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."

Comments

Nothing new here

[boobsea]

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

Re:Nothing new here

[Mr Guy]

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?

Re:Nothing new here

[Unregistered]

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

Re:Nothing new here

[krbvroc1]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[Senjutsu]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[Mr2cents]

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

Re:Nothing new here

[NineNine]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[krbvroc1]

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).

Re:Nothing new here

[Mistlefoot]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[annisette]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[The Jonas]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[Chucow]

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

Re:Nothing new here

[JoeBaldwin]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[eric76]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Nothing new here

[Rolo Tomasi]

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

Re:Nothing new here

[Guppy06]

"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.

Re:Nothing new here

[bgeer]

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[DarthWiggle]

zombie TEXAS pedophiles!

(ooo, Republicans!)

*runs

Re:Nothing new here

[Gleng]

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

Re:Nothing new here

[Reziac]

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??

Re:Nothing new here

[Catbeller]

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.

This is terrible

[Pingular]

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...

Re:This is terrible

[RPoet]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[Hungus]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[reallocate]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[shaitand]

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

Re:This is terrible

[damiam]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[wo1verin3]

>>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.

Re:This is terrible

[damiam]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[RPoet]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[Henry Bone]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[Artifakt]

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!

Re:This is terrible

[bersl2]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[S.Lemmon]

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?

Re:This is terrible

[sergeant_x]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[way2trivial]

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???

Re:This is terrible

[John Courtland]

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...

Re:This is terrible

[macdaddy]

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?

Re:This is terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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?

Re:This is terrible

[Rasta Prefect]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[MSBob]

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...

Re:This is terrible

[arkulkis]

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.

Re:This is terrible

[ONU CS Geek]

"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

Re:This is terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Many states already have this system..

[shawnywany]

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.

Re:Many states already have this system..

[Animaether]

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 ?

Too far? Too little?

[liveD ehT]

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.

Ugh

[giminy]

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

Re:Ugh

[nick_davison]

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."

Re:Ugh

[deglr6328]

"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.

We've had this in Alaska for years....

[ghettoboy22]

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.

Your rights online indeed!!!

[B747SP]

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?

Re:Your rights online indeed!!!

[Lord Kano]

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

Re:Your rights online indeed!!!

[damiam]

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.

Re:Your rights online indeed!!!

[Tassach]

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.

Re:Your rights online indeed!!!

[macdaddy]

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.

Online hitlist

[RenHoek]

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..

too much information?

[Triggersite]

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

So the american solution to reduce crime

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ?

And if they include your name by mistake...

[Black Parrot]

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

Not necessarily such a bright idea

[P-Nuts]

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.

Sad...

[iworm]

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.

Re:Sad...

[helix_r]

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.

Re:Sad...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

A Very Bad Idea in at least one context

[Raindance]

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

Watching the watchers

[barzok]

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.

Re:Please

[gehrehmee]

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.

This must have discretion

[skizrule]

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.

Re:This must have discretion

[unapersson]

> 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?

"Offenders"

[dmaxwell]

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.

Re:"Offenders"

[back_pages]

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.

All sex offenders equal?

[Anonymous Coward]

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"?

Re:All sex offenders equal?

[oudzeeman]

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.

From a Mainer

[TrippTDF]

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.

Go for it! Or maybe not...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Poor security Hacking Death

[skinfitz]

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.

Not the rest of their life

[nodwick]

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.

Re:Not the rest of their life

[Triv]

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

Re:Not the rest of their life

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Not the rest of their life

[JCCyC]

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?

Not far enough!

[ciaran_o_riordan]

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 ..

Re:Please

[corebreech]

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.

And what better way to say, "I need a new ID"

[stienman]

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

Pros and cons to this...

[Cyno01]

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.

It's more than that

[Raul654]

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.

What about wrong information.

[big_fish]

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.

Re:Nothing new here - He is BLACK???

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Cracks in the System

[alset_tech]

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.

Re:Cracks in the System

[be-fan]

That's more of a reason to repleal retarded sex laws than anything else.

Sex Offender Text Alerts

[ciaran_o_riordan]

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.

almost every state already has this

[maddh]

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/states.ht m

Biggest problem with sex crimes

[mabu]

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.

Re:Biggest problem with sex crimes

[SagSaw]

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.

Why not just shoot them?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Scott Free

[xjerky]

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????

Pre-crime

[lplatypus]

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.

Re:It may not be constitutional

[cranos]

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"?

How about all criminals?

[Giro d'Italia]

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.

Re:How about all criminals?

[RexDevious]

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.

How about we do this with Drunk Drivers instead

[Multics]

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

Re:Please

[JInterest]

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

Overly broad definition of sex offender

[rossz]

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.

bullshit

[KalvinB]

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

Re:Just Better Access To Public Information

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

History repeats

[t_allardyce]

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.

Better than jail

[Avihson]

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.

The Digital Scarlet Letter

[Machina70]

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.

alternate proposal

[danharan]

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.

A never-ending punishment

[torian]

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.

Murderers?

[MisterMook]

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.

Re:Murderers?

[Yavi]

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.

Re:Murderers?

[baileytal]

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.

Re:Murderers?

[MisterMook]

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.

Mooning is a sex offense (seriously)

[Anonymous Coward]

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

MI Sex Offender Registry

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

interesting points

[themusicgod1]

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.

Children

[MisterMook]

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.

Why waste internet resourses

[DeVilla]

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.

Creating Criminals

[Maestro4k]

• 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.

Well I see a couple problems

[Sycraft-fu]

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.