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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is that "sex offender" is not a synonym for "rape". It's also quite possible that even some actual rapists who have been caught do not wind up on such lists.
The claim that the aim is to "protect the public" makes little sense. It might make a l
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Can you point me to someone raped on the internet? Beaten on the internet? Who contracted an STD on the internet?
Meeting people in person after meeting them online doesn't count. Having your sad little avatar abused by mean people doesn't count.
Until we have domestic sexbots subject to control by remote attackers, you simply can't
Re: (Score:2)
Until we have domestic sexbots subject to control by remote attackers, you simply can't
rape or beat someone over the internet.
I've seen Internet beatings happen numerous times, it often involves a large fish for some reason. Perverts all of them I say.
And for the record, I believe "sex offender" laws as they exist in the US are purely "feel good" laws that are of no use whatsoever. Helping the people with psychic disorders they can't handle would be way more useful. But as in most countries, justice isn't meant to help solve problems, just to make people feel that "justice has been served" however futile that is.
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: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.
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.
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Everyone has heard a similar story, or has a friend of a friend that this happened "personally" to. Problem is, it's all complete bullshit. Show me one credible source that documents someone being labelled as a sex offender for having consentual sex with a younger girlfriend (and before someone bothers quoting statute, yes I am aware that there are laws against such things in most states; I'm asking for a instance where someone has been prosecuted and than placed on a sex offender registry solely for that crime).
And no, random blogs full of hearsay are not credible sources.
http://news.opb.org/article/oregonians-perceptions-statutory-rape-may-be-changing/ [opb.org]
^^ Here's one. Fortunately, the conviction was overturned.
It happens, man.
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, if they allow adults to have consensual sex with people who aren't their spouses, one night stands and all that, why should it matter if the partners are both 13 years old? Heck their relationship might be a lot more meaningful and last longer than the relationships of many adults.
If adults are allowed such stuff and these two get punished by the court then IMO they would be victims of the court/Law as well. They're just doing what the adults do - they don't
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: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.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://maps.kansasgis.org/kbi/kbi.cfm?id=SOP04716 [kansasgis.org]
I don't know him. Seems like a bad enough accusation. Then, check the DoB. On the list at a few days past 14 (must have been 13 at the time). Still on after 18.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
You've obviously never had the goatse guy burned into your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure some people here will spew stuff about how they are 'sick' and need 'help'. Trust me, life in prison is a compromise compared to what I think they should really get. You don't help a rabid dog; you put it down. The same should hold for anyone who sexually abuses children. I'm not talking about the 20 year old/15 year old thing. I mean the rea
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The real solution is to give sexual predators the punishment they truly deserve in the first place, which is life in prison without possibility of parole.
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...
Which oddly enough is the *huge* majority of cases.
To make the children safe maybe they should all be locked away from their parents ? Or maybe all the parents should be locked away, just in case ? After all they're the ones who are statistically more dangerous. Maybe parents should be on the sex offender lists, after all they have shown they have weapons and aren't afraid to use them. Bah.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not black and white, and it never will be.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sexual predator" can be a guy who goes around raping children, or it can be the guy who picks up women in a bar; both of them are predatory, but the acts they perform are hardly comparable. Appropriate punishment - if any - for any particular act needs to be decided in an act-by-act basis, not by throwing around crappy rethoric like "sexual predator".
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 ...
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
My posting should NOT be considered as condoning in any way sexual acts of adults with minors of age either, or of this case in particular (and don'
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: (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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In reality, these people will be coming back into society, so we really better make sure they've been "conditioned" to not repeat their crime.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's new there...
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.
Or even something which was already illegal in the first place.
I recon that the criminal code should only be adjusted by bills put to referendum. This
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:2)
In USA, they came first for the... (Score:2)
"In USA, they came first for the pedophiles, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pedophile;
And then they came for the sex offenders, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a sex offender;
And then they came for the sexual minorities, And I didn't speak up because I didn't belong to a sexual minority;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Anonymous Coward, Stories from the United Talibans of America, AD 2030?
Re: (Score:2)
So, what country are you from that you think you can point fingers? Come on, we want to know.
Ding ding ding, and its exactly this mentality that is continuing the decline of the sense of community and the rise of materialistic individualism. It starts with the "I can't afford to think about that with my life" and moves to the "well look at group a, they're worse than we are!". Course, if the worst examples always getting "worse", then an equal decline for everyone else still gives them the ability to feel smug about it due to relative difference.
Being "better" than someone has a much different mea
Re: (Score:2)
i'm glad you read the words following the first three, as you definitely show a massive measure of comprehension and patience.
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)
Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It has specific exemptions for work 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: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.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems rather incongruous to treat adultery lightly while making a big fuss about the other stuff e.g. people looking at pictures of naked people.
If people don't have sex out of marriage (that includes premarital sex) stuff like HIV become a lot less of a problem.
Yes I know this is Slashdot and adultery is not likely to directly affect most of us, but humour me OK?
New Jersey 'wins' at the expense of others (Score:2)
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.
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With the definition of "sex related" being somewhat arbitrary and illogical. e.g. somehow Lorena Bobbit's actions were not "sex related". It also appears to have taken several years (and repeated probation violations) before child rapist Mary Kay Letourneau wound up on such a list.
If we were
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your next point about the lack of appeal from the grave does nothing to argue against the death penalty--it argues for it. The fact that death is final is the whole principle of the strongest deterrent. People really do pay more attention to threats to their own lives than they do to annoyances, whic
Re: (Score:3)
I know people at work that think that way. They ignore the innocent people getting out of jail because of DNA evidence from the 1980s finally being tested. They've never seen the documenry The Thin Blue Line [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the number of vigilantes who use these lists to search for potential victims the number of lives saved may well be negative. That's before you even consider suicides and premature deaths due to people being unable to "re-enter society".
All things considered... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a proponent for freedom and privacy and all that... ...but these are convicted sex offenders, not your average joe or script kiddy. I admit I have to agree with the decision, even if it's not reliably enforceable. Please keep in mind the popularity of online chat rooms as far as finding young kids goes, and the use of the internet to spread child porn. Even if it doesn't work perfectly, I can't disagree with it.
Please, Think of the children!
I can't tell if you're kidding or not, especially after the 'think of the children' line. In case you're not being funny: I have a friend that is a 'sex offender' because he got pissed off at his neighbor and flashed her during an argument. She pressed charges, and now he has to register. What he did was stupid... but kicking him off the net? That's the same level of offense as a brutal rape?! I'm glad we don't live in NJ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd read TFA (and not just its misleading headline), you'd realize that since your friend probably didn't use the Internet to help him flash his neighbor, this law wouldn't apply to him even in NJ.
Busted. You're right, I apologize. As you've pointed out, I was dumb enough to run with the sensationalist headline.
If it's one thing that scares me in this world, it's the thought of a justice system that doesn't permit a proper shot at rehabilitation. I am paranoid that the US is headed in that direction, all for fears of what might happen. If you ask me, that's a sure-fire way to land us in a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With what law enforcement did being even more stupid. Unless there was at least one third party witness to the whole thing then it should have been simply "no case to answer".
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.
T-Mobile Phones? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
My daughter was accosted by a man who masturbated in front of her; he was caught, had offended before and was given probation. He offended again, and was given probation again, plus put on some kind of drug therapy. A year or 2 ago, we got a call from the
Re: (Score:2)
Would make more sense with drunk drivers, who are a serious danger to everyone (including children). Indeed making them destitute would actually impede their ability of re-offend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree - those murderers put to death are *guaranteed* not to hurt anyone else ever again, in prison or society. As regards preventative value, I'll defer to those who have studied it in detail, but for the individuals put to death, it's most definitely effective at preventing recidivism.
I allways marvel at those chritians that seem to not understand "Thou shal
Re: (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 conte
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!"
RTFA: (Score:2, Interesting)
The bill applies to anyone who used a computer to help commit the original sex crime.
This seems to make slightly more sense than how the summary portrays it. If they were convicted of molesting someone through myspace et al, why not take their weapon away from them? On the otherhand, if you didn't know she was underage at that party, from the sounds of things you should still be able to read slashdot.
Can slashdot comments have one of those EULA style things that pops up and asks you to check that you've RTFA'd?
Or maybe some kind of captcha that makes you answer questions about TFA?
Prügelknabe (Score:5, Insightful)
Meet the new scapegoats (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Require the person to submit to the installation on the person's computer or device with Internet capability, at the person's expense, one or more hardware or software systems to monitor the Internet use; and
It seems like it's just monitoring your computer (if you have that), with penalties imposed if you're found to be using the internet for purposes you shouldn't be - or if you've been banned, from using it at all.
What I don't understand is why these draconian measures are used, limiting peoples rights who are having a h
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Porn, porn, porn.
We ALL know where THAT leads...
possibly even to
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Except when you actually look at things a little more closely you discover that there are all sorts of people who were never any kind of danger to anyone (including children). Including cases which should probably never have gone anywhere near a court in the first place. Possible a fe