Slashdot Mirror


New York State Releases Sex Offender Facebook App

Just in time for Halloween, the New York state Division of Criminal Justice Services launched a Facebook application to help families know which houses contain sexual offenders. “Knowledge is power. New Yorkers now have another way to access up-to-date information about sex offenders in their neighborhoods,” DCJS Acting Commissioner Sean M. Byrne said in a release. “With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as strangers’ homes. The Facebook app puts that important information at parents’ fingertips, whether they are at home or on the go.”

52 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Scarlet Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Might as well have them wear a big ol' S.

    1. Re:Scarlet Letter by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

      New York State also decided to kill 2 birds with 1 stone and also just released their "Catholic Church Locator" app.

    2. Re:Scarlet Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reminds me of je Jew star jews in the 3rd Reich had to wear.

      Also, why not Wall Street bankers? (Fake golden bling S.)
      Every single one of them caused more harm than all sex offenders of New York combined.

      The point of jail is, that when one is out, one is officially forgiven!
      If you think they shouldn't be forgiven that "early", you should, you know, increase jail time! Duh!
      And if you think it's long enough, then forgive them!

      But hey, the problem is jail itself. As it does not only do absolutely zero to help those people to change. (Yes, help. They need help. Because there's a reason people become sex offenders. And it's not pretty. Which won't change. No matter how much you hate them.)
      No, it even makes things worse.
      Those people will only be more mentally fucked-up after jail. Never less!
      So they are more likely to do it again. Even (especially?) when they think it changed them.

      Which means, that people who just jail sex offenders, instead of actually fixing the cause and the problem, are just as much responsible for them doing it again.
      It's like when you get hit in the face, and you don't defend yourself but just lock him him with a pack of wolves. When he comes out of course he's gonna kick your ass even more! And you knew it would happen too!

  2. Why just sex offenders? by ccguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a lot of other crimes that are dangerous to neighbors, why just this one? And no I'm not advocating for all (or none), just asking why this one is singled out.

    1. Re:Why just sex offenders? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? So you can move into a house in 5 years and wonder Facebook labels you a sex offender.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:Why just sex offenders? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because most people forget(willingly or not) that most children are kidnapped/molested by family members or people that are familiar to them (close neighbors, family friends, etc). People also forget that "sex offender" covers a lot more than just rape. They could have been 17 and had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend. They could have hired a prostitute. Or they could have simply pissed in the park. "Sex offender" is to the state what "terrorism" is to the federal government. Is it a real problem and a serious concern? Yes. However, it is usually pulled out and used as a boogeyman to scare people, or to make people feel like something has been done when nothing has.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Why just sex offenders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They also forget that "sex offender" doesn't just mean pedophile. Large portions of the "sex offender" list, even those not convicted of frivolous offenses, would have no interest in molesting your child.

    4. Re:Why just sex offenders? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I want to know how broad this covers.
      31 y/o having sex with a 5 y/o?
      18 y/o having sex with a 17.9999999999 y/o?
      Drunk college kid peeing on a dumpster at 2 am "exposing" himself?
      What about the 16 y/o that sent nude photos of her/himself to another 16 y/o. One getting charged with creation of and the other distribution of 'child pornography.

      In its current form most states "sexual offenders list" is dang near useless.

      And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.

    5. Re:Why just sex offenders? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.

      Their heads would explode if they learned they themselves were more likely to sexually assault their own children than some stranger.

    6. Re:Why just sex offenders? by Isaac-1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The sad thing at least around here is so many people that are registered sex offenders are on the list by taking a plea bargin to avoid the chance of going to jail. Many is not most of these cases have no evidence, and are just he said / she said. Cases where the ex wife bribes the teen age daughter to tell the police the deadbeat dad molested her, and similar. Without going into too many details I know of one case where charges were filed 10 years after the "incident" where the girl charged the then 18 year old brother of her friend with molesting her during a sleep over, the brother had proof he was not in the house that night (working night shift at a grocery store), yet he still ended up as a registered sex offender, and was banned from living in the same house with his own children.

    7. Re:Why just sex offenders? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well in NY you are relatively screwed but if you are less than 5 years older than the person under 17 you only get a Class A or B misdemeanor depending on what you did. Many states have nothing if you are within 2 years. It varies everywhere but believe it or not there is some sanity when it comes to these things.

    8. Re:Why just sex offenders? by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      There's a lot of other crimes that are dangerous to neighbors, why just this one? And no I'm not advocating for all (or none), just asking why this one is singled out.

      Because the data is available. Sex offenders are unique in that they are required to register their residence in many states and that information is public. I do not believe there is a similar registration requirements for drunk drivers, for instance. Combine that with the nature of the crime and you have an easy application to sell.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    9. Re:Why just sex offenders? by Ryantology · · Score: 2

      18 y/o having sex with a 17.9999999999 y/o?.

      If you can't wait 1/500000th of a second, you deserve whatever happens to you.

    10. Re:Why just sex offenders? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What about the 16 y/o that sent nude photos of her/himself to another 16 y/o. One getting charged with creation of and the other distribution of 'child pornography.

      My personal favorite is when they want the 16 year old who took the picture of him/herself tried as an adult for creating child pornography.

      So you have an adult (assumed maturity and greater power) being charged for taking pornographic pictures of a child (assumed innocence and inability to fight back) when the adult pornographer and the violated child are THE EXACT SAME PERSON AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

      How did we develop a legal system so retarded that an argument that requires you to doublethink a single person into mature victimizer and immature victim doesn't get laughed out of court and is instead made precedent?

    11. Re:Why just sex offenders? by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words, the Court system will happily allow itself to be used to commit a crime, as long as you pretend the issue is sexual.

      Thanks Puritanism, you've done wonders for the nation.

    12. Re:Why just sex offenders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He said / she said and the real victim is too poor to get a decent lawyer, and you get listed for life. Hurray for social justice in the land of the free, right? Right?

    13. Re:Why just sex offenders? by nbauman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, they're not allowed to post Level 1 sex offenders online.
      http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/SomsSUBDirectory/search_index.jsp

      You can search for the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act to find out what that is.

      I checked the postings to find horror stories of 20-year-old guys busted for having sex with their 16-year-old girlfriends, but I couldn't find any.

      These guys seem to be real creeps, having sex with 13-year-old girls, 9-year-old boys, etc.

      I wonder what the recidivism rate is. Unless it's very low I wouldn't feel safe letting them out at all.

      If they really are likely to re-offend, I'd like to see them kept in a non-punitive, least-restrictive environment. Same with anybody who's convicted of crimes that are a danger to society. Violent crimes too.

      But then we'd need rational laws, and I don't see that anywhere on the horizon.

    14. Re:Why just sex offenders? by wonkavader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After they're caught, it's very rare for these guys to repeat offend.

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates

      Treatment works for these guys. You're far more likely to be molested by someone who's never been caught and thus never gotten treatment. If authorities want to spend money on this with an aim towards helping people, they should make sure that kids know what to do, that parents know what to do, that law enforcement knows what to do, such that the first crime leads to treatment.

      But that's not what this game is about. It's not really about protecting the children. It's about scapegoats.

    15. Re:Why just sex offenders? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, the point stands that a couple in their junior year of high school will have an arbitrary window where they are 'eligible' top be branded for life. The day before that window and the day after, the same activity is just fine from a legal point of view.

      Of course, we reach maximum absurdity when a 16 year old sexts and gets charged for child pornography. Naturally, the DA wants to try them as an ADULT. And you thought wave/particle duality was confusing.

  3. But Why? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would you avoid sex offenders on Halloween? They always have the best candy!

    On a more serious note, while "knowledge is power"; garbage in still means garbage out. "Level 1", "Level 2" and "Level 3" are practically designed to tell you fuck all of actual use. Is a "level 3" forcible rapist with no interest in children more dangerous than a "level 1" pedophile? Well, that sort of depends on who you are, doesn't it? Are sex offenders(those who actually target strangers, rather than the common-but-less-polite-to-discuss trusted adults known to the victim) actually dumb enough to do their re-offending on their own doorsteps, rather than at less obvious locations?

    This application seems like a fantastic tool for people afflicted with nebulous anxiety who feel the need to refine that into focused, concrete fear; but it seems magnificently ill-suited to any actual public safety objective...

  4. Politics by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sex sells.
    Fear, uncertainty, and doubt sell.
    Providing a "solution" to fear, uncertainty, and doubt sells.

    Combine all 3 and it's the politician's re-election trifecta.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Politics by atriusofbricia · · Score: 2

      Sex sells.
      Fear, uncertainty, and doubt sell.
      Providing a "solution" to fear, uncertainty, and doubt sells.

      Combine all 3 and it's the politician's re-election trifecta.

      I'm going to guess it's this, plus the one/two punch of being able to look like you're doing something (as opposed to actually fixing a problem) and who will step up and defend these "offenders" by pointing out the silliness of it all? Makes it pretty easy to institute more and more controls that can easily be expanded later.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

  5. Let the lawsuits begin ... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What it says

    parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations

    What it really means

    vigilantes now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as beat the crap out of them and torch their homes, even if it means endangering others at the same location, or targeting the wrong person because the perp moved elsewhere and nobody updated the database.

    1. Re:Let the lawsuits begin ... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Happened in England.

      NOTW published the addresses up and down the country. Got at least one wrong and at least one innocent person got beat up.

      Murdoch, such a classy guy.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Let the lawsuits begin ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      But as far as I know there are already interactive maps showing this same info out there, New York just make it slightly easier to access.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  6. Trick or treat is dead in NY? by vlm · · Score: 2

    With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to ...ensure their children stay away from ... strangers’ homes

    For real? In NY kids only trick or treat at family and friend-of-families houses? That must be weird. Everywhere I have ever lived, kids visit every house that has a light on, like a candy assembly line or something.

    Locally we worked around the whole offender thing by passing one law that forbids offenders from living within Z thousand feet of an elementary school, another law requiring elementary schools in the city limits to be within 2 * Z thousand feet of each other, and finally only permitting new housing developments where the most distant home is less than Z thousand feet of the local elementary school. There are weird corner cases of grandfathered in homes in the old parts of the city and bordering industrial areas where the offenders all live. I have checked the maps and its certainly a growth industry, the offender rate must exceed at least 0.1% of the population. They are forming dense little colonies of perversion within those restricted zones.

    I frankly worry a heck of a lot more about my neighbor with eight DUIs running my kids over, or the biker gang down the street getting in a shoot out (note, move in "nearby" a biker gang, because they're smart enough not to soil where they sleep, and other criminals are scared of them, so its actually a very pleasant crime free neighborhood...

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Trick or treat is dead in NY? by MimeticLie · · Score: 2

      This American Life did a story on the very thing you mention, although probably in a different city. In Miami, you have to live 2500 feet from a school, park, or daycare if you're a sex offender. Try going half a mile in a major city without running into one of those things. Pretty difficult. So, as in your case, they just move to the corner cases. Specifically, camping under a bridge.

  7. Thankfully, this at least can be erased by davidwr · · Score: 2

    Once your registration expires or the conviction or registration requirement is overturned, sites that continue to claim you are a registered sex offender are not immune from libel/slander lawsuits if they keep the info up once they are notified that it is no longer current.

    Most states REQUIRE that sites that have the full sex-offender-database online (vs. just a blog that happens to mention that one particular so-and-so is a registered sex offender as of the date of the posting) check it against the official list on a regular basis and remove outdated information.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  8. Now I'll know... by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now I have yet another source to see where every dude in town who had to take a leak really bad and went in the bushes lives. Newsflash, the vast majority of "sex offenders" haven't violated anyone's rights. They are not child molestors, rapists, or anything like that. Most are just people who took a discrete leak in public and someone happened upon them or other nonsense like that. This "war" on sex offenders is getting to be as ridiculous as the "war" on drugs. The "sex offender" label is just another way to collect taxes and ruin people's lives, which seems to be the goal of the police and courts anymore. There are already laws against assault, abduction, and other truly violent crimes. No need for "sex offender" laws as it's already covered under so many other laws.

  9. Re:Sex offenders=horrible child rapists by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    Like that woman in whatever state it was who allowed her 15 3/4-year-old daughter to have sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend (which, by the way, would be legal "parental consent" in many states)? The woman who is now labeled for life as a "sex offender" even though the daughter the boyfriend are now married and were never charged with anything?

    I know of a case in Idaho, not many years ago, in which a man went to state prison for having oral sex with his WIFE.

    I agree: actual, intentional molestation of a child is one thing. Many of our laws, though, have become something else entirely.

    This "sex offender" BS is an embarrassment to America. It needs to go away.

  10. label by rish87 · · Score: 2

    I've always hated the "sex offender" label and how they are all lumped together and put on display. I've read articles about guys in some states being labeled "sex offenders" because of indecent exposure charges against them due to peeing outside. I've looked at the sex offender maps around where I live and there are poor guys on there because they were 18 and had sex with a 17 year old, visible right next to the 50 year old man who raped a 1 year old baby. How can we pretend these are equivalent crimes that require public warnings?

    1. Re:label by gearsmithy · · Score: 2

      Agreed. If you're going to tack a life-long punishment to somebody for a "sex offense" then just send them to prison for life. I thought that once you've paid your debt to society you are no longer in debt, these registries are basically just modern day scarlet letters.

    2. Re:label by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      If we're talking about most states, we might as well point out that 16 is legal anyway in most states.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_North_America.svg

  11. Status update: by xiao_haozi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NYPD just tagged you in a photo.

  12. They should make up their minds. by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are these people safe reformed citizens who should be free intermix with normal people.
    Or are the dangerous criminals who should be locked up.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:They should make up their minds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The statistical answer is that they have the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime other than first-degree murder.

      The political answer differs substantially.

  13. Trick or Treating by residieu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Teach your kids Common Sense when they go Trick or Treating. Don't go into the houses of anyone you don't know. Don't trick or treat alone. I seriously doubt any sex offender is going to snatch children out of a pack of Trick or Treaters and drag them into their house to molest them.

    1. Re:Trick or Treating by residieu · · Score: 2

      I said don't go INTO the houses of people you don't know. Knock on the door, take the candy and leave.

  14. Mod parent insightful by davidwr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think most people would agree that homosexuality is not a choice, and most would agree that people do not elect to be sexually attracted to children.

    They need counselling and in the extreme cases some form of chemical castration.

    Agreed wholeheartedly.

    When you have a biological need that can only be satisfied by harming others or, for that matter, doing things that are so strongly counter-cultural that you must not do it in the culture you live in (e.g. polygamy in many countries or cultures, including most devout religious communities in the United States), then society not only MUST make counseling available but do so in a way that doesn't DISCOURAGE people from getting it. If people are afraid to tell their therapist "I'm in love with 2 women but I know God doesn't want me to sleep with both of them" or "I'm in love with my 6 year old cousin who lives next door but I know God and society don't want me to take him to bed" then we have a serious problem, one that will result in higher incidences of child abuse.

    As for chemical castration:

    Very few people are so controlled by their bodies that they cannot "say no" if they want to badly enough. However, it should be available as a tool to tone down the biological urges for those who would rather have low or no libido than live with a libido which they cannot satisfy without hurting others.

    Chemical castration as a way to voluntarily lower libido isn't just for pedophiles and sex addicts. I wouldn't be surprised if more than one devout Roman Catholic man who has a civil divorce would prefer to lower his natural libido than be forced to live with a life of celibacy with his current sex drive. Unfortunately, because of its unpleasant side-effects, these drugs are too dangerous to use as a mere "lifestyle aid" when a libido which cannot be ethically satisfied is a mere annoyance - when it is not driving a person to want to sexually abuse others and it is not driving them to crippling depression or suicide.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Mod parent insightful by Grishnakh · · Score: 3

      ... then society not only MUST make counseling available but do so in a way that doesn't DISCOURAGE people from getting it. If people are afraid to tell their therapist ...

      Counselors in this country are frequently not only useless, but downright dangerous. I'm not sure if it's because of the counseling profession or because of stupid laws. I knew a guy once who was going through a bitter divorce with a cheating wife, and so he went to counseling to talk about his issues, which you'd think is a good idea. I guess he expressed some feelings of anger and wanting to hurt her (not saying he would, just that he has those feelings, and who wouldn't in that situation?), and next thing he knew, there was a cop there trying to pry information out of him.

      This country is all about overzealous "law enforcement", and finding anything possible to use against normal citizens as an excuse to throw them in jail. Of course, with the world's highest per-capita incarceration rate, this is self-evident. It also shouldn't be any surprise our economy is teetering on the verge of collapse, since we lock away so many of our productive citizens (at great cost), and then the ones who get out are prevented from having a job and are required to turn to further crime to survive.

  15. I need an Abusive Policeman App. by dweller_below · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I need an app that will help me track abusive policemen.

    At this point, it seems like there is a much greater need to track abusive policemen than sex offenders. After all, if a sex offender causes problems, you call the police and they get put away. But if you are abused by a policeman, then calling the police just gets you more abuse.

    I have a much greater need to track Tony Boloney http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/19/tony-bologna-with-a-side-of-pepper-spray-docked-10-vacation-days-videos/ than some random kink.

    Abusive police we have with us always. We can't get rid of them. Our only defense is to track them and keep our distance.

    Miles

  16. Varies by state and time by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most states have Romeo and Juliet laws and those that don't typically don't AUTOMATICALLY put young offenders with close-in-age partners on the sex-offender registry even if they are convicted of statutory rape or equivalent.

    Most states don't put first-time misdemeanor offenders on the registry. This includes the drunk exposing himself when he didn't know there were kids around AND when there weren't likely to be children around.

    While some teens have been charged with sexting to age-peers, most states and prosecutors look for other charges or are modifying the laws so these aren't considered registration-required offenses. Even the federal prosecutors are loathe to prosecute things that teenagers commonly do as sex crimes.

    it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.

    Or, possibly even more likely, an older or same-aged family member or neighbor. I wonder how common forced/coerced incest is among 2-child families where the male is 2-10 years older than the female AND where, as the older child, he's routinely been required to babysit the younger one from the time he was 11 or 12 until the time she was the same age?

    I wonder how often the parents find out but, because they don't want to ruin their son's life with even a juvenile sex-offense conviction, they handle it "within the family," depriving the younger child of helpful counseling and POSSIBLY (if the local prosecutors have youthful-offender pre-trial diversion programs that the family may not be aware of) necessary counseling for the older one?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Varies by state and time by AlamedaStone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how common forced/coerced incest is among 2-child families where the male is 2-10 years older than the female

      You know, women can commit sexual assault too... Assuming a sexual aggressor is always male is the same kind of reasoning as the parents who assume a stranger is more likely to kidnap their child. Our society seems to hold less animosity towards female-on-male sexual abuse, but it still happens.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  17. Re:Can we, please, do the same for sociopaths? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    So prevent them from having any privacy, and also prevent them from any meaningful employment or source of income. Surely then they will just "disappear" and not bother you anymore instead of oh I don't know, turn to crime to support themselves or I know, re-offend knowing full well they will get both food and shelter (and even privacy) when they are in jail again? Great plan.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  18. Who are the "they" by davidwr · · Score: 2

    Are these people safe reformed citizens who should be free intermix with normal people.
    Or are the dangerous criminals who should be locked up

    Are you talking about registered sex offenders or people obsessed with finding out where registered sex offenders live?

    Just curious.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  19. Unusual punishment? by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't a punishment that's applied only to one form of crime fall under the Eight Amendment?

    1. Re:Unusual punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You seem to think the Constitution matters anymore.

    2. Re:Unusual punishment? by Tacvek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The amendment clearly states "Cruel and Unusual punishment". The sex offenders registry system has long be ruled to not qualify as punishment (which is obviously bullshit). Such new measures would likely get the same treatment.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    3. Re:Unusual punishment? by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      it makes things worse that you can end up on the list when you're a minor yourself, sexting a friend.

      when everyone's on the register, the app will be useless and "the children" will be at risk again.

  20. Because paedophiles are the undefendable in public by goldcd · · Score: 3

    and therefore make a great target for any politician/newspaper wanting to drum up some publicity.
    Ever noticed anybody willing to put their head above the parapet and defend them?

    Attempting to do so is way beyond my personal abilities, but the f'in inconsistencies in the arguments beggar belief.
    Just to take an example - is paedophilia a crime or a disease? If it's a disease, something they have no control over, then it should be treated like any other with care and compassion - but it can't be a disease, because then we wouldn't feel comfortable demanding they're strung up from the nearest lamp-post.
    So - we're stuck with 'crime', a voluntary act they chose to make because they're 'evil' (we so so so want them just to be evil (like Nazis), rational analysis throws up so many 'hard-thinks'). So. Criminals they are - except they're not allowed to be rehabilitated. Their crime is so great that it must be branded upon them for life. Their houses must be marked. Neighbours must be warned. People must cross the street - I'm pretty sure these are all wonderfully well targeted techniques at integrating people back into society.

    There are loads of parallels you could take as examples - how for example the USA gets pulled into politics in certain parts of the world.
    The "USA" is a great big complex thing, that's done some good things and some really bad things. It's not an actual thing you can point, shout or reason with - it's an amorphous concept. Yet - in many parts of the world, if things are going a bit badly locally, you can guarantee you can just rip into the USA, blame it for all your ills, chuck up a statue of your crusading-pig-dog image of choice, start making some nukes for them and get the crowd cheering. Sure it might screw things up a bit in the long term, but it gets you through that tricky patch.

    And to summarize...(I believe this is what you're supposed to do at the end).

    The concept of a state publicly marking its citizens, for any reason at all, is distasteful and dangerous. No special cases, no exceptions. Quite likely not to end well, if history is anything to go by.
    Actually - bit presumptuous of me to tell you what you should think. I also know damn well if the list went online near me I'd be on there like a shot.

  21. A Better idea... by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

    Outlaw "Trick or Treat". Or "demanding moneys with menaces" as it's known in the rest of the world. Only in the USA is such an odious 'tradition' encouraged and made part of the culture. Unfortunately it's spreading to other countries through the usual cultural imperialism. JUST SAY NO!

  22. Re:Sex offenders=horrible child rapists by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    Found one in Georgia. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm Guilty of consensual sodomy.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.