Proposed CA Bill Would Create Domestic Offender Database

AMuse writes "The Ledger brings us a New York Times report that a newly proposed bill would create a web-searchable database of persons convicted of domestic violence. Fiona Ma, the bill's author, claims: 'If you're online, Googling and looking for information on someone you met in a bar or on MySpace, this would provide a tool for people to go and look to see if someone who is suspicious and a little creepy has a history of violence.' Is this evidence that the opponents of Megan's Law are correct, and sooner or later all of one's run-ins with the law will be searchable by the public?"

Comments

Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[clickclickdrone]

Let he who is innocent cast the first stone.
Almost everyone has broken the law in some way whether it's a parking fine, pinching pens from work or dropping litter as well as more serious crimes. Whilst I don't support having things like this searchable and available, I can't imagine there will be many people not on some database somewhere for some minor crime or other. Most of us probably manage to avoid being caught for the pen pinching etc. but that's between us and our concience and hopefully that would inform the weight we'd put on the value of finding out some potential friend had been caught doing something 'bad' - only individuals can decide what sort of level of offence they can live with.

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[rucs_hack]

I note that this new database once again includes reference to crime by the normal citizen. What about a publicly searchable database of politicians and all donation sources plus business world affiliations and bills proposed by that politician?

The information exists already I imagine, but not in a single database available to anyone.

This new thing does seem a tad Orwellian to me. Just another vector to find fault with a citizen, which of course means greater control. I wonder how long you would stay on it once added? What happened to serving a sentence and getting a clean slate?

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[clickclickdrone]

What about a publicly searchable database of politicians and all donation sources plus business world affiliations and bills proposed by that politician?

We have that in the UK - in fact one politician is about to be investigated by the police for not reporting a GBP100K donation to help him get elected recently. There is also an online db where you can check a politician and see how they voted on everything they voted for in parliament.

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[Hognoxious]

Indeed we do, but the problem is that it only contains what gets declared.

Another problem is apparently that there's no punishment, other than a stern telling-off, for not declaring such *cough* affiliations.

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[kellyb9]

Honestly - I wouldn't date someone who didn't have a little bit of a police rap... i think that would be EVEN more suspicious.

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[provigilman]

That's not necessarily true. For example, this database might track those charged with domestic violence as well as those convicted of it...that would be bad. There are many cases of divorces and child custody disputes going bad, and then the wife trying to bring up charges of domestic violence in order to tip the scales...hell, a few men have probably tried it to.

Or what a woman is dating some guy and he breaks up with her? She decides she wants revenge, so she slams a door on her cheek to give herself a shiner and then charges him...now he's on that database, probably forever, and she's just gotten her revenge by ruining his dating prospects for the rest of his life.

Making every offense searchable on the net isn't necessarily a good thing... Plus, since you started off by quoting the Bible, how about the bit about "Forgive and Forget"? The internet never forgets it seems, and someone could be stuck on there well into their 60's because of a mistake they made in their teens. Is that really fair?

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[Redwin]

Do you have the address for the online db? It would be interesting to have a look at :-)

Cheers!

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[Ying Hu]

Texas has already passed a law creating a criminal database run by the Texas Education Agency for every teacher, and indeed every employee and volunteer in any public school. They're going to fingerprint EVERYONE in those groups and do criminal background checks (which will pull in pretty much anything anyone has on record about each individual), and keep it. They're not even a law-enforcement agency. Of course I'm sure the innocent have nothing to fear (other than paying for the fingerprinting, perhaps).

Anyone care to bet how many seconds after it goes online Homeland Security, or whomever, will be in there making copies?

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[Jeffrey Baker]

We already have all those things. We have public databases of donations to politicians (fec.gov), public databases of members of corporate boards and beneficial shareholders (sec.gov), and fully open information about bills sponsored by or voted on (thomas.loc.gov). What else do you want?

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[alphamugwump]

This is old, old stuff. Law enforcement has been able to use commercial databases for quite some time. And as for the fingerprinting, every California teacher (and 4-H leaders too) gets fingerprinted and checked.

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[gr8scot]

I want one that tells me about earmarks in bills.

I mean concise summaries of spending measures, not the full text of the bill, which I know I am already allowed read from stem to stern on the assumption that I have that much spare time. What I want is a report from a reviewer whose only job is to excerpt & summarize all new budget allocation language from every new bill, as soon after its text becomes public record as humanly possible. Do you have one of those, or do I need to build that and hire the reviewers?

Re:Not normally one to quote the Bible but

[b4upoo]

I think background of all individuals should be freely available. If I ran into a female who was a repeat victim of domestic violence I might not want to form a relationship with her as the fact that she was attacked might indicate that she drives mates over the edge, And I wouldn't care to hang out with people who beat their wives either, I see nothing wrong with everyone knowing all about everyone else. Those that have bad histories would suffer a bit but they have earned that suffering.
                    And I wait the day when we have really great lie detectors such that no person will be able to lie in court or at work. I wonder if society could handle truth or whether the entire system would melt down.

City By The Sea

[QuantumG]

In "City By The Sea", there's a scene where Robert De Niro's character is layout out his history to his new girlfriend. He was married, but is now divorced, and has a son who hates him because his ex-wife has "done a number on him". Among other things, she calls him a wife beater. He explains that he "lost control" once, and that was the day he decided they needed to get divorced. There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman, but there's a difference between a habitual wife beater and someone who falls victim to their rage, recognizes there is a problem and gets the hell out. Domestic violence laws don't take that stuff into account.. and that's the problem with profiling people.

Re:City By The Sea

[tha_mink]

There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman Clearly, you're not married....

Seriously though, I agree with you because of the room for lies too. These days, if somebody just says that their spouce hit them, it's over Johnny, somebody's going to jail.

Re:City By The Sea

[bwd234]

These days, if somebody just says that their spouce hit them, it's over Johnny, somebody's going to jail.

Here, let me fix that for ya...

These days, if somebody just says that their husband hit them, it's over Johnny, he's going to jail.

There ya go.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's okay to hit women if you just do it once? Glad I don't live near you.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's okay to hit women if you just do it once? Glad I don't live near you. He's not saying it's ok to do it. He's saying that people can make mistakes sometimes and there's a difference between someone who recognizes that what they did was wrong and doesn't do it anymore and a person who continues to do it because they don't see a problem with it.

Re:City By The Sea

[EvilGnome13]

It shouldn't be ok to hit anyone. Man or Woman. Domestic violence shouldn't be tolerated either way. If it's in self defense and you're a man, I'm sure your the one to take the blame though.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman, but there's a difference between a habitual wife beater and someone who falls victim to their rage... You said it right when you said "There's never an excuse".
You lost me when you said "but".

Yep, that's a pretty obvious BUT ...and you got modded as Insightful!
I would never presume to reason why you say the things you do, but I have noticed a tendency for you to get overly emotional on Slashdot. I could only presume that you are the same way in real life, and hence your reasoning reflects your behavior.

People amaze me.

Of course databases are just another excuse to not do anything about a problem but react to it in a very passive and thoughtless manner.

Re:City By The Sea

[tha_mink]

Here, let me fix that for ya...

These days, if somebody just says that their husband hit them, it's over Johnny, he's going to jail.

There ya go. Actually, no. It doesn't matter anymore if it's a man or a woman. If they both say they got hit, they both go. That's where we are now.
I would never hit my wife and I know I'd have to be a much bigger asshole for my wife to hit me, but still...if there is some incident where a neighbor thinks they see something, do I want my reputation to be ruined by accident? I don't think I do.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

So it's okay to hit women if you just do it once? Glad I don't live near you. He's not saying it's ok to do it. He's saying that people can make mistakes sometimes and there's a difference between someone who recognizes that what they did was wrong and doesn't do it anymore and a person who continues to do it because they don't see a problem with it. That reasoning would be applicable if it were true. Unfortunately people are highly predictable. If they do something once, chances are they will do it again. If a person has a certain belief, chances are they are not going to change that belief because they go to an anger management class. If somebody cannot control their emotions in certain circumstances, then chances are if those same circumstances come up again then they will once again loose control.

People have free will when they do things right.
When people do things wrong they are merely products of the genes and the environment around them.
People's ability to interpret reality is really something special. No hallucinogenic drugs required.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

Um, actually it does matter if its a man or a woman. Cops typically won't haul the woman away. Indeed, even filmed on Cops, the wife admitted he didn't hit her husband, she hit him, and they STILL cuffed the man and took him away.

Justice indeed.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

No, its not. But one time does not make a pattern either. People seem to think 'if you can do it once you'll with 100% certainty do it again.' Sorry, I don't want to lock anyone into that line of reasoning, because if that's what we as a society believe, there will be no reason for someone to NOT do it again.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

That reasoning would be applicable if it were true. Unfortunately people are highly predictable. If they do something once, chances are they will do it again.

Its a shame people really believe this, because its certainly not true. My wife's ex was a wife beater; there's a difference between his line of thinking and the person that gets caught up in the heat of the moment.

Note that no one is excusing hitting someone; its still wrong, but to claim that if you do it once you'll do it again is simply amazing. Someone that's 37 years old, never hit anyone and does it once... suddendly they are predicable and will do it again? What about the prior 37 years where he didn't hit anyone?

Your line of "reasoning" is exteremly dangerous, because if you continue with it, anyone that does something once WILL likely do it again, because everyone expects him to.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

I've met people like you before. I can assure you that it is not ME who is dangerous.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

In "Gattaca" there's a scene where the main characters girlfriend takes a piece of his hair and has a dna sequence done on it to see if he's worth her time... ohh how I dread waiting for that day to come.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

Of course nobody said anything about 100% certainty. The issue is more about probability. I think most people realize that people can make mistakes. I'm sure if a person accidentally beats a woman in an accidental fit of rage, then that person may not necessarily do it again. This person may not necessarily be accident prone after all.

The problem is that a LOT of people seem to think that beating woman up even once is excusable (hence people like yourself and quantumG claim that there is no excuse for this, BUT it happens, and people shouldn't be labeled as wife beaters because they happened to have been caught beating up their wife only once.)

So yes, I may very well be "dangerous" as you claimed before, because I made the observation that when people do things, they usually just don't do things out of the blue. Yes I see patterns where other people see excuses.

Re:City By The Sea

[MikeRT]

There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman

I believe you meant to say, there's never an excuse to beat up on anyone.

You can't argue that women are equal to men, then turn around and say that women get special protection.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

I'll add one more comment.
You said:
"...someone who falls victim to their rage"
Yes I understand that you think of people who commit spousal abuse as victims.

I was wandering if you just miss-poke and if you will publicly apologize.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

Sorry mate, but some of us don't base our beliefs on what we see on American Reality TV. I do expect you to get up-modded for your insights however.

Truth be damned.

Re:City By The Sea

[zyzko]

I believe you meant to say, there's never an excuse to beat up on anyone.

Yep, just today when driving to work I heard a brief news on radio about a recent study made in Finland (link in Finnish).

Briefly:
--
A two-part study was made in 2006 among 17-20 year old men serving their military service in Finland - a total over 2000 young men who had been in a relationship participated. Of those, nearly 17% said that they have been hit by their partner at least once. Critics of the study have commented that the definitions of "relationship" and "hitting" were not clear enough and that the number is therefore too high.
--

Violence in a relationship is NOT just a problem with men hitting woman, and I have seen opinion pieces in newspapers where those men who uphold the principle that they should "never hit a woman" are quite upset and shaken when their wife/girlfriend hits them (repeatedly) and only thing they feel they can do is try to protect themselves (and maybe their kids) from blows.

It is said that women who end up in abusive relationship tend to stick in that relationship despite of the violence (and there are many speculative reasons why) - and while this is propably true, so can be the opposite. It is really hard for a "man of principle who would never beat up a woman" to admit to himself, his friends and ultimately to the police that he is a target of violence from woman, and can't really do anything about it.

As there are (stereotypical) males who drink too much on a friday night and then hit their wife/girlfriend when they nag about drinking / don't want to have sex etc. there are women who can be loving wives and mothers, but when rage takes them on they can throw a frying pan at you (happened to a friend, multiple times...).

But exposing these types to the whole Internet to see forever (Internet remembers, the sentence is for life) is not right and won't solve the problem.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no excuse for it, he shouldn't have done it. He was wrong and he admits it. Does that mean he should be continually punished for the thing he did wrong once? That "but" there does not contradict the fact that there is no excuse.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

There's no excuse for it, he shouldn't have done it. He was wrong and he admits it. Does that mean he should be continually punished for the thing he did wrong once? That "but" there does not contradict the fact that there is no excuse. "Does that mean he should be continually punished for the thing..."
I don't know. Probably not. But that is just my opinion.

That "but" there does not contradict the fact that there is no excuse. That "but" there is what is known as a Freudian slip. People's REAL intentions and meaning get explained AFTER the "but". Much the same as when he refers to abusers as being victims.

William Shakespeare (in Macbeth) used the phrase "Thou dost protest too much".
People do not NEED to be apologists for abuse if they have nothing to apologize about. Whether or how people should be punished is besides the point. I am merely pointing out faulty arguments.

I always get the sense, that when posting, I need to explain that I am only attacking the arguments to which I am making reference to, and nothing else. That being said I think having criminal databases is, in general, a bad idea; and having them public is outright stupid. Since that was not the point I was arguing however, I will not elaborate.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. His real intentions were to say that someone who hits his wife once is different from someone who does it habitually.

I don't see your objection with the way he stated it.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

The fact is he is using a Robert Deniro movie to, as is taken from the quantumG post:

He explains that he "lost control" once Yes John Hinckley Junior should not be victimized either because he only tried to kill a politician once, just like Robert Deniro in Taxi Driver.

I can understand that just because he did it once, does not mean that he will do it again. But that is besides the point. I am not making excuses about JHR, and then claiming that I am not making excuses. As with most people, I see hypocrisy. I'm sure in many cases this may be thoughtless and unintended, but I wish I could actually get to know somebody who is not a hypocrite.

Re:City By The Sea

[Chyeld]

The sad truth of life is that those who are dangerous rarely are aware of it. Were they so, they would take actions to reduce the threat.

Your words remind me of a blog entry someone brought to my attention last year. A mother, who quite honestly held a POV completely alien to any life experiences I ever had, was lamenting to her online friends that she wished she had never given birth or that she had had an abortion.

The reason why? Her teenage son had been caught with a porn magazine. Once.

Her belief was that this single act was proof enough that he would grow up to be a serial rapist with an abusive personality.

Disregard that she had raised this boy, in her house, under her belief system, for at least a decade an a half. Disregard that this was a single act. Disregard that he was an adolescent boy, who was probably trying to work out his own issues.

No, this was enough in her eyes to justify the idea that it would have been better had he never existed. To condemn him in her eyes as nothing more than an irredeemable monster whose existence could only bring pain and suffering to those around him.

I respect the right of others to see the world differently than myself. I certainly don't have anything close to a monopoly on 'truth'. But there is a certain level of painting the world and the people in it with too broad a brush that is simply inconceivable to me.

Are you presenting your opinions honestly? Are you that damaged that your world view is as you've presented it? Or are you simply one of the best trolls I've seen so far? I don't know. What I do know, what I have a certainty of belief and convictions in, is that the world works nothing like you've presented it. And if you honestly believe what you are saying, I hope that someday you receive the help you need.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I see patterns where other people see excuses.

You extrapolate patterns from singularities. Patterns are, by definition, composites.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

You said it right when you said "There's never an excuse". You lost me when you said "but".

Why? Do you really think some people should not answer for their actions because of their gender? If there's a woman holding up a bank and she starts to point a gun at me I'm going to hit her. If someone (male or female) threatens my kids (or my wife!) with violence, they better think twice because I'm going to do my best to neutralize their threat first. Calling the cops is for when the situation is under control. But no one gets a free ride just because they don't have a dick.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

Are you presenting your opinions honestly? Are you that damaged that your world view is as you've presented it? Or are you simply one of the best trolls I've seen so far? I don't know. What I do know, what I have a certainty of belief and convictions in, is that the world works nothing like you've presented it. And if you honestly believe what you are saying, I hope that someday you receive the help you need. As with most hypocrites: you are what you preach: a troll.
You at once describe a situation of a fanatical mother (and as you can tell from my posts I am against simple-minded fanaticism); and projected your own callous attitudes towards abuse on people like me.

Most people I have met who have ZERO morals and are 100% hypocrites are people who call be "damaged" and say I "need help"... Yes I've heard it all before, but the sad thing is that people like you spend more time demonizing people, and using dishonest and Trollish comparisons to beef up your own Right Wing agenda's. You are sad and pathetic.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister has a well documented (police, school, etc) history of getting into arguments and physically attacking the person she's arguing with or the property around them (throwing lamps, phones, etc). In addition, she's filed three separate false rape charges. I take care of a disabled parent, have a spotless record, etc.

So, one day, she's at my house and starts her crap. I tell her to just leave before things escalate. After five minutes of verbally telling her to leave, she gets into a huff, storms off to the other side of the house to get her bottle of pop, storms back to me and just before she gets to me, she cocks her arm back to throw a punch. I instinctively throw my left arm up to block it. She decks me in the face and knocks my glasses to the other side of the room. My arm deflects off hers and I catch her in the side of the neck. She grabs her cell phone, proclaims "I've got you now mother fucker!" and calls the cops.

Cop get here, asks me for my story. I tell him. He then goes to talk to my sister. Next cop arrives and the first officer instructs him to take me into custody. So, I'm stuck in the back of the cop's SUV for 45 minutes or so... Second cop comes in and asks for my identification. I give him to him and while he's processing it in the computer, I tell him to look up my sister's arrest record and compare it to mine. He hops out and says he'll be back in a couple minutes. He eventually comes back and calls for an ambulance, telling me that my sister wants to go to the hospital for treatment and that she's got a bruise on her neck. I roll my eyes again and reiterate about my sister's history of violence and crying wolf. Doesn't matter, it happened in the next county over and they have to consider things on an incident by incident basis. So, he writes me an appearance ticket for second degree harassment. He assures me that it's a violation, not a misdemeanor and it's not really much worse than a traffic ticket. Ambulance shows up... they bring out the stretcher and the whole 9 yards... after 20 minutes, my sister decides she doesn't want to go to the hospital.

Once again, I explain that the bruise on my sister is on the right side of her neck and that it would have to come from my left hand... my DEFENSIVE hand. If I wanted to hit her/hurt her, I would have swung with my offensive/dominant hand. They don't care... they tell me its for the judge to figure out. She leaves, I'm let out of the police car and I'm told to make sure I stay away from her.

I call up my lawyer and let him know what happened. He has me write out a lengthly explanation of the entire incident as well as a history of my sister's actions (which he's already generally familiar with after having been my dad's lawyer). I call up some friends and ask if they're willing to be character witnesses (they've seen my sister hit me before and I've never done anything, one has been chased with an axe by my sister, one was hit with a plastic bat by my sister, etc). So my lawyer and I show up to court... he goes off to talk with the DA before we see the judge. DA offers that I plead guilty, pay a $100 fine and get a year order of protection against me. My lawyer reaffirms that it's just a violation and if anyone ever asks if I've been convicted of a crime, the answer will still be no. It's either that or go to trial, pay a couple thousand dollars (and my ability to work is limited because I care for a parent 24/7) for attorney fees, court costs, to issue subpoenas, etc... so I plead guilty, even though I wasn't.

My sister decks me and gets off scott free while I get to pay $225 ($100 fine plus court fees and lawyer), have an order of protection against me and got to be embarrassed in front of some students who work for me (they were at court for their senior year government participation class). Why? I'm a male, 70 pounds heavier than her and don't bruise. Ergo, I'm guilty by default. Nobody even cared about my side of the story.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

Sorry, what's your argument? That the incident in question didn't happen? Its not like the scenario is unheard of, I've heard plenty of similar stories. The fact that it was on national TV and no one blinked I think goes to show how accepting Americans are of blindly faulting the man.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

First, I need to say that you're an ass. Its because of people like you no one can have a rational argument anymore, because you're too busy trying to paint those that disagree as evildoers.

No one said that it would be ok to hit someone, even once. The objects have been against calling someone that did that a wife beater, which implies there's a pattern, even if there isn't.

How can you call one incident a pattern? You assume that they've done it before even without evidence. Yes, you are whats wrong with people today; quick to judge, even without any evidence at all. You speculate and call it fact. I cannot wait for the day you fall into your own trap.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

People like me that haven't hit anyone? Or do you mean people that point out you're not acting on logic, reason, and evidence to support your claim?

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

As with most hypocrites: you are what you preach: a troll.

Neat! Nested colons!

You at once describe a situation of a fanatical mother (and as you can tell from my posts I am against simple-minded fanaticism)

*looks* Nope. Can't tell that at all.

Most people I have met who have ZERO morals and are 100% hypocrites are people who call be "damaged" and say I "need help"... Yes I've heard it all before,

Hmm, could be a persecution complex. If you've really heard all this before I wonder if you would entertain, just for a moment, the idea that maybe they're trying to tell you something.

but the sad thing is that people like you spend more time demonizing people, and using dishonest and Trollish comparisons to beef up your own Right Wing agenda's. You are sad and pathetic.

AHA! Through extensive analysis I detect the use of the "Politics Card." I can now accurately classify you as a troll. You may now exit to your left.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, some of us base our beliefs on American reality. Spent a bit of time working at a small town criminal defense/family law practice (you would be surprised how often those go together) so I got to see all the fun ways the legal system works... or occasionally doesn't.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

I am not presenting you with an argument. I am merely stating that an episode of a US "Reality" TV show that you don't even have a bibliographic reference for does not prove that men get abused by the system and women do not. I have seen PBS shows that actually have had lawyers and psychiatrists and other experts on that have stated that women get screwed by the justice system and that the public perception that woman have more defacto rights in issues like this is just pure mythology.

Yes I am sure a TV show like COPs has it's place in an intelligent discussion about human rights or domestic violence, but most intelligent people would not take your example seriously. That being said, I'm sure Asshats like Chyeld would agree with you.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

Ahh, I see. I'd say you were a troll, but its too painfully clear you're being 100% honest.

Please, never take up science or anything that requires logic and reason.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

I don't have a reference, but I do know some cops, and so do many of my friends.

No where did I say the "system" was any better for women either; being that my wife was once married to an abuser, I know all too well where the system failed her. I merely said that many times the man is arrested when really it should be the woman. And again, that goes back to knowing cops and friends of cops.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

I do not doubt this to be true. Things are often more complex then they appear. My whole entire point is and was that people should NOT diminish abuse or the effects there-of... whether it be done once or is habitual.

Of course... the idea that it can even happen just ONCE is foreign to people like me. It is not in my genes to hit people. Some people tend to be more aggressive than others, and some people just know how to channel their aggression better. For those people, there will be no thought of excuses.

Re:City By The Sea

[gknoy]

But exposing these types to the whole Internet to see forever (Internet remembers, the sentence is for life) is not right and won't solve the problem.

Interesting. Depends on what part of the problem you hope to address.

Will it stop rage-induced behavior? No. No one is acting rationally in a rage situation, and thus thoughts of consequences are rare.

I imagine it would stop people from thinking they could "get away with" such a pattern of behavior ... but then I have a hard time even conceptualizing the belief that such behavior would be consciously done. (I know it is, but ... damn. Why!?)

It might help ensure that future potential partners (after the abusee leaves) would know what they were getting into.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

The discussion is about abuse (that for which "There's never an excuse"), and not self defense.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're NOT complaining that there's a contradiction between:

There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman,

and

there's a difference between a habitual wife beater and someone who falls victim to their rage

because that certainly is what

You said it right when you said "There's never an excuse". You lost me when you said "but".

sounds like.

Now you want to argue about the merits of comparing things to a particular movie, but you also complain

I always get the sense, that when posting, I need to explain that I am only attacking the arguments to which I am making reference to, and nothing else.

Your initial complaint made no mention of the movie, so its obviously not part of what you are arguing against

So before you were attacking his use of but. That was succesffully refuted (there's no contradiction in his statement). Now you are attacking his use of City By the Sea. I'll agree with you that the comparison to a fictional case does not really add anything to his argument. But could you please point out the hypocrisy? quantumG said there was no excuse, Robert Deniro's character said there was no excuse.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

How can you call one incident a pattern? The patterns I see are in the people I have seen, known and talked to. The patterns I have seen are in the studies I have done (secondary research that is) of people and societies.

One of the reasons I don't involve myself in the Social Sciences very much anymore is because professionals in these areas get no respect and quite a lot of abuse. Nobody likes to be studied or criticized.

Re:City By The Sea

[roguetrick]

It really is sad how much you don't get it. The human mind isn't so cut and dry by a long shot. Freakin' depressing.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

So you're NOT complaining that there's a contradiction between:

        There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman,

and

        there's a difference between a habitual wife beater and someone who falls victim to their rage

because that certainly is what

        You said it right when you said "There's never an excuse". You lost me when you said "but".

sounds like. Correct. I was not pointing out a contradiction in the statements he made. I was merely emphasizing the significance of what he said after the "but".

Now you want to argue about the merits of comparing things to a particular movie, but you also complain

        I always get the sense, that when posting, I need to explain that I am only attacking the arguments to which I am making reference to, and nothing else.

Your initial complaint made no mention of the movie, so its obviously not part of what you are arguing against This is true, and not relevant. The fact that he is using a fictional Robert DiNero movie as an example to illustrate a point should be self-obvious. I was merely emphasizing the rather ridiculous nature of this fact in my subsequent post.

So before you were attacking his use of but. That was successfully refuted (there's no contradiction in his statement). Wrong of course; you successfully refuted nothing. But I fail to see why you are contradicting me.

Now you are attacking his use of City By the Sea. I'll agree with you that the comparison to a fictional case does not really add anything to his argument. But could you please point out the hypocrisy? The hypocrisy is implicit in my argument. Most people would argue that trying to do violence to a president should not be forgiven. The same cannot be true for violence against a woman. The relevance of this is the fact that we are talking about one-time acts of violence, and happen to be talking about two Robert DeNiro movies that happen to involve violence.

From the original post:

He explains that he "lost control" once I would argue that it all depends on who they lost control on once. If this was a five year old child, a president, a girlfriend, etc... People will have different reactions.

Again, it seems unfortunate that I even have to explain this.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen opinion pieces in newspapers where those men who uphold the principle that they should "never hit a woman" are quite upset and shaken when their wife/girlfriend hits them (repeatedly) and only thing they feel they can do is try to protect themselves (and maybe their kids) from blows.

Yes. I'm 5'7", 150lbs, in fairly good shape. And I have a black belt in karate.

A few years ago I was involved with a woman who was a head shorter than me and about 100 pounds. She also had some serious mental health issues, which I only learned about after I had fallen in love with her. When she lost it and tried to claw my eyes out, what was I supposed to do? If some random guy her size jumped me on the street, I could tear him up, but I couldn't do that to her! I was able to duck, grab her wrists, and restrain her until she regained her senses.

It's a hell of a thing. On the one hand, her condition was not her fault. She had been through some serious, serious trauma (years before I knew her), and I wanted to support her. On the other, any time she got upset, I had to start looking at her as someone who might become violent, put my mind into fight mode. And she refused to get the psychological help she needed.

I eventually realized that if a man was treating a woman the way she was treating me, I'd have no trouble labeling it as abusive, and I ended the relationship. But it was damn hard, one of those experiences that leaves a big scar on your heart.

Re:City By The Sea

[Grygus]

That's silly. Every human that was ever born had it within themselves to kill another human. The combination of self-preservation and fear are very powerful. You have never hit anyone in anger, that's good and maybe you're right to be proud of it. Don't downplay it by claiming that it couldn't have happened. Don't for a moment think that it isn't in your genes, that's ridiculous.

If you haven't even the capacity for violence in your genes then you are not human at all! Your button hasn't been pushed, and you're lucky for that. You should be aware that the button does exist, though. Most people who have hit someone in anger are not very different from you, unfortunately. You can tell yourself that you are wildly different, a non-violent and possibly superior strain of person, but it's much more likely that you have simply never found out about that part of yourself.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

I will elaborate. I have hit before. More so when I was NOT a legal adult but a child, and almost always out of self-defense (as far as I can remember). When I said it is "in my genes not to hit people"... well, I suppose I shouldn't have said that. As an adult certainly, I do not hit people, but I should have been more careful with the way I worded that.

I know I can get VERY angry, but I have learned over the process of many years to control myself and avoid situations where I can get angry. As an adult, it doesn't even cross my mind to hit somebody. As a child, like I said, it was almost always in self-defense. It's ironic because I was also in the infantry at one point in my life. I have never killed anyone, or even gotten into a fight with some of the psychopaths who feel they are a good fit for such a career. Yes violence has it's utility, but for me it is more intellectual than emotional.

I would say, compared to most people perhaps, I am less prone to violence. I feel more comfortable slugging it out verbally than physically (perhaps Slashdot is a vent for me... notice my growing list of Freaks).

My own irrationality humbles me. I only wish more people would admit to being as irrational as myself. OK I also admit that I can be pretty intelligent at times as well :)

I would agree that violence is natural, but that there is a great variation on how natural it is to some people. Yes people can make mistakes, but I would argue that a person who NEVER hits their wife is probably less violence prone than somebody who hits there wife ONLY once. Yes there will always be exceptions, and these exceptions should be treated with fairness and rationality.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so you're assuming that quantumG would not forgive Hinkley. You have no evidence either way on that, so you can't call his statement hypocrisy

Even assuming he wouldn't, Hinkley's crime was attempted assasination of a president. That's different from Deniro's crime in City By the Sea, not because it involves the president, but because it was attempted murder not merely throwing a few punches in anger.

Comparing attempted murder to hitting someone once, even if that person is your wife, is crazy. So yes, I would not hesitate to forgive someone who was involved in a single domestic violence case but would hesitate to forgive an attempted assassination of the president. I do not see any hypocrisy in that stance.

If you do equate a single occurance of domestic violence with attempted murder, then I guess I can understand your argument. I just think you're wrong.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

The fact is, it does not matter what arguments I use or how good they are, you will always contradict me. Your mission is obvious :)

We see things very differently. I certainly enjoy a good verbal spar, but I can't see things progressing.

I will give you the victory.

QED

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave no witnesses.

Re:City By The Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you've never been through or known someone that's been through a child custody case then. Women have an unfair advantage in that situation.

Re:City By The Sea

[zyzko]

It might help ensure that future potential partners (after the abusee leaves) would know what they were getting into. Yes, it might - I'll admit that. But there are some serious potential problems:

- "Slippery slope". First sex offenders, now domestic violence - what's next?
- Abuses of the registry. Before it was "just" sex offenders who were sometime victims of the mob justice, now you can add nutcases who feel that beating up a "wife-beater" is a heroic action to the list.
- This "solution" has a potential to create a two-class society - those who are found in some public, searchable crime registry and those who are not. This creates enormous barriers to those who genuinely want (and can) feel remorse and never do their crime again - they might be practically isolated from many things (getting an apartment, getting a date, etc.) for life. Once hitting your partner during a nasty argument (no injuries), getting a fine and maybe a relatively short jail sentence - AND getting potentially for-life stamp on your forehead. One miss and you are out.

Maybe tougher sentences to repeated offenders. Maybe even a web searchable list of repeated offenders (I would not support that and I think in my country that would never be implemented because of the problems but I could understand existance of such a "service".) And the most important part: Teach in schools (and homes, but especially in schools because some children sadly live in abusive families) that violence is not ok, and you should immediately bail out even if the violent person is someone close to you. And take care of your friends. In todays society we are often told to "mind our own business" and even saying something about someones relationship or behaviour is seen as an invasion to privacy and rude behaviour. It is not.

Re:City By The Sea

[unlametheweak]

I suppose I'm strange. Nobody I have ever gotten to know, including friends, family etc have ever been to jail, had a divorce, etc.

Yes I've MET people like that, but I've never gotten to KNOW people like that. It was never a conscious decision on my part. It seems that people of like minds congregate together and people of unlike minds do not. I will certainly have a difficult time understanding the more anti-social element because of this.

Re:City By The Sea

[plague3106]

Of course... the idea that it can even happen just ONCE is foreign to people like me. It is not in my genes to hit people. Some people tend to be more aggressive than others, and some people just know how to channel their aggression better. For those people, there will be no thought of excuses.

Well, I have to say you're full of shit. Every human has the capacity, all it takes is enough pushing.

Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this evidence that the opponents of Megan's Law are correct, and sooner or later all of one's run-ins with the law will be searchable by the public?

Perhaps they should be? Is a criminal record supposed to be secret? If so, then who are we trying to protect with such secrecy?

Re:Devil's Advocate

[QuantumG]

Anyone can request anyone else's criminal record.. it's public knowledge.. so if you really feel strongly that criminal records should be searchable, feel free to go request the criminal record of anyone you like and put it on the Internet.. Google will take care of the rest.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

That's sort of my point; this information isn't supposed to be secret, so why is this a problem?

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

That's sort of my point; this information isn't supposed to be secret, so why is this a problem?

For the same reason as the "sex offender" database, where if you're on there, you must be raping 3 year olds, right? Anyone on the "domestic offender" database obviously must have beaten their wife daily before setting fire to them, and it couldn't possibly have been a case of being reported by your neighbor for raising your voices at each other.

Riddle me this: why do governments refuse to fix the sex offender classifications to create divisions that apply specifically to crimes against children or to date rape or to violent rape, even as they scramble to undo individual high-profile cases of beloved teenaged football stars one-at-a-time? What makes anyone think that this "domestic offender" database will list specifically assaults against spouses?

Anyone up for a game of phoning in as a "concerned neighbor" of certain mayors, prosecutors, and other high-profile people if this goes through? I think I hear the DA's wife shrieking and crying already, and I hear that California has mandatory arrest laws.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[splutty]

The thing about having all this 'public' (which it already is, actually, since you can ask for pretty much any court transcript), is that if you've done something 30 years ago, it'll still be there for anyone to google.

So now everyone knows that you at 17 years old smoked a joint (but of course you didn't inhale) and got caught by the cops. What exactly does this have to do with the life you're leading now?

This is exactly why all the digging up of facts for presidents, senators and all that disgusts me. Does it really matter what a 60 year old did when he was 17? Or do you think someone doesn't change in the 43 years since...

Re:Devil's Advocate

[HTH NE1]

Is a criminal record supposed to be secret? If so, then who are we trying to protect with such secrecy? Then why put it out of band requiring a search engine to find? Why not brand it onto people's foreheads, so all their past crimes are displayed plainly for everyone to see?

The Scarlet Letter

First they take away your Liberty, then they take away your Pursuit of Happiness, then they take away your Life.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[riseoftheindividual]

Perhaps they should be? Is a criminal record supposed to be secret? If so, then who are we trying to protect with such secrecy?

Once upon a time, it used to be you could serve your time for a conviction, and then once it was served, that was it, your debt was paid in full. These databases make sure that your debt is never paid in full and that you will pay forever.

I'm kind of torn, having been a victim of molestation myself, because on the one hand, I hate child molesters with a passion and sincerely believe that most of them are not salvageable. OTOH, what about those innocent ones who get wrongly convicted and what about those who are salvageable, who do have the potential to change? These laws, in the name of protecting society from the truly dangerous, also create lifelong oppression for the innocent people who fall through the cracks and for those who might otherwise be reformed.

What to do? For myself, I would rather that innocent people not be oppressed for life in the name of avoiding a traumatic series of events for myself. If having a just state means that I have a greater risk of being victimized, then that's the price I'm willing to pay for a just state. My security, or rather, illusion of security, is not worth the cost of oppressing innocent people and those who could be salvaged from their mistakes. That's just my view on it.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[gr8scot]

I'm kind of torn, having been a victim of molestation myself, because on the one hand, I hate child molesters with a passion and sincerely believe that most of them are not salvageable. OTOH, what about those innocent ones who get wrongly convicted and what about those who are salvageable, who do have the potential to change? My perspective differs slightly, in that I don't believe in the existence of a salvageable child molester. Only those whose conviction is eventually overturned should ever be let out of prison. That is an unforgivable crime and the only reason not to apply the death penalty is the occasional wrongful conviction. Better to lock 10 guilty men away for life than to execute one innocent man.

Making child molestation a life sentence every time, without possibility of parole, is the best possible means of clearing the "air of suspicion" from the unjustly accused. As long as justly accused & properly convicted molesters are walking the streets, responsible parents will be more worried about their kids than about the rights of their law-abiding, falsely-convicted or falsely-accused neighbors, and I have a hard time really faulting parents for that. I'm concerned about privacy, but there is no reason I should expect parents to share my concerns to the extent that I have them, while they know that convicted molesters are on the streets without a "Scarlet Letter" on them. That, of course, would also be unfair in the case of wrongful convictions, so the guilty should simply never be released, for the sake of everybody who's innocent, not child victims, but innocent defendants as well.

For sake of discussion, those "who do have the potential to change" but were convicted of something they actually did, can possibly be described as less malicious, but they are nonetheless guilty. Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[riseoftheindividual]

You bring up two interesting points along these lines... one is in the sentencing. I would tend to share your view that it makes more sense to keep them behind bars.

The other is in the attitude you express here:
Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.
This attitude guarantees an unjust system with a high rate of innocent prosecution as well as eliminating any hope at all, of salvaging the salvageable. Not just with regards to child molestation, but all crime across the board.

People who haven't been on the criminal side of the fence often have very healthy home lives. They are completely ignorant and completely oblivious to what it means to be raised in an environment where abuse and molestation or drug use, or whatever the situation that they can't fathom, is an every day normal part of life from the cradle onwards.

I have something of a unique perspective on this, as I was in an abusive environment the first 8 years of my life where molestation and violence were normal parts of life. After 8, my environment changed substantially and I received treatment for the abuse. when I was in that environment, I can tell you with a degree of confidence that the friends I had were also experiencing similar things. The friends I had when I got out of that environment, and ended up going through adolescence with were completely clueless about what it is like to be poor and in an abusive environment. In their well raised, well groomed, well taught, well loved suburban lives, the way things ought to be, the way their lives were, was crystal clear and obvious to them and they could not understand how others couldn't see their notion of right and wrong as clearly as they did.

What's interesting is, these kids weren't perfect either. They too engaged in the bad behavior of their own parents, only their parents bad behavior were legal so that their acting out did not trigger any serious alarms. You know, like drinking, cursing, etc... Mild stuff, but if you're a kid, it's still considered wrong. Anyhow, the interesting thing I saw was them acting out their parents bad behavior, seeing it as normal, even while they would put down the kids of drug users for doing drugs, or the children of violent fathers being violent.

A kid acting out his parents bad behavior of gluttony, is no different in nature than a kid acting out his parents bad behavior of violence or molestation or drug use or whatever. People who are acting these things out due to the upbringing and environment, need to be treated differently and need to be given an opportunity to change things, than those who willingly deviate into these types of things. Otherwise the system is simply those lucky enough to be raised in a nice environment throwing the unlucky ones into jail with some empty claim that they should have magically known better.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[gr8scot]

I would tend to share your view that it makes more sense to keep them behind bars.
The other is in the attitude you express here:
Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.
This attitude guarantees an unjust system with a high rate of innocent prosecution as well as eliminating any hope at all, of salvaging the salvageable. Not just with regards to child molestation, but all crime across the board. How do you get "innocent prosecution" from what I said? That quote was specifically about child molesters and murderers. To generalize accurately, I only suggested people -- adults, not children in the juvenile justice system, whom I don't intend to discuss -- are fully responsible for considering the likely consequences of our actions.

A kid acting out his parents bad behavior of gluttony, is no different in nature than a kid acting out his parents bad behavior of violence or molestation or drug use or whatever. Gluttony makes oneself fat, and is within a person's right, whatever your opinion of the wisdom of such habit. I respect your right to eat as much as you possibly can. I might choose not to spend much time with you if you choose to exercise that right.

People who are acting these things out due to the upbringing and environment, Personal responsibility must be part of the equation, if you're worth another reply from me. Please, factor it in now, or I'm just going to ignore you.

...need to be treated differently and need to be given an opportunity to change things, than those who willingly deviate into these types of things. In both the cases you picked, the person you portray learning unhealthy behavior by example is, by the time of adulthood, responsible to identify what it likes and dislikes, and not to inflict on others what it did not enjoy experiencing (any & all types of abuse) and to choose sweets less frequently if it doesn't enjoy obesity (gluttony). It's a simple matter of will power, not rocket science, and it isn't unfair to punish people -- adults -- for their own actions. A troubled past can be factored into sentencing in many scenarios. All I said is that murder and child molestation should not be subject to any such consideration of "extenuating circumstances." The reason I believe that, which I might not have said clearly enough, is that the very reasons for compassion that you have correctly cited simply do not apply, in those cases. There is no reason that "background" should be allowed to excuse those crimes, to any extent.

Otherwise the system is simply those lucky enough to be raised in a nice environment throwing the unlucky ones into jail with some empty claim that they should have magically known better. I just don't see where I implied that at all. I was talking about just two types of crimes: murder and child molestation. You seem to agree, in at least the latter case, that life imprisonment is appropriate. I didn't say life imprisonment for all convicts of any crime, and I didn't mean that. I think you're disputing something I didn't say, starting by projecting what I did say beyond its intended scope. I'll go re-read my own post to see if I was unclear, but I certainly will not argue that all crimes should result in life sentences,

Re:Devil's Advocate

[gr8scot]

OK, so in my third paragraph, replace the vague "those" with "those murderers and/or child molesters," then see if you have any point of disagreement. My guess is that you just took that to be a more general statement than the rest of my message. It was not intended to be.

Over the Top

[tha_mink]

I think the Megan's law thing is great and all but it probably needs to stop there. I understand wanting to be safe and all put this goes towards public humiliation. Domestic violence laws are already kinda weird in regards to the situation where often, just the fact that the police get called means somebody HAS to go do jail. I don't think we need this kind of thing for every single violent crime. I think even Megan's law is a bit harsh and needs to be reevaluated since I'm sure, as with all other "Justice", there are a ton of people who's lives are ruined that probably didn't need to be. (ie There was that case in GA where a 17yr old boy got a BJ from a 15 yr old girl and got 10 years in prison and has to walk around with the 'Sexual Predator' moniker for the rest of his life) Let's leave it rest with Megan's law.

Re:Over the Top

[etymxris]

I think the reverse is true. DV perpetrators tend to have anti-social personality disorder. No, that doesn't mean they are shut-ins. Those with anti-social disorder have little trouble forming relationships, partly because they have no remorse about lying. They are very good about putting on a convincing face, and then turning violent and abusive once the relationship becomes serious.

DV victims, on the other hand, tend to stay with those who abuse them. It's often the girlfriend/wife with black eyes that comes and bails out the abuser. If a database like the one proposed existed, then it could be used to pierce the facade that abusers put forth. And it could also help friends with suspicions to convince the woman the man is not as he presents himself.

Sex offenders, on the other hand, are usually incestuous, and the recidivism rate for these offenders is quite low, especially compared to the general prison population. Jump out of the bushes type of offenders are quite rare, and these people do have much higher recidivism rates.

Anecdotally, my first stepfather was physically abusive to my mother, and my second sexually abused my sister. The first, after spending time in jail for assaulting my mother and grandmother, managed to start a whole new family. Eventually, he burned down their house in an attempt to kill all of them. Luckily it was not successful. The second stepfather, after serving his sentence, does pretty much nothing except for the type of menial work a person of his status can get, spending his evenings watching TV. I don't really see him as much of a threat, not that I'd want to hang out with him.

Re:Over the Top

[tha_mink]

I think the reverse is true. DV perpetrators tend to have anti-social personality disorder. No, that doesn't mean they are shut-ins. Those with anti-social disorder have little trouble forming relationships, partly because they have no remorse about lying. They are very good about putting on a convincing face, and then turning violent and abusive once the relationship becomes serious. And I hear you, but do we really need to apply public humiliation in that case. I just always wonder if such things can be practiced with any real justice. I just don't think that the government can fairly keep track of the real bad people vs the people who got caught in a lie or some other injustice. I guess the debate is whether such a list can do more unjust harm than good. Can we stop ruining the lives of relatively innocent people while exposing the real criminals for what they are? I doubt it and to me, the risk isn't worth the gains. Plus, the whole slippery slope argument. When do we stop posting lists of "criminals"? At what point do we say "This isn't a sufficiently bad enough crime to have an offender list"? Murder? Home Invasions? Larceny? Speeding?

I know a lot of this information is "public knowledge" but a searchable google maps mashup of people convicted of anything? I'm not sure that's in our best interest.

Re:Over the Top

[plague3106]

Sex offenders, on the other hand, are usually incestuous, and the recidivism rate for these offenders is quite low, especially compared to the general prison population. Jump out of the bushes type of offenders are quite rare, and these people do have much higher recidivism rates.

I was with you until you spewed this garbage. "Sex offender" can be someone that pissed on a bush and got caught. Thanks for illustrating the problems with general labels though.

Re:Over the Top

[Anonymous Coward]

They finally pardoned him of that crime. The fucked up thing is that after it went to court the state used his case to change the law but didn't make it retroactive, now it is several years later and they finally fixed that injustice but I'm afraid the damage has been done. He was a promising young student too... such a shame they did him in like that.

Re:Over the Top

[etymxris]

I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that peeing in the bushes or an 18 yr old having sex with a 16 yr old deserves a place on these sex offender registries. And while such cases do sometimes end up on registries, they do not represent the "typical" sex offender. The most common crime on these registries, as far as I've seen by actually browsing through them, is child molestation. Excluding minor offenses such as the ones you mentioned seem so uncontroversial that it's not worth addressing.

Re:Over the Top

[rtechie]

DV victims, on the other hand, tend to stay with those who abuse them. It's often the girlfriend/wife with black eyes that comes and bails out the abuser. If a database like the one proposed existed, then it could be used to pierce the facade that abusers put forth. And it could also help friends with suspicions to convince the woman the man is not as he presents himself. You're kidding me, right? The relationship between "abusers" and domestic violence "victims" is largely symbiotic.

First off, in the United States, domestic violence is defined as "when a man hits a woman or threatens to hit a woman". Oftentimes the violence is going both ways but women are only very rarely charged. The fact that the woman was trying to stab him at the time doesn't get the guy off.

Second, women do not need to be convinced "the man is not as he presents himself". They KNOW what he is (they felt his fists on their face, remember?) and on some level, they LIKE it. That's why they're with him. I have talked to many abused women and it's literally impossible to convince them through REASON that "their man" is an abuser. Usually it boils down to "Leave this guy or the state will take your kids." and thy get angry at the STATE.

My opinion, which people tend to reject as "extreme", is that men have a moral obligation to protect women. If you're a man and you know that one of your female friends is being abused you have a moral obligation to go to your friend's house, beat the shit out of the guy, throw him out of the house, and then tell him if you ever see him anywhere near your friend again you'll kill him. Don't ask your friend's permission, don't tell he you're coming over, and if your friend objects, ignore her. She's obviously too stupid to take care of herself and NEEDS you to do this for her. Check on your friend to make sure she isn't seeing this guy. If she is, kill him. No jury will convict you, the police (who HATE domestic abusers) won't even prosecute you.

Re:Over the Top

[Mr. Slippery]

They KNOW what he is (they felt his fists on their face, remember?) and on some level, they LIKE it. That's why they're with him. I have talked to many abused women and it's literally impossible to convince them through REASON that "their man" is an abuser. Usually it boils down to "Leave this guy or the state will take your kids." and thy get angry at the STATE.

Bullshit.

I've know several victims of domestic violence. Women often stay with abusive men because they can't get away, financially as well as spatially. They can't afford to leave, or realize that if they do, the abuser is likely to get even more pissed off, track them down, and really lay on a beating.

When they do try to leave, they get no help from the state. A friend of mine had left her abusive husband, he kept harassing her, she called for help - and rather than lock up the ex, they tried to take her kids.

The whole thing is an example of learned helplessness.

Re:Over the Top

[ocbwilg]

Excluding minor offenses such as the ones you mentioned seem so uncontroversial that it's not worth addressing.

Three problems with that. The first is that those "minor offenses" still get on the list. Secondly is that many states publish lists of offenders but don't actually list what they were convicted of. Thirdly, if you are on the list, you're on the list (usually for life). The school that you work for doesn't care that you're on it for pissing on a bush because you are now unemployable for simply being on the list. Your crazy-ass overprotective neighbors don't care that you're on the list for pissing on a bush because they think you're out to ass-rape their children. See where I'm going here?

And what makes it even worse these days is all of the paranoia about allegedly "activist judges," so now in many jurisdictions the judge doesn't have the discretion to determine whether your crime warrants going on the list.

Re:Over the Top

[Anonymous Coward]

And who defends the rights of the wrongfully defamed. This will turn every woman in the state of California into a potential vengeful vigilante with the power to permanently ruin the life and future of any man they date, and do so solely on their unsupported and unproven word. There would be no defense as like credit reports, once the 'data' is in any database it is replicated over multiple databases almost instantaneousely like spherical ripples in spacetime from Higgs oscillations. Such data is never removed totally, and the best one could hope for is that SOME databases MAY allow a refutation statement to sit in it along with the allegations; again just like credit reports. Credit reporting agencies have a duty to remove adverse information about individuals after legally defined terms of time, and to never release information about some supposedly sealed files like juvenile records. Banking officials that I have known in the past know ways around this, and know that in the real world, info once collected is never erased truly.

Re:Over the Top

[gr8scot]

Credit reporting agencies have a large financial interest in being right. Getting justice out of the justice system, for those wrongly accused, is not as easy as getting a bunch of publicity on 20/20 for identity theft. That crime hasn't gone away, but it got a lot of attention in a hurry, because of the large amount of money at stake to the creditors. Nobody in the government has anywhere near that much money to gain in promotions for any level of excellence, and even if they royally screw up, they'll get their pensions.

Re:Over the Top

[gr8scot]

The school that you work for doesn't care that you're on it for pissing on a bush because you are now unemployable for simply being on the list. Your crazy-ass overprotective neighbors don't care that you're on the list for pissing on a bush because they think you're out to ass-rape their children. See where I'm going here? You're going someplace very sensible. Good job. That argument about "crazy-ass overprotective neighbors" is one I tried to use, below, in support of the idea that ass-rapers of children should simply never be let out of prison. Convicted ass-rapers of children, if cleared [usu. by DNA evidence, it seems], should be released when cleared, but unless cleared, they should never be set free. Murder should likewise be a one-strike-and-you're-out crime. This gets rid of the concern over being on such lists for "minor offenses." The fact that it gets rid of the need for the lists themselves should also satisfy those who want them, unless they have some ulterior motive they don't dare state. But that would be so Orwellian, it's ridiculous.

Re:Over the Top

[rtechie]

I've know several victims of domestic violence. Women often stay with abusive men because they can't get away, financially as well as spatially. They can't afford to leave, or realize that if they do, the abuser is likely to get even more pissed off, track them down, and really lay on a beating. So this woman has no friends, no family, no church, etc? Why isn't she asking these people to do something about her abuser? If his legs are broken he's not going to be tracking anyone down. She might be poor, but does she have $200 to save her life? That's how much a cheap gun costs at the pawn shop. Hell, pepper spray is $4 and pretty effective too. Pepper spray and a brick will take down anybody.

They can't afford to leave, This is what it's really about. Battered women tend to be stay at home moms (read: no job skills) and aren't very independent-minded in general. The notion of "taking care of themselves" is fundamentally more scary than the occasional fear of being beaten up, so they put up with it. They consciously ignore the people around them that tell them to leave the guy that's beating them up because they don't want to be alone.

When they do try to leave, they get no help from the state. Exactly right. Did you read the last paragraph of my post?

A friend of mine had left her abusive husband, he kept harassing her, she called for help - and rather than lock up the ex, they tried to take her kids. Because the police department are not her personal bodyguards. At some level, people have to take responsibility for their own safety. And that generally means dealing with abusive lovers yourself.

Or better yet

[VanillaBabies]

'If you're online, Googling and looking for information on someone you met in a bar or on MySpace, this would provide a tool for people to go and look to see if someone who is suspicious and a little creepy has a history of violence.' You could act like an adult, make an informed decision based on the information you have, and its a done deal. No legislation required to prevent bad things from happening to stupid people!

Re:Or better yet

[WombatDeath]

That was my reaction too - if you meet someone who's 'suspicious and a little creepy' it's possibly best not to date them.

"OK, so he's drenched in blood and carrying an axe, but he has such lovely eyes!"

Re:Or better yet

[Marcus Green]

It's lucky that all people with a criminal past are "suspicious and a little creepy".

Re:Or better yet

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are accused of domestic violence you are given the choice of:

1. Contest the charge. You will have to find a new place to live. You will have an automatic restraining order against going to your home (even if you own it). You won't be able to see your family. This will last around 6 to 12 months as the case works its way through the system.

2. Plead guilty. You'll get a small fine.

Given those two choices it is not surprising that even innocent people just plead guilty. Especially if you want to maintain any sort of relationship with your partner or your kids. Six monthis is a long time.

Re:Or better yet

[the_humeister]

"OK, so he's drenched in blood and carrying an axe, but he has such lovely eyes!"

and he's holding a case of Miller Lite!

Bad

[Faux_Pseudo]

"Domestic Offender" is the most meaningless and undescriptive phrase I have heard in a long time. Can we get a new name for it?

Not acceptable

[Zelet]

Absolutely, completely not acceptable. Megan's Law is already borderline acceptable. The only reason I see that Megan's Law should be allowed is that minors can't really control the situation they are in so it gives the parents a tool to help keep their kids away from situations/people that might take advantage of a child's lack of understanding. Adults can make decisions on their own. If a guy is exhibiting symptoms of domestic violence (jealousy, control, isolation) and the other ADULT doesn't decide to leave thats on him/her. Last I checked, once you serve your sentence your debt to society is paid - they shouldn't be continually exposed to harassment, social isolation, and discrimination.

Re:Not acceptable

[xanadu113]

Your debt to society is paid, unless, of course, you're a drug offender (even low level marijuana possession... ) Drug felons can't vote, own a handgun/possess ANY kind of weapon in most states (including, but not limited to, knives, box cutters, exacto blades, pepper spray/mace, stun guns, etc.).. They also can't get any kind of federal financial aid for school, any kind of federal housing assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and in many states, even medical assistance is limited. I'm willing to bet drug offenders will be up next for a registry..

Re:Not acceptable

[Zelet]

I completely agree. I think that our entire justice system needs to be overhauled. Non-violent drug offenders need to be kept separate from the general, violent population. They need to be provided long term drug treatment. They also need to be provided skill based education beyond a GED. Essentially skills that are provided by community colleges. They need to be taught how to live in our society. How to manage a house-hold, how to hold a job, how to respect others and to care about society. It would require sentences that are flexible so they stay until they are done with their prescribed programs. Of course to save cost, some of the offenders could be treated in a parole like system where they have to go to class, counseling, and drug treatment. If they fail in these programs then they are put into "jail" where they are forced to do these things. If they repeatedly fail and will not rehabilitate then they should be put into general population for a number of years at which point they get another chance at rehab.

Re:Not acceptable

[Rude Turnip]

Or...simply don't arrest them in the first place.

Re:Not acceptable

[skintigh2]

There's a guy in Maine on a sex offenders list for statutory rape. OF HIS WIFE.

The state pressed charges and used their child as "evidence" of the "crime" and now he has to register where ever he goes.

Some college buddies and I were joking around and saying half the shit we pulled on campus would now be considered a terrorist act. I thought about it later, and I seriously think that under todays laws as a teen I could have been charged as a terrorist (homemade fireworks and other experiments, but no bombs so maybe I'd be safe of charges. Well, there was the time I filled the little Jack Daniels bottle with black powder...) and a sex offended (as a HS senior my girlfriend was a sophomore). Maybe throw in computer criminal (I must have done SOMETHING illegal) and FCC violator while you're at it for the unlicensed transmitter I made with a radio shack kit that apparently is no longer for sale.

ANYWAY, if any of that was online that would make a hell of a fun second-date conversation, assuming I ever had one for the rest of my life. Oh shit, now it is! Damnit!

Oh, dear.

[Rob T Firefly]

The first time someone called John Smith beats up his wife, all the other John Smiths will suddenly find it much harder to get dates.

Here's a nifty idea that's easier...

[nhstar]

Sex offenders will have to where a big red "S" on their outer most layer of clothing/jacket/etc, domestic offenders a big "D," and adulterers...

this is just silly... These lists and databases post only enough information to be dangerous. Sure, the rest of the information is out there for people who'd actually spend the time to research it and judge for themselves, but who's really going to do that after seeing Joe Neighbor on the list..? This just caters to the idea of mob-justice.

Leave the databases with law enforcement... That by itself will be bad enough.

Re:Here's a nifty idea that's easier...

[gknoy]

In a future where people may have wearable augmented-reality-devices (e.g. the screen-contacts from an earlier story), and wireless networking, I imagine that rfid or other tagging, combinedwith such databases, could indeed allow people to put such indicators over other people.

Might be kindof scary once you see peoples' criminal records floating over their heads as you walk down the sidewalk, though. I don't think it is a good thing, but then ... it's hard to pinpoint why. As a father, I would love to be able to more accurately guage the threat level of people I (and my family) are around. As a citizen, though, I really don't like the idea that people would still be branded after having served their time.

I guess some part of our brain (or societal training?) doesn't want to believe in rehabilitation.

Re:Here's a nifty idea that's easier...

[nhstar]

Maybe that's part of the problem... we figure that locking people up for a little while will be the only necessary deterrent... Apparently, that's not going so well. Stiffer penalties, maybe? Perhaps some actual rehabilitation?

There is no right answer, but I really feel that this is certainly low on the list of right... Having the knowledge is certainly one way to gauge threat-levels, but people need to take the responsibility to not try to do that with little more than a bullet-itemed name on a list somewhere.

Maybe I don't understand the situation fully

[kellyb9]

But aren't things like police records not private??? It was my understanding that you could freely pull this kind of information anyway. Could be wrong...

Dangerous ground

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid this is going to turn into something where one person's word alone will be enough to put someone on this list for life.

Perhaps we need a list of domestic partners who have a history of goading their significant others to violence?

Well

[caveat]

While I wholeheartedly think this is a TERRIBLE idea, aren't convictions a matter of public record already? Not that there's a handy-dandy easy-to-use website with all the information right there, but a trip to the courthouse or $40 paid to one of the online background check services can already get all the information... and not just for SA/DV, for everything down to speeding tickets..

There are some people who need this info...

[foniksonik]

The police, social services, doctors. That's it.

These groups should be provided instant access to this information, based on zip, address, phone number and any number of other criteria that might be useful.

When a member of these groups has a case they are on where any sort of violence has occurred (kid beat up, mom beat up, random woman/man beat up, etc.) they check the records on that person AND their address/phone to see if there is a potential abuser in their home/neighborhood whom they may be married to, dating, etc.

Domestic violence is not lethal if you catch it early... so they people who can do something about it need to know ASAP. The general public OTOH can't do a thing except cause a panic or Mob response.

Social services is very important here. Police have more dangerous (to the general public) perpetrators to worry about and Doctors can only report evidence. Once someone is identified though a social serv. rep should be assigned to check up on them and their family or any one they could be dating (and their doctors, firends, extended family).

Re:There are some people who need this info...

[networkBoy]

Grab your pitchforks boys!
It's mob response time!

Witnessed an argument between "some guy" and a woman (lives near the in-laws).
In the yelling that ensued (which I could hear clearly over the *lawn mower*) I learned that she did not want him near her kids because he was on the megan's law web site. He countered that her kids were the problem.
After the cops arrived no-one went to jail but he was "talked to" and she was issued a citation. I asked one of the cops what happened, as I was interested in my neighborhood remaining peaceful.

Long story short, lady's kids were browsing the megans law website looking for people to harass!?!? and since this guy lived down the street they started on him. I already knew he was on the site and asked the cop what his crime was. Date rape.
Not pedophilia, nothing with a minor... So why was this lady so much of an ass to the guy? Because he was on the "evil list" and that's all she needed to know. The ticket was:

Legal and Illegal Uses. The information on this web site is made available solely to protect the public. Anyone who uses this information to commit a crime or to harass an offender or his or her family is subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability. Any person who is required to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290 who enters this web site is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, 290.46, subd. (h)(2).) For the record I like the Megan's law site because I have two young kids. When I recently moved my family I ensured that where we moved to was free of "with child under 14" type predators. Guy down the street with a date rape, nonviolent, is not my concern till the kids are older.
-nB

Re:There are some people who need this info...

[foniksonik]

Personally i think the information should be available by request and censored to your needs... moving, have kids.. you get an AOK that the neighborhood is pedophile free, no names, no addresses - just a response message that confirms your request.

Need more general info... you could get a result that tells you "yes there are sex-offenders, within 100 miles of the address listed. please contact your local police for more information."

Suspicious person... submit the name or address and you'll get a yes or no answer, with the type of crime and whether they are currently monitored or not. Republishing the information is a breach of privacy law....

Re:There are some people who need this info...

[gr8scot]

That's a pretty ambitious database reporting tool you just volunteered to program. Thanks!

Re:Maybe I don't understand the situation fully

[thelexx]

And there's a big difference between being on display in a disused lavatory guarded by a leopard and being beamed to everyone's wrist-top computer...

Megan's Law should apply to all dangerous criminal

[davidwr]

I'm against public "lists" of people who haven't been convicted of any crime. However this bill is about people who have been convicted.

I'm also against public "lists" of people who are not currently dangerous. Many people who would be on this list, and for that matter many people on the sex-offender registries, are no longer dangerous. There is something about having spent time in the Big House and not wanting to go back that keeps many people from re-offending. Having these people on public lists not only clutters up the list making it harder to pick out those who are really dangerous, it also makes it harder for these people to live normal lives. Being allowed to live a normal life is known to decrease stress and decrease recidivism.

As far as who should be allowed to see this new California list:
I'd say limit it to police, domestic-violence shelters, and, upon a written, signed request, any individual who can demonstrate a need to know. "I'm dating this guy" would be enough. Anyone with access would need to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

If I were in charge of the sex-offender database, I'd make access similarly difficult: Institutions that had a need to know would get access to those individuals who were a threat to their clients, and individuals could get a list of those who were a risk to them or their children based on where they lived, worked, went to school, day care, etc. However, it would all be under non-disclosure.

Barring specific circumstances, there is no reason in the world I should have access to the addresses of dangerous domestic-violence-offenders, dangerous sex-offenders, or other dangerous ex-cons who live outside of my community. There is no self-protection reason I should have access to the addresses of non-dangerous violence-, sex-, and other-offenders at all.

Landlords, employers, etc. can and should do a full-scale criminal background check. Criminal background checks don't usually include addresses, but they do include name and date of birth and enough other information to cross-check a prospective tenant or employee.

Any number of reasons

[phorm]

For one thing, just because something isn't specifically a "secret" doesn't mean it has to be outed to the world in general.
While it's not always the case, the legal system is not supposed to be for 'retribution.' However, it is intended to have the effects of deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the public at large.

The first two tend to be falling by the wayside. Yes, in a lot of cases you have to do something fairly bad to get a record. In a lot of cases, though, you can be a victim of poor circumstance (and poorer defense counsel). The more easily it is to judge, and thus cast aside, somebody with such a record, the less effect the aspect of rehabilitation becomes. Why? Well, it's pretty damn hard - and increasingly so - to get back on track. Hard to get a job, hard to start or resume your life, and now hard to start a relationship.

So who are we trying to protect? How about people who have served their time, paid their dues, and are willing to start again. If we're not willing to allow this, then in many cases we might as well just hand out life sentences or even executions straightforth. If dude screwed up at age 20, and he still can't get a decent job, girlfriend, etc at age 30... what's the chance he's going to stay clean when he has no opportunities in life?

Who else does it protect? Well I'd hate to break it to you, but most search systems of this nature suck. There are plenty of people that have had their *credit* royally screwed up because they had the same name as somebody else. As many people have had issues wherein they have the same name as somebody with a record. So what happens to "Chris S Smythe" from Washington meets a girl who then looks up his record, and "Chris M Smythe" from Texas happens to be a an offender?

I know people who have had bad relationships. I know guys who have had their asses handed to them by their girlfriends and yet somehow been at fault. Some of them are big guys too, but that doesn't matter when the woman's got a rolling pin in her hand. But when the police show up, and dude is twice the size of his girlfriend, and she's accusing him of abuse... guess what happens. Moreover, their ability to mount a defense is hampered by the mentality that "I'm big, she's small, but even though she's got a carving knife if I take her down the cops are going to come after me." Same thing happens to women too, but the fact is that the law, and society as a whole, tends to generalize men as the aggressors, and a lot of people get screwed because of it.

So yeah, personally I think this would be a very bad idea, that could screw up the lives of a lot of good people.

Women fight dirty

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. When we have an argument, my wife fights dirty by bringing out the tactical nuke:

"I'll call the cops and say you beat me", even though I never laid a finger on her. I have a job that requires a clearance and can't afford to fight even a baseless accusation like that.

Posting AC for the obvious reason.

Re:Women fight dirty

[splutty]

Divorce her and then sue her for years of emotional distress. In addition you can get a friend of you to beat you up and call the cops about how your wife finally snapped after years of belittling you when you made one comment about wanting a divorce.

Hmmm :)

(Not posted anonymously, since if people can't take sarcasm, they shouldn't be reading Slashdot. Or possibly this falls more into the category if cynicism...)

charge rent

[davidwr]

If you are accused of domestic violence you are given the choice of:

1. Contest the charge. You will have to find a new place to live. You will have an automatic restraining order against going to your home (even if you own it). You won't be able to see your family. This will last around 6 to 12 months as the case works its way through the system. Just once I'd love to see someone who was arrested and kicked out of his house that he owned free and clear either try to sell, evict his family, or charge them rent.

The eviction or rental suit would probably drag on for years but eventually the courts would probably rule in his favor: It's his financial asset and he has the right to sell it or rent it to whomever he chooses. For him, the victory would come too late but it would be a useful precedent.

No privacy for anyone then

[MikeRT]

These laws are pretty much designed to target men to protect women and children. As a man, I want a database that shows every single intersection between those I meet and the legal system. If I were single, I'd want to know everything the government knows about the criminal record of every woman I consider dating. Huh, you mean you really were married three times in the past five years, all to rich men? Wow, that's interesting. No second date for you, honey. You've filed rape charges against several men after going on dates with you in the past few years. You're not getting a second chance!

Put up or shut up. The 14th amendment demands equal protection before the law. Either expose everything, or don't do anything.

Re:No privacy for anyone then

[anything59]

This is just the start of many more databases to come. We start with the easy ones then add more one by one. It won't matter if the information is accurate. Only that another database is created to employ people that have not yet fallen into a database. Once everyone is on some sort of database probes will be attached to people's brains and if a thought passes through your mind that is deemed unsuitable by big brother you will be contacted by somebody for lifetime registration to get on a data base. I liked it in the old days when I was able to judge somebody myself. ... and I did not speak out because I was not ... Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller

CORI in MA

[Anonymous Coward]

Massachusetts has a criminal database that employers can use. It doesn't include just convitions, it includes everything.

Charged with a crime and found innocent? You have a CORI record.
Charged with a crime and the case was dismissed? You have a CORI record.
Someone filed a restraining order against you? You have a CORI record.
Case was vacated? Sorry, you have a CORI record.

The system is never cleaned. The record is there for life.

What about women?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the database include links to profiles of the women who deserved it?

Seriously, though, the MENTAL abuse by women is just as bad as the PHYSICAL abuse by men (yes, I'm making generalizations as between men and women), but the law only seems to address physical abuse.

As someone who used to collect databases...

[Anonymous Coward]

of criminal records for a background checking company, there is already a searchable databases available online in many places that will yeild all that and more. There are databases in florida of people who were just arrested, not charged, not convicted. Theres really nothing new to see here.

The only thing missing is someone collecting them all and cross referencing EVERYTHING and putting it online. I've done it locally for my own personal database but I wouldn't dare put it online with all the litigation happy asses around.

I have been to Domestic Violence Treatment

[Anonymous Coward]

I see lots of posts here, but I've had to actually experience in this matter.

1. During a bitter divorce and custody battle, my wife claimed abuse. I made a counter-claim that she was abusive, and provided proof. But it was only me that was sent to a DV (domestic violence) evaluation.

2. The evaluation used my childhood history against me, my father divorced my mother when I was young, and he is an alcoholic. And the theory is little boys emulate their fathers...

3. They put in the parenting plan, I had to do whatever the counselor recommended, and DV treatment was recommended. Even though no proof and witnesses testimony that I don't drink, and people staying with us over the last 15 year, including family members, said I was not abusive, but took the abuse of angry wife. (Just yelling, she was never physically violent with me, just the children)

4. I never got my day in court, I was told to goto treatment, never a jury of my peers. No felony, no misdemeanor, no probation. But if I didnt do the treatment, I didnt get to see my children.

5. Its freaking HARD to pass treatment and say you havnt committed DV. I'm on my 2nd class, after being kicked out of the first one for not accepting my actions. Took me awhile to find a counsler who wouldnt automatically assume I was guilty, and passed me onto stage 2, monthly classes.

6. Classes are expensive, and a year long of weekly group classes, 6 months minimum, then if you are ready, monthly to completion of the year.

7. Many men are in the class for a plea bargin to get out of jail. In a must arrest state, cops are used conflict resolution, they arrest the guy in almost every verbal argument or claim of a fight. About 1/3 of the guys in classes are innocent. Its very easy for a woman (or man) to claim DV, and someone can be arrested, and jailed with a high bail, basically sitting in jail for months, unless you pleaded to a DV crime, and are released.

Lucky I wouldn't be in the database, I was the only one who didnt goto criminal court. I was amazed how many men didn't want a day in court, just plea bargained so the other charges would be dropped. Its common for multiple charges to be given so the person will plead guilty to the lowest one, so the state gets a conviction.

Many men dont realize just how bad it is, its not a law that affects the criminals it effects every MAN.

suspicious and a little creepy

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the words I would use to to describe a person whose first impulse on meeting someone is to go "Googling and looking for information" on them.

I'm calling bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This is complete crap.
6 years ago I was going through a bitter divorce and child custody battle. As a person with money in the bank and a stable living environment, there wasn't much she or her lawyer could do with the *truth* to make a case that i shouldn't have custody of my child, so he (her lawyer) decided she should make stuff up. I.e. I was physically and/or sexually abusive. Divorce lawyers do this *all the time*

I think the domestic violence laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is completely thrown out the window when someone makes an accusation. The short version is while all she was meaning to do was file a police report and have some "documentation" to bring to family court that she made an accusation that i had physically abused her and my child, the police came and TOOK ME TO JAIL.

It was my word against hers and there were no witnesses.
When i was charged and taken to jail to await araignment, she tried to drop the charges.
She started to explain that she wanted to just have a complaint on record, not send me to prison.
She quickly dropped that line of explaination when they informed her about the penalties for filing a false crime report leading to an arrest. In order to drop the charges against me, she'd have to confess to making them up, and risk being jailed herself.
Well she wasnt about to do that.

So then my case went to trial. Even though she refused to testify. I LOST.

I was given 3 years probation, no jail time, and a restraining order that made it illegal for me to come within 100 yards of my child for the next 3 years, unless a family court judge overturned the order. (which luckily i was able to do within 6 months, as well as get my conviction reduced to a misdemeanor).

All of this arose from a false accusation meant to give her an edge at family court proceeding.
She and I both know that her claims are baseless and nothing ever fucking happened.

I understand that there are real victims out there that need protection, but for every 5 of them theres one of me.
A guy who's never hit a woman in his life.
A false accusation.
The system is NOT flawless by any means.
Things slip through the cracks.

Besides, this information already comes up when you do a background check for employment, when you rent an apartment, or apply for a home loan.
All interested parties who need to know your criminal record can require a background check.
Now, in addition to all that I get on a list of "creepy woman beaters" that is published on the internet because my ex wife is a total bitch?

This law is completely fucked.
We might as well line everyone up in shackles in the public square and tell pedestrians to throw rotten tomatoes at them.

Re:I'm calling bullshit

[ocbwilg]

I feel for you, man. The simple truth is that the courts are biased against men. Some people believe that in the past the courts had been heavily biased in favor of men, and that women got shafted. Many of those people now believe that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in a misguided attempt to "correct the injustices of the past." In the past, many victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse were not believed. As a result of re-education efforts an accuser is always believed to be telling the truth, even if there is a lack of evidence (or evidence to the contrary). The end result is that the courts are always biased in favor of the accuser, and almost always against men.

What this means is:

If you are accused of sexual assault, you are presumed guilty. Your life will be ruined unless you can prove your innocence, and even then you will have already suffered severe damage to your reputation and mental state.

If you are accused of domestic violence, you are presumed guilty. Your life will be ruined unless you can prove your innocence, and even then you will have already suffered severe damage to your reputation and mental state.

If you are accused of child abuse...well...you get the picture.

If you are in a custody dispute with you ex-wife, you will not get custody of your children unless you can prove that your ex is an unfit mother (and in most cases they would have to be a homeless crack whore to lose their rights).

If a woman gives birth to a child and names you as the father and you don't contest it immediately, you can be forced to pay child support even if you believe that the child isn't yours. And once you've started paying child support you're on the hook for it until they turn 18, even if you can prove through DNA evidence that the child could not possibly be yours. In most states if you happen to be married to the woman when she gives birth you can't contest paternity at all for purposes of child supprt. I didn't believe this myself until I started looking into case law.

So the next time that a woman starts crying about equal rights, you might want to remind her about the many "swords of Damocles" hanging over our heads. She just might change her tune (but probably not).

drug dealer database...

[parazite.org]

i want a drug dealer database with the price information :)

Re:Maybe I don't understand the situation fully

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, win the internet for using that practically in a sentence.

OpenSecrets.org : Online Capaign Donations Record

[gknoy]

http://www.opensecrets.org/

I believe it's only for the US; sorry for not reading further into parent posters to see if they were from other nations.

All the best responses are at Score 0

[Hadley]

Many innocent men are victims of false allegations of domestic violence. Many are posting their experiences here. Not surprisingly, they all seem to be posting as Anonymous Coward.

If you set your filter to 0 and above for this story, you'll get the most interesting comments.

Re:Megan's Law should apply to all dangerous crimi

[toddestan]

It's a nice idea, but how does one decide whether or not someone is currently dangerous? Assuming that you could do this reliably, then why even bother with lists as opposed to keeping the dangerous criminals seperated from the rest of society until they are no longer dangerous?

That's my problem with these lists, either someone is too dangerous to be let back into society, in which case they shouldn't be on a list and instead in some kind of institution or jail, or they have served their time and are no longer dangerous, and thus should be able to live their lives without the stigma of being on some list.