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
I moderate this legislation -1 unenforceable
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".
I'm a proponent for freedom and privacy and all that... ...but these are convicted sex offenders, not your average joe or script kiddy. I admit I have to agree with the decision, even if it's not reliably enforceable. Please keep in mind the popularity of online chat rooms as far as finding young kids goes, and the use of the internet to spread child porn. Even if it doesn't work perfectly, I can't disagree with it.
Please, Think of the children!
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.
I've seen a number of vitriolic posts talking about those horrible sex offenders, as if they knew exactly what one was.
You don't. Trust me, you don't. Yes, it includes rapists, child molesters, etc... but the actual set of offenses that cause someone to be called a "sex offender" also includes stupid little things like flashing, victimless crimes like newlyweds making hanky-panky in a technically-public area, questionable crimes like public urination... all sorts of things that infuriate the puritanical elements of our society. It makes a nice, easy-to-administer Scarlet Letter for everyone the puritans hate.*
I would not have as much problem with this law if it actually applied only to the rapists and child molesters. Unfortunately, it does not.
* The label is also often used to repress closeted gays... "Those durned fagnits, having sex in the parks! This'll learn 'em!"
This seems to make slightly more sense than how the summary portrays it. If they were convicted of molesting someone through myspace et al, why not take their weapon away from them? On the otherhand, if you didn't know she was underage at that party, from the sounds of things you should still be able to read slashdot.
Can slashdot comments have one of those EULA style things that pops up and asks you to check that you've RTFA'd?
Or maybe some kind of captcha that makes you answer questions about TFA? :P
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 - they need treatment and not punishment, and should not be released onto society before there is evidence that the treatment actually works. The latter usually get punished way beyond their "crime" and really should be entitled to living a normal life after serving their sentence.
I practice in Australia - another country of puritan heritage, but fortunately not as openly hostile towards sex as the US, and courts here tend to be less "Mickey Mouse" style. Nevertheless, one of my patients fell for a 15yo prostitute and had non-penetrative sex with her, one single time. Independent witnesses all reported they would have taken her for at least 18 if not older. The "perpetrator" had no prior offence and the circumstances were such that he was not actively seeking such connection but it happened spontaneously when she was allegedly actively seeking such relation
For that the man got 5 years of which he served 3. Since he was announced as a paedophile to his inmates when he was jailed, they scalded him badly with boiling water and beat him up badly before they had opportunity of learning the whole story. When he was released, he moved to my town. He is a religious man who confided into a local priest who had nothing better to do than walk from door to door and warn people about the dangerous paedophile who moved into town. A really nasty witch hunt started against him where even otherwise nice and educated people blindly joined in. Is this just? Will it improve anything? Will this protect any children?
The legislation mentioned in this article which deprives so called "sex offenders" regardless of their background of essential human rights is obscene, and the people producing such legislation either ignorant or criminal.
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.
I don't see the problem with this law. Using the Internet isn't a right, it's a privilege
WHAT!?!?!
And here I was thinking people had the right to do anything so long as it wasn't disruptive to other people's right to do the same.
Silly me. I guess I ought to be sending thank you cards to society-at-large for being kind enough to grant me the *privilege* of using a networked computer or whatever the hell else it is that I do all day and night.
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.
One of my friends, actually my best friend, is going to jail for 5 years for "2nd & 3rd degree assault of a minor". Apparently, you can get jailed for that for accidentally distributing CP.
How do you accidentally distribute CP, you ask? That's pretty easy. You don't know shit about computer security and you get your computer infected with something that makes you part of a botnet used for storing 'questionable content'.
My bro had the bad luck of discovering a whole series of zip files he didn't know anything about on his computer. He posts one to try to figure out what this shit is on his computer and how it got there. Boom, he has just distributed CP. This means he goes directly to jail, does not pass go, and DOES collect an unnerving sounding criminal record that will stay with him for a long time.
*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?
From http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205204285 New Jersey Bars Some Sex Offenders From Internet: The new law prohibits anyone convicted of using a computer to commit a sex offense from using computers or accessing the Internet for part or all of their parole.
Now imagine that it wasn't a broomstick and that you have to take HIV tests for a couple of years and can't have a normal sex life with your significant other. Imagine that you can't get out of your car in a parking lot without getting the chills and being terribly frightened? Imagine if you can't sleep at night because you were dreadfully afraid someone might break in and assault you? A tremendous amount of emphasis is placed on sexual crimes in our culture; many insist that victims of sexual abuse are just as damaged as those that are killed, if not worse.
You may very well be right, and sexual trauma may be more intense by a degree, but you also have to keep in mind the irrational societal stigma attached to anything sexual.