New Jersey Bars Sex Offenders From the Internet 435
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."
WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
No one has ever been raped, beaten or contracted a sexually-transmitted disease on the internet.
Are they going to ban sex-offenders from using cell phones? From writing letters? From talking?
And of course, like all of the best in stupid legislation, these laws are essentially unenforceable. On the net, no one knows that you are a dog, or a convict.
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".
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?
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: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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
is it 2007 or 1807? (Score:1, Insightful)
this reminds me of slavery-era laws prohibiting slaves from learning how to read, which were legislated
because of fear of a slave rebellion. Specifically, slaves that could not read and write could not
effectively communicate to coordinate a rebellion.
Makes you wonder who these legislators really fear for.
Prügelknabe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not black and white, and it never will be.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shouldn't they also... (Score:1, Insightful)
After all, those also provide a "means of opening a door to countless new potential victims".
Re:Why are these dangerous people roaming the stre (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Who is a sex offender? (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:world-wide Micky-Mouse mindset (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
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is getting insane. (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of innocent people (like 18 year olds having sex with 16 year olds) get swept up in this net.
My ex-mother in law would have had me up except her daughter was older than me.
Sexual crimes are bad-- okay. But inappropriately touching someone does not approach murder, blackmail, beating someone nearly to death, etc.
Fake Screenname (Score:2, Insightful)
Just what exactly is a fake screenname? Is it very different from a real one?
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.
Re:Non-PC use of the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why these draconian measures are used, limiting peoples rights who are having a hard time as it is - their already on parole, their already being posted around as demons... if they do re-offend they know there's the weight of a tougher sentance (which for those without psychological problems is the major deterrant).
Not only that, but with this law some anal social worker or judge can fuck them over even more. Don't get me wrong, some people do cruel things, others (as many people have pointed out) do something stupid and end up on the sex offenders register... but we already have a system in-place to deal with them, adding (in my opinion) more laws of possibly unconstitutional nature won't help if the system isn't working anyway. It just makes us hate polititions even more.
Sorry, end of rant.. I'm British and it's very scary to see my own country only a few years from the USA in terms of governmental madness.
Re:Whatever happened to the notion... (Score:3, Insightful)
The original language of the commandment you refer to can be also be translated as "Thou shalt not murder." Though "murder" and "kill" are somewhat synonymous, they really do not mean the same thing. Thousands of years, ambiguous words and no constant (and some possibly revisionist) translations lead to this particular debate. And, as others have pointed out, there are provisos for punishment (what most consider murder) and self-defense (not murder). Given a look at the context of the Old Testament, the original language most likely meant something closer to "murder" than to "kill."
That, however, is nitpicking, and I do agree 100% with the main point of this post, and, in some ways, the definition of "murder" is left open to as much interpretation as the definition of "sex offender." This business of "not knowing how to deal with X" is not just limited to murderers and rapists and paedophiles. It applies to all people, regardless of who they are and what they do. What people are good at is being selfish. They incarcerate others to feel "safe." Look at zero-tolerance rules in our public schools, mandatory sentencing guidelines for prisoners, and just about every heavy-handed law/rule/guideline ever written in the history of mankind. Sadly, nothing will change until two things happen: man becoming much less selfish than he truly is (and that probably won't ever happen), and the definitions of most criminal acts being clearly and reasonably defined (which leads to greater problems of its own).
Re:Who is a sex offender? (Score:1, Insightful)
I take issue with this comment, especially coming from a medical professional. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the psychiatric definition of paedophilia as per the DSM IV. There are 3 criteria that are required to be met before a diagnosis of paedophilia can be made, one of which is that it must be causing the "patient" mental distress. In essence, this means that paedophilia is not an illness in and of itself, but may be a *cause* of other mental illnesses, especially depression.
Also, the term "paedophile" is grossly misused in general society. Again, according to the psychiatric diagnostic manual, a paedophile is an adult person (over 16) who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Labeling a person who has sex with a post-pubescent teenager a paedophile is a complete misuse of the term. They are not paedophiles. Child molesters perhaps (if you want to consider someone who has the same sex drive and equipment as any other adult a "child"), but not paedophiles.
IMHO, those who have sex with young teens are simply doing what comes naturally. It is the law, not the person attracted to the young teen that is wrong. Next time you get a catalogue advertising men's underwear, notice the models. How many have any visible body hair? If you are into watching adult porn, how often do you see the woman with pubic hair? Now ask yourself how often you've seen a well developed 13 or 14 year old that you immediately had a bad case of the "hots" for.
I wonder how many here have seen the movie "The Graduate" the promotional posters for which read "Every Boy Should Have a Mrs Robinson". Today, Mrs Robinson would be incarcerated for 10 to 20 years and then branded a paedophile for life.