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."

Comments

Worst idea ever.

[vistic]

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?

Re:Worst idea ever.

[__aaclcg7560]

Now you can just accuse someone and ruin their life?

Why not? It's been happening for years in California.

Re:Worst idea ever.

[jamstar7]

The court are the ones putting your name in that database. FTFA:

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.

Who was it that said, "how convenient it is when they're all guilty'?

Re:Worst idea ever.

[garcia]

This is so unconstitutional... isn't it? It had better be.

So is wiretapping w/o a warrant. But remember, as long as we are fighting terrorists, squashing sex offenders, or expanding the powers of government we're doing something great for this country.

Keep up the great work Ohio. I'm very disappointed that I moved to a different state.

Re:Worst idea ever.

[SachiCALaw]

It's not entirely clear from the article, and I'm not an Ohio attorney, but depending on what the registry does, it might be ok. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution requires a hearing before a person is deprived of life or liberty, and that hearing must be proportional to deprivation. Obviously, a criminal case gets *more* due process than a civil case, because the potential deprivation of life and liberty is greater.

In this case, it seems that the civil registry is designed to be very different from a criminal registry, so let us not assume it would deprive civil registrants of the same rights and liberties as criminal registrants. That said, it is still creepy and upsetting, from a civil liberties standpoint, and worth looking at with a very severe eye.

Re:Worst idea ever.

[Sage Gaspar]

In this case, it seems that the civil registry is designed to be very different from a criminal registry, so let us not assume it would deprive civil registrants of the same rights and liberties as criminal registrants.

The issue isn't a right or liberty so much as an extreme black mark on their record. It says their picture, name, and address would be added to a publicly searchable database. Good luck getting a decent job for the next six years. And, oh, the fun when one of your neighbors decides to take a peek and it gets around to everyone in the area. All based on the decision of one judge.

I mean, what's anyone supposed to do with "by the way, this guy 'might' be a sexual offender" coming from the government? Either you are or you aren't, and if the court can't build a case as per our constitutional legal system, even to civil standards (it says in the article it doesn't require a successful civil or criminal verdict), it can't publish an official "maybe."

I'm sure someone involved in this process had the best of intentions seeing cases fall apart on technicalities or something, but just... no. This can't be the way to fix it.

Re:Worst idea ever.

[sumdumass]

The article says the person would have thier picture placed on the internet, labeled as a sex offender and suffer restrictions on were they could live or be at. This sounds like something violating due process. Restricting were someone could reside or even be in attendance is paramount to incarceration. You would need a conviction for that.

In a way, I'm glad we are doing something about this. Sadly, I'm dissapointed that the efforts seemingly infringe on the very basic freedoms of life liberty and the pursuite of happyness that they are trying to protect for people. This is so much different from the NSA wiretaps or some of the other infringments on freedom we have seen of late. Some people act like there is no different but couldn't be more wrong. In this law, we are singling an indevidual or ondeviduals out, creating a label for them and placing restrictions on thier movment and ability to earn a living. Further more, we are intenting to place this labeling information along with personal identifyable attributes on the internet so to publicly humiliate a person "_never convicted of a crime_". It doesn't bother me that we do it to people who are convicted, the public needs protection from convicted offenders. But just an acusation is going too far.

I hope ot see this in the courts real soon. I only hope the person getting poped on this and challenging it is actualy inocent. I would have to send money to a legal defense fund for some one who is guilty just to gat some sanity back into the laws. But i can envision a defense fund being made and lots of people funding a fight on this.

Re:Worst idea ever.

[skam240]

wouldn't this be defamation? i would think putting some one who has not been convicted of a sex offence in a data base for sex offenders would fall under the catagory of dafamation.

i also love this bit from the article...

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

unlikely to abuse again!? but if they've abused before then why havent they been convicted?

The article does state that this is an alternative to opening up a one time windoew to bring civil suits againts catholic priests for alleged sexual abuse but this seems like it has massive potential for abuse. even if this is only used for profiling priests it still doesnt address the issue that some of these priest may not have done anything wrong.

Re:Worst idea ever.

[timeOday]

Ohio may claim this isn't a punishment or a conviction, but the first unconvicted person who is denied a job or gets "CHILD MOLESTER" painted on his house during the night will sue, and probably win.

Re:Worst idea ever.

[mrraven]

If you believe NSA spying, bill of rights violating, presidential singing statement congress undermining Bush is a "strict constructionist," you are an utterly naive fool. It's not just "liberals" who are fed up with Bush but ex-Reagan cabinet people like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.

See: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060501_constitution.h tm

Re:Worst idea ever.

[voice_of_all_reason]

Your lack of understanding of the constitution is horrifying. (Not just you, alot of people make the same mistake, and it's staggering).

They saved the best for last -- the 10th amendment. If the constitution does not specifically grant the government power to do something, they cannot do it. Not the other way around. (all in theory, of course, current events show otherwise).

This should be fun...

[__aaclcg7560]

Hell has no fury than a scorned woman and a crazy law.

Re:This should be fun...

[Scudsucker]

Who says it has to be a woman?

Because the US is not only not on the same page when it comes to male/female victums/perpetrator's of abuse, it's not even on the same planet. Why do we have a Violence Against Woman Act and women's self-defense courses up the wazoo, when men are far and away the #1 victums of violence? Why is it when a female school teacher has sex with a male student, it's "having an affair" rather than "statory rape"? Why is it when a man "murders" his wife we rush to put him in prison, but if a woman "kills" her husband we rush to find out why she did it? Why wasn't it a major scandal when Ann Richards, former govenor of Texas, said "in Texas the price of gas has gone up so high that women who want to run over their husbands are car-pooling," a reference to Clara Harris, who murdered her husband by running him over with a car...with his daughter in the front seat. Imagine a politician making a similar joke about Laci Peterson. And don't forget to throw in the old feminist urgan legends like 1 in 4 women will be raped, men committ 95% of domestic violence, women never lie about rape, etc.

No judge wants to have his name in the papers because he blew off a woman's request for protection...just look at the judge who denied a renewed restraining order for a women who was later set on fire by her ex. Wheras denying an abused man protection carries virtually no political cost or stigma, if he's even taken seriously in the first place.

Can a man lie about abuse as much as a woman? Sure. But a woman is infinitely more likely to be belived, and will have access to free legal resources to boot.

For those who aren't going to RTFA

[TubeSteak]

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.

Basically, instead of allowing all the people molested by Catholic priests to be prosecuted and sent to jail.

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.

this could be quite a mess...

[Bananatree3]

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.

Witch hunts

[Lord Fury]

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?

Re:Witch hunts

[Lactoso]

She turned me into a newt...

Slander? Libel?

[Freaky Spook]

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.

That's not hot.

[Anthony Boyd]

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.

Re:That's not hot.

[geekboy642]

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.

Um... huh?

[MBCook]

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.

oh, great, just what we need

[misanthrope101]

Another issue to get the liberals and conservatives working together to further erode civil rights. Liberals (feminists) have long hated that you have to actually be convicted of a crime (as in, evidence, facts, deliberation) before being considered guilty of rape. They refuse to admit that any woman would lie, ever, about this subject, so of course you're guilty, and the trial only "victimizes her all over again." Hence "victim's rights," etc.

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.

Suggestion

[repvik]

Hey, this is GREAT! Just accuse all the politicians in Ohio of being offenders. Ruin their lives forever! That'll teach 'em ;-)

Re:Suggestion

[ResidntGeek]

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.

Total Security and Safety

[QuickFox]

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.

Potential for abuse

[HangingChad]

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.

Imo:

[Ruff_ilb]

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.

Re:Imo:

[spiritraveller]

oh, it's more than just being watched...

...the person would be subjected to the same registration and community notification requirements and restrictions on where he could live.

The restrictions on where you can live requirement is a big issue. Many states have created absurd rules for people on the registries, that basically make it illegal for them to live anywhere near a metropolitan area, because they can't live nearby a church, school, playground, anything.

In Dekalb County, Georgia, the sheriff said that there are no locations in the county where someone on the registry can legally reside... so those people have to move to the more rural areas. Hope the country-folk like having child molesters next door.

But I digress, the real deal with this thing is that it takes away a very important liberty interest for at least six years, with what sounds like a very limited procedure. We'll see, but this could turn out to be a violation of due process.

At any rate, I'm sure there are some spouses in divorce who are looking at this as a golden opportunity.

Re:Imo:

[Shaper_pmp]

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.

Sorry, "again"? I thought we were talking about unproven allegations and an inability to get a conviction. I thought that if you weren't convicted you were deemed to be innocent, at least as far as the law's concerned.

This whole effort smacks of "there's no smoke without fire", and that's a shitty premise to pass a law on. Especially given the number of false allegations of child abuse.

Obviously no-one who abuses children deserves to escape unpunished, but I think that's kind of what we have "due process" for. Assuming the legal system (which has stood us in good stead for the last several hundred years) is still working, no extra loop-holes should be necessary.

Actual text of the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Actual text of the bill

[gilroy]

Do you have any clue what "statute of limitations" even means? No matter how you slice it, this boils down to gotcha justice: We "know" you're guilty but these pesky constitutional or staturoty restrictions keep gumming up the works. But we're gonna "get" you, by God!

It's still an attempt to punish people for a crime of which the State is not otherwise able to convict them. It's wrong, pure and simple. Being put on an emotionally-charged list (such as a sex offender list) is not something that should be treated casually, by administrative fiat.

Which country was this again?

[nick_davison]

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?

This is BULL SHIT!!

[AriaStar]

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!!

Re:Hmmm...

[illuminatedwax]

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.

In Ohio you are guilty! period!

[Bluude]

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. :(

Re:In Ohio you are guilty! period!

[voice_of_all_reason]

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.

Re:In Ohio you are guilty! period!

[fyngyrz]

Maybe someone in Ohio needs to challenge these laws to the supreme court

Won't work; it's too late. Poorly informed, hysterical and badly educated US citizens let the USSC declare that "registration" wasn't punishment (in order that sex offenders who had previously been convicted be forced to register without running afoul of the constitutionally declared right to be free of ex post facto punishment) and that opened the door (wide!) for the government to register you and yours for any reason it likes. It just has to declare it has "an interest" in you and that's it, buddy, you're on the list.

And as for revolution... don't count on it. The middle name of the America citizen is "gullible" and the surname should probably be "sheep." You'll do what you're told.

Re:In Ohio you are guilty! period!

[binary paladin]

I dunno about a civil war necessarily, but the USA is on a road to collapse. You cannot make the economic and legal choices we continue to make without eventually being crushed under your own weight. And with collapse two things happen: A hero or a tyrant. We'll either rise like a phoenix or get a Hitler at our head. Oh well... at least we get to look forward to the fact that things have to get worse before the population and/or economy hits critical mass and things go nuts.

Given the pansy asses that make up most of the population now... my money is on economic collapse before the citizens wake up.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ...

Thought you should know.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
"

Re:Hmmm...

[spiffyman]

Was he convicted?

Yes. But I see no reason for Ohio citizens to be punished now for Mr. Timmendequas's crimes.

Re:Don't worry, it is unconstitutional and will be

[Bluude]

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.

Re:not as bad as it sounds

[cdrudge]

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.

Such as? If we KNOW someone has committed a heinous act, we should be able to prosecute them. If we tried and someone screwed up and double jepordy set it, well, the law says we can't keep trying to convict them. The law doesn't say if we can't get them the right way we get another chance to convict them. Anyone who says this isn't a incredibly stupid idea is delusional. I pray I never have you as a lawyer.

Re:not as bad as it sounds

[ubernostrum]

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).

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.

Re:not as bad as it sounds

[russotto]

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.

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.

Re:not as bad as it sounds

[Ruff_ilb]

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.

In Ohio guilty gets YOU.

[M0b1u5]

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...

Re:In Ohio guilty gets YOU.

[rifter]

the authorities can always arrest you for SOMETHING, and hence they have immense power over the *cough* voters *cough*.

If you are a felon you cannot vote. More and more crimes are being made felonies, including the crime of having too many misdemeanors. Misdemeanors can often be prosecuted without trial or at least without legal representation being made available. And of course in some states it is reported that even having unpaid speeding tickets can prevent you from voting because the police are waiting at the voting booth to take people to jail. If you want power in a Democracy you can either convince the majority of your view or prevent the majority of your opposition from voting. Guess which one our rulers have decided is easier to do.

Re:In Ohio guilty gets YOU.

[Duds]

In all honesty I've never like the "felons can't vote" policy anyway.

At it's simplest, the ruling party has a mechanism to decide who can and can't vote. That's not good. Everyone should have 1 vote. If there are enough felons voting for the repeal of all laws (for example) that it passes than that's democracy.

Maybe the threat of that might actually make people who aren't felons get off their arse and vote.

Of course the obvious reply to me is "What about age restrictions too?" and you've got me there to be honest.

Re:In Ohio guilty gets YOU.

[madcow_bg]

the authorities can always arrest you for SOMETHING, and hence they have immense power over the *cough* voters *cough*.

If you are a felon you cannot vote. More and more crimes are being made felonies, including the crime of having too many misdemeanors. Misdemeanors can often be prosecuted without trial or at least without legal representation being made available. And of course in some states it is reported that even having unpaid speeding tickets can prevent you from voting because the police are waiting at the voting booth to take people to jail. If you want power in a Democracy you can either convince the majority of your view or prevent the majority of your opposition from voting. Guess which one our rulers have decided is easier to do.

Man, I know that felons cannot vote, but I am very curious how can you actually do that? I mean, WTF? What democracy is thif you can be robbed of your right to vote?

Let me quote this from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN) http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html:
Article 21.

            (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
            (2) ...
            (3) ...

You should note that there is no disticntion regarding whether you're a criminal or not.

In my country every election in every prison there are voting booths and usually the national TV shows a report on them. The reality is NOT whay you see in the Holywood movies, these people are serving their terms, they look crushed most of the time, they're guilty BUT they are still people! Why would you expell them from voting is beyond me.

[SARCASM]It is not like they are a significant portion of the population... [/SARCASM]

I just can't understand what is the US of A trying to do? What's all the fuss with those criminals? So far they are neglecting at least three parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - torture in Gitmo, disregarging the presumption of innocence and banning convicted felons from voting. May I remind you that is the same declaration they try to impose on the rest of the world.

Be thankful that Bush was elected

[E 99]

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.

Re:Hmmm...

[aussie_a]

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.

For good reason

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

A criminal conviction is a very high bar.

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?

Re:Hmmm...

[Alsee]

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.

-

Paving the highway to hell

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I'm sure someone involved in this process had the best of intentions seeing cases fall apart on technicalities or something, but

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 :I am Right" and so no limits can apply.

This isn't new - it's just becoming "official"

[BLKMGK]

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?

I'm with you!

[BLKMGK]

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?

Re:Hmmm...

[candude43]

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?

Re:Hmmm...

[jcenters]

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.

Re:not as bad as it sounds

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:not as bad as it sounds

[Shaper_pmp]

"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.