Slashdot Log In
New Jersey Bars Sex Offenders From the Internet
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Dec 29, 2007 06:22 AM
from the slash-kickban dept.
from the slash-kickban dept.
eldavojohn writes "New Jersey just passed legislation making it illegal for sex offenders to use the internet. NJ congresswoman Linda D. Greenstein said, 'When Megan's Law was enacted, few could envision a day when a sex offender hiding behind a fake screen name would be a mouse-click away from new and unwitting victims. Sex offenders cannot be given an opportunity to abuse the anonymity the Internet can provide as a means of opening a door to countless new potential victims.' While they still can search for jobs, this is a major expansion over the prior legislation which barred them from social networking sites like facebook or myspace."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Coming Soon! (Score:5, Insightful)
People convicted of fraud banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to defraud someone
People convicted of disturbing the peace banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to disturb people
And so forth.
Totally unworkable... (Score:3, Insightful)
A totally unworkable, probably unconstitutional waste of time. A legislative brain-fart if you ask me.
While this is obviously about the United States, it's a problem everywhere. The criminal legislation velocity in the United Kingdom is totally out of control. There's a bill every couple of months that criminalises some silly action. I recon that the criminal code should only be adjusted by bills put to referendum. This would reduce the volume of legislation and protect the people from totally stupid laws, unenforceable laws.
Simon
The US is the laughing stock of the world. (Score:4, Insightful)
People are ashamed of the US, people don't want to travel there, people don't want to support American companies, people don't want to even listen to them.
They are a case of "do as we say, not as we do".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
rant
its a side effect of the debate-versus-conflict confusion people seem to end up in, where winning is a matter of who is loudest as opposed to who has points. Tactics for that are necessary when forcing an issue to the two extremes, so one can easily categorize people into sides and never look at new data again! "Well you gotta root for your team!"
god humanity sucks.
tnar
Moderate legislation (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Sex offender doesn't get job because of this law. (and also possibly because they're a sex offender)
3) Sex offender sues NJ for silly-ass law.
And what about those sex offenders in NJ who already have jobs that require Internet access/use?
Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are these dangerous people roaming the streets (Score:5, Insightful)
Irrational bordering on hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a fair number of sexual offenders who aren't actually violent.
I believe sex crimes include stuff like indecent exposure, "Lewd and lascivious conduct", consensual (but illegal) sex, etc.
I guess the Wars Against Drugs, Terror, Iraq etc are not enough, have to start a War Against Sex Offenders too.
Oh well I suppose that makes most voters in New Jersey feel safer.
Re:Irrational bordering on hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
"I guess the Wars Against Drugs, Terror, Iraq etc are not enough, have to start a War Against Sex Offenders too."
Nope, that's just the War Against Sex. It's been going on for a long time.
Parent
Re:Irrational bordering on hysteria (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes sexual offenders so much worse than violent nonsexual offenders?
Very simple -- that horrible little word "sex." Since the first pilgrims landed on our shores, the Puritan spirit has never been totally eradicated in the U.S. While on one hand we probably consume more porn per capita than anywhere else, at the same time there are scads of folks who still find sex of any kind icky and shameful.
Take the opening monologue to "Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit." (Don't misunderstand, BTW -- I like the show.) "Sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous." Really? Why? If a guy kidnaps and tortures a young girl, then bashes in her skull and dismembers her body, that's not "heinous" enough? But, if somewhere in the midst of all that horror he also rapes her, now it becomes something truly heinous?
Make no mistake -- many people still have a very visceral negative reaction to anything sexual. If a man stabs a woman, or breaks her bones, or burns her, or physically assaults her in any way, and he is tried and convicted and eventually serves out his sentence and gets out on parole, no one tells him "you can't live in these areas" or "you can't use the Internet." But once the woman's vagina has been breached, all of a sudden he goes from merely evil to something of unspeakable horror that must be marginalized and driven out of town at any cost. Yes, rape is a terrible and inexcusable crime, but why is it so much worse than any other physical assault on someone's person? Because it involves SEX -- that horrible little word.
Parent
Re:Foolish to think it is simply about "sex" (Score:4, Interesting)
You may very well be right, and sexual trauma may be more intense by a degree, but you also have to keep in mind the irrational societal stigma attached to anything sexual.
Parent
IMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and by the way would someone define "sex offender" in the context of this article? If you use a broad definition of "sex offender" then someone who was arrested and prosecuted for streaking in their college days or for public urination may meet the criteria as a "sex offender".
All things considered... (Score:3, Funny)
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
So what have they done? Parole officers are telling their parolees to live under a bridge. As many as 20 sex offenders at a time live under this one bridge connecting Miami and Miami Beach, where they have no power or running water or even reliable shelter from the weather.
And they wonder why some of them disappear from the system entirely.
Either sex offenders are a threat to society and should be in prison or they're not and should be released. This crap about releasing them and making it impossible for them to live a normal life does nothing but encourage them to break the law.
Whatever happened to the notion... (Score:4, Insightful)
At this rate we may as well just cut to the chace and sentence convicted sex offenders (and whoever else is out to get your children) to lifelong destitution. We can brand them or something so people know to hate and fear them because, really, they can't possibly have reformed...and it would save neighbors and employers the bother of looking them up in the registries (heaven forbid people actually do something about their own security).
TFA implies this only affects the worst of the worst. Let's at least hope that's accurate.
You think you know what a Sex Offender is? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't. Trust me, you don't. Yes, it includes rapists, child molesters, etc... but the actual set of offenses that cause someone to be called a "sex offender" also includes stupid little things like flashing, victimless crimes like newlyweds making hanky-panky in a technically-public area, questionable crimes like public urination... all sorts of things that infuriate the puritanical elements of our society. It makes a nice, easy-to-administer Scarlet Letter for everyone the puritans hate.*
I would not have as much problem with this law if it actually applied only to the rapists and child molesters. Unfortunately, it does not.
* The label is also often used to repress closeted gays... "Those durned fagnits, having sex in the parks! This'll learn 'em!"
Prügelknabe (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-PC use of the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I see this law as being extremely short-sighted... I don't object to what they're trying to do, but it isn't going to work.
If you want them in jail, put them there. But applying restrictions like these on them isn't going to save anybody.
Messed up personal experience (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you accidentally distribute CP, you ask? That's pretty easy. You don't know shit about computer security and you get your computer infected with something that makes you part of a botnet used for storing 'questionable content'.
My bro had the bad luck of discovering a whole series of zip files he didn't know anything about on his computer. He posts one to try to figure out what this shit is on his computer and how it got there. Boom, he has just distributed CP. This means he goes directly to jail, does not pass go, and DOES collect an unnerving sounding criminal record that will stay with him for a long time.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that statement's a little too broad to be taken as true.
That doesn't mean, though, that I disagree with you in spirit. I'm concerned that 'sex offender' is too broad of term for this to really apply. I heard a story about a guy who was 19 and had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. According to the laws of that state, there was some flexibility there if the age difference was two years or less. The male was like a year and two days older than the female. The judge banged his gavel, and now the kid is a 'sex offender' that has to register.
If anybody had asked my opinion, I would have said that this was excessive considering the context. The idea of banning him completely from the internet, in my mind, is ridiculous. Not only would this have the potential to effectively prohibit him from working in an office environment, but as the internet becomes more and more integrated into our daily lives, it will become the punishment that continues to keep on punishing. Every year that goes by, his life gets harder.
I don't have a silver bullet for this problem. But I would at least offer the suggestion there should be levels of sex offenders. For example: Somebody convicted of statuatory rape where the age difference is less than 4 years would be a different level than somebody who brutally raped an unwilling person. The person I just described wouldn't be banned from the net, but the sort of person you'd see on "To Catch a Predator" could be.
That suggestion is a bit short-sighted considering my point about the ubiquity of the internet, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, though, nobody (outside of an extreme case) would think of banning a convicted criminal from using a telephone. It won't be long before internet access is just as fundamental to our society.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do. Put every sex offender into therapy and only allow them back into society when they're no longer deemed a threat to society.
Make people serve their time, but afterwards, let them get on with their lives.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/10/26/wilsoned_1028.html [ajc.com]
Google for the names mentioned and you'll turn up news reports in credible newspapers, court documents, etc. There's even a report of a girl getting the sex offender label for having sex with a younger boyfriend.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are, in my mind, three main reasons why males are more prone to sex "offenses":
- high hormone levels
- strength
- age difference (in general, males fall for younger girls, and vice versa)
But in these cases, just having sex with a boy/girl, only the last reason plays a role, and it's just a rule of thumb. So I don't see why females (why call them girls when the sex offender label is for adults) would be exempt from this ridiculous law.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your wording there just highlighted on of the prime problems with our current "sex offender" laws,definitions, and perceptions. The is a huge world of difference between a child molester (has physical sexual contact with a child that has not yet reached puberty) and Ephebophilia (sexual attraction to adolescents). There is an even greater difference between actual child molesters and someone who streaks a football game [wordpress.com], and is seen by minors. Or a minor who takes naked pictures of themselves [news.com]. Or how about failing to have a good pop-up blocker [wired.com].
I'm all for stopping the who will lure or grab a child off a playground, but why is this the one class of criminals that has to "register" for a lifetime of rejection and fear [freerepublic.com]. Why don't drunk drivers have to register and why are they allowed near bars again? Why don't those convicted of libel have to identify themselves as such when posting online? If someone rapes a child perhaps they should be locked away for life, but if a lesser crime doesn't call for lifetime incarceration, then it shouldn't call for lifetime tracking.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
"A 26-year-old college student on federal disability, Whitaker doesn't fit most people's image of a sex offender. But, because of an ill-considered 10th-grade blowjob -- resulting in her conviction for an act that's no longer crime in Georgia -- she has spent nearly a decade on Georgia's sex-offender registry."
The sex offender registry laws are an absurdity. It's essentially a life sentence that applies to a huge swath of activity that we deem "deviant", not just child molesters.
In Georgia, the laws are so badly written, that no lawyer can really tell you what's required of an offender.
For example, I had a homeless client (registered sex offender) charged with failure to update his address after he had "moved". But the law says "homeless does not constitute an address." So does that mean that there is no address change and that he has committed no crime? (the position we took) Or does it mean that it's illegal to be homeless?
The court saw that ours was a plausible interpretation of the statute and dismissed the case. But the opinion of most lawyers in this state is that the sex offender law makes it illegal for a registered sex offender to be homeless.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
FTFA:
Salt Lake City - Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650 [denverpost.com]
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting? Try "sick" - And not for the underaged-sex aspect of it.
Crap like that shows just what utter BS every single bit of "for the kids" legislation amount to. Kids may well need some legal protection from adult predators, but from similarly aged kids engaging in consensual behavior???
Everyone raise your hand who didn't play "doctor" or some variant well before the age of 14.
<chirp> <chirp>
Yeah, thought so.
As for the law relevant to TFA, again, I absolutely oppose most "sex offender" laws because they demonstrate our real level of freedom.
No "cruel and unusual" punishments? I'd call forced homelessness due to the density of schools, churches, and parks in many areas "cruel".
Equal protection under the law? Can you point me to the "convicted CEOs who screwed employees out of billions" registry list?
No ex post facto laws? Suuuuure, so NJ only intends to apply this restriction to new offenders, I suppose?
No one (usually not even the ones who do it) supports child molesting or rape. But we need laws applied fairly and rationally, or we may as well go back a system of "justice" where the grand high poobah of Allah orders rape victems whipped for their immodesty.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, this is Slashdot.
We get your point, but this may not be the crowd to be making that argument.
Most readers have more authority to complain about your chirp tag not passing xml validation than to testify about the practices of medical impersonation among the western youth.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll do you one better [usatoday.com].
Prosecuted for posting nude pictures of her 15-year-old self. Charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography. I think the court's rationale was that they were prosecuting her on behalf of her older self, whose life she potentially ruined.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
You've obviously never had the goatse guy burned into your brain.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like forbidding alcoholics from taking public transportation because they might take a bus to a liquor store.
Or, it's like forbidding a horse thief from wearing shoes because they might use those shoes to walk to a stable and steal a horse.
"Protecting the Children" is completely out of hand. It's nothing but politicians pandering to parents who feel guilty that they're so busy working they're not taking care of their kids, who they drop off at day-care or leave with the nanny every day.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It can be things like:
- Urinating in public
- Indecent exposure
- Unlawful detention
- Voyeurism
There's been reports telling that there's not a majority here who're doing sex offenses against children, but rather these minor crimes. Earlier it was no big deal if someone mooned others for a short moment from a car while being drunk, or urinating in public for that matter after having a few too many beers. Or if you took a chance and p
Who is a sex offender? (Score:5, Interesting)
I practice in Australia - another country of puritan heritage, but fortunately not as openly hostile towards sex as the US, and courts here tend to be less "Mickey Mouse" style. Nevertheless, one of my patients fell for a 15yo prostitute and had non-penetrative sex with her, one single time. Independent witnesses all reported they would have taken her for at least 18 if not older. The "perpetrator" had no prior offence and the circumstances were such that he was not actively seeking such connection but it happened spontaneously when she was allegedly actively seeking such relation
For that the man got 5 years of which he served 3. Since he was announced as a paedophile to his inmates when he was jailed, they scalded him badly with boiling water and beat him up badly before they had opportunity of learning the whole story. When he was released, he moved to my town. He is a religious man who confided into a local priest who had nothing better to do than walk from door to door and warn people about the dangerous paedophile who moved into town. A really nasty witch hunt started against him where even otherwise nice and educated people blindly joined in. Is this just? Will it improve anything? Will this protect any children?
The legislation mentioned in this article which deprives so called "sex offenders" regardless of their background of essential human rights is obscene, and the people producing such legislation either ignorant or criminal.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The bill applies to anyone who used a computer to help commit the original sex crime."
Now, the bill is still obscene, but it does not apply to all citizens labelled as sex offenders, as the whole conversation here seems to assume. If only people would R T F A
WARNING: misinformation alert! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that you felt you had to post this disclaimer. The witch hunt mentality against sex offenders is truly getting out of hand.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which may or may not correspond with current lists of "sex offenders".
Those who want to be soft on sex offenders are most likely not parents, and most definitely not parents of a child who has been abused.
Except for those parents who are themselves abusers...
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not black and white, and it never will be.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
If you get liquered up and someone takes advantage of you its your fault in the eyes of the law. Now other statitory exceptions may apply like if you sell me you beater car while I am drunk, and its a lemon, I still have lemon law protection and such. There is no exception for concentual sex between adults though. If he/she is drunk and you get them to consent to sex, its legal. I would call you an asshat as would most decent human beings but we can't put you away for it.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a parent, and I'm guessing that under your worldview, I want to be `soft on sex offenders'. But I don't see it that way -- instead, I want the punishment to fit the crime. If you're 17 and have sex with your 15 year old girlfriend, you should be grounded for a week, perhaps have your cell phone taken away. Peeing on the side of a building? $50 fine. Rape a 3 year old girl to within an inch of her life? Life in prison, perhaps even the death penalty.
`Sex offender registration' is a huge crock. All it really does is let us take some people, found guilty of certain offenses, and make them pariahs for life. I imagine the original premise was to protect society from these dangerous predators, but in many cases they're not predators at all! And why only sex crimes? I'd be FAR more concerned if the guy next door killed his neighbor in a fight 10 years ago than if he got caught diddling the 16 year old girl next door when he was 19 -- but guess which one has to register?
I might be better able to support registration as either further punishment or to protect society if it applied to all crimes of a certain level, not just `sex crimes'. But even then I can't really support it -- when you've paid your debt to society, that should be the end of it. And if you're too dangerous to be let out, then you shouldn't be let out -- the sex offender registry should not be a `last ditch' sort of thing.
And what good does the sex offender registry do? Sure, it gives people a list of names of people to harass, to run out of town, to lynch, to kill. And you can tell your kids to avoid these houses, but what good does that really do? Has anybody ever shown that knowing where the sex offenders in town were led to children (we're worried about protecting the children, right?) who were less likely to be the victims of crime (or sex crimes, if you want to be more specific?)
And the whole banning them from the Internet thing, even worse ...
Parent
Re:Cue the endless.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you tell someone they have to make a living for themselves but can't live anywhere and can't do this and can't do that, what are they going to do? Accept it and try to live a miserable life or run away and hide from the system?
Oppressive restrictions like this only make things worse.
Parent
Re:Am I the only one (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
WHAT!?!?!
And here I was thinking people had the right to do anything so long as it wasn't disruptive to other people's right to do the same.
Silly me. I guess I ought to be sending thank you cards to society-at-large for being kind enough to grant me the *privilege* of using a networked computer or whatever the hell else it is that I do all day and night.