Missouri has a constitutional provision barring ex post facto legislation. The ACLU used to use this when defending sex offenders from some of the ridiculous new legislation, and then several state senators and congressman decided they'd try to amend the constitution to allow such legislation. They have tried three times now, and each time it gets closer to passing.
If they just say "No," they are locked up for being a danger to society and at risk for reoffending. Once they have lost their job and support from family and friends, their court date finally rolls around. Since they had a hard time getting a job, their publicly appointed defender (read unpaid lawyer) advises them to just plead guilty to take advantage of a lighter sentence. The "authorities" ruin lives and are not held accountable when they make "mistakes."
A lot of Christian scholars would disagree that the worship of the God of the Bible should be worshiped "blindly." Many regard the initial overcoming of skepticism as a "leap of faith," but a firm faith is based on the perceived evidence in God's involvement in history and modern life.
Correct. It is not explicitly stated. The "right" to privacy has been enumerated as a "penumbra" or "shadow" right in light of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court essentially declared that the right to privacy can be reasonably inferred based upon the Constitution's explicitly enumerated protections. However, defining the boundary to what is private becomes difficult when an individual is alone and browsing the Internet.
This would be true except that the current situation is that state and federal authorities get more funding (read incentive) to locate these people and violate them. This isn't like jaywalking. There are detectives actively looking for people violating these laws.
The federal government now mandates a tiered system as part of the Adam Walsh Act, but it does not limit how restrictive states can be. It merely sets a minimum guideline. Massachusetts is a rare beacon of light in the dark wasteland of hodgepodge regulations that are far more punitive. Missouri now requires individuals to post signs on Halloween about not passing out candy. My friend wanted to post a similar sign so nobody would ring her doorbell, but she didn't want people thinking her husband was a sex offender either.
I reject your notion that pedophilia is a mental disease without a cure. It is their behavior that is criminal, not their thoughts. They do not have to reoffend, and many choose not to. And what is a "secure mental health facility" anyways? Is this not a prison as well? The Federal Bureau Of Prisons has the following mission statement: "It is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens."
It's rare for someone to see how 3 metal boxes, a case of mountain dew, and many sleepless nights could turn into something worthwhile... And it also depends on how current your data is. If this site of your is still active, then it's worth more than just an e-mail list of people that like a certain genre of music. Developing a community capable of drawing more people means more possibility for revenue (in one form or another). There's always an added service that can be sold above your basic service, and ad revenue is always available.
Speaking as someone who has years of experience dealing with "the sex offender issue," I can tell you that this law (like many others proposed at the state level) will be counterproductive. Some states and the Federal Government currently have the ability to keep dangerous individuals locked up indefinitely. It's called civil commitment.
Recently, in Missouri, several state senators have begun speaking up about more intelligent legislation regarding sex offenders. The unintended consequence of having harsher laws is that they further remove an individual from society. It is that removal and isolation that prompts them to delve deeper into deviancy.
We need laws that allow for tracking, but that do not create further punishment where no more criminal acts are involved. Also, about 4-5% of "sex offenders" are the really heinous ones we hear about on the news. The other 95% are unlikely to commit another sex crime.
For more accurate information, see the article "Misunderstood Crimes" by Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld, featured in Scientific American Mind, April/May 2008, page 78-9.
Is it just me, or is this convenient timing? If controlling bandwidth during a pandemic or similar crisis was their true concern, this topic would have be on the table 6 months after 9/11.
The next question to ask is how does one make sure companies like Comcast don't apply these measures when there is no crisis?
Slashdot Mirror
Missouri has a constitutional provision barring ex post facto legislation. The ACLU used to use this when defending sex offenders from some of the ridiculous new legislation, and then several state senators and congressman decided they'd try to amend the constitution to allow such legislation. They have tried three times now, and each time it gets closer to passing.
If they just say "No," they are locked up for being a danger to society and at risk for reoffending. Once they have lost their job and support from family and friends, their court date finally rolls around. Since they had a hard time getting a job, their publicly appointed defender (read unpaid lawyer) advises them to just plead guilty to take advantage of a lighter sentence. The "authorities" ruin lives and are not held accountable when they make "mistakes."
A lot of Christian scholars would disagree that the worship of the God of the Bible should be worshiped "blindly." Many regard the initial overcoming of skepticism as a "leap of faith," but a firm faith is based on the perceived evidence in God's involvement in history and modern life.
Correct. It is not explicitly stated. The "right" to privacy has been enumerated as a "penumbra" or "shadow" right in light of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court essentially declared that the right to privacy can be reasonably inferred based upon the Constitution's explicitly enumerated protections. However, defining the boundary to what is private becomes difficult when an individual is alone and browsing the Internet.
This would be true except that the current situation is that state and federal authorities get more funding (read incentive) to locate these people and violate them. This isn't like jaywalking. There are detectives actively looking for people violating these laws.
The federal government now mandates a tiered system as part of the Adam Walsh Act, but it does not limit how restrictive states can be. It merely sets a minimum guideline. Massachusetts is a rare beacon of light in the dark wasteland of hodgepodge regulations that are far more punitive. Missouri now requires individuals to post signs on Halloween about not passing out candy. My friend wanted to post a similar sign so nobody would ring her doorbell, but she didn't want people thinking her husband was a sex offender either.
I reject your notion that pedophilia is a mental disease without a cure. It is their behavior that is criminal, not their thoughts. They do not have to reoffend, and many choose not to. And what is a "secure mental health facility" anyways? Is this not a prison as well? The Federal Bureau Of Prisons has the following mission statement: "It is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens."
It's rare for someone to see how 3 metal boxes, a case of mountain dew, and many sleepless nights could turn into something worthwhile... And it also depends on how current your data is. If this site of your is still active, then it's worth more than just an e-mail list of people that like a certain genre of music. Developing a community capable of drawing more people means more possibility for revenue (in one form or another). There's always an added service that can be sold above your basic service, and ad revenue is always available.
Speaking as someone who has years of experience dealing with "the sex offender issue," I can tell you that this law (like many others proposed at the state level) will be counterproductive. Some states and the Federal Government currently have the ability to keep dangerous individuals locked up indefinitely. It's called civil commitment.
Recently, in Missouri, several state senators have begun speaking up about more intelligent legislation regarding sex offenders. The unintended consequence of having harsher laws is that they further remove an individual from society. It is that removal and isolation that prompts them to delve deeper into deviancy.
We need laws that allow for tracking, but that do not create further punishment where no more criminal acts are involved. Also, about 4-5% of "sex offenders" are the really heinous ones we hear about on the news. The other 95% are unlikely to commit another sex crime.
For more accurate information, see the article "Misunderstood Crimes" by Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld, featured in Scientific American Mind, April/May 2008, page 78-9.
Is it just me, or is this convenient timing? If controlling bandwidth during a pandemic or similar crisis was their true concern, this topic would have be on the table 6 months after 9/11. The next question to ask is how does one make sure companies like Comcast don't apply these measures when there is no crisis?