Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Bans Social Network Use By Sex Offenders
RobotsDinner writes "Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has signed into law a bill that bans all registered sex offenders from using social networks. '"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), a sponsor of the measure and a governor candidate. "The idea was, if the predator is supposed to be a registered sex offender, they should keep their Internet distance as well as their physical distance."'"
Yes, you can ban them from talking to the punishment here is far too harsh to not be challenged.
I took a leak outside the bar one night when I was drunk and now I'm banned from Facebook for life.
What's wrong with this picture?
FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
And who decides what a "social network" is?
I wonder when we'll receive calls for govt. regulation of websites to keep it safe for children.
Either they've served their debt to society or keep them in jail. This half-assed "you're out of jail but you can only do X" is ridiculous.
... the sentence that Dade received
... for how long are they "banned" (cause for example a life sentence doesn't mean life anymore)?
But my question is
Now we have a way to make sure that dangerous predators conceal their true identities on social networks.
"At least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of âoedistributing child pornographyâ to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being âoeparty to the crime of child molestationâ because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married."
I'm glad you're banning all 600,000 people 2/3rds of which are said to be "no danger" according to a state's own review board.
People labeled "sex offenders" (could be from mooning someone, urinating in an alley, having manga, and other little things) are treated worse than murderers in the US. Murderers don't have to tell the community after serving time that they killed someone. They can rent apartments almost anywhere. There's no online database anyone can browse to find murderers living in your area...
It saddens me as, basically, it's better for the perp's punishment to rape a child, kill them, and dispose of the body than just raping them.
The internet is a social network, you know?
The offender cannot access any web servers less than 10 hops away.
How is this even enforceable?
Beuler?
What happens when a 18 year-old is convicted for statutory rape of his 17 year-old girlfriend when they have consensual sex? He's now most likely a registered sex offender. Is he banned from Facebook?
The only thing good about travelling west through Illinois on I-80 is that you're not longer in Gary, IN. Every time I hit that stretch of highway, I want to cuss and throw things. Most lanes of traffic are open this week, which undoubtedly indicates that they'll be tearing it apart to start rebuilding it this fall.
From this same ill-managed substate, we get a law that says you can't use Facebook if you peed on a tree when you turned 21. Why is anyone surprised?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
What is this?
Sure, there are violent sex offenders who generally stay in prison more often than not, but there those who did something like sleep with their girlfriend of 2 years whose parents pressed charges because she was 17, and 3 months to 18, and that guy who may end up marrying her, is now a "sex offender" for the rest of his life.
Warranted, yes, SOME people use social websites for predation (and too many), but note that I used the term 'people.' It's not just sex offenders, but I would hazard a guess that not even MOST sex offenders using these services use them for predation. Such a ban is incredibly naive and ignorant, and an outright abuse of power.
Let's apply this same logic. We don't label average citizens who have committed some crime (violent even) that landed them in jail the way we do sex offenders. Say we realized too much violent and organized crime was happening as a result of using socializing websites. Now we want to ban anyone who may have a history of violent crimes or pretty much any crimes from using these to stifle the possibility of having them organize future crimes. So how can we target all of these individuals with such anonymity online? Well hell, we can't really, so let's just ban the website in our state. Done.
I'd put my bet on it that most people who are using social networking sites like this to predate victims for sexual harassment or other sex crimes aren't even currently labeled sex offenders. Are there any stats out there for how many new sex offenders have been entered as a result of crimes initiated via contact through a social networking site? I'd imagine this would be quite a large number per year, so now do we need to hire some precogs to detect these criminals BEFORE they do the crime and ban them from using the service?
This is just silly. They get it bad enough getting raped in prison and labeled on everyone's overlaid sex-offender-tracker GPS etc etc, regardless of what sexual offense they committed, they served their time, why should we now add another step to further punish them?
Perhaps this is just another case of where the actions of a few individuals ruin things for everyone?
We all belong to the Slashdot community; does that make Slashdot a social network? How about LinkedIn? There's a website that definitely is a social network, but it's for the purpose of job hunting. There are very few, if any, minors on that site. And why all sex offenders? If you rape your girlfriend, then yes you're a bad person, but why should that stop you from using FaceBook? If these sex offenders are so dangerous, then why were they released from prison? Why not change the law so that any sexual offense gets a life sentence? Or how about instead of endless punishment, we look at rehabilitation, at least for the offenders who are capable of being rehabilitated. And finally, consider that some sex offenders are not the criminals you might think they are. Guys have been labeled as sex offenders for being 18 and having sex with a 17 year old, consensually. And for taking a piss behind a bar - "your penis was out in public".
How would you go about enforcing something like this? Clearly like any law it could be a matter of criminal charges if you drew enough attention to yourself to be caught... but is there a more effective method of implementation? Even if you monitored their computer use at home, a laptop and an unsecured network will work wonders toward avoiding surveillance.
On the other hand, the prison sentences for mooning, public urination, and ownership of manga are somewhat lighter than that for murder.
Not all social networks are based on sexual relationships. Even SlashDot could be considered a social network. I don't understand this logic. If sex offenders can't be allowed to freely interact with other people why aren't their prison sentences for life? We don't do this to other criminals. If some guy does a few years for holding up a convenience store, do we tell him he is not allowed to step foot in a retail establishment again?
Proverbs 21:19
On the cover of the Economist this week:
America's Unfair Sex Laws
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614
The one story of the woman classified as a sex offender for performing oral sex as a teenager is unbelievable.
It's hard to argue that at the very least a threat level classification for sex offenders wouldn't be a good idea
We're re-writing a lot of our comments from last week, aren't we... http://idle.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/0341206/iPhone-App-Tracks-Sex-Offenders
in your scenario, they would still be a sex offender.
Just sayin'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wow, does this mean ASCII art too? Then I must admit I'm a sex offender! I have sometimes used the expression if (C==8) in my programs...
What about ADULT friend finder? Is that one okay?
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
You can tell from just looking at a skeleton that it was raped?
"dispose of the body" was meant to imply that even if the body was found, there'd be no evidence of sexual assault. Chop it up, grind it, whatever. And murdering someone does not automatically mean the body will ever be found.
These sex offender laws just make some crimes much worse.
... it should say "Why are murderers treated better than sex offenders"
Maybe the punishments for sex offenders are already ok, and the punishmnets for murderers should be more severe?
While there are some sub-categories of sex offenders with high re-offense rates, common sense says there are many large, easily-identifiable sub-categories with extremely low rates. Statistics say that even as a whole, they have a lower after-being-caught re-offense rate than most low-level "street crimes" and "street-level organized crimes" such as burglary, theft, drug dealing, etc.
Sub-groups likely to have low offender rates (some of these apply to criminals in general):
* Those in an ongoing treatment program.
* Those who have gone a long time leading a verifiably clean life, usually after many years in a treatment program
* Those who have a proven history of being able deliberately avoid people or situations that fit their "temptation profile," and actually doing so
* Those whose crimes were age-based, but who have demonstrably "grown out of it." This typically means people who were in their mid-teens or younger at the time of their offense or who were in their late teens or early 20s with someone who was close to legal age.
* Those whose life partner/would-be-spouse-but-for-age happened to be underage, and who are still in a stable monogamous relationship
* Those who have had a life-altering experience that makes their old personality a bad indicator of their present one, and whose present personality is clearly not pathological
* Those who recognize that the odds of getting away with it again are very low AND who fear a return trip to prison
Also, those with stable family, housing, and employment situations are much less likely to re-offend than others.
Those who were caught as children or mid-teens and who got into a quality treatment program also have a lower risk profile.
Obviously, before decisions are made on what I just said it will need to be statistically verified. However, I fully expect "common sense" will match reality here.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Except you get a lifetime sentence not in jail, but in public humiliation that you are now considered a rapist for mooning someone.
First Quinn doesn't let sex offenders use social networking. Next, he allows visitation rights via phone, email, and IM. What's next, marriage or divorce via facebook, email, or IM?
But seriously, visitation rights via telephone, email, and IM (and I'm guessing social networking sites too)? How does that actually constitute as one visiting another being, without physical presence. I'm all for visitation rights via phone, email, IM, etc, as long as they aren't restricting the physical visitation rights.
The only problem with this law is the definition of sex offender. As many others have said, you can become a sex offender by public urination, or sexting, or having sex when you are 18 and you partner is 16. For them, being banned from social networks is not a just punishment. It has absolutely nothing to do with the crime. Banning social networks makes more sense for sex offenders with a history preying on others, especially through the internet. This law seems overly broad and they should make it apply to only a subset of sex offenders.
In most states murderers get free room and board for a long long long long time.
In some states they get free room and board for a significantly shorter time and BONUS they won't have to worry about living long enough to pay for retirement.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
in your scenario, they would still be a sex offender.
Yes, but not a registered sex offender. That was the point. Assuming they successfully disposed of the body they could still be convicted of murder but it would be much harder to prove rape. The murder charge would carry jail time, but there is a significant possibility of them eventually being released from jail and from that point on they would be in the clear. On the other hand, the sex offender charge would be a life sentence. Only part of that sentence would be jail time, but the time after release from jail could very well be worse than the time spent in jail.
This relates to the "law of unintended consequences". We all agree that rape is bad, but assuming that rape has been committed the current state of law provides incentive for murder. Having committed rape, the perpetrator is very likely better off killing and disposing of the victim rather than releasing them.
The Economist had a fairly in-depth look at "sex offenders" rules in the US recently. It's much worse than you think.
Somewhere out there, there's a couple who are now happily married. Some years ago, as teens, they had sex. The girl's mom is on the sex offender registry for not preventing this. (Actual case; her name is Janet Allison, and she is "party to the crime of child molestation".)
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Not if it has a small chance of making them less likely to be caught. Then there is a huge incentive.
When are we gonna stop electing these authoritarian nimrods? Sure, use of a social networking site might make a criminal act possible or at least easier, but use of a social networking site is of itself not criminal behavior .
(Yeah, I see the witty opportunity in that last phrase... think Twitter and go for it.)
If Sex Offenders are so bad that we can't let them anywhere near society, why are we letting them out of jail in the first place?
There goes my business plan to start a social network for convicted rapists in the Chicago area.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just because someone has gotten out of jail doesn't mean "their debt is paid". There are lots of things that felons are not allowed to do when they get out of jail, often depending on the crime. Many of them aren't allowed to vote or own firearms. If convicted of driving drunk they may be banned from operating a motor vehicle for a period of months to years. They may be barred from certain professions.
Best Slashdot Co
In many states, you serve "X to Y" - if you are an S.O.B. in jail, you serve longer. Otherwise, you are paroled with restrictions.
In the federal system, for new crimes there is typically no parole BUT there is supervised release for a fixed period of time afterwards. "60 months with 3 years supervised release" amounts to "5-8 years" in the state system, except you are guaranteed parole. For some federal crimes, the supervised release is for life. Of course, in the federal system, the President can always commute your punishment, and end the supervised release early.
The difference between parole/supervised release and sex offender laws is the sex offender restrictions are largely immune from "ex post facto" challenges: As long as there's a credible argument that the laws are protective not punitive is usually enough to get a judge to toss any "but it's ex post facto" suit. Unfortunately, the argument doesn't have to hold water, it just has to sound credible.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why not propose a law that actually classifies social networking use, or even mandates a certain class of sex offenders to make their status known on social networking sites? I think it's pretty obvious that the governor from Illinois is a bit naiive and overreaching in his latest law. Also, I think that the subjectivity of healthy sexual behaviors is largely overlooked by many [puritanistic] lawmakers. Lastly, I don't think the governor is in any way qualified, experienced, or educated enough in the relevant fields to produce laws governing such things - it feels like he's making fluffy political moves based on voters' values, rather than making logical decisions that will yield actual social improvements.
Ponder this scenario... a convicted and registered sex offender living in state that has not passed a similar law visits a social network site. While the offender's data packets are in transit across the Internet, they are passed through a router residing in a state that has passed such a law, e.g. Illinois. Has that person suddenly unwittingly committed a crime and is now prosecutable in IL for the violation? Admittedly, this is an extreme scenario but far from unimaginable (and easily abused, especially if the social networking site's web servers physically reside in a state with a similar law). While it is admirable that the state of Illinois is pushing laws with intent to further protect its state's children (I am making an assumption that this is their true intent), state laws just do not scale well when applied to a system as large and dynamic as the Internet (technically, neither do national laws but that is a discussion for another article on another day).
The less you talk, the more people hear you say.
Another totally useless law that will do nothing to actually prevent actual predators from doing their dirty work. Even if the law actually enforces the local internet providers to block all social network sites from registered sex offender isps (article doesn't mention this), there's nothing to stop a predator from starting a myspace account as twilightfan7788434 at the local internet cafe, or using a neighbor's wireless connection to start chats with minors. However, it will life a lot harder for anyone charged with indecent exposure, or the other relatively minor sex offender charges that put them on the list.
Of course, I'm sure this will get the governor more votes from fretful parents, and any politicians that object to this bill will set themselves up for a great attack ad by their opponents in the next election.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
This was published in 2003 but reflects data from the first 3 years after releases in 1994.
For something that can be as deeply engrained as age-based sexual attraction or sociopathic tendencies that lead to rape, I would like to see 10-years-after-release statistics comparing various sex-offender scenarios with each other and with non-sex offense scenarios.
We also must stop lumping people together as "sex offenders." It's simply not a useful category when it comes to protecting the public from perceived future recidivism risk.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And as a side effect, Illinois can no longer hold political rallies. Not even party specific, if many of the members of either party were to tweet or update their Facebook status while visiting there they would be in violation.
PtPete
Well, THANKFULLY all the social network sites have a rigorous registration application and post-signup screening process, to filter out all these supposed ne'er-do-wells and ensure that only legitimate users with truthful profiles make use of that site and its services. >.>
VPN
It already worked so well for us to ban them from committing a sexual offense in the first place, they'll be unable to chew through our iron red tape in order to offend again.
What if we also ban them from shopping malls and public places? Bars? Really, anywhere where people might be able to meet other people would be good. It's for the greater good.
Another bill, signed on a busy day where Quinn dealt with dozens of bills, deals with child visitation rights. As of Jan. 1, the law will provide for visitation rights through electronic communication such as telephone, e-mail and instant messaging.
Nice.. now some divorsee might only be able to interact with his/her kids via IM or text messaging...
Illiberal Politics: America's Unjust Sex Laws.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Ignoring the constitutional issues, this isn't an entirely bad idea. I do think it should be limited to level 3 offenders so the unfortunate level 1's who have been convicted for sexting themselves as a teenager don't have such a dark shadow following them for the rest of their lives.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Wait, so these are people who, due to their past behavior, can't be trusted to be in contact with the general population, have I got that about right?
Anybody else wonder how come they're out of jail, then?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Let's help these people NOT get laid in a socially acceptable manner. Hell, making it harder for them to make more socially acceptable bonds can only help prevent more evil. Are they using the post office still? Let's ban that too.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
You're raising two different (valid) questions.
One is "why are sex offenders treated worse than murderers". The answer is because *some* types of sex offenders have an extremely high recidivism rate. They're very likely to commit repeat offenses, while *most* murderers are not.
If you're thinking "why are we letting criminals that are almost guaranteed to continue to commit crimes out of jail?", you're probably right.
Your second question is "why are public urination, consumption of porn, and other passive acts categorized together with rape and molestation?"
I don't have a good answer for that one, but it is clearly absurd. Something needs to be done to differentiate the recidivist and harmful crimes from the minor ones and punish the two independently.
So, sex offenders aren't allowed to use LinkedIn, but they're allowed to use AIM, Yahoo and chat rooms? Interesting approach; this is what happens when the government tries to regulate something they know nothing about, and take the easy approach of using overarching, way-too-generalized statements.
Can we ban all convicted felons from the Internet? Where's the interactive maps/lists/databases of those who've committed fraud, DUIs, murder, speeding, etc etc. Stupid handwaving and mindless sheep....blah.
The entire premise is irrational. If there is such a large chance of the violent offenders re-offending then why are they being let out of prison? The primary reason for prison is to protect society not to punish. If politicians think that these people are still dangerous then it is illogical to let them back into society. Letting them back with all these restrictions is simple stupid: it does nothing to protect society and prevents the criminals from reintegrating and possibly leading a somewhat normal life.
... they really can reform themselves ...
man, that is one of the most overused and abused words in america today.
Thank your politicians for watering down the meaning of "sex offender." There was once a time when it actually meant something bad; sex offenders were scum. Now it might mean someone emailed a picture of their naughty bits to a consenting recipient.
Email.
Violent.
Way to go, assholes. Did you make your community safer, or did you actually DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE?!
No you're not. You're considered someone who committed "Indecent exposure." The charges themselves come up when people are looked up in sex offender databases.
I see a lot of comments about how effective this could be - like with the offender just making up a screen name and lying about his status.
Sorry, won't work. Most sex offenders have mandatory logging on all Internet activity. So if the law says they can't have a MySpace account and the log shows they are going to MySpace - BUSTED. And that likely as not is a violation of their parole, so it is back to prison.
Sex offenders have pretty much zero civil rights today. Your actions online are monitored and if you tamper with the monitoring you are violated. If the monitoring (which is collected remotely) shows you are doing something wrong, you are violated. There are really few differences between life in prison and life for a sex offender on the street today.
And the registration laws make it even more interesting. You might as well just have people wear a bright yellow star on their clothes to indicate their status as an outcast. Oh, I guess that has been tried before. It did seem to work for a while, but only for a while.
Maybe we can get a country set aside for sex offenders.
... that's a sex offense!
http://sor.informe.org/cgi-bin/sor/step3.pl?id=5713&search=3&zip=04578&area=5&limiter=
Though I'm sure he did something else, if it's so minor that they plead down to this - why is he a "sex offender"?
"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington)
Obviously he doesn't know what she's talking about. Nearly all "predators" are related to, or are good friends with, the victim. Social networking sites aren't even on the radar.
I hate politicians.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/96/096-0262.htm for what was passed.
1. Move to Illinois.
2. Buy her a somewhat decent Digital Camera.
3. She will eventually post a provocative picture of herself on Facebook or send one to her boyfriend on Myspace.
4. She will then be arrested for distributing child pron because she is 14 and is posting explicit pics of herself.
5. She will be labeled a sex offender and will be Banned from Facebook.
(This has the added benefit that if she dates some loser I can just have a talk with sonny-boy and let him know she is a known sex offender and he will run away and want nothing to do with her.)
Who needs to be parent when the government makes it so gosh darn easy.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Yeah, sex offenders really need to stick to the anti-social networks.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
They also need laws against minors lying about their age on the Internet. A 12-year-old who lies to get on "Facebook" should be charged with a crime as an Adult, and sentenced to a few years in prison
Average internet geeks response to finding out that their GF is a sex offender... "Hot damn! What kind?"
... but impossible to enforce.
Fine, you ban the criminal from using Social Networking. Great idea! How do you enforce it? How do you prevent the predator from contacting his prey? Only one way... take away his computer, no matter what kind it is. Take away his smart phone. Take away his cell phone (it has texting, after all.) Take away everything that could possibly include an ability to access the internet in any form or manner.
Hmmm... doesn't that count as "cruel and unusual punishment?" Too many laws, not enough enforcement. How about fixing the legal system first--it obviously needs help.
Remember when the concern was about a .xxx or .sex domain? No, we couldn't do that, and move everyone to that TLD for easy firewalling- that would make too much sense!
NOW TELL ME how you'll keep a person in *any* locale to stay off the nets, social or otherwise? We can't keep them from being 46 and perverted and looking like a 16YO boy!
Have these poeople ever _BEEN_ on the net?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Funny you should mention that--yesterday I submitted a story about sex offender laws that links to this Economist piece that calls such laws unjust and ineffective. Now that the Illinois story got posted, I suppose /. has exceeded its moral panic issue for the day, but it's nonetheless intriguing that the backlash stories are now cropping up.
Is that if you're old enough to be charged as an adult for a crime, you should legally count as an adult for all other purposes as well..
If I'm comatose for whatever reason - injury, medically-induced coma, or a congenital problem that doomed me to live for decades bedridden and unaware of the world - and you have sex with me, that is non-consensual and a violation of my human rights.
Hence, it is an act of violence.
If I'm drunk and before I got drunk I said "let's get drunk and have sex" that's another matter. Likewise, if I knew I would be in for surgery and I told you to hump me while I'm under and tell me all about it when I wake up, that's okay too. This assumes of course that both of us are consenting adults.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That hurts my heiny-hole! Are you sure this is what we need to do to save Santa?
That sucks. Why should I still have to put up with my twittering twit of a co-worker just because he's NOT a sex offender. If they'd just ban social networking all together, people would have to revert to dealing with each other in person (gasp!), which would prevent and solve all kinds of problems.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson
which has two articles on the ratcheting up of sex offender laws in the US and how they can brand consenting but underage teenagers (both parties as sex offenders). Politicians can't be seen to be "soft on paedophiles" so they legislate blanket measures, rather employing more useful measures like tagging the most dangerous sexual predators so their location can be monitored at all times.
*thinks about the illegal sex acts my wife has done*
Nope, not much of a deterrent, sorry.
the only thing we have to do to never have to worry about Twitter/Facebook/Myspace is to become a sex offender and move to Illinois? Almost sounds worth it to me. Only downside I can see is that you have to move to Illinois.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The first problem with your claim is that the US has dozens of jurisdictions, with different rape/sexual assault laws. You can't flat out assert that that utmost resistance is a requirement for a rape accusation in the USA; you have to name jurisdictions. I can tell you for sure that there is no such provision in California, the most populous of the states. Hell, read the link and see to what lengths they go to make it clear that the threat must not even be violent (many bits omitted):
What is indeed the case is that historically, in many countries' traditional legal system, an utmost resistance standard has existed along the lines that you have mentioned. These requirements have mostly gone away in Western countries, however, along with other sexist requirements such as (a) the victim must not be the wife of the accused (e.g., California has a crime of spousal rape), and (b) the requirement that the alleged rape victim be an "honest" woman (e.g., the "no harm in raping a slut" defense).
Are you adequate?
I don't mean to nitpick, but I'm shocked to see so many of you talk about public urination as a sex offence. In the state of New York it is not even a misdemenor. It is an Infraction. If a police officer stops you and writes a ticket for public urination they will write you a summons for violating NY Administrative Code 16-118(6). This is a $25 fine. I know this from experience. I also have friends who have had 5 of these in less than 2 years.
Ok, but why not just cut of her hands, she'll also be banned from Facebook and you don't even have to move. Anyway, I nominate you for Slashdot parent of the year.
(I'm assuming here you are not criminally insane, just going for funny - please take the response in the same vein.)
More importantly it's a violation of Ex post facto (as most sex offender laws are).
You already convicted and sentenced the person, then you added them to a list which denies them employment and housing, then you want access to their email accounts, now you want to keep them off any "social networking" sites (ie, any site with a forum; AKA most of the internet).
If these punishments weren't part of the original sentencing you can't impose them now.
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "after the fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
(source)
Damn that silly constitution, always getting in the way... Didn't those pesky forefathers know it would make it harder to oppress the people?
Oh that's right, it's a "living document" now, so we can "interpret" all those "SHALL NOT" statements as suggestions or guidelines instead of real directives.
I suspect when you tell a 15 year old boy your daughter is a sex offender what he hears is:
"My daughters easy, and likely to fuck you brains out after giving you the best blow job of your life."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
One is "why are sex offenders treated worse than murderers". The answer is because *some* types of sex offenders have an extremely high recidivism rate. They're very likely to commit repeat offenses, while *most* murderers are not.
Citation needed. Every statistic on the matter I've seen has shown that sex offenders have a relatively low recidivism rate. For example:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism
People like yourself continually repeat that there is high recidivism for sex offenders, without ever backing it up.
I remember reading articles on the woman's magazine Cosmopolitan where one of the tips for spicing up your sex life was to have sex outdoors. It's been that way for years, now it's a crime that can have bigger implications on your life than murder.
Why oh why are the laws in this modern world being made by people who have mental sexual problems. Clearly it is mentally defective to view sex as more devastating than murder.
but something is wrong with betterunicthanlinux.
I just read this guys histroy of posts, and he is a massive idiot. Not a troll or flaimbait, just fucking stupid.
And I don't think very many people are actually stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If punishment were meted out based on the odds of recidivism, we'd give life sentences for speeding and fines for murder.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Being lazy and citing wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates
Figures from a 1994 DOJ study on recidivism indicated that compared to non-sex offender felons, a sex offender was 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.
Being less lazy, the actual rates listed by the DoJ show it to be a bit contrived. The "four times more likely" is comparing ~1.5% to ~5%, and comparing "non-sex offenders committing a followup sex offense" to "sex offenders commiting a followup sex offense".
So the rate is still only 5% for a sex offender to commit another sex offense, according to that statistic. Which yeah, doesn't sound as bad as the "four times as likely" statistic that I'm pretty sure is what I've heard before.
However the wikipedia article also points out this specific stat, particularly relevant to the OP:
Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
Rapists are twice as likely to rape again than murderers are to murder again. Still seems like fairly small percentages overall, but that's also just within 3 years of release.
It's facebook, who gives a shit? I understand that some people are arguing this based on the principle of the thing (the whole 1st amendment thing), but there is definitley precedent for removing/restricting certain liberities from those deemed harmful to society by a jury of their peers (as people have already pointed out with the gun laws for felons). I guess I just have a really hard time sympathizing with Mr. I-have-sex-with-15 year olds or Mr. I-love-kiddie-porn. I don't feel sorry for them to begin with and I certainly don't feel sorry that they can't use facebook or myspace. Facebook and myspace are luxuries, leisure activities at best. They are not necessary, certainly not inherent liberties and I'm not going to shed any tears because sex offenders can't tag pictures of all their "friends" online.
Federal law makes it a crime with a person under 18, but there may be some state line/interstate commerce nexus that needs to be fulfilled.
That bar is set very low.
politicians cater toward the masses (or secretly, to themselves)
All of this over regulation is ineffective because the majority of offenders are relatives and friend of the family (in true molestation cases). The recidivism rate of sex offenders is very low with rehabilitation (therapy). Also, adding unrealistic restrictions cause people to disappear from the registry and stress can be a trigger for recidivism. If that isn't enough, if someone is using a social network to prey on children, they are NOT going to use their real identity anyway. This has NOTHING to do with "protecting" and everything to do with government control and using misinformation to make people feel "safe".
BTW, North Carolina also has a similar law in place.
The crazy thing is, sodomy laws (which encompasses oral sex as well any other non-procreational sexual activity) were only finally ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in the U.S.
Naturally these laws had nothing to do with protecting children; they were usually used to target homosexuals. In fact, of the 70-or-so countries where these laws are still in place, 40 of them only target male homosexual acts.
So the (typically religious) nuts get all fire and brimstone about gay sex between dudes (which is icky and gross and you put it where?) but when it's between women, oh! well... well surely if God had wanted hot lesbian action to be illegal wouldn't have made it so damned arousing. No, can't go making that illegal.
Are you assuming that GP proposed penetration as a necessary condition for rape? I read it as a sufficient condition. And what you call the "assumption that it is a man raping a woman" I call "the use of the kind of rape that's by far most common."
Are you adequate?
I think if I was affected by one of these laws for something completely ridiculous like public urination or having had sex with my 15-year-old girlfriend when I was 15 myself, I'd make myself a bunch crude cloth yellow stars, write public urination/consensual sex etc. on them and sew them onto my clothes. Might even make sure that all of my clothes were in that worn grey colour with the wide worn blue vertical stripes on them. And I'd need the hat as well.
While this might be a bit crude, it's pretty much the only one of the symbols, that the Nazis used to target their 5th rate population with, that people remember.
Now, this would no doubt piss off a lot of people in public, so I'd be sure to keep a large pile of flyers with me, describing not only the Nazi concentration camp badges but also what I've actually done (like taking a leak on a police car or something). Hell, I'm an atheist, but I'd convert to Judaism just to make the point.
These days the only way to get your message across is if you repeatedly kick people in the groin until they stop yelling and start listening. This is a consequence of living in the 20 second century. If you can't make your point in less than 20 seconds, no one will listen. And I'm fairly certain that this kind of outfit would ensure me their attention for more than 20 seconds.
1). Look up a local sex offender on online registry
2). Snap some candid photos of them in public
3). Threaten to make a myspace profile in their name unless the pay up
4). Profit!
Let me rephrase that for you without changing the outcome of the statement:
*some* types of murderers have an extremely high recidivism rate. They're very likely to commit repeat offenses, while *most* sex offenders are not.
All you did was frame your non-answer in way that made it seem like the sex offenders were worse.
Try this one on for size:
Some types of numbers are prime, while most are not
Most types of numbers are not prime, while some are
Surely we as a civilized nation can understand that certain people, whether through disease or deviousness, are simply too dangerous to remain free. Why, we even have a mechanism in our Constitution for an (ideally) fair process whereby we may determine that individuals are incapable of enjoying their God-given freedom responsibly, and deprive them of those freedoms by sticking them in jail, where at the very least they can't do any harm to the rest of us. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if we as a society are of the belief that a convicted sex offender is too dangerous to be out of jail, we should keep him in jail unless and until he demonstrates satisfactorily and beyond a reasonable doubt that he is no longer dangerous. I'm not saying guilty-until-proven-innocent; the burden of proof is always on the state to prove danger, but once that burden is satisfied, the only option a responsible government can take is to keep him locked up. No half-measures. No keep-out-zones. Either he's not dangerous, in which case he should be free, or he is dangerous, and he should never have been let out.
By "some" I meant rapists and child molesters, if that helps define it better for you.
The goal of the statement was to point out that people who urinate in public and similar are not the intended targets of these laws, they're unfortunate splash damage.
I know what you meant by "some". But do you really honestly believe, that there are more rapists and child molesters than the others? And keep in mind, that a 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old is likely to label them as rapist, or that if mom and dad are okay with you having sex with your boy-/girlfriend, then they're also child molesters.
My point was that the actual dangerous sex offenders (the predators) are far far in the minority, whereas very few of the people labelled as murderers are guilty of assisted suicide. Not even people who kill people due to drunk drivers are labelled as murderers, yet two 15-year-olds sending nude pictures to each other are at risk of being labelled sex offenders.
To summarize, I was pointing out that you phrased your statement in such a way, that the sex offenders seem much more dangerous than the murderers.
Wouldn't someone who is looking for sex with little kids.. or whatever the deal is... just use a fake name??? I think that Illinois might be underestimating the intelligence of people here...
Dont agree with this at all. I am a republican too!
It is not the governments decision on who can and cannot use the internet...
I am an atheist but I do not want the catholic church to be silenced because they should have the same free speech rights that I have (plus its fun to debate with them).
By the same token a Sex offender should not have his free speech limited.
not if you rent a wood chipper
I knew a gal in an apartment I lived in (in Phoenix) who once flashed er boobs to a couple of adult males (I missed 'em). The manager called the police and they charged her with a sex crime. I spoke with her about a year later, she was homeless and living on the street or with any guy that would let her stay. After the flashing and sex crime she was thrown out of the apartment. No other apartment in Phoenix would rent to her because of the crime free lease addendums.
How many other stories are there about people getting charged with a sex crime for taking a leak outside?
If this gets enforced strickly, how many people will have to log-off? Is Slashdot considered a social network site?
Kevin
Irrational Diversions
It's worth pointing out that for other criminals during this same time-span, the re-arrest rate is greater than 60%
Which makes the whole "*some* types of sex offenders have an extremely high recidivism rate. They're very likely to commit repeat offenses," (direct quote)... seem very skewed.
I guess I should point out that you're right in saying that murderers apparently have a lower rate of recidivism than sex offenders.
But you neglected to point out that these two categories are ranked, respectively, #1 and #2 in LOWEST recidivism amongst all categories of crimes, violent or not.
From this week's Economist:
"ONE day in 1996 the lights went off in a classroom in Georgia so that the students could watch a video. Wendy Whitaker, a 17-year-old pupil at the time, was sitting near the back. The boy next to her suggested that, since it was dark, she could perform oral sex on him without anyone noticing. She obliged. And that single teenage fumble wrecked her life.
Her classmate was three weeks shy of his 16th birthday. That made Ms Whitaker a criminal. She was arrested and charged with sodomy, which in Georgia can refer to oral sex. She met her court-appointed lawyer five minutes before the hearing. He told her to plead guilty. She did not really understand what was going on, so she did as she was told.
She was sentenced to five years on probation. Not being the most organised of people, she failed to meet all the conditions, such as checking in regularly with her probation officer. For a series of technical violations, she was incarcerated for more than a year, in the county jail, the state women's prison and a boot camp. "I was in there with people who killed people. It's crazy," she says.
She finished her probation in 2002. But her ordeal continues. Georgia puts sex offenders on a public registry. Ms Whitaker's name, photograph and address are easily accessible online, along with the information that she was convicted of "sodomy". The website does not explain what she actually did. But since it describes itself as a list of people who have "been convicted of a criminal offence against a victim who is a minor or any dangerous sexual offence", it makes it sound as if she did something terrible to a helpless child. She sees people whispering, and parents pulling their children indoors when she walks by."
So we want to tell this woman she also can't use facebook? Good one.
Any nation that only *pretends* to be democratic needs mechanisms to control its citizens, to threaten them with extra-judicial, unsupervised events that can ruin their life.
Q.E.D..
This is set by a man that considers no rights when he plans to limit the reach of the sex offender, he still has a right to communicate
with people he knows, that are not under aged. He also has a right to use facebook to look up long lost friends from class or
hotmail (yes it would fall under consideration as asocial network)...which means technically you are saying he is not allowed to email
Why stop there, why not say you cant use the phone because you might call a minor....etc. This guy is a dolt, and should not be in politics deciding what OUR laws are, when he can't even understand the gravity of the case he is trying to impose.
I guess there goes my business plan for a social network for convicted sex offenders.
--Jim (me)
This is an easy one:
In a murder someone dies, there is pain and closure. It happens and there is nothing you can do about it, someone is dead.
Sex crimes are where the victim lives to tell the tail. The lingering "pain" and "emotional suffereing' cause this to be a more serious crime to society as both the perpetrator and the victim still live.
Death is a finality. Rape lasts for a lifetime.
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
"It's hard to argue that at the very least a threat level classification for sex offenders wouldn't be a good idea"
I agree that it is hard to argue that, since I have read it five times and still do not understand what you are trying to say.
rape affects an individual and those closest to them, murder affects everyone who knew the deceased.
Both are horrible things to endure. I know.
Death is a finality. Rape lasts for a lifetime.
So...by your logic, murder should be one of the most lightly punished crimes of all.
After all, someone attempting to murder you but failing is a very traumatic experience, that stays with you forever.
Being mugged at gunpoint isn't something you're likely to forget soon.
Losing all your money to a Wall Street ponzi scheme is a terrible shock, that can affect you and your family for not just your life, but your children's lives, as they will have to grow up in poverty.
...Do you begin to see where your theory falls down?
Yes, rape is a terrible and traumatic crime. However, if you survive something, there is the chance of picking up the pieces and having a life again on the other side. I personally know someone who was raped as a teenager. She is now happily married and living a perfectly normal life.
If she had been murdered instead of raped, that wouldn't be the case.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Would this cover any web site that has a "forums" or other section allowing posting of comments by users?
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.