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.
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.
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.
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.
That would be ideal, but remember that the law generally doesn't apply to the rich and powerful. Judges would have a far smaller problem with putting a random schmuck in the registry on no evidence than they would a prominent politician.
ResidntGeek
Responding to your first statement.
Something you probably don't know is what action they were convicted for.
In some cases, yes, the person committed a heinous crime and was duly punished. In many others, the person got drunk and pissed behind a bush at a party, or decided he and his girlfriend should go get frisky in the backyard.
To go out on a limb, I'm willing to bet a VAST MAJORITY of the people on the sex offender list are harmless. And that's the very problem. A list such as that should be reserved for those people that, knowing exactly what they did, you don't want to even be on the same planet with them.
Otherwise...well, this new law is just another advance in our state-sponsored witch-hunts. Remember, it's all to protect you against the Turrists.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
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?
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
The only solution is to get rid of political parties or get a third party
Human nature has already has a solution. After a society's founding and golden age, some people attempt to amass power and control the rest through force. Eventually this control pisses off a large enough number of the populace that civil war results. It has eventually happened to every single emergence of civilization since time began -- assuming they were not conquered midway through the process.
Being placed on the Ohio registry, according to the article, includes restrictions on where you can live. So this would seem to be a denial of liberty without the due process (conviction in a criminal trial for a sex offense) required for such.
I'd like to further add that there is a punishment INHERENT in the entire system, which is why it MUST be reserved for those convicted only. If the system, in effect, does NOTHING, then it's a useless law and should never have been passed. If it does SOMETHING, then it does it at the expense of the life, liberty, or property of those on the registry. That's basically it... so there's really no argument that can be based on the "Well, it's OK because it doesn't really do anything to the people..." approach.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
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!"
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.
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.
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
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
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
"I'm a second year law student, here's my take on this:"
Christ, I think I see why we keep getting laws like this proposed. Not to to be offensive, but what are they teaching you in law school these days?
"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)."
Straight off the top of my head... there are already all sorts of laws controlling where someone on the sex offenders register can live. IANAL, but that looks rather like a deprivation of liberty, right there.
And if it's not state-led, who's maintaining the register, doing the enforcing, and deciding who gets put on there?
"If the accused can attend the hearing and present evidence in his defense before the judge... 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... I would fully expect the decision can be appealed... (on many issues the presiding judge has unchallenged discretion; this wouldn't be one of them)."
Get enough assumptions and qualifiers in there, sport?
The fact is, you know pratically nothing about the details of the law, and everything you offer is your own personal opinion. And yet, on the strength of that, you're prepared to stand up and brand other people "knee-jerkers" for daring to suggest that the few details we've heard might just indicate it's a really, really stupid idea?
Your obvious respect and belief in the lawmakers is an admirable thing... but I doubt you'll find many people who'll agree with you. Even if the convictions^H^H^H^H^H sorry, allegations are appealable, you're still arguing that people should be punished who can't be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
"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."
Kindly give an example of such a situation, where we simultaneously know (not "think" or "suspect")the person is guilty, some technicality of the law ensures they can't be convicted, and where disregarding said technicality doesn't do irreparably more harm to our entire society than letting one child molester free.
"Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable)."
Right, except that evidence is generally ruled inadmissable in court because rules have been broken to get it. We have rules for admissable evidence to protect people - this is what prevents spying or searching without a warrant, and all the other freedoms we enjoy. The minute evidence obtained like this is made remotely useful we might as well not have the protections at all, as they won't count for shit.
"Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems."
Erm, maybe you aren't aware of why we have a statute of limitations.
If you disagree with the fundamental idea then you'd be better off campaigning to have the SoL repealed than passing a stupid law to get around it.
"Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled."
If the victim is unwilling to press charges then (from the state's point of view) there isn't really a crime to prosecute, is there? Likewise if the victim flees. I'm sorry, but in a (non-victimless) crime if the victim won't act to ensure prosecution of their supposed wrong-doer then why should the state?
Gutting this exemption allows people to be prosecuted for anything the state likes, even if the "victim" doesn't want the prosecution.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself