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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 ;-)
"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.
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
Politicians that get to use their approval of this as being "tough on sex offenders." It's the same political garbage as the violent video game laws. Make up some unconstitutional laws, pass them, great publicity; make you look like you really care about solving the problem but since its unconstitutional, it'll be removed and no one's going to bring up a law that's no longer on the books against you at reelection time. Politicans win; we the taxpayers lose.
Demented But Determined.
You know, it's odd how one word can change a phrase. The traditional phrase is, "innocent until proven guilty," which implies that you may never be proven guilty. Your turn of phrase, "innocent before proven guilty," implies that you're going to be proven guilty, but you're currently innocent.
You'd make an excellent politician!
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?
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.
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!
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!
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.
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!
I disagree, in part. I feel that both phrasings suggest the eventual determination of guilt. "How long am I innocent?" "Until we prove you're guilty." In other words, you're going to be found guilty eventually, it's only a matter of time. And for the phrase you dislike: "When am I innocent?" "You're innocent before we prove you're guilty." Same deal here: you're going to be found guilty, they just don't know when yet.
A phrasing more to your liking might be "Innocent unless proven guilty." There's no implication that you will ever be proven guilty of anything, and in fact that "unless" suggests to me that such proof will never happen. I mean, most of the time I hear "unless" in everyday speech it's right before someone describes something that we both know will never happen: "I can't get this to you before Friday unless I invent a time machine and prevent my boss from ever being born."
I know it's very popular on Slashdot to go all 1984 when the topic is language, and I'm not saying that's always wrong. But it's not always right, either. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes people can use different words to mean exactly the same thing.
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.
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.
"
...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...
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...
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.
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?
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.
Useful? Sure. But these are exactly the kind of uses the Constitution forbids. If the evidence linking him to the crime is inadmissable but reliable, allowing the state to punish him anyway vitiates the prohibition against whatever bad act the state committed which made the evidence inadmissable. Statute of limitations expired -- same thing, punishing the guy anyway eliminates the protection of the statute of limitations. Victim unwilling to press charges or has fled -- punishing him anyway violates the Sixth Amendment. Despicable but not criminal? Punishing anyway eliminates rule of law entirely, allowing behavior to be made malum prohibitorum on an ex post facto and ad hoc basis by any judge. (did I get enough Latin in there?)
Yes, criminal conviction is a high bar. It's that way for a reason. If the state can't get over that bar, they lose; if they get to take action against the accused anyway (or without even trying), then all the protections in the criminal justice system have been eliminated.
Apologists for the law will of course claim being put on the list isn't punishment and therefore doesn't qualify for criminal protections. None of them, I bet, would volunteer to be put on the list to show just how it doesn't punish them. You can be sure that the list is or will be used to screen job applicants for many state positions, for licensed or regulated jobs involving contact with children, and for other things -- things which will just be added to as time goes on. Being put on a state-sanctioned blacklist is punishment, no matter how you word the law.
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!"
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.
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.
Yes it is hairbrained. If evidence isn't admissable in court, it isn't admissible for a reason, specifically because it has been deemed -- over years of experience -- to be unreliable. --Sam
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
So cops can trample all over due process in obtaining evidence, and while it won't make it to trial it can still be used to put a person on this list for 6 years? Yeah, I see no problems with that...
We have a court system and laws about what can be used for a very good reason. Shit like this list is just moving us closer to a gestapo state. Yeah, it sucks that guilty people get off sometimes. It doesn't mean the system is broken, just that that's the price you pay for protecting the rights of all citizens, and for minimizing the number of innocents convicted.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Blah blah blah, think of the children. It does not matter one bit if the crime is commited against my child, your child, me, or you. The argument is a bit old, and I'm just as sick of it being spewed from the mouths of the ignorant elsewhere.
If the police can't get a conviction, then there is doubt that the person committed the crime. This is intentional, as it is better to miss a guilty man than imprison an innocent one.
Many jurisdictions *will* convice a person who knowingly causes the death of another. Infecting people with HIV/AIDS on purpose (ie: knowingly) can be considered under quite a few statutes. No, the public SHOULD NOT be warned about the guy with HIV if the only reason is that he has it. If the guy goes an infects someone on purpose, then that may be a criminal act. Otherwise, you have no right to know he has the disease.
As for the interrogation tactic, no, torture is quite illegal. Denying a person access to a lawyer is illegal. It doesn't even matter what current Federal laws says. The PATRIOT Act is illegal, too, for the same reasons. Just because the currently elected politicians can't read, and don't want to follow the law, doesn't make the law disappear. So that's correct, the alleged criminal now goes free, because the police didn't follow the rules meant to protect us all from government abuse.
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.
which is why this proposal shouldn't stand its first test in court. Of course, neither should civil forfeiture, but that continues unabated..
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I made this point above, but it bears repeating: It is NOT punishment, because the US supreme court has specifically said so. Registration is a state function; they have an "interest", and that's all it takes to make a registry legal.
This was established during a process where someone who was convicted of a sex offense prior to the enactment of the Megan's Law group of laws was registered *after the fact* and not by order of any court. The sex offender claimed (entirely correctly, in my view) that this was "ex post facto punishment", and the USSC in a leap of illogic incomprehensible to me, declared that registration could not be construed as punishment, hence it wasn't ex post facto punishment at all, and the guy was registered.
What was established by this is that (a) the state declares it has an interest in keeping you on a list of some kind, then it can, and (b), it can punish you in a myriad of interesting and creative ways if you don't comply. It was one of most ill-considered and least well reasoned USSC decisions in recent history, comparable to the ruling that pot grown in California, for sale and use in California, was "interstate commerce" because it "could" have been sold over state lines (no really, that's the ruling... it sounds like it was made up, it's so unbelievably stupid, but that's the situation.) In each case, a complete mockery was made of what the intent of the constitution was; in each case, the "reasoning" was strictly convenience of the moment.
The problem is that there is no recourse. Oncce the USSC decides something, you're done. Period. This Ohio law can survive no poblem, all it has to do is refer to the reasoning that underlies the (non) ex post facto status of the currently existing registries.
We are ruled by idiots. The population won't do anything about it. Mostly, they're idiots too. There's no help for it.
Democracy: Where any two idiots outvote a genius.
Democratic Republic: Where any two idiot representatives outvote a genius representative.
Oh, wait. There aren't any genius representatives.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I think you're looking at the issue from the wrong angle. No one is arguing that it's good when a criminal gets off because of a "technicality." But the fact is, those technicalities exist to protect innocent people who are wrongly accused.
The system we have already jails more citizens than any other legal system in the world. Chances are, if you have comitted a heinous crime, you will end up in jail. Hell, even with our laundry list of "technicalities," plenty of innocent people spend time in prison cells. We make up 5% of the world's population, but account for 25% of the world's incarcerated population. If the state wants to deprive a citizen of his rights, they must follow due process, which includes a being judged by a jury of his peers. Where is the constitutional wiggle room for this law?
Its a sad state of affairs when we start considering due process to be a "get out of jail free card." When the people the constitution was meant to serve are willing to cede that protection, the document totally loses its potency.
Problem obviously is that such warnings will not only be read by people wanting to have sex with him, but also people wanting to employ him, living near him, etc., and some of them will deny him those other pursuits of happiness, even though they are completely unrelated to his illness.
Yes, you are advocating to discriminate on basis of illness, the same kind of attitude that our savior fought against 2000 years ago. Hypocrite!
COps deny a lawyer, because they are attempting to sweat a confession. Hours later, after filling him with coffe and water, they deny him use of the bathroom.
Well, if it was me who was subjected to such treatment, I'd just wet my pants or better: the officer's desk ;-)
"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
So, should those living in a 5x10 cell have their sentence halved ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I hereby accuse you of molesting my children. Of course I can't prove it, since I don't have any children, but you've been accused and can therefore be added to this list. See the problem ?
But nice attempt at "think of the children" -style moral panic nonetheless.
It is. Attempted murder, with the HIV virus as your weapon. And the act of purposefully spreading deadly infectious disease propably counts as terrorism too.
Yeah. That sucks. Almost as much as some innocent guy who the cops intimidated until he was ready to confess anything to be let to the bathroom. You see, anyone can be made to confess anything given suitably hard interrogation. That's why forced confession - and I count intimidation as use of force here - is completely worthless.
The police are supposed to uphold the law, not break it. To protect the innocent, not crush them at will. To catch the villains, not become them. What's the use of guards if they are worse than the ones they are supposed to guard against ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
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 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.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying there's a difference.
Or you can look at it the other way: We're all prisonners of earth after all (or say... the solar system, that'll hold for a while). So finally being in a 10x10 cell or in a 20-planet solar system, it's all the same. We're all prisonners.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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."
Another problem is that once such "laws" become acceptable, ANYTHING can be treated that way, and even the most trivial accusation can cause problems.
An example of the "trivial" type: Accused of speeding, you might find that you're now on a "reckless drivers" list, and your insurance rate goes up, even tho you received no ticket and were not convicted of speeding.
And of the more serious type: Say you're gay, and someone who disapproves of homosexuality decides to accuse you of sexual abuse (because in their view, ALL gay sex is "abuse"). And you consequently find yourself on a Sex Offenders list. Homosexuality is thereby rendered *effectively* illegal and punishable by what amounts to government-sanctioned "shunning", despite a complete lack of due process and an absence of laws against it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
all sex is rape. So sayeth Andrea Dworkin.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!