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."
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.
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.
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'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!"
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/10/26/wilsoned_1028.html
Google for the names mentioned and you'll turn up news reports in credible newspapers, court documents, etc. There's even a report of a girl getting the sex offender label for having sex with a younger boyfriend.
This is like forbidding alcoholics from taking public transportation because they might take a bus to a liquor store.
Or, it's like forbidding a horse thief from wearing shoes because they might use those shoes to walk to a stable and steal a horse.
"Protecting the Children" is completely out of hand. It's nothing but politicians pandering to parents who feel guilty that they're so busy working they're not taking care of their kids, who they drop off at day-care or leave with the nanny every day.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
This one makes for an interesting turn of events.
FTFA:
Salt Lake City - Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650
Dude, this is Slashdot.
We get your point, but this may not be the crowd to be making that argument.
Most readers have more authority to complain about your chirp tag not passing xml validation than to testify about the practices of medical impersonation among the western youth.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Not bullshit.
FC Closer