Slashdot Mirror


MySpace Agrees to Share Sex Offender Data

mikesd81 writes "The Seattle Times is reporting that MySpace will be providing a number of state attorney generals with data on registered sex offenders who use their site. Attorney generals from eight states demanded last week that the company provide data on how many registered sex offenders are using the site and where they live. MySpace obtained the data from Sentinel Tech Holding Corp., which the company partnered with in December to build a database with information on sex offenders. Attorneys general in North Carolina, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania asked for the Sentinel data last week."

297 comments

  1. Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... but do regular people actually sign up with their real name / information, and even if they do, is it likely that sex offenders do too?

    1. Re:Call me an idiot... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      and even if they do, is it likely that sex offenders do too? Everything on the internet is true and accurate. Honestly. It really is. On the internet, I mean ... in real life, I'm tall, thin and good looking.
    2. Re:Call me an idiot... by Deagol · · Score: 4, Interesting
      On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, right?

      Given the broad range of things that gets you the tag "sex offender" (and a lovely scarlet "S" in the bargain), the whole sex offender registry thing is kinda silly. I mean, if you got a citation for pissing in the bushes at your local park, and got into your state's sex offender registry, would *you* really take the restrictions seriously? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I imagine that "real" sex offenders wouldn't either -- at least the ones who are total morons, anyway.

    3. Re:Call me an idiot... by hottoh · · Score: 1

      but do regular people actually sign up with their real name / information, and even if they do, is it likely that sex offenders do too?

      A good fraction of sex offenders became sex ofenders because an underage person had sex with another under age person.

      Would you cower for the rest of your life for having had sex at 16 with your 16 year old BF/GF? I would not.

    4. Re:Call me an idiot... by alisson · · Score: 1

      Many people do, but as for sex offenders? I'd be curious...

    5. Re:Call me an idiot... by dreddnott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know plenty of MySpace Morons in real life and have seen more than a few of their garishly decorated user profiles. I can assure you that plenty of "regular people" sign up with their real names and "information". MySpace shifted the IQ bell curve of Internet users like no other website before it.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    6. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, right?
      "On the internet, men are men, women are men, and children are the FBI!"

      I mean, if you got a citation for pissing in the bushes at your local park, and got into your state's sex offender registry, would *you* really take the restrictions seriously?
      My favorite one is turning 18 before your girlfriend/boyfriend does.
    7. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How long till someone registers at MySpace with the name etc of a registered sex offender they want to cause problems for? Especially if the "registered sex offender" has an open wireless network where they can really make it look like they are that person, at least under the assumption that the owner of the connection is the one using it? There are groups that are as nutty about going after "sex offenders" as there for abortion clinics.

    8. Re:Call me an idiot... by dougmc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean, if you got a citation for pissing in the bushes at your local park, and got into your state's sex offender registry, would *you* really take the restrictions seriously?
      Depending on which restrictions exactly you're referring to, you'd better, lest you become the victim of the newest up-n-coming politician who realizes that stopping child molesters (er, sex offenders, same thing to him) is the fast track to political success. So you get thrown into jail for failing to keep your registered sex offender address current or whatever, even though your original `crime' is a joke. Or should be.
    9. Re:Call me an idiot... by daeg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here in Florida, most communities are enacting completely unconstitutional laws barring exactly where "sex offenders" can live. In one community in the Tampa Bay area, they set the distance limit to something like 2,500 feet from *any* bus stop, church, school, library, etc. There were a few small areas in the town left over, which the city promptly added school bus stops despite there being no demand for them, effectively chasing out every sex offender, regardless of actual offense.

      It is a scarlet letter. It isn't like the Puritan punishments meant to shame someone in front of their community to deter crime. In fact it does the opposite by creating lists of names, addresses, and photos of free offenders (as in, not in prison). It's a political tool, plain and simple, and it's only a matter of time before it is struck as unconstitutional and, hopefully, some "offenders" will have a free shot at the governments that put them on the list.

      And before you mod me as a troll or other nonsense, I'm not advocating any sort of behavior. Child molesters, for instance, are in a separate class as mere sex offenders.

      Maybe if we freed the ridiculous number of jailings of petty criminals we'd have room for those that actually deserve--and need--the confinement of prison.

    10. Re:Call me an idiot... by ergean · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now I know where the "ASL" people have gone.

    11. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I usually sign up with my real name, I've done so for years now and have yet to have any problems. All my contact information is readily available for anyone inclined to find it.

      AC because I'm too lazy to sign in at work.

    12. Re:Call me an idiot... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Don't even start me on the asshats at Perverted Justice ...

    13. Re:Call me an idiot... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given the broad range of things that gets you the tag "sex offender"

      There was a recent story of a teenage boy who had sex with a teenage girl a year younger than him and became a "convicted sex offender". He'll be in such a registry and it gives me the creeps to think he's going to be watched the rest of his life. Let's face it, if at age 17 you weren't having sex with teenage girls, you wanted to (or if you're female, vice versa).

      It also kind of creeps me out that "sex offenders" have become a completely separate class of criminal. Why shouldn't burglars, drunk drivers, embezzlers or other white collar criminals be kept on a registry and be exposed to any community into which they move? Why not shoplifters or people who've been convicted of any drug offense?

      Considering the percentage of elected officials who've been convicted of crimes, we'd have to create special island communities in which they could live.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Call me an idiot... by ovideon · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, it hasn't shifted the bell curve. It's lopped off the lower third and isolated it from the rest of us.

    15. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A/S/L?

    16. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Fortunately, it hasn't shifted the bell curve. It's lopped off the lower third and isolated it from the rest of us.

      And ovidean now represents the bottom end of the new curve, it appears. Missing the cut off by just a smidge, I see.

    17. Re:Call me an idiot... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Ooh, we should do this for everyone!

      In fact, they should have to provide financial records, too. After all, if I meet someone on myspace, it should be myspace's duty to make sure I'm not getting into a relationship with someone who is going to ruin my credit!

      Also, if these people are such a risk that we have to charge MySpace with monitoring their behavior and snitching on them, why are they out of prison in the first place?

    18. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MySpace shifted the IQ bell curve of Internet users like no other website before it.

      Granted, AOL isn't a web site.

    19. Re:Call me an idiot... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here in Florida, most communities are enacting completely unconstitutional laws barring exactly where "sex offenders" can live. In one community in the Tampa Bay area, they set the distance limit to something like 2,500 feet from *any* bus stop, church, school, library, etc. There were a few small areas in the town left over, which the city promptly added school bus stops despite there being no demand for them, effectively chasing out every sex offender, regardless of actual offense.

      So, what happens to the really dangerous offenders? If they stay in the city, they end up homeless and wandering, probably eventually losing access to any medication or counseling they might have been receiving, and end up cold, hungry, and very angry. And all of that is supposed to make them LESS likely to offend? If they leave the city, and more and more communities pass laws like this, it will just shunt the problem out into the rural areas (where there are still children and lots of densely wooded areas and isolated buildings and no one nearby to hear the victims' cries). No, laws like this don't solve the problem, and the people who favor them are less interested in "solving" the problem than in merely making it "go away."

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    20. Re:Call me an idiot... by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

      is it likely that sex offenders do too?
      Yup. Not all of them though, but enough to help. You see the sleezy child molester/rapist is not your "sharpest tool in the shed"-type. So all that was needed was to check the sex offenders that are registered with their state and compare that to the MySpace database of user info.

      For example, you have a sex offender that lives in FL at 1313 Mockinbird Ln. Look for the same state, address and zip (maybe some other stuff like sex or phone, but not needed). If a match, insert that record to table to be exported. While it is not a guarantee that the registration is the real sex offender, it gives some leads to check. If the leads are bad, throw them out. Go down the list to next entry. Even if 10% of the accounts on the list are the real sex offenders, that is still a very good deal. Those dudes are most likely on probation and stalking kids on the net might be a violation. If not, guess what comes next? A nice and simple sting op. Fed's set up a new account on MySpace as say, a 13 yo boy and a 14 yo girl. Send/wait for messages from pervs. Get pervs to do some chat and say what they want to do. Log it all. Tell pervs your parents are out of for the night and you want to see him. Perv arrives, Fed's are waiting to take him down. Pretty cool IMO.

      I am not making this up. I watched something similar on AMW a little while ago. Miss America was helping with it.
      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    21. Re:Call me an idiot... by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      If you want to sign up for a myspace account, first check the sex offenders registers for a suitable identity to use...

    22. Re:Call me an idiot... by boingo82 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, in a fairly recent Utah case, a 12 year old boy and a 13 year old girl had consentual (not legally consentual, but both of them did it deliberately) sex, and the girl became pregnant.

      They were BOTH charged with "Sexual abuse of a child". Both are considered simultaneous victims and perpetrators.

      --
      As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
    23. Re:Call me an idiot... by JimDaGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you say "sex offender"? Are you suggesting that a sexual offense is not a crime? I personally think sexual offenses should be some of the most punished crimes.

      However, with that said, I do think the laws need to be tweaked a little. For example, there shouldn't be some silly age limit like say, I am 18 and my GF is 16. Her daddy finds out we "did it" and gets me nailed-to-the-cross. That is just sick IMO. On the other hand, If I am 34 (which I am) and my GF is 14, then maybe there should be a law against that. What if I were 27 and I had sex with a 12 y/o boy? Should that be cool? Not IMO. Oh, and I am not saying that gay sex should be outlawed or anything. I just think there should be a minimum age for consent (heterosexual and homosexual) with a maximum age of partner, unless you are at least 16, IMO. For example, a 12 y/o girl and 13 y/o boy do some experimenting. So be it. Been there, done that. It was fun. Now, if it is a 12 y/o girl and a 20 y/o guy, well that is just freaking sick IMO. There is a huge maturity difference both physically and emotionally between 12 and 20.

      I don't want to see sex offenders to only be rapist (my wife was raped as an adult, it was very nasty). I feel this way because I know a guy who was molested as a boy. Totally screwed him up.

      This is a very tricky subject. For example. A good friend of mine from HS has an older brother that was about 4 years older than us. I remember being in 8th grade and my buddy's brother was in 12th. He broke up with is demented GF. The night he broke up with her, she called the cops and said he raped her. It was a devastating blow to this guy and his family. He was a very good guy. He had a nasty court fight and eventually was cleared of all charges. However, if you have never gone through something like that, well I can tell you it really hurt him. I haven't seen him or heard from him in years now (I am 34). Last I remember, he didn't go to college. I hope he recovered and got the education he wanted.

      Oh, this topic touches so many hard points. For example. Say I am 18 and my GF is 15. To me that is not a significant age difference. However that could be enough for the parents to get you marked as a "sex offender" (the only time I think it is OK to put that term in quotes). What I have a problem with in a situation like this is that at 16 I KNEW I wanted sex! I wasn't "forced" into it. However, it seems that only the guy is the one that gets rap. Why does the chick get off? Because she didn't reach that magical age of 18? I can tell you as an older dude, that at 16 I wanted sex, and at 18, I just wanted MORE sex :-)

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    24. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually admit to watching America's Most Wanted? You're either brave to the point of foolhardiness or not the sharpest tool in the shed yourself.

    25. Re:Call me an idiot... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The best one I've heard is getting charged with having sex with a minor, even when you yourself are a minor. I remember a story a few months back when a couple of 16?17?whatver year olds were charge on child pornography laws for sending pictures of themselves to eachother. I've also heard of people being charged for having sex with someone the same age as them because the laws were written such that it didn't matter how old the offender was, so a 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old was charged with having sex with a minor even though they themselves were a minor.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    26. Re:Call me an idiot... by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

      Hey, I was bored, and Miss America was on the episode I watched. But yeah, the "host" guy (don't know his name and don't care) was very annoying.

      The cops would makes the bust and then the host dude would run in and start talking trash and stuff to the "perp". Pretty funny IMO :-)

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    27. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      story of a teenage boy who had sex with a teenage girl a year younger than him and became a "convicted sex offender".
      Well, good for the cops. IMO, both of them should have been sex offenders. We were not created to be beings of just lust. These kids need to learn their lesson(s). Sex before marriage == death in hell.
    28. Re:Call me an idiot... by enjo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's exactly the issue here, however. In your hypothetical, a 34 year old male should certainly be punished for having sexual relations with a 14 year old girl. Very few people would question that. However, should that singular offense lead to life on a list that will keep you from holding a job, living in a growing number of municipalities, and otherwise making your life simply unliveable?

      I don't think that crime warrants what is effectively a life sentence, and certainly not on your first strike. Justice, after all, is not about revenge..

      There are lots of other issues like this. For example, in Texas a stripper who is convicted of giving an overly suggestive lap dance can be charged with public lewdness... a 'crime' that can land you on the sex offender registry. So can selling 'obscene' materials at a porn store. That's the problem with these lists, they are meant to protect society from the most dangerous of offenders, but the hysterical of society expand them to include virtually any crime with any kind of sexual connotation.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    29. Re:Call me an idiot... by daeg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I put "sex offender" in quotes for that exact reason. There are many things that can get someone on that list, many of them completely petty. I think very few people want to be lenient on child predators or offenders, on the contrary, they need serious help from the government.

      There is one awesome case in Florida. I can't find the links at the moment, but it was a high school couple, one over 18, one slightly under. They someone got caught swapping naked pics of themselves through their cell phone. Neither wanted to charge the other, but both got charged with possessing/distributing child pornography. So two lives are in effect ruined because they were horny and stupid.

      False charges like your example are devestating not only emotionally and financially, but they ruin lives. Our country has long abandoned the innocent-until-proven-guilty. Sure, you can be found innocent (different than not guilty!) at trial but still be held as guilty in the realm of public opinion.

    30. Re:Call me an idiot... by modecx · · Score: 1

      So... They make you nervous, huh?

      Most of the jerks in the stories on that site deserve to be busted, for being completely fucking retarded, if nothing else.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    31. Re:Call me an idiot... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "political success"

      I belive the list is indeed political and intended to drag in as many people as possible. There is no distinction between rape and pissing on a tree, IMHO the real aim of the list is to make the term "sex offender" meaningless.

      If you doubt this then remember the guy who "farthered" the legislation was caught soliciting congressional page boys.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    32. Re:Call me an idiot... by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

      There is one awesome case in Florida.
      Huh? Your kidding right? Just one case?

      Actually.... I just moved from Orlando, FL after living there 6 years. I know the exact case you are talking about. I don't have links either. However, my wife and I, and our friends, wanted to puke. That was some bad stuff.

      Hey, don't call those two kids "horny and stupid". Horny and stupid go hand-in-hand, both for men and for women. I wish I had the link we both are talking about. When I read it, as an Orlando resident, I almost shite my pants. I couldn't believe it.

      Yes, this whole sex offender thing needs to be "re-thinked" by our so-called-representatives. However, I still firmly believe that a violent sex offender should be jailed for life.

      I don't think the solution is that hard. If both parties, be it boy/girl, boy/boy or girl/girl both say they consented and there is no evidence of forced coercion, then there should be no charges IMO. Unless, there is a minor involved under the age of 16 and the other "partner" is at least 10 years senior. If that is the case, than maybe, the minor is speaking out of fear. However, if after diligent questioning, the minor insists that it was consensual, then there should be no charges. Period.
      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    33. Re:Call me an idiot... by jadin · · Score: 1

      Maude needs to be on the sex-offender list...

      I mean come on!

    34. Re:Call me an idiot... by iamstretchypanda · · Score: 1

      ...

      Idiot

    35. Re:Call me an idiot... by lena_10326 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, with that said, I do think the laws need to be tweaked a little. For example, there shouldn't be some silly age limit like say, I am 18 and my GF is 16. Her daddy finds out we "did it" and gets me nailed-to-the-cross.


      You should look at this. http://crime.about.com/od/sex/ig/female_pedophiles /Heather-Shelton.htm

      Heather Shelton, a 22-year-old teacher's assistant at a North Carolina high school was charged with sexual activity with a 19-year-old student.

      Only in America can sex between two consenting adults be construed as pedophilic rape and molestation. I also recall a 16 year old boy serving a 10 year sentence for sex with a 14 year old. Both were under the age of consent. I don't have a url for that one, but it was on night-time news. There are real victims being created by these insane laws.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    36. Re:Call me an idiot... by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      to be honest girls like that deserve some severe punishment. False rape claims not only hurt the victim, but Real rape victims as well in people believing their story etc.

      And the law thinks that a 16 year old isn't developed emotionally enough to have sex, even with an 18 year old who isnt that further along. Cept in Australia, in most states 16 = Legal. This law was to prevent adults using their increased knowledge of life, their age, financial status etc as a tool to coerce younger people/children into sexual acts (think of how attracted highschool girls are to a guy with money/car/etc vs a highschool guy with barely anything). Not to mention for younger kids, the adults could easily just say this is what everyone does and they look up to adults and believe it.

      Some of the things that land people on the sexual offenders list seem pretty stupid to me, Lewd lap dances? isn't that the point of it?
      Sex offender list should be saved for those that - rape/sexually assault, those that are significantly older having sex/doing things/etc with under 16's or whatever.

      Btw in Australia we've had a few female teachers having sex with 15 year old students, male, and the teachers got onto the registry and lost their teaching licence

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    37. Re:Call me an idiot... by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      It was meant to protect the most innocent and vulnerable demographic - Children.
      To provide area's of sanctity to avoid people with tendancies to prey on them. I'd much prefer people convicted of sexual assault/molestation/etc of a child (showing pedophilic tendancies) to be away from large masses of children, Especially those that need to walk home etc. It's an EXTREMELY damaging crime, not to make other crimes like robbery etc seem lesser, but Rape, especially of an adult to a child pretty much tops the list alongside torture.

      After years of therapy and they've shown their pedophilic ways to be gone, sure they deserve a place back in society, but they will have to live with peoples fear of them and the increased safety methods to ensure they won't relapse and reoffend. A crime so bad, you must expect to have lesser rights. You've chosen to break the rules in such an extreme way, you have to accept people will be fearful of you Especially near their children.

      But we do need a cleanup of the list to remove those that had slightly younger girlfriends/boyfriends, or kids that experimented from the list, as it damages their success in life greatly for something that has gone on since the dawn of time.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    38. Re:Call me an idiot... by sadler121 · · Score: 1

      However, I still firmly believe that a violent sex offender should be jailed for life.


      Violent sex offenders deserve the death penalty, period. I don't want to pay to incarcerate someone who molested a 5 year old (or an infant, yes it happens). First we need to put some close-in-age exceptions into our laws so two teenagers who have sex are not charged as sex offenders, but once that is done, warm up the electric chair, hypodermic needle, etc.
    39. Re:Call me an idiot... by opinion+ate+it · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. My idea, although I do think it is not right if I dont do it someone else will, is to start making a ginormous list of everyone who was ever arrested for anything. Every time someone is arrested (not found guilty but merely charged of a crime) that is public record and in most localities is printed in the newspaper. From this point onward lets start making a list of everyone arrested everywhere in the country. After all this America and we have freedom of the press. WRONG this has already been tried by a Newspaper in Roanoke, Va. and been struck down as unconstitutional.... pity

    40. Re:Call me an idiot... by SageMusings · · Score: 2, Funny

      "in real life, I'm tall, thin and good looking."

      You, too?

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    41. Re:Call me an idiot... by vuffi_raa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      absolutely- I had a friend when I was younger that was dating a girl less than a year younger than him and her parents didn't like him- they had out since they were 13 and 14 . a week after his 18th birthday he was picked up for statutory rape- even though the 2 of them had been together for 4 years and were only about 10 months apart in age. So after he served 4 of his 10 year sentence for statutory rape and was let out on good behavior he is now a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. He can't get a job, can't live anywhere- so what does he do- he sells drugs and floats around. he sells a lot of drugs. He can't really do anything else now so instead of an honor student going to college and being a very productive person in society, now he is a big time drug trafficker. I think of this whenever I hear about "cracking down on sex offenders".

    42. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Where the hell were these teachers and assistants when I was in school? That girl is fuckin' hot. Some of the others aren't too bad either. Not saying I'd sleep with them, but at least they'd be fun to look at during class. All my teachers were at least 40+, and none of them were very fun to look at.

      One other thing I noticed on that site was the seemingly short prison terms. I'm not 100% sure, but I'd imagine a 31 year old male teacher having sex with a 15 year old autistic girl would be in a lot more trouble than 2 years in jail and 3 years probation. I mean, if that doesn't deserve a harsh sentence, what does? I mean, the women don't even go to "bang me in the ass" prison. Talk about a double standard.

    43. Re:Call me an idiot... by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1

      That's a nice idea, but the list might get a little big.

      Personally I would say just keep a record for all Political Science grads, and maybe law grads as well. They are the ones most likely to be in a position to push for this kind of BS, and they may reconsider this type of stuff if they know their entire criminal history is available at the push of a button, just like a "sex offender".

      It would be pretty easy too. Just scrub the graduating class list from the local universities for Poly sci or pre-law majors and put it in the database. Then search the police blotter reports from the local newspaper for any name matches and enter them in as incidents. When the local politico starts trying to grab headlines with some BS like they are doing now, contact the news and put his or her dirty laundry out to dry.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    44. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not an idiot. Most of the kids I know on there are definitely not the age 14 that MySpace requires (or required at one time). All of them lie about how old they are and most put something over 18 anyway. What good does that do for tracking purposes? If this is really about keeping the kids safe from predators, why not delete accounts of those definitely not old enough to be on there to begin with?

      Children are ruining the internet for the rest of us! Ban kids from the internet until age 18!! Do it for the children's sake!

      Ok, maybe not, but it had to be said even in jest.

    45. Re:Call me an idiot... by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Why does the chick get off? Because she didn't reach that magical age of 18?
      This is just how it works. That age is a giant generalization saying *everyone* below 18 isn't fit to have sex. Which, of course, is just that: a gross over-generalization. The alternative is trying to describe all kinds of situations what is right and what isn't. Problem is that's really unworkable.
      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    46. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the eyes of the public and "life-status", it seems it's apparantly better to mass-murder a bunch of people, be they under or over the age of consent - than having a single semi-sexual incident with one under 18/16/whatever, even once in your life.

      I always found that skewed.
      If you read Bjørneboe's "Bestialitens triologi" 'collection' (a norwegian author (deceased)); there's one part in one of the writings that I always found amusing. It's about a homosexual who had love affairs with 15 yearold boys, and philosophizes about how much better off he was in relation to the public and his family by simply killing them and becoming a "murderer" instead of a "pedophile".

      Makes you wonder.

      I think one reason why "sex offense" is so lauded as the most heinous crime imaginable, particulary any notion of sexual interest in anyone below an illusionary age of "18" (replace with whatever it is in your state/country); is because it's an urge everyone wants to hide they even have a notion of.

      Instead of simply stating that "it's illegal", we have to "convince" everyone that it's also unnatural and "demonic" in some sense; while in truth, there is nothing unnatural about finding any aspect of any human at any age to have a hint of sexual connection (if you look hard enough); it's nature.

      (The difference is of course those who act on the impulse, those who force themselves on others, those who abuse etc. - obviously, but this is what we're not doing - categorizing it properly and removing any sort puritan undertoned morality from it)

      A great example, is that even just writing this is enough to make me feel a great urge to add a disclaimer stating that I'm "100% wholesome straight"; it shows how far it's gone.

    47. Re:Call me an idiot... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      There was a recent story of a teenage boy who had sex with a teenage girl a year younger than him and became a "convicted sex offender". He'll be in such a registry and it gives me the creeps to think he's going to be watched the rest of his life. Let's face it, if at age 17 you weren't having sex with teenage girls, you wanted to (or if you're female, vice versa).

      If its the case I'm thinking about its worse than that. It wasn't that he had sex with her - the law already had an exception to deal with teenagers of similar age having sex with each other, it was that he had ORAL sex with her, which came under a different law with different ages of consent and no exception. The law was changed after his case exposed the flaw, but he is still in prison and the authorities that put him there refuse to overturn his conviction!

    48. Re:Call me an idiot... by asninn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or they'll just move to a different town that doesn't have similar restrictions. This is a classic example of CYA (cover your arse) security; it doesn't make a iota of a difference with regard to any future crimes that may be committed, but when something *does* happen, it allows the politicians involved to say "it's not our fault - we did something about it!". In fact, if it happens in another town, they can even pat themselves on the back and point to the fact that it didn't happen in theirs as evidence for how well their laws and regulations are working.

      So, yeah - it's all about covering your own arse and being able to come across as a hardliner so you'll get more votes from the "won't somebody please think of the children" hardliner moos and BNPs. What it is NOT about - and what it actually does not achieve - is actually reducing crime or making anyone genuinely safer.

      --
      butter the donkey
    49. Re:Call me an idiot... by asninn · · Score: 1

      The proper solution to the "12 year-old and 13 year-old experiment with each other" problem, I think, is to recognise that children (and at 12 or 13 years, they ARE children - old children, but still children!) cannot be held responsible for laws they break the same way that adults do, simply because they lack the ability to understand them properly and reflect on their actions and whether these actions are right or wrong. I'm not even saying that a 12 year-old and a 13 year-old exploring their sexuality together are even doing something wrong, but others would probably disagree, and recognising that as children, they're incapable of committing crimes (mens rea is not given, even when actus reus is), would ensure that they can't be held responsible no matter what some bible-thumping fundamentalist thinks.

      As for the rest... why is the age of consent set in stone at 18, anyway? The actual age of consent varies between 13 and 18 in the "western" world (Spain has 13, for example; Iceland, as well as a bunch of other European nations, has 14, and so on), and even in the USA, the actual age of consent seems to vary from 16 to 18 depending on state. Many countries also have special rules for partners with a small age-gap, and/or rules for partners in a relationship based on trust or dependency where coercion is a concern (e.g. teacher/student).

      And of course, it's also worth keeping in mind that we're talking about the age below which content can never be given *at all*. Sexual molestation or abuse or rape of someone above the age of consent is still just that, and nobody wants to change that; the only question that should matter when the age of consent is debated is whether it is AT ALL possible for ANYONE to engage in sexual acts consensually, without it AUTOMATICALLY being molestation, abuse or rape.

      Personally, I think 14 is a good choice for the age of consent, especially since it fits my definition of who should legally be considered a child (see the first paragraph), too.

      (And just for the record, I'm not interested in young people, myself - I actually prefer my partners to be at least 10 or 20 years older than I am.)

      --
      butter the donkey
    50. Re:Call me an idiot... by HydroPhonic · · Score: 1

      Justice, after all, is not about revenge..

      I would love to believe this, but peoples' use of this list indicates their willingness to enact revenge.
    51. Re:Call me an idiot... by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      MHO the real aim of the list is to make the term "sex offender" meaningless.

      I read a quote here once, one that was so thought-provoking that I posted it onto my blog. Now it seems relevant again so I thought I would paste it back... what goes around, comes around right?

      Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.

    52. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was brought up on the radio this morning. The point that was made was that most violent criminals grow out of it (or die, i guess), don't see a lot of 70 year old gang bangers, do you? The exception is sex offenders. They get out of jail, then it's back to being a perverted scumbag. Personally, I think they should bring back public stoning to deal with them, but that will never happen.

    53. Re:Call me an idiot... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I always thought the whole branding people with triangles or circles went out once hitler was overthrown. That's all the sex offender list is, just a bit more classier version of it. If you do the crime, you do the time, and then its as if you didn't do the crime. You've atoned and been rehabilitated (otherwise you shouldn't be released). This sex offender list is just prolonging the punishment after the sentence has been served. I say we get rid of it and add the possibility for real sex offenders to be put in jail for life sentences.

    54. Re:Call me an idiot... by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here in Florida, most communities are enacting completely unconstitutional laws barring exactly where "sex offenders" can live. Isn't any restriction unconstitutional? The constitution allows for criminals serving a sentence to have their freedoms restricted, but why are people who have served their time still having those freedoms restricted?
    55. Re:Call me an idiot... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      False rape claims not only hurt the victim, but Real rape victims as well in people believing their story etc. Exactly its like when ex-wives accuse their exhusbands of molesting their child. The immediate thought is "she's making it up." Or the buy who cried wolf.
    56. Re:Call me an idiot... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The UK has some odd laws too - the age of consent is 16, but the age limit for photos was recently raised to 18, so 16/17 year olds in a legal relationship would be breaking the law if they privately took naughty pictures of each other.

      The Government also plans to criminalise possession of naughty "extreme" adult images, just because some people find them abhorrent.

    57. Re:Call me an idiot... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      While I don't agree with the premise of the sex offender registries, to compare it to the armbands required of the Nazis is a bit of a stretch. These people DID commit crimes, while in Nazi Germany they simply existed.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    58. Re:Call me an idiot... by kalirion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Violent sex offenders deserve the death penalty, period. I don't want to pay to incarcerate someone who molested a 5 year old (or an infant, yes it happens). First we need to put some close-in-age exceptions into our laws so two teenagers who have sex are not charged as sex offenders, but once that is done, warm up the electric chair, hypodermic needle, etc.

      And then 15 years later it comes out that there was no crime, that the psychologist merely convinced little Jenny that she'll be able to see your father again if she says he touched her in the naughty place. And everybody says, "Oops, oh well. We did it for the children."

      The problem with the death penalty is that there is no going back.

      And you still have to define "violent sex offender." Does a perv who pushes a woman to the ground, rips off her bathing suit top, and runs away laughing deserve death?

    59. Re:Call me an idiot... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Aaah, so it would have been as okay in Nazi Germany if Judaism and homosexuality were outlawed first? Seems like a meaningless step to me.

    60. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Since lists are broken down by state -- state laws about length of time on the list vary as well.

      Illinois for example only requires a 10 year term on the list as long as you're not a repeat offender.

    61. Re:Call me an idiot... by MrCopilot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ok, You are an idiot.

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    62. Re:Call me an idiot... by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      This was brought up on the radio this morning. The point that was made was that most violent criminals grow out of it (or die, i guess), don't see a lot of 70 year old gang bangers, do you? The exception is sex offenders. They get out of jail, then it's back to being a perverted scumbag. Personally, I think they should bring back public stoning to deal with them, but that will never happen.

      I'm not sure about this. Do you have any numbers to back up that recidivism is higher for sex offenders than for other crimes? I know that you don't say it exactly, but it's a common thread to state that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend than other criminals.

      After some quick research, it appears that this is FUD spread by the law-and-order types. This article, by the USDOJ suggests that "sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders".

      The article also states that sex offenders are more likely to commit sex crimes in the future than non-sex offenders. However, people need to be careful about the unsubstantiated "facts" that we throw out. We would like to believe that all of the people who we throw in jail are predators and always will be. This isn't always the case. Thinking like this might make us feel better, but feeling better doesn't solve any problems. That kind of thinking leads to laws which will (in some municipalities) lead to ex-cons living under bridges. This isn't justice, and it seems that this will put people in a hopeless situation which may make them feel a need to break another law just to survive. This could create a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy, where we make sex offenders re-offend just so we can say that there's an unstoppable recidivism problem among sex offenders and create more unreasonable laws.

      I've also gotta ask, if they're not going to commit these crimes again, but still have dirty thoughts about children; do they still belong in jail...for their thoughts? Does this create a slippery slope, or is it OK because we're saving the children?

      --

      -Turkey

    63. Re:Call me an idiot... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If what you say is true that sex offenders are a "special class" of criminal whose crimes are "so bad" that we must expect them to have "lesser rights", then we need to change the way they are sentenced, so that they stay under the supervision of the government until they are no longer a danger.

      Here in the US, we have this belief that when you commit a crime and are convicted, you are sentenced to a just punishment, after which you are allowed to take your place in society.

      I can't say one way or the other if certain sex offenders can never be rehabilitated, but I have a hard time believing that a 18 year old boy who has sex with a 17 year old girl must never be allowed to have the same rights as the rest of us.

      For some reason, I think of the criminals who perpetrated the Enron affair, where thousands of people had their lives ruined and lost their future thanks to the greed of a few. I'm sure that had Ken Lay lived to complete his sentence, he'd have not only been allowed to move back into his fancy neighborhood, but also been given a nice cushy job by one of his Republican pals. Yet, I'm guessing that given the opportunity again, he'd have committed the same type of crime again. I'm betting that serial corporate crooks and Republicans are quite resistant to rehabilitation.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    64. Re:Call me an idiot... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Their tactics really seem to tread the fine line and letter of the law. I know they supposedly have the support of the law (or whatever), but that's not really any substitute.

      In any case, yes - most of the guys who get caught on that site make Mark Foley's efforts look utterly suave, smooth, sophisticated and subtle.

    65. Re:Call me an idiot... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Aaah, so it would have been as okay in Nazi Germany if Judaism and homosexuality were outlawed first? Seems like a meaningless step to me. I do hope that was intentionally being snarky. The illegal nature of pedophile actions has pretty much universal support. Unless you want to argue that Judaism and homosexuality are on par with pedophilia, I'm just going to assume you are just being arguementative.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    66. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatver year olds were charge on child pornography laws for sending pictures of themselves to eachother.
      This is an interesting problem, one that tends to reveal that child pornography laws are not on the books, as is commonly proclaimed, to prevent exploitation of children but to reinforce societal taboos about sex in general.

      Consider a high-school sophomore who videos himself having sex with his girlfriend of the same age. Even if the law says this is acceptable because they are both minors, the guy better get rid of the video by the time he turns 18 or he will suddenly be an adult in possession of child pornography. Because of this catch-22, the law cannot allow any depictions of underaged sex for any purpose.

      Marry a 16-year-old? No problem. You can fuck her all you like, but don't take pictures or you will be a child pornographer.

      These situations are too difficult to legislate around. It's much easier to say "all underaged sex is bad" and "all depictions of underaged sex are even worse."
    67. Re:Call me an idiot... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't even see why there's a list specifically for sex offenders. Is some skinhead who beat up a black less dangerous than a guy who raped a woman because he couldn't get laid? I'd say the skinhead is even more likely to repeat his offense than the rapist but noone cares what the skinhead does after he's out of prison again.

      But I guess those lists depend on what the particular country has issues with. Here in Germany we have a list for violent football fans, they aren't even allowed to leave the country if there's a world cup going on elsewhere and I think are even required to report to the police to show that they're at home when a game is going on nearby. Just as much overkill.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    68. Re:Call me an idiot... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I think children should be held responsible if their behaviour shows that they are aware of what they're doing. In my hometown we had a group of 13 year olds assault people with weapons and go free every time because this country has a law that says kids below 14 years of age cannot be held responsible for their crimes. They knew about their immunity and rubbed it into everyone's face.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    69. Re:Call me an idiot... by jstretch78 · · Score: 1

      "MySpace Agrees to Share Sex Offender Data"

      The real question is...who is this mysterious 'Sex Offender' and what data is MySpace sharing with him? Better not be naked pictures of my wife, because I posted those by accident. I swear...

    70. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First the hex offenders, now the sex offenders.. what's next?

    71. Re:Call me an idiot... by modecx · · Score: 1

      I dunno, it's no more entrapment than the car the cops have now... The shiny Lexus that they take out and leave on skid row, with the keys in the ignition... You know, the car that also has the ability to be remotely turned off, and doors locked, and also has cameras all around it?

      There's a difference between a cop baiting random, normally unwilling, but nonetheless horny shit-heads with a nubile 13 year old, and utter exuberance at the prospect of screwing around with a 13 year old exhibited by most all of the jerkoffs on that site, methinks.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    72. Re:Call me an idiot... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      But taking a knife and cutting the kid open won't get you on the list and I think that'll be a bit worse for the kid.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    73. Re:Call me an idiot... by dougmc · · Score: 1

      There is no distinction between rape and pissing on a tree
      Depends on the state. I believe that most states will not put you on the sex offender list merely for public urination -- but there are a few states that will or can.

      Even rape means different things in different places. You know, the whole 15 year old girlfriend, 17 year old boyfriend thing, though there are certainly examples of things that are called `rape' that make even less sense.

    74. Re:Call me an idiot... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Missing the point. Creating registrations people are forced to go on for free citizens is bad. Whether its X, Y or Z.

    75. Re:Call me an idiot... by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      i believe they are a special case of criminal, but for those 18-24 year olds with just under the age of consent girls, i dont think they should be on the list.

      However a good age difference, and the lack of development emotionally and physically(0-15 say for arguments sake, where the other is wellinto their adulthood) pose a danger, even after "rehabilitation". Rehab is never 100%, they have shown a liking for underage people and pose a risk to them. If they had any remorse they would understand why its neccessary they stay on a register, and have diminished rights in respect to being around unsupervised minors, being close to schools, etc.

      A monitor on the leg, or checkign in every few days to a police station is the price to pay for preying on someone so young, but they need to set a better age range to be exempt from the list. 17 and 21 year old in some states, when other states have 16 as the age of consent Shouldnt constitute the sex offender list.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    76. Re:Call me an idiot... by mpe · · Score: 1

      It's a political tool, plain and simple, and it's only a matter of time before it is struck as unconstitutional and, hopefully, some "offenders" will have a free shot at the governments that put them on the list.

      Maybe they could in the process identify which of the politicans involved should themselves be on such a list. Maybe advocating such a list should in itself be cause to investigate the advocate.

    77. Re:Call me an idiot... by mpe · · Score: 1

      I put "sex offender" in quotes for that exact reason. There are many things that can get someone on that list, many of them completely petty. I think very few people want to be lenient on child predators or offenders, on the contrary, they need serious help from the government.

      There is still often an issue of sexism inolved in both definition and even enforcement here though. e.g. consider the case of Mary Kay Laturno

    78. Re:Call me an idiot... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Unless, there is a minor involved under the age of 16 and the other "partner" is at least 10 years senior. If that is the case, than maybe, the minor is speaking out of fear. However, if after diligent questioning, the minor insists that it was consensual, then there should be no charges.

      How would you address situations where the younger person mislead the older about their age?

    79. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the rest... why is the age of consent set in stone at 18, anyway? The actual age of consent varies between 13 and 18 in the "western" world (Spain has 13, for example; Iceland, as well as a bunch of other European nations, has 14, and so on), and even in the USA, the actual age of consent seems to vary from 16 to 18 depending on state.

      Actually it's a lot more complex that that, the extremes being no restriction to "nobody can do it". As well as different ages of consent for heterosexual, male homosexual and female homosexual.

      Many countries also have special rules for partners with a small age-gap

      The issue here is what happens if someone is only attracted to people much older than themselves? For someone in this situation it would be little different from being exclusivly homosexual where the heterosexual age of consent was much lower...

      and/or rules for partners in a relationship based on trust or dependency where coercion is a concern (e.g. teacher/student).

      You also get strange situations like people who are unrelated being defined as "siblings" because of the behaviour of their step/foster "parents"...

      Personally, I think 14 is a good choice for the age of consent, especially since it fits my definition of who should legally be considered a child (see the first paragraph), too.

      Consider there are cultures which define 13-14 as being "adult".

      (And just for the record, I'm not interested in young people, myself - I actually prefer my partners to be at least 10 or 20 years older than I am.)

      Was that your orientation when you were a teenager too...

    80. Re:Call me an idiot... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Isn't any restriction unconstitutional? The constitution allows for criminals serving a sentence to have their freedoms restricted, but why are people who have served their time still having those freedoms restricted?

      Presumably the same way that people who have supposedly "paid their debt to society" can be barred from being able to vote. (Yet oddly can still stand for office.)

    81. Re:Call me an idiot... by mpe · · Score: 1

      It also kind of creeps me out that "sex offenders" have become a completely separate class of criminal. Why shouldn't burglars, drunk drivers, embezzlers or other white collar criminals be kept on a registry and be exposed to any community into which they move?

      What about people who have murdered or seriously (non sexually) assaulted someone (including a child)?

      Why not shoplifters or people who've been convicted of any drug offense?

      The latter would include a lot of things at the "unrinating in a bush" level.

    82. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any case, yes - most of the guys who get caught on that site make Mark Foley's efforts look utterly suave, smooth, sophisticated and subtle.

      Most likely because they wouldn't put anything else up on the site. Since it would be at odds with the message they are trying to send.

    83. Re:Call me an idiot... by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

      If that what the evidence/questioning shows, then no charges. Period. If I go to a club where I think everyone is 21+ and some 16 y/o gets in with a fake ID, we meet, and do-it; well, my actions were all led by the assumption that it was with an adult and it was consensual.

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    84. Re:Call me an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend is now a sex offender since he (20 yrs old) went out with a 17 yr old who lied to him. They met on my space and she registered as an 18 yr old. They went out a bunch and fell in love etc. He never even knew she was only 17. She told her friend and her friend told her mom who told the 17 yr olds mom. Mom and dad didn't like it so they called the police and then. he got arrested and sent to jail for 6 months and 3 years probation. Now he is on that list of perverts his picture and all and this will haunt his chances of a normal life for ever. How can they stop anyone from using a public PC. Do you think that the stalkers might just make up a name and use the computer at the cafe, library or Kinkos. They will have to implant a ID chip into your head to prevent anyone that thinks about anything illegal from gaining access to any device in our modern world. Have dream about the neighbor you will be banned from all public computers. They better put one in my dog too I saw him humping on an under age girls leg once.

  2. Privacy by GoodOmens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I can see the ACLU taking this to court for invasion on personal privacy I personally applaud this. Those who break these type of laws and are still at risk for doing it again should have restricted privacy for the safety of others. More so when it involves innocent defenseless children.

    1. Re:Privacy by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they're not reformed, they shouldn't be allowed back into society.

      The problem is that the prison system has nothing to do with treatment.. it's all about "punishment".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Privacy by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      If they're that dangerous, keep them in jail longer. Myspace is only one tool--anyone who would abuse children via myspace would abuse them in other ways and is best off behind bars. Conversely, anyone who is safe enough to let walk the streets should be safe enough to let wander the internet.

    3. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they shouldn't need to worry about privacy because they should never make it out of prison (or possibly the grave). The low sentences that these predators often get (sometimes as low as a couple of years) are appalling.

    4. Re:Privacy by GoodOmens · · Score: 1

      I agree completely but unfortunately you have judges that give these people little to not sentences at all.

    5. Re:Privacy by paleo2002 · · Score: 1

      I'm all for protecting children and I may quite literally be playing devil's advocate here, but there are some problems with this kind of disclosure. 1) What if MySpace decides to hand over the personal information of people who they suspect of drug abuse, underage drinking, etc. to the government and justice system? The road to fascism is paved with good intentions. 2) If we want to restrict where sex offenders live, what kinds of jobs they can have, who they can talk to, and to what extent they may access the internet; if we don't want to bother reforming them (and yes I know there's evidence that they simply can't be reformed), then why don't we just leave them in jail? It'd be a lot safer for everyone.

    6. Re:Privacy by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know where I personally stand on the issue, but I'm absolutely certain that letting people out of prison but not letting them continue their lives is worse than either letting them completely free or keeping them in prison.

    7. Re:Privacy by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Then we shouldn't be complaining. After all, the justice system is an extension of the peoples' will.

      If we're letting the predators out after a couple of years, then we shouldn't be complaining when they attack again.

      I'm surprised the victims' families don't go after the judges responsible, though. Maybe someone should set up a website where criminals can be looked up, and the judges, prosecuting and defending attorneys, and jurors involved in their case are all listed.

    8. Re:Privacy by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Informative

      I personally applaud this. Those who break these type of laws... Which laws are we talking about?

      Oral sex is illegal in: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C. (OK, I admit, I got great head in MN)

      An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin. (Lock me up for pretty much every time I had to read to the class in French classes during my teens)

      In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor.

      In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk to dirty in his wife's ear during sex.

      In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!).

      Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop's meat freezer.

      In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face.

      Source

      I say lock the dirty bastards up and throw away the key!

      Or, alternatively, accept that demonising people for being sexual deviants, without classification as to the act, is complete b.s.
    9. Re:Privacy by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Touchy subject.

      Personally, while many may subscribe to your view, your view is helping to undermine all of our civil liberties.
      This notion that it's ok to monitor this one group of people for the remainder of their lives seems unconstitutional.
      They were convicted, sentenced and then served their time. But that's just the beginning... now they will be watched and monitored till they die.
      Do we do the same for a convicted murderer or armed robber?

      I have never seen any homicidal watch lists.
      Aren't murderers and robbers as well as those convicted of DUI also likely to reoffend?
      Why don't we watch these people.

      Why aren't these people who are at high risk of killing you, those you love and our children being put on watch lists and having their movements tracked?

      The Constitution explicitly states that we shall not single any one group or individual out for "special punshment" (not the exact wording, but in the spirit. Also, we shall not have cruel and unusual punishment.

      Well, the way this country and others handles crimes of a sexual nature against children flies in the face of these notions of eqaulity and fairness under "civilized law", even being accused of a crime such as this causes such social stigma and outrage against the accused, they are already guilty in the eyes of the public. And then even if exhonerated and found innocent, they will still bear that burden. But being found guilty, they must now do a prison sentence and then forever bear that label, even having to announce that to any community they try to move to. Forever will they be subject to court imposed ridicule, humiliation and be made the target of public anger.

      Do we force convicted murderers to undergo the same fate? Must you advertise that you killed a person?
      If you were convicted of a DUI, would you not think it cruel and unusual punishment to be forever held to that and made to make that public in whatever community you lived till you died?

      I'm not trying to diminish or deny the great amount of harm and suffering these people inflict. Personally, I find these people just as sickening as you do. However, this "Think of the children" BS is dangerous and all too often we see people willing to throw away their principals over this charged emotional issue.

      And when we start seeing the constitution ignored for the sake of going after something that sickens and terrifies us, what good is that document? For over time, we will allow more and more "bending of the rules" and "blind eyes" to be turned in the name of the children or terrorism.

      And we do see more and more excesses being taken and more liberties infringed in a rapidly increasing manner since 9/11.
      And perhaps you may feel confortable with the infringement upon all our liberties to go after pedophiles, but I think the system would be better off to find more creative solutions that follow both the letter and spirit of the Constitution that all laws are meant to uphold.

      The death penalty for pedophiles that Texas is considering is a worthy example. It falls within existing law, does not single out a group, only widens an existing group. And while I am no death penalty advocate, that solution would be effective in insuring that pedophile did no further harm. Perhaps a more "humane" route would be mandatory life imprisonment. More suiting, since no life was taken.

      So as you see, the idea here is not to turn a blind eye, or to be more lenient. But to make the sentences and treatment of these offenders both strong and in line with the Constitution.

    10. Re:Privacy by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      Mod this one up!

    11. Re:Privacy by tmarthal · · Score: 1

      I agree that the ACLU should be all over this.

      If the data should be made public, shouldn't they just release the person's sex offense registration? I mean, they are registered after all. Now, if the people want the registration information, including where they live, or what sort of internet activity they partake in, why don't they contact the state/federal agency which maintains the registration? Most likely because its not constitutional to do so.

      These AG's have really no law for which to claim these records.

    12. Re:Privacy by QCompson · · Score: 1

      Those who break these type of laws and are still at risk for doing it again should have restricted privacy for the safety of others. More so when it involves innocent defenseless children.

      You're taking a bold stand there, chief. It's not often that you hear someone in the U.S. coming to the defense of the innocent children, especially in support of laws which have been shown to have little or no effect in protecting those children. Sigh.

    13. Re:Privacy by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have some issues with some of your points.

      This notion that it's ok to monitor this one group of people for the remainder of their lives seems unconstitutional.
      They were convicted, sentenced and then served their time. But that's just the beginning... now they will be watched and monitored till they die.
      Do we do the same for a convicted murderer or armed robber?


      People who are molested at an early age tend to do it to other people when they get older. It's like CFCs for society. Murderers don't cause their victims to murder, armed robbers don't cause their victims to rob.


      I have never seen any homicidal watch lists.
      Aren't murderers and robbers as well as those convicted of DUI also likely to reoffend?
      Why don't we watch these people.


      They do have lists for these things, and you do lose privileges when you commit certain types of crimes. Get dangerous enough on the road, for example, and no more driving for you. They aren't nearly as likely to reoffend, though. A lot of people who do crimes like these are just being stupid. They don't think through the consequences of their actions or how they affect other people. It's not the same with sexual crimes. You can stop being stupid a lot easier than you can change your sexual nature.

      And when we start seeing the constitution ignored for the sake of going after something that sickens and terrifies us, what good is that document? For over time, we will allow more and more "bending of the rules" and "blind eyes" to be turned in the name of the children or terrorism.

      Yeah...and what's with this not letting children work thing? Next thing you know, nobody will be allowed to work! Why is this a slippery slope? Terrorism does seem to be - I can point to a lot of things that have been done in the name of terrorism that have nothing to do with it, and can ask "when will it end?" This isn't that kind of thing.

      I think its been pretty clear from the beginning of the US that children lack most rights that everyone else gets (like privacy and free speech) and in exchange some rights can be taken away from other people (the same rights, but only as they relate to children) for their benefit. Obviously, this ends when there's no benefit to children. It won't go further than that, because children have no almost no political power even by proxy.

      I have no problem with this exception.

      Your other points are quite valid. There is, however, the problem of "guilty until proven innocent" with the current laws that I can't abide (i.e. even if not convicted, you're on the list). Also, the issue that the list doesn't distinguish between kinds of crimes in any way.
      Public indecency, rape, child molestation, psycho-girlfriend got mad and filed a police report...whatever. It's all the same on the list.

      Practically speaking, that makes it very difficult to actually make use of the list. How can you tell if you've got a sexual predator in your neighborhood that you have to be careful of if they put so many mostly harmless people on it?

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    14. Re:Privacy by instagib · · Score: 1

      The people in Washington must be dangerous because of all those restrictions. Oh wait ...

    15. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The low sentences that these predators often get (sometimes as low as a couple of years) are appalling.

      You'd have to back this statement up, coward. Sex offenses have some of the harshest penalties around these days. Many states have passed laws requiring mandatory lengthy prison terms for first time offenses.

    16. Re:Privacy by Monsterdog · · Score: 1

      I say we kill all of the sex offenders. And the jaywalkers. And the trash talkers. And pretty much everybody else. A gallows on every corner and six in every town square. It will be glorious. (But, yeah, rates of reoffense are too high for comfort.)

    17. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The death penalty for pedophiles that Texas is considering is a worthy example. It falls within existing law, does not single out a group, only widens an existing group. And while I am no death penalty advocate, that solution would be effective in insuring that pedophile did no further harm.

      It would also be effective in ensuring that child rapists murder their victims rather than letting them live. After all, if you are going to die if you get caught regardless of whether you let them live or not, then it's only sensible to murder them so that they can't identify you.

    18. Re:Privacy by AlanS2002 · · Score: 1

      And we do see more and more excesses being taken and more liberties infringed in a rapidly increasing manner since 9/11.
      And perhaps you may feel confortable with the infringement upon all our liberties to go after pedophiles, but I think the system would be better off to find more creative solutions that follow both the letter and spirit of the Constitution that all laws are meant to uphold.


      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin

      --
      Not all conservatives are stupid,
      but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
      - Hume
    19. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Takes one to know one, coward.

    20. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >innocent defenseless children.

      Clearly, you were never young. What planet do you come from, and are you related to Dubya?

    21. Re:Privacy by sauge · · Score: 1

      The death penalty for pedophiles that Texas is considering is a worthy example. It falls within existing law, does not single out a group, only widens an existing group. And while I am no death penalty advocate, that solution would be effective in insuring that pedophile did no further harm. Perhaps a more "humane" route would be mandatory life imprisonment. More suiting, since no life was taken.

      I can think of no other way to see more children killed than this law. Once they realize what they have done is up for the death penalty -- they will do whatever they can to hide the crime.

    22. Re:Privacy by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      .. it's all about "punishment".

      'Fraid not...it's all about money.

      --
      What?
    23. Re:Privacy by framed · · Score: 1

      Get dangerous enough on the road, for example, and no more driving for you. They aren't nearly as likely to reoffend, though. Actually, not quite:

      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm

      Within 3 years of release from prison:
      3.3% of child molesters were rearrested for molestation
      2.2% of non-molester sex offenders were rearrested for molestation
      0.4% of the entire set of released criminals were rearrested for molestation

      43% of sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)
      68% of non-sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)

      In general you can fairly say offender type X is more likely than other criminals to recommit crime type X, but overall its a misconception to believe that sex offenders re-molest frequently or that they are rearrested more often than other criminals.
    24. Re:Privacy by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin"

      You keep misusing that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    25. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought of the children.

      And I came to the conclusion that probably the worst thing that can happen to a child is the parents divorcing. It cuts away the entire foundation of the child's world. Much worse than an attempted fumble in a changing room.

      So I propose that any parents who divorce should be shot. And then put in prison for a long time. And then branded. And castrated. And.....

      You KNOW it makes sense...

    26. Re:Privacy by grimJester · · Score: 1

      An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin. (Lock me up for pretty much every time I had to read to the class in French classes during my teens)

      W-T-F

      Makes me wonder whether I missed something by taking German...

    27. Re:Privacy by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Why only "these types of laws"? Why not all laws, whether it's littering, burglary or murder?

    28. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please! Can you imagine anything worse than living with 2 parents who scream and fight and take their anger out on you and each other as a child? The trauma of this is worse than the divorce that would give the children a stable home. Trust me - my kids told the judge that their father and I are better off apart and are much calmer! Plus they get the benefit of having a stable home to live in instead of one where they have to hide from an alcohoic father. Shoot me if you want to for divorcing my children's father, but at least I know I have them in a happier place without him in their lives abusing them physically and mentally.

    29. Re:Privacy by jZnat · · Score: 1

      In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!). Sounds like quite the catch 22 there...
      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    30. Re:Privacy by AMuse · · Score: 1


      Following your logic in this line, it is actually the victim of the sex offense, rather than the perpetrator, who should be placed on the permanent watch list and added to the "Probably will become a sex offender" public website.

      >>People who are molested at an early age tend to do it to other people when they get older.
      >>It's like CFCs for society. Murderers don't cause their victims to murder, armed robbers don't cause their victims to rob.

  3. Correction for the anal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "state attorney generals" => "state attorneys general"

    General is an adjective, not the noun. You pluralize the noun not the adjective.

    1. Re:Correction for the anal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't that be "State Attorney's General"?

    2. Re:Correction for the anal by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least they got it right the second time.

      Though if you really want to make me happy, how about we drop this practice of adding exceptions to English just to satisfy the format of the language it was adopted from? Call them "General Attorneys" and "General Surgeons". I want my adjective modifiers BEFORE my nouns, dagnabbit!

    3. Re:Correction for the anal by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It should be "attornies", but for some stupid reason, the word "attorney" isn't pluralized the way other words are. It probably has something to do with that unnecessary 'e'. It'd be better if we just used a plain-English word for them, "lawyer", and stopped using the stupid pretentious word "attorney". Lawyers are always trying to make themselves out like they're in some noble, respectable profession, like doctors, and they're not; they're mostly a bunch of lying dirtbags.

    4. Re:Correction for the anal by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 2, Informative

      "state attorney generals" => "state attorneys general"

      General is an adjective, not the noun. You pluralize the noun not the adjective.

      wouldn't that be "State Attorney's General"?


      No, because that would completely change the meaning of the sentence. Adding the apostrophe and then an "s" makes the word 'attorney' be possessive. Therefore, you are turning 'general' back into a noun, and saying that the attorney possesses the general.

      The GP is right; the correct format would be "State Attorneys General." As he stated, 'General' is an adjective that modifies 'State Attorneys.' It's a little-used style of notation, so that's why it may seem foreign to read it that way. It's almost the same as if you were to write it like, "State Attorneys (General)."
    5. Re:Correction for the anal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to get it right, you should be calling them Esquires General.

    6. Re:Correction for the anal by anagama · · Score: 1

      You have not apparently met insurance company "independent" evalauators -- these doctors are also known by a less pretentious term: "whore" or alternatively, "prostitute".

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    7. Re:Correction for the anal by srothroc · · Score: 1

      It's probably comparable to the somewhat more common "passerby", which, when pluralized, becomes "passersby".

    8. Re:Correction for the anal by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      It should be "attornies", but for some stupid reason, the word "attorney" isn't pluralized the way other words are.

      You mean like: keys, abbeys, monkeys, valleys, jockeys, surveys, turkeys, trolleys ...

    9. Re:Correction for the anal by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, anal is a sex offense. Report to your nearest Department of Homeland Security (Myspace Division) office immediately.

  4. myspace profile by Pugzilla · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    time to ctrl+c and ctrl+p another profile

    1. Re:myspace profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copy and print?

      Do you like archiving sex offenders' profiles?

  5. Private offender databases by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Joe Slashdot: >www.myspace.com

    "You are not permited to access myspace. Your IP is on the Sentinel watchlist"

    JS: WTF??? What is 'Sentinel'??? Ok, >google 'Sentinel'

    "We at Google regret to inform you that you cannot access Google at this time. Your name has been flagged by the Arkansas State Outstanding Warrants Project"

    JS: I've never been to Arkansas in my whole fucking life!!!! >Yahoo search

    "Yahoo does not do business with people who have overdue library books"

    JS: Ok, I'll ask slashdot! People there know everything. >slashdot.org

    ---Message from Southwestern Cable Services: Your account has been terminated. &%.,78(*...NO CARRIER ,.^$.!G*...

    1. Re:Private offender databases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rapist coming - don't get raped!"

    2. Re:Private offender databases by realisticradical · · Score: 1
      I'm glad the parent comment got modded insightful. If you have a common name doing linkings like this could easily create some incredible horror stories. I wonder how many stories there are out there of people being harassed because they share the name of an offender and decided to move to a new town.

      Does anyone have web sites where you can search names to see if they're on an offender list? I invite everyone to search for their own name, think of it like a credit check.

    3. Re:Private offender databases by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I'm glad the parent comment got modded insightful. If you have a common name doing linkings like this could easily create some incredible horror stories.


      Yeah. My mother in law has one of the most common names in the Western Hemisphere, and, unsurprisingly, has fun every time she flies because her name matches one listed on a security watchlist.
  6. Really mixed feelings by u-bend · · Score: 1

    This case has me ambivalent. On the one hand, what about having a Myspace account is worthy of automatic surveillance? On the other, the recidivism rates for many sex offenders are incredibly high. Also, there are often many other embarrassing restrictions already placed on their lives much closer to home where people know them. I know, it's a touchy issue, but the more you think about it, the less clean-cut it seems.

    --
    u-bend
    1. Re:Really mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      u-bend, your facts are indeed around the u-bend.

      Sex offenders statistically have the LOWEST recidivism rates of ALL offenders. Go look it up, it's been shown time and time again.

      This fact is inconvenient for various persecutions and pogroms so people choose to ignore it.

      You've bought into the media frenzy. Check your facts before you post next time.

    2. Re:Really mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon for obvious reasons.

      It's especially hard when you know an offender. While I'm not on the registry and never will be, I've known convicted sex offenders who've wanted nothing more than to make reparations for what they've done. People can change, and it's sad to see someone who wants to clean up their lives and make it up to the victims (by apologizing and staying the hell away from them) but society won't give them a chance and the laws won't let them be anonymous.

      I'm not defending what these men have done, quite the opposite, but some of these men could go on to lead good lives and be a force for good in others' lives as well if we would just let them. I'm not saying we should make it easy on them, but we should at least make it possible.

    3. Re:Really mixed feelings by u-bend · · Score: 1

      AC, your hostility took me a little by surprise. I wasn't really stringently arguing a knee-jerk thinkofthechildren response. I was ambivalent, remember? More importantly though, while it's true that the group in question has a lower incidence of crimes of any kind, they are 4 times as likely to commit another sex crime than any other group--given the number of sexual offenders out there, that's the troubling issue. Personally though, I think that many of the laws should be rethought, as they actually prevent the reformed offenders from really reentering society in any meaningful way.

      --
      u-bend
    4. Re:Really mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another myth I see being perpetuated too often - recidivisms rates for sex offenders are actually lower than the rates for non-sex offenders.

      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivis m

    5. Re:Really mixed feelings by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      4 times as likely is meaningless, the likely hood of any particular person being a molester is very low, so 4 times very low is still very low.

      the important statistic is how likely any given sex offender is to do it again. that likelyhood is 2.5%

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  7. Before Cletus gets his rope... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... do remember that it's never been easier to commit a sex crime that requires that you're place in a registry. Even people who get busted for 'indecent exposure' while urinating in an unwise place can end up on a sex offender registry.

    http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/in decent.html

    Theoretically, you have to be trying to 'assualt' someone by exposing yourself. Of course any DA with an agenda can make certain charges stick with a plea-bargain deal, even when they might not otherwise be applicable.

    How many people can afford to hire lawyers necessary to try to defend themselves in such a case? If you do try to fight it, I hope you've got a damn good Public Defender.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Before Cletus gets his rope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even people who get busted for 'indecent exposure' while urinating in an unwise place can end up on a sex offender registry.

      Fortunately my small dick does not protude from my baggy pants, so I don't expose myself while urinating in public.

    2. Re:Before Cletus gets his rope... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Of course any DA with an agenda can make certain charges stick with a plea-bargain deal

      Plea bargaining is an abomination to justice. All it amounts to is punishment for exercising your constitutional right to a trial. It allows the government to imprison the poor by trumping up charges and offering a deal. A public defender will just agree to the deal, it's easier and it was a "good deal" anyway.

      That should be explicitly stated in the constitution, all prosecutions must go to a trial, if you don't have the evidence you don't get to convict. If you can't justify the expense, maybe it wasn't such a bad crime after all. While I'm fantasizing, jury nullification should be explicitly recognized as well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Before Cletus gets his rope... by anagama · · Score: 1

      If people want the registry lists to be meaningful, they shouldn't load them up with spam. If people start realizing that people are on the list because they took a leak behind a tree, people will stop paying attention to the list or at least treat it with skepticsm. The "protect children" crowd is doing themselves a big disservice by adding ridiculous acts to sex offender list and thereby making its meaning ambiguous.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:Before Cletus gets his rope... by JavaPunk · · Score: 1

      No kidding.
      I know of a certain "christian college" in Pensacola, Florida that disallows physical contact between the sexes. Violating this policy is grounds for dismissal. One young man happened to hold hands with his girlfriend and was dismissed from said school.

      Imagine his surprise when he appeared on the Florida sex offenders registry! He successfully sued the school for damages and had his name removed from the list, but that really screws with your life.

  8. Problem & Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Problem: People (children included) seek viable mates via MySpace. Prospective mates turn out to be rapists or sexual deviants.

    Solution A: Don't seek mates on MySpace & teach your children common sense about acceptable human mating practices. Show your children how to safely use the internet, how to meet real people and make friends in reality instead of through a virtual layer.

    Solution B: Police MySpace at the expense of everyone's (180 million) privacy.

    Now, which solution is the correct one? The one that involves you being a responsible person/parent or the one that involves you infringing on a person's basic rights? If you are going to argue for the latter, first answer how they will acquire information about sex offenders without first examining everyone's behavior.

    1. Re:Problem & Solutions by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Problem: People (children included) seek viable mates via MySpace. Prospective mates turn out to be rapists or sexual deviants.

      That can be true in real life. It's not like everyone does thorough background checks on people that they date.

      -b.

    2. Re:Problem & Solutions by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Problem: People (children included) seek viable mates via MySpace. Prospective mates turn out to be rapists or sexual deviants.

      Solution A: Don't seek mates on MySpace & teach your children common sense about acceptable human mating practices. Show your children how to safely use the internet, how to meet real people and make friends in reality instead of through a virtual layer.

      Problem: People seek viable mates via Real Life(tm). Prospective mates turn out to be rapists, sexual deviants, or just plain psycho.

      Solution: Don't seek mates in Real Life.

      Benefits: More time to read Slashdot, learn tiddlywinks, try Linux From Scratch, and watch every episode of Futurama until the scripts are memorized.

    3. Re:Problem & Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly and searching for people similar to yourself is much easier on the Internet because the pool is a lot larger than what you could meet in face-to-face life.

      Hell, maybe we would have less divorces if it were easier for people to meet more people they are compatible with rather than whatever they have available within their circle of friends and the few random people they meet in real life. I met my ex-wife this way and that worked out like shit.

      Now personally I have not used the Internet for dating (yet?) but I did meet several girlfriends through BBS's back in the 80's. Weird now that I think about it because I doubt many girls did that type of stuff back then. They were attractive and good-looking though so maybe I just got lucky or whatever.

    4. Re:Problem & Solutions by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Hell, maybe we would have less divorces if it were easier for people to meet more people they are compatible with rather than whatever they have available within their circle of friends and the few random people they meet in real life. I met my ex-wife this way and that worked out like shit.

      Define "compatible" please. If it's sharing the same interests and being basically similar, it doesn't always work out, either. People either "click" or they don't, and the reasons for it are seldom terribly rational. You probably have as much chance of meeting someone randomly as on a dating service -- and I guess a BBS qualifies as randomly as well, since you weren't there for dating, I'd assume.

      -b.

  9. Bullshit. by FatSean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they are at risk of re-offending, don't release them.

    It is really fucking lame to let these guys out as if they had 'paid their debt' like any murderer, rapist or thief and then treat them as second-class citizens. The murderers don't have people telling them where to live! Thieves don't have to sign up for a 'watch list' and tell people when they move, because they might steal again!

    What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

    I've had enough of my rights infringed upon in the name of the 'innocent defenseless children' so that dog won't hunt. Try another angle, brotha!

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Bullshit. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

      Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Bullshit. by moderatorrater · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that To actually make that accurate, you'd also have to ask someone who'd died, and preferably someone who'd gone through both.
    3. Re:Bullshit. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The murderers don't have people telling them where to live!

      Unless they got life parole, which they sometimes do.

      What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

      Well, I agree, but you have to realize that this is an objective question.

      I've had enough of my rights infringed upon in the name of the 'innocent defenseless children' so that dog won't hunt. Try another angle, brotha!

      My problem with the system isn't that it exists, it's that it's way too easy to get into it.

      For example a 17 year old fucking a 15 (or even 16!) year old is a misdemeanor in California, but it could still get you on the offender list in this and many other states. And so for the rest of your life, for doing something really quite reasonable (insofar as that you cannot stop teenagers from fucking) you could be required to go door to door and state that you are a sex offender.

      In fact you basically have to check ID every time you fuck someone who looks young now, because "she told me she was 18" is not a defense even if you have her statement on tape. Is this intended to "protect the children"? Of course not. The idea is to make it more difficult and dangerous to have casual sex, because GOD SAID IT WAS WRONG.

      You know, the same reason you can only get first-trimester abortions...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Bullshit. by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Death is clearly worse than rape.. otherwise rapists couldn't use death as a threat for rape victims to be submissive.

      As is mutilation, threating family members, etc.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Climb down off your fucking soapbox and take a moment to really think of the children. They need to be protected and this is the least intrusive manner of doing so. As such, it passes constitutional muster, since an intrusion on your rights (to privacy per se) is allowable as long as (a) it is in the public interest, and (b) it is the most minimal intrusion necessary to satisfy (a).

      A little intrusion on the "rights" of a child raper is A-OK in my book and doesn't get me to shed one fucking solitary tear.

    6. Re:Bullshit. by Belacgod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the most minimal intrusion would be to make child rape punishable by life in prison. That wouldn't intrude on the liberties of people who piss in the bushes, and 19-year-olds who screw 17-year-olds, and would intrude on the liberties of people who really should have their liberties intruded upon. Child rapists are capable of traveling 1000 feet, or 1000 yards, or however long to get to where the kids are. They're capable of making false internet identities. What they're not capable of is doing any of that while locked up.

    7. Re:Bullshit. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Actually, the most minimal intrusion would be to make child rape punishable by life in prison.

      Forcible rape of a young child (say, I don't know, under 10 or 12) should be a capital offense, especially if there's a pattern of it. If they're dead, they can't re-offend...

      -b.

    8. Re:Bullshit. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Uh, how would you hear from the person who had been murdered?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    9. Re:Bullshit. by realisticradical · · Score: 2, Funny

      In fact you basically have to check ID every time you fuck someone who looks young now, because "she told me she was 18" is not a defense even if you have her statement on tape.

      So, after you ask for verbal consent for sex on tape, do the women usually stick around?
    10. Re:Bullshit. by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      i would say it depends on the details
      Maim/Kill the kid= you die S L O W
      if the kid lives = you get certain parts removed (includes certain tendons in the foot)

      bonk a bunch of kids before you get caught= Pinhead wouldn't go that slow (or cause that much pain)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    11. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that.

      Most rape victims believe being dead is worse than living with the memories of rape, regardless of what they say. The proof is that they haven't committed suicide.

      Seriously, if you've been raped, and you really think you'd have been better off if they'd have killed you, what's stopping you from finishing the job? Oh, I guess rape isn't as bad as murder, after all.

      I know this sounds a bit "flamebaity", but I'm really sick of people exaggerating their plight. Sure, rape's awful, but you are better off than murder victims, so quit pretending you aren't to get sympathy. The only reason people even consider rape to be worse than murder is because murder victims don't whine about it. Because they are dead.

    12. Re:Bullshit. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So, after you ask for verbal consent for sex on tape, do the women usually stick around?

      I don't know, never tried it. I have checked ID, though. No joke. And yes, she stuck around, although that relationship is over now (she dumped me, then I found an upgrade; meanwhile she got knocked up, by the guy who came after me. this is the second time this has happened to me so far... I may not win the lottery, but at least I'm not accidentally breeding)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Bullshit. by toleraen · · Score: 1

      do the women usually stick around?

      That's what he paid them for, isn't it?

    14. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      well, i haven't been murdered, because i'm posting this, so i can't honestly compare and critique the two experiences, but i do think if i'm given the choice next time, i'll take a bullet in the head over rape. i will fight to the death to avoid that experience again. as to the "the proof is that they haven't committed suicide" bit, i've got to disagree that that constitutes proof. i'm staying alive out of spite, honestly. i'm not going to give them the satisfaction. also, it's harder to kill yourself than to have someone else do it.

    15. Re:Bullshit. by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought that such payments are usualy made to prevent women from sticking around...

    16. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that.


      You should ask someone who is dead to, for comparison. I'd bet you that the dead person was so traumatized by it that they won't be able to respond at all.
    17. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the same reason you can only get first-trimester abortions... Actually, in California, up to second trimesters are allowed (Yeah, unfortunately, my girlfriend knows from personal experiance)
    18. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

      You don't believe in Hell? You'll believe it when you get there.

      Naturally taking a human life is more grievous than harming a human. That's easily deduced from Natural Law. Once you've figured out there is a Natural Law, you have to wonder who made it that way. I suggest Aquinas for more information.

    19. Re:Bullshit. by Ep0xi · · Score: 0

      ask who?

      --
      ?
    20. Re:Bullshit. by scribblej · · Score: 1

      Hey, I've got a better idea. You ask someone who was killed and we'll compare answers.

    21. Re:Bullshit. by Khashishi · · Score: 1
      Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that.

      Ask someone who was murdered, and get back with me on that. Oh, wait...

    22. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's a pretty seriously intrusive manner of not protecting the children. Registered sex offenders who want to use MySpace to find and molest children are not going to use their real name.

      So this inconveniences registered sex offenders who have no interest in finding children (even if their offense had nothing to do with children. Sex Offender is a term that applies to a lot more than just Child Molester), and fails to protect the children against repeat sex offenders. It also completely misses the molesters who were never caught or convicted.

    23. Re:Bullshit. by QCompson · · Score: 1

      How come no one asks the following question, since the punishments for such offenses at this point are nearly equal to rape:

      What's worse? Being inappropriately touched or being murdered?

    24. Re:Bullshit. by PlanetaryAC · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we should kill rape victims?

      --
      Here's your reward! >:(
    25. Re:Bullshit. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      For this to work, there would need to be some standard for the level of punishment. It can't be all case by case, or it would be cruel and unusual. But if you treat all bad guys with equal cruelty, it's not unusual.

    26. Re:Bullshit. by PlanetaryAC · · Score: 0

      i'm staying alive out of spite, honestly. I don't think it would satisfy your rapist to see you dead, otherwise he would have killed you already, since it could greatly lessen the chance that he would get caught. Also, killing a rape victim defeats the biological purpose of rape, which is reproduction.
      --
      Here's your reward! >:(
    27. Re:Bullshit. by toleraen · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd hope they'd at least stick around long enough to take advantage of said services

    28. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's kind of the point he's making.

    29. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i just noticed that those bastards must have raped my keyboard too, because the shift keys are fucked.

    30. Re:Bullshit. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      bad idea, you'll end up with fewer living child victims and more dead ones.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    31. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'raped' get up and live their lives. The murdured are dead. Our society seems to prefer that one be murdered, as murderers and 'hit and run' killers that use cars as their weapon of choice typically serve no more than five years actual time. And when they are peeled off a wall and unleasched back on the society that loves them, they report to no one! Our values are religious, not ethical, moral, or just. We are no better than the filthy moslems that are killing our soldiers in the so called 'middle east'. In fact we are worse. as we are consumate hypocrites. If the 'think of the children' crowd really cared about the young, they would run, not walk, to their bank and withdraw all their money to give to children in the world that are REALLY suffering, the children and adults of Darfur in the Soudan in Africa for example. They would volunteer their time to teach in a bush school in the new Union of South Africa. They would volunteer to help in an orphanage in Ukraine that cared for those injured by the Tchernobl disaster. They would help dig wells in Brazil so that still other suffering children would not have to suffer contracting bilharzia. But no! You won't do THAT, now, will you? It is too easy to safely proseletyse from a comfortable church pew or easy chair about idealised nonsense and crackpot religions, and that costs you nothing and makes you feel good. Oh yes and by the way, after those children that you did not help grow up, they may come looking for you or your descendants. And they won't be nice. For they all know who you are and what you are!

    32. Re:Bullshit. by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      I would say rape is FAR GREATER in severity then death.
      Death is the end, its over, the victim doesn't go through years and years of torture readjusting and surviving.

      The fear of death is a very powerful motivator, the basic instinct to survive, coupled with the fear of what to do, feelings of helplessness, giving in hoping they would be quick and leave you be is what makes the victim submissive. But don't underestimate their attempts at fighting back.

      Threatening family members will make you either fight back severely if you feel you can protect them, or make you submit to what they want in order to also protect them.

      The only way death may be considered worse is that quite alot the rape goes unknown, the family/friends don't know about it and aren't hurt by what they don't know. However death is very known, grieving and loss plague them. And also victims can go on to lead very successful lives, but even still i rate death as less then rape. I would much prefer to have died then live with the scars and torment of rape, and I am sure many others would too.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    33. Re:Bullshit. by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you considered the possibility that other people might think differently to you?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    34. Re:Bullshit. by PlanetaryAC · · Score: 0

      Who modded me down for this? I didn't know there was a -1, insensitive option. I presented a sound argument and some chickenshit moderator disagreed with what I said, so they modded me down.

      --
      Here's your reward! >:(
    35. Re:Bullshit. by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Verbal consent!? Ha! Boy are you behind the times. Any sexual act can only be performed after written consent is obtained.

      Sexual activity consent form FU-2 can be obtained from the local court house or post office. The form must be filled out by both parties and witnessed by a notary public. Then each party keeps one copy (pink for her, blue for him) with the white original filled with the county recorder no later than 2 days before the sexual act is to occur. Failure to follow these instructions will result in prosecution under the sexual morality code.

      Jeez dude, next your gonna be asking what the three sea shells are for.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    36. Re:Bullshit. by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say rape is FAR GREATER in severity then death. Death is the end, its over, the victim doesn't go through years and years of torture readjusting and surviving.

      Since the victim does go through them, rather than end her life, she seems to disagree with you.

      I would much prefer to have died then live with the scars and torment of rape, and I am sure many others would too.

      Cold as this may seem, if you would rather not live with your scars, you have that choice. You can stop being alive, but you can't stop being dead.

      Given time (and preferably treatment) scars fade and torment lessens. Never completely, but enough that you can live with them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    37. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was raped as a child, and I concur that killing is worse than being raped. Rape is an utterly horrible crime that will quite possibly leave you scarred for life, but it's not the same as being killed.

      Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

    38. Re:Bullshit. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that.

      What, are you suggesting that they would rather be dead than alive? (Although some victims do commit suicide, that clearly doesn't apply to anyone that you are able to ask.)

    39. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no biological purpose of rape. Rapists do not go into it thinking they are going to reproduce. Take this from someone raped as a child and adult. Control over the other person can be the reason behind the rape. This whole sex offender registery while trying to look out for the "decent" people can actually hurt. I had a custody case where my soon-to-be ex-husband tried to pull in my living in an "unsafe" environment with my 2 boys because there were 3 registered sex offenders living on my property. Thank God I had a Deputy Sheriff testify for me that he has no problem living in the community or leaving his wife alone in the community to dispute the negativity of the registry on my case. Has anyone mentioned how many people are NOT on the sex offender's registery who have committed the crimes but never been caught or convicted of them (probably 3 - 5 times as many as are on the registry). Neither of my cases were ever tried.

    40. Re:Bullshit. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      It clearly differs from victim to victim. Some can get their lives back in order in a relatively short time, while others will never be able to look at a man again without reliving their ordeal.

    41. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you agree rapists who kill their victims after raping them should get lower punishments compared to those who don't kill their victims, since they did the humane thing by doing their victims a favor? I mean, how bad can rape be if you only have to live with it for another 10 minutes...

    42. Re:Bullshit. by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1
      Also, killing a rape victim defeats the biological purpose of rape, which is reproduction.

      B.S. There is no biological purpose behind rape because does not serve to propagate the the species. Rape is about one thing and one thing only. Rape is about power.

    43. Re:Bullshit. by Furry+Ice · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you haven't sat in a "comfortable church pew" of a "crackpot religion" in a long time. You do realize that an awful lot of religious people donate 10% of their incomes to their church. Many churches have special donation opportunities set aside for helping children in other countries as well as missionary opportunities for those who are able to donate their time in addition to (or instead of) their money. No, not everyone participates, but a significant number do. So my question is, do *you* volunteer your time and money to the struggling people you mentioned? Please stop shining a flashlight at the perceived shortcomings of others. Just do your part and maybe you can attract others who are willing to do the same. Criticizing others will accomplish nothing.

    44. Re:Bullshit. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Power is just a means to get a female to reproduce with.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    45. Re:Bullshit. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Who made it that way? Why do we have to assume someone wrote those laws? It's an instinct, pure and simple. It's no good for us to go around killing our own kind for no reason since we're herd animals.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    46. Re:Bullshit. by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      no, the mere act of rape alone deserves great punishment, wether they live for 10 seconds or ten years. if your argument was to give a more humane method, killing then raping would have worked out to be non harmful emotionally to the victimn as they are dead, but even still a very vile act and should be punished severely.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    47. Re:Bullshit. by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      not all victims survive, quite a few have committed suicide as a result of the pain from the event.

      given time scars do fade, but not for everyone, it can unleash a multitude of disorders that torment them. Anxiety/ptsd etc.

      many victims wish to have died, but dont have the willpower/energy to end it themselves, but a quite a few do.

      I agree that you can get past it and live a successful life, but you can also live a very horrible life, personally i'd rather not have to face it, either by being killed quickly, or the act never happening.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
  10. Age verification? by brainburger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Leaving aside for the moment the fact that not all inter-generational relationships are abusive, it's easy to prove adulthood, by demanding a credit-card check. However, how is it possible online to robustly age-verify a person as under 18?

    Does anyone know if any provider has made any progress on this?

    1. Re:Age verification? by RWarrior(fobw) · · Score: 3, Informative
      > it's easy to prove adulthood, by demanding a credit-card check.

      That is a defense in American statutory law, but not in practice. There are any number of outlets where anyone of any age with a sufficient amount of cash may buy a Visa gift card. I once sent an 8 year old to do it and he came back to me with a legally-purchased, fully working card I used to buy a subscription to a porn site.

      Indeed, Visa specifically prohibits using a Visa card number as an age verification mechanism in their Rules for Merchants:

      "The merchant must not use the account number for age verification or any purpose other than payment."

      (Approximately 60% of adult industry transactions carried our by credit card on the net are carried out with Visa cards.) cite

      Even if Visa permitted such a use, the merchant fees make it unworkable: Visa charges a percentage of every transaction, and the acquiring bank charges a fee as well, generally anything from a quarter to a dollar per transaction, PLUS a percentage, ranging anywhere from 2.3% to 15% of the ticket price, depending on a lot of factors they won't tell you about. This means that it simply isn't economical to use credit cards as a verification mechanism: It costs the merchant too much. To make a credit card transaction pay for itself, the merchant must make enough profit on the transaction to cover the fee, and if there's no fee, there's no profit one can use to cover the cost of the transaction, so it's a money-losing proposition.

      So, right now, there is no way to effectively prove age, either adult or minor, on the internet. None.

      --
      Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
    2. Re:Age verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it's easy to prove adulthood, by demanding a credit-card check" ...because the little darlings could NEVER take Mommy and Daddy's credit card off the dresser and use it to sign up themselves, could they...?

      There's no such thing as reliable verification of age or identity online, full stop. The only answer to protecting children on the Internet falls squarely in the laps of their parents. Folks, if you pop the sprog out in the first place, *you* are responsible for protecting it - and that means you don't let them on the Internet without supervision until you've taught them well enough and they've reached an appropriate age where they won't become a target for predators.

      For the love of god, won't somebody *stop* forcing me to think of your children? I've chosen not to have kids (and should I ever change my mind, I'll raise them properly and with supervision). Why should I have to jump through hoops just because you felt the need to spread your seed, but couldn't be bothered to look after the result? What's next, should I have to feed and clothe your kids too because you'd rather spend the money on a new flatscreen?

  11. Validity Of "Sex Offender" by nick_davison · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Up until the last couple of years, consensual homosexual acts have been able to put you on the sex offenders register in many states. Sex with a consenting partner, in a park, after midnight, when all children should long since be in bed - you're a sex offender. Oral sex in Utah? Mississippi's ludicrous "sex with a minor unless you can prove she was not of previously virtuous character.."? They all merit a place on the list.

    I don't dispute that identifying those who prey on children may have its merits. Given the sex offender registry is a great way of stitching red letters on the chests of anyone that offends good conservative taste, that is hardly its sole effect.

    Given how open to abuse the system is, how long before the MPAA figures, "Hey, there's hardcore porn on them there torrents. I wonder if we could get anyone that uses them labeled a sex offender, destroy their lives, and kill off torrents that way, without worrying about trying to prove actual piracy."?

    I've never got caught having sex in public nor getting a blowjob in Utah. I also happen to be straight. Still, even if I had been caught for any of those acts, it's absolutely none of their business whether I use MySpace.

    Mind you, I also grew up in England where, after the Daily Mail posted a list of 1,000 sex offenders, including some errors, a paediatrician got their house burned down. Dirty paediatricians! I hate the way they look at and touch children!

    1. Re:Validity Of "Sex Offender" by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Up until the last couple of years, consensual homosexual acts have been able to put you on the sex offenders register in many states. Sex with a consenting partner, in a park, after midnight, when all children should long since be in bed - you're a sex offender.

      If you're trying to indict sex offender lists by saying they include acts that aren't that bad you're going to have to provide a better example than cottaging.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Validity Of "Sex Offender" by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      Being 19 and screwing a 17-year-old? Check out Genarlow Wilson's case for a particularly egregious example.

    3. Re:Validity Of "Sex Offender" by slyguy135 · · Score: 1

      Given how open to abuse the system is, how long before the MPAA figures, "Hey, there's hardcore porn on them there torrents. I wonder if we could get anyone that uses them labeled a sex offender, destroy their lives, and kill off torrents that way, without worrying about trying to prove actual piracy."?

      Don't give them any ideas!

      [And it was the News of the World that published pictures of convicted paedophiles, not the Daily Mail, not that I would ever knowingly seek to defend either publication from abuse.]

    4. Re:Validity Of "Sex Offender" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to give them ideas, but imagine this scenario...

      Impressionable 13 year old boy is downloading a porn torrent. You are also downloading said torrent (at the age of >18, >21, whatever). Thus, you may well be uploading porn to a minor.

      Makes ya wonder...

  12. Age verification.... by twigles · · Score: 2, Informative

    I enjoy reading the repeated calls for age verification on social networking sites. Never does anyone making this demand suggest a feasible solution, they just pound their shoes on the table and say, "make it happen!" Even better are the calls for requiring parental permission for minors. Think for about 30 seconds about how one might accomplish that feat. Yeah.

    1. Re:Age verification.... by dfjunior · · Score: 1

      Easy. Simply require registrants to input the RealID number from the barcode tattoo on their arm.

    2. Re:Age verification.... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I enjoy reading the repeated calls for age verification on social networking sites. Never does anyone making this demand suggest a feasible solution, they just pound their shoes on the table and say, "make it happen!" Even better are the calls for requiring parental permission for minors. Think for about 30 seconds about how one might accomplish that feat.


      (1) Provide a digital signing key on a dongle, with an associated PIN to access it in person at a government agency with identification requirements similar to those needed to get a driver's license or passport (including, for minors, requiring their their parents or guardinas already have registered for the system, have a key, and be present and registered as linked to the minor's record.) Provide stern warnings that people will strictly liable for anything digitally signed with their key. Require those getting the ID key to provide a current email address for notifications. Publish open specification for the supporting encryption and signing software (or use existing standards), and provide a reference implementation for common platforms free (Free would be better, of course) if not using an existing standard with open specification and free implementations.

      (2) Require users of sites where those kinds of restrictions you discuss are desired to identify themselves using their key by signing a challenge to confirm their identity.

      (3) Send notification to the parents when the minor signs up using the key and require the parent to return an authorization for the minor to get whatever access is desired to be restricted.

      That took me less than 30 seconds to think up, though longer to type. I'm sure there are better ways to do it.
    3. Re:Age verification.... by twigles · · Score: 1

      I hope there are better ways. That one would put any social networking site out of business. Step 1 starts with "Provide a digital signing key on a dongle" - any idea how to do that when your site has 150+ million accounts? Divide that number in half for spammers and bots, divide the remaining number in half for inactive accounts ... you still have over 30 million dongles to produce. That was just one problem. With the first dozen words.

      What they want is not feasible without a massive identity management infrastructure. The kind no one will pay for, trust, or use unless coerced into doing so.

    4. Re:Age verification.... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Step 1 starts with "Provide a digital signing key on a dongle" - any idea how to do that when your site has 150+ million accounts?


      You obviously stopped reading after those 7 words of that sentence: it wasn't the site operator required to do that. It was the government, mandating the controls, that would do that.

      The only thing the site would have to do is interface with the government ID system and provide the required email notifications and process the responses.

      I figure if the government is going to require the verification, its going to need to provide the common infrastructure to enable it.

  13. Sex Offenders Yawn, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and change their login from "John James Sexoffender" to "Jayjay Sexoffender". Attorneys general wonder what happened to their cunning plan.

  14. Given the treatment... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...I've read about where people have ended up living under bridges because there's nowhere that's not too close to something, they should probably be happy they didn't get collectively banned for hanging out at the same place many young people do. While I do understand the need for protection, the US looks like the kind of place where you're so utterly, completely head-to-toe screwed that you can't possibly redeem yourself and live a honest and normal life. And I'm not talking about the babyraping kind, the kind that was drunk, horny and didn't catch the jailbait signs.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  15. I just had an evil thought by Deagol · · Score: 1
    Firstly, I think the whole sex offender registry thing is unworkable and misguided at best. However, if you really wanted to fuck w/ someone, just locate them (link to Utah's Sex Offender Registry search form), use tor, a few chained proxies, or a Starbuck's wifi spot, then sign up under the offender's name/address.

    Hilarity will soon follow, I'm sure.

    1. Re:I just had an evil thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utah's Sex Offender Registry? Wonder if they track the searches? Everyone should go there and search for "Darl McBride".

  16. Privacy.... by Kazrath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While /. usually is all for privacy in cases such as this I believe the sex offender made a choice to give up their privacy as soon as they performed the criminal act.

    Unfortunately there are numerous cases that have caused a person to be labeled as a "sex offender" that should have never occurred. In some cases children (People under 18) have been convicted of child molestation. Or parents who take pictures of their children in the tub have been arrested for child pornography. Right now the major issue is that laws designed to protect children can be used against children.

    I don't remember if it was on /. or somewhere else but I do remember reading a very heated discussion about sex offenders recently.

    1. Re:Privacy.... by QCompson · · Score: 1

      While /. usually is all for privacy in cases such as this I believe the sex offender made a choice to give up their privacy as soon as they performed the criminal act.

      If you are arguing that when one commits a crime they are tacitly also making a choice to accept the known consequences, such as imprisonment and loss of privacy, then your argument is flawed in relation to sex offenders. Sex offenders, unlike other classes of criminals, are often forced to submit to new legislative restrictions after their conviction. One year they can't live within 200 feet of a school. The next year they can't live within 10 miles of a school. The year after that they have to wear a GPS tracking bracelet. The year after that (oh, the horror), they can't go on MySpace. At this point, there is no way someone can contemplate all the possible future restrictions and punishments which he/she will be forced to endure when they commit a sex-offense. The sex-offense witch-hunt hysteria is just evolving too quickly.

    2. Re:Privacy.... by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Right now the major issue is that laws designed to protect children can be used against children.

      And here I thought that the major issue was that these laws can be used against innocent people or to mete out punishment out of all proportion to the crime. Or that it's absurd to apply "strict liability" to something this complex (as opposed to parking tickets).

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:Privacy.... by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Right now the major issue is that laws designed to protect children can be used against children.
      No, right now the major issue is that every politician and talking head is striving to equate the term "sex offender" with "child molester." And it's working. There are plenty of "sex offenders" on MySpace (and walking around your neighborhood each day) who do not now, and never will, pose the slightest risk to anyone's child.
      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  17. Re:Let's Face it by Belacgod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then why are they out of prison? These registries are populated entirely by people who should be in prison for life or worse, and by people who should never have been punished. Nobody actually belongs on these lists.

  18. Errr... by omgamibig · · Score: 1

    How does Myspace get those informations?

    1. Re:Errr... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They search their database for those who ticked the "Are you a sex offender" checkbox, silly.

    2. Re:Errr... by SnotBob · · Score: 0

      Because Tom is everybody's creepy friend.

  19. Sort of fitting by madsheep · · Score: 1

    Well the first response above is one of my own reactions. How hard is it to just use fake information? How exactly are they narrowing down sex offenders on MySpace? Then I realized that most sex offenders are morons and this probably would nab them. Then again what happens to people in the same general area that have the same or a similar name? I am a little confused as to what this will prove. How do you know the MySpace account wasn't setup as someone pretending to be the sex offender trying to get them in trouble? There seems to be a lot of murky areas here.

    1. Re:Sort of fitting by budword · · Score: 1

      Most sex offenders who GET CAUGHT are morons. There are far more who are never even suspected. I worked with a sex offender (as his minder, sort of). I had to attend some of his group sessions. Nearly 100% of CAUGHT sex offenders in this county were borderline retarded or worse. These people only get CAUGHT because they are even more brutally stupid than the police. The brighter ones never get caught. Myspace might be able to find these already caught already verified brutally stupid sex offenders, but the ones we need to worry about won't even spike the radar this way. More power to them. And for the people who claim this is a violation of the sex offender rights, they almost always agree to some sort of supervison, as a condition of their release. You lose certain rights when you are convicted of a crime. (Right to vote, in many states, for one, there are many others.) I have no problem with privacy being one of them, for convicted felons.

  20. More homogeneous feelings by Peter+Mork · · Score: 3, Informative

    the recidivism rates for many sex offenders are incredibly high.

    From the Bureau of Justice:

    • Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
    • Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
    • Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

    To me, these statistics do not indicate an "incredibly high" recidivism rate. Sure, sex offenders are more likely than non-sex offenders to commit a sex offense, but if 2.5% recidivism is high enough to justify lifetime tracking, then 1.2% (for murder!) is as well.

    1. Re:More homogeneous feelings by Knara · · Score: 1

      The reason that people say that the recidivism rates are high is because they've heard it repeated time and time again on TV, so it must be true because Stone Phillips said it was true. You are right, however, that statistically they are 1) a minority of offenders and 2) statistically much less likely to re-offend (or at least, unlikely to be re-arrested, though that variable would count for any previous offender).

    2. Re:More homogeneous feelings by nexuspal · · Score: 1

      It's 5.3% recidivism, as per your source. 1 in 20 for sex offenders as opposed to 1 in 40 (for rapists), or 1 in 77 (for murderers). I would say that small percentage point increase has an appreciable effect in a population, given the nature of the crime.

      --
      I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure :-P
    3. Re:More homogeneous feelings by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      These statistics are pretty close to meaningless in this context.

      Is there more than one type of murder? Is there more than one type of sexual offense?

      There are no murderers that are tracked? Why do you suppose most of them aren't?

      It occurs to me that the ones that the fact that there isn't a lot of repeat crimes for rapists and murderers is because most of them aren't released. Especially for premeditated or serial murder, the debt to society is beyond the possibility of rehabilitation.

      As for repeat sexual crimes...some of them - such as pedophilia, for example, are thought to be a lot more likely to be repeating than others. Others, like public lewdness, are likely a lot less likely to happen again. Just getting caught prevents it. Any study needs to be a lot more specific to show real conclusive reasons why the current system makes no sense.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    4. Re:More homogeneous feelings by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

      First, my apologies for replying to your comments out of order, but one comment is particularly germaine:

      Is there more than one type of sexual offense?

      Absolutely, this is why the sex offender registries are so pointless. I am the father of a six-year-old girl. About a year ago, I checked out the registry information. Because the registry contained no context (e.g., did the offender have consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, molest his son, prey on strangers), I learned nothing from it*. Is the risk to my family zero? Certainly not. Am I going to worry about who is (or is not) on the list? Nope. Without specifics, I cannot distinguish any difference between the risk of a particular re-offense and background risk from first-offenders.

      These statistics are pretty close to meaningless in this context.

      The context in which I presented these statistics was in response to a comment that stated the recidivism rate is "incredibly high." In this context, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is certainly meaningful. I also included the recidivism rates for two crimes because a) these numbers were readily available and b) they help to determine whether or not 5.3% is "incredibly high."

      It occurs to me that the ones that the fact that there isn't a lot of repeat crimes for rapists and murderers is because most of them aren't released.

      I respectfullly disagree that most offenders receive life sentences without parole, or are put to death. However, let's assume that it were true. The recidivism rate is computed by taking the number of people who, after their release, are found guilty of another crime within a certain time period (3 years for these data, IIRC) and dividing by the number of people released from prison. So, even if most offenders are never released, all this does is drive down the total size of the population. The variance will increase, but the recidivism rate can still be calculated.

      *Actually, I learned that nearly all sex offenders are grainy. Given this strong correlation, I think we should monitor all persons who appear grainy. We can just install cameras at convenience stores and then plant tracking devices on anyone for whom the corresponding photo is grainy.

    5. Re:More homogeneous feelings by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      The recidivism rate is computed by taking the number of people who, after their release, are found guilty of another crime within a certain time period (3 years for these data, IIRC) and dividing by the number of people released from prison. So, even if most offenders are never released, all this does is drive down the total size of the population. The variance will increase, but the recidivism rate can still be calculated.

      You don't seem to be reaching the logical conclusion here.

      Rs1 = repeat offenders released
      Ro1 = nonrepeat offenders released

      Recidivism = Rs/(Ro+Rs)

      If most of those who would be repeat offenders are not released while the rest of the released population is still released, then the recidivism rate goes down. I.e., if the change in Rs>the change in Ro even by a single person by not releasing what is considered the most heinous criminals versus releasing them, then the recidivism rate goes down.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  21. Oh boy... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    I read this and I'm wondering what this will be used for first, catching the pedos or target marketing to them.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  22. Bleargh...Twitch...ATTORNEYS GENERAL!!! by W.+Justice+Black · · Score: 3, Informative

    The summary has both "attorney generals" and "attorneys general." Does anyone care to hazard a guess as to which one is correct? The word "general" describes the attorneys--it's "general" the adjective, not the noun.

    That and "son of a bitches." Bah. It's SONS OF A BITCH or SONS OF BITCHES (depending on the number of dogs involved). Our science isn't advanced enough to generate one son from more than one female dog, damn it!

    --
    "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
    1. Re:Bleargh...Twitch...ATTORNEYS GENERAL!!! by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Our science isn't advanced enough to generate one son from more than one female dog, damn it!

      Actually, it is - there's still a male involved, but chimeras of two females are routinely made for various research purposes. I doubt anyone does this with dogs, but only because it's not very practical.

      Good point, otherwise.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Bleargh...Twitch...ATTORNEYS GENERAL!!! by BoothbyTCD · · Score: 1

      What's the plural of 'obnoxious pendant'?

      --
      snig
  23. It depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

    "Worse" in what way? In terms of pain, it would depend on the manner of death and the manner of rape. "Rape" usually includes people who are legally unable to give consent, so it might involve a consenting 17-year-old and a 21-year old. That's an extreme case, but there are degrees. Also, are we talking pain-at-the-moment, or how it messes someone up in the long term? The cost to the individual, or to society? The degree to which it offends our morals?

    Also, it depends on the morality of the people involved. A repentant rapist or murderer has some major issues, and they do exist. I'd rather be raped than rape, because how do you live with yourself knowing you've raped a person? Murder is easier to justify in some circumstances, but only some.

  24. Re:Let's Face it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Actually, death is too good for them."

    Do you beleave in forgiveness? Do you beleave harm to one person should lead to the destruction of another?

    Hate by any other name is still hate.

    Morally you don't appear to be too well off.

  25. "Sex Offender" is such a broad term... by HullBreachOnline.com · · Score: 1

    ...that it covers half the MySpace population. Don't the majority of people use MySpace for getting sex? Being a /.er, I wouldn't know. Also, being married, I don't know much about sex these days.

  26. This could be interesting. by Evil+Poot+Cat · · Score: 5, Informative

    And since Georgia is one of the states mentioned in this article, let's observe that Genarlow Wilson is still in prison, http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php , and will be on one of these lists in about 8 years when he gets out. Not bad, for getting a blow job from a 15 year old when you're 17.

    1. Re:This could be interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess. He got a blwjob from 15 year-old, white and rich cheek :O) and her parents found out... didn't I seen this already in some movie.

    2. Re:This could be interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually he had a sex party with a bunch of other slutty teens and made a video. Look it up.

    3. Re:This could be interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume the girl is also serving time for sex with a minor. Right??

    4. Re:This could be interesting. by asninn · · Score: 1

      Aron Pálmi Ágústsson is also still in prison, although he will be released in August - at the age of 23, after having spent ten years in a Texan prison for playing doctor with another kid when he was 13. And then they call it a "justice" system...

      --
      butter the donkey
  27. re: This could be interesting by Evil+Poot+Cat · · Score: 1

    Crap...mispost. The interesting part would be testing for login and/or message patterns, by offender type and profile (as generated from the offender pool).

  28. Re:Let's Face it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MMmm. Yes. Let's put everybody in prison forever. That's a really good idea.

    I saw a mother actually touching a child's arse. She said she was changing its nappy. But she was enjoying it, the fiend, therefore she is a pervert.

    Let's face it - there's no rationality in any of this bullshit, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with harm to children, real or supposed.

    It's about the Bogeyman, the primal need to hate something.

    About 40% of all adults are capable of experiencing sexual feeling towards "minors". Yes, that dear old Uncle Fred cracking a fat while nursing little Janie on his knee ... it happens a lot, folks.

    I for one wanted to fuck the shit out of Tracy Lords. No-one told us she was under 18 when she did all that porn.

  29. Re:Let's Face it by Belacgod · · Score: 1

    Read what I wrote. You're responding to a strawman here.

  30. Well, I'm with the "this is stupid" camp. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of sex offenders will not reoffend. Out of thos ewho will reoofend, the vast majority are not going to put anyone at risk by using MySpace. In fact, most sex offenders commit offence against people they already know. Many people who are on the list committed very minor crimes, or had sex with someone a couple of months younger than them when they were teens, or even are simply considered to be at risk of committing a sexual offence.

    On the other hand, any sex offender who has never been caught or convicted will be able to use MySpace with impunity.

  31. Not morons by geek · · Score: 1

    Most child molesters / sex offenders are actually quite intelligent. They setup and exploit national as well as international rings to share photos etc. They commit their crimes dozens, sometimes hundreds of times under the radar without being caught. Never ever dismiss them as morons. They are often the hardest criminals to catch and furthermore convict. The worst ones are also the best at the manipulation, not just of children, but of the justice system.

    Case in point, the Catholic churches issues with sex offenders. They masterfully manipulated an entire international religious organization and continue to do so to this day. It takes a lot of resources to deal with these people and it takes a huge emotional toll on the people who do it for a living.

  32. Re:Let's Face it by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Let's try a little perspective. You get a phone call at work saying your wife is in critical condition because someone on a PCP binge raped her for 6 hours and threw her out of a mooving car. You spend the next 6 months at the hospital every moment you can, while she sits as a vegetable in a coma. In the meantime, your kids are neglected, not only because you are spending what time you can with your wife, but they don't have their mother around... then she wakes up. While over the next year, through physical therapy, she gets physically better, but she doesn't talk... to you or anybody else. Most of her day is spent crying. She pulls away when you try to touch her. She can't even sleep in the same bed as you. The kids not being able to cope become deliquent. One of them starts doing heroin... and soon you learn they have HIV. Your wife eventually leaves because she can't cause you or the family anymore pain. Another kid drops out of school.

    For the rest of your life, every day, you won't be able to have a moment where you feel ok. The life you had is gone. All inclination to pick up the pieces and start over is gone.

    Tell me how forgiving you are going to be... how forgiving you SHOULD be?

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  33. catholic church devastated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    priests everywhere delete their myspace accounts

  34. leprosy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    leprosy is a terrible thing...

  35. witch hunts not helpful by hherb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am a doctor who has some "sex offenders" among my patients. They range from rapists and paedophiles to people who harmed nobody but those with a narrow religiously based world view (eg people having sex in a public place without intent of being discovered, like in a bush after dark in a park).

    I define sex offenders as people who cause grief to others through non-consensual acts.

    However, U.S. legislation has a much broader view on this, depending on state - in some states the term includes virtually everybody who doesn't fit into a very narrow minded strongly religiously biased cultural view.

    My first observation would be that very different people are lumped together under the same tag, a tag which will cause suffering way beyond whatever suffering they may or may not have caused to others.

    We all remember the case of a female teacher having had consensual sex with a physically fully developed but legally under age boy. She was convicted as a sex offender, put to jail, and after she was released, the boy married her. Who has suffered here? The boy? Obviously not. He said so, and he demonstrated it by marrying her after she was released from prison. Only he woman suffered grievously under the assault by the legal system, and will probably suffer from the consequences of the conviction and the label of "sex offender" the rest of her life. To what avail? Just to have satisfied the puritan narrow minded views of a few judges and religious zealots.

    Plenty of legal cases, mostly from the US, going along similar lines.

    The point is that a number of people are deprived of their constitutional and basic human rights. While I agree that in some extreme cases this might be necessary in order to defend others, in the majority of people who are tagged with the label of "sex offender"this is definitely not the case.

    The US judicial system is increasingly mutating from a system designed to protect people into a system to enforce the narrow world view of a few zealots; a system that cannot even be reconciled with the constitution.

    1. Re:witch hunts not helpful by aicrules · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your example of the boy marrying the woman after her release is pretty lame. You could easily say he was psychologically damaged by the sexual acts committed against him where no consent was possible. Minors are deemed in general to not have the ability to consent to such things because they "don't know any better."

      I don't get why so many /.ers are rising up against this. Show me a list of people who have been wrongly labeled sex offender. All I see are claims that it could be so horribly misused. Any law and enforcement of that law can be misused. I'm going to err on the side of protecting children. There are legal methods for getting sex offender label reversed if wrongly done. Until someone proves that the label is being applied en masse incorrectly, I don't see a problem. MySpace complying with supplying data does not erode anyone's rights.

      As long as due process is given, it all fits within the constitution perfectly. You infringe on someone else's life or liberty and you should expect to lose yours in some way. How about sex crime = death like in some less civilized places? Then you wouldn't have to worry your pretty little heads that some sick fuck is having a hard time finding an acceptible location for his home. Waah waah boo hoo.

    2. Re:witch hunts not helpful by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Show me a list of people who have been wrongly labeled sex offender.

      You have this backwards. Show me why Myspace should hand this over without a subpoena given the debacles with Florida's lists of "felons" denied the right to vote and the TSA's no fly list.

    3. Re:witch hunts not helpful by jrumney · · Score: 1

      We all remember the case of a female teacher having had consensual sex with a physically fully developed but legally under age boy.

      You're not trying to say that there is nothing wrong with a teacher having sex with an underage student are you? Even if if there was no problem legally, she should at least lose her job for such an abuse of a position of trust.

    4. Re:witch hunts not helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not lame, it was a true story - see http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/pedophilia/mary- kay-letourneau/. The relationship lasted through her many years in prison, and indeed she was jailed again after her first release for the crime of having sex with her future husband. She now has *two* children by him. If she's a sex offender I'm a mutant ninja bloody turtle ;-\

      To save ranting on here, I blogged about it at http://www.fredriley.org.uk/weblog/2005/05/true-mr s-robinson.html

      Fred

    5. Re:witch hunts not helpful by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "I am a doctor"

      "Who has suffered here? The boy? Obviously not. He said so, and he demonstrated it by marrying her after she was released from prison."

      If you're a doctor, why aren't you familiar with Stockholm Syndrome and why are you so easily able to dismiss it?

      Wait a sec... a doctor diagnosing someone based solely on what they see on television? Why, Senator Frist, when did you start coming to Slashdot?

    6. Re:witch hunts not helpful by hherb · · Score: 1

      Stockholm syndrome is specific to hostage situations. It hardly applies when a mature male teenager has sexual experiences with a young attractive female teacher. Where is the trauma, the near death experience here?

      In that specific case, I actually went through all the available documents. For the record: I do not watch TV, I do not even own a TV.

    7. Re:witch hunts not helpful by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Stockholm syndrome is specific to hostage situations."

      And you think the fact that she was an authority figure in his life has no bearing on this?

      "It hardly applies when a mature male teenager"

      If thirteen year-old boys were truly "mature," online gaming would be a far more enjoyable experience.

      "with a young attractive female teacher. Where is the trauma, the near death experience here?"

      Having an authority figure sexually obsessed with you, stalking you isn't traumatic enough? Even ignoring his age, her behavior during that entire time period doesn't exactly strike this layman as "healthy" and I suspect that a truly mature man (where "maturity" isn't measured by "has reached puberty") would have recognized her behavior as harmful and self-destructive and not have gone so far as to father two children with her.

      "In that specific case, I actually went through all the available documents."

      Got links?

  36. Re:Let's Face it by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 0

    Just my opinion, but I would have no problem cooking people who rape a mother or molest a child. Actually, death is too good for them.

    I agree, but I think it should be extended to other bad crimes like murder. We should also adopt lesser capital punishment, where only a part of a person is killed. E.g. a thief should have his hand chopped off, and DIU-offenders should have their liver removed. I saw similar laws in action when I visited Saudi Arabia, which really has a handle on crime. You could walk around freely without having to fear for thieves or beggars, and people were happy. I really think this would cut down on crime and make society a truly better place to live for our children.

  37. Re:Let's Face it by QCompson · · Score: 1

    You get a phone call at work saying your wife is in critical condition because someone on a PCP binge raped her for 6 hours and threw her out of a mooving car. You spend the next 6 months at the hospital every moment you can, while she sits as a vegetable in a coma. In the meantime, your kids are neglected, not only because you are spending what time you can with your wife, but they don't have their mother around... then she wakes up. While over the next year, through physical therapy, she gets physically better, but she doesn't talk... to you or anybody else. Most of her day is spent crying. She pulls away when you try to touch her. She can't even sleep in the same bed as you.
    It depends. Is his wife a sex-offender? If so, she deserves that and more!
  38. How are they determining who the sex offenders are by Gyppo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why are most people assuming that the sex offenders are being identified by their user profile information? The FBI/Attorney Generals are probably already monitoring their behaviors and provided their IPs or other identifying information to MySpace, making it easy to track and report on their myspace habits.

  39. Ummm, little problem there by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can get their point of view, but you can't really get the opinion of a murder victim since, well, they are dead and never coming back. A rape victim may well say that rape is the worst possible thing in the world because it is the worst thing that's ever happened to them. That doesn't mean that a dead person would agree, if they were capable of doing so. You also could ask the family how they feel, would they rather their child/spouse/parent was traumatized, or dead and gone forever.

    No one is saying that rape isn't extremely traumatic, but death is, well, final. You can overcome being raped, you can't overcome being murdered.

  40. Re:Let's Face it by Belacgod · · Score: 1

    Which is why the aggrieved shouldn't be allowed to dictate policy for the rest of us. That's how we get laws like we have, how we got into the Iraq war... I know this will be flamebait and start a whole new thread of wangst, but that's why there's a mod for it.

  41. Mother Stabbers and Father Rapers by Timtimes · · Score: 1

    Are you serious?? They'd have to let pot smokers out of jail to make room for the mother stabbers and father rapers.

    --
    This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
    1. Re:Mother Stabbers and Father Rapers by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      Sounds good to me, pot smokers shouldn't be in jail to begin with. Besides, there are more pot smokers than rapists.

  42. Re:Let's Face it by moderatorrater · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm not saying you should be forgiving, but what good does not forgiving this man do? Let's say he stops doing PCP, cleans up his life and is mortified at what he did and wants to do nothing more than make reparations. At that point are there any good choices?

  43. Re:Privacy JUIE-JOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Seattle Times is reporting that MySpace will be providing a number of state attorney generals with data on jews who use their site"

    yep

  44. Re:Let's Face it by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1
    We have a long way to go...case in point.

    I agree, but I think it should be extended to other bad crimes like murder. We should also adopt lesser capital punishment, where only a part of a person is killed. E.g. a thief should have his hand chopped off, and DIU-offenders should have their liver removed. I saw similar laws in action when I visited Saudi Arabia, which really has a handle on crime. You could walk around freely without having to fear for thieves or beggars, and people were happy. I really think this would cut down on crime and make society a truly better place to live for our children. Sometimes I think humanity is starting to grow up, then someone slaps some sense into me.
    --
    brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
  45. How About: by pseudosero · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sex Offender Database Agrees to Share MySpace Information

    or

    Sex Offender Database Agrees to Share Information with MySpace

    or

    Sex Offender Agrees to MySpace TOS

    --
    sometimes, nothing.
  46. Re:Let's Face it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great idea! You know, because our legal system is perfect! We never convict someone who was actually innocent.

  47. Re:Let's Face it by Conspicuous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Saudi Arabia does have a handle on crime. The reason for this is they have a massively well funded secret police force with the right to do pretty much what ever they want, courts that sentence people to death at the drop of a hat and absolutely no civil liberties. I wouldn't like to speculate how many people are wrongly convicted there every year, but it works because people are shit scared of the authorities.

    You can't have it both ways. You can either live in a (relatively) free society and put up with the effects of those who will abuse that freedom. Or you can live in a Nazi style state where nobody (except the authorities) has any freedom to abuse.
    I would suggest the violence inflicted on the Saudi population by their govt. under this system is probably at least an order of magnitude more severe than any violence prevented by the fear of these repressive laws. I would also argue that this applies generally, more repressive legislation can reduce criminality outside the govt. but will increase the criminality and oppressiveness of govt. itself.

    Going back to the middle ages will not solve our social problems, as much as you would clearly like it to.

  48. Need better examples of stupid laws? by nick_davison · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Aside from your missing the implication of strangers for cottaging to apply...

    How about:

    There was a case featured in the November 1996 issue of "Marie Claire" involving an Atlanta wife who tried to have her soon-to-be ex-husband charged with rape. She had persuaded her then hubby to tie her up and later used the bondage as a means of proving that the sex had not been consensual. Her sister came forward and informed the court of the plot against the man, but there was another twist in the story.

    Although the man was acquitted on the rape charge, the man was sentenced to five years in jail for having performed oral sex on the woman. He had admitted to that during the course of the case and so he was charged and sentenced under Georgia law. Source

    From the same article:
    • Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.
    • An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin.
    • In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment.
    • In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor.
    • In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is against the law to have sex with a truck driver in a tollbooth.
    • In Nevada it is illegal to have sex without a condom.
    • In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk to dirty in his wife's ear during sex.
    • In Clinton, Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car.
    • In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!).
    • In Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop's meat freezer.
    • In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face.
  49. Re:Let's Face it by Rycross · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I think humanity is starting to grow up, then someone slaps some sense into me. Yeah, can you believe some people still don't get sarcasm? Crying shame.
  50. Re:Let's Face it by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

    I guess his browser doesn't support sarcasm tags. Alternatively, he might have had his speakers turned off, so he couldn't hear the Colbert impersonation.

  51. Re:How are they determining who the sex offenders by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    The FBI/Attorney Generals are probably already monitoring their behaviors and provided their IPs or other identifying information to MySpace, making it easy to track and report on their myspace habits.


    And how does the FBI no which public wireless hotspot a sex offender is accessing the internet through?

  52. Drug Offenders List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I Demand a Drug Offender's List!

    This too can be linked up with Myspace accounts - After all, we can't have people meeting up and getting stoned together... OMG Thinkofthechildren! But you know this will never happen because drug use is so prevelant.

    I believe it was mentioned in a earlier post(s) the recidivism rates are so much higher for non-sex offences. How likely is someone convicted of selling drugs to sell again? And, while I agree that child rape is a horrible thing, why don't people who abuse, mutilate, and murder their children get the same treatment?

    Something to ponder - who would spend more time in prison, and be monitored for the rest of his life: Some guy who had a few pictures of naked girls on his computer, or the guy who put his baby in a microwave?

  53. The thing I love the most... by lazlo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    One of the first articles I read on this had this gem:

    The attorneys general said that in 2006 the media reported almost 100 crimes involving adults who used MySpace to prey or attempt to prey on children in the United States. They pointed to two cases in North Carolina, which is leading the charge to get answers from MySpace.

    A former sheriff's deputy from was sentenced last year to 15 years in prison for molesting a 15-year-old North Carolina boy he met on MySpace. A North Carolina police officer was also arrested and charged with raping a 14-year-old girl he met on MySpace.

    North Carolina, Connecticut, and other states have introduced legislation that would require social networking sites, like MySpace, to get parental permission before minors can register. In North Carolina, Cooper wants the legislature to pass a law that would make it a felony for convicted sex offenders to join social networking sites that include children.

    So maybe, and I'm just throwing this out as a thought here, maybe it's just a crazy idea, but maybe instead of trying to keep the sex offenders out of MySpace.com, perhaps we might spend a little time attempting to keep them out of the fucking police force? I mean really, it's a pretty sad day when a "social networking" web site is expected to do a better job of doing background checks on its users than the police can do on their job applicants.

    Jeesh.
    --
    Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
  54. Give me liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

  55. Won't someone think of the children? by caffiend2049 · · Score: 2, Funny

    er....well...I guess that would be a problem in this case.
    well then...."won't someone please not think of the children?"

    --
    Pandering to the lowest common denominator would be less frequent if more people were prime numbers.
  56. hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hate is not always a bad thing. Bad people deserve to be hated. This is not immoral. In fact, *not* hating bad people could be argued to be immoral.

  57. Re:Let's Face it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I blame Microsoft. Bloody IE.

  58. Should I be worried? by NineSprings · · Score: 1
    It's interesting how many posts here are marked as 'Insightful'. It's also interesting that the discussion involves sex offenders and Web anonymity.

    Naah, I'm just overthinking this

    :)

  59. Roy Cooper Politician by gelfling · · Score: 1

    States AGs are looking at this purely as a political issue. One would have to conclude if one watched local news and listened to their State's AG that approximately 1 billion percent of everyone on the internet over the age of 17 is a child raping communist homosexual terrorist sex offender. A hundred crimes? That's what they point to? A hundred crimes.

    If only getting guns off the street for a hundred murders were this easy. If only the regulation of dangerous dog breeds for a hundred maulings were this easy. But hey! The internet will turn your virgin daughters into Islamofascists with a crackpipe in one hand and a grown man's cock in the other.

    1. Re:Roy Cooper Politician by lreynolds · · Score: 1

      Going back to the discussion about it being either Attorney's General or Attorney General's.. would that be AGs or AsG?

  60. Ok by jordan2007 · · Score: 1

    Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse. If you don't believe in an after-life, then why are you commenting on issues of right and wrong? If you really think there's nothing after this, then your actions wouldn't matter anyways now would they?
  61. lock me up by The+Queen · · Score: 1

    Being a Virginia resident, I have to confess that I have broken that law many, many times. But remind me never to move to Willowdale, I'd really miss that...does it count if you're not actually married? ;-)

    --

    The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
  62. Brian Regan by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    T: Stanley, what's the plural for ox? S: The plural for ox is oxen. I have two oxen on my farm.

    T: Brian, what's the plural for box?

    B: Boxen. I bought two boxen of donuts.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  63. The formula... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1
    There's a very simple formula for determining whether a relationship is socially acceptable in the USA. Half your age plus seven. Simple, easy, and no sexism involved.

    If the younger person is under 18 take half the age of the older person and add seven. Here are the the results.

    • It is acceptable for a 20 year old to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old.
    • It is not acceptable for a 20 year old to have a sexual relationship with a 15 year old. But it is acceptable for a 16 year old to have a relationship with a 15 year old.
    • If two 14 year olds want to play doctor that's fine.
    • It is unacceptable for anyone of any age to have sex with a 13 year old.
    Sure, there's still a dividing line, but it beats the current system in some states where overzealous prosecutors will arrest a boy on his 18th birthday for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. And at least this way once a relationship is legal, it's always legal.

    "The formula" works for adults as well, but we can't and shouldn't regulate the sexual behviour of consenting adults. However, if you're 40 and dating a 20 year old, it's going to raise eyebrows. Dating a 27 year old, not so much.

  64. Lying about one's age by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    In a local case, an fireman and a young woman had consensual sex in a private yet kinky location, with him taking digital pictures of her. The initial contact was over the Internet, where she claimed to be eighteen.


    When her boyfriend found out about this, he reported the fireman for having sex with a minor. The police investigated, found the camera, and deleted the images so that he wouldn't be on trial for possessing child porn. Their reasoning was that they didn't want to risk the pictures ending up on the Internet. I also get the feeling that they had evidence that the young woman had lied about her age, which turned marginally legal pictures into illegal child porn.


    That created a major public outburst with a lot of people wanting the heads of the police and the fireman.


    The fireman lost his job because of inappropriate use of government facilities. (He used firehouse computers to access porn sites while on duty, among other things.) But there is little if any mention of the fact that the young woman lied about her age.


    This is one of those situations where the label 'sex offender' should either be avoided competely or applied to both participants. And various laws need to be written to handle situations where a lie by a consenting party toggles an activity from 'misbehaving' to 'major felony.'


  65. There should NEVER be a list of shunned people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either, they should be stuck in jail for life as true rapists and pedophiles should be or scott-free as soon as they have done their time. Their should be no list unless thieves, DUIs, murders, and other criminals are punished also.