, even if he was guilty…. he’d still be a RAPIST

  17. Jen July 7, 2016 at 2:48 pm #

    @kate
    I’m confused. Someone who has served out their punishment should not continue to be punished. Yet, we continue to do that over and over by making it impossible for people to reintegrate into society. If someone continues to be a threat or did something so heinous that they do not deserve to live their life after serving their time — then your issue should be with the punishment.

    If my child does something wrong and is grounded for a week, it’s unfair to arbitrarily add an extra week on at the end. If someone steals a car and is ordered to pay restitution and serve time in jail, the judge cannot decide that the time served wasn’t long enough after all. And if someone is found by the legal system to be NOT GUILTY of a crime — there is no basis for punishing them at all. It is decidedly unproductive and unfair to punish someone for something they might do.

  18. Caiti July 7, 2016 at 3:33 pm #

    Wow, I’m actually more horrified at some of the responses here than I am shocked at this guy’s story, if only because I have learned to expect the unbelievable when it comes to government. It’s more shocking to me that there are people reading this column who think Lenore is not telling the whole story based completely on the default assumption that a government entity would never do something ridiculous unless there was good reason to. That’s essentially blind trust in the system. I’m shocked at the naivete, given what we DO know.

  19. BL July 7, 2016 at 3:57 pm #

    @Caiti
    “… not telling the whole story based completely on the default assumption that a government entity would never do something ridiculous unless there was good reason to. ”

    It’s more than ridiculous. It’s evil.

  20. Jess July 7, 2016 at 4:24 pm #

    I’m surprised this hasn’t already been challenged, as it sounds like it’s been used before. Perhaps those people were convicted of a sex crime, but still, how does one learn appropriate sexual behavior if they have to seriously ask for permission every time? And what if they are married, as someone else mentioned? Does that mean no spontaneous sex allowed, even with your own spouse? And if someone is going to commit a crime, do you really think they’re going to stop and think i shouldn’t do this because i haven’t told the police yet?

  21. Steve July 7, 2016 at 4:56 pm #

    This story is from The United Kingdom, a country where the courts can make special laws just for one person and, if they break that law, they go to jail with no due process.

    Its called the ‘ASBO’ or ‘antisocial behavior order’. It means that the courts can say, for example “This person wears shorts that are far too short! ASBO on him, he is forbidden from wearing trousers with legs that come up higher than his knees.” If he wears shorts, he goes to jail. They can make an ASBO saying anything they want to. Its a way of bypassing the ‘lawmakers’ in parliament and creating very specific, very tailored laws for specific people.

    You’d think that this would raise questions regarding the rule of law in the UK.

  22. andy July 7, 2016 at 5:06 pm #

    @HKQ451 “So while it does worry me, I think, given the appalling state of our criminal justice system for tackling rape after the fact, it may be justified to protect very vulnerable people.”

    I suspect that “very vulnerable people” are going to find themselves target of such preventive punishments way more often then non-vulnerable people.

  23. andy July 7, 2016 at 5:07 pm #

    @Steve It is possible. Males can and do go temporary gay when they are in male only society (such as prison).

  24. Ann in LA July 7, 2016 at 6:39 pm #

    He should send a notification to the police every minute of every day. Pelt them with their idiocy.

  25. Mel July 7, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

    This makes me weep. Around the world we are accepting Stalinist Russia type laws and punishments with nary a peep. Yes, I know how draconian things got back in that period of history and I still stand by my statement. Things are happening behind closed doors with no recourse or accountability for the victims. Stories like this are appalling and are only the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot we don’t hear about or see. Those that act high and mighty will be in for the shock of their lives when they’re in the grips of the machinery of the law. It can happen to almost anyone over trivial things so beware. Remember the rights you protect may be your own. Someday you or someone you know will need a sane and just legal system and we need to work hard to get it back now (it’s already gone).

  26. Dave July 7, 2016 at 6:55 pm #

    This is typically English – their due process laws have been purposefully weakened over the centuries since the Magna Carta was written. Just look at their practice of “kettling” protestors by surrounding them and holding them prisoner on the streets, sometimes for days, then just releasing them without further action. It’s extra-judicial punishment, but the Crown looks the other way. Also consider the way the British Empire’s colonies were treated through the early 20th Century. Look at what they did to anyone they considered “inferior” to them, like those natives in India, Asia, and Africa. Consider the thousands of Boer women and children settlers in South Africa they herded into squalid concentration camps where hundreds died of starvation and disease – all to pressure their farmer/soldier husbands into surrendering to the British invaders.

  27. Backroads July 7, 2016 at 7:34 pm #

    Now Husband and I have crazy schedules and scheduling sex happens. I think I’ll send the local PD our calendar and see what they think. Neither of us have been convicted/not convicted of any law breaking, so I think this is us being upstanding citizens.

  28. Beth July 7, 2016 at 8:34 pm #

    I wonder who/what linked to this, because I’m surprised at some of the comments here too

  29. K2 July 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

    We’re doing our very best to make registries of this type useless and everyone vulnerable to them. I feel as though everyone is becoming more and more vulnerable to some aspect of government control and punitive measures. A man who was acquitted and supposedly isn’t a threat shouldn’t be on the registry. The sex offender list here in the us is clogged with lots of men that had relations with someone under 18 when they were only young adults. Public urination and minor incidents in elementary school are also there. Putting people who are not a risk on the list makes it useless to the public and unfair to the men in question. Same applies to that registry in the UK. There are also obvious privacy issues and civil liberties issues. I think we are headed in a bad direction and the ACLU isn’t really working on it. They have recently spent a lot of money and time on transgender issues, making money and time for mainstream issues not quite as available. They do not take on anything related to family court.

  30. portia July 7, 2016 at 10:01 pm #

    “Good morning, Officer! In 24 hours, I’m gonna have sex with YO MOMMA.”

  31. EtobicokeMom July 7, 2016 at 10:57 pm #

    While I agree that the law seems entirely unreasonable, it is important to remember that “not guilty” does NOT mean “didn’t do it.” Because of the very high threshold for finding someone guilty, lots of very guilty people are acquitted. That is the justice system most western countries have chosen and there are very good reasons for it. But, we should never confuse an acquittal with innocence. Recall O.J. Simpson. I don’t think an American alive thinks for one second that he did not kill his wife. But the prosecution messed up and they could not convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and so he was acquitted. I have not read this story in any detail and I do not pretend to know the facts. But I have seen enough rape trials go badly off the rails (acquitted because she couldn’t remember what car he drove, acquitted because she called him and emailed him after the fact, acquitted because she didn’t “act like a victim”) to know that lots of rapists are found not guilty. Conviction rates are staggeringly low.

    The merits of a law permitting police to enforce such huge restrictions is certainly open to debate. But I don’t think that we should dismiss it completely out of hand as being totally outrageous. It is possible that this guy really is a predator, but for a variety of reasons, a conviction has been elusive. Recall that he was convicted the first time around so at least one jury was convinced he was guilty. Maybe he chooses women with mental health issues whose credibility will be low. Or women who are mentally disabled, or with memory issues. I don’t pretend to know. But is is possible, is it not?

  32. J.T. Wenting July 8, 2016 at 1:13 am #

    “This man was acquitted of rape. A jury trial has no meaning if the acquitted can be punished by law.”

    Accusation is guilt. Just because a jury later says you’re not guilty doesn’t make you innocent.
    That’s how courts think… He might not have been guilty of the thing he was in court for, but he MUST have done SOMETHING or he’s never have been charged.

    And no, that’s not my thinking, but that’s how judges, prosecutors, and lawmakers think.

    It’s the same kind of reasoning that allows in the US the stripping of civil rights from convicted felons even after they’ve completed their sentence (something that happens in a lot of other countries as well).

  33. James Pollock July 8, 2016 at 1:41 am #

    “It’s the same kind of reasoning that allows in the US the stripping of civil rights from convicted felons even after they’ve completed their sentence (something that happens in a lot of other countries as well).”

    In most states, the only civil right “stripped” from convicted felons who’ve completed their sentences is the right to possess a handgun.

  34. A Nony Mouse July 8, 2016 at 3:41 am #

    @James Pollack

    Many states prohibit felons from voting after serving their sentences — some permanently.
    Felons are usually not permitted to consort with other known felons — a clear abbrogation
    of their first amendment right of free association. And in addition to not being allowed to
    serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state
    grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps.
    Convicted felons can also see their parental rights diminished, especially in the case of
    custody battles or divorces. Felons also face difficulties getting a lease, applying for a
    loan, obtaining employment, and travelling to foreign countries.

  35. James Pollock July 8, 2016 at 5:04 am #

    “Many states prohibit felons from voting after serving their sentences — some permanently.”

    “Many” states is about 10. The rest restore voting rights to felons when sentence is complete. What did I say about that? Oh, yeah:
    “In most states, the only civil right “stripped” from convicted felons who’ve completed their sentences is the right to possess a handgun.”
    Is 40 out of 50 “most”? I think so.

    “Felons are usually not permitted to consort with other known felons — a clear abbrogation
    of their first amendment right of free association.”
    This is a common term of parole… but parolees have not completed their sentences.

    “And in addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states”
    Serving on a jury is not a civil right. It is a responsibility. Other side of the coin.

    “convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps.”
    Incorrect.
    Being on the sex offender registry will disqualify a felon from public housing, and selling meth in or near public housing will disqualify a felon from public housing. Other felons may live in public housing.
    I do not know what “federal cash assistance” is.
    SSI: “Individuals released from incarceration may be eligible for Social Security retirement, survivors, or disability benefits if you have worked or paid into Social Security enough years or Supplemental Security Income benefits if you are 65 or older, or are blind, or have a disability and have little or no income and resources.”
    https://www.ssa.gov/reentry/
    Food stamps: Felons are generally eligibile for food stamps. A handful of states still impose bans on food stamps for felons convicted of specific drug crimes. Most do not, and no state has a blanket ban for felons.

    “Convicted felons can also see their parental rights diminished, especially in the case of
    custody battles or divorces.”
    So can non-felons.

    “Felons also face difficulties getting a lease, applying for a loan, obtaining employment, and travelling to foreign countries.”
    Yes, indeed. But leases, loans, employment, and foreign travel are not civil rights.

  36. BL July 8, 2016 at 5:30 am #

    @Nony Mouse
    ” Felons also face difficulties getting a lease, applying for a
    loan, obtaining employment, and travelling to foreign countries.”

    Although waivers can be obtained, it’s also very unlikely that a felon can serve in the US military. And there are no expungements or sealed records (for juvenile offenses) as far as the military is concerned. Failure to disclose any sort of felony to the military is in itself a new felony.

    (During the Vietnam War, some men deliberately committed felonies to avoid being drafted. One favorite, or so I’ve heard, was “conspiring to kill a bald eagle”, which is a protected species. Not actual killing, just conspiring to do so. Eventually prosecutors caught on and refused to indict draft-age men who drew up written plans to kill a bald eagle, purchased a few bullets, then turned themselves in.)

  37. Papilio July 8, 2016 at 12:52 pm #

    So much for his affair with the officer’s wife then.

    “Hi, officer! Guess what I’m going to do in 24 hours?”
    Who, Lenore. Not what. ‘What’ would probably land him in even bigger trouble…

  38. A Nony Mouse July 8, 2016 at 1:22 pm #

    Mr. Pollock, your fisking of my reply confirms what many people here have long known — you are
    a pedant who cannot see the forest for the trees.

    Technicalities of what constitutes a “civil right” aside, the issue is that being branded a felon results
    in punitive consequences extending well beyond successful completion of their sentence.

    Assuming felons were permitted to own firearms, would you be willing to accept being labeled
    as such for the rest of your life?

  39. James Murray July 8, 2016 at 2:02 pm #

    ‘This story is from The United Kingdom, a country where the courts can make special laws just for one person and, if they break that law, they go to jail with no due process.’

    As a Brit, not true.

  40. James Murray July 8, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

    ‘Also consider the way the British Empire’s colonies were treated through the early 20th Century. Look at what they did to anyone they considered “inferior” to them, like those natives in India, Asia, and Africa. Consider the thousands of Boer women and children settlers in South Africa they herded into squalid concentration camps where hundreds died of starvation and disease – all to pressure their farmer/soldier husbands into surrendering to the British invaders.’

    Really, an American is going to lecture anyone on how to deal with the natives?.

  41. James Pollock July 8, 2016 at 3:50 pm #

    “Mr. Pollock, your fisking of my reply confirms what many people here have long known — you are
    a pedant who cannot see the forest for the trees.”

    Am I to assume you break out this canard EVERY time you are shown to be woefully incorrect? Or is this one just for me?

    “the issue is that being branded a felon results in punitive consequences extending well beyond successful completion of their sentence.”
    Of course it does. Being the sort of person who gets convicted of felonies IS the sort of thing that can lead to social shunning, yes. This is not limited to committing felonies, either. There’s lots of non-felonious things a person can do that will get them shunned by other people.

    “Assuming felons were permitted to own firearms, would you be willing to accept being labeled
    as such for the rest of your life?”
    Of course not. Before you start crowing like this is some huge gotcha moment, let me counter-offer you a parallel that does NOT involve committing a felony or being labeled a felon. Suppose you go to a dinner party, and leave a big steaming pile right in the center of the formal dining table. This is not a felony, but it will have long-lasting effects on your social life. You won’t be invited to any more dinner parties, for starters. Depending on whose table you’ve defiled, and who else was in attendance, and who else they know, you may have trouble landing a job, renting an apartment, or making friends. But absolutely none of your civil rights have been abridged, and you can even still own a firearm, unlike a felon. Would you be willing to accept being labeled as the dinner-party-table-crapper for the rest of your life?

  42. A Nony Mouse July 8, 2016 at 5:55 pm #

    Mr. Pollock, I am not woefully incorrect, and you are still a pedant who cannot grasp the larger issue.

    Being prevented from gaining employment, housing, or engaging in other activities of commerce
    because of felon status is not at all equivalent to “social shunning,” and it is disingenious at best
    to suggest otherwise.

    If I were to become a “dinner party table crapper,” I would not be required to disclose that fact to
    potential employers, landlords, lenders, etc. The government does not keep a record of DPTCers
    and deny them benefits for the rest of their lives. And were I to be shunned by my existing social circle,
    I could still make new friends, associate with different social groups, or even move to a new community.

    The fact remains that even after serving their sentences and “repaying their debt to society,” felons
    continue to be punished for the rest of their lives, and that our so-called justice system is overwhelmingly
    focused on punishment and not rehabilitation.

  43. James Pollock July 8, 2016 at 9:07 pm #

    “Mr. Pollock, I am not woefully incorrect”
    Then willfully so, and either way not my problem.

    “Being prevented from gaining employment, housing, or engaging in other activities of commerce
    because of felon status is not at all equivalent to “social shunning,” and it is disingenious at best
    to suggest otherwise.”

    They are precisely equal in nature. There is no giant conspiracy of employers, landlords, or lords of commerce to deny things to felons. Rather, there are millions of independent choices made by individuals who determine that they would prefer not to do business with individuals with criminal background. Unlike, say, gender or racial discrimination, discrimination against felons is based on the choices the individual has made.

    “The government does not keep a record of DPTCers and deny them benefits for the rest of their lives.”
    Gee, sorry to go all pedantic again, but the only benefit consistently and categorically denied to felons, by the government, for the rest of their lives, is the right to possess a handgun.

    “The fact remains that even after serving their sentences and “repaying their debt to society,” felons
    continue to be punished for the rest of their lives”
    Choices have consequences. Welcome to the real world.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_kwxmaJ3U

  44. Derek W Logue of OnceFallen.com July 8, 2016 at 10:50 pm #

    And yet, politicians screw us daily with no advance notice.

  45. Warren July 9, 2016 at 10:42 am #

    Gotta love those like Kate. Convicted or not you are still guilty of something and deserve to be punished. She probably feels the same about those exonerated years later by DNA evidence not available during the original trial. Let’s hope for the sake of justice people like her never make it on to a jury.