<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is failure to register a continuing/future offense?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/09/is-failure-to-register-a-continuingfuture-offense/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/09/is-failure-to-register-a-continuingfuture-offense/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:06:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gideon</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/09/is-failure-to-register-a-continuingfuture-offense/comment-page-1/#comment-360</link>
		<dc:creator>Gideon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:25:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/09/is-failure-to-register-a-continuingfuture-offense/#comment-360</guid>
		<description>I guess my point was to focus only on the future crime portion of the rule. Most of these offenders don&#039;t commit acts that would result in death/serious bodily injury, so a firm reading of the text of the rule would not require disclosure.

You seem pretty convinced that failure to register is an ongoing offense and not one that has been committed in the past (i.e. the first day that the client fails to register). I am curious as to how you decided that. I&#039;m still struggling with that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess my point was to focus only on the future crime portion of the rule. Most of these offenders don&#8217;t commit acts that would result in death/serious bodily injury, so a firm reading of the text of the rule would not require disclosure.</p>
<p>You seem pretty convinced that failure to register is an ongoing offense and not one that has been committed in the past (i.e. the first day that the client fails to register). I am curious as to how you decided that. I&#8217;m still struggling with that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SexCrimeDefender</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/09/is-failure-to-register-a-continuingfuture-offense/comment-page-1/#comment-361</link>
		<dc:creator>SexCrimeDefender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/09/is-failure-to-register-a-continuingfuture-offense/#comment-361</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Reporting Future Criminal Acts&lt;/strong&gt;

A Public Defender has an interesting discussion of an attorney&#039;s obligation to turn in clients who have not registered as sex offenders. Essentially the discussion turns on whether the client&#039;s likely future actions combined with the ongoing crime of f...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Reporting Future Criminal Acts</strong></p>
<p>A Public Defender has an interesting discussion of an attorney&#8217;s obligation to turn in clients who have not registered as sex offenders. Essentially the discussion turns on whether the client&#8217;s likely future actions combined with the ongoing crime of f&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Smith</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/09/is-failure-to-register-a-continuingfuture-offense/comment-page-1/#comment-359</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/09/is-failure-to-register-a-continuingfuture-offense/#comment-359</guid>
		<description>Interesting question.  I&#039;m not sure you ca/should put aside the death or serious injury portion of the rule.  Including the death/serious injury portion the analysis, in my view, turns on the &quot;liklihood&quot; part of the rule.  Most of our clients future crimes of a sexual nature are certainly possible-but only a vry select few cases will future crimes be &quot;likely.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting question.  I&#8217;m not sure you ca/should put aside the death or serious injury portion of the rule.  Including the death/serious injury portion the analysis, in my view, turns on the &#8220;liklihood&#8221; part of the rule.  Most of our clients future crimes of a sexual nature are certainly possible-but only a vry select few cases will future crimes be &#8220;likely.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 1.441 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-01-16 15:41:30 -->

