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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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?