Slashdot Mirror
State of Ohio Establishes "Pre-Crime" Registry
I*Love*Green*Olives writes to tell us the Toledo Blade is reporting that State officials have rubber-stamped a "civil-registry" that would allow accused sex offenders to be tracked with the sex offender registry even if they have never been convicted of a crime. From the article: "A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit. The rules spell out how the untried process would work. It would largely treat a person placed on the civil registry the same way a convicted sex offender is treated under Ohio's so-called Megan's Law."
This is so unconstitutional... isn't it? It had better be.
Now you can just accuse someone and ruin their life?
What the heck is the court even for, then?
Hell has no fury than a scorned woman and a crazy law.
I can see women who hate their husbands going through nasty divorces and blaming their husbands with having raped them. Even if the other grounds for divorce are legitamite, they could be placed on this "potential sex offender" list and be denied jobs left and right. Divorce lawyers rejoice.
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.
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.
Hey, this is GREAT! Just accuse all the politicians in Ohio of being offenders. Ruin their lives forever! That'll teach 'em ;-)
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?
Responding to your first statement.
Something you probably don't know is what action they were convicted for.
In some cases, yes, the person committed a heinous crime and was duly punished. In many others, the person got drunk and pissed behind a bush at a party, or decided he and his girlfriend should go get frisky in the backyard.
To go out on a limb, I'm willing to bet a VAST MAJORITY of the people on the sex offender list are harmless. And that's the very problem. A list such as that should be reserved for those people that, knowing exactly what they did, you don't want to even be on the same planet with them.
Otherwise...well, this new law is just another advance in our state-sponsored witch-hunts. Remember, it's all to protect you against the Turrists.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
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!
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?
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 wonder how hard it would be to get all the people who proposed this law put on that list?
...
Perhaps then they would reconsider
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.
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!"
Fortunately, today we have four slam-dunk votes against this law on the Supreme Court (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito). Why? Because the Constitution contains the words "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and the mandade incorporated in our law from English commonlaw for the presumption of innocence. And this is exactly what those two concepts speak to (and have always spoken to). And then there are five votes from Dianne Feinstein's kind of judges -- those who take the approach that the meaning of the words of the Constitution only take form based upon whom the judge happens to feel greater compassion for at the moment. In this case it could be close, being between a person being punished without conviction and the potentiality of some child getting molested. Fortunately, only one of their votes is required.
This is why it's so important to have a strict constructionist Court. The government is not a legitimate government if its laws are not its laws.
Unless the prison term is for life (and I'm talking real life here, not 25 years), there should be NO loss of priviledge whatsoever once the time has been served.
Yes, and that's a good thing. It's important. All the things you mention -- rules of admissibility, statutes of limitations, right to face an accuser, and so on -- were implemented for a reason. These "technicalities" protect the citizen from the untrammeled power of the State. They are the bedrock of the rule of law. I realize that the rule of law has taken on a quaint aura lately but please, can we agree that we shouldn't jettison it wholesale?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
As much damage is done by self-righteous do-gooders as by all the evil men in the world. It's the same sin, an unshakable conviction that
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
If you want to keep him away from children, keep him in prison. Have tougher sentences imposed from the get-go. But once he is released, if he is prevented from finding employment and housing, how do you expect him to integrate back into society?
If he's that big of a threat, what's he doing out of jail in the first place?
One of the founding ideals of our justice system is that once you pay your debt to society, you're free to live your life. Get rid of the registries and make sentences for sex offenders longer.
No room in the jails you say? Then perhaps we should stop tossing people into prisons for minor things. Then maybe we'd have room for, you know, the dangerous people.
vi ~/.emacs
I 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'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