Slashdot Mirror
Federal Appeals Court Says Sex Offender's Computer Ban Unfair
crimeandpunishment writes "A federal appeals court says a 30-year computer restriction for a convicted sex offender was too stiff a punishment. The man, who was caught in an Internet sex sting, had been ordered not to own or even use a computer." The D.C. Circuit Court's opinion in the case against Mark Wayne Russell is available as a PDF; slightly longer coverage from the Courthouse News Service.
Why not just cut off his balls?
Given the increasing amount of professions that require the use of a computer, it would make more sense to monitor.
As much as I want to see guilty people get punished, things like this that are a de facto sort of life sentence (even after release from jail) don't make sense either.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Are computers now so ubiquitous, and potentially so broadly defined, that they're a necessity? Is an Android phone a computer? What about your Tivo? Is banning someone from a computer restraint of trade these days?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Pedophiles who contact their victims over phone aren't banned from ever using a phone, yet apparently some judge thought it would be a good idea to prevent a system engineer of 10 years (from the article) from using a computer. A three judge panel concluded that "it is often necessary to use a computer to apply for a job, including at McDonald's and PETCO."
Why the heck do we have judges who are so out of touch with reality making these sorts of mistakes? If the guy can't use a computer and really wanted to meet kids online, what's to stop him from getting an iPhone or a Blackberry? Justice isn't about revenge, it's about upholding the law and meting out punishment and forcing rehabilitation onto perpetrators. Along the way it became about taking someone off the streets for a time while teaching them the best way to commit crimes and not get called. (It's called jail). And now, we've moved onto some judges literally telling criminals that even when they're not in jail, they can't be a part of modern society at all? [sarcasm] That'll work really well to keep pedos from kids [/sarcasm]
Signatures are the new names.
Unlike receiving a DUI conviction and losing your license, while you are at the helm of your computer you do not risk careening into the other lane and killing a bus full of people. The computer is just a utility, not the vector.
The computer doesn't do the molesting, molester's do the molesting. The computer is one utility of many. If we start piecemeal restricting people from the things that could be used to aid in causing harm, what will we have left? Typical America, treating the symptoms, not the problems.
Props to the appeals court for finally realizing this stupidity.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
OK, no computers? So, No iphone? No Crackberry? No emergency transpoder in his car? No calculator? No video camera? No Digital Audio Converter? WTF?
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Look, computers can not, and will not molest anyone. Heck, you can't even violate someone using -only- a computer. You can't commit rape over a computer or molest someone over a computer.
Part of having a free society is once you have paid your debt via restitution you should be free.
If he was really that much of a danger to society he should be in jail. But seeing as he didn't actually -do- anything, I don't see the point of him being in jail.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The guy set out to methodically groom what he thought was a 13 year old girl for sex. If you think a 30 year computer ban is too harsh, then fine, let's just throw him back in jail instead. Happy now?
The key word here is thought. Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes? And precisely who is the victim here (other than the defendant, and possibly the taxpayer)?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Why not? They do it with guns.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Problem is, we're doing a really bad job separating the folks that "just want to have fun" with the folks that want to rape and murder children. Sometimes there is "crossover" where someone that apparently just wanted to have fun turns around and kills their next conquest.
Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
The alternative would be just keeping them all in jail or killing them. Both are pretty expensive - the cheap solution is to find a way to make sure they can't re-offend, or if they start to display offending behavior that their parole is violated. Not anywhere near as certain as keeping them in prison or killing them, but much much cheaper.
I think counterproductive is probably a better way to describe it than unfair. If you expect someone to be released from jail and become somehow productive again, you can't really deprive them of the use of a computer these days. It may make sense for some sort of usage restriction, like you can only use the computer access at some sort of kiosk or supervised area or at work, but you can't own one or you can't have internet access or something like that.
However, a complete ban on usage of computers these days is like banning him from using a phone or the mail. Otherwise you might as well hand him an address for a homeless shelter and instructions on how to pick up his welfare checks, because he's going to be entirely useless to anyone from then on. I think the only thing worse than releasing a predator back into the community is having to pay taxes to keep said pedophile alive while he could be working for a living (and paying his own taxes).
Walking free is also a right, yet many people get life sentences. That's not really an argument, unless you're from a country like mine, where there a no life sentences.
Dilbert RSS feed
On a few different levels, this reminds me of the the recent arguments towards 3 strikes and loss of internet access for pirating files.
Anyone who thinks someone should lose their balls for pedophilia would most likely also agree that loss of internet for file sharing is as just.
And any judge who thinks that loss of internet is too harsh of a punishment for pedophilia must also agree that loss of internet for filing sharing is too harsh.
Unless the judge thinks that file sharing is worse then pedophilia that is.
I am of the opinion that if you restrict someone to a life of poverty--punishing them in a way that guarantees that they can't get virtually any straight job--you will create a lifetime criminal. We need to have a solid system of re-entry after someone has paid their debt to society, and do as much as we can to help them become productive people.
Think about who is paying the cost of making sure someone a criminal for life...that's gotta hurt the tax wallet.
Perhaps it would be better not to sentence innocent people in the first place. It's pretty hard to argue about punishments as long as you can't even trust the system with that.
Ok, you invent the technique that only allows the conviction of guilty parties. The only one that currently exists is to have no law, therefore no guilt and no convictions. Total anarchy sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.
That doesn't mean that our system is perfect, or even that it doesn't have a few major problems. It will always have some innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit. It will take a truly significant "advancement" to change that. (some of those possible advancements would make Orwell cringe.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
30 years is actually an extreme version of a very common form of "things that are quite clearly permanent". If someone innocent spends 6 months in jail, it is just as permanent, equally unjust, only less damaging. They will never regain that time.
Similarly, someone who spends untold hours over several years fighting off a frivolous lawsuit (and earning the money to pay the lawyer's fees) has permanently lost time from their lives that they will never get back. It doesn't take criminal law to cause irreparable damage. Civil law does so regularly. (just less spectacularly)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You're just not allowed to own one. They don't say that you can't walk past the gun store.
Also, you don't use a gun to apply for (most?) jobs.
there's a slight difference - a gun is for killing. a bat isn't. similarly, computers aren't for molesting.
I don't use a gun for killing. Not even hunting. I just like to go to the range and do some target shooting. So fuck you.
There is a difference.
Many pedophiles go without Heck, many gay men and straight men are celibate as well. Celibate pedophiles are still pedophiles.
Many child molesters are not pedophiles. They are motivated by power or other issues besides romance or their own orgasm.
In most countries, pedophilia is not a crime. In the few that it is a crime, it's the very definition of a thought-crime.
In most or all countries, child molestation is a crime, as it should be.
By the way, there are so-called "adult" relationships that are very power-imbalanced. Whether it's the boss with his secretary, or a sophisticated person with someone who can vote but has the emotional maturity of a middle school student, the result is the same: An emotionally unequal but usually perfectly legal relationship.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.