Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Court Demands 'Right To Be Forgotten' For Sex Offender (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A Tokyo court has ordered that Google remove any results linked to the arrest of a sex offender, after a judge ruled that he deserves to rebuild his life 'unhindered' by online records of his criminal history. Citing the right to be forgotten, the Saitma district court demanded the removal of all personal information online related to the conviction. Judge Hisaki Kobayashi argued that, dependent on the nature of the crime, an individual should be able to go through a fair rehabilitation process, which would include a clean sheet on their online records after a certain amount of time has passed. In this case, the unnamed man had requested that information from more than three years ago, related to his child prostitution and pornography crimes, be removed from Google's results.
"I hate to be X, but I am X."
1) Child pornography and prostitution could mean sex with or photograph of a 17 year old. Just like, according to the English legal definition, copying a photograph of a 17 year old is in law defined as "making a photograph". So, all those people convicted of "making" child pornography and plastered over the red tops may have done nothing more than had someone in their cache who looks 17.
2) The only victim who has no chance at recovery is a murder victim. I've been technically sexually assaulted several times, i.e. by the English legal definition which is exceptionally strict about consent, and I've been beaten by my father many decades ago by every person's definition, but you know what? I am still a functioning member of society. I won't "forget" it, but few victims of crime forget what happened to them. I don't want anyone to suffer for life just because of what happened to me, though.
3) Even a murderer needs to be rehabilitated, iff they can be. Otherwise you're going into pure sadism, which has no place in society.
In Japan the age of consent is 13. So this guy was abusing children 12 and under.
A few points.
1. There is such a thing as 'non-exclusive' pedophiles who will in fact 'pop a stiffy' with a suitably attractive 21 year old. In fact, there are quite a few of them. By putting them on the registry, you're drastically reducing the chances that they will find a woman they can be satisfied with and thereby (hopefully) avoid recidivism. Is this a huge concern? Probably not, since there's always the possibility they'd re-offend if they end up having kids of their own. However...
2. Most kids are diddled by people in their immediate family or close friends anyway. Stranger Danger is practically a fabrication, and these lists don't keep the majority of children safe because most children are victimized by people the family already knows - if not it's own members.
3. With 2 in mind, 'If only I had known' is actually part of the problem. The fact is, most children are victimized by relatives or very close friends of the family. Registries not only fail to protect against this threat most of the time, they create a false sense of security for parents and other caretakers. "He's not on the registry, so he must be safe." This effect almost certainly dwarfs the paltry protective effect the registry might otherwise have, given the structural problems with the problem of child molestation itself.
I WAS molested as a kid, and the registered sex offender list is meaningless. I'd rather have had my attacker stay in prison until he's rehabilitated, not put on the same list two teenagers that sexted are on.
The whole idea is ludicrous. On top of all that, the moment a sex offender moves intuitive the area, property values tank. There's no good result from it, since most sexual attacks come from someone the kid knows anyway (in my case it was my piano teacher).
It's just far too nebulous to take seriously. I suppose a repeat offender might need to be tracked, but unless you know how to look up penal codes all sex offenders look like cold molesters, and that's just not true.