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

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

[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

[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.

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: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".

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.

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...

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.