Slashdot Mirror
New Jersey Bars Sex Offenders From the Internet
eldavojohn writes "New Jersey just passed legislation making it illegal for sex offenders to use the internet. NJ congresswoman Linda D. Greenstein said, 'When Megan's Law was enacted, few could envision a day when a sex offender hiding behind a fake screen name would be a mouse-click away from new and unwitting victims. Sex offenders cannot be given an opportunity to abuse the anonymity the Internet can provide as a means of opening a door to countless new potential victims.' While they still can search for jobs, this is a major expansion over the prior legislation which barred them from social networking sites like facebook or myspace."
Could they be any more ridiculous?
No one has ever been raped, beaten or contracted a sexually-transmitted disease on the internet.
Are they going to ban sex-offenders from using cell phones? From writing letters? From talking?
And of course, like all of the best in stupid legislation, these laws are essentially unenforceable. On the net, no one knows that you are a dog, or a convict.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
People convicted of drug offences banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to buy drugs
People convicted of fraud banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to defraud someone
People convicted of disturbing the peace banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to disturb people
And so forth.
A totally unworkable, probably unconstitutional waste of time. A legislative brain-fart if you ask me.
While this is obviously about the United States, it's a problem everywhere. The criminal legislation velocity in the United Kingdom is totally out of control. There's a bill every couple of months that criminalises some silly action. I recon that the criminal code should only be adjusted by bills put to referendum. This would reduce the volume of legislation and protect the people from totally stupid laws, unenforceable laws.
Simon
Really, its become LoonyLand.
People are ashamed of the US, people don't want to travel there, people don't want to support American companies, people don't want to even listen to them.
They are a case of "do as we say, not as we do".
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
1) Sex offender applies for job which requires internet access/use.
2) Sex offender doesn't get job because of this law. (and also possibly because they're a sex offender)
3) Sex offender sues NJ for silly-ass law.
And what about those sex offenders in NJ who already have jobs that require Internet access/use?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
If these sex offenders are all so heinously dangerous that they need to be stripped of things like using the internet, moving to a neighborhood without angry mobs with pitchforks driving them out, etc. -- why are they out on the streets? Shouldn't dangerous people be locked up or executed? Make up your damn minds - either lock 'em up (or execute them), or set them free. You can have your cake and eat it.
What makes sexual offenders so much worse than violent nonsexual offenders (who are allowed internet access)?
There are a fair number of sexual offenders who aren't actually violent.
I believe sex crimes include stuff like indecent exposure, "Lewd and lascivious conduct", consensual (but illegal) sex, etc.
I guess the Wars Against Drugs, Terror, Iraq etc are not enough, have to start a War Against Sex Offenders too.
Oh well I suppose that makes most voters in New Jersey feel safer.
Oh and by the way would someone define "sex offender" in the context of this article? If you use a broad definition of "sex offender" then someone who was arrested and prosecuted for streaking in their college days or for public urination may meet the criteria as a "sex offender".
This is all getting ridiculous. Here in South Florida, sex offenders are prevented from living within 2,500 feet of a school, parks, and other places where children gather. This puts all but tiny slivers of entire counties off-limits, and of course there's no housing available in those slivers.
So what have they done? Parole officers are telling their parolees to live under a bridge. As many as 20 sex offenders at a time live under this one bridge connecting Miami and Miami Beach, where they have no power or running water or even reliable shelter from the weather.
And they wonder why some of them disappear from the system entirely.
Either sex offenders are a threat to society and should be in prison or they're not and should be released. This crap about releasing them and making it impossible for them to live a normal life does nothing but encourage them to break the law.
So are they a threat to society or not? If they are, then keep them in prison. We have a court and parole system dedicated to making this decision on a case-by-case basis.
When you tell someone they have to make a living for themselves but can't live anywhere and can't do this and can't do that, what are they going to do? Accept it and try to live a miserable life or run away and hide from the system?
Oppressive restrictions like this only make things worse.
...of serving your time and paying your debt to society?
At this rate we may as well just cut to the chace and sentence convicted sex offenders (and whoever else is out to get your children) to lifelong destitution. We can brand them or something so people know to hate and fear them because, really, they can't possibly have reformed...and it would save neighbors and employers the bother of looking them up in the registries (heaven forbid people actually do something about their own security).
TFA implies this only affects the worst of the worst. Let's at least hope that's accurate.
Ridiculous. If they've paid their debt to society and are deemed reformed they should be treated like any other type of criminal. If they're considered a danger to society they should be locked up for life or simply shot. Creating a class of almost-persons is, IMHO, well within the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Considering the ubiquity of the internet today, and how much more important it will be in the near future,
this reminds me of slavery-era laws prohibiting slaves from learning how to read, which were legislated
because of fear of a slave rebellion. Specifically, slaves that could not read and write could not
effectively communicate to coordinate a rebellion.
Makes you wonder who these legislators really fear for.
In a world where the vast majority of sexual offences are committed by friends and family, it seems odd that so much energy is wasted fighting "the stranger on the Internet" and so little energy is spent rescuing the woman and children being abused and intimidated within their own home.
So now sex offenders can't own a TiVo or have to register its use with the parole board and allow them to install monitoring software on it. Ditto for the new HD DVD player. Or your gaming console. Or a new cell phone. Are you going to ban them public libraries too?
I think I see this law as being extremely short-sighted... I don't object to what they're trying to do, but it isn't going to work.
If you want them in jail, put them there. But applying restrictions like these on them isn't going to save anybody.
Ban them from using phones, cars, other types of transportation, or even the postal service?
After all, those also provide a "means of opening a door to countless new potential victims".
that is my opinion exactly. if these people are SO DANGEROUS that we need to tell everyone who lives near them, prevent them from holding virtually any job, brand them for life, etc, then they should STILL BE IN JAIL. either you're released or you're not, we can't have this unending punishment for those who have supposedly served their time.
Know what depressed me most about your story?
The fact that you felt you had to post this disclaimer. The witch hunt mentality against sex offenders is truly getting out of hand.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
*nog*nog*
... why?
rant
its a side effect of the debate-versus-conflict confusion people seem to end up in, where winning is a matter of who is loudest as opposed to who has points. Tactics for that are necessary when forcing an issue to the two extremes, so one can easily categorize people into sides and never look at new data again! "Well you gotta root for your team!"
god humanity sucks.
tnar
Ice Cream has no bones.
They are driving sex offenders to murder by making conviction of a sex offense an eternal punishment.
A lot of innocent people (like 18 year olds having sex with 16 year olds) get swept up in this net.
My ex-mother in law would have had me up except her daughter was older than me.
Sexual crimes are bad-- okay. But inappropriately touching someone does not approach murder, blackmail, beating someone nearly to death, etc.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Just what exactly is a fake screenname? Is it very different from a real one?
In my practice I see a variety of patients who have been convicted for sex offences - ranging from predatory paedophiles to people who made a simple bona fide mistake. The former are people who suffer from a mental illness
I take issue with this comment, especially coming from a medical professional. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the psychiatric definition of paedophilia as per the DSM IV. There are 3 criteria that are required to be met before a diagnosis of paedophilia can be made, one of which is that it must be causing the "patient" mental distress. In essence, this means that paedophilia is not an illness in and of itself, but may be a *cause* of other mental illnesses, especially depression.
Also, the term "paedophile" is grossly misused in general society. Again, according to the psychiatric diagnostic manual, a paedophile is an adult person (over 16) who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Labeling a person who has sex with a post-pubescent teenager a paedophile is a complete misuse of the term. They are not paedophiles. Child molesters perhaps (if you want to consider someone who has the same sex drive and equipment as any other adult a "child"), but not paedophiles.
IMHO, those who have sex with young teens are simply doing what comes naturally. It is the law, not the person attracted to the young teen that is wrong. Next time you get a catalogue advertising men's underwear, notice the models. How many have any visible body hair? If you are into watching adult porn, how often do you see the woman with pubic hair? Now ask yourself how often you've seen a well developed 13 or 14 year old that you immediately had a bad case of the "hots" for.
I wonder how many here have seen the movie "The Graduate" the promotional posters for which read "Every Boy Should Have a Mrs Robinson". Today, Mrs Robinson would be incarcerated for 10 to 20 years and then branded a paedophile for life.