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."
The State of Texas has had this for some time now.. gives their picture, their crime, vital stats, etc ,etc.
h .cfm
http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soSearc
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)
So who wants to start a pool on when the first sex offender will be lynched?
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
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.
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..
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.
... euhm ... cut off every legal option for a life they have and they'll ... get out and die ?
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
What exactly do you think this will do ?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
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."
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
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/states.ht m
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.
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
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"?
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.