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.
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.
Not to mention it's impossible to rectify a mistake or miscarriage of justice. (Which is most of the reason why I'm against the death penalty, though that's somewhat beside the point)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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
Depends on the type of monitoring. I think it would be reasonable to prohibit the use of certain services and websites, but there's a lot of potential for abuse here especially once you get into spyware territory. We can't simply discard concerns about government intrusion and abuse of power just because the case involves sex offenders.
People organize their entire lives on computers, they're a virtual extension of your mind in many ways. If we get used to the idea that government can impose total monitoring on a computer because of some criminal punishment, what sort of other offenses will it end up being used for?
The criminal justice system is for justice, not revenge.
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.
No the end results are not the same. Quite honestly being homosexual, or being a pedophile in the most pure sense (someone who likes underage kids) is just the same as a man preferring say, latina women or asian women. If someone likes beautiful women that doesn't mean that he will sleep with them, same thing with homosexuality and pedophilia. Just because someone is sexually attracted to something doesn't mean that they will actually have sex with them. Otherwise, we'd all have supermodel wives.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Not to mention it's impossible to rectify a mistake or miscarriage of justice.
I have to say, I've never understood this argument. I would regard the loss of my freedom as being as bad as the loss of my life. Are you really going to tell me that the state can repay someone who spent 30 years behind bars for a crime they didn't commit?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
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).
I suspect you're trolling, but I'll give an answer anyway.
The difference is in the power differential. With pedophilia, the relationship is between an adult and a child. The child hasn't the maturity to understand the relationship, to make a decision for him or herself about whether or not the relationship is right or wrong, and to meaningfully disagree with the adult. Because all the power in the relationship is in one side, the relationship cannot be balanced and healthy. When the child is prepubescent, he or she would not have the same physical attraction as an adult, and therefore cannot participate in the relationship at the same level. Pedophilia is equally wrong when the adult is male or female, or the child is male or female.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a relationship between two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex. They are both presumed to be mature enough to understand what a sexual relationship means, and to consent to be in one. Although one individual may have a somewhat more forceful personality than the other, both have the ability to influence the relationship, and to leave it if they choose.
So, when a male hockey coach has sex with the 9 year old boys on his team, that is reprehensible because it is pedophilia, not because it is homosexual.
The reason pedophilia is considered reprehensible is because it tends to leave the children emotionally damaged, unable to form proper relationships, and generally messed up for life.
There is one respect where they are similar. Most people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex who are similar to them. Mature adults are very different from children, so an adult who is sexually attracted to a child is very unusual, like someone who is sexually attracted to a dog or a toaster. Some research shows that about 1% of the population is primarily attracted to children, and about 10% is attracted to the same sex.
In summary: being attracted to the same sex is somewhat unusual (~10%), whereas being attracted to children is very unusual (~1%). Engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult of the same sex is no worse than (and no better than) a mature relationship between equals of the opposite sex. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is a highly uneven relationship which results in severe psychological damage to the child.
That's how they are different.
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
No, but at least they can let them out. Corpses stay in the ground.
Tell that to Jesus!
Given that some 5% of males are gay, it seems a bit ridiculous to call it an abnormal any more than calling ginger hair abberant. Calling it a 'mistake' is simply flamebait. Also, given that non-reproducing males offer a survival benefit for their own genetics through support of their siblings offspring (the so-called gay uncle), I would disagree that homossexuality is an inherently gene-terminal condition. In fact, in cases where resources are tight, more gay males would increase population fitness by focussing more resources on fewer children and so increasing their survival potential.
Also, many gay and bi males still want offspring and produce them, even though their primary attraction is to other males. I know a few gay/bi people who have successfully reared children.
And don't forget - there are heterosexual pedophiles too. The notion that homosexuals are more likely to mollest children was FUD spread by the religious right in the late 80s and early 90s to whip up public vehemence against gay people.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.