Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Maine to Launch Internet Sex-Offender Registry

Posted by timothy on from the wait-til-it's-for-lesser-offenses dept.

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."

22 of 725 comments (clear)

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

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

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

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

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

      In Texas, from 1999, from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
    5. Re:Nothing new here by bgeer · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That's nothing, look at this one.

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

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

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

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

    --

    When anger rises, think of the consequences.
    Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
    1. Re:This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

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

      Bet you didn't know that!

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

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

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

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

    2. Re:This is terrible by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      I'm paying the price.

      AC for obvious reasons.

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

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

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

    What exactly do you think this will do ?

  4. Not necessarily such a bright idea by P-Nuts · · Score: 5, Informative

    When a paper in Britain started printing details about paedophiles, loads of people went rampaging, and even vandalized some paediatrician's house. (Though maybe that just says something about the Welsh.)

    Why is there special treatment for sex offenders? Generally, people can't look up and see which convicted burglars live near them, for example. If someone is so much of a risk to society that people need telling about them, then they shouldn't be free in the first place.

  5. Sad... by iworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's sad that the authorities try and dress this up as somehow good - when the real motivation behind it is disgraceful.

    Standard disclaimer: sex offenders deserve whatever punishment the law deems fit. But, and this is what is forgotten, IF the authorities deem them fit to be released from custody, then it's because (or should be because) they are no longer a threat. If they are a threat, then keep them incarcerated. Don't let them out and then pretend it's OK to publish their name, address, etc. It's hypocritical.

    And why stop at sex offenders? Say I have no kids, but an expensive car? Shouldn't I be able to know that the guy next door was convicted of stealing cars? I'm not equating car theft with sex offences, but I do believe that the law should treat all people equally.

    If a sex offender ia a threat, keep the bastard in jail. Don't let him out and think that by posting his details on the internet that all will be well. All it does is victimize reformed offenders (who do exist...) and encourage vigilantes - neither of these is good.

  6. A Very Bad Idea in at least one context by Raindance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope the state of Maine also doubled the size of their Information Security department, as this will be a prime target for malicious hackers.

    Don't like someone? Just add them to the database and get the word out. They're ruined. This is new, uncharted, and dangerous territory, Maine.

    RD

  7. Re:Please by gehrehmee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Without commenting specifically on whether or not this is appropriate, consider that we don't go to this sort of length in response to a murder conviction.

    --
    "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
  8. "Offenders" by dmaxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's sex offenders and then there's sex offenders. I have no problem with a guilty as sin child sodomizer being plastered all over this thing. But you also hear of 17 year olds being charged by overzealous DAs for being with their 16 year old girlfriends. Such "offenders" will be lumped in with the child fuckers and corpse zombies.

    This thing doesn't sound it recognizes there are levels of sex offense.

  9. All sex offenders equal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, this is NOT a defense of sex offenders, but we should consider that everyone who has been convicted of a "sex offense" might not be the evil, child-molesting 70-year-old priest we all think they are.

    Remember, if an 18 year old (high school senior) sleeps with his 16 year old girlfriend (high school sophomore) and happens to get caught, he could be labeled a sex offender.

    How'd you like to have your picture posted on the web and have everyone know your life's details for eternity because you were a horny high school kid who did what scores of horny high school kids around the world do? Do you think the public is going to say "oh, well, he's the OK kind of sex offender...no worries"?

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

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

    Today?

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

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

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

  11. Pros and cons to this... by Cyno01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen both sides of this issue and seen that sex offenses are very hard to try from the courts standpoint. I'd like to point out to everyone that not all sex offenders are child molesters, yes, child molesters are the bottom of the bucket of socioty and should be treated as thus, but like any other form of crime, people are falsley convicted. A very close friend of mine was raped, but unfortunatly they couldn't get a conviction. The guy was loaded and the defense made the argument that she was after money, it sickened me. I wouldn't want this guy anywhere near me, and if i ever did run into him i'd probly bash his face in, but hes not on any list anywhere. On the other end of this, a guy i know at school was accused of rape, he was 18, she was underage. He was arrested in class, with much spectacle. It was all cleared up after the girls parents heard her on the phone talking about how she'd lied about the whole thing. But if they hadn't found out i hate to think what would happen to my of age african american friend in the courts system after being accused of rape by an underage white girl. His life would pretty much be over. Think about all the possible scenarios before you cry "Wont someone please think of the children!". If people are a danger they should be kept locked up, either in prison or in an institution, otherwise if they've payed their debt to society , they should be allowed to go on with their lives. As for child molseters though, people that sick dont change and should be kept under lock and key.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  12. almost every state already has this by maddh · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  13. Murderers? by MisterMook · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah, getting dead does awful things to people too. But since those crimes don't involve penises those guys get out in 10 years and can mow your lawn without drawing a lynch mob.

    What the sex registries are saying is that crimes involving your genitals are intrinsically worse than murder except in those cases where murder draws the death penalty, since even a murderer that is released after serving multiple life sentences doesn't have to inform his neighbors. Worse, there is a blind equality to sex offense registries that are simply lists. The offender who was eighteen and had the fourteen year old girlfriend whose parents called him on the statutory rape charges (or sexual assault on a minor, depending on what state you live in) is listed right there with the serial rapist who was screwing all the first graders on their bus for five years.

    I'd be fine with the thought that they'd just take everyone found guilty of sex offenses and shoot them in the back of the prison. They won't though, because they've an inkling that errors can be made in any sort of criminal case. Errors in most criminal cases naturally fix themselves after time, the criminals get out of jail and can live more or less normal lives. Removing the justice system from the picture and encouraging vigilante activism like the sex offender registries do is mind-boggling though, not only is our justice system set up so that guilt must be proven and not innocence it also assumes a sort of natural state of innocence returns to EVERY OTHER SORT OF CRIMINAL. This is obviously not the case, otherwise we wouldn't need three strikes laws and similar mechanisms to defeat repeat criminals. Why don't we have 'two strike" registries? Murderer registries? Heroin addict registries?

    We might, but people don't find those crimes as sensationalized in their minds as rape. I imagine some people might rather have Ted Bundy and Charlie Manson over for dinner than a rapist, that doesn't track in the human cost scenario to me but I understand it would happen. I've had to deal with enough rape victims now though that I'm pretty sure that however fucked up the rape made them I'd still rather not have traded the rape for a corpse. You don't always, but can, get over rape. That means that there's something seriously fucked up with having sex offense registries and not murderer registries. But if we allowed TWO registries, then in ten years we'd have twelve registries and people who got caught a decade ago smoking a joint would be burned alive by their neighbors for being filthy drug dealers.

    Laws and government follow an ethical gravity, given a chance to they tend to want to flow into a natural state of totalitariansim because of the perfect order. That's why people like me are always bitching about the slippery slope. If you want sex offenders ass-raped for punishment, then make sure that it's part of the sentence. I'd certainly rather have a precise extreme punishment dealt by the state (since thanks to the death penalty, extreme punishment really should include an awful lot) than trust the fringe elements of the public to make uninformed illegal punishments on people thanks to some sort of tacit governmental sanction.