Slashdot Mirror
State of Ohio Establishes "Pre-Crime" Registry
I*Love*Green*Olives writes to tell us the Toledo Blade is reporting that State officials have rubber-stamped a "civil-registry" that would allow accused sex offenders to be tracked with the sex offender registry even if they have never been convicted of a crime. From the article: "A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit. The rules spell out how the untried process would work. It would largely treat a person placed on the civil registry the same way a convicted sex offender is treated under Ohio's so-called Megan's Law."
This is so unconstitutional... isn't it? It had better be.
Now you can just accuse someone and ruin their life?
What the heck is the court even for, then?
Hell has no fury than a scorned woman and a crazy law.
So much for being innocent before proven guilty!
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
This combined with the mentality that being accused instantly makes you guility in our society will result in many people's lives being ruined for doing nothing wrong in the first place. I can't see one good reason why they should have this system setup at all for people who aren't convienced!
This signature was left intentionally blank.
The first person who should go on this list is the State Attorney General
Here's the kicker: "A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again."
In other words, molesters do not have to go to jail and as long as they behave themselves (or just don't get caught) for 6 years.
This doesn't strike me as much of a Mea Culpa by the Catholic Church.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The provisions requiring unconvicted persons to register as sex offenders would obviously violate the 5th admendment.
Further they would be denied their 14th admendment rights of equal protection under the law.
Hopefully this is struck down fast.
I can see women who hate their husbands going through nasty divorces and blaming their husbands with having raped them. Even if the other grounds for divorce are legitamite, they could be placed on this "potential sex offender" list and be denied jobs left and right. Divorce lawyers rejoice.
going to have his eyes swapped out for protection against this?
Do we get jetpacks now? And what about that cool glove-controller and large screen interface?
I don't know why everyone is so against this. Other state-sponsored witch hunts have proven effective. There aren't any witches around anymore, are there? And we all know, that no innocent people were hurt either. Right? Right?
How would this work, to accuse someone of being a sex offender, you need proof and be able to back your evidence up in court. If you accuse someone and have it published wouldn't the state or the person reporting it be able to be sued for Libel? This has a recipe for disaster and would probably be abused, as much as sex crimes are horrible this is just going to allow innocent people to have their lives ruined.
This idea is so crazy I can't come up with anything clever to say.
Being accused of a sex crime can destroy an innocent person's life and this law appears to create a process to make the accusation alone enough for official status as a sex criminal.
I can't comprehend how anyone could think this is a good idea.
It's pretty cool to punish people for not commiting a crime.
You guys bring the pitchforks.
Time for some good ole mob justice.
(just kidding, this kind of legislation is really unnerving for eurotrash such as myself)
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
As a parent, I cannot begin to say how important the Megan's Law website has been for me. I was shocked to see about 20 convicted child molesters live in my area. I had no idea how prevalent it was.
Having said that, this new proposal is awful. What the hell happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't this just an end-run around the law? Of course, as it's being made into law, I guess it's a law to do an end-run around other laws. How awful.
I hope it doesn't stand. I hope the first person who experiences this sues to overturn it. I hope a huge financial penalty is imposed, and paid by the State, which in turn would hurt the taxpayers of that State. It's the only way to make them wake up and hold those responsible accountable.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
OK. I'm all for removing sex offenders rights (I'd support mandatory life sentences for child molesters with good proof of guilt), but this is nuts. Let's ignore the constitutional issues here, what about the people who are falsely accused? From what I hear it is hardly uncommon for women to accuse their husbands of things during divorces to try to get custody. Let's add on top of that people who accuse family members they don't get along with, the obvious blackmail possibilities (give me a raise or you go on the list), and this is just idiotic.
I'm amazed anyone would even have the gaul to propose this kind of thing, let alone try to actually pass it.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Where do I sign up?
Don't worry, it is unconstitional and will be declared such in due time. I'm not an expert on law, but I do know this is a direct violation and someone will challenge it, and a federal judge will overturn it.
Someone cannot be labeled something without being convicted. It sounds like some people just got angry at the system and decided to make a stupid law to appease themselves.
And since the subject is sex, which conservatives consider icky and horrible unless it's to your spouse (someone of a government-approved gender), you're guilty to them, too. Conservatives aren't going to come to the defense of an "accused sex offender," and liberals don't want to "victimize the victim again" by giving you a trial, so you're just guilty. So if you're accused by anyone, you might as well go out and rape an orphan, because you're going to jail for it anyway.
Hey, this is GREAT! Just accuse all the politicians in Ohio of being offenders. Ruin their lives forever! That'll teach 'em ;-)
I think people in Ohio should go out and burn copies of the constitution in front of the Ohio legislature in protest.
what sig?
With women claiming rape and abuse in divorce cases which are civil cases, these men would now be marked as sex offenders. Even though 99% of the time its false, just to win custody and child support.
I cant wait for gay marriage, so they can experience divorce, those people just love to vote. Hell, lets have more legal imigrants in the US, they like to vote too, since it seems Americans cant seem to vote. Is the only to get America back is to give it away?!
"Ohio State Attorney General accused of Sex Crime, placed on Offender List"
Film at 11...
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
This is your loving Government, taking yet another step toward Total Security and Safety. To this end we're creating, for each and every one of our beloved citizens, the Perfect Padded Cell.
All we want in return is your Freedom.
Remember, the Terrorists hate our Freedom. We'll take it away, step by step, until there's nothing left for them to hate.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Can you pre-impeach the Ohio legislators to get them out of office?
Where were you when the voynix came?
The potential for abuse of this law is so insanely bizarre it amazes anyone growing up in America would even suggest it.
Sadly, things have changed a lot in the America I grew up in. It's really not the same place.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
As always it's a war of words in shaping the public's perception. And calling it a "Pre-Crime Registry" is the absolute best choice of words we could go for. This term from Phillip K. Dick just sounds incredibly Orwellian. Bravo on whoever came up with this name.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Next time when someone posts something like this to Slashdot, find the bill number (despite it being law now) and the sponsors. List their e-mail addresses in the articlel. Let them see how they like being slashdotted.
Looks like another weapon to use in the typical divorce procedings debacle
Stage 1: Accuse soon to be ex-hubby, along with insinuations of child beating.
Stage 2: ???
Stage 3: Profit
You would sure hope there is some recourse available to those unfairly smeared. But as is the case with a lot of things, after your good name is smeared by such an accusation, it wont matter if it was true or not, it isn't even a case of guilty until proven innocent (just guilty).
That other logic is called an election year. Politicians are not going to vote a against this kind of law. Otherwise, their opponents will air ads accusing them of helping child molesters go free and preventing the police from investigating them. And how will that politician respond? They think accused sex offenders should have a fair trial? Which statement do you think the voters will remember at election time?
This is slightly worse than wiretapping w/o a warrant on the constitutional level. There's a name for a law that declares someone guilty of some offense and then punishes them for it without a trial - it's called a bill of attainder, and it's specifically prohibited.
Of course, the proponents of this law are going to claim that the law doesn't declare them guilty, and doesn't punish them, but they're basically saying that these people are guilt of SOMETHING, otherwise they wouldn't be worth being watched. And, obviously, it's easy to see how being on such a list would be a punishment.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
The actual text of the bill, found here - http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=12 6_SB_17 shows it to be a lot less scary than the alarmist article says. What it actually reads is that those accused of sex crime but have passed the statute of limitations will have to register if a court finds a preponderance of evidence that that person is guilty. i.e. a person who otherwise would have been convicted but was able to wait out the 20 years or whatever won't go to jail but will have to register.
Sorry, didn't bother to read the article but I hear it's about some country with a repressive regime that keeps quashing citizens' rights?
With luck, the United States will soon invade, deposing that corrupt regime and give those cowed citizens the same constitutionally protected liberties Americans experience every day. Tony Blair has already pledged his support.
Do they have oil? Weapons of mass destruction? Are they trying to advance their knowledge of nuclear weapons? Do they have large chemical weapon stockpiles? Do they frequently piss off the U.N.? Can we allege they have a "School Of The [Whatever Region]" terrorist training camp? Can we accuse them of trying to destabilize entire regions? Do they "kidnap" citizens of other nations, holding them for torture and interrogation rather than uphold international law and conventions?
If we can answer yes to two or three of the above, I'm pretty sure we have grounds to invade.
Now who was it again?
"A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems"
Civil declaration doesn't carry the same burden as criminal prosecution. It carries the burden of "preponderance of evidence" where I would somehow have to come up with stuff to counter the Chief Persecutor's accusations, else be found civilly "guilty."
I have already been the victim of a former friend turned psycotic insane woman who went 'round slandering me and libelling me, over a perceived slight. And this would give her the power to restrict my freedom and put a scarlet fucking letter on me? Possibly making me unemployable for six years? Because of some shit she *made up in her diseased brain*?
I have not had contact with said crazy lady in 3 years, and if I ever saw her again, it would be too soon. I have _no_ illusions about any goodwill on her part. I even fear for her now current husband because _he_ can be a victim of her abusive bullshit, too. Should the above actually happen to me, I cannot predict what I would do. I do know whatever it would be, would be bad and possibly evil.
This is legislation by cowardice, and if you read the article there was "no opposition" and it was probably a voice vote. I like to think that I live in a more civilized part of the country, but then again, you can't really be sure about your own representatives. All it takes is some hotbutton topic and cowards who are afraid to stand up for constitutionality.
Anonymous, because there are really sick insane people out there.
and wants a list of surefire dates?
Once one set of people (eg prisoners held under suspicion of terrorism) are held with no hearing, then it is just a small step to treading on others because they just look perverted. Where does this stop? When all citizens are placed under house arrest because they might be criminals of some sort or other.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
They're going to do pre-emptive crime fighting a la Minority Report...
paranoa is strong, all across the land of the free... this isnt new: it always has been. amreicans have already given up parts of their civil rights for an impression of safety from a spooky theoretical external threat (formerly known as Communism now conveniently know as terrorism).
The next logical step is to ask some rights to be given up for internal threats.
the more rights are given up in the name of 'freedom' then the less the americans are actualy free. I just dont get this part. And then i wonder: do americans see this process going on? And if they are, why are they letting the system eat them up? Or are american totaly blind to such a process? in this case what makes them blind to it? then again some americans i met on some trips there would've told me that i think too much.
I think only a full personality transplant will really ensure his safety.
Oh, and vitamins. Lots and lots of vitamins. Can't forget those.
When I was about 13 living in LA I used to hang out and play videogames with this kid (maybe 8 years old, I don't remember now) in one of the apartments nearby but eventually it got to the point where he wouldn't stop annoying me so I kept telling him that I was busy whenever he came by to hang out. A while later after I brush him aside again he just tells me that he'll tell his mom that I was touching his private parts if I don't play games with him and I can tell you right now that even in hindsight the cold feeling I got in the pit of my stomach still makes me queasy nearly a decade later. I ended up telling him to go ahead but hurry up and leave so I can do my homework and fortunately nothing came of it.
Every now and then when I think back I wonder how my life could've been screwed over by this one little bastard kid if he had made that false claim and I start to wonder what kind of parents he had if this was the way he went to get things to go his way, but now while reading this article it makes me think that people like his parents are the ones making all the choices in the place I call home.
They probably think it is a great idea until it happens to them. Hopefully people will bring accusations against those officials and see how they think of that kind of lawmaking then.
The higher ups have already smacked one place for keeping a record of suspicious people, and that was just for the police, if this one isn't beaten down so hard it's visiting china then our courts are utterly corrupt and use the constitution for lighting their cigars.
Besides, punishing someone with legal means for not breaking the law (civil or others) is NOT allowed. Remember that whole INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty clause?
Is it just me, or are we moving closer to Nazi States of America every day?
She was a child kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and killed by a known molester whose "right to privacy" was deemed more important than his neighbors' right to know that he had a violent criminal record involving children.
It's a girl!
And now, by the power vested in me by the great state of Ohio, I now pronounce you a sex offender.
I do certainly hope that this bill gets thrown out, either by the state legislature or the supreme court (at whatever level). For more fun, check out the link to the submitter. Let's just say that unless it's a pretty amazing troll, the submitter might have a far more specific personal stake against a law like this than just the overall civil liberties issues.
The civil liberties issues around this bill are tremendous and really creep me out (I'd love to think that something like this would get laughed out of the legislature in my own state, but I don't have THAT much faith any more) - but the submitter creeps me out as well. Seems like the submitter is trying to conflate loving children with having sexual activity with them. Unless, of course, it's a very elaborate troll.
Yeah, posting as AC. So sue me.
This needs to be a law in every state.
Then we create a companion law.
It states that any politician, cop, government official or public servant who is accused of corruption or ignorance is immediately removed from office, and their name goes on a list prohibiting them from holding office for 6 years. After that period, and any actual invstigation into the accusation,as long as no further claims are brought against them I see no reason they should be allowed to hold office. After all, it 'could' have been true.
Can we start now?
Can you nominate them for this registry? After all, they've been fucking future generations for ages....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I have a friend with a clean criminal record who was accused of rape when he was 15. The girl herself even said it wasn't him! His record is CLEAN, and yet he is on Megan's List as a registered sex offender for a rape the court determined he did not commit. Does anyone have any idea how this affects someone's life, to be treated as a criminal for a crime not committed? We are supposed to have something in this damned country called civil rights and the right to a trial by jury. Allowing a judge to "civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit" undermines the criminal system. If you can be declared a criminal without a trial or successful lawsuit (indicates that there was a lawsuit that was UNsuccessful), why the hell not go ahead and commit a crime? If you can be punished for it anyway....
Ohio already treats men like shit, especially fathers, and I can guarantee you that the majority of false accused will continue to be men. I am a woman on the board of directors of an internation men's rights organization specialising in fathers' rights, and I can see the effect that this will have on more than just the accused. Women already routinely accuse men of sex crimes to get sole custody of children. If they can now be registered as sex offenders based solely on accussations....
A form of this has been happening in California for many years, but now that one state has enacted it as a law will have a domino effect as other states follow suit. This is a system of abuse that slaughters our Consitutional rights that are supposed to be guaranteed.
Wait, rights? I forgot, WE ALREADY FUCKING LOST THOSE!!
It's a girl!
I don't see this as an healthy alternative.. what's wrong with giving that one time window, as it was originally proposed, and let people who are accusing others ACTUALLY provide proof anything at all happened. At first, I thought this was meant to add someone to the registry who would of got off the hook on a technicality, but upon reading the complete article it's made quite clear this isn't the case.
Don't get me wrong, I'm discussed by sex offenders! But accusing someone of doing something without going to court? Innocent until proven guilty is what some people from different countries move to the US for. I'm a Canadian, and I hope no such non-sense ever gets approved in Canada. If the Government wants to help protect people, how about putting more money towards fighting child porn.
After all, aren't children who are abused at a young age more likely to abuse their own children when they get older?
God damn.
any listing of an "accused sex offender" should by the right of the accused to see their accuser, the accusers name published as well, while alse noting the lack of a guilty verdict in such an accusation.
If there is enough evidence for a "civil registry" that a person is a sex offender then why isn't there enough evidence to proceed to trial or for a civil suit? It sounds like Ohio simply wants to lower the bar on burden of proof to a case of "he says, she says". This system sounds utterly ripe for abuse and mismanagement. Why is it that people are trying to find ways around the justice system that we've established after nearly 200 years of jurisprudence? It can't be that difficult to convict suspected child molesters when the evidence is there. Our system of justice has grown out of almost 2000 years of fine tuning. If you don't have the evidence to convict someone or file a civil suit then maybe it's not there to begin with.
On a related note, the Supreme Court of Canada decided a case this year of a woman studying to be a social worker in university that was falsly accused of being a child molester after her professor became "suspicious" of a paper she submitted on juvenile sex offenders that contained an appendix of graphic accounts of child molestation written in the first person. The professor felt that the first person narrative of the appendix constituted an admission of guilt to child molestation and contacted the program director who forwarded the appendix to Child Protection Services and the RCMP. Without going into the whole sordid story, suffice to say that the young lady was red flagged by CPS and the RCMP, dropped out of the social workers study she was undertaking on advice from the university (because she was red flagged, but the university did not tell her that), went almost three years without knowing she was a suspected child molester and upon discovering that she had a file that was red flagged, filed suit against the university. Up to this point absolutely no investigation had taken place. NONE. Just a suspicion of guilt from a professor at a university without any evidence of any kind. A jury found in her favor and she was awarded a large sum. The university appealed and won, and the young lady then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. By a miracle the SCOC took the case and found unanimously in her favor, establishing an important precedent. The university eventually did apologize, but there was outrage across Canada that this incident even occured. False accusations can and do happen.
Around where I live in Western PA(close to Ohio), there is a scheme where women find a rich man, sleep with him then accuse him of rape. They normally settle out of court for good money for the woman. Sometimes the woman is also under the age of 18 which makes it a double strike against the man. Sometimes the woman is a prostitute being pimped to a buisness man. Sometimes the woman never even sleeps with the guy, but just has evidence she was there with him on that night. I think if the accused get thrown in with the guilty, this scam is only just going to get bigger.
God spoke to me.
Ohio Creates 'Pre-Crime' Sex Offender Registry
In a scene right out of Spielberg's vision of Philip K. Dick's classic short story the state of Ohio has established a pre-crime registry for sex offenders--even if they've never been charged with a crime!
"The person's name, address, and photograph would be placed on a new Internet database and the person would be subjected to the same registration and community notification requirements and restrictions on where he could live."
I can't wait to see how this is going to affect the current trend that has divorcing women making false accusations against their husbands during the custody phase of proceedings! Then there's the way this (being that it is a civil matter) can be expanded to encompass so many other things...
Could this new registry be away for the homophobic to reverse the trends towards civil rights homosexuals have achieved in recent years? What about the affect this can have on children engaged in normal sex play for their ages? I'm reminded of Ryan Zylstra, Leah DuBuc, Laura M. Wilcox, Genarlow Wilson and other teenagers and children who have had their lives ruined by this type of hysteria and the lack of due process that comes with it. And who can forget the vigilantes who murder people they find on these lists? People like William Elliott, who was placed on the registry at age nineteen for having sex with his two weeks shy of sixteen year old girlfriend and thanks to the registry murdered.
Now they want a civil registry they can place people on without the benefit of a conviction or a jury trial? Next thing you know they'll be pushing for a pink triangle on your ID! Oh wait... Well just remember that when you give up your rights one by one, you're doing it for the children....
I'm posting the original submission because I believe anyone who follows the links here will see quite clearly how bad this is even beyond the usual Constitutional violations. This is a law that will harm the very same people it purports to protect!
--I*Love*Green*Olives
There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls. --George Carlin
Was he convicted? Everyone here wants to protect the right to privacy, but I think everyone here also agrees that once you've been proven in court to have broken the rules to a great enough extent, you no longer get to play by the rules that benefit you. Felons can't vote, and sex offenders have to identify themselves.
The problem most people have is with innocent civilians being treated like criminals. I don't think people have a problem with criminals being treated like criminals.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
The Constitution no longer applies. So many of our laws are already unConstitutional. For one, fathers are guaranteed the right to their children, yet are routinely railroaded out of their children's lives. Have the courts overturned state laws that allow for parents to be denied their children? If you think the courts will overturn an unContitutional law, you are either delusional, idealistic, or uninformed. Look at gay marriage. no where does the Constitution allow for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. So how are we denying gays rights essentially guaranteed to them? All it takes is an amendment to overturn a right. And it happens.
It's a girl!
Expect the ACLU in 5...4...3...2...
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wow, you are surely playing on one's heart strings here.
I bet anyone saying "Fuck off, his right to privacy is our right to privacy" gets a big booing and a free entry in this fascistic database now.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
>> The concept was offered by Roman Catholic bishops as an alternative to opening a one-time window for the filing of civil lawsuits
> Basically, instead of allowing all the people molested by Catholic priests to be prosecuted and sent to jail.
Civil lawsuits cannot send people to jail, they're matters of money and such. Putting people in jail is the exclusive to criminal law. Opening up a window for civil lawsuits would allow lawyers to collect large sums of money, but it would not put any child molesters in jail.
For everyone complaining about this being unconstitutional make sure you look into its use first. The primary reason this was enacted was to replace the previous exemption in the staute of limitations for sexual harassment victims of clergy. This seems to be the primary thing it will be used for - to have a way to mark people who have been accused outside of statue of limitations - this is especially relevant because often times children who are abused take a long time before they are comfortable talking about it.0 8/2006_07_01_Provance_SexOffender.htmm l
ARTICLE HERE
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2006/07_
AND HERE
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20060406.ht
Some other articles mention that one of the big lobby groups pushing for this law were catholic groups - these people clame they wanted it enacted to protect the priests whom are being accused of molestation 35 years afterwards.
As far as civil liberties go the articles all point out that there will be the same requirements as those placed on person on the criminal registry inr egards to where you may live and whatnot. The question we should be asking is if the priest situation is the only reason this law can be envoked, the article is amazingly vague.
Please read the aforementioned articles so you can get a better view of the law.
The actual solution should be to more accuratly convict sex offenders. I know the statistics are something riduculously low like less than 10% of rapists are convicted. The problem is with our court system and not beliving the survivors of sexual crimes. That should be reformed before we start treating everyone accused as being guilty.
Hehe. And the funny thing is that it was an AC who found the facts while the registered users fly off into another tirade. Good job. You're a better searcher than I.
The recent story about a lawyer who killed a suspected molester should give pause to anyone who backs this registry. How long until some vigilante tracks down someone on this proposed registry and kills him/her and we later find out the person was listed due to false statements? I wonder what's to stop the victim's family (victim here being the registered person, not the accuser) from suing someone who petitioned the courts to put the name on the list. How long until the courts become flooded with people attempting to list others for revenge, blackmail, better chances in divorce/custody cases, and so forth? How long until someone is listed simply because he/she had some porn on his/her computer or bought a skin mag while a Mrs. Lovejoy was watching?
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
I'm not playing the heart strings, just telling you what happened. The guy who raped and killed this seven-year-old had already spent six years in prison for sexually assaulting another child before getting his hands on Megan. He moved in across the street from her family and no laws were in place to give them any right to know. So their little girl was raped and killed, and no one thought to let anyone know to that a known-predator was among them.
It's a girl!
Man, they can arrest you for anything anymore in Ohio. Yes, I live there.
:(
The war on drugs made plastic baggies, scales, and anything you can smoke tobacco out of into drug paraphernalia which carries a 3 year prison sentence in Ohio.
The War on Terror made pretty much anything you can carry into a public venue a crime. Plus if you refuse the search they don't just let you go, they throw you to the ground and point guns at you.
Then Cincinnati made taking your shirt off in public a sex crime and put you on the sex offender registry for it. Yes, even if it is a guy.
Now someone can just say you looked at their kid funny and you are basically on house arrest for life. But then mutual sex between two 17 year olds also gets you on the list for life, so I guess I saw this one coming.
The worst part of politics these days is that no matter who you vote for you always lose to the crappy child safety laws. both sides want to look like they are tough on drugs terrorists, and sex offenders, so the rest of us must suffer. I think I might say my senator looked at my nephew funny and see how they like this law.
The only solution is to get rid of political parties or get a third party, but even then I doubt we will get a pro-child porn party, not that I would relly want one.
At least I don't live in West Virginia though. I hear they are blocking out Comedy central shows like south park and the daily show.
Then of course in england I would already be in jail for owning a few bondage videos.
A registry only possibly protects against known *and* registered offenders. There are many more people out there that are unknown and have yet to offend, people need to watch and educate their children (even young children), not create an always incomplete and insufficent list of possible threats. The fear mongering in the country is crazy, especially because it distracts us from clear and present dangers.
I don't see public lists of cleptomaniacs/arsonists/drunk drivers/..., either. And at least two of those can get people killed as well.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
I wonder how hard it would be to get all the people who proposed this law put on that list?
...
Perhaps then they would reconsider
There may not be public registries, but the records are public information.
It's a girl!
Clicking on the submitters name take you to a pro-pedophile site where he is a contributor.
This was the 1st quote worthy gem I found.
Lesson: Consider the source.
"
Pedophile means child-lover. (Greek paidos, "child" + philia, "love, affinity"). If you hate pedophiles, you hate children too.
"
Sounds like it's all part of the new world order.
This way we can have more common footing with the Taliban.
over turned and done with.
Not a single person will ever be put on this list...
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Unfortunately something to this effect has been legal for a long long time, far too long. Granted, it's not as bad but it's bad enough: When someone accuses another of rape the media protects the identity of the victim (perhaps this is at the police level) but the accused's face and name is posted everywhere. What happens when it turns out the accuser is lying? This damage can never be undone and the accused has to go through life with this hanging over their head.
Unfortunately if you tried to hide the identity of the accused the media would go into an uproar about the first amendment instead of considering that more and more the accused is the victim.
I'm afraid there is no easy answer and this list only shows that we're going further down a slippery slope where all one needs to do is make a claim that they're the victim of a crime for an innocent to suffer at their hands.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
...gets accused of some sort of sexual misconduct because the wife wants to keep the kids. (You pick the reasons) But it's so frequent and common, that it's virtually expected that the wife will claim some sort of sex issue and children in a divorce case. A majority of the accusations disappear due to lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. But this is... really bad news for men everywhere.
These days, about the same time they take little girls asside in elementary school to explain about periods and stuff, I'm thinking they should take the little boys and explain to them how dangerous the game is getting for them...
Megan, a young girl from New Jersey, was murdered.
Your attempt at humor is lame as a 9/11-victim joke.
NOT funny.
There are, to summarize, people who want you to take a woman's (or child's, I suppose) word for it that they were molested/raped/assaulted/groped/whatever, and either detain/jail/imprison the accused, restrict their movements, put them on a "bad" list, etc, without the pain (to the alleged victim) of a trial. It doesn't have to be called "prison" -- "preventive detention" is a useful euphemism. My point was that elements of the "liberal" movement, whom I refer to as "liberals," will work in concert with conservatives to erode or redefine our 6th Amendment rights. It may have escaped your notice, but politics makes strange bedfellows. If this alliance seems improbable to you, look at the constant efforts to censor pornography. There again you have an alliance between liberal feminists and conservatives to eat away at our rights. Is what I'm saying really that new to you?
well, that's innocent before proven guility taken care of.
next stop, thoughtcrime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
echo $SIGNATURE
Could an overzealous district attorney use this to persecute, for example, streakers and those who hire prostitutes?
Was he convicted?
Yes. But I see no reason for Ohio citizens to be punished now for Mr. Timmendequas's crimes.
So you can laugh all you want to...
Um, that was the point: if you are convicted, you do lose your privileges, but this ruling allows the gov't to treat normal innocent civilians like criminals.
We are a country of innocent until PROVEN guilty. I am all for the harshest of sentences for sex offensers, but this is beyond unconstitutional!
www.IBuyMacs.com
If the "victim" recanted that's immediate grounds for a "pardon for actual innocence" and/or a judge to vacate the original verdict.
Something is missing here.
"I have a friend with a clean criminal record who was accused of rape when he was 15. The girl herself even said it wasn't him! His record is CLEAN, and yet he is on Megan's List as a registered sex offender for a rape the court determined he did not commit."
If the COURT determined he did not commit the act, then how come the court convicted him? This also makes no sense.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't think you understand the Constitution. Gay marriage would fall under those rights reserved for the States and the People, as this right (marriage) is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. Therefore, it is up to each state to decide whether marriage is to be reserved only for couples that can (on the surface; not dealing with conception problems) procreate or if it should be extended to any 2 random people that claim to like each other.
Besides, the Constitution allows for discriminating on ANY basis. It is Federal law that prohibits certain types.
I was seduced in a chatroom. After getting me into a suitably compromising position, the sweet girl suddenly asked "Are you a legal resident of the United States? Do you like little girls?" And so on.
My reply: There's a difference between fantasy and reality. Also, "she" claimed to be 17 years old, which is legal if there's a small enough age difference. "She" said "Of course..." and disconnected, probably scared because I knew what I was talking about.
So, vigilante? Maybe. But what vigilante has a Verizon FIOS connection? That's fiber optic. Who has the kind of money to run that to their home, or a job where you share a line like that? Government, maybe?
Funny you bring up custody battles over children.
Can you imagine how nasty those battles are going to get with this sort of law in place?
One of my friends ex-husbands can already get the cops to raid her house every few months if she pisses him off. They have to do it because he says she is hurting the child and they have to check it out.
Now he can ge her declared a sex offender as well. Sure she can do it back, but he can afford the better lawyers and would probably win.
And do you realize how incredibly rare a serial molestor is? It's just about as common as a serial killer -- and gets identical media attention as well. Less reported are the 500 other murders and 1400 rapes in my city (New York) last year.
Aren't we repeatedly told the majority of molestors are family members' or other acquaintances' first offenses? How do registries help with those crimes?
It happened to me.... evil in this world touches down like a tornado, out of the blue, you never, never see it coming, and the dogs of war jump on these tornados and random bizarreness because they smell the blood of a vulnerable trusting target and are ready for a kill.
You obey all the laws? Think it can't happen to you? Think again... you have no idea what you are up against.
The next thing you know, all of a sudden your life is over, you can't believe what just happened, its all like a bad dream, and a guard is asking you if you're alright (guards generally don't give a crap about anybody) because you've just stepped out of court and you're ghostly white and pale, a jury has just convicted you of child molestation, and the judge just gave you 12 years, and you can't believe it - how is that possible? You did everything possible you could to prove you were innocent, you said so over and over, you pointed out all the questionable things about the accusation, you had evidence which proved there was no way possible you could of done it... how... how???? Twelve years is a death sentence, let me tell you... all because some girl accuses you of touching her... via a video where for 30 minutes she refuses to say anything except talking about her dog and making up imaginary stories until an interviewer leads her to say what she wants her to say...
Whether you accuse a person of being a witch or a pedophile, its all the same criminal slander game, nothing fundamentally has changed about the pure inner evilness of humanity, only the lables have changed with the times. Whether you paste a yellow star on them, or a scarlet letter A, or a label like gook, charlie, nigga, hick, terrorist, whatever happens to be in vogue, you reduce them to a label, and from there you can to them whatever attrocities that you will.
Child molestation and statutory rape are the witchhunts of this century. You pick someone out, make an accusation against them, villianize them, paint them in court how you want them as black as you can (lawyers have gotten very good at this), and then you can lock them away for obsene amounts of time in concrete madhouses and starve them stupid on piss poor garbage for food. You can do this by the hundreds of thousands, and charging the taxpayers $40,000 a year per person per year you have successfully criminalized, it adds up to obsene grossly abhorent amounts of money.
In my case, I was invited to a friends house one day, thinking nothing of it, talking computer stuff and such. While there it got late, and the mother started jumping on the daughters case to take her bath, which the girl refused to do. She finally started shouting and threatening at her, and in the bathroom jumped on the girl about why the girl was wearing her clothes funny. Being jumped on for the umpteenth time about this, the girl decided to blame it on me, and crazy thoughts began to run through the mom's head and one thing led to another as the story grew.
Trying to be helpful and clear things up, I cooperated fully with the police, big mistake. They don't give a damn about protecting anybody. They care about making a kill, making money to pay their obsene salaries of hundreds of cops and guards and teh beaurcracy. Having had no experience with them ever before, because I bother nobody, and having been fed all that bullcrap pablum in highschool about what this country was supposedly, well... it was a load of bull****.
So, I'm here to educate you about who and what your governement really is. Forget all that bull**** you learned in high school, forget what you *think* America is. Even words like "police state" don't even go far enough, don't paint the picture bright enough with the colors of the hell on earth these people create. Be locked in a concrete cell for two years, and ever time there after when you see an American flag, you will want to spit on it, ever time you see a cop car go by you will want to throw a brick through its window as hard as you can, everytime you
I'm a second year law student, here's my take on this:
First of all, it's a civil registry. I don't see an automatic due process issue because the state isn't meting out any punishment to those who are listed (i.e. there's no state-led deprivation of life, liberty, or property). You might argue that being listed is enough of a black mark that it effectively bars finding employment or housing, thereby creating a due process issue, but that hasn't been borne out in practice yet.
If the accused can attend the hearing and present evidence in his defense before the judge, due process is satisfied so the above argument will be moot. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other part of the constitution this law would violate, but I haven't take con law yet so it's possible.
While I'm not in favor of this law, it's not nearly as bad as the knee-jerk reaction indicates. Tossing around any old accusation won't cut it; a judge will be weighing the evidence and making the decision. Presumably the accused can attend the hearing and present his own evidence, lessening the effect of unfounded accusations even further. And for those worried about the crazy maverick judge who's just hell-bent on ruining your life, I would fully expect the decision can be appealed and the appellate court will review all the facts anew (on many issues the presiding judge has unchallenged discretion; this wouldn't be one of them).
I can see where this law could be useful in cases where we know someone has committed a heinous act but the state can't punish him. Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable). Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems. Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled. Maybe what the person did is despicable but not criminal, e.g. someone with HIV who knowingly refuses to use protection or inform his/her partners. A criminal conviction is a very high bar. We can't always establish criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt even though we know for certain the person has done very bad things. Not saying I think this is the right approach, but it's not as harebrained as many here have suggested.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
I prefer the Water-Dunk test myself - if the person is guilty, she will surely drown. If not, then let her go.
I don't think "miscarry" is a nice image-word. Matter of fact, you must be a sex-perv. I'm calling the DA to get your slimey-self on this list.
This law will be abused left and right in custody cases, which is why I'm bringing it up. Being able to afford the better lawyers is only a small part of defense. If she gets up on the stand and cries for pity, she'll get it and he'll look bad.
Do you have any idea how bad things already are regarding accusations without this law in place? I definitely know how bad it will be to be.
It's a girl!
Heh. I was going to mod this up, being that funny...
But after all, it really is insightful.
Mod parent up!
Read the article. "The concept was offered by Roman Catholic bishops as an alternative to opening a one-time window for the filing of civil lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse that occurred as long as 35 years ago." I find it infuriating that while the Catholic church talks a good line about doing what's right, caring for people, attonement for sins, etc., when it comes down to it, what they really try to do is protect their hoard of cash.
They have already been hit for hundreds of millions of dollars in judgements due to priests who couldn't keep their peckers in their pants. Now when it looks like they may be on the hook for more judgements in Ohio they manage to get the legislators to fall for this "alternative". Civil rights be damned.
Seems to me that a truly pious organization would own up to its issues and care for those who have been harmed. And quit covering up for the priests who have been buggering our kids.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
When someone is publicly declared a sex offender, their life is GONE. There are endless cases where accusations were made and then either recanted or proven false. The accused never escapes it. They've lost their job, friends, contact with family, etc. Imagine the difference when the govt is putting these people on an official list. If that's not a loss of liberty, then dear god, what is?
This is so completely unconstitutional. You cannot be punished for a crime the courts have found you innocent of.
And for those of you that missed it, the federal courts have ordered the NSA and the President to cease and desist with the unlawful wiretapping of U.S. citizens. Perhaps there is still hope for this country.
This is just bullshit, I mean did anyone ACTUALLY read the bastard article? For all the imbecilic drivel that was written you may as well have read the chinese takeaway menu. Wow, cant see the sunlight for maldas arsecrack
Now you can just accuse someone and ruin their life?
.."to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". Given this, how can it truly be in a nation's best interest to play God over individuals?
Unfortunately many in society have decided that it's ok for rights of others to be "sacrificed" in order to preserve some grand vision of social order.
Maybe for the "good of the many", some may excuse all kinds of evil. But I'm willing to bet that is a mere excuse and the real reasoning is for the maintenance of their ideas of societal functioning. This I'm sure can be tested when the math is not in their agenda's favor.
Whatever happened to safeguarding individual liberty and protecting freedoms? People seem to be all about transferring control to the "authorities". There is a reason the Bill of Rights was created. In the declaration of Independence the founding fathers recognized that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Now, recognizing that "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner" (Ben Franklin), it seems obvious that to safeguard these important unalienable rights is why the consititution requires a 2/3rd congressional majority and 75% of states to approve.
But nowadays it seems as long as you feel you're 50.00001% you get to do whatever you want to anyone.
Sex offenders who are in regular therapy are VERY LOW RISK, possibly LOWER risk than a typical young man with a clean record.
Sex offenders who got caught in a "barely illegal" teenage romance are almost ZERO risk of violating the law again.
Once caught, incest offenders are at a very low risk because the relatives will keep an eye out. They typically do NOT pick non-related victims. The only major exception is future children and stepchildren, they and their moms need to be warned.
Sex offenses related to drunkeness are almost ZERO risk as long as the guy stays sober.
After 15-20 years of post-release good behavior, recidivism rates are very very low.
Yes, there are people out there who deserve to be on these lists. There are others whose presence is just watering down the list making it too crowded to be of much use.
Just something to think about when you ostracize your friendly neighborhood registered sex offender.
By the way, where I live about 1 in 1,000 people is on the list. They are concentrated in trailer parks, rural areas, and owner-occupied subdivisions because apartments and condomimiums won't allow them.
Not that I'm a sex-offender or anything, but with the recent abolition of same-sex marriages, and now the ability to register possibly innocent people as sex-offenders...OH is striving to become the model red state! I need to get out of here while it's still legal to move away!
Schatten Teufel
There is nothing "Common" about Sense
Serial molestation isn't that rare. Molestation is a power trip. It's not really about sexual gratification, but about having power and control over someone else. Many molesters have access to their own relatives first, but this in no way is indication that the majority of offenders molest just their families.
You ask how a registry could help with familial crimes. I found out last year that my step-grandfather was convicted of "288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS." I did some research to confirm that validity of this, and now, if I ever have children, I will not let him be alone with them.
It's a girl!
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I got the "court did not commit" part. That just makes no sense:
Obviously, he plead guilty or was convicted somewhere because he's required to register. They don't make you register if you are aquitted. At least not yet anyways.
Obviously, a court found he did not commit the crime, which would be immediate grounds to vacate a previous conviction or guitly plea.
As I said, this makes no sense.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Now, instead of getting into bar fights with drunk guys who say you look at them funny, they can just call the police and register you as a potential sex offender.
I wonder how many of the poo slingers here will be able to differentiate between a state and federal issue?
-- Zieggenfus
Dark Ages, welcome home! We've been missing you.
I really can only see one reason for this, minors. I personally know of a *SIX* year old in my neighborhood that should at least have Child Protective Services called on him as he as forcefully tried to molest many girls in the neighborhood. Hell there are just some bad apples out there.
However, I have to stand by the Constituion. Innocent until proven guilty. This law is very, VERY flawed.
He's a WITCH I tell you! Burn him!
If you're on this registry, you can't get a job requiring any sort of licensure. Why don't you volunteer to be on it, MrWannaPasstheBarExam?
No job in banking, law enforcement, health care, education, government. Not a big deal? Are you nuts?
If ever anyone gets lucky enough to get on a jury, nullify the heck out of the situation. The police state is off the chain and out of control....
& start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org .mozilla:en-US:official
http://www.google.com/search?q=jury+nullification
Personally, I think all jurys are cherry picked via computer. I have never in my life ever met anyone who served on one. And I've met a whole lot of people in one life time. So with millions behind bars, and for every jury trial needing 13 jurors, how is this possible. Not enough people demanding jury trials, that's what. Its your constituional right.
If ever, if ever I am on a jury, I don't care who you are, I'm finding you innnocent, and I don't have to explain myself to anybody... I'm sorry, the evidence or lack of evidence thereof just does not prove anything for me beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know the guy is going to look scared up there out of proportion because he's on trial, I know the DA is going to say all kinds of bad stuff about the guy even though they were never at the scene nor never even met the person their criminalizing, and know in reality absolutly nothing about them.
Actually, with bondage videos in Britain, you'd probably have no trouble joining the "Bondage on Wednesday" group in your neighbourhood.
No - the USA is the only place that makes it almost impossible to NOT be a criminal. This is, after all, the purpose of the US Government: to enact so many stupid laws that EVERYONE is a criminal. Then the authorities can always arrest you for SOMETHING, and hence they have immense power over the *cough* voters *cough*.
Don't you see - without the power to arrest anyone at will, the government can't control you. Plus, you wouldn't actually be AFRAID - which is the reason you have a government OF the lawyers, BY the lawyers, and FOR the lawyers. FEAR.
It's the catch-phrase of the USA: FEAR.
Fear of terror
Fear of being poor
Fear of being arrested
Fear of losing your job
Fear of losing your car
Fear of being attacked
Fear of being left behind
Fear of being left out
Fear for your life
Fear for your teenager
Fear for any fucking thing you can think of.
God forbid a citizen should try to do something about it, because they're undoubtedly a file sharer, or a speeder, or a tax-cheat...
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
Someone else already mentioned that the ACLU is going to jump on this like white on rice, and they're probably right. In fact, just about every time some totally apeshit crap like this happens, the ACLU is right there, providing free legal help to someone, and 99% of the time, at least in my opinion, the ACLU is helping out the right side. Along the same lines, somewhat recently a friend of a friend was arrested for walking too near a local dam (terrorism, you know), which is patently absurd. I suggested to my friend that she should tell her friend (the one who is arrested) to call the ACLU. I didn't even have to think about it; I'm sure they would gladly represent her for free.
All of this got me thinking: when is the last time I gave money to support the ACLU? Never. Granted, last several years haven't been too great for me financially, but this year, I could afford to give something. And I ought to, because as far as I can tell, the ACLU is serving a vital purpose, for free, and I've never helped them out with that. Which is silly.
So, the point of posting this? It's just in case someone else feels the same way. Maybe I can give them a few bucks and motivate 1 or 2 other people to do the same. It seems like a worthwhile thing to do.
The 'creepy-looking loner guy that posts to slashdot all day' registry.
I mean, really, who wants that guy near your kids?
Or at least similar cases.
It is NOT "punishment." It is for "public safety."
Welcome to the politically correct world of the leftists/feminists.
For one, fathers are guaranteed the right to their children, yet are routinely railroaded out of their children's lives.
Where does the Constitution say you have the right to your kids? Do you have version 2.0?
Bet he took a photo of you in the tub when you were 3.
What? Let's just draw this to it's eventual conclusion now. It's the waiting around that kills me more than the losing the rights.
Consider these two things. The State of Ohio refines and enriches Uranium (thereby depleting other uranium in the process)= 0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozil la:en-US:official
a bies&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rl s=org.mozilla:en-US:official
google search: ohio uranium
http://www.google.com/search?q=ohio+uranium&start
The US military then shoots this crap all over the place, causing mass deformations of babies
google search: depleted uranium babies
http://www.google.com/search?q=depleted+uranium+b
From what I understand, corporations (and states?) are for legal puposes, considered like entities/individuals. I should say that is grounds for bringing criminal action against and dismantling and destroying the State of Ohio government for crimes against humanity. It should be dissolved, and perhaps all that land given back to its rightful owners, whatever Indian tribe inhabited the area first before it was stolen from them. All those government buildings, cop cars, military bases, state parks, and so on... to begin with.
Such would be justice in a just world.
But then, the justice system is not about justice. Its about projecting power over people and internalizing control over people with rules and laws. The whole justice thing is just a convient front that serves them when they need it, but is discarded when it is contrary to the aim of those in power by ill gotten gains.
Putting a bad person away is just a photo op, a newspaper story, to say see, look at us, we are the good guys. When in reality they are anything of the sort.
I can't recall at any time ever giving anyone my consent to rule over me, anyone ever my consent to have life or death power over me, any time ever when i've been asked to vote on any of the hundreds of thosands of laws on the books. So no, what we have here is NOT governement with the consent of the government. What we have here is a representative democracy which is a farce. Where choice has been reduced to the smallest possible unit where it can be still called a choice, when its no longer in reality a choice. I don't want to elect anyone to represent me, because nobody does. I want to vote myself on every single law that is put up. I even want to introduce bills to eliminate a whole bunch of laws that are no longer applicable or were obsene to start with.
And all of it is local. Between numerous corruption scandals, the most unpopular governor in the nation and a general anti-incumbent feeling in the country I'm sure all Ohio officials aren't feeling too comfortable. Nothing like some election year tough on sex offenders laws to attempt to gain some approval. Generally, I consider any law passed in an election year to be pandering and this doesn't appear to be any different.
Find a guy you don't like? Find two women who grew up in his neighborhood to step forward, commit perjury, and say "he fondled me 25 years ago when I was 10."
In most states that's beyond the statute of limitations. It's also hopefully not enough to get a conviction. Since the women aren't suing for money, they aren't seen as gold-diggers and are more likely to be believed. Being "only 10" their hazy memories will be excused as will all lack of physical evidence.
If the guy is a priest, change women to men.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled. Maybe what the person did is despicable but not criminal, e.g. someone with HIV who knowingly refuses to use protection or inform his/her partners."
.. you are saying that because something cant be proven, we can sidestep the whole "is it true or not" part?
.. Recently there was a case that found someone guilty of this. It's a convictable offense! (Negligent homicide?) etc.
So
Have you gone mad?
If a person is guilty, please let it be proven before screwing him over. For example, the HIV one
You have basically sold liberty and inalienable individual rights out. If society has to trample an innocent person's life to protect itself, then it might as well give the finger to the founding fathers and the spirit of inalienable rights and the idea that government exists to secure these rights (as outlined in the declaration of independence).
You are calling for a "better safe than sorry" approach.. Which sounds all good unless it's you being accused, and only then you'll be raising all kinds of individual triumphs over societal conveniences etc. arguments.
REad the comments in the parent thread and learn something instead of the crap they are teachig in law school apparently.
The Constitution does not give fathers a right to their children. However, I believe common law would apply in such places. A court has the right to determine who would be better suited for the child if I'm not mistaken in custody battles. Biological rights is a different issue.
Concerning same-sex marriage, if I may, the First Amendment should protect it if it's performed in a church, but I don't think any court has tried making this point. I mean, why would they anyways? The courts seem to be getting politically polarized.
Legislators need to be held liable for those unconstitutional laws passed. I believe this one will be declared unconstitutional. What the problem is-is that they are just going to end up creating other unconstitutional laws, but make it harder to declare such. Maybe there needs to be a constitutional law (at the state level) making it so any legislator passing an unconstitutional law will forego his legislator pension pay.
(Sometimes the People, like in Washington state, pass unconstitutional laws, such as I-872.)
OK, this is disturbing, and maybe unconstitutional. But why is this on Slashdot?
Well, the situation in Florida isn't really avoidable - there will always be categories of citizens that can't vote. Also I think if the same evil government can get minor allegations marked as felonies, they would have just as easy of a time circumventing the system in other ways, like terrorism, "enemy combatant"/un-American statuses, vagrancy laws, etc.
But I certainly think that if we're sending them to prison for corrections, at some point they should be "corrected," and at that point allowed to vote.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Fortunately, today we have four slam-dunk votes against this law on the Supreme Court (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito). Why? Because the Constitution contains the words "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and the mandade incorporated in our law from English commonlaw for the presumption of innocence. And this is exactly what those two concepts speak to (and have always spoken to). And then there are five votes from Dianne Feinstein's kind of judges -- those who take the approach that the meaning of the words of the Constitution only take form based upon whom the judge happens to feel greater compassion for at the moment. In this case it could be close, being between a person being punished without conviction and the potentiality of some child getting molested. Fortunately, only one of their votes is required.
This is why it's so important to have a strict constructionist Court. The government is not a legitimate government if its laws are not its laws.
Come on now, seriously: this is just like any other fraud.
Let's sue somebody to get cold hard cash. Gee, the docter didn't make you perfect. That's malpractice, good for twenty million dollars. Oh, you slipped on the ice. Obviously the property owner is at fault, and you deserve ten million dollars. If you need a quick ten thousand dollars, fake a car accident. Want pity with your cash? Set up a cancer fund for yourself. You don't even need to get cancer. If female, you can accuse a few field hocky players of gang raping you in every oriface. Got a suit and tie? You could sue IBM for copying millions of lines of code from UNIX into Linux.
Sleazy lawyers and trashy clients will do as they do, same as always. Follow the money.
This "preponderance of evidence" is denying people due legal process. They haven't been convicted presumably because of the statute of limitations and yet are being declared sex offenders. Until you have convicted someone they are innocent and like it or not deserve all their constituional rights. I'm rather uncomfortable with retrying people in a civil court after being found innocent by a criminal court. The lower standards in civil courts make me uncomfortable in general. Heck even in criminal courts with their stricter standard of evidence there are mistakes where an innocent person is falsely convicted, even in some cases put on death row. A preponderance of evidence is just begging for trouble. I'd love it if someone under this new law (if it doesn't get stricken down) can get through siz years and appeal and have his name removed and then charge the state with unecessary harrasment.
Also you might read about sex offender laws in Kentucky. It was an interesting read from last month about a law restricting sex offenders from living within a 1000 feet of a school. I think it has a double jeopardy feel about it. The ACLU is on this one - the Ohio ACLU seems asleep on this latest development though.
A lot of posters have said this is just politicians crying "Won't someone please think about the children" but its not just politicians wanting to be seen as being tough but also the parents - if you read the article theres a feeling that "Sorry these laws are unfair but you shouldn't have done it." I dont think laws like this will ever go away as long as there are people who clamor "Keep us safe from terrorists/sex offenders/communists/atheists/witches/(boogey man) even if that deprives some of us of our rights."
I hope this law is found uncostituional but the solution is not passing laws and then having the ACLU fight for ages to get it declared unconstituional - its not passing them in the first place. I'm beginning to believe it my be worth having all bills pass through some intesive judicial review (no veto just a look over and a rubber stamp yes or a memo saying look at these bits a bit more) BEFORE actually being signed into law. This ought to be a much shorter proess than fighting the laws after they are passed. There is so much bad publicty to be had from opposing populist laws that its worth having another branch thats existence is mandated by the constituion be able to look at these laws and say "er... hold one one second."
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
That's exactly the issue at hand here, however. The guy who did that had already been convicted of a crime. Convicts, by definition, lose some of their rights, including the right to carry firearms and a lot of their right to privacy (even to some degree once they're out, ask any ex-con how well trying to keep something "private" from a parole officer works!)
What we're talking about here, is branding people with this permanent mark who have -not- been proven guilty of criminal conduct behind a reasonable doubt, and have that put in a database for the world (and any potential employer, neighbor, landlord, partner...) to find with a simple Web search. This is absolutely unacceptable. If there is sufficient evidence that someone has molested a kid, they need to be charged and tried. If there is not, then they don't need to have the scarlet letter put to them.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Err.. Why is a 2 lines blob describing how "Megan's law" came to be modded as flamebait?
Impulsive modders out there, re-read the summary carefully: Megan's law is unrelated to this "precrime registry" concept, except for the part they both deal with sex offenders.
Apparently, this "precrime" idea was put forward by some shrewd local bishops as an alternative to extending the statute of limitation in order to convinct some priests. With this alternative, the priests don't get convicted, but end up in a "almost sex offender registry" of some sort. At least until some supreme court smacks down the concept.
I'm guessing this is a half-hearted attempt by the local govt at bringing some closure in some blatant sexual abuse cases that are otherwise too old to be successfully prosecuted.
Concerning same-sex marriage, if I may, the First Amendment should protect it if it's performed in a church, but I don't think any court has tried making this point.
The problem isn't the legality of performing a same-sex marriage, the problem is getting the state to recognize it. It's not illegal to go to a church and get married if you are the same sex. However, almost all states prohibit them from getting any of the "benefits" or other privileges given to married people whose marriages are recognized by the state.
In other words, if you marry someone of the same sex, your marriage can be valid between the two of you, but don't expect to be able to collect your departed's Social Security check, to get half of their stuff in a divorce, etc.
What?
Lots of the serious perverts like little boys. Some of them probably think you're a cutie.
Is public nudity a "sex crime?" If you get a ticket for swimming/sunbathing in your own yard or for doing a protest or just camping, something like this, will you be labeled "sex offender" with no distinction between what you did, and some guy who raped all the eight year olds in a sunday school day camp?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Unless the prison term is for life (and I'm talking real life here, not 25 years), there should be NO loss of priviledge whatsoever once the time has been served.
The information in there is all wrong.
I looked up my address. It listed several offenders. One was on a corner. I would go by the house and sort of try to catch a glimpse of the guy. But I never did. Turns out the house was being prepped for sale and it was then sold a couple weeks later.
But if you look up my address, the offender is still listed there.
The database is way out of date becuase sex offenders don't stay in one place long. Very few can get a decent job and so they don't buy houses, they rent houses or apartments. And of course they move around a lot.
Currently, not everyone knows the site is inaccurate, some still believe it. So it does have an effect on property values, even if it wrong. Over time, everyone will wise up and realize that the site is way off and just ignore it.
It always was just a feel-good thing anyway. One thing you can tell just by a quick look is you can't really move away from sex offenders (let alone keep them from moving in near you after you move in) unless you move away from society in general.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Obviously the justice system failed in placing a non-rehabilitated criminal back on the street. Rather then creating unconstitutional laws, why not actually seek to address the criminal system that is clearly not working at a sufficient level.
> And do you realize how incredibly rare a serial molestor is?
You're apparently lucky enough to have been spared having to know much about child molestors.
After they transgress once, realize how easy it is, and see that nobody is coming after them for it, they all too often continue, either with the same victim, or with new ones.
That's the nagging question with every convicted molestor: How many other kids did he hurt before he got caught on this one?
It wouldn't be fair to convict them for more than we have evidence for, but it certainly makes sense to keep tabs on them once they get out.
~~Restricting where someone can live isn't nearly as big a deal as locking them away.~~
IANAL (or law student)
I have to disagree. If you happen to live somewhere that is 'restricted' and are put on the register, then you have to move. That is a major expense in itself. Depending on someone's situation (financially) and the area that is blocked to them (someone mentioned a whole county that had been blocked off in an earlier comment) this could force someone to have to move far enough away to have to terminate their emploment, as well. So you have someone who has been forced to move, possibly lost their job, and no conviction? And you have the same person looking for a new place to live and/or work with the onus of being listed as a sex offender against them. This could, and in some cases would, be very damaging to any number of people.
You noted this could be appealed, but how long would that take? A month, six months, two years? If the appeal overturned the initial declaration, would anyone look at reimbursing for expenses required, or possibly pursue clearing a persons image. The register is there for everyone to see, but if you know someone is on it already are you going to go checking to see if they are still there, unless required?
Again, IANAL (or law student), but this sounds like there are too many holes in it. I am all for protecting the innocent (a very relative term, but accurate) but this sounds like it could all too easily cause (purposefully or not) notable harm to the public.
The potential to destroy someone's life does rate (to me) at the same level as sending someone to prison. Of course, last I had heard, we don't have any major redress if we send the wrong person to prison for something, either.
If someone looks wrong at the other sex, stares wrong, and has a large porn collection, that's sufficient grounds to say that he's sexually addicted and a danger to society. We will only tolerate people who are not addicted in sex, who have been able to eradicate any lust and desire, one of the cardinal mortal sins. Then wait a hundred years, and there will be only cheaters of the law left, those who gave in to their addiction and reproduced anyway, ehh? Sex is the touchiest of topics, because it requires two people, one fucking the other and vice versa, during which personal freedoms are deliberately trampled upon by request - such as please invade my privacy - by mutual agreement, and such mutual agreements are later questionable because there is no a priori written and signed contract. I suggest they enact a law where you can only have sex where both(or all) of the participant sign a detailed, preplanned contract, spelling out how they intend to proceed during the act, and to really be safe, have a public notary or a government official participate as an overseer, observing the details of the contract and warning you about any missteps. Anyway, there is such a thing called reproductive rights, but Da Man always tryna keep a brother down is always messing with that, and talks you into being a nun, priest, Shaker, tells you it's a cardinal sin, etc. Yeah, it's a cardinal sin to enter into contracts with minors, but otherwise what counts is the mutual agreement, which is hard to tell whether it is there when your mate wants you to be impulsive and surprise him/her, and says ahhh, that hurts, but it hurts so goood! Your honor, he/she hurt me!!! You can always chastize pretty much anyone alive with a healthy reproductive instinct over being guilty, but what's new, we're told we're born in sin, we're guilty for simply being alive, unless we do as told. But if you look at places where such brainwashing is in effect, you can note the smaller overpopulation problems, so who's to say what's best, maybe you need some dose of sexual instinct opression just to have a stable and working society, because the drive to reproduce is just so damn strong, and man no longer has predators or enemies to keep its population in check, so it has to come from somewhere, and where better than the governement erecting laws, or religion teaching self control, because whoever expects people not to cheat on the first cardinal sin? We tell you it's a sin but come on, we don't really mean it, we just want to moderate you, we still need new people and a next generation, just not too many!
> Obviously the justice system failed in placing a non-rehabilitated criminal back on the street
That's a tough one.
When is a sexual predator that describes the motive for his crimes as "animal urges he just couldn't control" considered rehabilitated?
Would you advise giving convicted molestors a choice between a life-sentence or mandatory castration (chemical or bricks)? That's another doozy for civil rights right there.
Doesn't anyone bother to read the original article anymore? The way this works is pretty simple. If someone is convicted in a civil court of being a sex offender, (ie, the statute of limitations has run out, like with many catholic priests) Then they will be tracked for 6 years after which they can appeal to have their name removed.
Oh dear, a bunch of pedophiles cant get away with not being tracked because they managed to ooze around the statue of limitations.
"Innocent until suspected guilty"
You drank my drink, you drunk!
you must be joking right we have no freedom anymore. we live in a cruppted caplitest world where money is power. invade 3rd world counterys that have wmds"cough"oil"cough". and pass stupid law after stupid law. someone said its for fear your probly right but are histery proves one fact controle of this fasion only couses fear for a short time it evently trunes into the people overthrowing a power trying to controle them. sad thing is ill probly live to see it.
Yes, and that's a good thing. It's important. All the things you mention -- rules of admissibility, statutes of limitations, right to face an accuser, and so on -- were implemented for a reason. These "technicalities" protect the citizen from the untrammeled power of the State. They are the bedrock of the rule of law. I realize that the rule of law has taken on a quaint aura lately but please, can we agree that we shouldn't jettison it wholesale?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
There may not be public registries, but the records are public information.
Good, so then you agree that this sex registry stuff is BS?
The most serious crime is murder. We should not be making up random bizarre laws and penalties and pseudo-penalties for other crimes, laws that do not apply to the most serious crime murder. We should not be passing bizarre irrational laws turning our legal system upside down for the sole reason that politicians can catch more god-damn headlines for crusading against some crime other than murder.
I once read an excellent and very appropriate quote:
The definition of a stable society is when some psycho guns down a schoolyard, and the law does not change.
Sadly, we obviously do not have a stable society.
The guy who raped and killed this seven-year-old had already spent six years in prison for sexually assaulting another child before getting his hands on Megan. He moved in across the street from her family and no laws were in place to give them any right to know. So their little girl was raped and killed, and no one thought to let anyone know to that a known-predator was among them.
And if Megan had not been a white blond-haired blue-eyed girl, do you seriously think there would have been a crusade and political grandstanding that Some Random New Law Must Be Passed? That Something Must Be Done no matter how bizarre and worthless it really is?
People commit crimes. It sucks. But you can't prevent crimes from being committed by passing Yet Another Law. You can make all the registries you like, someone who wants to shoot up a schoolyard... or kidnap and murder a white blond-haired blue-eyed girl... can and will still drive two miles down the road and commit a crime.
And the current story is a perfect example of just how insane this path is. No law is ever enough to prevent this sort of crime from being committed, and no matter how many laws have already been passed and no matter how bizarre they get, it still gets headlines and still produces Yet Anotehr Crusade that Something Must Be Done yet again, and the laws just get more and more bizarre without end. And now we have the registry list being extended to people who have not been - and presumably CANNOT be convicted of any crime. For people who are obviously quite likely innocent to be put on these lists, and have thier lives ruined by the government have have their liberty infringed and be subject to all sorts of on-going reporting requirements and other bizarre conditions under penalty of prison, and the government is going to do this to people based on mere allegation.
I knew a girl - manic depressive - who in fact admitted to me filing false police reports of abuse against at least one person. It is absolutely INSANE that anyone would think it was a good or even reasonable idea to have the government do this to innocent people on the unsubstantiated (and false) allegation of some malicious or disturbed individual.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
No way around false accusations? Unforeseen consequences from vigillantes, or the similar but less severe consequences of deeds and "safety regulations"? Won't last, I'm sure. A lawsuit or worse.
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
That would be ideal, but remember that the law generally doesn't apply to the rich and powerful
One problem with that one - a lot of the rich and powerful already *left* Ohio, and what's left are the financially and/or ethically challenged. With at least 2 cities on the bottom 10 average income lists and declining populations, it's no surprise you can pass anything from speedtrap creation, house companies like Diebold (who will gladly secure your money but not your vote) and do things like this.
The upside is that a LOT of stuff is cheaper around here, but only if you can find a job that wont be laid off(GM/Ford) or offshored(the entire Columbus financial "district" that's all around it).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
As much damage is done by self-righteous do-gooders as by all the evil men in the world. It's the same sin, an unshakable conviction that
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
So you think that the guy who killed Megan should just be allowed to go on his merry way after having sexually assaulted a child just because he finished a prison sentence for a crime that has a major psychological cause? He should just be allowed to be around children? Would you want him to work at the day care where your children go?
It's a girl!
Actually, there are some places that public drunk driver registries.
Please correct your sig. It is correctly written: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating what they are going to eat. Liberty is a well-armed sheep taking exception to the outcome of the vote. -- Ben Franklin This might seem (-1: Offtopic), but you seem to think that liberty means extra-constitutional government blacklists. I thought it might be useful to remember that there other extra-constitutional methods, and that yours usually leads to mine.
The difference between sex offender registried and registries for kleptos is that sex offenders are really mentally sick and highly likely to reoffend with their victims most often children. Sex and power are two string allures. How often are murderers ever released from prison? How often are sex offenders in and out of prison? I do believe that people who commit crimes with a high re-offend rate with violence should go into an online-searchable registry, including those who assault.
I'm not so naive as to think that Megan being a blue-eyed blonde had nothing to di with this law. It helped, but was not the sole contributor.
But to decide that all it may take is someone accusing someone to have you lumped in with such people is not going to help and will only increase anger in society.
It's a girl!
Years ago I ran into a friend of mine I hadn't seen in years. We got to talking and catching up. I'd known he had gone through a bad divorce but didn't know the details. Seems he left his wife at her request, moved in with a best friend during the seperation, and then finally got the divorce - only to be kicked out by his friend and find out that HE was the one she had been sleeping with..
He had a child with that woman, even did a paternity test to be sure it was his after the divorce. Life moved on and he found a good woman who had a daugher from a previous marriage. So far so good, she operated a daycare business out of their new home - he worked for a Govt. agency. One day while they had his son for visitation the new girlfriend came upon the boy and her daugher playing a bit of "doctor". Alarmed that his young child would have such ideas he called in child protective services to have an investigation done. The day after the investigation was over with no wrongdoing found he had an officer visit his doorstep to deliver "papers" in a not so subtle manner. This in front of the folks picking up kids for daycare. The papers? Seems HE was being accused of molesting his son by the ex wife! Within a week the daycare business was toast, no one would dare take a chance with their kid right? An investigation ensued and like the previous investigation nothing was found - tit for tat right?
Guess who is now on a sex offender watch list.. Yup, he was! Apparently not one of those "offical" ones run by the Govt but some other - he had no trouble fidning it online after being told. I'm not sure how they worded it to avoid being nailed for slander but sure enough he couldn't get off of it - heh like an RBL! It didn't matter that he had been cleared, these zealots seemed to be keeping his name "just in case" because after all he's been accused right? Mind you this guy holds a top secret clearance that required a regular polygraph to retain and still retained when we last spoke a few years ago. The wife? Well, he didn't levy a specific accusation like she did, just a concern that was checked out by social services. She and the ex best friend aren't on any lists as a result.
Now I understand that parents today want to protect their kids (as did my parents) and that the serious offenders have a huge recidivism rate but does it make sense to put people on lists like this at the drop of a hat? That simply accusing someone is enough to ruin them? To make them so easily found that you can even find their homes on Google Maps? Ya, some are animals but do we strip them of all rights along with lesser offenders? When it's apparently so easy to get on the list? Some kid plays grab-ass in high school one day and gets branded for life - is that okay?
It used to be that sexual harrassment charges were what you had to worry about killing your career and life but wow this is ALOT worse. It's really scary just how over the edge our society seems to have gone. Where does it end? Have things gotten worse since I was a kid or has society just gotten way more paranoid?
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Want to get this law removed? Everybody, start accusing your lawmakers of sexual misconduct.
These are the same issue! What do you think is the root for all those awkward contitutional issues in the first place? No wonder the basic freedoms of this nation are withering, when people can abstract out "constitutional issues" as distinct from "protection of the innocenet"...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
No joke. 10 years (3650 days to be in a prison for having sex with someone other than your wife!). He's in his 50's, so pretty much that's a death sentence. His wife and daughter write him and send him money!
He taught me what I know about RFDI tags and how wifi signals work.
Send him free computer magazines, letters, send him anything... well, that's reading material and allowed into a prison.
James Ellis
EF529362 , GDC1141126
CCA CCF
PO BOX 650
NICHOLLS 31554
This is ont of the clearest reviews I could find on a .gov site. A Canadian site put it a bit higher.
It's a girl!
I do believe serial molesters are more common than serial killers. Many serial molesters are also not caught. I'm sure you're familiar with how a child molested often blocks the memories.
It's a girl!
If we cannot prove the person guilty for whatever reason then tough - they go free! Or yeah in this new world we nail them in civil court There's no such thing as "I just *know* he's guilty but I can't prove it". Sorry, that's not cool, not kosher, and should never be allowed.
Yes, this means that some folks who are guilty will walk. We knew that when this system was created. It takes victims coming forward, it takes work on the part of investigators, and it takes community involvement in the trial. Sorry, I don't agree that it's okay to somehow shortcut it. Today it's folks we suspect might be child molestors, next week we go after Communists? Does no one remember Mccarthy? Kripes, just look at the numbers of people on Death Row who have been cleared with DNA evidence. Even in our current system we don't always get it right and now some dumbass wants to create lists for people we suspect but can't prove? Wow, just wow....
I know I know - we're doing it for the children right?
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Exactly. And often children are too scared to tell Mommy and Daddy as soon as it happened the first time. It's frightening. I know, a male babysitter molested me, but, unlike many children, though scared, the fear he instilled in me didn't match the safety I felt telling my parents, so he was immediately arrested. And it's extremely disturbing to me that he didn't have to register and now works as a counselor with kids.
But more often than not, kids feel fear, shame, like someone will think they liked it, that the did something to bring it on...so don't tell anyone. The molester knows he can probably get away with it again and again and again. Unless a child says something, there's nothing to be investigated. With murder, when a body is found, no one has to say anything, it's going to be investigated like crazy. It's harder to hide a murder than it is to make a child so afraid that he or she won't say anything.
And yes, for each offense, how many others were victimized who either didn't come forward or who have blocked it from their memories and so can't?
It's a girl!
Exactly - a form of survivor bias I do believe. If you know more about this please reply.
Learn lisp today!
Anyone who has been molested or whose child was molested would say that this is absolutely fair. The molester is being given a choice. However, it's not always a sexual thrill, but a power trip, knowing that he (or, less often, she) can have that kind of power and control over someone.
It's a girl!
Clearly you have never been a victim or had a child who was. This is more of a psychological illness than a desire for sexual gratification. You can't "cure" a molester anymore than you can "cure" someone with retardation (no offense meant to the mentally disabled). You can help them learn to live with it, but a molester failing to control it will victimize someone else whereas someone mentally disabled most likely will not.
Tell me this. Would you let a "rehabilitated" molester babysit your young daughter?
It's a girl!
Yes, and those who have not been convicted, or even given a trial, are going to be lumped in with criminals such as the man who killed Megan. A simple web search will bar someone from jobs, from being able to rent apartments, etc., due to a simple web search putting a black mark on their character. And yet these innocent accused will probably have NO RIGHT to file slander.
It's a girl!
If you want to keep him away from children, keep him in prison. Have tougher sentences imposed from the get-go. But once he is released, if he is prevented from finding employment and housing, how do you expect him to integrate back into society?
If he's that big of a threat, what's he doing out of jail in the first place?
One of the founding ideals of our justice system is that once you pay your debt to society, you're free to live your life. Get rid of the registries and make sentences for sex offenders longer.
No room in the jails you say? Then perhaps we should stop tossing people into prisons for minor things. Then maybe we'd have room for, you know, the dangerous people.
vi ~/.emacs
Children are considered to be property to an extent. You can not be denied what is yours without due cause. To give one parent 12 days every two weeks and the other parent just one weekend when both are fit parents is to deny the weekend-parent equal access without cause.
It's a girl!
Tell me this. Would you let a "rehabilitated" molester babysit your young daughter?
If they were rehabilitated, yes. However at the moment child molesters are let out on the street every day before they're rehabilitated, so I don't trust the criminal system at the moment. Obviously the answer is to only release them once they're rehabilitated. They can't be rehabilitated? Don't release them. Not enough room in jails? Kick out some of the less serious criminals. I ask you this. Who would you rather out on the streets. An un-rehabilitated pedophile/rapist or an un-rehabilitated drug user. I know what I'd want.
America doesn't take sex crimes serious enough (in some states I believe there is a statute of limitations). However sex offender lists aren't the answer.
How would you determine a molester to be rehabilitated? I hope you dodn't have children if you'd leave your child alone with a molester.
It's a girl!
Ok, don't mind me I'm really drunk right now but I'm from toledo. I get the toledo blade and I know some sex offenders from this. They have been doing this for a while but kinda cheating the system. I know you are thinking, "ok how?" but they have. They have been printing sex offender news in the newspaper every week. If you aren't convicted you can find your name in the blade several years later about sex offenses. It's really unneccisary especially with the amount of suits that fall through by me.
Ok, so you put these people in registries and that is going to do what? Let's say that one of these registered people lives across the street from you. What are you going to do? Are you going to watch him everyday and every minute? Are you going to sell your house?
No I think what is going to happen, the person on the list will chased out of the neighbor for fear that the price of the properties will go down. And that will solve nothing other than the person moving into a seedy part of town getting ready to plan another crime.
If sex offenders tend to commit the crime over and over again in contrast to murders then does that not tell us sex offenders have deeper issues? And if they have deeper issues is not time that we treat them differently in the justice system? Because let's be frank thus far it would seem that the current justice is not working!
Now about Megan being blue-eyed and blond, do a search on Google "missing black children not reported". The search result is scary and it does prove the bias towards a white blue-eyed blond girl.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
How would you determine a molester to be rehabilitated?
How would you determine if [insert criminal here] is rehabilitated?
I hope you dodn't have children if you'd leave your child alone with a molester.
I hope you don't have children if you'd leave your children alone with a [insert criminal type here].
I know, using the logic of sex offender lists. Let's have lists for all criminal types. And let's abridge the rights and freedoms of every single citizen who dares to commit any crime.
The Constitution does not give fathers a right to their children.
Sorry to nit-pick, but the constitution doesn't give ANY rights to ANYONE. It delegates certain powers to the federal government, and explicitly prohibits the infringement of certain rights by the federal and state governments, and in the tenth amendment it very clearly states that we have other rights as well.
This is a very common (and dangerous) misconception, that our rights derive only from that document.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Is it still too early in the "OMG WE'RE FUCKED" process to just start shooting these bastards in the throat?
Or are we going to wait around and twiddle our thumbs for a while yet?
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Look at gay marriage. no where does the Constitution allow for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. So how are we denying gays rights essentially guaranteed to them? All it takes is an amendment to overturn a right. And it happens.
The constitution also doesn't explicitly forbid jaywalking. Unless there's a secret fold-out, I can pretty much guarantee the constitution says nothing about sexual orientation. In fact, if it had said that you may not discriminate based on sexual orientation, you'd be including a whole lot more than gays, I'm fairly sure bestiality or pedophilia counts as sexual orientations. If it had been a enumerated right, the constitution would have to explicity mention gender preference, which it certainly doesn't.
In absence of an enumerated right, you have the 9th admendment which essentially says "this is not a complete list", but it doesn't explicitly say that "nothing else can be regulated". If that had been the case, the US would have about five laws. At the moment, nothing enumerated in the constitution explicitly permits nor forbids gay marriage. In others words, a regular law is sufficient. The constitution, and the amendments to it, are basicly "ground rules" for making sure that the greater principles aren't infringed on by minor laws.
"All it takes is an amendment" as if that was a minor thing - it's the highest law of the land. From a legal sense, such an amendment would be an abomination - what principle or inalienable right does it encompass (the right of people not to be bothered by other people of same sex getting married?). Looking at the list of amendments, the only other one that has really tried to introduce a negative is Prohibition (amendment XVIII), and that turned out great.
Basicly, to throw up a little "legal-o-meter":
Rights enumerated in the constitution
Rights not enumerated in the constitution -- you are here
Actions not forbidden by law = legal
Actions not recognized by the law -- US is mostly here, legally you simply can't get gay marriage recognized
Actions forbidden by law = illegal
Actions forbidden by the constitution -- some people want it to be over here
Amendments can take away rights both enumerated and not, they have the power to repeal other amendments. One single amendment could say that the bill of rights is gone. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's very likely to happen. What should we do? We can't simply create laws/amendments that could never, ever be changed. If enough people want a right, enumerated or not, gone - it will be done. The law is not at fault - what's scary is that people actually want to.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm sure that you've never had something so traumatic happen to you that, when the memories do start to come back, they seem light nightmares. You're lucky if you've never been in this situation.
It's a girl!
I sure as hell would not leave my child alone with ANYONE, regardless of crime, who committed an offense that hurt someone. Be the person a molester, someone who hit his or her spouse, whatever. Nor would I leave my child with anyone who breaks any laws which could result in harm to much child, such as a heroine-drug user who may go off and get high and neglect to keep a safe eye on my child.
I take it you don't know how you'd consider a molester to be rehabilitated.
It's a girl!
This list, SHOULD be found as unconstitutional. If that doesn't end up being the case. It will be a sign, of how damaged our court system is.
Remember when Uncle Sam set up the Gulags in Guantanamo and other secret locations, where people could be tortured and imprisoned indefinietly without anything remotely resembling a fair trial?
Remember when people like me warned you that this was the thin edge of the wedge, and it would be "ordinary criminals" next, then "ordinary citizens" ?
Frankly, I didn't think it would happen so quickly, but...
I TOLD YOU SO !
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
Man, they can arrest you for anything anymore in Ohio. Yes, I live there.
Mind that Ohio doesnt have much to say about being legitimate or prosperous- if you know Ohio enough, just follow the money. Some mind bending tricks such as McGee's Economic Blunder to prevent the inevitable suburbian flight, things like Diebold, or NCR's great exit in the 1990's.
Criminal/civil offenses are sort of the final way to make money around here when job departure is constant and replacements are usually lower income if at all.
I presume that you already are familiar with some of Ohio's finest after encountering town sized speed traps, or "25mph here, but only for under a mile and 45mph on each side" zones. Become a mayor of a small town, set your speed traps, have a guaranteed revenue stream, then get a nice shiny new Interceptor for the law enforcement to show for a one stoplight town.
The only solution is to get rid of political parties or get a third party
Really. Not. Happening. (unless you want to get rid of Ohio entirely or reform it massively)
Given how 2 major cities are on the bottom ten lists for average income (Dayton for its mid-sized- ~26k average, Cleveland on large sized- ~24.5k average) and with places such as Southeast Ohio being hit even harder, gaining economic prosperity always seems to have put political debate on the backburner since 1980. You arent going to get anything of any true political change in a state that has seen decline for nearly the past 30 years.
The major downside to this program is that the only real opportunities that exist in matters of guaranteed high-income jobs are with government contractors, or the financial sector- the rest has left or is leaving. This new regulation is unfortunately not the kind we need but what usually comes around here - and it'd probably make a few people unable to get a clearance of any kind.
In short, Ohio continually redefines new lows in about everything possible in the political, economic, and criminal subjects at the same time, it may require massive changes in the very least to repair the recent damage, and may need to reform education in painful ways (probably one of the places where there would be an actual need to just bite the bullet and just guarantee tuition and admission to anywhere on some non-merit, residence basis, along with career assistance) just to repair all the 25+ straight years of economic and political disasters.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I suggest you examine the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act (RIPA, I think it's 1998). See what the going assumption is if you've been served with a disclosure warrant and you can't find an encryption key. Unless you have well documented crypto key management and disposal methods that give you a decent audit trail you will be charged with contempt of court.
So, principally, you have to prove your innocence..
There are a number of other dodgy provisions in there that makes you wonder precisely how many decades ago the UK stopped being a democracy (I guess mainly since Kaiser Tony got his hands on the controls), but the above one is probably the most blatant violation of the principle in question.
Even the ID Cards project hasn't dared to implement some of its more insane provisions in law yet (but give it time, first a couple more "terrorist attack" scares like the whole liquid bomb spoof).
I'm not smart enough to know how the troll game works, BUT I am damn sure smart enough to distinguish the difference between your examples...
Totally irrelevent..including the amount of deaths
Raped and killed a very young female child after giving positive proof by his confirmed previous behavior that he was not just inclined but capable.
'think about this visually, reach for your empathy.' These animals should not have any rights. I resent their right to breathe.
a small female child terrorized, tortured and KILLED!
As a great grand mother of two preschool female toddlers who were indeed, subjected to all of the above except, thankfully, the killing, I firmly believe the punishment should, indeed, fit the crime. Lock them up, terrorize and torture them... right after you have thrown away the key.
I am not trying to pull on your heart strings but I am the one that held these tiny little girls in my arms at night thru night terrors. My heart breaks every time I remember the 4 year old sitting on my lap reading a story when she stopped me by reaching up and patting my cheek with her tiny hand. Looking streight in my eyes, she softly said "I was a big girl nanna, I didn't cry but (insert her YOUNGER sisters name) is just a baby.
Their abuser was known by the state and at least two counties but nobody ever got a warning that there was a known predator amoung us.
Make room in the prisons by putting the people in them that belong in them and stop putting *non-violent minor offenders in there. There are dozens of other ways to make *their lives miserable that could not be any less affective, but would undoubtedly be a hell of a lot cheaper.
The Ohio law will never it make the past upper courts. Ohio must have forgotten we have a constitution and a bill of rights.
Never the less I understand the incentive more then sending an employed, husband and father tax payer to prison for stupid things like parapanalia.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
...what else other than continuous economic, political or criminal issues in the last 30 years (or combinations thereof) to light up a big sign that says "Leave Ohio if you can"?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That is a logical fallacy. Since we cannot disprove the statement "blocked memories are caused my molestation", you assume that it must therefore be true.
This looks and smells like an anti-reproduction law. Fine, we have porn, we are geeks, we can do that! :)
I take it you don't know how you'd consider a molester to be rehabilitated.
I take it you don't know how you'd consider a [insert criminal type here] is rehabilitated?
No, I don't know. But my point is, we have a corrections system. Not a punishment system. As such the system should strive to correct people's behaviour. If it doesn't, it's broken and should be fixed. Sex offenders lists aren't fixing the system. It isn't even close. In fact it causes harm as people become complacent and no longer care if people are rehabilitated as they feel they have enough safety from the criminals.
I don't know about America. But Australia in recent times has been striving to convert the jails from punishment to rehabilitation. Is it a long way off? Of course. But it's a much better solution.
There is common law. Someone can do an action that although not illegal, they can end up losing in civil court. If murder weren't illegal, people could still go to court and sue the suspected murderer. Financial penalties aren't powerful enough to prevent such. That's why it's good that we have incarceration.
So you admit that by the nature of this arrangement is it pretty much unproveable, but we should go "charging mah lazer" regardless as if it were absolutely true?
I will restate myself, because it bears repeating. it sucks, it is stupid, it will be taken to court and it will be thrown out as an unjust law.
at 3:00 am i can think of atleast a dozen legal concepts that this bill can be destroyed with
prediction, 3-6 months from now, the fist guy that got put on the list will not only be genuinly innocent (like he didnt do anything in the first place, no that legal style of not guilty) he will have never done anything wrong, including parking tickets...he and some ACLU type groups will bring suit, win, destroy every idea of this type of thing coming up again, be rich forever with millions upon millions of dollars of cash money and be happy.
this is a bullshit law designed to "protect" (i use that in quotes because it wont protect anyone) i live in a county that is the dumping ground for the true molesters and rapists. they let them go free, never serving their true debt to society. why dont they execute the 5 time pedophiles. and stop worrying about the peoople that havent even committed a crime. Or for the people that dont like the death penalty. 5 time offender never ever gets out of prison, whether they are 16 when it happens or they are 90, they never ever are released again to commit their crimes (and they can always be found they were wrongly convicted...chicago knows a thing or two about wrongful convictions)
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
You took what I said out of context.
AriaStar said, "For one, fathers are guaranteed the right to their children,"
I replied, "The Constitution does not give fathers a right to their children. However, I believe common law would apply in such places."
maw, cut is pecker , finger, and tongue off.
OTOH, how difficult is it to be found guilty the 2nd + time even if your not?
I like the old way better.
If you suspected someone, you took them out of town, beat the crap out of them and told them not to come back.
If they were caught at it, they were taken out of town and shot.
I know most molesters are know to the family, and yeah, I'd have them shot to.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why have we stomped over civil liberties to go after sex offenders? Most of the time the offender is someone you know (like a "weird uncle"). How many of us bother to look up sex offender information on our brothers before we let them come over to see our kids? I'm guess almost nobody, but statstically that is where we should be looking.
I'd much rather be molested than killed, you never get better from being killed. Let's start labeling people as murders without having to bother with the complicated business of actually convicting them.
Abuse anti-pervert laws are just political BS used to passify the middle class so they can be screwed over by corrupt politicians.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It doesn't take much to lose a case in civil court.
I'm sorry, but anyone who has looked at it see's any situation rated on feeling and not fact in a civil court.
Example, big companies are often rulled against even when the 'victim' can't prove theitr case because the jury feels sorry for them.
You could get accused of pedofile, and is all the accuser did was bring a small child on the stand, and go on about how a child shouldn't be treated that way, and NEVER mention you, you have a 50% chance of loosing that case.
You want to take that chance?
Here is an idea, remove the statute of limitations for sex offenders. Like murder.
Seems to solve this little issue neatly.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It would be very useful if you could pre-punish criminals before a crime is committed! That would certainly be a deterrent.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
If you've ever received junk mail for a previous occupant of your home,
If you've ever received something that wasn't junk mail for a previous occupant of your home,
If you've ever been refused credit because of a bad debt run up by a previous occupant of your home,
Then you'll know why Megan's Law is a terrible idea.
(How easy would it be to get a stolen identity on the sex offenders' register? Did you know that you can get on there for taking a leak?)
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Reduce, reuse, cycle
If we're all free, we're free to have rights.
But someone else is free to take them away.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
There is a substantial percentage (~30%) of 'Sex Offenders' that are convicted for only having been caught urinating on the side of the road by the police. The old 'indecent exposure' charge.
So, a large number of people's lives have been ruined due to simply not having a rest stop handy after drinking coffee to stay awake on a trip. Now, how many here have done that? Now, imagine what it would like if you were stopped by the cops and branded as a child molester for the rest of your life for it?
wganz
This sounds like it would encourage falsely accused people to actually committing a sexual offense. Treat people like criminals and you're likely to turn them into criminals.
a kid drowning in America? Yes, it sounds cruel, but the best thing you can do is just go away. With reports like this and similar ones, you never know what happen after you saved the child. You might be registered just because you might have accidentally touched the kid the wrong way while you pulled it out of the water. An never ever do a mouth-to-mouth breathing until you made sure how old the drowning victim is. Best never ever do a mouth-to-mouth breathing at all, if the vicim is no child, you might still be in legal fire as a rapist.
Want to screw your potential opponents (in politics, busyness, etc.)? "Hey, i think they're a sex offender." This'll be particularly effective when co-joined with a sexual harassment lawsuit against the company. The best part about this is that the guy'll be terrified of fighting the harassment lawsuit if he's threatened with this branding.
I think there will be really creative uses of this law (and its underlying attitude) that will evolve. The really exciting advances will be to find other offenses they'll be able to label.
In short, anything the intolerant religious majority (of the legislative bodies) want to deem a "detestable but not provably illegal" offense can be fit into this template. I don't know whether i should laugh at their stupidity or cry at the destruction of the civil liberties in this country.
This'll get fixed (but not corrected) when some powerful "christian" representative gets entered onto the list by his wife when she finds out he's been having sex with one of his interns. Unfortunately, it won't be in time to help out the thousands of poor schmoes who have had their life destroyed by such a stupid, stupid law. Or, maybe it'll be busynesses in Ohio who'll object when they start taking significant hits from sexual harassment cases. Serves them right.
There should be some kind of qualifying exam that people have to take before they're able to run for political office. Whoever introduced and voted on this thing clearly have no understanding of the US Constitution and are obviously legislating their favorite religious tome.
Hey, maybe we should bring back stoning to deal with "offenders" like these.
Finally Ohio has found a way to get rid of Kenneth Blackwell!!! Just accuse him child molesting and he's history.
By the perception of illusion, we experience reality
The only way your post could have been improved is to flag it as informative + insightful. You could have stopped at your first sentence, but your following statements contributed substantially to further explain the position. A reasonable person, a reasonable community, a reasonable state, a reasonable country would do well to consider the meaning of what you so tersely put. Your nickname is little more than gibberish to me, the site you link to suggests a playfulness less than serious, but what you said exposed the core of a foulness so abhorrent that I am grateful, absolutely grateful, to read and consider what you wrote. With no sarcasm, double-meaning, or innuendo whatsoever, and on behalf of no one except perhaps those who might agree, I personally thank you for what you've said. You nailed it.
Of course, the issue is about the burden of proof and the ridiculous costs of the law. These laws stem from attempts to find a cheaper way of effectively convicting people without requiring conviction levels of proof. In the UK, the lawyer's trade unions are even more powerful than those in the US, and have been steadily ratcheting up the costs of the criminal justice system. They have also grown more expert at spinning out cases to maximise fee income, and to waste more and more police time. (and this is not just me ranting, this is a summary of the complaints made by Government officials.) Of course, governments have not helped by creating mountains of unnecessary laws, duplicating whatever exists, partly for the sake of keeping the yellow press happy.
My solution to the whole problem is basically to fine heavily news outlets that tell lies or publish prejudicial information. We used to do this in the UK and we were far less hysterical as a result. It is interesting that the NYT has had to block an article about the latest "terrorist" arrests to UK destinations because it would prejudice the trial of any accused. That to me is not about idiots trying to be leet and circumventing it; it is about a serious way in which the US criminal justice system is faulty, in that newspapers and other media can distort the judicial process. Finding a way to put a stop to that would result in less hysteria and the possibility of taking a more rational and long term look at the judicial system and the treatment and identification of offenders. But it's pure fantasy. As the amended US constitution, shortly to be added to the EU constitution, says, "In any disagreement on the interpretation of this Constitution, the opinions of the media proprietors shall have primacy."
Pining for the fjords
"This is slightly worse than wiretapping w/o a warrant on the constitutional level"
Makes you wonder what the right wing nut job's next move will be after this!
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
We all know that Newts get pissed, and alcoholics abuse children http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5305802.stm.
So she has turned you into a paedo-newt scumbag, and that's enough to get you registered...
Isn't publishing information about an individual without proof considered libel?
... even against an entity such as the state.
From the Wikipedia I quote:
In law, defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character. The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, esp. speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, esp. writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each which give a common law rights of action.
Therefore placing an individual on such a list can rightfuly be considered an act of defamation and be prosecuted as such
Since the law lets citizens ask judges to put people on thist, the obvious solution for Ohio citizens is to accuse every single politician who is responsible for this law of being a sexual predator. Let them prove they aren't and see how they suddenly change their mind about this law.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Cathy Fordham showed how it is done, and how the "system" in Ontario is not prepared to reverse itself when its assumptions are wrong.
Even with courts providing "balance", this is a difficult area for the rights of accused to be respected. Hopefully Cathy Fordham's excesses were an exception, but the irreversible fallout from this one person's manipulation demonstrates how carefully the justice system must handle such cases.
As with the death penalty, how many wrongful convictions are we willing to tolerate? What is more important; harsh punishment for the guilty or keeping the innocent free?
RTFM; please, I beg you.
This crusade against child offenders is turning into the biggest political redirection I have ever seen. Once again the leeches suckling on the religious voters have found an issue, that no individual would refute its level of good, in order to draw attention away from all the other crusades that have ended in disaster. These same worthless, pandering, disgracefull Republicans have riden yet another bandwaggon over the poor horses.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
"Sadly, things have changed a lot in the America I grew up in. It's really not the same place."
Yeah! You're no longer able to post to slashdot.
you should have your head examined. seriously.
what. the. fuck. if that's not pulling heart strings, then I don't know what is.
it's obvious why this registry is a bad idea. it's because of people like you who'd like to go on a little witch hunt the minute someone gets on this list. "i knew he must be one of them!"
you are totally irrational and emotional because children are involved. you're so blind that you play down traffic accident victims and others because they weren't cute little children with puppy eyes.
excuse me while i puke...
You're innocent until proven guilty. As much as I hate sex offenders and any type of sexual crime. I can't condone any action that assumes that the person is guilty even if the state (or whatever other judicial court) can't prove it. The simple fact is, you can't label them a sexual offender and add them the registry if you can't prove they're a sexual offender; and if you can prove it then the whole post is a mute point.
Dont forget, if you are accused of ANY crime, your records stay forever ( even if they take DNA, like some states do ). Even if you are proven not guilty, or the case is eventually dropped you are still marked for life.
Not saying the Preregistration is good, just that im not suprised.
"make everyone a criminal, even its imagined, and its eaiser to control the populace out of fear"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If a private company makes a "pre-crime" registry, they would be slammed into the ground for libel/slander, especially with no proof, even preponderance of evidence to the contrary. If a state like Ohio does it, its legal?
This should get struck down by the ACLU soon, if the ACLU does take up the case.
This is just the latest trend in our society's new motto of "Guilty until proven Innocent"
I'm sure Benjamin Franklin is rolling over in his grave.
It's sickening how many of the freedoms that we fought long and hard to win have been voluntarily relinquished in the name of "security". A police state like Stalin-era USSR is nice and secure, and thats where we are heading.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
If he's that big of a threat, what's he doing out of jail in the first place?
Making room in there for pot-heads.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm a sexist. Okay. Totally. This kind of shit is why too. Just a few days back there was that ridiculous law that got passed in the UK about violent porn and now this. This is the law that comes from "soccer moms" and touchy-feely women groups who scream "we have to do something about X problem." These laws fill up and up due to grieving mothers and it's why their asses were not allowed to vote 100 years ago. (It was a better time really.)
And before anyone gives me any knee-jerk bullshit, ask yourself: "Has the USA become a more peaceful place and has the freedom, literacy rate and average living conditions (comparative for the technology of the time) improved since the 19th amendment passed?" Now we're an entire nation of fucking nancy pants whiners looking for "daddy" to take care of our sorry asses. Fuck the feminists. Fuck the politicians pandering to them. Fuck this emotionally based law. And fuck Ohio you cocksuckers.
The government is ALWAYS scarier than the simple boogiemen hiding in the dark alley. Hitler killed more people in his reign of terror than an generation's worth of violent "regular" criminals.
Get out of touch with your fucking feelings and get in touch with stoic objectivity. This shit has got to stop before we implode under the weight of all these bullshit laws. Free country? What the fuck is that?
I don't believe you are second-year law student: Even though lawyers are not taught to think anymore, they still are responsible for the ideas behind the Constitution. In broad terms, a person in the USA has a right to take actions to make his life better (it's called liberty) as long as his actions don't impinge on the life, liberty and property of others. (OK, these natural rights have been considerably abridged, and the actual arguments supporting this idea are too long to discuss here. I suggest you read, "We Hold These Truths" by Mortimer Adler.) This liberty cannot be abridged (supposedly) unless there is evidence of some powerful harm to society. (We lock up criminals to protect society, but they are still entitled to some liberty.) The standard for abridging a person's liberty is conviction of an offense by a jury of his peers. (I'm not a strict constitutionalist, but, like most Supreme Court Judges, I do advocate textualism. I only mention this to avoid the appearance of an irrelevant argument.)
While it makes logical sense that a person losing a civil trial can be subsequently tried for criminal acts exposed during that civil trial, and there may be a rationale for assessing restorative damages or conducting a civil trial for someone whose acts have been exposed in a criminal trial in which he was convicted, there is no logically consistent rationale for subjecting a person to civil penalties for a criminal act unless he has actually been convicted of the criminal act. (IMO, both the OJ and Blake civil suits were a mis-application of Justice.) Certainly there is no rationale for a bench judgement of civil penalties for a person not even exposed to a civil trial! This law presupposes a definition of a person in an invalid "to be" format. It is valid to say, "Joe was convicted (caught, diagnosed) as a sex offender." but it is not valid to say, "Joe is a sex offender." This is an unwarranted generalization unless the first, valid statement is also true.
Think of it this way: It is invalid for me to say, "Ted Turner is a farmer" when, in fact, Ted Turner does not work the soil, plow a field or plant a crop. (Ted Turner is paid huge sums by the US Government for NOT cultivating the land he owns in Colorado.) It is valid for me to say, "Ted Turner owns many acres of farm and agricultural land in Colorado.)
So, a person convicted of being a sex offender might rationally be placed on a list of people whose liberty is too be restricted, but this isn't right for someone who is not convicted. Get it?
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
you can finish it.
As others have suggested, anybody who is seriously affected by this bout of judicial idiocy can possibly sue for defamation.
Lets take the lost-jobs scenario: You realise that not only have you lost your job to this stupid database, but you have been defamed among your colleagues and have trouble getting good positions elsewhere in companies that do research on their candidates. You are unemployed for a year due to this, and can prove it.
What to do? A million dollar law-suit. IF they keep on making stupid laws, let them pay for it.
I hate shit like this. This is one of those topics that flips my rant bit quite harshly. I'm fine with putting Child Sexual Predators on a list.
Fine. Parents want to know where they live. Fine. People want to keep them away from schools. Fine.
But for the love of all that is reasonable, every fucking state in the nation needs to properly define what a Sexual Offender is. Everyone sees a name on a Sexual Offender list and assumes every person on it is a child molster. That that case of the guy who stalked and murdered two people in Maine last year that were on a list. One WAS a child predator. The other was 18 and banged his under age girlfriend and the parents caused a ruckass. That guy had no business being on that list. Hell, in some states, getting busted for public urination w/ your johnson hanging get's you on the Sexual Offenders list.
This bill and my retarded state just goes to prove my point. You're 30, poked your 16yo gf when you were 18. YOu got busted showing your dick in public while taking a piss on a drunk night. You don't deserve to be on this list, and harrased like a criminal because some asshat can't make understand the difference between sexual offenders, sexual predators, and sexual child predators.
Rant mode off.
First of all, it's a civil registry. I don't see an automatic due process issue because the state isn't meting out any punishment to those who are listed (i.e. there's no state-led deprivation of life, liberty, or property). You might argue that being listed is enough of a black mark that it effectively bars finding employment or housing, thereby creating a due process issue, but that hasn't been borne out in practice yet.
IANAL, but registry in one state's sex offenders file requires the *other* states to be notified, am I correct? Should we wait until someone who 'found' themselves on Ohio's list need to register when they cross state lines.
'Black mark' is a misnomer. All you need to do is turn on the late-night news during Sweeps Month and hear about SEX OFFENDER! IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD! NEAR YOUR SCHOOLS! ARE YOUR CHILDREN SAFE?
I can see where this law could be useful in cases where we know someone has committed a heinous act but the state can't punish him. Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable). Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems. Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled. Maybe what the person did is despicable but not criminal, e.g. someone with HIV who knowingly refuses to use protection or inform his/her partners. A criminal conviction is a very high bar. We can't always establish criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt even though we know for certain the person has done very bad things. Not saying I think this is the right approach, but it's not as harebrained as many here have suggested.
From previous conversations, there have been situations when a 17-year-old has ended up on the list thanks to a zealous parent of a 15-year-old, or when public urination forces registration. (anyone want to trot out their lifestory examples?)
There is a difference between a violent pedophile and someone who took a leak in the alley. The registry makes no distinction.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Registries for everyone! Yes, I'm sure they really do solve so many more problems than they create.
I wonder if, as such lists proliferate and become "heavily populated," especially with "junk entries" (such as for streaking or bush-wizzing), the value of these lists & their information will decrease and they (hopefully) just won't be relevant anymore. On the other hand, we might also come up with the "reverse" of these types of lists, e.g. Good Guy lists. :) Of course, then we could have the issue of someone showing up on multiple lists, both "bad" and "good," further diminishing their relevance.
A previous poster mentioned a new Alabama law that just went into effect, placing an "offender" mark on drivers licenses. IMHO this is also a Bad Thing and should be struck down (ACLU are you listening?) - just how is that kind of information relevant/useful on a drivers license for *everyone* (store clerks, etc.) to see? Looks to me like Yet Another Way for that licenseholder to be mistreated.
If you make the victim's character totally off limits, then when the victim DOES seduce a man, has sex with him, and claims rape, people will believe her and throw the man in jail, which is not just.
If you make the victim's character wide open, then when a promiscuous woman with a reputation for seducing a man is raped, and the man claims he was seduced, he'll be believed and that's an injustice.
If you allow some but not all of the witness's character to come into play, over the long haul you'll have some of each kind of error.
Unless you can somehow prevent people from lying on the stand, it's simply a no-win situation for the justice system: there WILL be injustices.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I just asked my crim law professor because were discussing a similar issue today in class (Doe v. City of Lafayette). It is acceptable to do this in civil courts, or even civil actions outside of court. This does not violate double jeopardy. The thing is, the standard of evidence won't be a prepondarance as in normal civil litigation. They will have a standard of proof very similar to criminal court. Similar statutes have already been upheld by the supreme court, so look for this one to make it as well, unless a creative lawyer can find another grounds to appeal it on.
- Rehabilitation of the prisoner.
- Protecting society by removing the prisoner from it.
If it succeeds in the first, the registry is not needed. If it fails in the first, then the correct thing to do is attempt to discover why it is failing. If people are released an re-offend then it is failing in the second and sentence lengths need to be increased.This is just a symptom of a bigger problem; a society that believes that the correct solution for mentally ill individuals is to put them in a prison for a bit then let them out and expect them to be cured.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I've not posted to /. in eons. Hell, I barely even read /. these days. But I feel compelled to comment on this issue.
Several years ago a girl who I'd kicked out _6 months_ prior decided to file a PFA (Protection From Abuse order) against me. Being that this was a "legal" matter, it was required that I had to be served notice of it by the Sheriff's department _in person_. Aside from the humiliation of having my neighbors witness and wonder why I was being confronted by these law enforcement officers, I was also subjected to some really silly nonsense like them taking my Swiss army knife away (still haven't got that back).
Anyway, the notice alleged chiefly that due to my physical abuse of her the police were called to our home on numerous occasions and that she had to be treated in the ER several times due to injuries I'd inflicted. "Haha!" I thought; if ANY of this were true (which it wasn't) there would certainly be a paper trail (police reports, hospital records, etc.) "I'm gonna make this bitch look SO stupid when we go to court."
Yea, right.
The ONLY time I was able to open my mouth during the "proceeding" was when my jaw hit the floor when I was "sentenced." I spent the next 9 months attending anger management classes and drug and alcohol counseling AT MY EXPENSE.
Based SOLELY on her word, with NO evidence WHATSOEVER. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. (not that there would have been any "evidence" anyway)
And the best part: when a criminal background check is run on me, that will ALWAYS show up. In perpetuity. Nice, eh?
There's so much more I could say on this subject, but I think you get the drift.
Last little twist: her email address at the time was ***peace2u@***.com WTF!?!?! PEACE TO YOU!?!?!?!
Dear A.C.
/. readers of any length of time are quite familiar with your style so suprise, suprise! You are not quite as invisable as you think.
I admit I am not the brightest old broad in the world up front.
I also admit that I will never forget the horror these children went thru or the comment of the last monster who killed the little girl next door and stated in court on t.v. that "NO! she was NOT dead when he stuffed her in a garbage bag and buried her alive like a 'pup'!"
I also admit publicaly that I have an agenda....kill 'em all but six and save them for pall barrers!
BUT I have enough guts to sign my name (nick)....You go ahead and puke so we can identify you in person..an arrogant ass who has a negitive or 'corrective ' opinion on any comment, in every formum, you disagree with.
Most
AND! I do not participate in witch hunts of any kind...Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation and I do NOT approve of this law which I believe is un-enforable and a waste of resources.
If I had to chose an issue to 'hunt' it would definately be against ignorance and 'you would be close to qualifing as 'game' with your closed mind and unbelievable arrogance.
I've got to believe you are trolling since I have followed your posts in the past and in spite of your need to have an opinion on everything...I never considered you 'stupid'.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
Ah, but when a child molester has "paid his debt," you want him to stay in jail longer, anyway. How is his "debt to society" greater, simply because you perceive him to be a threat? Isn't that condemning him before a future crime has been committed? Where's due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc.?
We're right back where we started. Pre-crime punishment.
I talked to some of the reporters who broke that case -- the woman who was set on fire by her ex after she was denied a restraining order was voluntarily visiting him at his place for a booty call. Which means she'd have been torched no matter what the judge did.
1. Get falsely accused
2. Hire lawyer
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Although I think that this law is an incredibly bad idea, I'm not sure that it's as obviously unconstitutional (using a very literal interpretation of various aspects of the Constitution) as some people are assuming.
The prohibition of Bills of Attainder is specifically against things passed by the legislature against specific persons, at least as I understand it; it's a separation-of-powers issue, to keep the legislature from just saying that a particular person is guilty of a crime and punishing them. They're not allowed to do that; they create the laws, but the actual judgement is left up to the judicial branch.
However, as best I understand the scheme in Ohio, it wouldn't be the legislature putting you on the registry per se, it would be a civil court. Thus, it's still in the hands of the judicial branch, and it passes the test.
In terms of due process, the Constitution guarantees the right to hear the charges against you and to confront your accuser and call witnesses on your behalf (and a jury, etc., etc.), but you could meet all of these requirements in a civil court, if it was so desired. A whole lot of the protections that we've come to expect in this country, while they're derived (I'd argue) from the spirit of the Constitution, aren't protected literally. They're just regular laws, or procedural standards, or come from precedent that relies on a more-than-literal reading of the Constitution. In other words, you could create a pretty twisted system -- twisted from our point-of-view, anyway -- and still maintain a facade of Constitutionality, if you wanted to.
At any rate, I haven't read the actual proposed legislation in Ohio, but I just thought it was important to point out that you could probably do something like this and make it Constitutional according to a very literalist interpretation, on paper. I don't think that we can necessarily count on the USSC striking down something like this, if it became law.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If we do that, we wouldn't need all these registries.
Home of the careful
Land of the pollitacly correct
As an American I swear every day the majority in this country beleive less and less in freedom, let alone know what it means
stop tossing people into prisons for minor things
Minor things? How about peaceful things? Non-violent things? How about acts of voluntary association between consenting adults? You know, those things which human nature (NOT government) already declared moral and acceptable forms of behavior?
There is a reason why the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world (i.e. inmates per population). It's not because the US has more violent criminals to deal with -- it's because the US government has put more peaceful "criminals" in prison.
Want to talk about creepy? Click on the link to the submitter. I feel... dirty, now. That's freakish. it's one thing to be a person who "likes" or even "loves" kids, like, "oh, i love your son, he's a nice boy" or "your daughter is sweet, it's a joy watching her"; it's another to call yourself a "paedophile" and hold the belief that you can have a meaningful relationship with a child in the same way as an adult. That's highly, highly disturbing and disturbed. Even if you do decry sexual abuse, that title of "paedophile" is one that we as a society have now reserved for those who are in fact sexually abusing a child. Claiming that title is not something that "nice people" who just "like kids" should fight for. Isn't it enough just to say that you like kids?
(I don't know if I need to say this, but any sexual contact with a child is abusive. It doesn't matter how "nurturing" or "responsive" you are, they just aren't emotionally equipped for it. at all. period. I'm not sure this is something these folks understand.)
I really do wonder, though, about the supposed preponderance of abusers and molesters out there. Do that many people -really- sexually abuse their children? While I'm certain it happens, I fear a witch-hunt occuring in the public mind, spurred on by overzealous litigators and politicans looking for an issue to latch on to for nothing more than voting purposes. Further, it's a topic I loathe to research personally, because it just makes me feel sick. I hope that somebody with a stronger stomach has or will step up to the plate. Someone put an end to this disgusting, freakish practice and even more disturbing witch hunt once and for all, and in a manner that will not disturb the civil rights of anyone.
I'm posting this as AC because I am thouroughly creeped out by this topic. I'm really creeped out by this topic, and I don't really want to be hounded about it, even though I've got something to say.
Ah. It appears I possibly misunderstood then, as your position earlier appeared to be a "for."
Unfortunately, however, we at some point must accept the following:
For the record, I have three daughters I love very much. So please skip the inevitable (or seemingly so) "you'll get it once YOU have kids" bit...
Criminals who abuse children should be punished, that is true. They should also be required to undergo treatment (and WHY in most cases are we waiting until the criminals are OUT of prison to begin treatment????) and to accept restrictions on being around minors, especially alone, as part of their parole. All that's well and good.
However, I have a problem with this "shadow life sentence" bit, where though you're not -technically- sentenced to life you are in effect exiled and branded for the rest of your life. Either make the sentence life or make it x years with mandatory (and actually effective!) treatment, but don't just take the cheap way out.
As to slander, I would imagine that the accused -might- be able to file it, however then they have to show a preponderance of evidence in a civil case. I'm not imagining this thing would fly far though, or at least I hope the Supreme Court would give it the good hard whack it deserves if it ever passes./p.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Anonymous Coward is what someone gets when they don't sign their name. It's not all one person appearing that way, if it was that person sure would be busy ;)
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
This is Great!
Now we can get the entire Ohio State of Reps and Senate, including the
Governers office staff and the Govener on a Child Porn List of Offensors
and cite them all on having criminal records! Bankrupt them all in
24 hrs. What a deal! This is heaven sent! The bodies are burning
in Columbus tonight.
Toodles!
yes, but they learn how to become violent criminals in prison, this allows us to snag them again for violent crime (if we're not too busy handing out speeding tickets), and then argue that they should have served a longer term the first time for their heinous peaceful behavior because obviously they didn't learn their lesson. It's a beautiful, efficient system really.
~Pigs
ôó
Well, I suppose having the child abusers next door would be better than having them in the house. Let's not forget - around 80% of children who are molested or otherwise abused are abused in their homes by their family or friends of their family.
(Actually, that's a UK figure. But I doubt that the US is hugely different.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The first thing you need to understand is that this is not a law per say, but an administrative rule propogated by Ohio's Attorney General. While administrative rules are subject to the legislatures approval, most are approved unless there is a large contention of groups opposed to the rule.
The second thing you need to understand is the intent of the rule. The civil registry is being created to appease a situation which has become quite contriversial over the past two years in the state of Ohio- Priest Sex Abuse. A group of Ohioans have been lobbying and pushing for a bill that will allow them a one time window to go back and sue the church for abuse that occured up to 35 years ago. In Ohio like most states there is a limited amount of time the state can bring forward a criminal action as well as a limited amount of time an individual can brin forward a civil action. In the case of molestation and sex abuse of a minor, the individual has until two years after they turn 18 to bring an action.
The group of Ohioans that are pushing for a one time window to sue the church have lost their right to sue, because they are all well beyond the two year window. What the priests did was horrible; however, these individuals can not expect a political body to create a law expanding the time limit when a case involves a priest. More importantly the Ohio constitution forbids the General Assembly from passing legislation that is retroactive. In order for these individuals to get what they want, the state would have to seperate sexual abuse by priest from other sexual abuse and make the seperation retroactive to allow these individuals to seek restitution. That bill, if it were to pass, would undoubtably be struck down by the Ohio Supreme court as soon as the church appealed it to them.
The civil registry is a way to allow for both sides of the issue to compromise. While the church sees no benefit in bankrupting its parishes, the victims feel this is the only way to exact restitution. With the civil registry the victims will get their justice and the church in Ohio won't go bankrupt (remember that each Diocese of the Catholic Church is financially indipendant from Rome). The civil registry will allow for due process and because it isn't created by an act of Ohio's General Assembly it has the abilaty to apply to events that have taken place in the past.
Well good fur them good ol' ohio boys doin sumthin 'bout them gosh darn sex pretenders. Put dem all on a big ol' list so me an the boys can bust out the pitch forks an have a good ol' witch hunt! Them an thur aydes spreadin, gay lovin, god cursin kind.
An thank god fur Bush! Gettin rid of 'dem tourists! Hate dem hippy tourists comin 'round our parts, with thur Es Yu Vees an high society livin, you ain't welcome dag nabbit! Burn 'em all!
This why decent folk like me vote Republican!
As a victim of child sexual assult, I applaud this.
However, as a realist who thinks that the government is taking everything the wrong direction, I abhorr it.
What disgusted me more than anything was knowing that the man who did unspeakable things to me moved into a house with two young children. We reported it to the cops, I (at 11) took a polygraph test, and went through many many many years of therapy as well.
it's nice to know that the Catholic church has enough $$ to pass this instead of seeing the real creeps go to jail for it. This is going to be abused, just like everything else in the US right now.
all sex is rape. So sayeth Andrea Dworkin.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
metalpet:
>It wouldn't be fair to convict them for more than we have evidence for, but it certainly makes sense to keep tabs on them once they get out.
voice_of_all_reason:
> So you admit that by the nature of this arrangement is it pretty much unproveable, but we should go "charging mah lazer" regardless as if it were absolutely true?
Would you like to rephrase your question?
Nothing in my post(s) can be construed as being in favor of tracking people that are presumed innocent.
It should however be obvious that I am strongly in favor of tracking known convicted sexual predators.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
and Republican Candidate for Governor, has NEVER BEEN CONVICTED of a child sex offence.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
and also used by karma counting active posters when they don't want to antagonise 'another' score seeker who uses moderation to keep from inviting mini wars.
After over 8 years on slashdot, vocabulary, technique, style, additude etc. make some more visable then they think.
I admit to emotioanality on this issue and this poster made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. I admitted it, explained my prejudicial post and my feeling that the law..admittidly ill thought out, and unlikely to withstand higher court rulings WAS UNDERSTANABLE from the standpoint of those whose lives have been affected by having endured the consequences of these predators being invisably amoung us.
Articulate as he/she may or may not be..NOT having the strength of their conviction by posting AC just made more clear to me that "the emptiest tin cans make the loudest noise."
I do,however, appreciate your 'polite' explanation just in case " I" was a new poster that didn't understand the defination.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
No worries, just wasn't sure :-) Interesting Journal BTW, one of these days I'll have to consider putting something in mine! (lol) You certainly seem to have gotten around and seen a great many things. I too recall the simpler days but am truly thankful for the fount that is the 'net.
;-)
I have to admit to not tracking Karma too closely, you hit a point where it goes nowhere and it simply ceases to seem to matter. I try hard not to let the AC folks get to me as it seems more often as not it's some kid sans clue. Not worth the blood pressure spike...
Take care!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Another assault on the constitutiom brought to us by the gop, catholics, and evangelicals Hell yes, it's unconstitutional. So What? That doesn't stop the stupid. And the prosecutors are attouneys, so it's all cast in in crap. What a bunch of Bob Tafts.