In June 1997, 12-year-old John Doe walked from his father’s house to the
liquor store across the street where 39-year-old Thai worked. . . . As Doe perused the candy, Thai asked him how old he was. When Doe
said 12 years old, Thai said he looked big for his age and asked him if he worked out.
Not so subtly, Thai asked Doe, “‘Do you jack off?’” Thai gave Doe a Playboy magazine
and directed him to the empty office in the back of the store.
In the office, Doe sat down in a chair. After Thai entered the office, he
asked Doe to look at the magazine and pull down his pants. When Doe hesitated, Thai
pulled down Doe’s pants and underwear. Thai knelt on the floor and masturbated Doe
until he ejaculated. Doe got dressed and fled. Later that day, Doe felt ill from what
happened and told his mother, who called the sheriff’s department."
Obviously, a terrible offense, and you totally feel bad for Doe. I nonetheless had to laugh at the "Not so subtly" part. True that.
On the merits, the Court of Appeal reverses the trial court, which kept Mr. Thai on the sex registry on the ground that (as the statute requires) "community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continuing registration." Mr. Thai spent three years in prison, is now 65 years old, has been on the registry for 23 years, and has never reoffended. Justice O'Leary says there's insufficient evidence to support a finding that "community safety would be significantly enhanced" if this now-elderly man was kept on the registry. Not that there isn't some risk that he'd reoffend, just like there's some risk that any of us would. Just not enough to justify continuing registration after 23 blameless years.
"Not so subtly." Funny.
