The first time I went to NJ for business, I couldn't figure out how to make a left hand turn. Those are the craziest things I've ever seen. I can see their benefit but it still confused the heck out of me when I first experienced it.
Thanks. It'd be nice if a study would break it down. There's also the case where the "official story" of the defendant was that he was just peeing as a little boy walked by, but that's not necessarily what he was doing. That's the trick of trying to figure out what really happened when, if guilty, the defendant is probably lying and coming up with a good plausible story.
Our system already allows for that. The judge has the liberty to change the charge according to the situation and he has a range of punishments to choose from. What judges choose to do is another story. If you want to argue that registration should be limited to only certain kinds of sex crimes and not all, I could go along with that. I wouldn't limit it to just child molesters. I'd want to know if a rapist was living next door too. One piece of information I do wish I had was whether the victim was family or not. Not that a child molester of a family member wouldn't target any child that he has a relationship of trust with, but it'd be nice to know whether he sits outside of schools and targets random children or not. Get together like-minded people and lobby your representatives.
Really, we're focusing on corner cases. I believe, though I have no study to confirm or reject this, that charges brought against a guy for consensual sex are rare. It's usually non-consensual or the victim is too young to be make consensual decisions or there is an unequal relationship (ie boss having sex with an employee). It's worthy to note that in this particular case, the man killed was not on the list for being 18 and having a 16 year old girlfriend. He really was a rapist. It doesn't make it right, but these corner cases don't apply to the situation in the story.
If I knew my neighbor was a hot head and his kid had a history of abuse, and I start feeding him made up material indicating the other neighbor...let's say that was you...was a child molester and unstable neighbor goes off the beam and kills you, wouldn't I be culpable in the murder?
It'd depend on intent and the content of the information you were feeding your hot head neighbor. If your intent was to get me killed and lied to someone to get them to do it, that'd make you an accomplice. Do you really think that's what the state was doing? Do you think you they were trying to get some hot head neighbor to off the guy and gave false information to do it? Or do you think the state made the information public (it is of public record anyway) to help parents be vigilant as to where their kids play. As to whether the state was giving erroneous information, the description of the law he was convicted under on the web site may have been confusing, but it was accurate. It looks like the law he was convicted under covers several different kinds of sex crimes and the description related that. The man either misread the description and assumed that he was a child molester or just felt uncomfortable living next to a rapist. The summary saying the web site gave erroneous information was (as is often the case) wrong.
There are some "mistakes" that warrant being punished for the rest of their lives, though I question your use of of the word "mistake". Someone doesn't accidentally commit a sex crime. They do it with intent. There has been a lot of talk about corner cases in this thread. The fact remains that some people have chosen to do despicable things to boys, girls, women, and sometimes even men. Any person that has made that choice once could easily make it again and often do (though some question that). If the person has a history of committing despicable crimes, then I should have the right to have the information necessary to protect myself and family from them. I see no benefit to the state keeping it a secret who these dangerous people are except for the perpetrator themselves and frankly, they lost that luxury when they committed the crime.
A person can argue back and forth whether a corner case should be included in the db or not. That's between the state and its people. If you don't agree with where the line is drawn, get with like-minded people and lobby your representatives.
If someone has a disorder and has no control of themselves and commit a sex crime, then they do need to be in the db because they are a potential danger to others. It really doesn't matter why someone does it, just that they do it.
I have to ask, though. How truly common is this? I've heard a handful of stories like this, though usually not to the degree of murder, and I'm sure there's a bunch I've never heard. I'd like to hear some real live statistics instead of just the stories that make the headlines. If this is a rampant problem, then I can agree with you. If it's an anomaly, then it's the risk you take when you commit a sex crime. I know that sounds cold and harsh and I'm sure I'll be jumped on for having said it, but anyone that commits a serious crime is taking a lot of risks. Not only risks of getting caught and jailed but dangers to their physical person. Not that it's ok, but this is one of the dangers.
I don't know about most states (what state are you referring to?) but it the law is unfair, you have to change it. If your "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!?!?" crowd is also completely unreasonable and makes up a majority of your state then there's not a lot you can do but I tend to think that most people aren't unreasonable and are able to be influenced by argument.
Of course that's what I thought about our recent school vouchers initiative on the ballot but with incredible funding and ads filled with half truths and emotion (your "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!?!?" crowd again) it managed to get voted down quite decisively. -Sigh-. The downside of living in a democracy.
OK what about the 19 year old having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend who is 36 months, 1 day younger than him in a state with a 3-year grace period?
If the girl is older than the age of consent (16 usually) and it was truly consensual (ie the girl isn't the one pressing charges for rape) then there should be no charge. If she's younger than the age of consent then the parents have every right to press charges against the guy. If a guy is tempted to do something illegal, then maybe he should keep it in his pants (it has been known to be done) until it's not or reap the consequences.
If you don't feel that the sex offender's db should be used with certain crimes, then lobby your state representative. These are state laws that govern these things and much easier to influence than federal law. There are tons of "what-if" scenarios that may seem unfair to you but, frankly, in the end law makers have to draw the line somewhere.
5 with 30 on the other hand, well, I think we can agree that just ain't right.
Well I'm glad you draw the line somewhere;-).
Whatever is of public record is available to you and I believe it should be just as accessible as the sex offender's db.
Just remember that we're talking about criminals who have broken the law. By virtue of breaking the law, you lose certain rights and privileges that citizens normally have.
Yeah, especially against children, like when that 18 year old has consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Let's lock him up and throw away the key. The problem is that the laws as they stand now aren't sane, nor are the punishments (getting years for possessing pot, but months for beating someone into a coma?)
In most states, at least the states I've lived in, an 18 year old can't be charged for having consensual sex with a 16 year old girlfriend. There's usually a number of years (ie 3) between the people that's required. As for punishments being all jacked up, I'd totally agree with you. There's a lot about our legal system as it currently works that needs to be fixed.
Cool! Do I have your permission then to go into your DMV file and obtain your social security number and address?
You don't need my permission to access my data that is of public record. I'm reasonably sure my social security number is not considered of public record.
The point being of course that even public databases can have reasonable privacy protections in place. I fail to see why someones criminal record should be accessible to all after they have paid their debt to soceity. In the specific case of sex offenders, if they are so dangerous that we have to notify people when they move into the neighborhood, then why the fuck are they being released from prison?
Either they are that dangerous, in which case lock 'em up and throw away the key, or they aren't, in which case, WTF is up with being punished after you get out of prison?
I'd tend to be with the lock 'em up and throw away the key crowd as far as child molesters and rapists go.... but other sex "offenders" (teenagers having sex when one or both are under the age of consent) are also finding themselves on these lists. I don't see how any reasonable person can condone that.
As I wrote in another post, I'd be in full support of that.
Except, they're not. Sex offenders are actually less likely to re-offend than other criminals.
I'll look into that. I've read studies that say the opposite so someone is pushing junk studies. I'll investigate more.
Then why single out sex offenders? Isn't it important to be able to know if our neighbors have committed assault or robbery to "protect ourselves and our families"? It's much more important to me to know if a neighbor ever took a tire-iron to some one's head, then that they once copped a feel on a crowded subway car. (Or had sex as a teen, which can land you on the registry in some states).
As I said in another post, I'm for having all public records easily accessible and search-able including the crimes you listed. As for your example of sex as a teen. In most states there's a number of years difference required. For example, even an 18 or 19 year old can't be charged with a 17 year old. The 18 year old kid in your linked story was an idiot for dating, much less engaging in sexual activities with a 14 year old.
There might be legitimate arguments in favor of a registry of parolees and probationers who have committed serious crimes. But the "sex offender" registry isn't such a list. It's simply another symptom of American fear and ignorance about sex. Shame on us.
It has nothing to do with a fear of sex and everything to do protecting your person from non-consensual sexual contact. There's a lot of psychological damage that can result and we have a right to protect ourselves and family from this.
Take a look at the DOJ statistics for recidivism and sex offenders (easy way to get a good analysis is via the Skeptics magazine from earlier this year, it'll be on their webpage). Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders re-offend at a much lower rate than most other felonies.
I'll look into that. I've read studies that say the opposite so someone is pushing junk studies. I'll investigate more.
The only way we can protect ourselves and our families[...]
...with a gun?
I actually never said that. Protection means you make sure your family has no contact with that person. Like I said in my post, the guy who killed him should be tried and punished for his crimes. I'm not at all for vigillante justice.
If you want to make sure that child molesters don't get near children anymore, lock them up for life instead of submitting them to a particularly humiliating form of mob "justice". Lifelong imprisonment would be more humane (and yes, even child molesters deserve to be treated as human beings).
For certain sex crimes, especially against children, I'd be all for that.
We should also make searchable databases for all those suspected or convicted of thief, buglary, murder, fraud, and any other felony or misdemeanor
Not a bad idea. I think all public records should be easily accessible and searchable.
and a list of who their neighbors were at the time, as well as their immediate family. Make it accessible to the public so everyone can see, we'd be so safe then that we wouldn't need the police anymore.
The guy who killed Dodele should be prosecuted and thrown in prison. There's no excuse to commit premeditated murder. Nevertheless, that's not to say the db caused the murder. A messed up guy caused the murder for a screwed up reason.
With repeat offenses so high among sex offenders, We should have the opportunity to have the information necessary to protect our families. I'd like to know before I send my kid to little Johnny's house to play whether Johnny's dad or older brother has a history of molesting kids. I lived in a neighborhood where a recently released child rapist/murderer had moved in with his parents right before we moved into our house. He'd done the crimes while a juvenile so he had a shorter sentence (10 years) and he wasn't in the online db. You can bet it would have affected our decision to buy a house in that neighborhood.
Police can't protect you. They can only clean up the mess afterwards and hope to be a deterrant. The only way we can protect ourselves and our families is if we have the information at our disposal to do so.
True that they couldn't do exit polls but the ballots have to be in by election day so they can run all the ballots that have come in up to that day and get a good idea of what the trend is. It's got to be at least as accurate as exit polls.
As for stable addresses, I'm not sure how they handle that. I believe that you can still go down to the county building and pick up your ballot and turn it in there if yours never arrives in the mail, so if your address is unstable, you'd have to do it that way.
I absolutely love absentee voting. I first signed up for permenant absentee status in California and it was invaluable to be able to sit down with your ballot and your voters guide and spend a few hours one evening and get it all on the ballot as you read the pamphlet. I don't know how Californians can keep it all in their head long enough to get into the booth.
A little off topic, but what's the deal with the voting of a dozen judges you've never heard of with scant information in the voter's pamphlet. I usually end up not voting for any because I don't feel like I can make an informed decision.
It weeds out the votes of people that aren't smart enough to be voting in the first place (only kinda joking).
At one time it was thought that only property holders should be allowed to vote because they were the ones that actually had a stake in government. I don't agree with that but I do get frustrated when people don't really take a look at the issues and vote for the person that will give them more. I don't mind people voting for a position that I don't agree with as long as they understand the issue and believe in how they vote.
I've voted in 4 different states inclucing California and California is a bit unique. They pioneered the direct voting process (initiatives) and they use it more than just about any other state. Most of that ballot consists of the initiatives up for vote. Most states are lucky if they have 3 or 4 initiatives on any given ballot.
Personally I prefer the way Oregon does it. Every registered voter votes absentee. It comes in the mail, you connect the bars with your black pen, then they run it through a scantron like machine. I'd support every state adopting this.
Slashdot Mirror
The first time I went to NJ for business, I couldn't figure out how to make a left hand turn. Those are the craziest things I've ever seen. I can see their benefit but it still confused the heck out of me when I first experienced it.
I'm glad somebody finally said it.
Thanks. It'd be nice if a study would break it down. There's also the case where the "official story" of the defendant was that he was just peeing as a little boy walked by, but that's not necessarily what he was doing. That's the trick of trying to figure out what really happened when, if guilty, the defendant is probably lying and coming up with a good plausible story.
Our system already allows for that. The judge has the liberty to change the charge according to the situation and he has a range of punishments to choose from. What judges choose to do is another story. If you want to argue that registration should be limited to only certain kinds of sex crimes and not all, I could go along with that. I wouldn't limit it to just child molesters. I'd want to know if a rapist was living next door too. One piece of information I do wish I had was whether the victim was family or not. Not that a child molester of a family member wouldn't target any child that he has a relationship of trust with, but it'd be nice to know whether he sits outside of schools and targets random children or not. Get together like-minded people and lobby your representatives.
Really, we're focusing on corner cases. I believe, though I have no study to confirm or reject this, that charges brought against a guy for consensual sex are rare. It's usually non-consensual or the victim is too young to be make consensual decisions or there is an unequal relationship (ie boss having sex with an employee). It's worthy to note that in this particular case, the man killed was not on the list for being 18 and having a 16 year old girlfriend. He really was a rapist. It doesn't make it right, but these corner cases don't apply to the situation in the story.
There are some "mistakes" that warrant being punished for the rest of their lives, though I question your use of of the word "mistake". Someone doesn't accidentally commit a sex crime. They do it with intent. There has been a lot of talk about corner cases in this thread. The fact remains that some people have chosen to do despicable things to boys, girls, women, and sometimes even men. Any person that has made that choice once could easily make it again and often do (though some question that). If the person has a history of committing despicable crimes, then I should have the right to have the information necessary to protect myself and family from them. I see no benefit to the state keeping it a secret who these dangerous people are except for the perpetrator themselves and frankly, they lost that luxury when they committed the crime.
A person can argue back and forth whether a corner case should be included in the db or not. That's between the state and its people. If you don't agree with where the line is drawn, get with like-minded people and lobby your representatives.
hmmmm. I have no idea who traci lords is....
As to your point, the law has to be drawn somewhere. It's up to you and your representative governement to decide where that line is drawn.
If someone has a disorder and has no control of themselves and commit a sex crime, then they do need to be in the db because they are a potential danger to others. It really doesn't matter why someone does it, just that they do it.
I have to ask, though. How truly common is this? I've heard a handful of stories like this, though usually not to the degree of murder, and I'm sure there's a bunch I've never heard. I'd like to hear some real live statistics instead of just the stories that make the headlines. If this is a rampant problem, then I can agree with you. If it's an anomaly, then it's the risk you take when you commit a sex crime. I know that sounds cold and harsh and I'm sure I'll be jumped on for having said it, but anyone that commits a serious crime is taking a lot of risks. Not only risks of getting caught and jailed but dangers to their physical person. Not that it's ok, but this is one of the dangers.
I don't know about most states (what state are you referring to?) but it the law is unfair, you have to change it. If your "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!?!?" crowd is also completely unreasonable and makes up a majority of your state then there's not a lot you can do but I tend to think that most people aren't unreasonable and are able to be influenced by argument.
Of course that's what I thought about our recent school vouchers initiative on the ballot but with incredible funding and ads filled with half truths and emotion (your "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!?!?" crowd again) it managed to get voted down quite decisively. -Sigh-. The downside of living in a democracy.
If you don't feel that the sex offender's db should be used with certain crimes, then lobby your state representative. These are state laws that govern these things and much easier to influence than federal law. There are tons of "what-if" scenarios that may seem unfair to you but, frankly, in the end law makers have to draw the line somewhere. 5 with 30 on the other hand, well, I think we can agree that just ain't right. Well I'm glad you draw the line somewhere
Whatever is of public record is available to you and I believe it should be just as accessible as the sex offender's db.
Just remember that we're talking about criminals who have broken the law. By virtue of breaking the law, you lose certain rights and privileges that citizens normally have.
We should also make searchable databases for all those suspected or convicted of thief, buglary, murder, fraud, and any other felony or misdemeanor
Not a bad idea. I think all public records should be easily accessible and searchable.
and a list of who their neighbors were at the time, as well as their immediate family. Make it accessible to the public so everyone can see, we'd be so safe then that we wouldn't need the police anymore.
The rest of your post is just nonsense.
The guy who killed Dodele should be prosecuted and thrown in prison. There's no excuse to commit premeditated murder. Nevertheless, that's not to say the db caused the murder. A messed up guy caused the murder for a screwed up reason.
With repeat offenses so high among sex offenders, We should have the opportunity to have the information necessary to protect our families. I'd like to know before I send my kid to little Johnny's house to play whether Johnny's dad or older brother has a history of molesting kids. I lived in a neighborhood where a recently released child rapist/murderer had moved in with his parents right before we moved into our house. He'd done the crimes while a juvenile so he had a shorter sentence (10 years) and he wasn't in the online db. You can bet it would have affected our decision to buy a house in that neighborhood.
Police can't protect you. They can only clean up the mess afterwards and hope to be a deterrant. The only way we can protect ourselves and our families is if we have the information at our disposal to do so.
Doesn't information want to be free, anyways?
Anorexia causes infertility
True that they couldn't do exit polls but the ballots have to be in by election day so they can run all the ballots that have come in up to that day and get a good idea of what the trend is. It's got to be at least as accurate as exit polls.
As for stable addresses, I'm not sure how they handle that. I believe that you can still go down to the county building and pick up your ballot and turn it in there if yours never arrives in the mail, so if your address is unstable, you'd have to do it that way.
I absolutely love absentee voting. I first signed up for permenant absentee status in California and it was invaluable to be able to sit down with your ballot and your voters guide and spend a few hours one evening and get it all on the ballot as you read the pamphlet. I don't know how Californians can keep it all in their head long enough to get into the booth.
A little off topic, but what's the deal with the voting of a dozen judges you've never heard of with scant information in the voter's pamphlet. I usually end up not voting for any because I don't feel like I can make an informed decision.
It weeds out the votes of people that aren't smart enough to be voting in the first place (only kinda joking).
At one time it was thought that only property holders should be allowed to vote because they were the ones that actually had a stake in government. I don't agree with that but I do get frustrated when people don't really take a look at the issues and vote for the person that will give them more. I don't mind people voting for a position that I don't agree with as long as they understand the issue and believe in how they vote.
I've voted in 4 different states inclucing California and California is a bit unique. They pioneered the direct voting process (initiatives) and they use it more than just about any other state. Most of that ballot consists of the initiatives up for vote. Most states are lucky if they have 3 or 4 initiatives on any given ballot.
Personally I prefer the way Oregon does it. Every registered voter votes absentee. It comes in the mail, you connect the bars with your black pen, then they run it through a scantron like machine. I'd support every state adopting this.
you'll have an instant competitor to Kindle -- one with a touch interface and the ability to play movies and music, too.
Oh yeah, it's a phone too.
Was the cable box made by Pace Micro?
Those boxes are basically a full computer that runs Linux with a layer that emulates Motorolla or Scientific Atlanta OS.