Slashdot Mirror


Maine to Launch Internet Sex-Offender Registry

scubacuda writes "On Monday, Maine Today reports that officials plan to put info about the states 1,200 registered sex offenders on the Internet to allow residents to easily determine if a convicted offender lives in their neighborhood. Some jurisdictions - including Portland, South Portland, Saco and Kennebec County - already post sex-offender information on the Internet. But the new site will cover *all* sex offenders registered in Maine, and will include their names, ages and birth dates, where they live, where they work or attend school, and which offense they were convicted of. Photographs will soon be posted, as well."

725 comments

  1. Nothing new here by boobsea · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The State of Texas has had this for some time now.. gives their picture, their crime, vital stats, etc ,etc.

    http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soSearch .cfm

    1. Re:Nothing new here by Mr+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Going with a generic John Jones, here's one of the records you get: John Jones, Pervert


      Interesting to note he's DEAD and they still have a record of him. One does wonder how they took that "current" picture. He looks pretty good, what with being dead and all.

      Also interesting to note, did he die BEFORE or AFTER they stuck his name, address, picture, and the fact that he molested a 9 year old girl IN TEXAS up on the web?

    2. Re:Nothing new here by Unregistered · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... vital stats...
      vital stats for a sex offender? What's that? Penis length? Will it be updated if they use "natural male enhancement" pills.

    3. Re:Nothing new here by krbvroc1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course innocent people can get caught up in this and they have no recourse.

      In Texas, from 1999, from

      DALLAS (AP) -- Faced with a choice between convicts' privacy and the public's right to know about sex offenders, the Texas Legislature sided with the latter.

      The decision cost Thinh Pham his front teeth. Now he fears leaving his home.

      The 27-year-old Vietnamese refugee was attacked by four men who thought he was a sex offender because his address was listed on the state's Internet registry. But the address was that of a sex-offender who hadn't lived at the home for months.

      The vigilante beating came in September, three weeks after the effective date of a new state law mandating more detailed sex-offender information be posted on a Department of Public Safety website. Previously, the state released only block numbers and ZIP codes of sex offenders.

      Supporters of the measure said it would help parents protect their children from sex offenders living in their neighborhoods.

      But Pham's case raises questions about the state's ability to verify the accuracy of such a vast and detailed database. Top law-enforcement officials acknowledge they have little idea how much of the registry is accurate.

    4. Re:Nothing new here by Senjutsu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also interesting to note, did he die BEFORE or AFTER they stuck his name, address, picture, and the fact that he molested a 9 year old girl IN TEXAS up on the web?

      Even more interesting: did he attempt to molest the 9 year-old girl BEFORE or AFTER he died??

      Pedophiles are disgusting enough, but zombie pedophiles? That's the nightmare scenario.

    5. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being dead and all, he is still in the moderate risk category...

      Those sex offenders never stop, do they...

    6. Re:Nothing new here by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what do you need jails for then anyway? Those people are punished for the rest of their lives..

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    7. Re:Nothing new here by The+Jonas · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Here is the link to them all.

      Stop Sex offenders

      I used the registry for my home state when I was house-hunting. I don't want my children or wife to be anywhere near these people.

    8. Re:Nothing new here by NineNine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a very wise decision. I'm sure that sex offenders A. Congregate in the same area(s) B. Do not drive, run, walk, take the bus, or hang glide to other locations C. Molest those people who are closest to them. Gee whiz, you're a smart nut. On top of that, you bought into all of the media created hype. Congratulations on being a good, law-abiding, non-thinking citizen-drone.

    9. Re:Nothing new here by Mononoke · · Score: 1
      I don't want my children or wife to be anywhere near these people.
      Then don't invite the relatives over, no matter where you end up.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    10. Re:Nothing new here by webtre · · Score: 0
      from the page:
      Click here to view all 2 photo(s)


      Automation at its best.

      --
      litigious bastards
      suck it sco!
    11. Re:Nothing new here by krbvroc1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you want some more in depth details on Megan's law and the risks associated with this stuff see http://www.appa-net.org/revisitingmegan.pdf

      Some tidbits:
      In Virginia, an innocent man targeted by a detective, intent on nailing him for a sex crime, was falsely charged with indecent exposure, was arrested, had his home scoured in his absence, and had his computer and some family photos removed from his home (Jackman, 1999).

      In Lansing, Michigan, a 26-year-old man was branded as a child molester incorrectly. His name was immediately placed on a Family Independence Agency's "undesirables" list. The court ordered his name removed, but the damage had been done. The man lost jobs, friends, and family respect, and ultimately, his health was affected (Miner, 1998).

      A civil liberties group wants Michigan State Police to notify citizens if their addresses are placed on the sex offender list on the Internet. Recently, it was discovered that as many as 25 percent of registry addresses were incorrect, which has resulted in citizens having their addresses improperly included on the registry (Webster, 1999).

    12. Re:Nothing new here by Mistlefoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that "Statistics show that anywhere from 75-92% of all child sexual abusers - abuse family and friends children " according to http://www.beachildshero.com/neighbor.htm I'd say he'd better not live anywhere near his family or friends.

    13. Re:Nothing new here by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      Good deal. So you miss out on your dream house because Joe Sicko lives 2 blocks away. So someone else buys it, and Joe Sicko moves out 6 months later.

      Smart move. Really.

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    14. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He lives in Ala-fucking-bama. Houses are miles away from each other there. Take the bus? They can't afford the bus there. All Alabama has is boiled peanuts, pickup trucks, and charming Southern white trash.

    15. Re:Nothing new here by annisette · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In my home state to be caught(and arrested) urinating in public would make tht person name included in the sex offenders list. I brought this up with some friends when the subject was being discussed and I was told it had (the law) been retracted but who knows. It would be a definate case of the punishment outweighing the crime.

      --
      I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
    16. Re:Nothing new here by John+Courtland · · Score: 1
      Those people are punished for the rest of their lives..
      Good, and I hope in prison they become the bitch of the biggest, blackest, hardass mofo in the block. They deserve to be punished forever. Do you know what being molested/raped actually DOES to a person? It really fucks with their ability to have a strong committed relationship, they go so far as to sabotage good, loving relationships, because of what these piles of shit did to them in the past. And that's just scratching the surface.

      I hope people throw rocks at these guys for the rest of their lives. They deserve no peace, they deserve no rest; their victims certainly won't get that.
      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    17. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they find their dream house 50 miles from the closest sex offender and two weeks later, one of the worst sex offenders in the state moves in next door.

    18. Re:Nothing new here by The+Jonas · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sure that sex offenders A. Congregate in the same area(s)

      Yes, they do. Using the registry I located "clusters" offenders; many of them shared the same address. I am not kidding. After asking some ex-law enforcement people (that I work with) about this, they disclosed that many offenders are released they stay at a half-way house for a while. The address of the half-way house becomes the offender's first registered address. I found some locations both in and on the edge of the city limits; two of them are within 5 blocks of where I work.

      Also, about ten years ago, I worked at a call-center and one of our accounts was the "Tip-Line" for an abducted child. We recorded the phone calls that came in and were absolutely not allowed to hang up on anyone no matter what they said - anything could have been a clue. I managed this account and let me be the first to say that it is not the media created hype that I bought into. I would suspect that anyone who is forced to listen to people calling in and describing what they have done/are doing/wanted to do to children would take similar precautions. Until you have repeatedly listened to accounts of rape and dismemberment without any recourse, think twice about the criticism.

    19. Re:Nothing new here by Chucow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The study shows that the most likely abductors of children... are the parents themselves! [the two adults are somewhat stunned] The study reveals that nine out of every ten abduction cases are commited by the child's mother or father. The bottom line being that your children aren't safe, even from you! [Tweek's mom rises from the couch and walks away from it. Richard watches her go]

      -Southpark Episode 611

    20. Re:Nothing new here by NetMasta10bt · · Score: 1

      Here's Florida's

    21. Re:Nothing new here by JoeBaldwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the UK there was a campaign for a "Sarah's Law" (in reference to the Sarah Payne abduction around Y2k), mostly spearheaded by the News Of The World newspaper (The Daily Mail with porn basically). Said paper even went as far as listing the names of some 100 registered sex offenders, which led to vigilante attacks on people who merely looked like those printed. This move drew widespread condemnation from everyone with a semblance of sanity.

      Thank the holy lord Jesus Christ that the law never became legislature.

    22. Re:Nothing new here by eric76 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The one I thought was interesting was one guy who usually ran into trouble the first time he met his date's parents.

      He had never been in trouble with the law, but he did some work doing crime reenactments for a local tv station.

      While the girls he dated didn't watch the news enough to recognize him, their parents sure did.

    23. Re:Nothing new here by Emexies · · Score: 1

      Pedophiles are disgusting enough, but zombie pedophiles? That's the nightmare scenario.

      Inverted necrophilia, eew!

    24. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bite.

      All Alabama has is boiled peanuts, pickup trucks, and charming Southern white trash.

      Yes, and in addition they have all these.

    25. Re:Nothing new here by tirenours · · Score: 1

      Woh! this site can be very useful! If you want to buy a pair of shoes to someone for a gift, search this site first. If he is listed there, the shoe size is available. The surprise will be priceless!

    26. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Some states consider "living in sin" to be a sex offense, others consider purchasing a vibrator to be the same. There's people on the sex offender roles who got arrested in a gay bar in the 60s, etc etc. This isn't just a list of pedophiles and rapists.

    27. Re:Nothing new here by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      The study shows that the most likely abductors of children... are the parents themselves!

      Taken literally, of course, we should completely invert the 'don't talk to strangers' idea and make a 'don't talk to family' rule :)

      [joke, btw.]

    28. Re:Nothing new here by Alsee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But Pham's case raises questions about the state's ability to verify the accuracy of such a vast and detailed database.

      Yeah, there wouldn't be any problem at all if they just kept the record accurate. Yep, there's no problem if a bunch of violent drunk yahoos run around beating the crap out of people so long as they get the right address. [sarcasm]

      P.S. The full article can be found here.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    29. Re:Nothing new here by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Taken literally, of course, we should completely invert the 'don't talk to strangers' idea and make a 'don't talk to family' rule :)

      Nah, just don't spend time alone with Aunt Mike.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    30. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >In the UK there was a campaign for a "Sarah's Law" (in reference to the Sarah
      >Payne abduction around Y2k), mostly spearheaded by the News Of The World
      >newspaper (The Daily Mail with porn basically).

      Why is it that the parents of victims of crime such as this invariably turn out to be Sun-reading peasants?

    31. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another link, not so much about listing, as the enthusiasm of certain police to make sure everyone hears about an accusation before it's proven.

    32. Re:Nothing new here by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Psshhh, forget John Jones, have a look at this guy here!

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    33. Re:Nothing new here by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The America's Most Wanted TV show also has that same problem on a regular basis. The actor who plays the criminal in the dramatic reenactment is always easier to locate than the criminal...

    34. Re:Nothing new here by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to have the information. Seems there are some unsympathetic responses, but I agree that living farther from offenders does translate into a higher degree of security. The creepy words from Lecter in SOTL comes to mind: "What do people covet? They covet what they see every day."

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    35. Re:Nothing new here by caluml · · Score: 1

      And didn't they smash up the house of a paediatrician? God, you've got to love mob rule.

    36. Re:Nothing new here by fenix+down · · Score: 0

      It's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to God

      Beautiful, just beautiful. Why not leak the Gay Agenda to the Post while you're at it, fucker. We just wanted to take them to a show or something. Shit, if you had to hear those fucking queens bitching on and on about how they never get any Tony Kushner performances that far from the city, you'd be first in line to rent the fucking bulldozers if you thought it'd get them to shut the fuck up.

    37. Re:Nothing new here by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Based on the false attacks on innocent folks, I'd check my proposed new address against the database so I wouldn't _be_ targetted.

      If the real estate folks would pick up on that, I suspect house values would drop quite a bit.

      "Housefax - check the history of your new house. Termits, improvements, loud-pipes bikers. Prevent unnecessary violence due to a previous tenent's proclivities."

      I'd pay the $19.95 for that report.

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    38. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This dead man is also catagorized as a moderate risk.

      -shrug-

    39. Re:Nothing new here by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "But the address was that of a sex-offender who hadn't lived at the home for months."

      Now here's a question: Would it be "OK" if the vigilantes pounded the face of the person they were trying to get?

      Kinda makes you wonder where the line between this and the so-called Nuremberg List is drawn.

    40. Re:Nothing new here by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      That's a very wise decision.

      Yes, it is.

      I'm sure that sex offenders A. Congregate in the same area(s) B. Do not drive, run, walk, take the bus, or hang glide to other locations C. Molest those people who are closest to them. Gee whiz, you're a smart nut.

      Yes, sex offenders do molest those physically and emotionally close to them. It's been shown over and over to be true and the statistics are there to back it up. Sex offenders normally don't travel long distances to seek out unwilling victims. And, as another person pointed out, are often released to halfway houses which they share with other sex offenders.

      On top of that, you bought into all of the media created hype. Congratulations on being a good, law-abiding, non-thinking citizen-drone.

      You're still just another malcontent idiot with a chip on his shoulder. You're abusive, unpleasant, and rude yet your postings have no substance. You don't cite statistics or studies to support your claims. You just spew venom at people. Go away.

    41. Re:Nothing new here by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      Precisely. :)

      I just checked the New York State registry, and I found one sicko who lives less than 1 mile from my house. And lives about 5 blocks from the school my 2 1/2 year old daughter will eventually go to.

      His crime? He raped a 7 year old girl.

      Am I worried? Not particularly. I printed out the page with his stats and photo, and in the next couple of days I'll let my wife know. By the time my daughter's ready for school, this loser will probably have moved on. And in all likelyhood there will be a fresh predator in the neighborhood.

      Daddy will be monitoring the situation. :)

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    42. Re:Nothing new here by bgeer · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That's nothing, look at this one.

      DOB 02/12/1987, disposition date 03/28/1998. That makes him fucking ELEVEN when he was convicted, and probably 10 when he did it. His "victim" was 8.

      And for this he is ostracized for life? Is he going to go up to each of his neighbors after the DPS sends them postcards to explain that he was just a little kid playing doctor? I'd say something nasty about Texas right now, but the other states are doing this shit too.

    43. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOW THE FUCK is the parent comment flamebait? Only on Slashdot is there so much support for child molesters. Anyone who is against sex offender registration, FUCK YOU ALL!

    44. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I loved it when I blew my load all over your little daughter's face. You think she just forgot to blow her nose when she came crying home? No, that was my cum, and I loved every minute of it.

    45. Re:Nothing new here by DarthWiggle · · Score: 3, Funny

      zombie TEXAS pedophiles!

      (ooo, Republicans!)

      *runs

    46. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because among other things, it's public nudity, or indecent exposure, ie, a sex crime.

    47. Re:Nothing new here by Gleng · · Score: 3, Funny

      That page states that his risk level is still "moderate". So moderately dangerous, Texan, zombie paedophiles it is then.

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    48. Re:Nothing new here by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 1

      Not all municipalities have laws against public nudity, you know.

    49. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. More like height, skin color, build and what sort of children they like to prey on.

    50. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And didn't they smash up the house of a paediatrician? God, you've got to love mob rule.


      Yes! Those wonderful Brits thought that "pediatrician" meant pedophile.
    51. Re:Nothing new here by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From my own rant page (seems we had a similar thought):

      6.18.01 Corpus Christi Texas is now placing "DANGER" signs on the homes and vehicles of some "sex offenders" (without much regard for whether the offense was a genuinely predatory abuse or a chance encounter with a consenting but underage girl). Does anyone else hear an echo of those signs warning "JEW" in Nazi Germany??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    52. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > zombie TEXAS pedophiles!

      Even worse:

      "Coming to a theatre near you:
      zombie TEXAS chainsaw murdering pedophiles"

    53. Re:Nothing new here by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oral sex is still outlawed in some states. If caught, you would be a sex offender.

      Funny story about "sex crimes": a month or so ago in Singapore, a security guard was sent to prison for two years. He had paid a sixteen year old girl money to give him a hummer.

      No, he's not a sex criminal because of the underage prostitution he paid for. Prostiution is legal, so's a consenting 16 year old.

      He's in prison because oral sex is a federal crime in Singapore.

      People are absolutely insane on the subject of sex.

    54. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'd almost be offended if I HAD a daughter you fucking freak. What's wrong, would no woman ever sleep with you so you have to chase down little girls?

    55. Re:Nothing new here by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      And you knew that the people on the line weren't screwing with you for fun... how?

      You were set up on a line created for people to call in with "tips". Do you know that the "tips" called into law enforcement are largely worthless? People make shit up and call the line for the sheer enjoyment of listening to you squirm.

      The junk on an open "sex offense" tip line is worthless. Hmm. And a great way for an anonymous bastard to ruin someone ELSE'S life, too!

    56. Re:Nothing new here by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      And you are sure he really did all this? That there was no prosecutorial misconduct? That an ex-girlfriend didn't make it up to ruin him? That an obsessive "therapist" didn't embed the "memories" into a kid? Think of all the "satanist child molestors" who went to jail in the 80's and 90's in the south, all of whom were victims of hyperreligious hysteria, not to mention the many more with ruined lives. How about misidentification? How about database error? Data entry error? Misnumbering a house? People moving out? The molesters who had sex with a girl aged 17 years, 11 months, and 30 days?

      I know parenting automatically throws on an insanity switch when it comes to safety, but JEEZ, calm down.

    57. Re:Nothing new here by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Why are you safer a mile away rather than a block away? The guy can't walk or drive a car? Your kid can't walk?

      This is magical thinking. Danger doesn't have a locus anymore. We have roads and phones and the Internet.

      Magical thinking in my neighborhood: a girl gets mugged down the street in front of a church. For six months, she posts a flyer on thhe wall of my building, a block away, warning of the "dangerous" spot in front of the church. What, the guy lives in the tree overhead?

    58. Re:Nothing new here by The+Jonas · · Score: 1

      We were very aware of the pranksters and had been advised of the behavior of some of the repeat callers. However, I began to take some of them more seriously when the FBI showed up unannounced and claimed all the tapes as evidence (we went through the appropriate channels and didn't blindly hand them over. However, they would not leave our office until they had the tapes). I wish I could take my experience with this a little less seriously, but that type of work is about as serious as it gets and I'm glad I don't work there anymore.

      On a side note, from an IT perspective, we did all this using 1980's era equipment from Comverse Technologies (StarTel for call routing and TriLogue for recording/voice-mail) if you're familiar with those antiquated systems. :)

    59. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be:

      Texas chainsaw murdering pedophile zombies

    60. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This move drew widespread condemnation from everyone with a semblance of sanity.

      Which - judging by world events and new laws in the United States over the past two years - would exlude the majority of americans.

    61. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      He had paid a sixteen year old girl money to give him a hummer.

      SUV ownership is not a crime!

    62. Re:Nothing new here by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 1

      Oral sex is still outlawed in some states. If caught, you would be a sex offender.

      No, the SC threw out all of the state the sodomy laws (which oral and anal sex fall under) a couple of months ago during the appeal of a gay couple caught in the act in Houston, Texas.

      That is a question that came up, what happens to convictions when the SC declares a law invalid?

      BWP

    63. Re:Nothing new here by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      I think during the same manic anti-pedophile phase, a pediatrician (doctor specialising in treatment of children) was attacked at there home.

      The arguments for giving out details are fairly sound, parents can protect there children, but there's a lot of negitves. 1) your living happilly, 2) Your next-door neighbour is published on the pedophile list, 3) Your house price halves, you won't let your kids out of sight, your insurance premiums probably go up, 4) your friends no longer want to visit your house, 5) .... you kill your neighbour because he's ruined your life.

      Perhaps it's better just knowing that the police and goverment are keeping tabs on them and ther not dangerous?

    64. Re:Nothing new here by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      "...but other states are doing this shit too."

      Including other soverign states.
      A new bill being legislated in Britain "will classify sexual touching of any kind among under 16s as an offence, including kissing and touching with full consent."

      Bill here.

      One concerned group here.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    65. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SUV ownership is not a crime!

      It should be a crime!

    66. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you and your fucking child porn links. Moderators, burn this fucker to hell

    67. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't cite statistics or studies to support your claims.

      Hmm, so let's look at your post, shall we?

      It's been shown over and over to be true and the statistics are there to back it up.

      Note that this is an unsupported claim. Where has it been shown? Where are these statistics?

      You're still just another malcontent idiot with a chip on his shoulder. You're abusive, unpleasant, and rude yet your postings have no substance. ... you just spew venom at people.

      Note that these sentences are abusive, unpleasant, and rude. Yet, as noted above, your post has no substance, and doesn't cite any studies to support your claims.

      May I suggest you follow your own advice? That would be...

      Go away.

    68. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " That page states that his risk level is still "moderate". So moderately dangerous, Texan, zombie paedophiles it is then."

      You guys have me falling off my ass laughing!!!

    69. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Where did Brook get that idea from? The Bill you mention is currently awaiting Royal Assent (i.e., it has effectively passed the legislature and will soon become law), but I see nothing obvious that would support the claim by Brook that you quoted. Perhaps I'm missing something -- I certainly didn't read it all or in any great detail -- or maybe their concerns were addressed in later debate after the article you linked to was written.

      Either way, that position is completely counter to the prevailing public opinion here, and any law attempting to do that would be taken about as seriously as the current proposals to reform tuition fees, i.e., zip, nada, zilch, go directly to opposition front benches, do not pass laws, do not collect Prime Minister's salary. It would also be quite remarkable that such an absurd piece of legislation made it through a year in Parliament without a high profile discussion about it in the media.

      Can you provide a citation from the final wording of the Bill that supports the silliness you mentioned?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    70. Re:Nothing new here by fmaxwell · · Score: 1
      Hmm, so let's look at your post, shall we?

      No, let's not. The issue here is his post. He's the one who got on here and lashed out at some innocent guy while making counter-intuitive, illogical, unsubstantiated claims about fictitious hang-gliding pedophiles.

      Note that this is an unsupported claim. Where has it been shown? Where are these statistics?

      The burden of proof is on NineNine. He's the one who starting roundly abusing someone who posted nothing offensive or rude. The person at whom NineNine lashed out just wrote:
      I used the registry for my home state [state.al.us] when I was house-hunting. I don't want my children or wife to be anywhere near these people.
      Therefore, he stated a fact and provided a link. NineNine's reply was woefully short on facts, statistics, or links.

      Note that these sentences are abusive, unpleasant, and rude.

      Correct. I have an ethical right to treat him in the same manner that he treats others. In other words, if he's going to be abusive, unpleasant, and rude, I've got every right to reply in kind. When his post is venom-filled, my reply doesn't need to drip honey.

      Yet, as noted above, your post has no substance, and doesn't cite any studies to support your claims.

      Again, it's not my job to disprove his claims. It's his job to prove them. I don't have time to dig up statistics every time some anonymous buffoon on the Internet makes absurd, unsubstantiated claims. If he wants me to do the research to provide hard statistics to back up my claims, then he can do the work to dig up some to support his first.

      May I suggest you follow your own advice? That would be...

      No, you may not. That was not advice. It was an imperative directed at the other poster -- not general advice to the public at large. See www.dictionary.com.
    71. Re:Nothing new here by isa-kuruption · · Score: 1

      You're being ignorant.

      You do not know the full details of the case. Did he hold her down? Did he drag her into a closet? Did he hit her? Did he molest her with a broom stick? YOU DON'T KNOW! So therefore, don't make judgements unless YOU KNOW THE FACTS.

      You also don't know what he told cops. He could have responded "yes i knew it was wrong but I saw it on TV so i did it anyway" in which case he shows clear understanding of what he did, knew that it was wrong, and DID IT ANYWAY. Again, you don't know the facts, so you cannot judge the situation.

      Sure, it seems strange, but that does not mean there are no reasons for the charge.

      (NOTE: ALL STATEMENTS HERE ARE HYPOTHETICAL AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY EVIDENCE FOR A LEGAL PROCEEDING)

    72. Re:Nothing new here by Caffeine+Pill · · Score: 1


      "Coming to a theatre near you: Zombie TEXAS Chainsaw Murdering Pedophiles"
      Wait, are you saying that in Texas there are Zombies that wield chainsaws and kill pedophiles? Is that how this guy died? Ok - now I'm just confused.
    73. Re:Nothing new here by dtaczalski · · Score: 1

      Age is no excuse for commiting a crime. He did what he did, and must be punished for. Was he young ? Is does not change anything. And maybe if others like him seing what happends when you are a sex offender will not commit this crime.

    74. Re:Nothing new here by dtaczalski · · Score: 1

      He's in prison because oral sex is a federal crime in Singapore.
      He is a pervert. Is you think beeing a pervert does not deserve a punishment, think about the law. He has broken the law commiting a fellony (or a crime?). As for this he absolutly deserves a punishment. I don't agree that we shoud obey some laws not the others. Crime is a crime. And the guy is a pervert.

    75. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why are you safer a mile away rather than a block away? The guy can't walk or drive a car?

      Why would you be safer living a hundred miles from a slum in the Bronx then living in it?

    76. Re:Nothing new here by bgeer · · Score: 1
      > Did he hold her down? Did he drag her into a closet? Did he hit her? Did he molest her with a broom stick? If he did, he should have been charged with that, not with "Indecency w/child Sexual Contact". Also, if it was that serious, why was he only given two years probation? That's what JPO means according to this.

      The point is, a ten year old is NOT CAPABLE of being a sexual predator. Boys don't even reach pubescence until 12 or 13; and that's why we have a separate juvenile justice system. But, thanks to our thoughtless congresssheeple this kid (and this is by far not the only case of this) is going to have "Sexual Predator" following him around when he's 50.

    77. Re:Nothing new here by Gemini · · Score: 1
      Based on the false attacks on innocent folks, I'd check my proposed new address against the database so I wouldn't _be_ targetted.


      Not to equate real world attacks and the net, but this is something that is starting to happen with IP allocations as well. If the "previous tenant" of an IP block was a spammer, nobody wants the block because they'd have to spend months trying to get themselves out of all of the blocklists. The "set it and forget it" ad hoc lists would never unblock them.
    78. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above link is *not* google...but rather an escaped URL to a boy porn site.

    79. Re:Nothing new here by Ulven · · Score: 1

      I hope you didn't mean all that.

    80. Re:Nothing new here by CooCooNutz · · Score: 1

      I blame you for being your parents child.

    81. Re:Nothing new here by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      You do not know the full details of the case. Did he hold her down? Did he drag her into a closet? Did he hit her? Did he molest her with a broom stick? YOU DON'T KNOW! So therefore, don't make judgements unless YOU KNOW THE FACTS.

      And do you think the average, paranoid, possibly would-be-vigilante member of the public will know and understand the full facts of the case, when they go looking up this guy's details in twenty years' time?

      The fact that we don't know the specific details is the very problem with this sort of public database.

    82. Re:Nothing new here by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The burden of proof is on NineNine. He's the one who starting roundly abusing someone who posted nothing offensive or rude.

      Therefore, he stated a fact and provided a link. NineNine's reply was woefully short on facts, statistics, or links.

      The burden of proof is on the one who claims we should have these lists. The only "fact" in the original post was what the poster had done, and the only links were to these lists. There were no facts relating to what good these lists will do.

      NineNine's reply may have been empty of links, but contained a reasonable point. If we can disregard it due to lack of links, we can do so for your reply also.

      If you like statistics, do you refute those that say that the majority of sex abuse is conducted by family or friends?

      I don't have time to dig up statistics every time some anonymous buffoon on the Internet makes absurd, unsubstantiated claims.

      Right. There are these buffoons who think that we should introduce these public registries for sex offenders.

    83. Re:Nothing new here by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      The burden of proof is on the one who claims we should have these lists.

      In a debate, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. Since the other poster simply stated fact (he checked the registry because he doesn't want his wife and child living near sex offenders), he had nothing to prove. NineNine, on the other hand, made a claim, by implication, that sex offenders are no more likely to commit crimes near their homes and aren't likely to cluster in specific areas. It's his job to support his claims.

      If you like statistics, do you refute those that say that the majority of sex abuse is conducted by family or friends?

      Absolutely true. Now wouldn't you like to know if the friendly neighbor who always says hello to your child had been convicted of molesting a child? Wouldn't you like your wife to know if your would-be friend from down the street had been convicted of rape?

      Are you aware that the majority of child molestors each have multiple victims? Did you read many stories of Catholic Priests who molested just one child? Many had dozens, or even hundreds, of victims. That argues pretty strongly in favor of concern about future abuse chances.

      Right. There are these buffoons who think that we should introduce these public registries for sex offenders.

      You have it backwards. They are introducing sex offender registries for the public. You, and many others on here, seem to feel that these registries are intended as further punishment after the person has served their time. They are not. They are intended to provide concerned individuals with information that could keep them, or their family members, from becoming victims.

      That said, I do not believe that the registries should include anyone who had consensual sex with another adult. Somoene convicted of sodomy with a willing adult partner poses no threat to you or your family. In many states, adultery is illegal, but I don't feel that someone who cheats on their spouse should be listed in a sex offender registry. Neither do I think that a grown woman convicted for prostitution should be in such a registry. The registries should be restricted to child molestation and violent sexual crimes (e.g., statutory rape, sexual battery, rape, etc.).

    84. Re:Nothing new here by FAL · · Score: 1

      "Pedophiles are disgusting enough, but zombie pedophiles? That's the nightmare scenario."

      Uhh, curious, do you meen that peps who are simply born with an attraction to pre/pubesant children without any power whatsoever to change it are disgusting, or did you mean that peps who rape, molest and/or force a kid to do something against his will are disgusting?

      You see, there are many many many good, caring, loving, ethical and moral people out there who (by no fault of their own whatsoever) have been "saddled" with a sexual attraction/orientation that they cannot change, but can and many times do the right, moral and legal thing when it comes to kids.

      Not all pedophiles are child-molesters and not all child-molesters are pedophiles. I would go as far as saying that they are complete opposites!

      Pedophile - A man or woman who is sexually and emotionally attracted to children.

      child-molester - A man or woman who rapes, bothers or forces a child to do something against his or her will, usually sexually.

      Dumbass.

      FAL

    85. Re:Nothing new here by FAL · · Score: 1

      You say: "Age is no excuse for commiting a crime. He did what he did, and must be punished for. Was he young ? Is does not change anything. And maybe if others like him seing what happends when you are a sex offender will not commit this crime."

      So you are saying that a boy of 11 years is entirely capable of determining whether or not he wishes to engage in such an act? He is therefore able to consent to such contacts with say, an adult?

      What I mean is this... Peps are always trippin' over themselves to (supposedly) "protect" young, innocent, a-sexual children from so-called sexual abuse from adults and as soon as the police, parents, social workers or authorities "discover" that an 11 year old is involved in a sexual relationship with an adult, he immediately becomes a poor, defenceless victim who was violated and forces to do whatever was done.

      BUT...

      This same 11 year old can also become the perpetrator or offender when the other participant is younger?

      Yeah, this makes soooooooo much sense. No wonder why our societies falling apart.

      FAL

    86. Re:Nothing new here by Senjutsu · · Score: 1

      You see, there's this thing called a "joke". You might want to look into it's definition before you go taking it literally and calling someone a dumbass.

      Besides, whether or not pedophilia is something they've been "saddled with by nature" it remains, nonetheless, disgusting.

    87. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about the UK here. You do realize that UK != US, right?

  2. Very entertaining by certsoft · · Score: 1

    I remember looking at New Mexico's online registry when I lived there. Didn't recognize anyone :)

  3. good to see justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    who said mob justice is dead egh ?

  4. This is terrible by Pingular · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone commits one offence and for the rest of their lives their life isnt the public's hands? I guess if you can't do the time don't do the crime, but still...

    --

    When anger rises, think of the consequences.
    Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
    1. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the little boy or little girl who were victims? They get to live their whole lives with pretty disgusting demeaning images floating around in their heads. Many of them will have serious sexual disfunctions and will need therapy. No I'm sorry I have no compassion for sex offenders. Thanks.

    2. Re:This is terrible by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1
      It is terrible, but the information is public domain. Why is it so bad to post it online? It would be different if they were using pop-ups and spam to distribute this information (aside from the intrinsicly annoying features of these methods!).

      Instead, it's easier to get ONLY IF YOU WANT IT. No longer do you have to trek out to the detention center or DA's office to find that list which may or may not be up to date or accurate(ie other criminals tearing down the flyers). It's just a convenient and easy way of the making public information avaible to its citizens. If they really wanted to persecute the "rehabilitated", they'd actually advertise and actively try to disseminate that info.

      just my 00.02USD.

    3. Re:This is terrible by RPoet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think every criminal should be able to do their time and then get on with life, under the fair assumption that the due has been paid. This is pretty much the whole point of a legal system with prisons, right?

      By publishing all this personal info, the authorities express concern that the crime might be repeated. So why do they let him or her out on the street again in the first place?

      This "we have this legal system, but it doesn't apply for groups X and Y" attitude is dangerous and incoherent.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    4. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't mean to be an asshole, but you are obviously not a victim.

      I was a victim several times as a child to this type of abuse. Actualy most people who know my family, and my brothers and sisters think the world of me because I dealt with all of that crap and am living a normal life now.

      I do not think that it is fair to ANYONE to put them in the lime light like this.

      Also did you know that most sex offender victims have a better chance to become an offender when they grow up??? Isn't that fucked up! You were a victim to someone, and now society is making you another victim. It is no excuse, but it is not abnormal for offenders to have been abused as a child.

      Bet you didn't know that!

      Oh and yeah I have been through a shit load of counseling and all of that good stuff you just mentioned.

      I still don't think it is fair to people to put them through this crap. Maybe for a little while, but they should be able to dig themselves out of the whole they are in and be rehabilitated.

      If society doesn't think so then quit harrassing them and just put them to death!

      It is okay to kill someone, and then get on parole in 5 years. You can then live a normal life and no one will bug you.

    5. Re:This is terrible by Hungus · · Score: 2, Informative
      It is the particular offence. Studies time after time have shown that Sex Offenders don't recover so it is a situation of once a sex offender always a sex offender.
      Here is an exerpt from the following article www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm
      A recent study by Hanson, Steffy, & Gauthier (1990) on recidivism examined offenders from 3 to 23 years after treatment. The treatment was a short-term, multimodal program and recidivism was assessed through records of reconvictions. The researchers report that 44.3% of their total sample of 106 child molesters were reconvicted with 9.4% of the total sample being reconvicted between 10 and 23 years after being released. Incest perpetrators were reconvicted at the slowest rate (21%), homosexual pedophiles at the highest rate (66.7%), with heterosexual pedophiles and undifferentiated offenders showing an intermediate rate (42.2% & 36.36%). This study demonstrates the importance of extending the follow-up period when examining recidivism.
      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    6. Re:This is terrible by reallocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The purpose of prisons and a criminal code is to deter crime, punish criminals and ensure the safety of law-abiding people. Sending a convicted criminal to prison has nothing to due with paying dues.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    7. Re:This is terrible by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much as I hate to side with the sex offenders, the study you just quoted shows that MOST sex offenders are never reconvicted...

    8. Re:This is terrible by damiam · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sex Offenders don't recover...
      ...The researchers report that 44.3% of their total sample of 106 child molesters were reconvicted

      Looks to me like there's a good 55.7% that weren't reconvicted. While lack of reconviction doesn't necessarily imply recovery, I think that "sex offenders don't recover" is a bit off.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    9. Re:This is terrible by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      >>I think every criminal should be able to do
      >>their time and then get on with life, under
      >>the fair assumption that the due has been

      Would you say that if it was your child that was molested?

      These aren't people who took a candy bar or even stole a car, SOME OF THEM HAD SEX WITH LITTLE BOYS AND THEY AREN'T EVEN CATHOLIC PRIESTS.

      If that isn't just sickening, I don't know what is.

    10. Re:This is terrible by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Child molesters may or may not repeat the offence but they never lose the urge.

      Check any interview and they all admit they still have a compulsion.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    11. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue this under Human rights oh wait its America we are talking about arn't we :D Proven track record of no human rights even today

    12. Re:This is terrible by lgftsa · · Score: 1

      Assuming that only a fraction of offenders are caught or convicted in the first place, it would follow that a high percentage of offenders won't get caught a second time, even if they do re-offend.

      Of course, having form would tend to make them a possible suspect in any local incident, but on the other hand, some would learn from their mistakes and offend more intelligently.

    13. Re:This is terrible by deanpole · · Score: 1

      Illinois already has it with name, address, birthdate, photograph, and offense.

    14. Re:This is terrible by damiam · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You're equating "sex offender" with "child molester". The two are not equal, and a sex offender is not necessarily a child molester. A serial rapist may not have much chance of recovery, but some guy who goes out drunk some night and does something stupid probably does.

      Also, most pedophiles know that it's wrong to act out their desires in real life. Only a small minority can't resist that compulsion, and end up getting convicted. I think it's possible for even a convicted child molester, even if they still have the desire, to repent and resist that desire.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    15. Re:This is terrible by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      AMERICAN catholic priests... you don't hear much about molesting priests in other countries...

    16. Re:This is terrible by mr_sas · · Score: 1

      Instead you just have to visit the local site to get information that is out of date and inaccurate. (see other posts)

    17. Re:This is terrible by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      Purpose is to deter crime and rehabilitate the person. It's got nothing to do with punishment, revenge or safety, people easily get this confused.

      The original idea was to convert the people from a nasty person to a nice one, but many people think that it is unfair that the criminal should get a hand up, even though it can reduce crime....

    18. Re:This is terrible by Hungus · · Score: 1
      www.ipce.info/library_3/files/sexoff/sexoff_7.htm states
      "It is widely believed that the incidence of reoffending of serious sexual offenders is very much higher than studies such as this, which only count reconvictions, may suggest. However, by how much reconviction rates under-represent the true rate of reoffending remains at present a matter of speculation. For instance, the fact that there are a large number of hidden sexual victimizations does not tell us what proportion of such offences is being committed with impunity by already convicted sexual offenders. It is well known that there is a strong relationship between frequency of offending and the probability of being reconvicted at some time. On the other hand , it is important to recognize that one cannot infer from (a) the fact that some offenders when arrested admit to a large number of hidden offences over a long period of time; that (b) the majority of released sex offenders who have not been reconvicted are also 'hidden' multiple offenders. As Grubin (1998)(4.) has pointed out, it is probable that predatory sex offenders who commit offences against a very large number of victims 'are not typical'. Furthermore, the longer offenders are followed-up the more likely it will be that hitherto hidden offending will come to light through convictions."
      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    19. Re:This is terrible by JK+Master-Slave · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a perception, and some say it's based in scientific fact, that there is no such thing as 'reform' of child abuse sexual offenders. I.e. you know that feeling you get when you look at a nice looking woman? Child sex offenders get that same feeling when they look at a little kid. Are you capable of overcoming that feeling? How do you act on that feeling?

      Obviously some people have better impulse control than others. Perhaps what is needed is more like the tattooing in 'Snow Crash' where the dude had 'Poor Impulse Control' tattooed on his forehead. What's certainly NOT needed is an attitude of 'well, we punished him for 5 years, fair enough, let's just set him loose and hope maybe he won't do it again.'

    20. Re:This is terrible by RPoet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I were a parent in that situation, I'd be hysterical, bitter and resentful, and most of all, completely irrational. I can't see why my opinion should matter with me in that state. It's not like we ask the opinions of socker moms for what a law should say just because that law concerns children.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    21. Re:This is terrible by Henry+Bone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The purpose of prisons and a criminal code is to deter crime, punish criminals

      Is it? This is an old debate. Are (or should) prisons be about punishment or correction/rehabilitation? Prisons are, possibly euphamistically, referred to as "correctional facilities", with rehabilitation being the desired outcome for the incarcerated.

      Of course, prisons are reported to be hellish places where "rehabilitation" basically corresponds to the prisoner developing a desire never to return.

    22. Re:This is terrible by Mononoke · · Score: 1
      Check any interview and they all admit they still have a compulsion.
      I have the compulsion to put the neighbor's dog out of my misery, but I don't do it.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    23. Re:This is terrible by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      How did you turn those figures into that conclusion? If 44.3% reoffended within 23 years, that's 55.7% that didn't. If 9.4% fell in the 10 to 23 year range, then 90.6% of the ones who reoffended did so within the first 3 to 10 years. That's the result after a short term only treatment program. Further, the 20 year window for the study means that it was a treatment program that used only methods developed before 1970, at the very latest.
      Naturally, we can guess that there are some reoffenders who don't get caught, even over a 20 year long window. That could be a little, or a lot, but the study doesn't say one way or another.
      If 9.4% (which works out to 4.42 felons, neat trick) fall in the range from 10 to 23 years out, what would you estimate are the odds most of those are in the range from years 10 to 15, not 16 to 23? Probably pretty high, but the study is reported with the results for 7 years into it, and the full 20 years, but not others, so it's not all that obvious that all the data for years 16 through 23 may well represent only 1 criminal!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    24. Re:This is terrible by bersl2 · · Score: 2

      I think every criminal should be able to do their time and then get on with life, under the fair assumption that the due has been paid. This is pretty much the whole point of a legal system with prisons, right?

      Just because I can, I present my opinion.

      A lot of the time, so I think, crimes fall into three catagories:

      1) The accused is criminally insane (e.g., serial killers). Therefore, he does not belong in a prison, but in a mental institution. If reformed, he should be allowed to reenter society unpunished. Otherwise, he should generally stay, lest they harm anyone else.

      2) The accused made a mistake. Some guy did something wrong and then usually made it much worse when he realized what he did (e.g., hit and run). These people belong in prison, but for shorter sentences than the law currently gives. He should, again, be unpunished afterward.

      3) The supposed crime is victimless. These should not be crimes.

      Sex crimes fall into all of those catagories; and in the case of the third, the only examples I can think of are sex crimes.

      [end opinion]

      This "we have this legal system, but it doesn't apply for groups X and Y" attitude is dangerous and incoherent.

      Not only that, but it hasn't been updated to incorporate many of the modern advances into understanding the human psyche made by criminology.

    25. Re:This is terrible by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Actually according to SouthPark Season 6 Episode 8 we learn your statement is false.

      Scene: Vatican City, Italy

      Italian Cardinal: Your Holiness, this is Father Maxi from America. He has brought this all to our attention.

      Italian Cardinal: Cardinals, bishops, and priests, an American priest by the name of-a Maxi has brought to our attention the most troubling of news. All over his-a country there are reports of children being molested by men of the Chuch. If things continue this way, we'll never be able to have sex with young boys again! [the prelates react immediately, protesting the report]

      Father Maxi: That's right-wait. What?

      French Cardinal: In France as well we are finding it harder and harder to... make love to our boys.

      Moroccan Cardinal: In Morocco they have arrested five of my priests. It's only a matter of time before they get the rest of us.

      Italian Cardinal: Father Maxi, what do you suggest we do to not get caught.

    26. Re:This is terrible by RPoet · · Score: 1

      "you know that feeling you get when you look at a nice looking woman?"

      No, but I'll be gracious enough to take your point ;)

      I guess my point is that if the person is so unsafe "in the wild" that they have to allow people to check who he is and where he lives and works, that person shouldn't have been let out in the first place. I'm pretty sure that the attraction cannot be cured anymore than they'd be able to "cure" your attraction to women, but behavior can be changed, people can improve. Sure there are some notorious drooling violent schizophrenic maniacs to whom that does not apply, but I have to believe it applies to people in general, lest I lose my faith in mankind at large.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    27. Re:This is terrible by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is because not nuch gets reported in the US which is not of 'local' interest. Ireland has had several cases, Austria had a very high-profile case a few years ago and several other ones have made the local news. Paedeophile priests are actually not big news any more.

      Going off-topic - American reporting:
      A few years back (I think it was September '89), two aircraft crashes happened on the same day. One was in NY, some plane overshot the runway and ended up in the East River - 4 dead. The other was a terrorist bomb in a French plane over Africa - around 280 dead if I remember correctly.
      The bombing hardly got a mention on CNN, the E River incident got wall-to-wall coverage being repeated every few minutes. The US media are very parochial, although it will have helped that CNN could cover the whole pathetic incident live.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    28. Re:This is terrible by radish · · Score: 1

      According to your stats more than half (55.7%) of treated offenders DID NOT reoffend. But hey, lets blight their lives forever and risk them being beaten or murdered by idiotic vigilantes shall we?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    29. Re:This is terrible by S.Lemmon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, just because I get turned on looking at a woman doesn't mean I'm going to rape her. The person may never change their urges, but they can decide to act on them or not.

      The main problem with these lists is people have been labeled as a "sex offender" for as little as mooning someone as a college prank. They're not all pedophiles or rapists.

      Also, why limit it to sex offenses? Wouldn't you want to know if your next door neighbor was a ex-murderer? ...or it it ok to turst your kids around someone who commited a violent assult, just because it wasn't a violent *sexual* assult?

    30. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't hear much about it in other countries. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

    31. Re:This is terrible by sergeant_x · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My brother got caught up in an incident recently where he and some friends had a little too much to drink and decided to go Jet-Skiing naked. Haha, great fun and all, until the local authorities arrested him. They threatened to register him as a sex offender. It took an expensive lawyer to fend them off. We need to be aware of how authorities will use these kinds of laws to expand their power. Anything they can threaten someone with will be used to achieve their will. We trust that usually that will be "good will", but not always. The constitution recognized this fact and provides a reasonable set of limitations on government power. We should think twice before we trash the social contract that keeps us free. While I sympathize with the victims of this kind of violence, there are already laws on the books to prosecute and punish those convicted of these crimes.

    32. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we know that the boyscouts are safe from NAMBLA members!

    33. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think your post is assholish at all. I did realise that victims often become offenders later in life. It's one of the tragic things about sexual abuse. I'm not a victim myself but my girlfriend used to councel young sexual abuse victims so I got to be her shoulder to cry on at the end of the day. Listen, after hearing story after story of this stuff I can tell you I HAVE NO COMPASSION FOR SEX OFFENDERS. Sure some of them might have been victims themselves but let's put a stop to this cycle. One way to do that is to inform parents so that they don't end up getting a soccer coach who's more interested in getting down the kid's pants.

    34. Re:This is terrible by way2trivial · · Score: 3, Informative

      including the guy (22) out at a bar, meets and goes home with the girl (16) using fake id, and convicted of statutory rape.. he'll do it again, right???

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    35. Re:This is terrible by Whyte · · Score: 1

      Your last point is not completely factual. Many states also have statutes that create violent offender databases that are published on the internet as well. This is in addition to the sexual offender databases. The difference being that social sigma is greater for sexual offenders than it is for violent offenders.

      As you pointedly noted, one of the main reasons for this stigma is that sexual predidation is sadly like a virus. Once this type of harm is visited upon a child, that child becomes more likely to turn to this type of external behavior when he/she becomes an adult. A lot more people know this information today than in years past, hence the negative animus toward sexual offenders.

      But just because a sexual offender was a victem in the past doesn't give them license to commit crimes against the autonomy of others. After all, if the prediposition to being young, rich and white was drunk driving and rape, would we let such individuals slide? I hope not.

      Personally, I would go as far as to say that it is in the best interest of any community to ensure that its members knows where convicted sexual preditors live in their geographical area. All in an attempt to protect a family's progeny, such as yourself.

      Knowledge is power. And like all powers, power can be used both for good and for evil.

      Dave

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    36. Re:This is terrible by John+Courtland · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please tell me I'm misinterpreting what you wrote. If you think any aspect of a sex crime is victimless, you should go out and get yourself raped, then tell us what you think. If I misinterpreted you, then I'm sorry to come across so brash, but you really need to work on your presentation.

      You forgot the "crime for the fun of it" and also "crime for hire" and "crime for money" aspects in your opinion. Barring things like taking drugs, crime almost always has a purpose (usually monetary gain), and I'd bet 99% of the time, crimes aren't committed by mistake...

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    37. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much like the stellar examples of:

      Europe - Ethnic cleansing - Jewish, Albanian, gypsie...
      Asia - Rape of Nanking, Bataan, PolPot, Tiennamin...
      Africa - RWanda, Apartheid, The West African slave trade to the Americas... look it up!
      South America - Spain, Columbia Cartels...
      and even Australia's treatment of the aboriginal children.
      I guess Antartica still has a good human rights record, it kills explorers with out regard to race, creed, color, or national origin.

      Why do subjects of oppressive governments insist on trying to denigrate the only free country in the world? You don't like it here, leave! If you are not here, then stay the fuck out. No loss to us!

    38. Re:This is terrible by El · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they were taught by their first conviction how to not get caught?

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    39. Re:This is terrible by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      It's like here (uk) - ex-princess diana died and a little while later Mother Teresa died. But Mother Teresa got hardly any press at all.

    40. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, god forbid a 22 year male could find a 16 year-old female attractive or even a 50 year old. 16 and 22 is a bit much, but I don't have a problem with 15 & 13. The sometimes laws needs to look at situation for the proper administration of justice. Less harm should play some type of role in due process.

      My family has been involved with childrens aid for as long as I can remember and the hardest stuff to stomach is under twelve with coat hangers and curling irons and cigarettes and so on. Hooking their children our for money or beer. Preventing it from happening or have a scapegoat for societies frustrations the choice is either and right now pandering to your ego takes precident over that child. When somebody says child abuse it's that kind of stuff that comes to mind.

    41. Re:This is terrible by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree. Do you know how easily it is to become a "sex offender"? All you have to do is get caught mooning someone. I'm not kidding. Indecent exposure (a misdemeanor) will get you added to a sex offender list in many jurisdictions. How many of us here have mooned someone at some point and time? Come on now, don't be shy. All of those kids on the Texas, Florida, and California beaches during Spring Break could find themselves on a Sex Offenders list for the public exposure acts they commit. I would give you some links to follow if I was on my own computer. Since I'm not you'll just have to dig around for the articles yourself. That's one of the problems with these types of lists. Many times you don't even have to commit a felony or any sort of violent act. A simple misdemeanor like indecent will do most of the time.

      This also makes one wonder what good it does for one to "serve their time" and reform in prison. If we need to put a person on a list of sex offenders once that person is released then did incarceration not work? Why is it that only sex offenders are publicly displayed on a list? Why aren't murderers put on such a list? That's even more serious of a crime in my book. Why is it a reformed murderer can move in next door without me knowing their past and yet the whole world would know it if a reformed sex offender moved in next door? That hardly seems just to me. Does it seem just to all of you?

    42. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Would you say that if it was your child that was molested?

      Initially, definitely not. Once I can see beyond the emotions? definitely yes.

      What you do is a very bad way of reasoning btw. People do not think in reasonable ways when in a strongly emotionally stressing situation. Because of this, peopel are also not able to make good judgements in such a situation. As a result, your question is simply irrelevant, you know the answer you'd get, and you know it is a response without reasoning, so why bother asking?

    43. Re:This is terrible by ilsa · · Score: 1

      Someone commits one offence and for the rest of their lives their life isnt the public's hands? I guess if you can't do the time don't do the crime, but still...

      If we as a society feel that people who commit certain crimes cannot be rehabilitated, then the answer is to incarcerate them for the rest of their natural lives with no hope of parole. Period.

      If that won't do, let's just tattoo "SEX OFFENDER" in large red letters on these guys' foreheads if we have to release them. No wrong addresses, no vigilantes beating up the wrong guy cause they got the information wrong. Everyone will know exactly what the deal is when they see the Scarlet Letters. As for these large databases, which are prone to incorrect information, and yet may not be accessed by the very people who most need the information, I say wipe them clean.

      I like the first idea better, don't you?

      --
      -- I Am Not A Terrorist.
    44. Re:This is terrible by kaybi · · Score: 1

      No victimless sex crimes? Then what are:

      Indecent exposure.

      Obscenity.

      Sodomy (I wonder, considering the supream courtdecision, if people unconstitutionally convicted of sodomy will be released from prison and/or removed from the sex offenders lists)

      Hmm??

    45. Re:This is terrible by ILoveMyGeeky1 · · Score: 0

      Don't say that someone is not a victim... you can't know. I am a victim of rape when I was only 6, and an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship when I was 16, which went on for a year. You mention that victims are prone to become abusers, but you failed to mention that abusers are prone to do it again, and that victims are prone to be victimized again. When I move into a new neighborhood, I want to know if there are any sex offenders around. I want to know who to watch so that I am not victimized again. When I have children, I want to be able to tell them not to go to the neighbors house by themselves if they are a sex offender. I wish we could do that with murderers, too.

      Don't be quick to say who's a victim and who's not, everyone reacts differently.

      --
      -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
      Yea! Go Tux! He's just so dead Tuxy.
    46. Re:This is terrible by reallocate · · Score: 1

      I'm describing reality, not a situation you, or I, might wish existed. What someone feels "should be" is usually not anything at all like "what is".

      We -- every country -- put people in prison to punish them and to remove them from society, where they would pose a continuing threat. The intent is to deter crime. If their "hellish" prison experience "rehabilitates" a criminal, that's fine, but the purpose of the rehabilitation is the same as the original imprisonment: to protect society from criminals.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    47. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) That is why the tell you what type of crime they committed, not just that they are a sex offender.

      B) Going to prison is 100% punishment and 0% rehab. Anyone who tells you otherwise is running for office.

      C) Most murderers (serial killers obviously excluded) murder under specific circumstances for specific reasons. They are not addicted to murder (though they may be at increased odds due to their inability to control their anger). That is very different to a child molester, who just like a wolf or bear, once they've tasted blood, or in this case molested a child, are addicted, forever. Just like an alcoholic is an acoholic forever, a molester may remain "sober" for the rest of their lives, but has never fully recovered.

      As a loving father of 3 daughters, the above views can't change.

    48. Re:This is terrible by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      The whole point of a prison is to isolate bad people from society. An american prison punishes people by isolating them from society and putting them in relativally decent place and rehabilitate them so that when they become part of a society again, they can function properly.

      The major problem with our legal system is to assume everyone is feeble minded sheeple and to assume that they'll fear this punishment, and what happens in this system is that as time goes on, the feeble will conform while the smart people won't. You aren't s slave afterwall, and there are things the goverment could do that'd make a lot of people think twice about fallowing them. Fallowing a goverment is a choice, not a requirement.

      As time goes on, punishment increases for stupider and stupider offenses because people don't fallow the law or because there's a crime problem that's hyped up that people buy because they're so detached from the real world that they don't know any better and the only way to solve it harsher punishment. Pretty soon, you're getting executed because too many people were getting life for stealing a loaf of bread and it was too expensive to put them in jail.

      All this will do is label the sorry scum for the rest of their lives as a pedophile so they can't get jobs, can't live in housing complexes or communities with normal people, and get beaten up by crazy people who think they should die. I should be the one making the decision of weither or not to trust this individual and trust the goverment in their rehabilitation of them but on the other hand, they have a right after rehabilitation to live in our society without being presecuted for their past.

    49. Re:This is terrible by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As much as I hate to side with the sex offenders, the study you just quoted shows that MOST sex offenders are never reconvicted...

      Although a pretty large chunk are. And keep in mind, that particularly when you're talking about child molestation and even rape, a fairly large percentage of crimes committed are never reported.

      --
      Why?
    50. Re:This is terrible by dietz · · Score: 1

      and in the case of the [victimless crimes], the only examples I can think of are sex crimes.

      Drug-related crimes would fall into this category.

      Though, of course, it could be argued that the user is the victim, I guess (as in anti-suicide laws). And drug use can lead to other crimes (e.g. drinking and driving, stealing to buy more of a substance that you are addicted to, etc.). But I imagine drug laws have more people locked up for victimless crimes than sex laws by far. (I'm guessing, not quoting facts here, though.)

    51. Re:This is terrible by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      I would argue that sodomy laws turn the act into a victimless crime. I think that would fit "sex crime."

      As for your second point, it just goes to show that I don't know about how crime really works. But the people who really do, didn't get to make the laws.

    52. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want to know everyone who has been convicted of a crime who lives anywhere near you?

    53. Re:This is terrible by Frogbert · · Score: 0
      Also did you know that most sex offender victims have a better chance to become an offender when they grow up??? Isn't that fucked up! You were a victim to someone, and now society is making you another victim. It is no excuse, but it is not abnormal for offenders to have been abused as a child.
      So perhaps the victims should be listed as well? After all they pose the greatest future risk.
    54. Re:This is terrible by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      including the guy (22) out at a bar, meets and goes home with the girl (16) using fake id, and convicted of statutory rape.. he'll do it again, right???

      I know that I would. ;-)

    55. Re:This is terrible by MSBob · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There's also another flipside...

      You bought your house, renovated it, fixed it up enjoyed living in it and one day you get transferred and decide to sell it. Unfortunately, while you were busy renovating, painting and landscaping, a retired old man moved next door. He happens to be on the sex offenders list for a crime he comitted forty years ago. The value of your house gets reduced to zilch after the word gets out that your next door neighbour might be a sexual deviant... Methinks, sometimes ignorance might be a bliss...

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    56. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constitution - Cruel and Unusual punishment. They will face discrimination and ad-hoc bashings - even if its the wrong person. Maybe 'Bad & Violent' Mothers and babysitters should be put up too. Still, the silver lining will be getting a great real estate deal next door - a dodgey real estate agent in cahoots with the offender could clean up, when it comes to putting in a lower offer in a flash neighbourhood.

    57. Re:This is terrible by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Each require a victim, or a witness to be offended or traumatized. Do you want your 4 year old child to see some perverts' dick? I didn't think so. You child becomes a victim, whether physical harm was induced is irrevelant. Obscenity is not a sex crime, as far as I know, but it's the same deal as Indecent exposure, if your kid stumbles upon some raunchy pervert site, and they aren't mentally prepared for what they see, then damage was done.

      And as for sodomy, it's all about consent, not the actual act. If someone wants to be sodomized, and someone wants to sodomize them, no problem there. Not all laws are good, I'll grant you that, and if that's the angle you're approaching, I concede. However, most laws involving sexual misbehaviour are grounded on good moral judgement, and should be allowed to do their job. I certainly would like to know if I'm living in the same neighborhood as a child molester. The instant that piece of trash violated someone, they lost all rights to anonymity forever in my opinion.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    58. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do subjects of oppressive governments insist on trying to denigrate the only free country in the world?

      I didn't see anyone denigrating Canada.

    59. Re:This is terrible by arkulkis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But why ONLY "sexual offenders" (which includes anyone arrested for taking a leak in the park, or as happened to an acquaintance of mine, looking at porn, on a laptop, IN HIS CAR). It's completely out of hand. It's all part of the feminist's (and their willing tool-boys) demonization of men as a class...and NOTHING else.

    60. Re:This is terrible by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

      What he said can be re-worded as "The only victimless crimes I can think of are sex crimes," as opposed to "Sex crimes are victimless." He was most likely talking about sodomy laws, and possibly prostitution and/or indecent exposure (of the streaking variety, not the flashing variety).

      He explicitly stated that sex crimes can fall into all 3 categories. It wasn't his presentation that caused your misunderstanding.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    61. Re:This is terrible by MisterMook · · Score: 1

      We should also have a list of all people with family members, since most people are victimized by people within their own families.

    62. Re:This is terrible by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      You make a good point. A person I'm close to had to fill out a form, consent to investigation, and all that stuff as part of the vetting process for a volunteer job working with children. One of the questions asked if that person had been a victim of child sexual abuse. It went on in a conciliatory way to say that "A yes answer does not preclude serving . . ." Yeah, right.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    63. Re:This is terrible by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      Sodomy laws are not about consent. The laws, until the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas were able to be and had been enforced against consenting adults.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    64. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These lists do nothing but punish the offender twice for the same crime. If we believe that sex offenders can't be rehabilitated, then leave them in jail forever. I believe that most people that want these lists are those that make policy decisions based primarily on emotional arguments. That is a poor way to make those decisions and only results in granting too much power to the government.

    65. Re:This is terrible by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      Why is it that only sex offenders are publicly displayed on a list? Why aren't murderers put on such a list?

      In America a non-white person who spends his days dreaming up new ways to kill white people is a sick, weird, terrorist pervert who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.

      A white person who spends his days dreaming up new ways to kill non-white people is an important component of the Research & Development Team of a major defense contractor. He's a welcome asset to his community and a true All-American!

    66. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) The supposed crime is victimless. These should not be crimes.

      Sex crimes fall into all of those catagories; and in the case of the third, the only examples I can think of are sex crimes.


      I could think of some other examples of number three, but I'm just too frickin' high right now...

    67. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I was going to put a couple, but then I thought, "No, those only happen in porn stories...."

    68. Re:This is terrible by ONU+CS+Geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Serving their time," huh?

      At work this week, we had to tell a guy who had served his time 7 years ago from a Juvnielle crime that we wouldn't hire him.

      Regardless of the fact that he's probably one of the better technicians I've seen. Regardless of the fact that no one (even his former employer) has a bad thing to say. I've QC'ed his work...and he's truly a technician's technician...and he's good to the customer's and subscribers.

      It's really sad when we're getting to the point where you do one bad thing, and you're marked for life, regardless about having "paid your debt" to society.

      It makes me wonder what kind of deamons they'll find when I go through Airport Security next. "I'm Sorry, Ian, we can't let you go through because you stole a farm tractor when you were 15, and we consider you a risk."

      Ian

      --

      I disable sigs...do you?
    69. Re:This is terrible by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      including the guy (22) out at a bar, meets and goes home with the girl (16) using fake id

      a.) Most US states have an age of consent set to 16. (Check out ageofconsent.com) Some states are indeed set to 18. Some may allow for 21 and 16, but not 22 and 16. Some will allow any combination with 16. Some will allow any combination with 14.

      b.) At least my state (Ohio) and I suspect most states, have a provision giving an affirmative defense if the individual lied about their age. (I have not seen anything to indicate that someone over 18 has a responsibility to find out an individual's age before having sex with them. If they know beforehand, that's another story.)

    70. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that only sex offenders are publicly displayed on a list? Why aren't murderers put on such a list? That's even more serious of a crime in my book.

      It clearly isn't more serious of a crime in the USA's book. Otherwise, why would it be acceptable to show multiple murders in graphic scenes in big Hollywood blockbusters, but any film showing multiple sex offenses would be labelled pornography or obscene?

    71. Re:This is terrible by HarryCallahan · · Score: 0

      If you lived in Australia you'd hear a hell of a lot about our priests doing it, though not a whole lot about the American priests. Funny that how news services give higher precedence to local stories.

    72. Re:This is terrible by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      As a parent, depictions of violence are of far more concern to me than mundane human body parts. As a parent, I have an interest in limiting sex offender information to what is genuinely relevant. Everything else is a distraction that makes it more difficult (and more error prone) to get at the really critical information.

      Garbage data does NO ONE any good.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    73. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's even easier than you think. I know from very personal experience, having spent a year in jail - and I'm on the state sex offender's list - for a "sex crime" that never even took place.

      A young girl (a couple of weeks before her 15th birthday) confided in me that she'd been with her 16-year-old boyfriend only twice, but she thought that she was pregnant and she was considering running away from home. I tried to talk some sense into her head, but then a couple of her friends AND her boyfriend told me that she was also considering suicide. The boyfriend asked me to help, one of her girlfriends pleaded with me... and I, in complete naivete, decided to try to "do something" to help.

      She spent the night at my house. We spoke to her friends on the phone several times, I even offered to talk to her father (she freaked and threatened to leave if I did). Later in the evening, when she'd talked to her best friend again, and after a trip to the bathroom, she announced that she had started her period. So she wasn't pregnant after all.

      So I'd talked her out of running away from home. And I'd kept her from thinking about suicide, and she'd started her period, so the reason she'd been so upset had been resolved. The next morning, I took her home and talked with another friend of hers who thanked me for my help. She told me that she'd actually been fearing for her friend's life.

      Her father was pretty pissed, to say the least. And he wanted me arrested for something. But the original charge would have been "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". Sex never crossed his mind. But when the county's newly-formed Sex Crimes Unit got wind of it, it changed quickly into Child Molestation.

      Never mind that there was no sex involved, confirmed by her gynecologist. The doctor's report was deemed "inadmissable" by the Assistant DA. Can't have us talking about the girl's sex life in the courtroom! We have to think of the victim's rights! Talking about the suicide threat was disallowed, too. We can't pretend there's something wrong with the victim! So, by the time it got to court, there was nothing left but the single event: she spent the night at my house. What other reason could there have been? SEX!

      Isn't there something in the law about being able to confront your accuser? She wasn't going to be allowed to testify. Indeed, she wouldn't even have been in the courthouse.

      They kept me in jail for eleven months before getting near a courtroom. It could have been another year or two to go to trial. I was offered a plea bargain, and I took it. What I pleaded to was "Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes". My conviction isn't for anything that I did, it's for something that they think that I maybe thought about doing.

      A sex crime. One equal to the child molestation charge, in the eyes of the court.

      I've been through three years of counseling (at my expense), and eight years of probation. And in two more years, I have to apply to have my name taken off the sex offender registration. Five years after that, I can apply to get my civil rights back (voting, etc.). I'll never be allowed to own a gun. It's downright difficult to find or keep a job. I'm currently self-employed, mainly because it's just easier than dealing with the FUD in the job market.

      Sex Offender registration has very little to do with sex offenses. It has even less to do with protecting the community. Its only function is to appease the media and the politicians, and the parents of kids who truly were abused, molested or killed by a parolled sex offender. I'm sorry that these things do happen, but erring on the side of caution and sending an innocent person to prison is not the way it's supposed to work in this country.

      I'm paying the price.

      AC for obvious reasons.

    74. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In reponse to your parenthetical claim in section b, the responsibility to find out the sexual partner's age is obligatory given the wording of most of these laws. When the prosecutor goes after you, and a judge or jury decides your case, they will be looking at the letter of the law first--did you or did you not violate the law, as written. Your defense can and likely will give the circumstances surrounding the crime in order to sway the jury, such as what you knew, what was said, etc., but "the law is the law"; I wouldn't be surprised if the judge instructed the jury to look at the letter of the law principally.

    75. Re:This is terrible by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      "It's all part of the feminist's (and their willing tool-boys) demonization of men as a class"

      Or right wing religious attitudes towards non-procreative sex. I'd wager that there are a lot more gays or oral sex offenders put in jail over the last hundred years because God told us to do so, than masturbators targeted by penis hating "feminazis".

      But I agree with your basic point: sex "crime" is in the eye of the beholder...

      buut I'd take my chances with a womens study major rather than a Baptist holy warrior any day. At least I don't have to deal with "God", who by definition can't be challenged.

    76. Re:This is terrible by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      And if she lies in court and the jury believes her, the affirmative defense is gone. Hm. Most times a guy'd get accused of having illegal sex with a girl, I'd bet it was because she decided it'd be fun to finger and ruin him. Girls are not always sugar and spice and everything nice. Sadistic men will beat you, but a sadistic woman can ruin you.

    77. Re:This is terrible by arkulkis · · Score: 1

      Personally, I quit dating American women completely. They're just completely out of control of themselves. Foreign women only need apply.

    78. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does not raise naked jet-skiing to the level of raping 7 year olds, but it does lower the raping of 7-year-olds to the level of naked jet-skiing. And that kind of "law and order" does severe damage to society.

    79. Re:This is terrible by hughk · · Score: 1

      Murderers tend to be one-off criminals. Murder is extremely serious whatever happens. A sex offence can vary from mooning all the way through to raping a child. The former isn't serious, however the latter is. A person who is guilty of the latter is a threat to the community unless they are treated (punishment alone won't work).

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    80. Re:This is terrible by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      All you have to do is get caught mooning someone.

      So, when will we get a public list of convicted Slashdot goat trolls?

    81. Re:This is terrible by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 1

      As a parent, depictions of violence are of far more concern to me than mundane human body parts.

      I'm a parent and I agree. It seems that USA is one of the few countries that seem to think that sex (in general, in particular or any other way, period!) is worse than the display of violence. I see violence as much worse than the display of the human body. Sex is natural, violence is not.

      BWP

    82. Re:This is terrible by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      How is violence not natural? What does a lion do to a gazelle? It doesn't make love to it. I'm not trying to hide any child from learning about sex, that's just silliness. No child, rather nobody, should be forced into some of the fucked up sexual situations I've heard of.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    83. Re:This is terrible by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      I made mention of the fallibility of our laws. Bad laws can be written, yes, but as with the anti-Sodomy law, they're usually struck down eventually.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    84. Re:This is terrible by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      I'll agree on the first part. Some laws are retarded and were written based on religious belief and not societal views. But that's more a problem with law creation than with victimless sex acts.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    85. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there is some kind of law and order that doesnt?

    86. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cold comfort to those whose lives have been destroyed in the meantime. --vs (from work not logged in)

    87. Re:This is terrible by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending the laws. I have argued that people who have wrongfully been sent to prison deserve their life handed back to them on a silver platter.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    88. Re:This is terrible by musikit · · Score: 1

      does this mean we can get all those girls on the "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs addresses? after all they are sex offenders right?

    89. Re:This is terrible by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Also did you know that most sex offender victims have a better chance to become an offender when they grow up??? Isn't that fucked up! You were a victim to someone, and now society is making you another victim.

      So you should be on a list a "potential" sex offender by that logic and I should be notified if you move next to me so I can insist that you move.

    90. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 1

      It's really sad when we're getting to the point where you do one bad thing, and you're marked for life, regardless about having "paid your debt" to society.

      Isn't there a statute-of-limitations on this stuff? I thought after five or ten years you didn't need to tell employers about your old convictions, length of time depending on the crime, except for a few special cases e.g. applying to a law enforcement agency.

      I'm surprised he still had to tell you about a seven-year-old Juvenile crime.

    91. Re:This is terrible by dtaczalski · · Score: 1

      There is a very simple rule to follow: don't break the law. There are people who are able to follow this rule and ones who don't.

    92. Re:This is terrible by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      no offense but what you did is a common sense thing NOT to do these days.

    93. Re:This is terrible by dtaczalski · · Score: 1

      These lists do nothing but punish the offender twice for the same crime.

      The lists's poupose is to inform porential victims of the risc, not to punish the offender. And I don't think seing potential victims running away if a punishment for the criminal. Unless of course you think it is a punishment to be unable to commit "so pleasnt things" anymore ?

      If we believe that sex offenders can't be rehabilitated, then leave them in jail forever.

      THe jail is not a kindergarden where we take care of the criminals. It does cost money. I see no reason to support they lives when they can support themselvs.

    94. Re:This is terrible by dtaczalski · · Score: 1

      What a crazy idea !

      If someone have sex with a child he commited a crime! It does not matter if the girl makes fun of him or not. If he cheched for some ID card he would know. And then doesn't he have eyes ? It's not difficult to say a differecnce between a 16 and 20 years old.

    95. Re:This is terrible by benzapp · · Score: 1

      According to your stats more than half (55.7%) of treated offenders DID NOT reoffend. But hey, lets blight their lives forever and risk them being beaten or murdered by idiotic vigilantes shall we?

      I think having that permanent risk is a great incentive for them to stay in line. It is a better punishment than making them sit in a cage for the rest of their lives. Life on the run is better than no life at all...

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    96. Re:This is terrible by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      I live in Germany and used to share a flat back then. My (German) flatmate had a bunch of people round to watch TV for the funeral.

      You will probably find that most of the western world (and, at a guess, Egypt) covered Diana's death far more thoroughly than Mother Teresa's. One was also a big surprise, the other one was not.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    97. Re:This is terrible by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 1

      How is violence not natural?

      Maybe I should have clarified my reply by replacing violence with gratuitous violence. I've got no problem with my kids watching nature shows. But I am careful about letting them watch south park, the simpsons, movies/shows that glorify violence, etc, etc. Just like I don't like to let them watch shows that have sex just for having sex (ie the tit/body flashing "B" movies); They watch them anyway but...

      My 13 year old daughter is already a problem...:(

      BWP

    98. Re:This is terrible by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      On that we certainly agree.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    99. Re:This is terrible by Victors+Monster · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you hire him? company policy?

    100. Re:This is terrible by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thank you for enlightening me.

  5. Many states already have this system.. by shawnywany · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wisconsin for example already has this. You can enter a ZIP code to locate all sex offenders in your area. Actually, a sex offender recently moved into our otherwise quiet neighborhood. I found this out first through the website above, and a week later a town meeting was held about the very same person.

    1. Re:Many states already have this system.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG OMG OMG, PANIC! FEAR FEAR FEAR! Wtf is wrong with you people? Do you have town meetings when the Jones' don't cut their lawn too?

    2. Re:Many states already have this system.. by shawnywany · · Score: 1

      In a town of 3,000, sometimes we do. Especially when the grass is particularly long.

    3. Re:Many states already have this system.. by Animaether · · Score: 2, Insightful
      and a week later a town meeting was held about the very same person


      Since your post is very on-topic... here's five questions :
      1. Who was the instigating party for the meeting ?
      2. What reason did they bring forth to justify the meeting
      3. What was discussed at that meeting ?
      4. What was the general 'mood' at that meeting ?
      5. What, if any, steps were taken as a result of that meeting ?
    4. Re:Many states already have this system.. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      6. Did they bother to invite the "sex offender" to the meeting, so he could state his side of the case?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Many states already have this system.. by dtaczalski · · Score: 1

      6. Did they bother to invite the "sex offender" to the meeting, so he could state his side of the case?

      And what ? He would say "I am sorry. I will not do it again I swear." and averything would be fine ?

    6. Re:Many states already have this system.. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Considering that "sex offender" covers everything from "oops, I turned 18 before my girlfriend did, so now I'm a statutory rapist" to "serial rapist who beheaded 10 women" -- don't you think it behooves people to have a clue what sort of person he really is? That 74 year old man who got beat to death in the UK last week had apparently done nothing worse than take a few 'dirty pictures' of a teenage girl. Is that worthy of a death sentence? Because that's what he got, thanks to the "sex offender" label, and neighbourhood paranoia leading to vigilantism.

      More importantly, how would you like it if you were put on trial in absentia? Because holding a "neighbourhood meeting" to "decide what to do about the sex offender in our midst" is EXACTLY THAT.

      "That dtaczalski, he's on the list of known Poles. We should do something about that. Oh, dtaczalski, no, you're not invited, and you don't get any say in the proceedings." Get it now??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  6. Too far? Too little? by liveD+ehT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not a troll, but because of the sexual subject matter, it might look like one. How many of us are going to be surprised when we realize that nice old person down the road raped a bunch of kids? This registry is going to light up every neighborhood because it's built on the false premise that you can live in a neighborhood without sexual predators. These creeps are everywhere!! Maybe there are more than 1200 released convicted offenders, and they likely live all over the place, but what about the ones that get away with it every day?

    How many evil clergy are going to be skipped from this? We had a clergy scandal in my hometown for some time that went on in plain view of a local church, and they covered it up! The poor kids eventually got some justice, but only after a decade of systematic abuses.

    With the right steps, this database could save lives. But it could slowly be abused by the system, or by unscrupulous people. Controls must be in place to prevent any foul deeds, but are they going to far? Let's bring out the branding irons, then? Give 'em all a brand that says "SEX OFFENDER" right to the forehead. /sarcasm

    In all seriousness, how effective can this database be? Maybe it'll save lives. I don't know.

    1. Re:Too far? Too little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see... first you say that making this kind of information public is useless, but then you criticize your government for covering up a series of abuses by local clergy? Can't you see the contradiction here?

    2. Re:Too far? Too little? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The difference, these people have already been convicted and punished. His local clergy covered it up to PREVENT conviction and punishment.

    3. Re:Too far? Too little? by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      It will cost more lives then it saves!

      what ever happened to payed your dept, to society

      Vigialanty's are a bad thing...
      Increase punishment if you want...
      but the general public has no need of this info!

      --
      --meh--
  7. next up: by TheTimoo · · Score: 1

    all the evil hackers

    --
    "Be careful or be roadkill" - Calvin
    1. Re:next up: by Popadopolis · · Score: 1

      somehow i think that they wont stop at evil hackers.

    2. Re:next up: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll just get Professor Xavier to use Cerebro to find them since I lost the "One Ring".

  8. And what happens when it gets hacked? by kid-noodle · · Score: 1

    Obviously, intense security and so forth...

    But what happens if(when) somebody hacks it and posts the info of somebody they dislike? Bad mojo if you ask me..

    --
    fortune -o
  9. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does posting a link to goatse constitute a sex-offense?

    1. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, that is a crime against humanity

  10. Ugh by giminy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So who wants to start a pool on when the first sex offender will be lynched?

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    1. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in :)

    2. Re:Ugh by nick_davison · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So who wants to start a pool on when the first sex offender will be lynched?

      Today?

      Kind of ironic, isn't it. One state announces its program as another country announces someone who was named was murdered.

      Remember: It's only been within the last year that some states have been legally blocked from finding consensual, adult, homosexual relationships a sex crime - sodomy. Those who have been found guilty in the past, for crimes that still stand though are no longer prosecuted, would still be named. And, in many of those states, hate crimes against gays still result in people being murdered.

      A quote from the BBC article really sums it up: "But whatever he has done in the past does not give people the right to attack and kill him."

    3. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're lucky, all of them will be.

    4. Re:Ugh by spinlocked · · Score: 1

      I find this parallel interesting. Homosexuality is arguably natural occurring but atypical (I choose those words carefully) - the same could be said for paedophiles. I would be surprised if they are a historically recent phenomena and they certainly make up a very small percentage of the population, yet their actions and desires are abhorent to the vast majority of us.

      The same can be said of homosexuality 100 years ago.

      I personally find paedophilia abhorant and believe the world would be a better place without them (first to the wall after wedding photographers and management consultants :) but of course, that's what Hitler thought about several groups of people.

      I heard an argument (BBC Radio4, "Moral Maze", ages ago) which claimed that paedophiles are 9 times more likely than a random selection to be homosexual, but I can't find anything else to back that up.

      Given that no one 'chooses' to be a paedophile, the argument, I suppose boils down to; are you born a paedophile, do you 'become' one through your environment (hormones in your mother's womb/child abuse/bullying/whatever), or is it an artifact of society's condemnation of homosexuality.

      --
      # init 5
      Connection closed.


      Oh... ...bugger.
    5. Re:Ugh by kaybi · · Score: 1

      You need to watch out for statistics like the "9 times" one and others, mostly from skewed "research" done by anti-gay organizations like the FRC. If you look over the credible research, theres no real link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

    6. Re:Ugh by spinlocked · · Score: 1

      If you look over the credible research, theres no real link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

      Credible research would be peer reviewed, and published in a respected journal. There doesn't seem to be much research at all.

      --
      # init 5
      Connection closed.


      Oh... ...bugger.
    7. Re:Ugh by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I heard an argument (BBC Radio4, "Moral Maze", ages ago) which claimed that paedophiles are 9 times more likely than a random selection to be homosexual, but I can't find anything else to back that up."

      I'm surprised at this level of ignorance still exists today. I'm sorry to inform you that in fact, it's the reverse that's true. The FBI keeps statistics on just these sorts of things, and in fact 95% percent of child molestation cases are committed(bottom of page) by self-described heterosexuals. In fact homosexuals are no more likely(again, scroll to bottom of page) to abuse children than heterosexuals.

      I can not help but also point out that your other argument:

      "I find this parallel interesting. Homosexuality is arguably natural occurring but atypical (I choose those words carefully) - the same could be said for paedophiles. I would be surprised if they are a historically recent phenomena and they certainly make up a very small percentage of the population, yet their actions and desires are abhorent to the vast majority of us.

      The same can be said of homosexuality 100 years ago."

      -is also critically flawed.

      You see, consensual homosexual acts cause harm to no one, while conversely, child molestation does indeed cause severe mental aguish and trauma to the victim.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    8. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point was that most peadophiles are homosexuals, not that most homosexuals are peadeophiles. Little sensitive, aren't ya?

    9. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhh hello? that's exactly the point that I showed was wrong.

  11. Internet at work. Good job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A very nice development. The public needs to know the truth about crime and criminals. More should be done in this direction. Prevention is the best treatment.

  12. We've had this in Alaska for years.... by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.dps.state.ak.us/nSorcr/asp/search.asp There hasn't been too much negative feedback about it except a lawsuit from 2 registered offenders who complained about having to be on the list even though their sentenances were completely served before the law creating the registry was enacted.

    1. Re:We've had this in Alaska for years.... by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      IIRC, wasn't one of the problems with Alaska's law the fact that it was retroactive? And that some people who were convicted of public indecency in years past (for stuff like urinating in public, or mooning someone) were being placed on the current sex-offender registry?

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    2. Re:We've had this in Alaska for years.... by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the retroactive provision was the main controversy. Don't recall hearing anything regarding the urinating in public, mooning, etc....

  13. Your rights online indeed!!! by B747SP · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whilst I guess that the people doing this will counter with "you give up your rights when you take it upon yourself to play with little kids bottoms", it kinda flies right in the face of concepts of rehabilitation, etc. Does the status of 'sex offender' have a timeout, or is it a lifetime thing, once convicted?

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    1. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      I thought the US prison system was more about punishment then rehabilitation. no?

      I mean, many states (and the federal government) practice the killing prisoners (aka captial punishmnet), right?

    2. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy is this guy glad he doesn't live in Maine.

    3. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by unixbob · · Score: 1

      Does being a paedophile have a timeout? The answer to that is no.

      We should be concerned about individuals rights. But a free society is a falacy. Should the KKK be free to persecute and murder black people? Should fanatical muslims be free to fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers. Obviously the answer is no. If there is a threat to the safety of a child then whatever means required is necessary to protect that child. It is impossible to "un-abuse" a child after the fact.

      On a related issue, have a look at this story. My opinion on this is that at the end of the day it's an us vs. them situation. It is impossible to exist harmoniously with people like that because no matter how hard they may try, they will always have an inate desire for children. And that is a risk too high to take.

      --
      The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
    4. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      Consider it ROI. If more people took some economics into account we could feed all the homeless in the US with the savings from from a small fraction of the criminals with "life" punishments.

      That's not not even going into the silliness of how we actually DO execute criminals. I mean seriously, have you seen how much a lethal injection costs? Cruel and unusual is one thing, I'm not advocating we draw and quarter anyone, but do we really need to have a completely sterilized room to KILL SOMEONE in? When exactly is he going to get an infection, sometime in the ten to fifteen seconds before his heart stops? I think he can deal with it for that long...

    5. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      to quote my previous post on this subject (this time as an AC)
      It is the particular offence. Studies time after time have shown that Sex Offenders don't recover so it is a situation of once a sex offender always a sex offender.
      A recent study by Hanson, Steffy, & Gauthier (1990) on recidivism examined offenders from 3 to 23 years after treatment. The treatment was a short-term, multimodal program and recidivism was assessed through records of reconvictions. The researchers report that 44.3% of their total sample of 106 child molesters were reconvicted with 9.4% of the total sample being reconvicted between 10 and 23 years after being released. Incest perpetrators were reconvicted at the slowest rate (21%), homosexual pedophiles at the highest rate (66.7%), with heterosexual pedophiles and undifferentiated offenders showing an intermediate rate (42.2% & 36.36%). This study demonstrates the importance of extending the follow-up period when examining recidivism.
    6. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why do they need a doctor to do it?

      Shit man, hand me the needles and I'll make the guy history.

    7. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Does the status of 'sex offender' have a timeout, or is it a lifetime thing, once convicted?

      Once a sexual predator, always a sexual predator. (I don't know where this PC "Sex-offender" label came from, these people are predators.. evil disgusting vile fucking filth in our society. They're one step above terrorists and one step below murderers on the scale of evil.

    8. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by AeternitasXIII · · Score: 1
      "...you give up your rights when you take it upon yourself to play with little kids bottoms..."
      These sex crime blacklistings extend to anything from someone who did a date rape 30 years ago to a pedophile or serial rapist. I doubt most who find someone on the list will take the time to differentiate though.
      "...it kinda flies right in the face of concepts of rehabilitation..."
      The idea of penal rehabilitation has been on its way out in the US since the late 70s and early 80s. The war on drugs could be considered the first major sign of this change. The war has been waged for the purposes of stamping out the non-medicinal drug trade altogether, and heroin/crack/etc. addicts are incredibly hard to council and reform. As a result those dealing with addicts, rather than risk repeat jail sentences of a revolving door nature, have tended towards longer and longer sentences even for nonviolent offenders.

      This leads up to the rise of the 3 strikes laws, as well as hard-core authoritarian policies like zero tolerance in schools, and it becomes quite clear that our society considers it far cheaper to exile or imprison its more troubling members than reforming them. As anyone living in a capitalist society can tell you, the cheapest short term solution to a problem is generally more favored.

    9. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like these sex-offender lists to be a voluntary thing, as in "You can stay in jail for 20 more years, or you can get out right now if you volunteer to be listed on this sex-offender site".

      I wonder how many would jump at the chance to get out of jail early...

    10. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by RPoet · · Score: 1

      Of course your sexual orientation does not time out, but whatever that orientation is, the person is an individual, and individuals have choices, and principles to help them make those choices. It is the role of legal punishment and rehabilitation to help people make choices so as to better function in a civilized society. By permanently putting a mark on their foreheads, you exclude that person from society forever, you basically tell them "you will always molest children, you can not improve", which is not a good incentive to start actually improving.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    11. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whilst I guess that the people doing this will counter with "you give up your rights when you take it upon yourself to play with little kids bottoms", it kinda flies right in the face of concepts of rehabilitation, etc.

      Most psychologists and psychotherapists agree that it is not possible to rehabilitate pedophiles.

      I don't have a problem with lifelong parole or probation for them, but something like this will empower other unstable people to strike directly at them.

      What happens if someone is raped murdered in the same neighborhood where one of the listed offenders lives? There will be people with torches and pitchforks lined up outside their houses and jobs. What if it is someone else who did it?

      Tell the police who and where they are. Make them report to a PO for the rest of their lives. Don't paint a bullseye on their backs.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by RPoet · · Score: 1

      Oh, and this:

      "It is impossible to exist harmoniously with people like that because no matter how hard they may try, they will always have an inate desire for children. And that is a risk too high to take."

      You may not realize it, but many people will always have inate desires for children, but not act upon it. This group constitutes the majority of pedophiles (you can choose not to believe that, look at me care). So the truth is that they DO coexist harmoniously (although with varying degrees of happiness), and even if the risk is too high, there is nothing anybody can do because there's no way of identifying these people.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    13. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pedophiles are not worth rehabilitating.
      they are scum and shouldn never see the light of day or breathe free air again.

      the money it takes to rehabilitate a pedophile should be spent on other criminals that are not sick individuals.

      in fact i disagree with this website, because a rapist or pedophile should never be released from prison, EVER.

      gee this person lured little kids into his van 3 times before. "PAROLL GRANTED"
      i think parol board members should be required to live next door to some of the individuals they seem so happy to release.

    14. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by damiam · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Does being a paedophile have a timeout? The answer to that is no.

      It's quite possible to get on this list without being a pedophile. You could be an 18-year-old caught with your 16-year-old partner. You could have been wrongly convicted of rape (not statuatory rape, just rape). There are plenty of sex crimes not involving pedophilia.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    15. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by JK+Master-Slave · · Score: 1

      Your linked story sort of knocks down some of your apparent message. You linked, (in case you hadn't noticed) to a story about somebody murdered by vigilantes. He was the one made into a victim in the story.

      The 'pedophile scare' in the U.K. has turned into a vigilante bloodbath. It's effectively a 'but what about the children' rant taken several magnitudes higher.

      There is doubtless a lot more genuine abuse happening than most people and communities openly acknowlege. But let's be careful, because there are always demagogues with an agenda behind the hysteria, and it's easy for us all to be taken advantage of by them.

    16. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by unixbob · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess that is something that you and I are going to disagree on. If you are speaking from personal experience then I hope we never meet in person. I dispute your theory that many people have inate desires for children. If that was the case then I doubt it would be the social misdemeanour it is today.

      In response to your prior comment about sexual preferences: I see nothing wrong with two consenting individuals having sex. Homosexuality, S&M. Whatever floats your boat. But a child has no concept of and having something forced upon them against their will is just wrong. Regardless of whether you think paedophilia is right or wrong, I seriously doubt you can find a victim who looks back and says - Wow that was fun. Sex is a consent between 2 people.

      --
      The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
    17. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's one major problem with this kind of thing: Sex Offender != Child Molester.

      There are plenty of sex crimes that do not involve children. Not all sex crimes are violent. There are still states where perticular sex acts between consenting adults are criminalized. Depending on your definition of "sex crime", a conviction for prostitution (or for using the services of one) could result in that person being branded as a "sex offender".

      This kind of list does not differentiate between a serial child molester and the guy who once drunkenly grabbed a girl's ass at a frat party.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    18. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like this guy:

      http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soDetail .cfm?ShowNav=False&dps_number=04824418

    19. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by James+in+Iowa · · Score: 1
      It is impossible to exist harmoniously with people like that because no matter how hard they may try, they will always have an inate desire for children. And that is a risk too high to take.

      How many bad laws and wrong headed government initiatives have been justified on "to protect the children"?

      We already have a punishment for sex offenders, it's called prison.

    20. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by RPoet · · Score: 1

      "I dispute your theory that many people have inate desires for children. If that was the case then I doubt it would be the social misdemeanour it is today."

      That was unfortunate wording, I meant that as in "many more than you think", not as in "a large part of the population". :)

      "Regardless of whether you think paedophilia is right or wrong, ..."

      I don't suppose you distinguish between pedophilia and sex that involves children. One is a sexual orientation, the other is a serious crime. I can't see I said a word about sex.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    21. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by unixbob · · Score: 1

      Please enlighten me because now I am confused. AFAIK paedophilia is having sex with children. which is a crime.

      What are you talking about?

      --
      The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
    22. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by unixbob · · Score: 1

      I dunno. Give me some examples of How many bad laws and wrong headed government initiatives have been justified on "to protect the children"?

      --
      The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
    23. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does being a paedophile have a timeout? The answer to that is no.

      So, if paedophiles have no free will, and it's impossible for them not to molest children, why do we punish them by sending them to prison?
      Do you punish a dog for being a dog? No, that would be inhumane. Then why punish a paedophile for being a paedophile, if you really do believe what you say above, that a paedophile is all a paedophile can ever be?

      a free society is a falacy.

      I guess you're right, and we should just trust the government to sort us all into little groups, and see who's a paedophile, who's a terrorist, and so on, and then we can just kill, permanently incarcerate, or otherwise remove from society the people who are found to be "pre-guilty" in this way. Of course, the system never makes a mistake.

      If there is a threat to the safety of a child then whatever means required is necessary to protect that child

      Well, since most children who are molested are molested by family members, the logical thing to do would be to separate all children from their families as soon as possible. Also, molestation is not the only threat to children, so probably we should never let them go outside, since they might get hurt, or interact with other children, since they might catch some disease.

      You know what, why don't you go off with other people who think like you do and form this authoritarian society by yourself somewhere, and leave those of us who cherish freedom here in the United States, which, by the way, we founded on the principles of liberty and justice. Your new constitution can start:

      We, the overly-paranoid people, in order to protect children from all possible harms, soothe our over-active fears, ...

    24. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      Whilst I guess that the people doing this will counter with "you give up your rights when you take it upon yourself to play with little kids bottoms", it kinda flies right in the face of concepts of rehabilitation, etc. Does the status of 'sex offender' have a timeout, or is it a lifetime thing, once convicted?

      Can't speak to Maine, but here in Colorado, most sex offenders can petition to have their duty to register relieved. It's a certain period after completion of the rest of the sentence, and depends partly on the underlying offense.

      The exception is for a category called the "sexually violent predator." There are only two people in Colorado required to register as such, and they NEVER get to stop.

      And this is a case where "rehabilitation" is irrelevant. People convicted of certain crimes lose certain rights. The intent is not to punish them or to pile on to whatever sentence a court imposed, but to protect society. These are individuals who have PROVEN by their own actions that they cannot be trusted with certain freedoms. It's the same principle as the one behind the 1968 Gun Control Act, part of which forbids firearms ownership to convicted felons.

      Society has a right to protect itself. Normally, I'd agree that society can go piss up a rope. We don't build web pages about people convicted of Careless Driving Resulting in Simple Bodily Injury, and for pretty good reason. However, we're not talking about unlucky drivers in this case, but rather about people who statistically are far more likely to re-offend than the average criminal, and I'd suggest that the harm done by the average rape far exceeds the harm done by an average college-bar brawl.

      I can't think of any convincing reasons to take the chance, and 31 good ones not to.

    25. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you realize that oral sex is illegal in the majority of the jurisdictions? Ditto for sodomy. Did you realize that in many jurisdictions you could be convicted of a sex crime if you simply moon someone? Unbelievable isn't it.

    26. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by unixbob · · Score: 1

      That's a nice theory and you argued it well in your ivory tower. But when you are on the receiving end of someone else excorsing their freedoms and you are the victim then we'll see if you still live by you ideals.

      And btw, you live in America and you think you are free? Funniest thing I've heard all week!

      --
      The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
    27. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A guy at work got put on it cuz he mooned an under aged kid. At leasts that's what he told me.......

    28. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by unixbob · · Score: 1

      That link is there on purpose.

      I think the argument boils down to two opposing views:
      If we provide the information that allows parents to protect their children, that same information that allows that protection can also bring harm to someone.

      The question is - is that acceptable? My view is that it is (although I can see that isn't a popular view on /.)

      --
      The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
    29. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by mr_sas · · Score: 1

      like the grandparent said, paedophilia is a sexual preference. Not the act of carrying out that preference.

    30. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1
      What happens if someone is raped murdered in the same neighborhood where one of the listed offenders lives? There will be people with torches and pitchforks lined up outside their houses and jobs. What if it is someone else who did it?

      How about, say, a pedophile searches a handy registry and finds someone that lives in a nearby area and even looks like them, then goes there and rapes some kid. The mob goes after the registered sex-offender, and the real criminal is never even suspected.

    31. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by unixbob · · Score: 1

      and whilst I'm on a rant, in your free society surely we are free to know who is going to be a risk to our children. If a religious fundamentalist serves 15 years in jail for terrorism activities and is then released, would you want to know that he was living next door to you? Isn't that part of your Freedom of Information Act?

      And I don't think I understand you argument. You say that "we should just trust the government to sort us all into little groups, and see who's a paedophile, who's a terrorist,". Do you therefore think that you shouldn't have laws? My point was that there is no such thing as a free society because you aren't free to do exactly what you want.

      Example: you are required to pay for goods in a store.
      you are saying that America is built on freedom. well it was also built on commerce and without the laws that govern your country the populace would be free to take what they wanted when they wanted without paying for goods.

      At some point we accept laws restict our freedoms because they also protect our freedom.

      The story in this case is for people who are convicted sex offenders. How does that affect "the people who are found to be 'pre-guilty"'

      --
      The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
    32. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by kaybi · · Score: 1

      CDA, CIPA, COPA, Oregon Measure 31 in 1996 (which would have made it possible for the state to prohibit pornography altogether), I could go on all night...

    33. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. what you are saying is that there are only 2 people in colerado who actually have to register for life, and who really cannot be rehabilitated..

      Out of how many in total (total population)
      and how many offenders that were required to register, but no longer are now?

      Are you REALLY saying that this si the way to deal with this? risk people being murdored, ensure that they do not get a chance to build a better life, because there turn out to be 2 cases that it is really not gonna work on?

      I'd say.. fidn a better solution for those 2 cases.

      It is a matter of principe to ensure that a person who has done their time, also gets as good a chance to build a life as anyone else, and if you do not follow that principe very strictly and without exception, you are only promoting a more criminal society. You believe you are protecting society, but you are not, you are only damaging it in a more subtle, but far longer lastign way.

    34. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure what to make of your first statement.
      Are you trying to say that by killing (captial punishment) a person (criminal) instead of life in prision will save money?

    35. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by James+in+Iowa · · Score: 1

      The some relvent stories from ./ Children's Internet Prevention Act Thai Government Comments On Gaming Curfew U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Online Porn Law Not to mention every Megan's Law ever written.

    36. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most psychologists and psychotherapists agree that it is not possible to rehabilitate pedophiles."

      That's only because most of these "psychologists" and "psychotherapists" don't understand that pedophilia (paedophilia for you Europeans) isn't some disease to be cured. It's an orientation, just like gay, bi, or hetero.

      This idea that pedophilia is a disease is just a product of over-zealous right-wing "think of the children" do-gooders. Pedophiles have been around just as long as everyone else, but it's our messed up society that's chosen to persecute them.

      Yes, pedophiles have their own group of low-life rapists (molestors), just like gays and heteros have their rapists as well. However, the vast majority are still good people who'd never act on their urges. This idea of ruining the lives of sex offenders by plastering their personal information all over the place is ridiculous. I know it's already been said many times that murderers, and "regular" rapists, can live in obscurity, so why must sex offenders be singled out?

    37. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Here in Waltham, Massachusetts (USA), a local news story a few years back was about a young man who'd been in a bar, and as he left, took a piss in an alley. Unfortunately, a copy saw him and arrested him. The charge, indecent exposure, is a "sex crime", and he'll be in the police database now.

      There was a bit of a fuss locally about their doing this to him, but the ways the laws are, there's nothing anyone can do about it. He's on record as having been convicted of a sex crime. To a lot of the vigilante types out there, that's all they need to know.

      And there's also a proposal here to put a list of all the sex offenders online. His life may not be worth much in a couple more years.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    38. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then maybe you should consult a dictionary, because obviously you DON'T know.

    39. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Yes, pedophiles have their own group of low-life rapists (molestors), just like gays and heteros have their rapists as well.

      Pedophiles who never violate any children have little to worry about from our legal system.

      However, the vast majority are still good people who'd never act on their urges.

      Those people tend to not have convictions to worry about.

      This idea of ruining the lives of sex offenders by plastering their personal information all over the place is ridiculous.

      I don't care if it ruins the life of someone who has ruined the lives of other people. Don't get me wrong, child molestors are the lowest form of life on this planet. Making a registry for just anyone to browse won't keep people safe.

      I know it's already been said many times that murderers, and "regular" rapists, can live in obscurity, so why must sex offenders be singled out?

      "Regular" rapists are sex offenders. I don't have a problem with keeping a list of them that the police can use to find suspects, or to monitor them to prevent crimes. Putting a list on the internet that Joe sixpack can browse when he's feeling like dishing out a little justice of his own is a bad idea.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    40. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Real Criminal's not suspected until police run dna tests against the registered sex-offender and semen taken from the victim, and the two sets of dna don't match.

      Two years down the road, little Billy across the street accuses Real Criminal of raping him. Police enter Real Criminal's dna into the database and BINGO, three more incidents pop up.

      In the meanwhile, Registered Sex Offender is still living with his mother (because no one else will take him in). Dad Across The Street is still serving his 6 month sentence for breaking Registered Sex Offender's arms.

    41. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Including ordinary gay behaviour, as criminalized by some states.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    42. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by joto · · Score: 1
      I dispute your theory that many people have inate desires for children. If that was the case then I doubt it would be the social misdemeanour it is today.

      Ok. Let's start with a simple example. You have a huge boner, and you want to use it for something, either fucking someone, or masturbating. Does that mean you have to do it, or can you choose to do something else, such as thinking about baseball?

    43. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by damiam · · Score: 1

      I thought the Supreme Court struk down those laws. Or was that just in Texas?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    44. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, legislated bedroom behaviour is still a state-by-state issue.

      In Helena MT, it is (or at least was when I lived in MT) a misdemeanor to kiss on the street. Theoretically, a violation could get flagged as a "sex crime". Shows you how ridiculously wide the category is.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    45. Re:Your rights online indeed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing wrong with giving a child a bone. It's a loving thing to do.

  14. Online hitlist by RenHoek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think it's such a good idea. You got nutters out there bombing doctors of abortion clinics, I'm sure there are loonies out there who wouldn't mind killing convicted sex offenders. Afterall they _did_ the time, and I don't think it will give people who really _do_ want to better their lives a fair deal.

    Also it gives people a false sense of security.. Who's to say that a registered sex offender doesn't take a weekend holiday to another state to rape and kill? And you thought you were safe in a neighbourhood without any sex offenders..

    1. Re:Online hitlist by JTunny · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, headline news at the moment over here in England is a sex offender whos been found beaten to death Paedophile found dead in home

      One I heard a while back was about a group of people from Swansea travelled roughly 150miles to London to harrass and vandalise the property of a paediatrician .....

    2. Re:Online hitlist by bronaugh · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's such a good idea. You got nutters out there bombing doctors of abortion clinics, I'm sure there are loonies out there who wouldn't mind killing convicted sex offenders. Afterall they _did_ the time, and I don't think it will give people who really _do_ want to better their lives a fair deal.

      The problem here, in my opinion, is that these kinds of crimes are not dealt with the same as other assaults, etc. The sex offenders are probably not given equality before the law; and this totally ruins the whole premise of the legal system ("To serve and protect", etc). Prejudice comes into play. And when people figure out that there are others who are getting away with violent acts against one particular group, it brings the focus of a violent segment of society onto that group.

      Also it gives people a false sense of security.. Who's to say that a registered sex offender doesn't take a weekend holiday to another state to rape and kill? And you thought you were safe in a neighbourhood without any sex offenders..

      The real thing that I recall about this subject is that it's largely about targets of opportunity. The people most likely to abuse children are those who know the children; priests, family members, friends, etc. It sucks, but it's true.

      The only real defence (if you want to call it that) against sex offenders has nothing to do with registries and gated communities and all that kind of bullshit. What it has to do with is educating your kids. I recall the recent Slashdot post in which the guy told his kids not to give out info over IM networks, then played the evil man, got all their info in about five minutes, then went on to talk about what they were wearing, etc. He totally freaked his kids out; they were pissed as hell when they found out he did it. But he probably did them a real service by doing that. He may have prevented a _real_ situation like that from happening.

    3. Re:Online hitlist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn - what is the Latin word for 'sheep'?
      Remember that episode of Blackadder? The Elisabethan one with Otto, the master of disguise . . .

  15. Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't new. Most states already have one of these search engines. Wouldn't you like to know if a pederast is living next door to your and your kids? These sickos deserve no privacy.

  16. too much information? by Triggersite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't anyone worried about vigilantes using this information to track down and assault these offenders (regardless if it's merited)?

    1. Re:too much information? by arazor · · Score: 1

      >Isn't anyone worried about vigilantes using this information to track down and assault these offenders (regardless if it's merited)?

      Exactly.

      What Im wondering about is a 18 or 17year old with 16 year and wind getting the "sex offender" label. Are those on that list also?

  17. So the american solution to reduce crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is to segregate (because that's what you're doing, make no mistake about the consequences of this) and completely isolate a group of people.

    Expose everyone who's ever had any brush with justice at all, so they can't get any job at all. Then, without job and without a life they'll ... euhm ... cut off every legal option for a life they have and they'll ... get out and die ?

    What exactly do you think this will do ?

    1. Re:So the american solution to reduce crime by Kohath · · Score: 1
      So the american solution to reduce crime ... Is to segregate ... and completely isolate a group of people.

      What do you think prisons are for?

    2. Re:So the american solution to reduce crime by Servo · · Score: 1

      Unless a person is serving a life term... that's not what a prison is for.

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:So the american solution to reduce crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Storing pot smokers, apparently.

  18. And if they include your name by mistake... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful



    ...you'll get a most sincere policy about having your life ruined.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:And if they include your name by mistake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many Black people have been thrown in jail "by mistake" in the US? A hell of a lot. Now whities are all of a sudden worried about a website that might ruin theirs? GIVE ME A BREAK HONKIE.

    2. Re:And if they include your name by mistake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fool who wants to make trouble out of nothing. Who do you think is going to be put on the website by mistake? You are just stupid. There was no mention of race. You are attacking a person who wants to protect the innocent regardless of race.

    3. Re:And if they include your name by mistake... by JK+Master-Slave · · Score: 1

      He's just a common ordinary racist.

      People who bring 'race' into an arguement the way he did are some of the primary racists in our culture.

      Besides which, WTF is it with skin color representing 'race.' Brown/black skin, for example is a 'racial characteristic' that can signify a person of many different races.

  19. Cheaper Solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just tattoo a big "S" for "sex offender" on their foreheads. Low tech but effective. As a nation, we must place the safety of children above and beyond all other concerns. Other crimes could be noted by other symbols, etc...this allows real-time, 24/7/365 monitoring of these people, and could possibly lead to their committing suicide, which would be a cleansing of society--not a bad thing. This would finally end the chain of abuse, since the vast majority of sexual offenders were raped as children. "They must pay, it's the american way"

    1. Re:Cheaper Solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > could possibly lead to their committing suicide,
      > which would be a cleansing of society--not a
      > bad thing

      I for one welcome our new fascist overlords!

    2. Re:Cheaper Solution? by Sexy+Bern · · Score: 1
      Doesn't prevent them tattooing over it, wearing a bandana/hat/fringe.

      Also consider the problem of people having their "friends" write a big "S" on their forehead whilst drunk etc.

      It's a tricky one, but "cleansing" sounds distinctly 1930's Germany.

    3. Re:Cheaper Solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when it comes to protecting children, no totalitarian state has gone far enough, no historical model comes close to what must be done. the united states must set a new standard for the protection of the children. this "new standard" should contain, and indeed surpass, all techniques and measures utilized by totalitarian regimes throughout history. indeed, once society has decided that a pederast has no mores, then no mores need be regarded in the treatment of said person. just as the punishment for murder is death, let the land of liberty and justice liberate the children and apply the most just of sanctions against those who would harm a child--shame into suicide or death. let freedom ring, amen bothers and sisters!

  20. what about privacy? by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 0

    hmm it's certainly a good idea, so that you can avoid _bad_people_ that do live around your neighbourhood.

    I'm just curious if that breaks their privacy somehow?

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
  21. Not necessarily such a bright idea by P-Nuts · · Score: 5, Informative

    When a paper in Britain started printing details about paedophiles, loads of people went rampaging, and even vandalized some paediatrician's house. (Though maybe that just says something about the Welsh.)

    Why is there special treatment for sex offenders? Generally, people can't look up and see which convicted burglars live near them, for example. If someone is so much of a risk to society that people need telling about them, then they shouldn't be free in the first place.

    1. Re:Not necessarily such a bright idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though maybe that just says something about the Welsh.

      Well it's hard to judge a society in which you need half a throat full of phlegm in order to pronounce the names of the town in which they live.

    2. Re:Not necessarily such a bright idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NEWSFLASH: Its not phlegm

    3. Re:Not necessarily such a bright idea by esome · · Score: 1
      "Why is there special treatment for sex offenders?"



      It's not a legitimate justification in my eyes but I think one reasons that is commonly given for singling this sort of crime out is its association with really high recidivism.

      I think this is more the case with child molestors and serial rapists than with many of the other sex crimes though and that brings up the point made earlier in this thread that perhaps the law should make more of a distinction between them.

    4. Re:Not necessarily such a bright idea by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't necessarily mean that this list shouldn't exist. That may just show an increased need for law and order. Just because there is a fear of retribution doesn't mean that something should be attempted (for better or for worse).

  22. Sad... by iworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's sad that the authorities try and dress this up as somehow good - when the real motivation behind it is disgraceful.

    Standard disclaimer: sex offenders deserve whatever punishment the law deems fit. But, and this is what is forgotten, IF the authorities deem them fit to be released from custody, then it's because (or should be because) they are no longer a threat. If they are a threat, then keep them incarcerated. Don't let them out and then pretend it's OK to publish their name, address, etc. It's hypocritical.

    And why stop at sex offenders? Say I have no kids, but an expensive car? Shouldn't I be able to know that the guy next door was convicted of stealing cars? I'm not equating car theft with sex offences, but I do believe that the law should treat all people equally.

    If a sex offender ia a threat, keep the bastard in jail. Don't let him out and think that by posting his details on the internet that all will be well. All it does is victimize reformed offenders (who do exist...) and encourage vigilantes - neither of these is good.

    1. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Michael Jackson is not a threat...

    2. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...but I do believe that the law should treat all people equally." ...including criminals? That's quite the system you're suggesting there, Bub.

      Different crimes, different risks, different countermeasures. Your life isn't going to be ruined over the loss of a car.

      There are reformed offenders of rational crimes, there are no reformed pedophiles.

    3. Re:Sad... by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      It's well acknowledged by the mental health community that once a sexual deviant, always a sexual deviant.

      When you get the law passed putting anyone convicted of sex crime away for life, we'll drop the sex-offender registry. Deal?

    4. Re:Sad... by cowboy+junkie · · Score: 1

      Well put. Some of these guys can't get jobs, housing, etc. because of this stuff. Tell me how making their lives a living hell after prison makes them less likely to re-offend.

      What it comes down to, though, is $$$. We don't want to foot the bill to keep these guys in prison, but we want to feel some false sense of security after we let them go.

    5. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's well acknowledged by the mental health community that once a sexual deviant, always a sexual deviant.

      I'm going anonymous for this one, but when is the last time you met a "formerly gay" person?

      When you get the law passed putting anyone convicted of sex crime away for life, we'll drop the sex-offender registry. Deal?

      I don't have a problem with keeping tabs on them, I don't even have a problem with the list. I do have a problem with ANYONE having access to their pictures, names and addresses.

      LK

    6. Re:Sad... by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      So what, in your opinion, is the disgraceful motivation? To meanly mess with sex offenders?

      As anyone who's been in any legal trouble knows, your convictions stay with you. You may be out of jail but you will forever have to answer "yes" on the "have you ever been convicted of a crime" box on all sorts of application. Your jail term is meant to punish you by confiscating months or years of your life. Being released from jail does not mean you start with a clean slate, however, and it does not mean your past transgressions cannot haunt you in unpleasant ways.

      The one semi-valid point in your comment is when you point out the difference between convicted car thieves vs. that of convicted sexual offenders. I think the point you make there is not w/o merit but I have, off the top of my head, come up with a justification for the different treatment.

      When you steal a car, it's not because you're sick. It's just a straight-forward personal gain crime. When you kill someone, it could also be a crime of that nature, or it could be because you're sick. In the later case you're going to be in a mental institution until you're deemed cured. In terms of sexual assault, it's never a for-gain crime, but it's not easy to draw a line between a rapist who's truly fucked up in the head and one who was just a horny asshole. Personally, I think there's usually a mental component when someone commits a sexual assault but obviously not all these convicts receive mental treatment as opposed to regular jail time.

      The bottom line is if you hang out with a former car thief, it doesn't raise your chances of having your car stolen. On the other hand, if you have your son hang out with someone who has previously been compelled by some inner instinct to have sex with a young boy... you're probably better off knowing. If there is no way for you to know that it's not a good idea for your kids to hang out with the person accross the street, the government truly has no way to release these people. Releasing them but marking them as people you should be weary about is a fair compromise. Just like any other convict goes through his life with people being weary of him whenever he fills out that questionaire.

      And finally, as far as making such information public - I think that if there's one group of society that doesn't need to worry about identity theft, it is convicted sex offenders.

    7. Re:Sad... by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      I'm going anonymous for this one, but when is the last time you met a "formerly gay" person?

      Gays are sexual deviants?

      I don't have a problem with keeping tabs on them, I don't even have a problem with the list. I do have a problem with ANYONE having access to their pictures, names and addresses.

      So you're one of stupid people that actually believe the police can protect them? Hate to break it to you, but police are 99% reactionary.

    8. Re:Sad... by helix_r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in a neighborhood with multiple registered sex offenders (100+ in my zip code in Baltimore-- walking distance from my house).

      Its really great to push for hard time and appropriate punishment for criminals, but the reality is that the jails are bursting at the seams with all kinds of violent criminals. The justice system in Baltimore and in many other cities has become a farcical failure. Violent offenders are routinely released by judges who inappropriately exercise their discretion to release offenders far, far before their sentence is up.

      It is simply foolish to put trust in the "system" to keep the thousand upon thousands of repeat violent offenders under control. Trusting the system might be fine in small communities but everything falls apart in distressed urban environments.

      The sex offender registry is simply a good tool for community associations to keep an eye on what is going on. Every little bit helps.

    9. Re:Sad... by Kohath · · Score: 1
      Say I have no kids, but an expensive car? Shouldn't I be able to know that the guy next door was convicted of stealing cars?

      Yes.

      ...the real motivation behind it is disgraceful

      The real motivation is to help people protect themselves and their children.

    10. Re:Sad... by jeeryg_flashaccess · · Score: 1

      And why stop at sex offenders? Say I have no kids, but an expensive car? Shouldn't I be able to know that the guy next door was convicted of stealing cars? I'm not equating car theft with sex offences, but I do believe that the law should treat all people equally.


      disclaimer: I do not like sex offenders.

      The guy next door (car theif) did not diddle with your four year old child, changing them for life, only having to serve 5 years of jail time.

      Awareness is the best protection for kids AND sex offenders. It ammounts to a kind of support group helping a sex offender from re-offending.

      Granted, there have been cases where the registry provided the public with enough information to drive a sex offender out. BUT, Oprah (last year) had a show spotlighting a registered sex offender who has functioned very normally since his release from prison. Where he lives, people respect and admire the fact that he comes clean with everybody he meets. He says that without a support group he would probably re-offend. The law freed him from prison, and this guy had the conviction to do something about himself.

      Anonymity is an offenders greatest weapon. I believe the sex offender registry is a necessary tool.

      Discuss.
      --
      Life is like pants... fit in or you don't fit in.
    11. Re:Sad... by turtlexit · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple as keeping them in jail. With prison overcrowding such the problem that it is, many, many individuals must be released on parole (due to mandatory parole dates, regardless of behavior) or some type of alternative sentence. Most people don't know it, but as you read this, convicted criminals of every degree - even murderers - walk the streets on probation, parole, etc.

    12. Re:Sad... by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      Since victims are more likely to end up as perpertrators that non-victims, (I sure you can find many studies on this) perhaps we need a register of them?

      The percentages maybe different, and granted they haven't done anything wrong, but if the lists are about preventing future crime as we are told, then surely this argument shows the problem with the idea.

      Are we back to the "First they came for the kiddie fiddlers, and I did nothing because I wasn't a kiddie fiddler..." argument?

    13. Re:Sad... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      You may not think gays are 'sexual deviants' (although taking those two words literally, they probably could be said to be) bit according to the State of Texas (link from further up this page) they were held to be up until 5 months ago. The two apparently took this one all the way to stay off the register. With laws like that around, being considered a 'Sex Offender' is not such a clear cut issue as a lot of people think.

      Going from what I have read in the papers - always a dangerous move - a lot of the paedeophiles who go for boys were themselves abused as kids.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    14. Re:Sad... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      but he might steal your car.
      The ex-murderer might kill you.
      the ex-robber might rob you.
      the ex-mugger might beat you up.
      the ex-kazaa user might steal your music.
      .
      .
      .
      where to draw the line?
      I for my part would be much more interested in knowing if there is someone in my street who has killed someone than a sex offender.
      But on the other hand, i dont really care about any of them.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    15. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds pretty damn disgraceful to me.

    16. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you whining about the details?

    17. Re:Sad... by darnok · · Score: 1

      You make some good points.

      If society deems that time in jail isn't sufficient punishment for these people, and that seems to the be the message given by posting their personal details on Web sites without their consent, then maybe the legal system is failing us.

      These people with their personal info displayed have pretty much been handed a life sentence. If society is accepting this is appropriate, maybe these people should be either locked up forever or given the death penalty. I personally think this is too harsh, even though I have two young kids and would cheerfully carve up anyone who interfered with them...

      IMHO the biggest problem is that child molesters invoke an extremely strong hostile reaction in most people, and that level of emotion is probably similar to that evoked towards mass murderers. Note: I'm saying *mass* murderers since many/most child sex offenders attack repeatedly, and often many kids are victims of the one attacker. However, the punishment and judicial treatment of child sex offenders and mass murderers is very different; mass murderers are almost always locked up virtually indefinitely, or convicted to death in some countries, whereas child sex offenders are typically released back into society within a few years.

      Maybe this imbalance is what really should be addressed. I don't know; I find the whole issue too emotional to discuss with any rationality...

    18. Re:Sad... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not just that.

      Michigan had an internet-public sex offender list.

      After a bunch of legal wrangling in the legislatures and the court system, it was allowed to go public.

      When the newspapers had done accuracy tests, they found that 30%+ of the list was flat out wrong. The criminals hadn't bothered to register at their new job, new residence, etc. When someone was living in that house after the perp was long gone, the new residents get the brunt of the outcry, vandalism, etc.

      If the law enforcement and court system can't be bothered to track them or keep the lists accurate, then they shouldn't be allowed or required to post lists of them anywhere on any grounds.

    19. Re:Sad... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I forgot to note that to my knowledge, this sex offender list was removed from public accessability within a couple weeks, particularly after the scathing reports on the errors.

    20. Re:Sad... by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      IF the authorities deem [sex offenders] fit to be released from custody, then it's because (or should be because) they are no longer a threat. If they are a threat, then keep them incarcerated. Don't let them out and then pretend it's OK to publish their name, address, etc. It's hypocritical.

      I can think of three non-hypocritical obstacles to the above proposed system. First, threat assessment is only one component which determines fitness for release; other considerations include how full the prisons are and how overloaded the judicial system is. Second, there is no objective standard at pricing the damage done by sex offenders; if someone gets molested though not killed, what is the amount of damage that has been done, how do you quantify that? Third, tracking rescivitism statistics is a notoriously difficult problem; it is not unlike trying to assess at a party how many of those attending are having a genuinely good time, i.e. how do you know when you've got the correct answer? For all these reasons, trying to decide precisely when someone is a threat and balancing that against the potential cost of what they might do on the outside is far from being precise. It therefore does not surprise me in the least that there is concern regarding former offenders.

      And why stop at sex offenders? Say I have no kids, but an expensive car? Shouldn't I be able to know that the guy next door was convicted of stealing cars? I'm not equating car theft with sex offences, but I do believe that the law should treat all people equally.

      Stealing cars tends to be a crime born out of a very specific desire to convert the stolen car into cash. As such, stealing cars tends to be a more highly organized activity than molesting children. Car thieves evaluate cars based on either resellability or the useability of their constituent parts; kids who are molested tend to simply be those who wandered into the perpetrator's line of vision enough times to incite whatever fantasies ultimately culminate in the molestation.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    21. Re:Sad... by arothmanmusic · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on this... either the person is safe to be released into society, or he is not. You can't set someone free with a 'scarlet letter' and expect them to reintegrate into society... they should be left to rebuild their lives. If they are so dangerous that their neighbors must be warned, then we should re-write the laws and not let them out.

      If anything, they need to make some clarification as to whose names get listed. If the guy who just moved in next door was convicted of kidnapping and raping 5 year olds (and somehow is now free), then yeah, I think I should know. But if it's just an idiot who gave a copy of "Penthouse" to a 12-year old, I don't think he's as much of a threat, do you? 'Sex offender' is a pretty broad term.

    22. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The real motivation is to help people protect themselves and their children.


      In a lot of places, gay men have been put on these lists for having sex with other men.

      People have been put on these lists for public lewdness.

      Children have been put on these listd for playing doctor.

      Perhaps the second group of people, those with public lewdness (mooning, urinating in public) are a threat to kids, but what about the rest?

    23. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why stop at sex offenders? Say I have no kids, but an expensive car? Shouldn't I be able to know that the guy next door was convicted of stealing cars? I'm not equating car theft with sex offences, but I do believe that the law should treat all people equally.

      As a goat farmer, I feel I should be able to see if my neighbors are a threat to my precious livestock. I couldn't agree with you more - treat everyone equally!

  23. A Very Bad Idea in at least one context by Raindance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope the state of Maine also doubled the size of their Information Security department, as this will be a prime target for malicious hackers.

    Don't like someone? Just add them to the database and get the word out. They're ruined. This is new, uncharted, and dangerous territory, Maine.

    RD

    1. Re:A Very Bad Idea in at least one context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New and uncharted territory? This type of online registry has been available in other states for years now. What the hell are you talking about?

    2. Re:A Very Bad Idea in at least one context by RPoet · · Score: 1

      This is just the electronic version of "Don't like someone? Just accuse them of child molestation and get the word out."

      Or the earlier "Don't like someone? Just accuse them of communism and get the word out."

      Or the even earlier "Don't like someone? Just accuse her of witchcraft and get the word out." (of course this was flawed since it provided no means for terminating males, but sex accusations took care of that once and for all).

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    3. Re:A Very Bad Idea in at least one context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men were burnt as witches as well

  24. Watching the watchers by barzok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    New York's registry requires that people using the search enter their own address. I think this might be a new feature, last time I saw the registry I don't remember having to give up my info.

    1. Re:Watching the watchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and this address then gets added to the registry, yes? pre-emptive reasoning, yes? peadophile are flock animals, yes? just like jews, aol chatters and boy bands, yes?


      in russia we fuck. there is no offense. there is always drink vodka. my maine man.

    2. Re:Watching the watchers by c_oflynn · · Score: 1

      Man I feel sorry for the guy who lives at 123 Fake Street, when they come to arrest him for using the database maliciously.

    3. Re:Watching the watchers by jcr · · Score: 1

      New York's registry requires that people using the search enter their own address. ..and they verify that address how, exactly?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Watching the watchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Herman Munster at 1313 Mockingbird Heights in Beverly Hills, CA (it was the only zip code, other than my own, I have memorized...how pathetic is THAT?!?!) just searched the database -- I hope they don't lock him up!

  25. Re:Please by gehrehmee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Without commenting specifically on whether or not this is appropriate, consider that we don't go to this sort of length in response to a murder conviction.

    --
    "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
  26. This must have discretion by skizrule · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These registries have the potential to ruin people who should never have been marked to begin with. While many sexual predators probably deserve such a punishment, what about the teens who are convicted "sex offenders" simply because their (consenting) girlfriend's parents found out about the level of intimacy in the relationship, and pressed charges (against the wishes of the girl)? I know it sounds farfetched, but every so often you hear of these cases which, on an ethical and moral basis should never go to trial, but because of the wishes of the parents, results in a permanent black mark on the young man's record.

    1. Re:This must have discretion by LordK2002 · · Score: 1
      I don't know about the US, but here in the UK "similarity of age" is a valid defence against underage sex. Two teenagers having sex, while they are in fact breaking the law, would not be placed on the sex offenders register in this country. In fact it is a totally different crime - "statutory rape" - which is far less serious than paedophilia.

      K

    2. Re:This must have discretion by reallocate · · Score: 1

      If 18 is the legal age of maturity, then sex between an 18-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl is just as illegal as it would be if they were 65 and 12, respectively. The 18-year-old has the responsibility to know the law, and the 17-year-old, by definition, cannot behave as a consenting adult.

      You may think such a case would have no moral or ethical basis, but others would disagree. In any case, the law cannot permit exceptions based on the criminal's sense of ethics.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    3. Re:This must have discretion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize how stupid that sounds don't you ?

    4. Re:This must have discretion by unapersson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > If 18 is the legal age of maturity, then sex
      > between an 18-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl
      > is just as illegal as it would be if they were 65
      > and 12, respectively. The 18-year-old has the
      > responsibility to know the law, and the
      > 17-year-old, by definition, cannot behave as a
      > consenting adult.

      I don't believe you can't see the difference between those two examples. There should be some discretion where young people are of a similar age. A 17-year-old and eight months is no less capable of acting as a consenting adult in reality than a 18 year old is, and some twenty four year old's probably aren't. It's an artificial distinction which is useful when there is an obvious predatory age discrepancy but less so when there isn't. Here in the UK that age of consent is sixteen, rather than eighteen. So neither of those mentioned would be breaking the law here, yet in the US, one would be a heinous criminal?

    5. Re:This must have discretion by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      In the U.S., the legal age of consent varies between 14 and 18, depending on what state you are in.

      In Oregon, it's 18, but it is an affirmative defense if the age difference between the two people involved was less than 3 years.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    6. Re:This must have discretion by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between law and morality. An 18 year old being with his 17 year old girlfriend doesn't hold a candle to raping a 5 year old. "The law is the law." doesn't even begin to justify giving that 18 year old the same treatment as the child fucker. It gets even stupider when the 18 and 17 year get married and have kids.

      The law may not recognize the criminal's sense of ethics but those who make the laws should damn well have some ethics. This type of sex law has no recognition of degree and is profoundly unethical even if it does meet some twisted definition of morality.

    7. Re:This must have discretion by Catnapster · · Score: 1
      So neither of those mentioned would be breaking the law here, yet in the US, one would be a heinous criminal?
      The US may be the land of the free, with many human rights protections, but what they don't tell you is that there are millions upon millions of other ways to get arrested.

      Furthermore, in the US, having sex makes you a heinous criminal no matter what you're doing.
      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    8. Re:This must have discretion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, it depends on the state. In many, there is a similar law.

    9. Re:This must have discretion by reallocate · · Score: 1

      The law is the law, whatever the age of consent happens to be in a particular location. Of course there's a difference between the two examples I gave, but in both the man was an adult. Courts might take age into account during sentencing, but authorities cannot when determining if a crime has taken place.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    10. Re:This must have discretion by reallocate · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between law and morality

      Of course. That's why we have one law that applies to everyone. A stable and free society can't exist if we change the law based on each individual's sense of morals. Most people would simply say anything to stay out of jail.

      Ultimately, what you consider moral has no bearing on what I, or anyone else, think is moral. Lot's of heinous criminals sincerely believe their actions are moral. We call them sociopaths.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    11. Re:This must have discretion by Excen · · Score: 1

      There should be some discretion where young people are of a similar age.

      At least in the state of Idaho, there is a statute like that. It's statutory rape if the minor is under 14 or 15, and then it's statutory rape if the difference in the ages of the two partners is more than 3 years.

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
  27. sex obsession by incal · · Score: 1

    Seems quite interessing, why such registry will be restricted only to the *sex* crimes? Something went terribly wrong during clash of the left-wing political correctness and right-wing neoconservative bashing. America seems quite mad on this field; like it could be The Most Important Thing in Life?

    or maybe it is...?

    And, where is nice old rule of equality before legal system?

    1. Re:sex obsession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo, America is quite mad period. Rat crazy. Raving, foaming at the mouth insane.

  28. "Offenders" by dmaxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's sex offenders and then there's sex offenders. I have no problem with a guilty as sin child sodomizer being plastered all over this thing. But you also hear of 17 year olds being charged by overzealous DAs for being with their 16 year old girlfriends. Such "offenders" will be lumped in with the child fuckers and corpse zombies.

    This thing doesn't sound it recognizes there are levels of sex offense.

    1. Re:"Offenders" by back_pages · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's an accurate observation but a misguided sentiment. I completely object to a sex offender registry because it circumvents the established, regulated, and acceptable forms of the penal system in the states.

      If you feel that the time served is insufficient for sexual offenders, that's fine. Petition your law makers to have the manditory sentences increased.

      These registries scream that the existing rehabilitation program is a complete and wholesale failure in the eyes of the public and the appropriate solution is to redesign that program rather than brand people with a crimson badge for the rest of their lives. That's what Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote about and it was a tragic tale of inhumane society. The Nazis used a yellow star and it was one of the most horrific events in modern history. Now it's being done to people who have completed their judicially ordered rehabilitation - if they are released, then the penal system has decided that they ARE rehabilitated.

      Reform the rehab, redefine the sentencing practices, but I'm of the opinion that attempts to brand a person through life after submitting to criminal rehab - physically or through public documentation - is outright unconstitutional.

      And if you think I sound like some liberal or other nonsense, I would rather live nextdoor to a guy who I trust is a reformed sex offender rather than a guy I know is a sex offender because I read it on the internet. Think about it. It is 1000% better that the rehab works than to know who completed an unsuccessful rehab program.

    2. Re:"Offenders" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you made that 'fact' up, it is worthless.

    3. Re:"Offenders" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the reason they are pushing this with pedophiles *first* is because its such a taboo that its hard for privacy advocates to mount a defense without looking scummy. it invokes such an emotional responce its hard for people to think objectively.

      The laws we already have are sufficient.

      if i get a vote on how civilization handles criminals, i say:
      1. lock up violent criminals
      2. fine non-violent criminals
      3. execute no one

      I feel there are 2 levels of sexual crime: violent and non-violent. Abducting, beating and raping someone is *very* different from coping a feel.

    4. Re:"Offenders" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why let them out of jail to begin with?

    5. Re:"Offenders" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I - being German - was the only one to recognize the analogy to the Nazi regulation that all jews had to wear a yellow star...

      Besides, is it really illegal for 17-year-olds to have sex with 16-year-olds in some states?! Are there ANY teenagers in the US who are *not* sex offenders under this kind of law?

      Besides, I first met my girlfriend when she was *almost* 16... Now she's 21 and I'm 27.

    6. Re:"Offenders" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You also hear of 17 year olds being charged by
      >overzealous DAs for being with their 16 year old
      >girlfriends.

      And even if you think that's as it should be, lumped in the same category with them and child molesters, you can find yourself there for sunbathing in your own backyard, or even on a beach that's traditionally been clothing-optional while not actually being legal...

      The category is simply too broad, and it's that breadth that weakens it as a punitive or informative measure...

      "Sex offenders" should include *only* violent criminals with a victim.

    7. Re:"Offenders" by famebait · · Score: 1

      "I have no problem with a guilty as sin child sodomizer being plastered all over this thing."

      Really. Do you actually think that setting him up for constant harrassment will actually reduce the chances that he strikes again? Have you ever considered that possibility that it might increase them, since it is now impossible for him to live a normal life and get his shit together?

      And yes, there are studies supporting the latter scenario. You better be damn sure that those are wrong and be able to explain why so, before you support this stuff, or you are knowingly and willingly contributing to creating more victims, just for the selfish pleasure of seeing him suffer.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
  29. Not bad at all by Rosyna · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is a good thing. Sexual Predators are the ones least likely to change their ways. Some (me included) believe that rape is far worse than murder. And the chances are, they will do it again and again. It's also probably one of the least reported crimes because it makes the victim a *real* victim.

    1. Re:Not bad at all by shaitand · · Score: 1

      What about two 17 year olds having consentual sex? If the father presses charges the male is legally considered a sex offender and would be branded along with the rest. I have a friend in this position... it lasts for life.

    2. Re:Not bad at all by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      So what about a 19 year old guy that rapes 5 18 year old females?

      At least in arizona, they only tell the public about Level 2 (Intermediate) or Level 3 (Likely) sex offenders. So it doesn't sound like your friend would even be on the list. Also in this state, if the age difference is two years or under, it has special considerations and may not be considered statutory rape. Also, they mention the exact reason what the sex offender was charged of.

    3. Re:Not bad at all by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1
      ... they mention the exact reason what the sex offender was charged of

      <Irony = ON>

      Well, that's a relief. I'm sure that the 17-year-old who was accused by his 17-year-old girlfriend's irate father feels better about the fact that all the details will be posted and the relative heinous-ness (spelling?) will be gauged carefully by his boss, his friends, his teachers, his neighbors, and anybody else.

      <Irony = OFF>

      Of course, this still doesn't answer the question as to what happens if the information is inaccurate. It brings to mind the issue that John Adams mentioned, which, to paraphrase, says that if we punish the innocent to make sure that we catch the guilty, we remove the incentive for the innocent to stay that way.

      I don't expect there to be any easy answers either direction, but then again, if life had nothing but easy answers, then why haven't we gotten further on AI than we have?

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    4. Re:Not bad at all by FLEB · · Score: 1

      If they're both 17 (or underage, depending on jusrisdiction), what about the girl?

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    5. Re:Not bad at all by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Statutory Rape shouldn't even be on the books, let alone grouped with real sex offenders. IMHO that is something that should be left in the domain of parents, not the law.

    6. Re:Not bad at all by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I don't know about both underage. In this state 17 is considered the age of consent for a MALE but NOT for a female. Therefore if two 17yr olds have sex the male is committing statutory rape. The female is not committing a crime. He goes on the record as a rapist for having sex with a partner his own age, he's marked a sex offender and must make sure the state has updated information about his whereabouts and address.

      With this he would be labeled a rapist and plastered on a website, grouped in with child molestors.

  30. No More Match.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweet! Now I don't have to use match.com to find a date, I can just use this database :P

  31. All sex offenders equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, this is NOT a defense of sex offenders, but we should consider that everyone who has been convicted of a "sex offense" might not be the evil, child-molesting 70-year-old priest we all think they are.

    Remember, if an 18 year old (high school senior) sleeps with his 16 year old girlfriend (high school sophomore) and happens to get caught, he could be labeled a sex offender.

    How'd you like to have your picture posted on the web and have everyone know your life's details for eternity because you were a horny high school kid who did what scores of horny high school kids around the world do? Do you think the public is going to say "oh, well, he's the OK kind of sex offender...no worries"?

    1. Re:All sex offenders equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many jurisdictions, if you get caught peeing in an alleyway after a night of bar hopping, you will be charged with "indecent exposure". Congratulations, you are now a "sex offender". Anyone looking at your record will think that you were caught flashing children in a schoolyard.

    2. Re:All sex offenders equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even more than that. Here in Virginia, all homosexual acts, even between consenting adults, are criminal. In fact, oral sex between adult spouses is a sex crime. I know, the Supreme Court has ruled othewise for some of these crimes, but they're still on the books, and the people convicted of them still have to register.

      Why not have a registry to see if there are any police officers living near you that have been convicted of using excessive force? See what the powers that be think of that idea!

    3. Re:All sex offenders equal? by shawnywany · · Score: 1

      OT: Here, a statutory rape law will not take serious effect unless one party is a minor, and the other party is at least five years his/her senior. Sixteen and eighteen will get you a slap on the wrist.

    4. Re:All sex offenders equal? by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      In fact, oral sex between adult spouses is a sex crime.
      What do they do, go around randomly breaking down doors to check?

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    5. Re:All sex offenders equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least, if you look at the Texas registry, they have lots of details about the conviction, so the people you mention won't be mistaken for child molestors.

    6. Re:All sex offenders equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do they do, go around randomly breaking down doors to check?

      No, they go around randomly breaking down doors looking for drugs or weapons, get disappointed that they didn't find anything, then figure they might as well charge you with something for being innocent and wasting their time, and voila! You're a sex offender!

      See Lawrence v. Texas.

      If the police weren't invading the privacy of our homes and subjecting us to unreasonable searches, what else could they to do to pass the time?

    7. Re:All sex offenders equal? by Catnapster · · Score: 1

      This is the United States. Sex is evil here.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    8. Re:All sex offenders equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be a good idea of all homosexuals in Virginia moved to San Francisco. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

    9. Re:All sex offenders equal? by oudzeeman · · Score: 3, Informative
      Since this is about Maine, and I live in Maine I thought I'd add a little about Maine laws:

      Actually in Maine the age of consent is 16, plus there is a minnimum age difference(4 years) so if a 15 year old has sex with a 18 year old it will not break the law, since the age difference is less than 4 years.

      None of this applies if the older person is a teacher. If a teacher has sex with a student they can be charged with statutory rape even if the age gap is less than 4 years or the student is over 16.

  32. From a Mainer by TrippTDF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I grew up in Maine. The state is really, really small. I live in New York now, and anytime I meet someone from Maine, I find that I'm normally connected to them by 1 degree of separation. I also grew up in a small town. News there travels very, very fast. (I was 11 years old and I gave a kid the finger as I got off a school bus... my mother knew about it when I walked in the door 15 minutes later). It does not matter if the news is true, either. Once a piece of gossip gets out, it spreads faster than a celebrity sex video on the internet. Although I am a big advocate for privacy, I think this might in same cases help the sex offenders. If their crimes are easily accessible to the public, it helps stop the wild stories that could evolve around them. Yes, what these people were convicted of is TERRIBLE, but it's nothing compared to what a town full of gossipers can do with a nugget of near-truth. Living as a convicted sex offender is a difficult thing, but hopefully this will keep some of the smaller towns in Maine in perspective so that these individuals can be reintroduced to society. The above is a very weighted statement. I seriously welcome varying viewpoints, but please don't flame me for being open minded.

    1. Re:From a Mainer by Jason+Munster · · Score: 1

      I am also from Maine, and concur with everything above. Maine is a different sort of place, and often can only be described accurately with anecdotal evidence. The smallest Maine towns (less than 500 people in many places) are a great place to start anew. In these towns, most are simple, happy, and sociable people. The existing state in these towns is that trust is something that can be lost, not something to be earned; everyone already knows everyone and has an established opinion. Children raised in this environment never see adults be wary of other adults. So children themselves often don't learn to be wary of anyone in the town. From this, it is common for a bored child to go visit neighbors who are doing yardwork and such, even when the child is not acquainted with the person. In most of these places, township doesn't exist, because the town is too small to be autonomous from the state. So the state/county has control over the town, and doesn't inform the members of the town of any sex offenders who move in. It is very possible that all this together would result in parents allowing their kids to visit pedophiles. In fact, this does happen, and the results are not always good. The online registry help parents better do exactly what they always did in these situations: tell their kids to not be alone with that person in a way that will protect the kid and not harm the offender. In a final note, the offender in these small towns is rarely, if ever, treated in the ill manner that many of these posts have described. It is not harder for them to get a job compared to other residents, the local stores still and other businesses treat them the exact same way they do any other customers, and everyone still associated with the person. I don't claim this will be the same in other, larger, parts of Maine, but it will hold true in many of the smallest towns, and is a worthy point to consider.

  33. Go for it! Or maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd say go for it, after all the sex offenders are the worst kind of scum.

    Then I remebered the jokes that me and my wife made during our visit to US. She's been 17 and I was 28 at the time and we were joking that our marriage might have been perfectly legal in Europe (in most European countries 15 is legal age) but not there.

    In US I would probably be considered pedophile or at least "statutory rape" despite her being legally my wife in Poland.

    So with this kind of law standards, posting the list of "sex offenders" online looks scary...

    The Coward

  34. Just Better Access To Public Information by reallocate · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No, it isn't terrible. It's simply providing greater public access to public information. Part of the penalty for being a criminal is lugging around that label for the rest of your life.

    No guarantees can be offered that any given sexual predator will not strike again. While there's also no guarantee that any convicted criminal-- for example, a bank robber -- won't strike again, few of us live in a bank, but most of us live in a house with children.

    Bottom line: If your children lived next door to a convicted pedophile, why wouldn't you want to know?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No guarantees can be offered that any given sexual predator will not strike again.

      Just as no guarantees can be offered that any given citizen will not strike the first time.

      We should put everyone in this registry, because you never know.

    2. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an incredibly naieve statement, and clearly you don't have children.

      I am very careful with who I let watch my kids, but I would NEVER let a convicted sex offender watch them for any amount of time, under any circumstances.

      As jolly as it feels to tell yourself you're a forgiving, loving person, try telling that to yourself the day after the convicted sex-offender next door molests your 7 year old daughter.

    3. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by reallocate · · Score: 1

      We should put everyone in this registry, because you never know.

      You've managed to be pompous and silly in a single sentence.

      Give me a guarantee that pedophiles won't attack again and I might agree with you. Until then, it's clear you believe it's more important to protect pedophiles than to protect children.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    4. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      Then do not let them out of prison.

      Boy has this gotten out of hand.

      Do you trust your neighbors with your kids?

      -- If you do not, then this list is meaning list. Becuase you would not allow your kids and your neighbors to meet. You would have great big fences and mean dogs.

      -- If you do, then this list is meaning list. You will be each other house often, you will have thanksgiving and other family time together.

      So which world do you live in?

      Now having this list, it now makes realters responsiable to inform new buyers that a pedophile or other sex offender lives in the area, and makes the house values go down. Else the realter is going to be sued big time.

    5. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by reallocate · · Score: 1

      I'd trust my neighbors with my kids only if I knew my neighbors well enough to know I could trust them. But, knowing them doesn't equate to trusting them. I might decide they don't merit my trust. No way would I trust my kids with anyone I'd just met.

      As for realtors, I doubt that any of them will be lining up to sell houses next to pedophiles. Nor do they line up to sell houses next to toxic waste dumps. What's the problem?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    6. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      So you live in a nieghborhood of big fences and large bad dogs. I bet there are even a few broken cars in the drive ways.

      About realtors: well you answered that quite well too. It tells that these list are BAD for commutity in general. Because in the end all it leads to assume all nieghbors are bad for nieghborhood, and that life sentences should NOT be in public.

      Boy, are the paraniods destoring the world. Thank you G.W.

    7. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by FLEB · · Score: 1

      -- As jolly as it feels to tell yourself you're a forgiving, loving person, try telling that to yourself the day after the convicted sex-offender next door molests your 7 year old daughter.

      Ditto telling yourself you're an impartial weigher of just and unjust law to apply to the population at large.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    8. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Part of the penalty for being a criminal is lugging around that label for the rest of your life.


      What about this criminal?
      He was 11. His victim was 8. From the sparse details, they could have been playing doctor!

      Go on, click on the picture and look at the original picture in the registry. He's a little kid. And you want him to be punished for something that perhaps was just two kids playing?

    9. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      "You would have great big fences and mean dogs."

      And then people would start collecting statistics on dogs that hump kids' legs.

      It's all about fear. Americans are convinced that they are under attack on all fronts. No matter how many registries or mean dogs they create, they simply don't feel safe.

      It's about faulty risk analysis skills. Your kids have a hell of a lot more chance to be killed riding to the mall in the family car than to be attacked by a sex-mad dog.

      But people are taught to be afraid, every day. Fear sells product, whereas a sane acceptance of that which you cannot control doesn't make anyone any buckage, or win votes for a fear-pimping demogogue.

    10. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by reallocate · · Score: 1

      So now we know you are or would be an incompetent parent who would put his children in the care of unknown neighbors. We also know you're a bigot who judges people by the size of their bankroll.

      You're not making much sense with that realtors rant ("life sentences"??), but why should a realtor be allowed to conceal information the public owns?

      Here's the point you're ignoring: Information identifying people with criminal records is publicly available information. The public owns that data. It has been available to the public for decades and decades. Making it available via the Internet changes nothing. It's just one more example of the Internet making access to data easier.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    11. Re:Just Better Access To Public Information by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Many, perhaps all, states expunge a child's criminal record at age 18. That seems fair to me. I'm not sentimenmtal enough, though, to believe that children can't commit crimes.

      Adults who commit crimes are a different story.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  35. Yes, nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. Slashdot is nothing new. The State of Texas is nothing new either. http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soSearch .cfm and the web itself is nothing new. 728173 is not a new number. Pictures of people on a website - hmm nothing new there too.

    English is also nothing new.. has been around for a long time. A moderation score of 3 is not new at all. The words "boob" and "sea" have been invented before -- nope, nothing new there. You posted this at 4:07pm Eastern. That was the past.. so nothing new there.

  36. This is a good idea. by Spl0it · · Score: 1

    Not a troll here. My honest opinion. Ok someone allready said in this article that "doing the time because they did the crime" this then makes their rehabilitation not possible. Honestly if you look at some of the penalties for sexual crimes, there frankly PATHETIC. Most of these people should never be released from prison let alone be allowed to live in a neighbour hood where every single house hold has at least 1 child. I think the police have to make sure that no1 is running around harrassing these people, but on that same note.. if you rape a woman, child or even a man, you don't have the right to hide that from all the neighbours. They have a right to know, just as you have a right to be dragged back into jail when you re-convict. Don't get me wrong, people make mistakes and some people are able to go on with their lives without doing/commiting the same acts again. However I can't seem to find the exact number here but I believe its somewhere around 96% of all child molesters re-convict. Perhaps I'm off a bit, but it really makes you wonder if a) the system works b) they should be locked up for good c) jail time is too little, they need treatment and life long seclusion from the world??

    my $0.02

    --

    No, this is
    1. Re:This is a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Isn't that the case with almost all crimes though ? Car theft, violent gang members, etc ? Don't we have the right to know about them too ?

  37. Poor security Hacking Death by skinfitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I recall that when this sort of thing first appeared in the states, the databases were hosted on NT4/IIS4 systems that were unpatched and vulnerable to the RDS database attack.

    Basically anyone with rudimentary knowledge that was freely available on the net at the time could feasibly insert new records into the database.

    Couple this with the fact that vigilantes DO exist out there and DO kill sex offenders, this is downright irresponsible and dangerous. If these people are a danger keep them locked up - don't encourage violence.

  38. Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is worse then the death penalty?

  39. Not the rest of their life by nodwick · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think every criminal should be able to do their time and then get on with life, under the fair assumption that the due has been paid. This is pretty much the whole point of a legal system with prisons, right?
    Most states limit the amount of time sex offenders are required to be registered. Maine, for example, limits this to 10 years for most offenders (except the sexually violent ones, who register for life); a quick Google turns up other states with similar policies. I don't think it's unreasonable that those who "do the crime" should be subject to increased public scrutiny for at least 10 years, until they've proven that they're not likely to be repeat offenders.

    While most of the time I tend to agree with the liberal pro-privacy posts we see on Slashdot, I think this is one case where there's justification for privacy invasion. It's restricted only to those who have committed the crime (a common complaint here is that most recent privacy invasions happen to everyone, including the by-and-large innocent public, and thus violate presumption of innocence), and it's got a built-in expiry for the truly reformed.

    1. Re:Not the rest of their life by Triv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it's unreasonable that those who "do the crime" should be subject to increased public scrutiny for at least 10 years, until they've proven that they're not likely to be repeat offenders.

      NO.

      Should they be looked after? Sure. Weekly meetings with a psychologist, random house calls from a social worker/psychopathologist, a phone call now and again from the local law enforcement agency. But there is absolutely no reason for this information to be available to the public. The offender has served their time according to the law and should be given as much privacy within reason as is deemed safe. Putting this information into the hands of the public is a lynch mob waiting to happen.

      You want to know what an area is like? Read the goddamn papers for awhile before you buy a house, it'll give you a much better picture of what the place is like than a list. I'm all for governmental accountability/transparency, but this is WAY over the line.

      Triv

    2. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's restricted only to those who have committed the crime

      But part of the problem is that it's not just restricted to them. The states seem incapable of keeping these databases up todate, so innocent people who happen to live where some offender used to live are getting beaten have to death, cars torched, etc. And with the addition of photos to these online listings, just hope you don't look like on of these bastards...

    3. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's restricted only to those who have committed the crime

      Minor correction: It's restricted only to those who have been convicted of the crime.

    4. Re:Not the rest of their life by osgeek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But there is absolutely no reason for this information to be available to the public.

      Bullshit. Sexual predators are just that, predators. I vote that I get to know if a proven danger to my children is living next door. Looks like most of the rest of America votes the same way. Hooray for a democratic form of government. Fuck the child molesters and rapists. If I were in charge, they'd be dead on the first offense, so they're getting off easy in that respect.

      The offender has served their time according to the law

      Part of "their time" has been deemed to be the ten years or so after being released from prison during which time, they're listed in a database that's publicly accessible. Tough shit, don't commit the crime next time.

    5. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the child molesters and rapists

      Wait, I thought you wanted to punish them, not reward.

    6. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is absolutely no reason for this information to be available to the public.

      Which classes of people should have this sort of information then? Social workers, psychopathologists, law enforcement, psychologists, and which other groups of nobility?

      If these groups of people have regular access to this information, then I want one of my children to be in this class (or do you plan to make it a birthright?); preferably whichever one makes the most money.

    7. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's unreasonable that those who "do the crime" should be subject to increased public scrutiny for at least 10 years, until they've proven that they're not likely to be repeat offenders.

      We have mechanisms by which the public can scrutinize recent offenders: probation and psychologists. Those people are qualified to do make those kinds of determinations. The general public is not qualified to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent.

      While most of the time I tend to agree with the liberal pro-privacy posts we see on Slashdot, I think this is one case where there's justification for privacy invasion.

      I quite agree: that's why we have people like probation officers and court-appointed psychologists who have a legal right to invade the offender's privacy.

      Public posting of the names of offenders is simply an attempt to extend the punishment through ostracizing the offender. That kind of vigilante justice and psychological terror has no place in a just legal system. If you want to extend punishment or monitoring, keep people in jail longer, have them check in with police longer, or have them wear electronic monitors.

    8. Re:Not the rest of their life by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      should be subject to increased public scrutiny

      They should be subject to parole scruitiny and the information needs to be tracked very closely by law enforcement.

      It is not a job for Old Mrs. Witherby-Busybody, and it sure as hell isn't a job for Joe-Redneck-with-a-shotgun-and-a-case-of-beer.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that was all it would be fine. Unfortuate but it's used by every yahoo who has an agenda, needs to be taken seriously and needs a herding too. Using the victims of sexual crimes for the cause is a match made in heaven.

      Another silly spin from it will be plain and ordinary people who get mixed up in the counter-culture which will develop when any type of authority attempts to use peer presure to enforce an idea. It's scary because you can almost call it preconceived with intent. When it comes to people in groups anything can be accepted there is pretty much no natural law.

    10. Re:Not the rest of their life by JCCyC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I vote that I get to know if a proven danger to my children is living next door.

      Let's suppose one is. Then you do... what?

    11. Re:Not the rest of their life by MisterMook · · Score: 1

      Exactly. What do you do normally with a neighbor you don't approve of? Nothing. What do you think you can get away with when the neighbor is a sex offender? Sounds like a justification to commit crime huh? What jury would give you more than a slap on the wrist? Go ahead dude, fuck that guy up - the justice system says that it's ok.

    12. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguing that these criminal records be made especially visible to the public encourages the class structure you seem to be critical of. Apparently, your argument is that the right solution is simply the one that provides you personally with the greatest advantage. Hardly an opinion worthy of consideration.

    13. Re:Not the rest of their life by RALE007 · · Score: 1
      Sexual predators are just that, predators.

      That's begging the question.

      If I were in charge, they'd be dead on the first offense, so they're getting off easy in that respect.

      Maybe that's why you're not in charge? I don't really think sexual offenders are "lucky" in that respect. Sometimes a population is unlucky enough to have someone violent "in charge", but I like to think our race isn't so depraved that only a small minority are "lucky" enough not to be on the receiving end of wholesale slaughter by violent leaders for their accused indiscretions.

      All crimes are disturbing to me. Not necessarily "crimes" that a legislator decides are bad things for me, but what are crimes in my opinion. Violence, theft, rape, etc.

      I find true sexual crimes (rape, pedophilia, etc. But not mooning someone for christs sake.) very disturbing. However, I feel your violent suggestions and opinion just as sickening. If you are one who has never been on the receiving end of sexual misconduct, or have never been on the receiving end of true violence, I think you shouldn't speak of either because you truly don't know what you are talking about. If you have been on the receiving end of either, I think your unenlightened and crass blanket statements speak volumes of you and imply severe unresolved issues.

      I would say "work on that" or "best of luck" but your opinion and words are so shallow and offensive to me that I'm almost tempted to say I hope you experience first hand what you are so callously talking about. I hope society never becomes a place that allows sick people such as yourself to live out your disgusting desires on another group of sick individuals.

      I hope you realize, sexual misconduct stems from violent and aggressive tendencies, the same thing you would use to "solve the problem". That which you wish to solve you are a part of my friend.

      --
      Beware blue cats moving at .99c
    14. Re:Not the rest of their life by FLEB · · Score: 1

      One problem, though, especially on the Internet -- If you're on it for a day, you're certain to be cached *somewhere* for a long while.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    15. Re:Not the rest of their life by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      It is already public record no matter what. The issue is whether to compile it in an easily accessed database.

      Further, it is important that all arrests and convictions be public, because not to do so would be the type of country like Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, where people disappeared in the night without a trace, and were never seen or heard again...

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    16. Re:Not the rest of their life by Reziac · · Score: 1

      In fact, there's a point -- how long one should have to register as a "sex offender" (assuming that's justice at all, which I doubt) should be exactly contiguous with one's time on parole. As soon as your parole is up, you should be considered "debt-to-society free", and your credit history cleared, so to speak.

      And if it's the public's business who committed one type of crime, it's the public's business who committed ANY type of crime. OR (pick one) it's not the public's business at all. Because otherwise, it's in violation of "equal protection under the law".

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your thinking apply to kids on sex offender registires as well?

      This one was 11. The victim is stated as 8. Maybe they were playing doctor. But you want him on the list til he's at least 21?

    18. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you kill kids who offend?

      Look at that kid. He was 11. His supposed victim was 8. You'd kill him, would you? Maybe they were playing doctor, and the parents of the girl caught them.

    19. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I find true sexual crimes (rape, pedophilia, etc. But not mooning someone for christs sake.) very disturbing


      Since pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, you must believe in thought crime?
    20. Re:Not the rest of their life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the families involved with that incident. The boy assaulted the girl with a plastic rocketship, a tube of vinyl caulk and a can of non-dairy dessert topping, all at the same time. He then took a photograph of her and used photo editing software to make it appear that the girl was having consensual sex with with a grey squirrel once admired by boxing promoter Don King. Later that day, he attempted to flee to Madagascar with 10 eskimo recipe books. His father worked long hours in a bologna mill, and his mother was a Turk.

      Sadly, this kind of thing happens all the time.

    21. Re:Not the rest of their life by mlush · · Score: 1
      Most states limit the amount of time sex offenders are required to be registered. Maine, for example, limits this to 10 years [klaaskids.org] for most offenders

      'increased public scrutiny for at least 10 years' is fine but by putting the data on the Internet limits it to life and probably much longer, even if archive.org don't save these pages, any nut with an agenda can save the pages and keep them long long past their sell by date

    22. Re:Not the rest of their life by osgeek · · Score: 1

      That's begging the question.

      In a sense. In the obvious sense intended, it's emphasizing part of what has become a cliched term whose parts are now greater than the whole, so worth breaking down. You didn't need to use highschool debating club tactics when all you needed to do was think a second to see why I stated things as I did. +2 points for using a debating term, -5 points for not understanding simple prose.

      minority are "lucky" enough not to be on the receiving end of wholesale slaughter by violent leaders for their accused indiscretions.

      Yeah, well, I like to think that 6-year-old boys and girls should be lucky enough to not be sodomized by some guy living on their street and messed up for the rest of their lives. Side with the criminal if you like, but the slippery slopes on the side of not dealing effectively with criminals are much worse than the one you mention.

      All crimes are disturbing to me. Not necessarily "crimes" that a legislator decides are bad things for me, but what are crimes in my opinion. Violence, theft, rape, etc. I find true sexual crimes (rape, pedophilia, etc. But not mooning someone for christs sake.) very disturbing.

      Yes, yes, the obligatory "I'm no racist, but..." style comment that rings just as hollow. Whose side are you on? The criminal's? Or the victim's? When the victim is a helpless child, I'm on the victim's in no uncertain terms. The criminals in these cases can rot and die. Let me guess -- you're the type that will happily munch down on a hamburger, but would never kill an animal with your own two hands because it's "disgusting". Or better yet... you're a vegetarian who is proud that what you eat isn't slaughtered while blithely ignoring the thousands of rodents that are slaughtered on your behalf every day while your veggies are harvested. In either case, I see you as a person who is happier closing his eyes and pointing fingers than actually getting his hands dirty dealing with reality head on.

      However, I feel your violent suggestions and opinion just as sickening.

      That's because you're a little lamb who's incapable of making the tough decisions required in a brutal world. You're happy to sit on the fence of moral relativism, never punishing the destroyers of society because you're too weak to be decisive and protect what's important.

      If you are one who has never been on the receiving end of sexual misconduct, or have never been on the receiving end of true violence

      It's because I HAVE dealt with the results of true violence that I feel so strongly about stopping it. Mealy-mouthed weasels protecting the aggressors who destroy the lives of innocents are disgusting and crime-enablers, from my perspective.

      I hope you realize, sexual misconduct stems from violent and aggressive tendencies, the same thing you would use to "solve the problem". That which you wish to solve you are a part of my friend.

      It's one of those little facts of nature that violent brutal behavior needs to be confronted in a like manner, or the wolves will overrun the sheep. Just be thankful that not everyone is incapable of making the tough decisions like yourself, our your precious indignation would be destroyed by those who would take everything you have from you.

    23. Re:Not the rest of their life by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Duh?

      My eldest is at an age where we let her play at friends' houses. If the friend has a dad who was convicted of inappropriate sexual behavior with a minor, I don't let my daughter go to his house.

      If I live next door to a convicted sexual predator, I instruct my daughter to avoid the "bad person" next door, never talk to him and scream if he comes near.

      There are tons of precautions I could think of off the top of my head, and I bet I could come up with a lot more if the situation actually occurred. Have a couple of young daughters who are the most important parts of your life, and you'll find out just how creative you can be to protect them.

    24. Re:Not the rest of their life by dtaczalski · · Score: 1

      But there is absolutely no reason for this information to be available to the public.
      The reason to make this information public is to inform potential victims of the existing risc.

    25. Re:Not the rest of their life by GreeboNZ · · Score: 1

      Right. Like the eighteen year old with a seventeen year old partner. Heinous predator criminals like that who deserve to have their future torn away from them.

  40. Lets find a happy medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be better if the site just shows you the name and photo of the offenders that are in a XYZ radius from your home or work. This will protect some privacy/security of the offender and provide usufull information to potential victims.

  41. Not far enough! by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just their name, photo, crime, and life history?

    Why not post their daily movements as tracked by their mobile phone? or insert a tag into them if they have no phone. People deserve to know the every movement of these ever-guilty people. This is reasonable because no court case has ever been incorrect.

    And phone records too. That should be public.

    and, .. oh let me think .. oh yeh, the names of their sibblings, in case "sex crimes" is a genetic problem, and ..

  42. Re:Please by corebreech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consider also qualifies you as a sex offender in Maine. For instance, if you're a 16-year-old boy who makes out with a 13-year-old girl and you get caught, you're a sex offender; your name and photo goes up on the site.

    This all started when a neighbor raped and killed a little girl, and so we created the label of sex offender as a way of categorizing such people, but it's barely been ten years and already we're rounding up all kinds of people who don't come anywhere close to this kind of offense and branding them monsters.

  43. And what better way to say, "I need a new ID" by stienman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And what better way to say, "I need a new ID" than with the gift of a name, birthdate, address, and other personal information of a convicted felon.

    I mean, who'd believe them anyway?

    I'm all for sex offender registries, but I think a 'need to know' attitude should be adopted. I don't need to know the sex offenders in the next city, nevermind a completely seperate state, unless I'm visiting for an extended stay with my children, in which case those I am visiting, or the resorts/theme parks, will have access to that information.

    Don't make it so easy to abuse, but don't make it so hard that it's not worth the effort for the worrywarts.

    -Adam

  44. Pros and cons to this... by Cyno01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen both sides of this issue and seen that sex offenses are very hard to try from the courts standpoint. I'd like to point out to everyone that not all sex offenders are child molesters, yes, child molesters are the bottom of the bucket of socioty and should be treated as thus, but like any other form of crime, people are falsley convicted. A very close friend of mine was raped, but unfortunatly they couldn't get a conviction. The guy was loaded and the defense made the argument that she was after money, it sickened me. I wouldn't want this guy anywhere near me, and if i ever did run into him i'd probly bash his face in, but hes not on any list anywhere. On the other end of this, a guy i know at school was accused of rape, he was 18, she was underage. He was arrested in class, with much spectacle. It was all cleared up after the girls parents heard her on the phone talking about how she'd lied about the whole thing. But if they hadn't found out i hate to think what would happen to my of age african american friend in the courts system after being accused of rape by an underage white girl. His life would pretty much be over. Think about all the possible scenarios before you cry "Wont someone please think of the children!". If people are a danger they should be kept locked up, either in prison or in an institution, otherwise if they've payed their debt to society , they should be allowed to go on with their lives. As for child molseters though, people that sick dont change and should be kept under lock and key.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  45. It may not be constitutional by jdhutchins · · Score: 1

    I know some other states have it, but it's been tried in Indiana, and it was found cruel/unusual punishment by the court system. I doubt that it will be found this in other states, seeing as they have already implemented it.

    IMHO, the entire "punishment" system needs to become "reform". You have a minimum time to serve, and after that, you're not automatically released. When it is determined that you're no longer a threat to society, you're released. Other than that, you stay locked up.

    It'd increase the prison population, but it would make the system work better.

    1. Re:It may not be constitutional by geekoid · · Score: 1

      great system...tell me how much more in taxes are you willing to pay for this?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:It may not be constitutional by cranos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oooh what a wonderful idea, indefinite incarceration with freedom at the whim of the authorities. No checks and balances, goody goody.

      I'm sorry aren't US forces currently fighting to 'liberate' Iraq from exactly this sort of thing? Or is it a case of "do as I say not what I do"?

    3. Re:It may not be constitutional by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Or, at least make the system based around real, thought-out-and-measurable reform, not just revenge motive and sweeping-under-the-carpet.

      Granted, that wouldn't fly with politicians or their media-soaked public... "What?!? They're *giving* things to *criminals*?!? But criminals are EEEEEEeeeeevil!"

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    4. Re:It may not be constitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When it is determined that you're no longer a threat to society, you're released."

      It's already been well-established that neither prison authorities nor psychologists are very good at determining when a person is no longer a threat to society.

  46. It's more than that by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The consentual sodomy case you are talking about is Lawrence v. Texas. The PRIMARY reason they fought the case all the way to the surpreme court was to stay *off* the state's list of registered sex offenders.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  47. My rights online? by identity0 · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's true! My rights are being violated, I swear! Oh wait...

  48. This of course means that its legal now by Snaller · · Score: 1

    You do a crime, you do the time and the slate is supposed to be wiped clean. Now they want to keep punishing these people for ever? Since no punishment should last that long, that should mean that there will be no jail time up front - or that they drop this stuff.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:This of course means that its legal now by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      Funny, when did this happen? I always thought the only time a record could wiped clean is when a minor becomes of age. I certainly hope they don't start wiping records clean, especially in the case of sex offenders.

    2. Re:This of course means that its legal now by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Sure, and lets keep a list of the jews as well, and the blacks, and the homos.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    3. Re:This of course means that its legal now by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      Why? They didn't do anything wrong.

      The sex offenders, however, did. And they're likely to do it again. Unfortunately, I think our judicial system does nothing to rehabilitate them. Locking them away for x number of years isn't going to change them. They need some kind of treatment.

      At least if potential victims and their families know who they are, they may be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.

    4. Re:This of course means that its legal now by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Why? They didn't do anything wrong.

      When you start making lists, why stop? They'll probably do something bad really soon (and beliving in supernatural beings, really, you must have a screw loose if you do that)

      The sex offenders, however,

      Have been punished. Case over.

      Unfortunately, I think our judicial system does nothing to rehabilitate them. Locking them away for x number of years isn't going to change them. They need some kind of treatment.

      This on the other hand is unfortunately probably true.
      At least if potential victims and their families know who they are, they may be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.


      Unlikely, its far more likely they will comit new crimes against them.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    5. Re:This of course means that its legal now by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Only if they rape children.

      Personally, I believe 'that some people were flawed during manufacturing and should be recalled.'

      A child was kidnapped off of the streets of Toronto in broad daylight, and reappeared in pieces in several suitcases the next morning. But the most shocking news was that within a 10 block radius of her house there were 200 sexual offenders that the police were aware of. Within the entire city there are thousands.

      A sexual offender list is not a list of folks that parents can hunt down and kill. It's a 'heads-up' list. It's a 'yo! Don't let Suzie and little Billy anywhere near the freak two doors down.'

      IMHO, freak forfeits his right to privacy the instant freak commits a criminal offense. And privacy is the least thing freak should be asked to give up as part of atoning for freak's crime.

    6. Re:This of course means that its legal now by FLEB · · Score: 1

      So... these "sexual offenders"... they live places?!?

      These people have committed heinous crimes against humanity. As such, they have (naturally) forefitted their right to live in places.

      Null space or die, perverts!

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    7. Re:This of course means that its legal now by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Personally, I believe 'that some people were flawed during manufacturing and should be recalled.'

      If you study psychology, you learn that all people, without exception are flawed - they just manifest it in different ways. Ideally we should all be helped, but money doesn't care.

      A child was kidnapped off of the streets of Toronto in broad daylight, and reappeared in pieces in several suitcases the next morning.

      Not good.

      But the most shocking news was that within a 10 block radius of her house there were 200 sexual offenders that the police were aware of. Within the entire city there are thousands.


      That would seem irrelevant, unless you posit that he was killed by thousands of people.

      A sexual offender list is not a list of folks that parents can hunt down and kill.
      It's a 'heads-up' list. It's a 'yo! Don't let Suzie and little Billy anywhere near the freak two doors down.'


      Yet its so handy for that. Its so handy for people who wish to hate forever and forgive fornever.

      IMHO, freak forfeits his right to privacy the instant freak commits a criminal offense. And privacy is the least thing freak should be asked to give up as part of atoning for freak's crime.

      Sure lets kill them. Lets murder all dissenders, lets bomb our way to a better world.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    8. Re:This of course means that its legal now by Snaller · · Score: 1

      And if you believe that, you are no better than they.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    9. Re:This of course means that its legal now by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      When you start making lists, why stop? They'll probably do something bad really soon (and beliving in supernatural beings, really, you must have a screw loose if you do that)

      Because there's a reason for the sex offender list, there's no reason for any of the other lists you suggested.

      Have been punished. Case over.

      But haven't necessarily reformed. If you can prove to me they're of sound mind and won't commit such acts again, then I'm all for not putting them on any such list.

      Unlikely, its far more likely they will comit new crimes against them.

      Possibly, but I don't think vigilantism runs rampant in our society.

    10. Re:This of course means that its legal now by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      *Sure lets kill them.*

      Is that the only method of rehabilitation that you can think of besides jail time? What is it that makes you think that? And lets take this a step further; what is it about jail time that makes you believe it rehabilitates?

      Personally, I tend to go with the experts (some of whom are the sexual offenders themselves) who say that rehabilitation is impossible. Mainly because you hear of freaks who have 'served their sentences' and then re-offend. I'm of the belief that a person's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain and are unchangeable. If someone gets their kicks from killing someone and their sex drive is strong, they will do it again.

      So, is there a way we can determine who, amongst sexual offenders, will reoffend? No. That ability is somewhere in the future along with the ability to rewire someone's brain. So, what do we do with Freak and all Freaks like him in the meanwhile?

      For those crimes where someone was raped, beaten, or killed, ie. hurt, the safety of the community comes foremost and is the paramount concern. Freak, by having hurt a member of the community is no longer a member of the community and his/her welfare comes second.

      Why is it that Freak, and Freaks like Freak have no problem disregarding the laws that govern us all but then demand to be protected by those same laws?

      Either you utterly disrespect the laws, or you toe the line (this includes disagreeing with a law but following legal procedures in having that law revoked).

      *Lets murder all dissenders, lets bomb our way to a better world.*

      This is a topic regarding sexual offenders. If you can convince the slashdot moderators to put up a topic regarding the war in iraq, then spout this drivel.

    11. Re:This of course means that its legal now by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Learn some manners.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  49. am i a sex offender if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i masturbate in excess of 10 times a day? sometimes i even do it without my own consent, if mr. floopy has other ideas

    1. Re:am i a sex offender if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get him up against the wall!!!

  50. Not sure I want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the new site will cover *all* sex offenders registered in Maine, and will include their names, ages and birth dates, where they live, where they work or attend school, and which offense they were convicted of. Photographs will soon be posted, as well.

    Photographs of the sex offense .. hey ..umm ..what the? I can understand how some of you may get off on it .. but I don't need to see these kinds of photos.

    1. Re:Not sure I want this by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Of course, you'll be arrested for viewing them.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
  51. Korea did this last year.... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    ...and there were some complaints about rights of the offenders, since the list just showed up one day. There was some dialog, but the list remained, and is being expanded.

  52. What about wrong information. by big_fish · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First I want to say that sexual predators are terrible.

    On the other hand what about wrong information. If the government has incorrect information. What if there is an innocent john jones whos picture shows up on the site because the mistook him for the bad john jones?

    Not to mention the whole cracker problem. Put someone you don't like on the list for fun. Who cares if it ruins someone's life.

    I just don't have a lot of faith in the law enforcement system and their technical ability.

    Not to mention this is open season on sex offenders. Remember that statatory rape is a sexual offense. What about sodomy. Someone who commits these crime goes on the same list with repeated child molesters.

  53. Re:Nothing new here - He is BLACK??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    His info said he was black, but the picture says he is hispanic.

    The site says he is on probabation, but it also says deceased.

    Okay... hrmmmmm

    I guess even if you die they expect you to do your probabtion time..

    Wonder what his meeting is like with his parole officer.

  54. Cracks in the System by alset_tech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about a young man who is convicted of statutory rape with a consenting girlfriend? He's 19, she's 17 - he's listed on the net for the rest of his life. There are a hundred variations of this. What are you gonna do, explain to each of your neighbors that you were convicted of a sex crime with a woman you later married? Scary thought.

    --
    Standing on the shoulders of giants.
    1. Re:Cracks in the System by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's more of a reason to repleal retarded sex laws than anything else.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Cracks in the System by zulux · · Score: 1

      That's more of a reason to repleal retarded sex laws than anything else.


      But I like having retarded sex. It's so much fun!

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  55. Not hacked but What happens when Whacked ... by leoaugust · · Score: 1

    With so many eyes looking at the info, any hacking should be easily detected. So, I guess except for an occasional scare for a few unsuspecting people, the system should work fine.

    The danger in the sytem is not really that laws will be broken to ensnare innocent people. These things are easily rectified.

    The danger in the system is when people take their eyes of the legislative intention of the law, and the executive branch starts applying the law more broadly, slowly inching towards scaring, if not ensnaring, the innocent. The danger is when the law is whacked out line with what is what supposed to do. In whacking no laws need be broken. In Hacking laws are broken, but in whacking they need not be broken ...

    It is the worst when the Judiciary shows a blind eye to the actions of the Executive, and refuses to call judgement on the Legislative intention and Executive implementation of the law .... Then, it is possible to scare, if not ensnare, all the good people, whom the law was framed to protect to begin with ...

    I am not saying that it will happen, but in the land where the Patriot Law can be expanded the way it has to non-terrorism related issues, anything is possible...

    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
  56. Alternatives... by bottlerocket · · Score: 1

    Well, I guess this is a little more humane than castrating them.

    --
    where the comment ends and sig begins
  57. I've been waiting for something like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do I sign up?

  58. Sex Offender Text Alerts by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And hey, I just had a great idea:
    Sex Offender Text Alerts!

    and an arm band. I forgot that. (or a bell if an arm band is unacceptable.)

    Brilliant. You get a text message every time a sex offender is in the same geographic location as you. Then you just look around to see who's wearing an arm band :-)

    "Support our kids", and "it's unamerican to be a sex offender", and other good slogans will also be needed. This brave new world is gonna kick ass. No one will ever oppose this, "you don't support sex offenders, do you?". This will be nothing at all like a witch hunt.

  59. Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Also those people who bomb abortion clinics think that anyone who is convicted of a crime should be killed, so they probably justify killing sex offenders by saying "Well, they deserve death anyway."

    Welcome to the middle ages (redux)!

  60. almost every state already has this by maddh · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:almost every state already has this by Bruha · · Score: 1

      Gee thanks.. now I know there's a sex offender 2 buildings away from me.

      Course it does not say what he did and it was 2 weeks ago it was entered.

      Wife wont be happy. Guess were moving.

    2. Re:almost every state already has this by maddh · · Score: 1

      Me and my buddies at work were messing around putting in everyone's name on the one for our state, found one of our co-workers in it with picture and "victim under 18" at the bottom.
      Gossip spread pretty quick, he was called into the boss's office later that day. He must have had a good story cause he's still working there today.
      creepy huh?

    3. Re:almost every state already has this by Bruha · · Score: 1

      More creepy..

      Tossed in my hometown zip code.. dude I went to high school with who I'd never thought would do something like this was convicted of 2nd degree rape.

  61. This is what People Want by turgid · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Who are we to object? It is the will of the people. Vigilante justice. If you ask most people what they think should happen to sex offenders, they'll tell you they should be castrated, hung, shot, beheaded, stoned to death, hot pokers... you name it.

    A quote from the BBC article really sums it up: "But whatever he has done in the past does not give people the right to attack and kill him."

    But people would argue back,"why does he deserve any rights or the protection of the law after what he's done?" For many people, justice is not justice until they have their eye for the eye lost. Some may call it revenge, but the Great British Public calls it "fair."

    Oh, and if you oppose, you have something to hide, right? You must be one of them.

    1. Re:This is what People Want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure am glad we don't live in a democracy.

  62. Two ways to treat convicted criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1: "We will help you with this problem. You will serve your time. You will be released as a rehabilitated citzen."

    2: "Your problem cannot be solved. You will serve your time. You will be released and branded for life as someone who cannot be trusted."

    Me, I prefer giving convicted criminals message #1. Penalize them, rehabilitate them, HOLD them UNTIL they're rehabilitated, and then give them a fair chance to prove themselves. Turning their neighborhood into a lynch mob is NOT giving them a fair chance.

  63. Uh oh here it comes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1/4 of Slashdot including Timothy and Cmdr Taco are going to be losing some sleep tonight. What if you fag pedophiles get caught? I say gas chamber.

  64. Biggest problem with sex crimes by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The biggest problem with "sex crimes", specifically when it comes to pedophilia and statuatory rape, is the shame that the victim carries around with him/her. I've dated a few women who have been sexually abused by people in their family and parents' friends. It's totally sick, but they would never turn in the perpetrator, so they live with this shame and it results in distrust and dysfunction in every aspect of their lives.

    Enforcement is important, but it's more important to talk about these crimes and encourage people to not feel shame if they've been a victim, seek professional help and deal with it. There are too many people who hide away with these dark secrets and the damage done after the fact makes the original action pale in comparison. Databases, tracking and harsher penalties will never help heal the damage done, which is a critical aspect of these crimes that needs to be brought to the forefront.

    1. Re:Biggest problem with sex crimes by SagSaw · · Score: 2, Informative

      specifically when it comes to pedophilia and statuatory rape

      Let's make sure were using the right words here:

      Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

      Statuatory Rape: sexual intercourse with a person who is below the statutory age of consent

      Neither of these definitions automatically imply that criminal did anything to cause anybody emotional trauma. An indiviual can find children sexually attractive and not rape them, just as most men don't rape every woman (or man) they find sexuall attractive. In the case of statutory rape, a person one day younger than the age of consent is no more likely to be hurt emotionally than a person one day older than the age of consent, especially given that there are many years difference between the age of consent in different localities.

      --
      Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
  65. Why not just shoot them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The idea of prison sentences is to give a punishment , telling the offender why he should better try leading a normal life.

    Making a normal life permanently impossible in this manner makes the notion of a prison sentence a mockery.

    If you don't want a person to be able to lead a normal life anymore, and are going to punish him for life, you could equally well kill him in the first place. A bit over the top for, say, showing a spiteful public servant your behind, but better safe than sorry, right?

  66. More laws by be-fan · · Score: 1

    You know, I wouldn't mind about the government making new laws like this, if only they would make one that *I* want.

    Stupidity should be punishable by death.

    Go ahead and put this information on the web. Like people have said, it is already public, they are just changing the accessibility of it. However, if people how haven't done anything else get harassed because of it, the person doing the harassing should be put to death.

    Very clean and simple, that.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    1. Re:More laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stupidity should be punishable by death.

      Stream of conciousness. First, this reminded me of how Bush II's IQ was just 1 point above the cutoff for the Texas Air Guard or whatever that he served in to avoid going to Vietnam. Then I searched to see if his IQ's on the Internet and came up with this.

    2. Re:More laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stupidity should be punishable by death

      But we'd miss your posts :).

  67. Scott Free by xjerky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reminds me of a story here in the NYC area about a year ago, about a New Jersey guy who raped and killed a 12 year old girl in 1985 and is having a tough time reassimilating with the community upon his recent release. The report kept discussing the harassment this guy was facing by the locals and how he can't get a break. But not once did the report ask the question I couldn't stop wondering - "WHY THE HELL IS THIS GUY OUT OF JAIL?!?!?!?!" There's something wrong with the criminal justice system, at least in the Northeast. Last I checked, the girl is still dead, so why is this guy walking the streets in the first place? And why is the news trying to shore up sympathy for this guy????

    --
    A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    1. Re:Scott Free by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

      Because the STATE is supposed to give people a SECOND CHANCE and because the relatives don't have the balls to kill him. I mean, I'm all for eye-for-an-eye between with people vs. people, but a state vs. people is a completely different thing. It s like giving a corporation the same rights as a human, despite the fact that the corporation (and a state) aren't even real, living things.

    2. Re:Scott Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We live in a society where the justice system punishes criminals finitely for their crimes, but individuals want to punish criminals infinitely. I don't believe that the justice system gets it right all the time, or even 90% of the time, but if we start taking the law into our own hands, we become no better than the person the justice system has punished.

      No I am not a card-carrying NRA member, but nor am I whatever is on the opposite side of that political football. Would you like to be punished forever for something you did a long time ago?

    3. Re:Scott Free by xjerky · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about taking the law into your own hands. My point was that this guy should have been sentenced to life in prison without parole. In a primarily-Republican state, that might have happened.

      "Would you like to be punished forever for something you did a long time ago?"

      Please tell me you're not suggesting that nobody should ever get life without parole whatever the circumstance.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    4. Re:Scott Free by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Ok let's give you the same treatment. Every one of your bad mistakes. Did you ever had a fight ? Did he hit back (harder I hope, as you probably deserved) ? Did you hit him back again ? again harder I hope ? You can obviously see where this is going.

      What matters in the justice system is not revenge. That's for 12 year old kids and "defense" departments. It's minimizing damage. The object is not to hurt anyone unless it's necessary.

    5. Re:Scott Free by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything about the case, and I'm pretty sure you don't know much more. We know there was a rape and murder, and that's it. There are a ton of other factors like intent, circumstances, his age, etc, that we have no clue about. Maybe he deserves to still be in jail, but then again maybe he doesn't, and you or I don't have the information to make a judgement about that. However that didn't stop you and you've made your judgement based on inadequate information which is exactly the risk of this registry.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Scott Free by xjerky · · Score: 1

      What the hell else needs to be known besides the fact that a 12 year old girl died by his hand? I can't imagine what circumstances could change what should happen to him.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    7. Re:Scott Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should punish all deviants forever, and publish their information. Lets make them wear a pink star to denote that they commited a sex crime, or that they are a known or suspected terrorist. That's a good idea.

    8. Re:Scott Free by Kjella · · Score: 1

      But not once did the report ask the question I couldn't stop wondering - "WHY THE HELL IS THIS GUY OUT OF JAIL?!?!?!?!" There's something wrong with the criminal justice system, at least in the Northeast. Last I checked, the girl is still dead, so why is this guy walking the streets in the first place?

      And for Manslaughter, you should also get the death penalty? After all, the person is still dead. An eye for an eye, a life for a life right?

      Prison is about just that, to atone for your crimes. It doesn't undo them, but it is what society has decided is appropriate. If you have a problem with that, advocate longer sentences (or even the death penalty, if you're so inclined).

      But that doesn't give those that think it's not enough, the right to give him a "second sentence" of sorts. By the laws we create, we have decided to give him another chance at life. You might not agree, but that does not give you the right to hasass him.

      I strongly disagree with the justice system here in Norway. A former classmate of mine was sentenced to 9 years in prison for murdering a 17yo with 18 knife stabs, leaving him in a bloody pulp for the victim's mom to find. He served about half and is already back on the streets. Personally I wish they'd locked him up and thrown away the key.

      Despite that, I wouldn't harass him over it. He did what he did, served his sentence and is a free man. That I didn't feel justice was served doesn't give me the right to take it into my own hands. Two wrongs would not make a right.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Scott Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will clarify: you should not be punished for something you did a long time ago AND HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN REHABILITATED ENOUGH TO BE ALLOWED TO REJOIN SOCIETY.

      There are cases where life without parole is necessary.

    10. Re:Scott Free by quantaman · · Score: 1

      What the hell else needs to be known besides the fact that a 12 year old girl died by his hand? I can't imagine what circumstances could change what should happen to him.

      Did he plead guilty instead of forcing a trial? Did he turn himself in? Was he remorseful? Was there any kind of relationship between them? How old was he? Was he in his right mind (maybe someone slipped him some drugs which made him a little nuts)? Was it an accident (didn't mean to kill her but was too agressive)? Do you know anything other than the fact that the girl died?

      None of these things come close to excusing what he did but they should certainly have an effect on what we determine to be his punishment and if it is possible to rehabilitate him. Maybe there is a way for him to actively contribute to society without providing a threat instead of contributing to the worlds largest prison population.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re:Scott Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C. S. Lewis once said:

      "How silly it is to assume that mere time atones for sins."

      If it were up to me, all sex offenders would be spending time on the Chain Gang down here in Georgia.

    12. Re:Scott Free by polki · · Score: 0

      He did NOT server his sentence.
      You said it yourself : He served about half and is already back on the street.

      So it's OK if people don't stop harassing him.

      --
      Linux ! The cheapest OS ! For people whose time is worth NOTHING !
    13. Re:Scott Free by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      "WHY THE HELL IS THIS GUY OUT OF JAIL?!?!?!?!"

      Let me guess; you have no concept of the state of criminal justice in the US. A country with the highest rate of people in jails (430 per 100,000 in '93). A country that can't keep people in jails because there's not enough room.

      And why is the news trying to shore up sympathy for this guy????

      What would you do if you couldn't get a job? If any place you lived was vandalised and your life threatened? People who cannot live in the legal world will be forced to rob and steal to feed themselves and shelter themselves. No matter what he did, he still has to live somehow.

  68. Two points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One, if you put a scarlet letter on a person coming out of prison for the rest of his life, is this going to increase or decrease his odds of drifting back into crime? I'd argue that the main cause of recivitism is people's lives are generally destroyed anyway.

    Two, why don't we take this to it's logical conclusion and keep drunk driver's photos up for the rest of their lives too. I personally would like a heads up if someone so irresponsible is living next to me so I can be extra careful when I see them driving. It will also keep the wrong sorts of people from running for President.

  69. Pre-crime by lplatypus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are these people are being publicly humiliated because they have committed a crime, or because they might commit a crime in the future? The fact that sex offenders are singled out seems to suggest the latter. This is a disturbing movement towards alternative philosophies of justice. Even the idea behind the "pre-crime" unit in Minority Report is less repulsive, as there seemed to be a greater probability of the anticipated crime actually taking place in that movie.

    1. Re:Pre-crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even the idea behind the "pre-crime" unit in Minority Report is less repulsive, as there seemed to be a greater probability of the anticipated crime actually taking place in that movie.

      I thought the Pre-Crime unit of Minority Report was supposed to be offensive because of the potentials for abuse of the system. Otherwise, it is perfectly normal for a society to take advantage of resources to prevent crimes.

    2. Re:Pre-crime by lplatypus · · Score: 1

      I understood that Pre-Crime unit of Minority Report was offensive because it locked up people who hadn't committed a crime; this punishment was justified by the premise that they were certainly going to commit a crime, but this premise was challenged and eventually proved false by the events in the movie. In the end, the movie supported the idea of "retributive justice" that is the foundation for western justice systems: the idea that the law should impose a punishment that fits the crime which has been committed.

      Other ideas of justice are becoming more popular of late, such as "rehabilitative justice" (where the focus is on rehabilitating rather than punishing the criminal), or even preventative justice where action is taken against potential criminals. I feel that both of these ideas are flawed because they can result in a sentence being passed on an individual which does not fit what they have actually done. What determines the end of a sentence? Do we keep someone locked up until it is determined that their rehabilitation is complete, or that they are no longer a risk to society? Under such a regime, even minor crimes (or no crime) could result in indefinitely long sentences.

  70. SloTech by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    Why not a GPS tracking system, WiFi webcams, and a text-messaging system to notify people when he comes within n meters distance? (After all, Slashdot has had stories about GPS/cell/watch bracelets for kids that will track their route home from school with alerts if they stray.)

    Of course, making sex-offenders ring a bell and shout "Unclean!" might work too.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  71. Re:Please by MukiMuki · · Score: 0

    Most murderers don't get capital punishment ( Texas notwithstanding ) They usually get a parollable term ,dependent on premeditiation and number of victims. ( ianafl, but that's pretty common sense-ish )

  72. Why Have Laws When You Can Have Trysts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In some circles, breaking off a coffee and donut relationship qualifies you as a "sex offender".

    What we really need is a website where we can post info about the sex offenders in our lives without the pesky justice system getting in our way.

    Websites like:

    http://word-of-mouth.info (which apparently no longer exists, boo hoo) ->

    http://www.gigalaw.com/archives/0305/gigalaw-dis cu ss-0305-00071.html

    http://facethefury.net

    Oh and don't forget! Being poor or ugly or disliked by the wrong person is also a crime and we really need a registry for that too.

  73. CT Did This a while back by shoptroll · · Score: 1

    CT did this a while ago...

    I remember it got challenged in the State Supreme Court... Not sure if it was struck down or whatnot.

    --
    Insert Sig Here
  74. Re:Please by xjerky · · Score: 1

    Why aren't taking into account whether or not the victim(s) are still dead? That would be true common sense.

    --
    A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
  75. Here is where your logic fails by jobugeek · · Score: 1
    2 problems:

    1) No one can and/or will pay to keep all these people in jail.

    2) At some point these people are deemed "cured". But just like an alcoholic walking by a bar, the urge to commit wrong comes back.

    I understand your point about car stealing, but I have a nice car and a 1 year old kid and I'd rather lose my car than my kid get molested. I imagine I'm not alone.

    --
    I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
    1. Re:Here is where your logic fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) At some point these people are deemed "cured". But just like an alcoholic walking by a bar, the urge to commit wrong comes back.

      So these people are convicted of thought crimes before they have even had the thought?

      You're dumb.

    2. Re:Here is where your logic fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet we'd have plenty of money to keep them in jail if we didn't waste it all on incarcerating non-violent drug offenders.

  76. Re:Question - Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! stay right there, the vice squad will be with you shortly.

  77. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you have destroyed my Sarcasm Meter.
    "Klaven"

  78. How about all criminals? by Giro+d'Italia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why just sex offenders? I know they are most likely to re-offend, but as a homeowner, I sure would love to be able to search and check if anyone living on my block was convicted of burglarly, for example.

    1. Re:How about all criminals? by RexDevious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You "know" they're most likely to re-offend? Unless they're insane (in which case they should be confined to a mental hospital), why would they be. Either way, please let us know why you believe this.

      But let's just say you got your wish. You can look up information on anyone who's ever commited any kind of crime, including their picture, home address, work address, ect. What exactly do you picture doing with that information that would make you safer? Would you "run them out of town"? If so, you'd better first make sure that you're better at it then the guys who live next to criminals in the next town who'll be trying to do the same thing. Would you contact them somehow and say, "Hey, I know what you've done. And if anyone does that around here I'm coming after you first!"? Well, even if that didn't result in you getting into a fight (in which case YOUR picture, address, and employer would be on the Internet because you'd be guilty of assault), it's not like the police don't already look at known criminals first when pursuing a new crime. Would you, if you found out you had a convicted criminal next door, go out and buy extra locks, maybe install some sort of alarm system? Well, only the dumbest and laziest criminal in the world is going to commit a crime they got convicted of, at the house next door. The vast majority of them are at least smart enough to go to a different neighbourhood. And not just to avoid being the first and most obvious suspect, but also because ex-cons don't tend to be able to afford to live in the types of neighbourhoods they'd want to steal things from.

      So where's the benefit of such registries? There's nothing sensible you can do in response to discovering a criminal living in your neighbourhood, that wouldn't be sensible if there wasn't one there. And there's nothing you can do to the ex-con themself that would deter them from victimizing you anymore than the records they know the police have. Unless you'd be willing to go so far to deter them they you yourself would wind up on the list of "known criminals".

      If you want to be safe, take reasonable precautions against crime. If you have any energy left over, drive more carefully and take good care of your health (you're far more likely to die from sickness or an accident than from an avoidable crime).

      But if you want to scare the snot out of yourself, and put ex-cons in hostile and desparate positions, then by all means, start a registry.

  79. Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...any adult that wants to work with children must be a paedophile.

  80. How about we do this with Drunk Drivers instead by Multics · · Score: 2, Insightful
    More people are killed and hurt by drunk drivers... if we're putting Scarlet letters on people, let's do it to the drunk drivers.

    -- Multics

  81. Re:Please by JInterest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without commenting specifically on whether or not this is appropriate, consider that we don't go to this sort of length in response to a murder conviction.

    You are entirely correct. Curious, isn't it? We don't publish a registry of convicted murderers. We don't publish registries of convicted rapists, or convicted bank robbers. These are all categories of criminals much more dangerous to the general public than pedophiles, yet it is pedophiles who find their names, photos, and personal information posted on the internet.

    Of course, this will only work for so long as laws requiring convicted pedophiles -- even those who have served their time and theoretically owe no burden to the State -- to provide their names and contact information to local authorities are ruthlessly enforced.

    Any such system will inevitably see mission creep. Why NOT list people convicted of other serious crimes? Makes sense, doesn't it? After all, that information is public record anyway, right?

    While we are at it, it makes sense that we should post information about people suspected but not convicted of crimes. After all, there's no criminal penalty here. It is just information. No worse than the rumor-mill, right? And it advances the public safety. We will limit it to those suspected of serious crimes and, yes, terrorism. Besides, in the United States, we let judges use crimes of which a defendant has been accused but not convicted in considering what punishment is appropriate when a criminal defendant has reached the sentencing stage. Why should the judges be the only ones who know?

    It is just information right? And we should let information be free.

    Such as information about the political groups and associations of ordinary citizens. Are you a member of a political group with radical ideas? We know now that groups like that are potentially dangerous. They produce people like Timothy McVeigh. Nobody says you can't be a member of the group; we are just saying you can't keep it a secret. Hey, we have hood laws across the South already. We have laws against secret political societies. So this is just a logical next step. Post that information. No harm, no foul, right?

    Palestinians and Muslims are risky too. No harm in posting information about them. Honest people have nothing to fear when their privacy is compromised, right?

    Samuel Johnson once said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. The protection of children has become the last refuge of fascisti. It has been the "wedge issue" used to justify sweeping restrictions on internet access in public libraries (gotta stop that child porn), an oppressive IV-D child support collection apparatus (gotta get them deadbeat dads), and any number of "public safety" statutes, which have used the safety and protection of children as a tool to build a system of social and legal controls that could easily be used for any other purpose, and which create a mindset of submission that would welcome additional restrictions for "good" purposes.

    I take literally the idea that in order to protect all of us, we must protect the most unworthy among us. A convicted child molester who has served his (or more rarely her) time and whom the state has chosen to release has that most ancient of rights recognized in Anglo-American law -- the right to be left alone. That means that using public funds to create public registries containing their personal information, thus giving them a pariah status that directly contradicts the clear language and intent of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, not to mention common sense, is wrong.

    I fully expect someone to respond to this message with some screed about how precious children are, and how their cousin was molested, and how would you like it if someone molested YOUR kid. Know what? That's all completely beside the point. The issue is freedom and liberty, not crime. Restraints on freedom and invasions of privacy in the name

  82. Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    murder = victim is dead
    attempted murder = victim is not dead.

  83. It can be a lifelong illness by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Depending on the nature of the crime it's often the case that sex offenders can't be rehabilitated. Those who know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway, can be rehabilitated and are. Those who think what they're doing is perfectly natural, can't be. Many crimes are the same way.

    So yes, it is often a lifetime long crime. The idea of the registry is to make people aware so they can take precautions. You wouldn't want to send your kids over to play at such a person's house unsupervised. "Done their time" or not. Just because someone did their time doesn't mean they're cured. It just means they appear to be cured or the state just can't legally hold them any longer for the crime they were convicted for. It has no direct corelation to not repeating the crime.

    If people take that information and use it as a hit list they need to be checked into their local prison as well for a very long time.

    The benefits of such a list greatly outweigh the risks. Especially considering there are no exemptions to vigilante violence against anyone for any reason.

    The law doesn't care if he looked at you funny or you got his name off a list, you don't get to beat the crap out of him or worse.

    Ben

  84. Overly broad definition of sex offender by rossz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did you know an 18 year old guy with a 17 year old girl friend is a sex offender in some states? How would you like to be treated just like some rat bastard who molested a few 6 year olds because you were banging your girlfriend who was 1 month away from her 18th birthday? This could happen. You could be hounded for the rest of your life because of this exact situation.

    Child molesters are evil fucks, but the government has been getting overly zealous with their definition of the crime.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Overly broad definition of sex offender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The age of consent varies by state, with most states, including Maine, setting it at age 16."

      "In Maine, a person is guilty of sexual abuse of a minor if he engages in a sexual act with someone, other than his spouse, who is either age 14 or 15 and the actor is at least five years older. The penalty for a violation is less than one-year imprisonment. If the actor is at least 10 years older than the victim, the penalty is enhanced to up to five years' imprisonment."

    2. Re:Overly broad definition of sex offender by rossz · · Score: 1

      Yes, most states set the age of consent at 16, but not all.

      I used that example because it actually happened to someone. The guy cut a deal with the district attorney. He would plead guilty and get a suspended sentence. After the fact he discovered he had to register as a sex offender. Unfortunately, I don't remember what state this happened in. It was a few years ago.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
  85. Re:Please by xjerky · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the clarification. I had no idea! :/

    Of course I was just talking about actual murderers. I see plenty of cases where the murder was premeditated and yet somehow the perp walks the streets before they die, while the victim never gets that opportunity.

    --
    A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
  86. North Carolina too by fbg111 · · Score: 1

    NC has had this for a while too:

    http://sbi.jus.state.nc.us/DOJHAHT/SOR/Default.htm

    Overall I consider it a good idea, as I am personally not very lenient when it comes to the rights of convicted felons.

    However, I was shocked to discover that a guy I knew during high school and worked with during high school summers was on the list. Even his picture. Later I discovered that he had been hooking up with a 17-year old girl in a mutually consenting relationship (some even said *she* pursued him) and he was I think 27, when her father found out, reported him, and pressed charges. Kind of a shitty deal for him, and made me start to wonder about current laws of consent. In a world where kids know all about sex from the Internet and Britney, and 40% of 16 year old girls are not virgins, is it just to charge an older guy for becoming involved with a significantly younger girl, even though she's no longer innocent and may have been just as much the instigator of the relationship as he was? The assumption of the law is that the older male is, by nature of experience, hormones, and ability to manipulate the young and naive, the instigator. But if that assumption is incorrect, should the law still apply?

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  87. Wow. Good for all the uncaught sex-offenders.. by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    Now they can easily locate a scape-goat in the area of their crime for the general public and the police.
    Imagine if the poor guy's only alibi is "I've watched the Superbowl last night".

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  88. Will this list include Priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are the most diabolical "skinners" of them all!

  89. bullshit by KalvinB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The registry protects kids and only prevents them from getting jobs that involve kids.

    And this is only done for sex crimes. Especially one's against children.

    And besides, companies already can find out if you've been convicted of a felony which a sex crime is.

    People need to get over the fact that some actions prevent you from being a "normal" member of society. When you abuse children in such a way you've just earned the distrust of society and it will rightfully take a very long time to earn that trust back. And there's no reason for society as a whole to trust you.

    If some people refuse to ever trust you again, tough. Find people that do and make damn sure you never break that trust again.

    Ben

    1. Re:bullshit by HarryCallahan · · Score: 0

      And besides, companies already can find out if you've been convicted of a felony which a sex crime is

      So why do they need a publicly accessible registry?

    2. Re:bullshit by Servo · · Score: 1

      People need to get over the fact that some actions prevent you from being a "normal" member of society.

      I think you miss the two biggest problems with publishing the list.

      1) There is a possibility of having incorrect information, such as a wrong name or address, making it appear an innocent person is that sex offender.

      2) It gives personal information out to the general public, who are likely to attack the person, or disrupt their life. Not that they shouldn't be watched, but when someone finishes their jail time, they should be allowed to rebuild their life into something productive.

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well it's too bad this information will be taken away.

      a few more beatings/killings doled out by vigilanties, and this great source of information is gone...poof.

      mr. bullshit...you have less to fear from those who are against this type of state sponsored invasion of privacy then "good folks" who just want to help out by dealing their personal brand of justice.

      you can thank your overzealous friends when we no longer can lookup on the net to see if a convicted SE lives near by...

    4. Re:bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The registry protects kids and only prevents them from getting jobs that involve kids.


      I don't know where to start on how wrong you are.

      You do realize that homosexual men have been put on the list for having sex with other adult men? College kids have been put on the list for public lewdness (mooning people, as listed in another post). Even 11 year olds who might just have been playing "doctor"

      People need to get over the fact that some actions prevent you from being a "normal" member of society.


      God forbid kids should ever play doctor in the United States.

    5. Re:bullshit by MisterMook · · Score: 1
      God forbid kids should ever play doctor in the United States.
      God forbid we allow anymore psychotic imbeciles into the legislatures too. Bread and circuses, that's what we're reduced to. Fuck.
    6. Re:bullshit by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      If some people refuse to ever trust you again, tough. Find people that do and make damn sure you never break that trust again.

      And what do you do when someone who doesn't trust you comes after you with a baseball bat?

  90. kinda sucks for him by Indy1 · · Score: 1

    While I dont think its cool to be banging a 17 year old when your 27, i dont think it should be a felony either. But in our prosecute at any cost purtanical society, its a bad risk to take. About 2 years ago i had the chance to nail a REALLY hot 16 year old, and i decided to not go through with it, even though California is a damn liberal state. All it takes is a pissed off parent and a ambitious prosecuter, and your just plain fucked.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  91. America by nnnneedles · · Score: 1

    The land where criminals stay criminals, and everybody helps them not become normal citizens again.

    --
    Will code a sig generator for food
  92. not only that by holzp · · Score: 1

    but all the kids will be able to surf it in school.

  93. This is great for horny kids by wytcld · · Score: 1

    Let's say you're a 14-year-old whose fantasy is an older lover. Hey, the state now provides a dating list! And let's say having found your older lover you'd like to really get an income happening. Back to the state-provided dating list, with your lover to watch your back. Now you want to sell videos of your dates to people in other states? Once again, state-provided lists to the rescue!

    The states posting these lists are facilitating perversion and crime against children.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    1. Re:This is great for horny kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What. The. Fuck?! Did you forget your medicines this morning?

  94. Witch Hunt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just remember when a paper here in the uk printed the details of sex offenders, and it was basically a witch hunt. Ah well, I guess I'll go get my snake-whackin stick :)

  95. Re:Liberal Hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will you volunteer to be the first innocent to take the beating? It's for the good of society!

  96. History repeats by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Im hoping that Americans arnt as dumb as certain British people but they might want to explain in a little foot-note that "pediatrician" is not the same as "pediophile", that should avoid the odd doctor getting beaten up.

    This really is a stupid idea thats going to cause allot of vigilante violence and not even to the offenders, it wont take more than a month before someone is mistaken.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  97. Better than jail by Avihson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This way they still have a life and can atone for their offenses.
    Better to have them registered like this than dying in jail, since child molesters have a very short life expectancy in the general prison population.

    There is honor among thieves to a point, a social pecking order with the sex offenders on the bottom of the list; and pedophiles simply not tolerated.

    No matter what you think of Michael Jackson, that is one reason they granted him bail. It would not be politically correct to have him killed before he had a chance to have a fair trial.

    1. Re:Better than jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a social pecking order

      note the pun

  98. makes no sense by SQLz · · Score: 1

    If you think someone is so dangerous you need to publish this type of information, why are they on the streets in the first place? Seems like crewl and unusual punishment after they have already paid theirt debt to society in jail. If they are a danger,keep them in jail for life or some other place.

    1. Re:makes no sense by MrNybbles · · Score: 1

      The law just doesn't work that way. Prisons cost money and in the US we just don't have enough room in the current prisons to keep people for the entire length the sentence. So in these cases they did not pay "theirt debt to society in jail[sic]."

      Arizona actually does some prisons the right way. Prisoners live in tents in fenced in areas in the middle of the hot desert and the food given to them costs less than the food given to the guard dogs.

      As for "crewl[sic] and ususual punishment", how is a public notice that someone is a bad person cruel? The person is not harmed and other people have the right to discriminate against such a person.
      How is it unusual? It is sometimes announced when a person has been accused of a crime so why not announce when they are let back on the streets?

      If the people really are still a danger to the public then executing those people would probably be the best thing to do. This would cut down on the cost of building new prisons and we could get rid of the endless appeals but no, criminals have rights too.

      And for many people in jail the crime they are most guilty of is not being able to afford a good lawyer(lier?). In an imperfect world sometimes an imperfect solution is the best way to go. Compromise.

      --
      Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
  99. maine's law won't do anything useful by turniponion · · Score: 1

    I used to work in corrections, both youth and adult. Not all sex offenders are the same. Rapists of strangers have highests re-offence rate. Incest offenders on girls the lowest. Of "child-oriented offenders", those who molest boys are the highest re-offence risks. Treatment actually works to prevent re-offence, but you have to take into account "static factors" within the offender - e.g., offence pattern and method, and "dynamic factors" of situation, e.g. if the incest offender starts dating a single woman with kids. If we monitor and supervise offenders properly, we can detect the changes in dynamic factors and intervene before there is a re-offence. Putting info about sex offenders into the public view is NOT monitoring and supervising! Countries whose prisons provide treatment to sex offenders after a proper needs assessment (psychological, sexual "preferences", statistical, offence history) and make proper use of "long term offender" types of laws, provide the supervision that prevents re-offense and is cost effective. There is a large data base about these issues. Posting offender info or making it public is just sexy vote-getting opportunism: who'd be stupid enough to disagree with such an idea and get branded as a "pervert lover".

    --
    -Turnip Onion --- Neither micro nor $oft. Linux is a fine tool.
    1. Re:maine's law won't do anything useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had some mod points you would get some

  100. Remember by El · · Score: 1

    If you are one day past your 18th birthday, and you have consensual sex with your girlfriend 1 day before her 18th birthday, you are considered a sex offender in most states... even if you later marry the woman. Publishing of vital data on the web should be reserved for those offenders that are actually at risk of re-offending, and even then disclosure should be limited to that person's neighbors. That being said, having a 3-year old daughter, if I find out there is a child molester living in my neighborhood, you can bet I will use all (legal) means available to encourage them to move elsewhere...

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The age of Consent in Minnesota is 16. If you are 19 or older and have sex with someone under the age of 16, you are guilty of Statutory Rape.

      There must be a minimum age difference of three years before sex constitutes a criminal act."

  101. The Digital Scarlet Letter by Machina70 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well it's nice we've decided to ignore the whole "paid their debt to society" nonsense and are branding these people for life.

    But since it's a very social repellent crime it's ok.

    1. Re:The Digital Scarlet Letter by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      You're a fucking idiot... these are already public files you moron. This just makes them easier to find.

  102. On a positive note. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they (the self esteem group) stopped associating sex offences with murder. Considering it's a compulsive act associating it with murder was one of the stupidest, the acts undertaken against the population by popular media. The act is repulsive but with a large group of people shit happens, even if it shouldn't. In how people deal with these kinds of behaviours plays the largest influence and can effect.

    If the target was women the same result would have been achieved. Regardless of what women's groups like to proclaim, women still make up the largest population of molesters and represent the smallest amount of convictions (some think 2/1 other estimates place the number closer to 5/1). Considering the likelyhood of victims becoming offenders the media blitz was to cater commercially to mistaken ego's. The powerful womens' lobby often seems to be used to set unfortuate precident over any meaning contribution to society.

    --Tool--

    1. Re:On a positive note. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a cynic, tainted and hardened from watching people do the stupidest things imaginable. I don't help what doesn't naturally represent my interests and silence was bought the expense of my future. The punishment of speaking against popular myth is simply too high.

      I'll simply say, what they are doing is wrong and they severly underestimate what a large population (known or unknown) is capable of accepting or how incredibly stupid a large group of people can really be.

  103. Re:Nothing new here Michigan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has OTIS Offender Tracking Info System.

    It will list everybody, once it's finished, going back to the fifties. But it's pretty complete right now, even has my next door neighbor, the auto dealership owner who thought it would be smart to make extra charges on the credit card numbers he already had.

  104. alternate proposal by danharan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In Canada, there is something called "Circles of Support and Accountability" (COSA) .

    I have a few friends that have worked with this project, and basically a sex offender is with someone from the community pretty much 24/7; they are also re-integrated (job, volunteer activity), so they are less likely to re-offend.

    This is a restorative rather than retributive approach, and it works a lot better.

    Keeping dangerous offenders who refuse to go through therapy in prison, usefully re-integrating ex-offenders in the community with appropriate support: that is a solution that works, doesn't cost a lot, avoids lynch mobs and privacy issues.

    PS: As for those who ask why sex offenders should be treated differently than murderers, it's really simple: murderers are the least likely to re-offend.

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    1. Re:alternate proposal by Excen · · Score: 1

      In Canada,

      Uh, this discussion is on AMERICAN laws, and as you damn well better know, there is no logic or thinking present in our legal system.

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
  105. witch hunt? by p2sam · · Score: 1

    Either these people presents a threat to society, in which care they should still be in prison, or they have been rehab'ed and should be left alone.

    Speaking as a non-parent of course.

  106. Sex Offender Migration by stephanruby · · Score: 1
    Assuming their parol allows it, this will mean that those sex offenders will move to States and Counties that have no such registry. I think that's the intended effect here.

    Cops in the suburbia of Northern California are already arresting homeless people and giving them one-way bus tickets to San Francisco and Berkeley. This scheme is just more of the same.

  107. Why destroy two lives? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

    That's the worst argument I've every heard, and I hear it again and again. If your argument is that he destroyed a life, so his life should be destroyed, why not just kill him and be done with it? Don't beat around the bush and say "why is he walking the streets"? Why is this guy still alive at all? In fifty years, the girl will *still* be dead, and if you keep him in jail 'til then, all that's accomplished is a greater tax burden.

    The justice system is not, and should not be about revenge. It should be about ensuring that crimes do not happen again, and act as a deterrent for other criminals. Here this guy has paid the price the court ordered paid for his crime. He should be able to get on with his life. Otherwise, just kill him now.

    1. Re:Why destroy two lives? by xjerky · · Score: 1


      Perhaps not revenge, but the justice system should be about, well, justice. Letting this man walk free while the 12-year-old girl remains dead is not justice to me. Can the girl just "get on with her life"? No. So then why should he?

      Thanks for pointing out why I can never become a Democrat. Sure Republicans piss me off sometimes as well, but I can never back up anyone who would defend a cold-blooded murderer of an innocent child.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    2. Re:Why destroy two lives? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I am not from the USA, and to me your opinion seems very odd, therefore I want to ask you four questions:

      1) If you do not want to let him get out, what do you want, a life in prison or a death penalty?

      2) If you mean a life in prison, are you willing to consider the financial and social consequences, as at this moment your country already has the highest number of people in jail and the most severe penalties of any western nation.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494726.stm
      Prison populations (per 100,000)
      EU average is 88
      England and Wales top with 128
      Finland is lowest at 52
      USA has world high of 702
      You might end up putting a very significant portion of your population in jail.

      3) If you mean the death penalty, what number of errors and innocently convicted are you willing to accept?

      4) What result do you want to achieve with your justice system? What do you call justice? I could have murderer someone after my car was stolen, do you think putting the death penalty, or life on every crime would help? Burglary, speeding? It does not prove anything, but the USA has the highest number of convicts, the severest penalties (only one with death penalty) and the highest crime rates in the western world.
      (for example murder rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap)

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    3. Re:Why destroy two lives? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing out why I can never become a Democrat. Sure Republicans piss me off sometimes as well, but I can never back up anyone who would defend a cold-blooded murderer of an innocent child.

      As with free speech, the real test of democracy is whether you can defend the rights of those you hate as much as those you love. You sound like those people that hear of prison rapes and say "good, they deserved it". If they really deserve it, then get on the phone to your congressman and try to get a law passed that makes prison rape mandatory for certain crimes. Just because someone did something horrible doesn't mean they waive their rights - and if it does, then that fact should be enshrined in law, not doled out on a whim.

      The question here is what is the goal of laws? I completely disagree with the idea of using the justice system for revenge. Ideally, the system should have the maximum reform rate and the maximum deterrent effect. These are the results that will most benefit society. The revenge aspect of punishment benefits only the families of the victims. I'm not saying they don't deserve their satisfaction, but it is wrong to sacrifice the good of society for vengeance for the victims.

      I don't want to pass judgement on the case of the rapist you originally mentioned. I don't know any of the facts. He could still be a cold-blooded killer, or he could be completely reformed. I just want to say that the "she can't live any more, so neither can he" argument doesn't hold water for me. That's basically arguing for an eye-for-an-eye justice system.

    4. Re:Why destroy two lives? by xjerky · · Score: 1


      >1) If you do not want to let him get out, what do you want, a life in prison or a death penalty?

      Either one is fine with me, really.

      >2) If you mean a life in prison, are you willing >to consider the financial and social >consequences, as at this moment your country >already has the highest number of people in jail >and the most severe penalties of any western >nation.
      >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494726.s tm
      >Prison populations (per 100,000)
      >EU average is 88
      >England and Wales top with 128
      >Finland is lowest at 52
      >USA has world high of 702
      >You might end up putting a very significant >portion of your population in jail.

      Well, I'm ambivalent towards the drug war, so I'm not against letting some non-violent drug users to make room for more murderers. And if there's still not enough room, then more prisons can always be built. Overcrowding prisons is no excuse for letting murderers run free.

      >3) If you mean the death penalty, what number of >errors and innocently convicted are you willing >to accept?

      Well, in this report, the guy never denied that he murdered the girl, so the point is moot here.

      >4) What result do you want to achieve with your >justice system? What do you call justice? I could >have murderer someone after my car was stolen, do >you think putting the death penalty, or life on >every crime would help? Burglary, speeding? It >does not prove anything, but the USA has the >highest number of convicts, the severest >penalties (only one with death penalty) and the >highest crime rates in the western world.

      And is that somehow an excuse to reward a murderer with freedom, something a corpse can never have? Intent to harm the individual (who did nothing to harm you) is the paramount barometer, IMO. Nothing else needs to be "proven". If you end the life of an innocent person, you should never be able to enjoy the same freedoms as you or me. Period.

      I'm really amazed that there are people here more concerned with the rights of murderers than victims.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    5. Re:Why destroy two lives? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      I'm really amazed that there are people here more concerned with the rights of murderers than victims.

      It's easy to be more concerned with the living than the dead. There's nothing we can do for the latter, but if the system can help the former, society as a whole benefits.

    6. Re:Why destroy two lives? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I see a justice system as serving several functions:
      1) As a deterant. When there is a penalty hopefully a lot of people will not commit the crime.
      2) As punishment. This is meant to be severe enough that we prevent people from repeating.
      3) Revenge. People want to have something nasty done to people who wronged them.
      4) To prevent an offender from repeating. If somebody is locked up, then they can not commit many crimes.

      I think only 3 and 4 give reason to put someone away for life. For 1 and 2 there is a certain cost/benefit point where having more severe penalties has almost no effect.
      I am not willing to consider 3 as a sole reason to put someone away for life. I think people deserve a second chance, maybe after 20 years, but people can change.
      If you take into account reason 4 then there are cases where you need to keep somebody locked up for life, because he/she is a danger.

      If you think reason 3 alone should be enough to put someone away for life, we disagree and I understand your point of view, only I do not share it. If you have another reason, please make it clear to me.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    7. Re:Why destroy two lives? by xjerky · · Score: 1

      I don't see life in prison as revenge. Though I do see a bit of "eye for an eye" in it, though not exactly literally. To me, life is pretty sacred (though while I am not a fan of abortion I am pro-choice, go figure), since I do not believe in heaven. I feel that our time on this earth is very limited in the big picture and that there is no coming back. So for me cutting that time shorter for an innocent life is the worst crime you could possibly commit. So I'm beyond wanting rehabilitation for someone who takes an innocent person's life. I don't care if the person now regrets what he/she did or not, that does not bring the victim back to life. I guess I'm a bit of an objectivist in that way ("A is A, murder is murder").

      But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, I appreciate your keeping this intelligent and completely flame-free.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
  108. Public Records, Old News by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We have done that exact thing for some time. Of course the ACLU bitched, and got struck down.

    Its all public records anyway, so they had no substance to fight with. Only the 'medium changed', not the content or availablity.

    IMHO its a good idea anyway. You can never 'cure' sex offenders..

    Personally i feel that before they move in to a town, they should be forced to go door to door and tell their new neighbors who they are, and what they did time for.

    Unfair? Perhaps, but they did the crime.. so they can f-ing lump it.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Public Records, Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you get a job or something? I mean, I know you can't read or write, but isn't the car wash hiring?

  109. arizona does this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.azsexoffender.org/

  110. Re:Please by El · · Score: 1

    True sexual predators are much more likely to reoffend than murderers.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  111. Bullshit by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    Do this for all crimes, no matter how small. That'll teach 'em.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  112. Re:Liberal Hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let those without sin cast the first stone.

  113. A never-ending punishment by torian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally, I feel that when you have paid your debt to society you should be no longer have to keep paying for the rest of your life with this public humiliation.

    On a (somewhat) related note, a paedophile was found murdered in Teeside in the UK yesterday. Once you've been labeled a paedophile, there is no hope for you - your life is over.

    Public attitudes in the UK view paedophiles as inhuman and throughly evil. There never seems to be anything about what psychological help these people receive afterwards.

    1. Re:A never-ending punishment by general_re · · Score: 1
      Personally, I feel that when you have paid your debt to society you should be no longer have to keep paying for the rest of your life with this public humiliation.

      Personally, I feel that society decides how much of a debt is owed, not you, and society has decided that these sorts of things are part and parcel thereof.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  114. Vigilante Charter by Denyer · · Score: 1

    Those responsible should be charged as accessories to murder... and it'll happen, given the number of lynch-happy idiots out there...

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  115. Murderers? by MisterMook · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah, getting dead does awful things to people too. But since those crimes don't involve penises those guys get out in 10 years and can mow your lawn without drawing a lynch mob.

    What the sex registries are saying is that crimes involving your genitals are intrinsically worse than murder except in those cases where murder draws the death penalty, since even a murderer that is released after serving multiple life sentences doesn't have to inform his neighbors. Worse, there is a blind equality to sex offense registries that are simply lists. The offender who was eighteen and had the fourteen year old girlfriend whose parents called him on the statutory rape charges (or sexual assault on a minor, depending on what state you live in) is listed right there with the serial rapist who was screwing all the first graders on their bus for five years.

    I'd be fine with the thought that they'd just take everyone found guilty of sex offenses and shoot them in the back of the prison. They won't though, because they've an inkling that errors can be made in any sort of criminal case. Errors in most criminal cases naturally fix themselves after time, the criminals get out of jail and can live more or less normal lives. Removing the justice system from the picture and encouraging vigilante activism like the sex offender registries do is mind-boggling though, not only is our justice system set up so that guilt must be proven and not innocence it also assumes a sort of natural state of innocence returns to EVERY OTHER SORT OF CRIMINAL. This is obviously not the case, otherwise we wouldn't need three strikes laws and similar mechanisms to defeat repeat criminals. Why don't we have 'two strike" registries? Murderer registries? Heroin addict registries?

    We might, but people don't find those crimes as sensationalized in their minds as rape. I imagine some people might rather have Ted Bundy and Charlie Manson over for dinner than a rapist, that doesn't track in the human cost scenario to me but I understand it would happen. I've had to deal with enough rape victims now though that I'm pretty sure that however fucked up the rape made them I'd still rather not have traded the rape for a corpse. You don't always, but can, get over rape. That means that there's something seriously fucked up with having sex offense registries and not murderer registries. But if we allowed TWO registries, then in ten years we'd have twelve registries and people who got caught a decade ago smoking a joint would be burned alive by their neighbors for being filthy drug dealers.

    Laws and government follow an ethical gravity, given a chance to they tend to want to flow into a natural state of totalitariansim because of the perfect order. That's why people like me are always bitching about the slippery slope. If you want sex offenders ass-raped for punishment, then make sure that it's part of the sentence. I'd certainly rather have a precise extreme punishment dealt by the state (since thanks to the death penalty, extreme punishment really should include an awful lot) than trust the fringe elements of the public to make uninformed illegal punishments on people thanks to some sort of tacit governmental sanction.

    1. Re:Murderers? by Yavi · · Score: 3, Funny

      They have to make the registry from the list of sex offenders instead of for other crimes. Imagine if there was a convienent government sponsored website to find a local drug dealer in your neighborhood.

    2. Re:Murderers? by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Imagine if there was a convienent government sponsored website to find a local drug dealer in your neighborhood.

      Every day would be like Christmas?

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    3. Re:Murderers? by baileytal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree generally with your assessment of the dubious benefits of releasing information to a public ill-equipped to assess it. However, I think there's an important difference between homocide and sexual assault that makes releasing that infromation less valuable in one instance than the other. Basically, the difference between those two crimes is that homocide is often not premeditated. Sexual assualt almost always is.

      So, if you group the offenders, you are going to find many more homocides who did so in the course of some other criminal act, and did not actually set out to kill anyone. They just needed the implicit threat of violence to achieve some other goal, and the circumstances caused them to unleash that threat. Many, many people who kill other people do so negligently or even accidentally. The exception is obviously the pathological serial type killer, but the vast majority of people convicted of homocide are not of that cohort.

      OTOH, it's pretty unusual to find someone who inadvertantly or negigently commits sexual assault -- especially against minors. You might argue (although the law will generally not support you) that your situation with an adult was aggravated by mixed messages or altered perceptions brought on by mental illness, drugs or alcohol, but if you want to sexually assault a child, you have to set out specifically to do just that.

      My point is that a list of convicted killers is not going to provide you with the same sort of implicit motivations as a list of convicted pedophiles. Or a list of convicted sexual assaulters, for that matter. So, the usefulness of a public registry is related to the nature of the criminal acts themselves.

      --
      Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
    4. Re:Murderers? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      You're right, and the weight of the crime is not weighed properly. I would say that heinous human crimes such as murder and rape belong on a list, where as property and monetary crimes don't. That's my judgement, and that's just an opinion and obviously up for debate, but there's just a line of severity there of tangible vs intangible crimes that once crossed, sort of makes society as a whole cringe. I can replace a TV or a stereo, I can't replace my (for the sake of this argument, let's say I have a daughter) daughter's innocence or life.

      It's just about how the punishment is doled out, you could say that once you commit the crime, that's part of the time, jail + fines + your name branded on a permanent place until you die. That you'll never be free of it, because that's how society wants it. That's all it's about anyhow, what society wants. It doesn't matter if it makes sense (I argue that society is stupid, but that's another discussion all together), it just matters if it makes society as a whole happier. It's not like there's an outside force making these punishements up.

      Also, a good point was brought up by a friend of mine. Children cannot defend themselves. Children should have more of a right to a crime-less environment than adults. Afterall, in 40 years, whose gonna be your doctor?

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    5. Re:Murderers? by swfranklin · · Score: 1

      The recidivism rate of sexual offenders is incredibly high. Registries are necessary because of that, not because sex crimes are "worse" than murder.

    6. Re:Murderers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if we allowed TWO registries, then in ten years we'd have twelve registries and people who got caught a decade ago smoking a joint would be burned alive by their neighbors for being filthy drug dealers.

      Actually, I don't think the neighbors of the people on the drug offense registry would burn them alive. They'd just be constantly knocking on the door: "Hey man, could you hook me up with an eighth?"

    7. Re:Murderers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Basically, the difference between those two crimes is that homocide is often not premeditated. Sexual assualt almost always is.

      Not only that, but sexual assault is almost always a repeat offense. All rapists are serial rapists, unless they're put away after the first time.

    8. Re:Murderers? by dandelion_wine · · Score: 1

      The problem with your analysis is twofold:

      i) Any good social scientist will tell you that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, especially when it comes to serious acts, because the line has already been crossed. That being said...

      ii) where in all of this is the sense that we believe in rehabilitation? If 100 paroles go straight for every one that doesn't, which do you think we'll hear about? I have to agree with the parent (2 removed): if we don't believe in rehab, then life sentences all around. If we do, then what kind of mindless thuggery are we perpetrating, and how can ex-cons go straight if they're constant public targets?

      It's primary and secondary deviance. Brand a criminal and you'll have a criminal for life.

    9. Re:Murderers? by baileytal · · Score: 1
      I didn't mean to imply that a public registry is necessarily a good predictor of future behaviour, or that it doesn't have harmful effects on the persons listed there. My point was that the simple listing of criminal criminal convictions provides insufficient information to the public. Sadly, the public is probably not prepared to view the information in context in many cases. I was responding to the other poster's suggestion that there was no good reason to single out pedophiles when killers don't get listed. Because of the nature of the different crimes as they are constructed technically within the criminal law, simply listing convictions is implying that both groups behave pathologically. This is not necessarily true.

      Another example that comes to mind would be a listing of everyone who is conviceted of auto theft, and a parallel listing of everyone convicted of vehicular homicide. One pretty much always requires intent, whereas the other does not always require it. One implies a different level of criminality than the other -- but I fear the public would not recognize such "technicalities."

      People don't get convicted of criminal acts simply because they are bad people. How many soccer moms are going to know how to step beyond their visceral fears and realize this -- especially since society makes no efforts to encourage them to?

      As for rehabilitation ...well, all I can say is I don't think we really do believe in it.
      --
      Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
    10. Re:Murderers? by MisterMook · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How many serial indecent exposure cases do you know about though? Those are sex offenders too. That date you had with the sixteen year old girl when you were eighteen could mean a lifetime of trouble in some states, when you could probably have married them legally without a hiccup. The problem isn't completely in the invasiveness of the registries, it's in the fact that they're listed uneven offenses on even grounds.

      On the other hand I doubt that your "all rapists are serial rapists' statement is based on any sort of real study. The simple fact is that people are varied enough and justice blind enough that absolutes just don't figure into the statistics. You can't even make the blanket statement that "all convicted criminals commit crimes" thanks to some humdingers of prosecutorial injustice over the years. I guess it's a good thing you posted AC.

    11. Re:Murderers? by dandelion_wine · · Score: 1

      The law differentiates between offences according to seriousness of the act and moral blame of the offender. Nowhere does it attempt an assessment of pathology. There's a good reason for that -- lawyers and judges are not trained in psychology, in which they generally require easy-to-digest, discrete chunks like "capable of understanding the nature and quality of his/her acts". In that field, they are laypersons, just as the majority of the public are, and I doubt many mental health professionals would back the idea that "one murder does not a murderer make." Your view of the inherent pathology of sexual offenders versus other criminal types fits the public perception, but we live in a society that glamorizes theft, robbery, even murder. Your gut reaction to the sexual offender means nothing.

      Your point about separating offences according to stigma and blameworthiness has some merit, but rather than questioning whether the public is capable and willing to make such distinctions, shouldn't we be questioning whether it is their place to do so at all?

      It's like those people who are saying "sometimes they find the wrong person" -- you are saying "sometimes they lump the bad in with the really, really bad". You want to lobby for tougher laws? Fine. You want to show up at parole hearings and lobby the board (often very influential)? Fine. But every man and woman who ever snagged a chocolate bar from the corner store, who smoked a joint, who cheated on their taxes, better be morally committed to the idea of their wrongs being publicly aired and left up to others to decide their punishment, if they think that taking a baseball bat to someone who may have committed a crime and then served time is a good idea. They can only be out to either i) kill the person, in which case they are no better if not worse, or ii) drive them out of their backyard and into someone else's. Not exactly the moral high road.

    12. Re:Murderers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange...

      All the information I can find says the opposite. According to

      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm

      The department of justice study of Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994

      "Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

      Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide."

      Even in the longer term studies I have found, the recidivism rarely goes above 60% and then they use long qualifiers such as "those with previous sexual offences, who selected boy victims outside the family and who were never married."

    13. Re:Murderers? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Errors in most criminal cases naturally fix themselves after time, the criminals get out of jail and can live more or less normal lives.

      Sorry, I have to say you can't possibly know that. There is no way to know how many innocent people are in prison. We just know that they are there.

      Once you are accused, your money dries up, and then you are a plaything of the prosecutors. Appeals cost money, defense costs money. You're up against men with no spending limit, and you are broke.

      You lose.

    14. Re:Murderers? by baileytal · · Score: 1
      The law is merely a system of dispute resolution -- and as such is dedicated to providing a satisfactory resolution to the persons wronged. In the western conception of criminal law, the persons wronged are the "community". In our modern experience, this means the state. It's not unlike the system of standards set up by the IOS -- somewhat abstracted, and meant for all intents and purposes to provide a threshold of behaviour. Not an ideal, but a minimum -- based on gut reaction.

      Systems such as the US's ill-advised "three strikes" law, and Canada's more contextual Dangerous Offender law are an attempt by legislators to address their admitted bafflement concerning issues of pathological behaviour. Pathology is not the point. Punishment and isolation are the point. Once a person emerges from prison, they are (aside from perhaps a loss of voting privileges) no different from Ghandi in the "eyes of the law". Until they act again. An offender registry is an attempt by the public to address the reality of pathology in the face of the formal equality granted to everyone -- even those for whom criminal activity is necessary to their identity, if not compulsive.

      The law in "post-enlightenment" Western thought (I'm not competent to comment on the law in Eastern thought) is an attempt to codify social boundaries between what are, philospohically, individual entities frozen in time -- mostly divorced from their historical and social context. Rational actors. If there is to be any value in the concept of formal equality and universality, it must be applied to those even with an obvious penchant for harming others to achieve their own ends. A registry, as simple-minded as it may be, addresses the need of people to deal with the disconnect between the political requirements of society and the pragmatic need to address the possible inherent risks of the people in their midst.

      Clearly there is room for meaningful change, but it's simply not possible in the social context I've described. In our world, everyone is simply who they are right now -- not who they may have been or who they might become.

      --
      Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
    15. Re:Murderers? by lee7guy · · Score: 1

      Many, many people who kill other people do so negligently or even accidentally.

      Something like:

      Oops!...I killed her again
      I played with her heart, blew out her brains
      Oh baby, baby...

      ?

      I am not that innocent! ;)

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    16. Re:Murderers? by MisterMook · · Score: 1

      Let's just say that other criminals are out of prison and able to live normal lives without the right to vote, job restrictions, money, and scarlet letters on their chest daring the neighborhood lynch mobs to come throw molotov cocktails through their windows at night. Going to prison comes with enough bad effects that encouraging the community to freak out and commit crimes against the criminals once they've gotten out is just a bit much. Sex offenses are offensive, but not in such a blanket manner as the registries suggest and seem to serve no real purpose except to stroke the community into a froth anyways.

    17. Re:Murderers? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Just wait... I think it will happen that ALL those "arrested" (not just convicted) will soon (10-20 years) have all that info. out there in a searchable format from a federal website.
      I could see full criminal histories for everyone arrested and/or convicted for "any" offenses including offending police officers. It will be abused. I can see month long classes for every police officer and data entry clerk that works with NCIC data. I can also see abuses happening fairly easily. Could you see "domestic volience" addresses pop up? I can. I also know that dom. vol. can be just about any type of disagreement between family members with police involvment.

      Could you see people being sent to homes from not just the government, but also chruch groups and oh places of employment. How about DWI information? If every offense of that type was "out there" for "the public" to hate?

    18. Re:Murderers? by phorm · · Score: 1

      What the sex registries are saying is that crimes involving your genitals are intrinsically worse than murder

      I'd say in many cases the focus is more on likelyhood to re-offend. With the exception of gang members, serial killers, etc, many murderers are those who have committed the crime due to a particular stimulous, or against a particular individual.

      Whilst the offender might reoffend, (s)he's less likely to go out and butcher the neighbours children than your recently-released pedophile is to abuse them.

      However, as per the reasons cited before (inaccuracies, wrongly accused, an young man with a young girl getting railroaded for life) I think the registry is a bad idea, but I'd definately support it for repeat offenders... increases the accuracy a whole lot, and they're definately somebody you want to protect your family against.

    19. Re:Murderers? by MisterMook · · Score: 1

      If they're someone you want to protect your family against by the simple definition of their crime though, why are we bothering to release these people back into society? Manson gets parole hearings too, what makes the serial rapist more likely to get out enough that we have to create a new subset of vigilantism as punishment for them?

    20. Re:Murderers? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Whilst the offender might reoffend, (s)he's less likely to go out and butcher the neighbours children than your recently-released pedophile is to abuse them.

      Where do you get this idea that sex offenders are likely to abuse random strangers, any more than a murderer is to murder random strangers? I've heard plenty of times that sex offenders are more likely than not to be known to the victim (eg, a quick google finds this and this. In fact, this quotes only 50 out of 100,000 sex offenders are "predatory paedophiles").

      So on what basis do we believe that sex offenders are more likely to go after random strangers, compared with murderers? If we really want a list on this basis, perhaps it should only be those who commit crimes (whether it's rape or murder, or whatever else) against random strangers?

  116. paranoid editors by vistic · · Score: 1
    from the wait-til-it's-for-lesser-offenses dept.


    I doubt it.
  117. Re:Please by Some+Woman · · Score: 1

    You make some good points, however...

    We don't publish registries of convicted rapists

    Yes we do. At least in Minnesota, the sex offender registry is for all sex offenders who have been designated as high risk recidivists, regardless of their victim's age.

    --
    My dingo ate your honor student.
  118. muderer registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather have a registry of murders or gang members so I can know if my neighborhood is filled with violent assholes.

    I don't give a shit if some 40 years old retard molested his nephew 8 years ago, but if the dude next door has been convicted of a gang related shooting ya I'd move away...

  119. hate to burst your bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...but you have no clue about the effectiveness of castration. Castration, either chemical or surgical, reduces testosterone. This will lower the sex drive. Note I did not say abolish the sex drive. For some people, sex will not be a factor in their lives anymore. For others, it will have little or no effect. Most people will fall somewhere in the middle. Whatever the effect, it can be reversed easily via testosterone patches. So much for permanency.

    Removing the penis of an offender will do nothing if the sex drive remains. Sexual gratification can be had via the prostate, for example. It also ignores the fact that most sex offenses are not penetrative. Better cut off the fingers of offenders than their penises.

    The only psychological peculiarities in the case of sex offenses is the green light you give yourself to make holy pronouncements about what body parts to cut off people you don't like. Maybe you, and people like you, should shut up and read a book so you know something about the topic you are speaking on.

    _KhlER3L

    1. Re:hate to burst your bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually doesn't work, another deviant outlet tends to develop. Sometimes worse than the original.

  120. What *I* want... by jcr · · Score: 1

    Is a registry of spammers...

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  121. Mooning is a sex offense (seriously) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Keep in mind that some pretty low-level crimes count as sex offenses, it is NOT just molestation.

    For example, until the recent SCOTUS ruling anyone having gay sex in Texas, or hetero oral or anal sex in many states, was a sex offender.

    Prostitutes and johns are all sex offenders. So is anyone on any pornography related charge (sell Hustler at the Kwik-E-Mart in a conservative town, go on the registry). Go too far with a lap dance, sex offender. Put on a production of "Hair" in the wrong town, sex offender.

    So, apparently, is anyone who has mooned:

    From http://www.appa-net.org/revisitingmegan.pdf

    In another example from Michigan, an 18 year old male, who engaged in the "senior prank" of "mooning" his school principal was convicted of indecent exposure, had to register with the state for 25 years, and and has his name and address publicly exposed

    1. Re:Mooning is a sex offense (seriously) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya seriously.

      Take a piss in an alley way and get busted and wham sex offender for indecent exposure.

      Its ridiculous.

  122. Will Bill Clinton be on the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's molested dozens!!!!

  123. The Ideal Solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    simply amend the constitution to allow fast tracking of pederasts. for example, should a child point out a molester, that molester could be immediately tattooed and placed on the internet--and perhaps have large signs posted on their home and vehicles.

    additionally, since most molesters were in fact molested as children, it might be a good idea to monitor the children until the age of 18--before 18, they are a victim, 18 and up they become a "potential molester" and are subject to the same treatment.

    in fact, castration does not work as the molester still has other parts of his body that could (potentially) be inserted into the rectum of a small child. as such, all appendages should be removed...penis, arms, legs..and a surgical shaving be done to their faces to remove their nose (so they can't harm the children with that, either).

    try to get a job with a bright red 'S' on your forehead, no arms, no legs, no penis, no nose. that should be identification enough. good luck! better to just roll your ass into oncoming traffic, sicko!

    of course, illegal aliens would be exempt as they are not citizens of the united states. in the case of an illegal alien molesting children, they will be given free meals until they can be safely transported to the border, then tossed over until such time that they reenter and molest again.

  124. Read up on the subject. by khasim · · Score: 1

    The problem is NOT the sex offenders.

    The problem is that the sex offenders give the WRONG ADDRESS
    -or-
    they give the right address and then move and their records are NOT updated.

    So vigilantes go to that address and beat on whomever lives there.

    If they want to publish the addresses in a PUBLICLY accessable medium, then they had better be putting in the man-hours to make sure that EVERY ADDRESS IS CORRECT.

    I won't even go into the fact that the court system is NOT flawless and INNOCENT people are convicted of crimes.

    This seems like nothing more than an attempt to get vigilantes to hand out the "justice" that the court system didn't.

    On the other hand, if your address is published, incorrectly, and someone beats you up, I'd be looking for lawyers to get me a few $$$ million from the state.

  125. No Opportunity for Self-Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I understand it, after you're convicted of a felony you no longer have the right to legally own a firearm.

    Mighty convenient for the guy who's done his time, gotten out, and is about to be lynched. He can defend himself and survive only to end up back in pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

    As a society, make the decision, either let him out as having paid his debt to society, or never let him out.

    Don't half-ass it with a wink and a nod on the chance he 'might' be subject to vigilantism courtesy of your public database.

    I have no sympathy for those rightly convicted of heinous sex crimes. But with this online list, we might as well just break out the hoods and crosses and dispense with the illusory air of morality.

  126. Dead pedophile may not have been molester by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the BBC article:

    Hartley was jailed for 12 months in 2001 for making indecent images of a girl under the age of 14 and gross indecency.

    People who are caught downloading child pornography are charged with 'making' it, I guess because in the mind of the Court, making a copy of a digital image is the same as making a copy of a magazine, or photograph.

    It is possible then, that this old man was murdered to downloading images of child pornography, or maybe even just child erotica. I know that at least one man was put on the UK sex offender registry for having a Jock Sturges photo book.

    If, on the other hand, he was convicted of actually taking photos of a young girl, one wonders what the photographs were. Where they indecent enough to warrent a death sentence?

    So much for the cock-sure statements of the morally superior who think that sex offender registries are the natural abodes of child killers and rapists -- this man was neither.

    _KhlER3L

    1. Re:Dead pedophile may not have been molester by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      I understand 'making images' to be 'taking photos', and 'gross indecency' to be what this whole story is about.

      At a guess, your interpretation is based on the differences between US and UK English.

      Around 3-4 years ago, someone got into trouble in England or Germany (sorry, can't remember which) for having taken some nude photos of their kids. The people who developed the films informed the police. There was absolutely no question of the parents having abused their kids and also no question of them having wanted to publicise those photos in any way.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  127. Oral sex was also illegal. by khasim · · Score: 1

    http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/federal.ht m

    Don't forget pandering and prostitution and so forth.

  128. A 4th option. by khasim · · Score: 1

    There are people who take up crime because the rewards, to them, out weigh the risks.

    Take the Enron execs for example.

    Or, if that is too difficult, take a drug dealer. Lots of money, respect and women.

  129. Mod NineNine DOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He runs a porn site with pics of teen / petite / cheerleader pics. He thrives on this kind of perversion.

    1. Re:Mod NineNine DOWN!!! by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Oh my GOD! He runs a site with eighteen to nineteen year old women, women with slim bodies, and women dressed up as cheerleaders! He must be locked away immediately!

      I mean, what kind of SICKO would get turned on by good looking women around 20! It is simply unheard of!

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:Mod NineNine DOWN!!! by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

      He provides a valuable service to humanity. Especially nerd humanity. We have no game, remember? Anyway, what have you done for anyone lately?

  130. Double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Letting this man walk free while the 12-year-old girl remains dead is not justice to me

    So if we could raise the dead would the crime be less of an offense?

    Is killing an adult less of a crime than killing a child? Please, if you are going to call for the ultimate punishment for murder let us be uniform in its application. All lives are of equal worth, no child is worth more than than anyone else, "innocent" or not.

    1. Re:Double standard by xjerky · · Score: 1

      I agree. That's why I think that if the girl had been 72 years old, that should not change his sentence.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
  131. Wouldn't you want to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple years ago, when my kids were 6 and 8, a young guy moved from Colorado into the rental home next door. He was friendly with us and the kids, and he came over uninvited a few times when we were having bonfires in the backyard.

    Turns out he was a predator. It seems that everyone else in the neighborhood knew it (from the web) but us. When I asked him if this was true, he got all huffy and split. The next weekend he moved out.

  132. A search for "Dick" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kind of makes you wonder if the State of Texas has a sense of humor or. Insteading of using the Richard/Dick example wouldn't a William/Bob example have have worked just aswell.

    It's hard to believe can't nobody find no Dick on a sex offenders site.

    There may be entries in the Alias Record listing that do not appear in the Primary Record listing. This is due to your query matching an Alias entry, which may be substantially different from the Primary Record. For example, an individual may go by "Dick" as a first name while the primary record may have "Richard" as the first name. A search for "Dick" would not yield any Primary Records but would match on the Alias listing.

  133. Wenatchee Witch Hunt by khasim · · Score: 1

    I'm more worried about innocent people getting on that list.

    Do a google search on Wenatchee "child molestation"

    Here's a nice example:
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/3348 1_wenbox01 .shtml

    One loony cop and a fucked up legal system and you have hundreds of charges of sex crimes.

    I don't trust the government enough to get the correct information on those sites.

  134. jackson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [http://www.randomwalks.com/]

    People are turned on by the Jackson story because it's about sex, specifically pedophilia, at a time when the sexual fetishization of children is not limited to whatever may or may not have happened at Mr. Jackson's ranch. If a mass audience can fixate on whether or not Britney Spears, a singer first marketed as a devoutly Baptist schoolgirl, has lost her virginity, it is no wonder that the Jackson sideshow would move to the center ring and become a main event.

    So if anything of value is to come from this circus, let's drop the pretense that it is about something as lofty as the American system of justice or even the lure of fame. The public, while purporting to be outraged by the crime of child abuse, is hypocritically slobbering over every last speculative pornographic detail used to fill in the supposed contours of that abuse; cable news ratings immediately shot up by double digits. And those who are now taking to the public stage to intone gravely about pedophilia in the Jackson show are often trading in titillation themselves; you haven't lived until you've heard Larry King bandy about the word "penetration."

  135. Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, lets only publicize when there is a strong correlation. We'll only publicize race when there is a strong correlation -- eg, there is a strong correlation between being black and being a criminal, so we'll use race.

    And there is a strong correlation between being from Saudi Arabia and being a hijacker. So we'll use that.

    I'm trying to point out the fallacy that "strong correlation to crime" and "violation of civil rights" are non-overlapping, for in fact they overlap heavily, and in the most germaine issues.

  136. Mod parent up. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up.

  137. What usually doesn't work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    One problem with most of you pedophile experts is that you're either completely illiterate, or haven't read even the most introductory materials. Your problem is both, it seems.

    If you mean that pedophiles, tortured by surgical castration and removal of the penis will simply become 'worse than the original', well -DUH! If somebody strapped you to a table and cut off your cock, I bet you would be 'worse than the original.' I wouldn't be surpised if you began to knife people randomly in the street. And who could blame you?

    If you're trying to export some half-baked theory of sexual deviance, well, show your cards, big boy. Frankly I doubt there is anything more to your theory than your own personal prejudices about people you don't know fuck all about. If sexual deviance was as fluid as you say, then there would be nothing to prevent toe suckers from fucking dead bodies, or pedophiles turning into gays. But as you know, or should know, this isn't the case at all. People, whatever their persuasion, tend to be somewhat fixed.

    _KhlER3L

  138. Psychotic-ex syndrome. by khasim · · Score: 1

    The only case I'm aware of is where some guy's ex-wife or girlfriend went to the cops and filed a complaint against him.

    He was tried, convicted and did time in jail.

    I remember seeing on the news about 10 years ago. I can't find an Internet citation.

  139. MI Sex Offender Registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a 21 year old guy on the Michigan sex offender registry for life because I was going to meet a 15 year old that told me she was 16 (legal age of consent in MI) at first. After we talked for a few months we decided to meet and my exact words on the phone to "her" were "We can do whatever you want".

    Her ended up being a very middle aged he, that's a cop. I ended up getting charged with 3 felonies 2 of them carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. If Michael Jackson is convicted of molesting that kid he faces and absolute maximum of SIX years in prison. I had no prior record and there was no victim.

    10,000 dollars later for a lawyer I ended plea bargaining down to a year on electronic monitoring and 3 years probation and registering for life on the sex offender registry. Even thou the whole time everyone was telling me it was entrapment but my lawyer was very weary to taking it to trial because its a sex crime and its hard as hell to get juries to not convict on something like that.

    The way our system is set up is to stack so many charges against you that you are overwhelmed and even thou you and everyone around you know you are innocent of the stuff they are charging you with you have to take a plea barging for risk of losing 40-50 years of your life in some shithole prison.

    This case has taken a serious toll on me emotionally, physically, and financially. Someone at work found my name on the list and luckily I had already explained my mangers and had been having consoling sessions with our workplace mental health people so I was able to keep my job. However I am still and emotional wreak, I am even more shy then I was before. I am terrified of trying to meet anyone I might actually really like for fear of what would happen when I would have to eventually tell her about this. I have no motivation in life because I know realistically that I will never find another job as long as this list exists. I have put on almost 100 lbs in less then 15 months. I'm out almost 20 thousand dollars in court costs and lawyer fees.

    In Michigan there is an 18 year old kid that has to register on the sex offender registry for 20 years because he slapped another kid in the locker room with his penis. There is also a forty something guy that has to register for the rest of his life because he had a little to much to drink and grabbed a waitresses breast at a bar. Not everything is near as cut and dry as people would like you to believe.

    The bottom line is this list is not set up so that the people that need to be watched are being watched, it is set up so that just about anyone can end up on it for doing something stupid once.

    Luckily some strong forces in Michigan have realized exactly what this list is and are starting to fight it. It may be to late for me but hopefully none of you will have to get a call from your kid at midnight after the police have rummaged thru your kids bedroom without even allowing him so much as a phone call before going there to have your parents ready for them.

    Sorry about my spelling and grammar this is very hard for me to talk about.

    1. Re:MI Sex Offender Registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm a 21 year old guy on the Michigan sex offender registry for life because I was going to meet a 15 year old that told me she was 16

      You're a sick fuck. She was 16!

    2. Re:MI Sex Offender Registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

  140. My problem here... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

    "will include their names, ages and birth dates, where they live, where they work or attend school, and which offense they were convicted of. Photographs will soon be posted, as well."

    My problem here is two-fold. First of all, whenever any information is outdated or incorrect (and there is ample evidence that this happens commonly), you get innocent folks labled as sex offenders. This could be solved in a couple of different ways, which I'll discuss later. Secondly, once you've posted this information, you create a number of problems for the people who have already served their time. Vigilante attacks that put these people in the hospital and leave their property destroyed are not uncommon. You may say that they 'deserve whatever they get', but our laws state that they have paid their debt to society by serving their time and doing whatever the court has ordered. The vigilante attacks on these individuals and their property are criminal acts no matter which way you slice it. You are attacking a person or property when they have done nothing to you whatsoever, except that they exist. If you believe that their existence justifies your burning down their home, then I believe that your existence justifies me burning down your's.

    Then we go on to the next 'layer' of problems with these registries; vigilante groups which claim to be 'victim advocacy' groups. Now there are indeed plenty of genuine victims' advocacy groups that most certainly do a lot of good for folks - these are not the ones to which I'm referring. I'm talking about the self-appointed guardians of the masses who see fit to go all over town posting information from the sex offender registry in every shop, store, public building, and on every street corner in town. I'm talking about the people who find the offender's home and go out several times a week to picket outside to all hours of the night "informing" the neighborhood about this person's arrival. I put that in quotes because the neighborhood was already informed by the registy itself, if not by the thousands upon thousands of posters these vigilantes have posted all over town. These picketers are there for one reason only; to scare the hell out of the person or persons living where the sex offender registry says a sex offender lives. These could even be characterized under new legislation as "terrorist" groups, though I would disagree with that particular lable. Instead, I would say a more apt comparison would be made between these people and the KKK. Much like the KKK does these days, these groups go to the very edge of what the law allows, knowing that the police are too afraid to even attempt to keep them in line for fear of being accused of sticking up for a sex offender. Instead, these people simply do whatever they please, which generally means filling the offender's life with constant fear and making it impossible for them to ever reintegrate with society again. This brings me to my third critisism of the sex offender registry: it is used in such a way that those listed find it nearly impossible to live a normal life.

    I only know one person who is on a registry, and he's an asshole. He's my step-brother's cousin, in case you're wondering. That being said, he's lost jobs, lost friends, and been almost completely cut off from his own family; not because of his crime (for which he served 10 years), but because no one wants to get anywhere near someone who's on that registry for fear of being labled "one of them". Every time he manages to get a job to try and support himself, anonymous faxes and letters pour in from all over the place, invariably causing him to be fired almost as soon as he gets the job. So far as I know, he hasn't been able to hold a steady job for more than a couple of weeks at a time through no current or work-related fault of his own. He receives constant threats and had to get rid of his landline in favor of a cell phone, which is harder to track down to a phone number with an address. Most of the family won't even talk with him anymore, let alone

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  141. If we're going to do it, make it FAIR! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    If we are going to provide a list of registered offenders, we should provide a list of persons guilty of *any* crime!

    We'd pretty quickly find that nearly *everybody* over 25 has done something wrong, and would quickly learn to get off our stupid, petty high horses, and realize that everybody makes mistakes.

    What if technology was developed that allowed us to instantly see the crime and/or achievement history of anybody we met, instantly, with a HUD built into our brains?

    Wouldn't that be "full disclosure"? At what point are we violating the privacy of other people? Isn't that the logical conclusion of the increased monitoring and disclosure we are seeing? What's the logical conclusion to the advances of technology?

    So, why would we discriminate against sex offenders? What's the recitivism rate for those of *any* crime? I'd suspect we'd see numbers not so different...

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:If we're going to do it, make it FAIR! by kobold_beastie · · Score: 1

      I have to agree, I live in Maine, there needs to be some serious regulation for this, or alot of people are going to get hurt.

      --
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ http://www.YellowDogLinux.com +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  142. within a reasonable doubt by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 1

    Why do we require all convictions to be within a reasonable doubt? I think this should translate into punishment as well. If we can't reasonably guarantee that we will only punish those who deserve it by some method, we shouldn't use that method of punishment.

    Look, I think everyone here would agree to sex registries IF we could guarantee only to punish those who deserved it (say child molesters). However, I think we think we all know that the logistics are a nightmare. Are we going to update the address database often enough? What if I happen to "look" like a sex offender? What if we have the same name? What should happen if I'm an innocent person wronged by the system? We can't even fix the voting machines that screwed up the last presidential election. How hard is that? Anything would be an improvement to punch cards and chads!

    If Kobe Bryant is convicted, does this mean that he would be a sex offender? For some reason, I don't see us alienating him. Heck, we pay good money to watch a cannibalistic rapist fight in the ring. How many people argued Mike Tyson should be allowed to fight because "he's paid his debt to society". Oh, we say these women should have known better. Heck, they led this guy on. They should have known better that go to his room.

    Here's what I've learned about life. If I'm going to convict a crime, I'd better be rich and famous. I should immediately hire Johnny Cochran as my attorney. Cheating and plagiarism are part of my college education. I should get my Harvard MBA anyway I can. Manipulating my company's stock price (especially for my personal gain) is good business. And if I'm going to lie, I need to be a politician.

    Before we try to tag every child molester, let's fix the easy stuff first.

    --
    What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
  143. slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a slippery slope, and is quite predictable by those with half a brain. (Too bad most legislators lack that.) This is why people complain about the PATRIOT ACT. This is why intelligent people knew allowing that first patent on a business method was as massive mistake.

  144. as harsh as this might sound... by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 1

    They aren't just "accused" of sex crimes. They have been convicted. This is part of their punishment, their anonymity is a freedom they have given up by committing a heinous act. One might be tempted to say that they have "served their time" and should then return to society, but their crimes truly do warrant this kind of scrutiny.

    --
    MORTAR COMBAT!
  145. Lowest recidivism rate... by vudufixit · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As horrible as sex crimes are, and as useful a tool as such a registry may be, I recently read that a study was done on repeat offenders, and sex offenders had the lowest rate of recidivism. Shouldn't murderers and carjackers be put on a registry like this, too?

  146. "sex offenders" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since lately more and more cases are coming up where innocent people have been wrongly convicted as sex offenders this term should only be used in quotes: "sex offenders" until we have better methods and a better judicial system in place.

    Also, we should first look at the underlying causes why some people act like that and a major reason is our puritan society that causes people to have dysfunctional relationships to their sexuality.
    If you look at the statistic you'll find out that in most European countries which are much more liberal towards sexuality problems like rape are almost non-existent and people have much fewer sexual disorders. I'd say it's time to loosen up and become more sane.

  147. South Carolina by necr0m · · Score: 1
  148. Troll Feeding by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    At risk of feeding the trolls out of my curiosity: what the fuck are you talking about? Are you stoned again or is this your normal state of mind?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  149. interesting points by themusicgod1 · · Score: 2

    but as for your drug dealer/etc registries point, i disagree. there are two problems i find with such registries one, is that they are currently innacurate to a great degree two, is that the PEOPLE are not ready for them. there are SO MANY people who are stuck back in the agarian mindset that religion is good, god will decide, and you shouldn't bother thinking for yourself.
    still more are stuck in a medeival mindset, that calls for revenge, bloodshed, against people who make the slightest crime, etc
    if one day the populous as a whole can deal with a former drug dealer living in their midst, then mabye we can think about a registry
    in my life i've come in contact with drug dealers(how can you not, in a public education system??). they aren't all bad people. hell, most of them are a LOT more honest, hard working, then some of the other capitalists i've met. they will tell you right out if the drug they are selling to you will fuck up your brain. they will tell you that your a worthless peice of shit if you are addicted. can you imagine mcdonalds saying that mcgridals screw your digestion system and your heart up...and that if you eat mcdonalds regularily you are a retard?

    i have also met people who on the surface seem to be descent,.. people really involved in their church, helping people, setting up church events...and yet the more i get to know them the more i realize how clueless, malicious, and sexually perverted they are. and i lost my train of thought.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  150. Ya, goverments are like this by Evil+MarNuke · · Score: 1

    Think about a dead guy on probation the next time you ask the government to do something for you.

    --
    The journey is better then the end.
  151. Children by MisterMook · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sure, children should perhaps have a greater range of protections than other groups of people under the law. We already recognize this by having different systems of incarceration for child criminals and recognize their offenses as different than those of adults.

    However, the simple fact that children aren't created equal is ALSO already recognized under the law. Some children become magically transformed into adults by the justice system by the heinousness of their crimes, just like a child can go from state to state and magically gain or lose the ability to sign contracts or get married. With all these sorts of distinctions made unevenly from state to state and jury to jury, it's hard to see how a simple list of names without distinction serves any real purpose of the judicial system.

    So, it remains as the only solution to why the things exist as some sort of placating gesture to appease the masses. Bread and circuses, with whatever positive benefit gained by informing citizens of the potential child molester moving into their midsts weighed against the negative possibilities of tacitly encouraging people to become criminals themselves in response to the sex offenders who may or not be child molesters (depending on the definitions used in the sex offense registry of the state). The fact of the matter is, the registries aren't defined as how the punishment is doled out. Perhaps if we defined the registries more thoroughly and removed the protection of law for the offenders it would make some sense. We could release the prisoners into society with the assumption that the greater weight of the sentencing was still awaiting them in a vengeful and legally righteous society. As offenders left prisons we could have school children wait outside the gates and stone them to death or something, as a learning device to teach them morality.

    I'd have rather that if we were making these sorts of lists that we simply handed them out to an agency of some sort that was designed to deal with these special sorts of criminals, some subset of the parole board probably. I'd be just as happy to have my children protected by people trained to do so than the masses who learn their brand of morality from Hollywood. Furthermore, when teaching my children about my country I'd rather not have to explain things like unequal protection of the law or why I didn't ever want them throwing stones at people just because they turned up on a list published by bureaucrats.

    1. Re:Children by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      I especially like your last paragraph. I agree there, an agency would be more suited than the general public to handle situations like that.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  152. Is this sex-offender a pedophile or just gay? by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    A lot of places play fast and loose with the term 'sex offender'. Most people assume that this term refers to people who have raped or committed a sexual act on a pre-pubescent child.

    However many places consider any man who is gay and has been arrested on the anti-homosexual laws.
    These conviction records are never erased or pardoned. So some guy who happened to be in a gay bar at a time when it was raided by the police 40 years ago is considered in the same class of 'sex offender' as an active pedophile.

    Some places go even so far as to classify descrete 'public' uniration as a sex offence. Some guy taking a whizz at 1am behind a tree gets put into the same 'sex offender' category as the aformentioned pedophile. This conviction never goes away either. And God help you if your child has to go the bathroom right now and there are no public restrooms within miles.

    Let's not forget all the 18 year old guys who get caught kissing their 17 year old sweethearts. They're convicted 'sex offenders' also.

    1. Re:Is this sex-offender a pedophile or just gay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the specific crime which put them on the list could be mentioned on the list. That might help.

    2. Re:Is this sex-offender a pedophile or just gay? by boobsea · · Score: 1

      It already is for Texas (in the website I mentioned in the top level post).

      Texas also gives some information like age and sex of the "victim".

      I haven't seen anyone arrested for sodomy-law offenses on there though (there might be, but I havent encoutnered any myself)

  153. Oh man! by assaultriflesforfree · · Score: 1

    I just found out that Kobe Bryant moved into my neighborhood! Time to go get an autograph!

  154. Re:Nothing new here - He is BLACK??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The site says he is on probabation, but it also says deceased.

    Maybe after he died, they figured they'd cut him a break...

  155. so you fell for it, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The purpose of using the word "predator" is to brainwash people into believing unlimited punishment is justified. I see it worked with you.

    In Texas, sex offenders aren't necessarily entitled to be released once they serve "their time". "Their time" is defined at "their sentencing" and should not subject to to the whims of legistlators or the public, esp. shallow-thinking sheep like the above poster.

    Criminals are entitled to pay their debt to society and move on with their lives. They should not be subject to having their debt indefinitely extended. That's what it means to live in a free society. Of course, many people only believe in a free society for themselves, not for others.

  156. Totally makes sense! by Riskable · · Score: 1

    Sex offenders are currently the leading cause of statistics in the nation.

    Leading close behind are reality TV, Fox's "Fair and balanced" view of everything, and trailing all the way down at the bottom of the list are statistics that actually matter.

    Something like 42% of all Slashdot readers will get the joke of my first sentance immediately.

    --
    -Riskable
    "Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
    1. Re:Totally makes sense! by yourmom16 · · Score: 1

      Actually smoking is way ahead of sex offenders.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
  157. your shallow logic, that's what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yes, I would. I don't hear the same arguments for drunk drivers, yet they kill children all the time. What's worse, molesting a child or murdering one? How about emotionally abusing a child for years and years on end? Why don't just impose a mandatory death penalty for all crimes, no matter how small? Who decides what crimes are worthy of perpetual punishment? Last time I checked, none are in the US, except now "sexual predators".

    Not all sex offenders are child molesters. Not that it matters at all.

    1. Re:your shallow logic, that's what by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      >> What's worse, molesting a child or murdering one?

      Thats not the point, although I believe they're equally as bad. The point here, is that these people are out of jail and in the public. With a convicted murderer they are punished for longer periods of time, hopefully they'll never get back in to society. With these people, they're back in a few years, so I'm damn happy to know we can find out about them to stop harm from coming to us or our kids.

  158. how is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because NAMBLA members check the box in their scoutleader application?

  159. Proof of Concept needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What some talented and moral hacker could do then is to hack these databases and add the names of the state govenor, every city mayor, state senators, etc.

    We'll see how long the law lasts then.

    1. Re:Proof of Concept needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a computer savvy sex-offender who can remove himself from the register. Do they give computer classes in prison?

  160. exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, posters here believe it's OK to murder a child, just not fondle him.

    While not all sex offenders are child molestors, it's also important to realize that our definition of a child is screwed up as well. There is a whole class of child sex offenses that are marginal to begin with. All those "sex offenders" are subject to the same crap.

  161. what's with "pervert" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your 4 year old might see a man's dick in a public restroom. He might even go out of his way to see it. I doubt it would scar him for life, though. Just seeing a dick wouldn't damage anyone IMO, though I may be mistaken. Roughly half of all 4 year olds have dicks. Hopefully they aren't all scarred for life.

    The rights of individuals to do as they please frequently are in conflict with society's right to not be put upon. It is a gray area, and calling people "perverts" doesn't lend credibility to the argument.

    You would not be living in a meighborhood with a child molester. They are locked up. You might live with an ex-con who served his sentence and his debt to society is paid. That is what sentencing is for, and, thankfully, judges don't ask the opinions of people as predjudiced as yourself.

    Of course, you are completely wrong about the sodomy issue as well.

    1. Re:what's with "pervert" by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Good god, this is gonna be a straight as an arrow shot. Consent is everything. A 4 year old cannot consent because they don't know any better. What would you call someone who waves their genitals at children? Would you not call them a pervert? The sodomy law was a bad law, I addressed that. Jesus fucking christ, why the fuck are you defending someone who molests kids? What the fuck kind of agenda is that? Who are you to say what is appropriate punishment for a child molester? Who am I to? I'm just saying that their fucked up sexual fantasies should not disrupt the life of my child. That comes before anything.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    2. Re:what's with "pervert" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one fucked up. If your bratty little kid peeks over into the next urinal and looks at my dick, all of a sudden I'm a pervert because I'm using a fucking urinal as any normal person would? Perhaps rather than bitching about fucked up agendas, you should petition your local politician to pass a law mandating privacy booths surrounding all urinals so that your fucked up sex-starved child won't try and catch a glimpse of anyone's dick. Or teach your fantasizing child to use a toilet stall or the women's room when he needs to whiz so that he won't possibly be able to see someone's dick.

    3. Re:what's with "pervert" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ almighty, get it through your fucking dense head: I'M TALKING ABOUT INDECENT EXPOSURE, NOT SIMPLY SEEING GENTIALS. Someone flashing you is far different than getting a view of their parts. And usually, the flasher is a fucked up reject who gets off by showing their pecker to little kids. As of this comment, I'm done talking to you, as you are obviously so goddamn dumb as to not understand the simple line between a vulgar act and an innocent one. Go away.

    4. Re:what's with "pervert" by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 1

      Consent is everything. A 4 year old cannot consent because they don't know any better.

      Sorry, this will get a little bit off topic, but you hit a pet peave of mine; this is NOT an attack on your post.

      Yes, I do belive consent plays a part; Consententing adults should not be interfered with. But at what age are you an adult? 18 years old? How about 14 years old? How do you decide?

      And if a 14 (or anybody under 17) year old can not give consent/is not an adult, why charge them as an adult if they commit a crime? And this is where we (talking about the USA here) as a society fail our childern.

      If child 14 years old is not mature enough to vote, drink, drive, have sex, sign contracts, etc, etc, they should never be able to be charged as an adult, with adult like punishment!

      Sorry, if they can be held to adult levels of maturity for purposes of being charged as a criminal (i.e. knowing right from wrong), then that must mean that they mature enough for everything else. You can not pick and choose!

      Sorry for the soapboxing.

      BWP

    5. Re:what's with "pervert" by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      No, it's ok, and that's something I've thought of. I don't know what age to allow consent at either, I would think 18 is a good average, but there are obviously people who are able to make solid, rational decisions by the age of 12. Just like there are a LOT of moronic 18 year olds who don't know shit. There's no magic answer, at least not in my eyes, since you can't psychoanalyze everyone to find when they're "ready" for things.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  162. WHATEVER TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are getting more relistic these days...

  163. New Jersey already has this, too...

    http://www.nj.gov/njsp/info/reg_sexoffend.html

  164. Ahem by Treacle+Treatment · · Score: 1


    Actually, it says he lives on Deceased street in Deceased in the county of Unknown and the state of YY with a zip code of 00000. The tool is a lot more useful if you enter your own address or a nearby address to see what kinds of perverts are living across the street (or not).

    --
    TT
  165. Why waste internet resourses by DeVilla · · Score: 2

    Just make them wear a big ol' scaret letter denoting the crime they've committed. Can we throw stones too? Not that I have any sympathy for sex offenders at large. It's just a huge double standard compared to other crimes. I don't have a right to know if there is a murder (or twenty) in my appartment building but I really should know if there is a rapist on the other side of the state. Good, that helps make the world such a better place.

  166. Re:Nothing new here - He is BLACK??? by Treacle+Treatment · · Score: 1


    How does a picture say he's Hispanic? The picture I see clearly shows a black male.

    --
    TT
  167. Recidivism by MisterMook · · Score: 1
    There is a higher rate of recidivism with poor criminals and minorities, should registries be made for poor minority criminals as well? How many times does your average criminal prosecuted for indecent exposure and statutory rape while they were under the age of 24 repeat? They're still on the books as sexual criminals on the same pages as the guys with 24 counts of sexual assault on kids under the age of 12. I'm all for punishing criminals, but punishment should be dealt out reasonably by lawfully enlisted servants of the state rather than a bunch of drunk neighbors with an axe to grind. Publishing these registries is expectant of nothing else.

    If recividism is absolute then sentence them absolutely, don't release them to the public with the implicit expectation of punishment and encouragement of illegal vigilantism.

  168. Regarding the Texas sex offenders registry.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out this offender.. I know I'd be scared if he lived next door to me :)

    http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soDetail .cfm?ShowNav=False&dps_number=07777777

  169. Creating Criminals by Maestro4k · · Score: 2, Insightful
    • Expose everyone who's ever had any brush with justice at all, so they can't get any job at all. Then, without job and without a life they'll ... euhm ... cut off every legal option for a life they have and they'll ... get out and die ?
    Nope, many of them give up and commit another crime to get put back in prison. Sometimes they do it because they miss prison (after all, they are fed and sheltered there), others do it because despite their best attempts to start a new honest life, they're met at every turn with roadblocks put up by the state/feds/etc.

    I greatly admire those that perservere and manage to finally succeed, but it's not right. I know of a person who ended up serving time due to drug posession. He wasn't a drug user, he just ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. (IIRC, he was driving some friends who had drugs on them, that he didn't know about, and one of those random roadblocks stopped them. Since he was the drive/owner of the car, he was considered guilty as well.) He's a well educated guy, has a degree, but can't use it. He was unable to get a job after getting out of jail because of the conviction. He was finally given a break by someone and makes his living painting houses nowadays, making only a fraction of what he'd make in his chosen field.

    Now tell me, do you think that he got any real justice? He served his time for a crime he didn't commit, then had to give up his career and education in order to make a life. Personally I've always thought that he's the poster child for all that's wrong with the justice system. I also know someone else who had an even worse experience. having their life totally destroyed just because of a looney person's false accusations. Turns out the feds don't bother to check facts on many (maybe all?) reports in highly publicized cases where they have no leads. They also won't admit they made mistakes, leaving innocent victems in their wake.

    Face it folks, things like sex offender registries don't help out innocent citizens, they just propogate false security, destroy the chances of rehabilitaed criminals being able to start a new life and stay out of crime, and completely kick the innocents who were falsely convicted in the balls.

    That isn't justice, at least not anything I consider just.

  170. nubbins by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

    I just found that my state still has this in action:
    http://www.mipsor.state.mi.us/

    The best I can see are disclaimers that the information is wrong. It almost appears as if they don't even bother to check the data given to them. There are warnings that people that use this data to commit crimes are subject to criminal prosecution, somehow I doubt that notice really stops people. The list I see doesn't list the dates of the occurences.

    If this is right, then most states have it:
    http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/states.htm

  171. Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many Senators and House Represensetives would make that list? Lets publish all of Kenny Lay's and his bretheren's known addresses and make sure its mailed out to their stockholders and employees.

  172. Re:Nothing new here - He is BLACK??? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    Ok. How about this picture. Do you see a black man or a white woman?

  173. Sex Offender Registry == Government CYA by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

    It seems obvious now why these registries exist. They are being used by governments to provide liability coverage for themselves in the case of continued sexual crimes from released prior offenders. "Sure, Ma'am, we released him 14 months ago, and apparently he seduced and raped your 11-yr-old daughter yesterday ... but our registry had him listed all that time and you should have checked to see that he was living 4 houses down from you."

    It is only a matter of time before a murder registry is put into place. Heck, Ohio already has people listed in a website database when incarcerated, and also lists their charges. With pictures!

    This sex-offender registry thing is getting so much support since everybody at least says they despise such criminals. I remain convinced that no one accused of sexual offenses involving children can get a fair trial anywhere. There is no solution for this; they are a permanent oppressed minority and they can only hope to keep their heads down (and, I hope, trousers up).

    I asked myself the other day what I would do if I saw some guy jerking off while watching kids on a playground. The initial swell of violent emotion was illuminating. After sober reflection on that, I now conclude that I would instead do nothing ... after all, thinking and role-playing shouldn't be illegal. As long as he leaves the kids alone, what he does is fine with me ... and my angry emotional responses are MY problem, not his.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  174. Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! This is great news! Frankly, I think sex offenses should be punished more severely -- think castration -- both as a deterrent (for the sane) and protection for the general populace (for the insane).

    That said, I'm not sure this internet registry will help people to avoid becoming victims.

  175. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last night I masturbated thinking of my ex-girlfriend -- except that she had no arms and legs. I had removed them and was raping her. Her helpless sobbing mingled with my orgasm.

    Serves her right for cheating on me, I thought. But today I feel disgusted with myself. Is this wrong?

  176. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, actually it is quite normal to have feelings of revenge and hatred manifested in sexual 'perversion'. And really, I'm sure she most probably deserves it.

    Just don't do it for real .. that much just isn't worth it.

  177. Re:Nothing new here - He is BLACK??? by Treacle+Treatment · · Score: 1


    Yes.

    --
    TT
  178. North Dakota has it too by tyleroar · · Score: 1

    North Dakota has also had this online for a while now. Let's you search for a person name, or list them by letter. Also lists offense, current address, and a picture.

    --
    Portland, North Dakota Puppies
  179. Arizona too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is Arizona's:

    http://www.azsexoffender.com/

  180. Hispanic is not a RACE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A hispanic can be a white spaniard living in mexico, an indian living in chile, or a mix of black/indian/white person.

  181. I Want A National Registry Of CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A national registry of CEOs whose companies were convicted of wrongdoing on their watch would be more useful to me than registries involving crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, assault, etc. Statistically, I'm much more likely to deal with companies that could potentially be trying to rip me off today than I am to deal with people who are likely to rape me today.

  182. Potentially harmful side effect by nmoore · · Score: 1

    So now pornography advertisers have a state-sponsored list of potential customers. Sure, it would probably be illegal for them to use the registry like that, but some of the pornography I'm thinking about is illegal anyway.

  183. Economics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be looked at as a punishment. If you do the crime, you get this punishment. End of story. It's not a moral wrong, if someone knows ahead of time what they're getting into.

    (Which yes, means that those who already committed the crimes shouldn't be listed since they did not know this would be an effect of their crime if caught.)

    And as long as the database is thorough (giving details on the persons crime most specifically), there should be no problem with this. The bastards get what they deserve.

  184. Is there some problem with this? by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 1

    As a parent, I'm wondering what the point of this article is? My state, Washington has listed sex offenders for along time. They don't list they're address however, exact address anyways, just a general block they live on. Are you worried about your name showing up on the list?

    --
    Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
    1. Re:Is there some problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the Slashdot pedophiles are afraid they'll be exposed, basically.

  185. More interestingly.. by xtal · · Score: 1

    Is that the USA is one of the few nations that would actually have any problem with the above scenario. Most would be more concerned about the liquor violation.

    --
    ..don't panic
  186. Americans are crazy by bustersnyvel · · Score: 1

    It's pretty clear that Americans are crazy. Not all of them of course, but the ones that think up sites like this. That includes the people that accept this sickness. How many people think these websites that can wreck many lives are okay?

    1. Re:Americans are crazy by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      I believe the paedophile hysteria has been going on in the UK for just as long, whipped up by various Murdoch paper.

      A few years ago, the Sun (I seem to recall) published photos of a number of "known" paedophiles; at the same general time, a paediatrician had her life threatened several times.

      When will people understand that stupidity is not an American monopoly...

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  187. Registry enables murder - BBC - 30 Nov 20003 by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3251094.st m

    Paedophile found dead in home

    A convicted paedophile has been found battered to death in his home.
    The body of sex offender Arnold Hartley, 73, was found early on Saturday morning at his home in Redcar, Teesside.

    He had suffered serious injuries to his head and face, and police have launched a murder hunt.

    A 28-year-old man and a 20-year-old woman were arrested on Sunday, but were later released "unconditionally".

    A Cleveland Police spokesman said it was not possible to say whether Hartley was the victim of a vigilante attack.

    Hartley was jailed for 12 months in 2001 for making indecent images of a girl under the age of 14 and gross indecency.

    'Medium risk'

    Cleveland Police held a press conference on Sunday at which Detective Superintendent Brian Dunn said Hartley had lived at his home in Queen Street for many years and was well-known in the community as a sex offender.

    He was released in April 2002 and returned to the area where he moved back into his former address.

    Mr Dunn said Hartley was on the Sex Offenders' Register and was considered a "medium risk".

    He said there had been "previous problems" at the address and Hartley had been subjected to harassment.

    There was a disturbance shortly after midnight on Saturday in Queen Street and police have appealed for help in piecing together what happened.

    Mr Dunn said: "This is a murder inquiry and obviously Mr Hartley's previous conviction will form part of the inquiry.

    Forensic experts

    "But whatever he has done in the past does not give people the right to attack and kill him."

    A neighbour said Hartley's home had been the subject of many attacks but he had once claimed he did not have any enemies.

    Cal Birkbeck, owner of the Castle Hotel said Hartley gave up replacing his broken windows because they had been smashed so many times.

    On Sunday, three police cars were parked in front of the house with another in a back alley.

    The front door was hidden by a tent and forensic experts were working around the property.

    Police officers carried out house-to-house inquiries.

    Three floral tributes had been left in front of the house.

  188. In UK, Pediatrician == Pedophile? by hughk · · Score: 1
    I heard about that case in the UK, where the witch hunt against sex offenders was so stirred up that a pediatrician was attacked as a pedophile by some confused idiots.

    I'm deeply mistrustful of these "Think of the children" idiots who seem to be behind this kind of thing. It rather takes the heat off a state that was employing sex offenders as children's carers.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  189. MOD PARENT DOWN NOW!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking disgusting link

  190. What a great idea! by cfuse · · Score: 1

    Fabulous, friendster for paedophiles. Do we really need to be taking the hard work out of networking for sex-offenders? How hard will it be to find like-minded individuals now.

  191. Let the tar-and-feathering begin by stygar · · Score: 1

    In other news, the authorities responsible will act suprised when the next little kid goes missing and a group of neighborhood vigilantes decides to go and beat the crap out of the nearest sex offender on the off chance that he might have had something to do with it.

    And, since most pedophiles who've already been busted will be smart enough to prowl away from their home turf, it probably won't end up making kids in Maine any safer on the whole.

  192. In A Possibly Related News Release... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maine will also be setting up an "eternally unemployed" online list, of people in-state who will live off the welfare system for the rest of their lives.....

  193. DSBL ? by tgt · · Score: 1

    Given this, it's really tempting to create distributed list of offenders, so that anybody can report a disliked neighbour to be one. Where, where is the URL so that I can start submitting ?

    --
    I like my outfit, it's inexpensive, but cool -- April Ryan
  194. Totally bloody wrong. by NoMercy · · Score: 1

    Admitdly tabs need to be kept on sex offenders, but that's not the job of groups of angery citizens with lumps of wood.

  195. Even better... by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    For example, why not post a list with all the addresses of Enron's executives that commited fraud? After all, those guys ruined the lives of thousands.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  196. a foolproof crime by Aexia · · Score: 1

    Committ a crime and then play yourself onthe America's Most Wanted reenactment.

    No, I'm not the Burito Butt Bandit; I just play him on TV. (snicker)

  197. One question... by dark_day · · Score: 0

    isn't this creating a great way for sex offenders to network with each other?

  198. Criminal opportunities by tsotate · · Score: 1

    How convenient -- an online database in which someone who wants to commit a sex crime can find a neighborhood where someone else is sure to be blamed

    Did the registered offender actually commit the crime? Well, it's a bit hard for the police to question him now that he's been lynched.

  199. Drug Related crimes by muckdog · · Score: 1

    Some people may worry that this will extended to all covicted criminals. However I a crime related directory may backfire for the government.

    Got Crack? Now you have a yellow pages of local crack dealers

    Boss pissing you off? Now a yellow pages of Hitmen

    Like watching people play in traffic? Now you can camp out by their house and watch them jaywalk.

  200. Well I see a couple problems by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now I completely believe that America is going overboard on this "sex crimes" crap. It is not only stupid but unconstitutional to mark people on a sex offender list for life for a crime. However, your story has problems:

    1) ADAs do not determine admissibility of evidence. That is up to a judge. If either side attempts to enter something into evidence and the other side objects on certian grounds, the judge may rule it inadmissable. However neither side may force the other side to not present evidence. Only a judge determines what may be presented in a case. Also it is very difficult to rule defense evidence inadmissable. The defense may present almost any evidence to create resonable doubt. The prosecution, on the other hand, is highly limited. Any evidence obtained without proper warrant, among other things, is inadmissable.

    2) You may subpoena witnesses in your defense, including the victim. That the prosecution did not call her is not relivant. You may subpoena her and force her to testify. It's one of the cornerstones of the adversarial system. While she might not say what you want, you can put her on the stand for questioning.

    So, there is one of two things going on here. Either you got SERIOUSLY railroaded, in which case I suggest you appeal you case, and seek civil action against thr state and perhaps your lawyer, since clearly there was some gross problems here. Or, you are feeding us a fairy tale, where part or all of what you've related is false.

    1. Re:Well I see a couple problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.) He probably meant the ADA fought to have it hidden under "rape shield" or whatever.

      2.) Again, "rape shield". Victims of sex crimes in some states can't be forced on the stand because they've already been through too much, even if they've never been through anything.

      American law has become pathetic.

  201. Just Republicans?? Connecticut has this too by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 1

    And CT isn't known for it's conservatism.
    This site's been there for some time now.
    CT Sex Offender Registry

    --
    "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
  202. lock your children in the cellar where it's safe by Inflatable+Hippo · · Score: 1

    I've heard many stories like this, and the fear of getting caught up innocently in something like this is doing awful things to our society.

    Men are feeling a pressure to withdraw more and more from the lives of children, even their own.

    For example, I'm a father of two but I would NEVER EVER consider doing ANY voluntary work with other peoples children simply because:

    a) I'd worry about consequences to my family of any mistaken/false accusation.
    b) The general suspicion, "why would a 40 year old man want to work with children" ?

    I've spoken to many men who feel the same way.

    I know men who refuse to bathe their own baby daughters and I'm not "authorised" to video my own children in their school nativity play.

    But it's not the perverts who're frightened away, they're driven to circumvent these trivial obstacles, It's the likes of you and I that are getting fenced.

    What kind of society is coming when children are deprived of exposure to risk, independence, privacy, and un-vetted male role models?

    And as far as I can tell this particular risk to our children is the same as it was 10 or 100 years ago. Now we just have the vocabulary for it.

  203. yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's punish 4-y olds who play doctor too!!

    After all, age is not an excuse!

    And maybe, if other 4-year old tods see what happens to dirty little sex-offenders, they will not commit this crime!

  204. breaking it down by state (and country...) by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1
    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  205. Why is this news? Many states already do this. by Watchman_ds · · Score: 1

    See http://www.crimetime.com/SPguide.htm

    It's comforting to me as a parent to know the risks that are out there. There are 6 convicted sex offenders in my zip code, BTW.

    --
    Sigs are for lusers. Hey! wait a second...
  206. Hooray! Let's make sure justice is out of here! by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

    You know, the whole idea of a "registry" of ANY kind of criminal that's accessible to those outside the FBI or other law enforcement agencies is rather counter-productive to the stated goals of the justice system.

    First, we [used to] have the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Beyond placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, this also means that judge and jury are supposed to walk into a case with the belief that the defendant is indeed innocent. It's the job of the prosecution to convince them otherwise. Keeping a list of criminals that anyone can access pretty much defeats that concept.

    Secondly, if someone IS found guilty of a crime, they are given a punishment that's [supposed to be] fitting for the crime they've committed, and the circumstances involved. More importantly, once you've "done your time", you are supposed to be absolved, and presumed innocent for any future charges. If you're on a list, you can't be presumed innocent anymore.

    If we don't want people who have committed crime X (currently rape) to ever live near anyone else for the rest of their lives, then perhaps we should add that crime to the list of mandatory death sentances (currently only treason?). There's no point having the charade of processing and rehabilitation through the justice system if we just want people to shun them when they get out anyways.

  207. and you know this how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "explain that he was just a little kid playing doctor?"

    you know the circumstances of the case?
    No?
    Didn't think so.

  208. blackest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Good, and I hope in prison they become the bitch of the biggest, blackest, hardass mofo in the block"

    Please explain the racial remark; I don't understand how being raped by a "black" man is worse than being raped by a non-"black" man.

    please enlighten me.
    thanks

  209. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    COLLINSPORT: Barnabas Collins, born 1763...

    When did they classify vampirism as "Violent Sexual Predator"?

  210. What these registries are about, really by markpetryk · · Score: 1
    These registries, and the media attention granted this subject is about one thing; money.

    What this subject does is sell papers and news broadcasts. Look at the attention we give MJ, all those tittlating little details. There's nothing like turning on the news at 10 to hear the first words of the reporter "police are on the hunt tonight for a sexual predator..." Ask yourself, what would you rather hear about on the news, the latest sex crime, or the latest murder crime?

    Do these headlines make us safe? I hardly think so. It sure does keep people tuned in, however.

    The registries themselves don't increase the safety of our neighborhoods. Criminals, of any sort, can certainly move around, catch a bus, drive to a different city. A registry is not going to stop a criminal, but people paying attention to their surroundings can.

    ~ ~ ~

    --
    Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -Albert Einstein
  211. Umm... by wantedman · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how many 11 year-olds research sex crimes before they commit them.

    I doubt many 11 year-olds know exactly what a sex crime is. :/

    Sadly, there is no facts on this case & I'm too lazy to look them up. Its possible he deserved the punishment, but the kid himself will never be a deterant to other kids.

  212. Re:Poor security Hacking Death by illumin8 · · Score: 1

    New vigilante hacking opportunity:

    For a fun exercise, INSERT each of the legislators that voted for this legislation into the database and watch general fun/chaos/disorder ensue.

    --
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  213. Varying levels of "offense" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone must acknowledge the full range of what actually goes on sexually between adults and minors. A lot of people here going around saying "anyone who does that to children are sick perverts," but that is really not fair to anyone and doesn't help anything.

    Admittedly, an adult having a sexual relationship with a minor is breaking the law, but everyone must acknowledge that sometimes it is mutually engaged in and positive in nature. At least in the US a couple of hundred years ago, this was recognized, and the minor was punished along with the adult if the two were caught in a sexual situation. I don't agree with that either, but at least it acknowledges the realities of what actually happened.

    I think a lot of people here like to pontificate about other people's lives and stories. When I was a 13-year-old boy, I loved an adult man. I knew exactly what kind of relationship I wanted with him. This is not unheard of. The relationship was important for me.

    People go around saying of themselves "I was abused when I was a child, and it destroyed my life," and on and on, when in fact people should not claim they know what leads them to their current psychological state--it could be anything. Besides, it is unfair for "survivors" of so-called "abuse" to pontificate about this matter when everyone calls any adult-minor sex "abuse." By that definition, I was abused too, despite it having been initiated by me. So I too have a right to say that this so-called "abuse" is sometimes exactly what a boy like myself wanted.

    Anyone who has that broad definition of "abuse" must accept that a bad or good (but currently illegal) sexual relationship should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Nobody can tell me that the relationship I has was "abusive" or was wrong in any way other than it was illegal.

  214. You're parsing it wrong... by Senjutsu · · Score: 1

    "Coming to a theatre near you: Zombie TEXAS Chainsaw Murdering Pedophiles"

    Wait, are you saying that in Texas there are Zombies that wield chainsaws and kill pedophiles? Is that how this guy died? Ok - now I'm just confused.

    He's saying that there are Pedophiles who murder Zombie Texas Chainsaws.