Slashdot Log In
Sex Offenders to Register Emails in Virginia
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Dec 12, 2006 04:25 AM
from the state-your-name-for-the-record dept.
from the state-your-name-for-the-record dept.
Isaac Bowman writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Virgina has a proposed law that would require sex offenders to register their email and IM screen names in an attempt to monitor and control their presence on social networking sites like MySpace."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Virgina (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right (Score:5, Insightful)
You miss the point (Score:3, Interesting)
because registering a new email address and IM account is so hard. Better still, get an .i2p email address.
But like Capone with tax evasion, catching a pedophile using an unregistered email address would then be a chargeable offense. Probably easier than proving intent of kidfuckery.
Re:You miss the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Good thing everyone on the sex offender list participates in kidfuckery, and not getting drunk and pissing in a bush or mooning your principal, or various other "sexual" offenses.
Parent
Re:You miss the pointlessness (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason this law will be useful is it can't be effectively enforced. Are you going to require that convicted sexual predators are monitored 24/7?
No, of course not.
If thats the case why have this silly rule? It would take me, as others have said, 30 seconds to create a new anonymous email account.
You're still missing it. There's nothing that will guarantee that you catch all pedophiles. It's a way of lowering the standard of evidence against a known pedophile. Let's say you get a transcript of a guy in a chat room talking to a kid, and he's careful enough not to say anything blatantly incriminating. But let's say it's a chat room the FBI does happen to be monitoring. If it's enough to raise their suspicion, but not enough to actually bring a case, they can trace the IP and see who the owner of the account is. If it's a pedophile using an unregistered email account, they can now press charges where they couldn't before.
This also does nothing to protect against those who have not yet been convicted of sexual abuse. If the illusion of security is all you want, enjoy your dream world, but that will just make you less safe.
Using that tired logic, we shouldn't have police either, because they won't catch every crime. Wouldn't want you to live in a dream world, right? This isn't meant to completely solve the problem. I'd say no law has completely solved any problem. It's really just another tool for law enforement to be able to more easily bring charges against recidivist but clever pedophiles. Just like tax evasion did with Capone.
Parent
Re:You miss the pointlessness (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When they find their registered address is blocked from MySpace, how long will it take even a not-very-smart pervert to work out he should get another one? All it's done is forced all the perverts to cover their tracks BEFORE they've done anything. About as useful as the No-Fly list. As if Osama bin Laden would book a ticket under his own name. But every poor guy called Mohammed is put through the wringer.
Security Theater. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep
It's just that its job isn't what you think it is. The No-Fly List doesn't really have anything to do with keeping terrorists off of planes, because as you pointed out, even the most retarded Al Qaeda operative is probably going to think of using a false name. What it does do, is create a (arguably false) sense of security in the general populace, and make them think that their government is "doing something." This is its function, its raison d'être, just like most of the other post-9/11 government "security" measures.
This registry is exactly the same thing. Nobody in their right mind can possibly believe that it's actually going to do anything to save children; it's a trivial requirement, one that if you're already OK with doing something illegal (like propositioning children), you're not going to have any trouble avoiding. But it's going to make a nice talking point for a few politicos, and help to create that 'warm, fuzzy feeling' in the hearts of the voters who are too stupid to see through it -- which is basically most of them, I've come to believe.
When you see a government program that's failing horribly but yet still allowed to continue year after year, chances are it's not really failing; it's doing exactly what somebody wants it to do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually some 9/11 attackers were on FBI watch lists and used the names on the watch list to buy tickets. However they were not on the "no fly list" which was grossly expanded after 9/11.
Re:Security Theater. (Score:4, Informative)
14 of the 9/11 hijackers were added to the list, along with many other people known to be dead. But they didn't add anyone they suspected of being a active terrorist agents; because the names of those people are secrect, and the list is too widely disseminated to allow that.
The no-fly list wastes a lot of money to make trouble for people who happen to have the same name as someone on it. It won't stop any terrorists because while it's trivial to circumvent, they wouldn't have to because their names aren't on it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The registry allows sex offenders to be treated as outcasts for the rest of their lives. You see, people on the registry have to notify people--mostly local schools and other organizations that deal with children heavily--that they are moving in. Those organizations alert the neighborhoods, and everyone knows there's a sex offender nearby. Even if some people manage to miss the notifications, they can use free and easy online lookup services to find sex of
Re:Right (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you cannot realistically ensure that all registered sex offenders have a single email address/IM address/etc and that they register them. What you do do, however, is make it a legal requirement to register all your electronic contact details if you're a registered sex offender, then if you catch someone violating the law, you've something else to charge them with.
This sort of thing is done all the time; to drag out an old example, it's legal to own a crowbar, it's legal to transport that crowbar from one place to another, but if you're caught in the act of burglary with a crowbar on you you'll most likely be charged with going equipped (or equivalent) because of it, as well as with burglary and anything else they can make stick.
By your logic, registering your vehicle is stupid, as you can just change the plates. Do that though and get pulled over for something else, and you're in a whole heap more trouble. Same thing here - if a registered sex offender is found to have an address that they've not registered, they're for it.
Now I don't happen to think that it's a good idea, but not because you can easily sign up for another account.
Parent
Yes, that is right (Score:4, Insightful)
I know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Forge profit for MySpace.com? (Score:3, Funny)
God damnit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either the sex offender has served his time, or he hasn't. If you're worried about their recidivism rate, UP THE TIME SPENT OUT OF SOCIETY, DO NOT SEND THEM BACK OUT THERE IF WE'RE SO SURE THEY'RE JUST GOING TO REPEAT OFFEND.
Seems simple, so why do these guys make it so complex?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me if they want to do something like this seriously, that everyone should be assigned an email address at birth *shrug*
Re:God damnit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Paid in full? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you are being sarcastic. If our society deemed that serving prison time paid for crimes, then nobody would ever be asked "Have you ever committed a crime?" on job applications and no ex-con would have to register for previous crimes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:God damnit. (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple fact is that if locking people into a cage for a specified term were actually a deterrent then the US would have the lowest crime of any country anywhere (it is my understanding that the US has more %age of pop'n locked up than anyone else). Since crime in the US continues to be a terrible problem, perhaps it's time we began to look at alternates, like real rehabilitaion, meeting the victims, performing real restitution etc.
Now before everyone freaks out, yes, there are still some that will need to be locked-up, but I'd suggest that in a healthy society that they are the exception. Let's face it: we're social creatures, and anyone of us that is anti-social is 'abnormal' and needs help and needs to be brought back into society to allow them to contribute.
Locking criminals all together is just a way to ensure that they learn from one-another and socialise with other criminals making them even more anti-social relative to the rest of us...
Parent
Urban legend (Score:5, Insightful)
Statistically, sex offenders have a very high commit-it-again rate.
Complete BS. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060516_predat or_panic.html [livescience.com]
For what we know, sex offenders are like other offenders ; many are just your once-in-a-lifetime (because they had oppotunity or whatever) type, a few are true maniacs in the medical meaning of the word. While the first type desserve a sentence, and don't need more attention than anybody else afterward, and probably less than a DIU convict, the latter type are mentaly ill persons, and they need constant medical attention instead of jail ; and they should be held in hospital until proven safe for release. Jail only prevent them from accessing adequate cure for their condition. The social pressure for a trial is in fact at the root of their early release (because neither a judge nor a jury is a qualified MD). This is medieval justice at its near best, if you don't count capital punishment.
Parent
Re:Urban legend (Score:4, Insightful)
(no points, sorry)
The amount of BS floating around on this topic is staggering. And the fact that mentally ill people are denied the attention they need is a major shame (this isn't a US only problem btw). Jailing them is simply stupid.
Parent
Re:Urban legend (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, politicians heard the first part of the argument ("Great! We can stop paying for those state hospitals!"), but not the second part, or the part about "most patients". The result is a complete mess, with short-term inpatient facilities in medical hospitals serving as a revolving door for severely mentally ill individuals with no followup, treatment beyond crisis intervention, or continuity of care; and absolutely no options besides jail in most states for non-rich individuals who would be best served by long-term inpatient treatment.
Parent
Re:Urban legend (Score:5, Insightful)
Or judges and juries showing some common sense. A felony requires "mens rea" - essentially foreknowledge that you're going to do something wrong. If the girl *looked* over 18 (or whatever the age of consent was in the state since they vary from 15 or so to 18), then the jury should show common sense and acquit the defendant, especially if no harm is evident to the girl. Besides, the whole "marked for life" thing should be restricted (if it's used at all!) to serious sex offenses like forcible rape, sex with a small child (say, under 12) - things like that.
-b.
Parent
Re:Urban legend (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Grand standing (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only anyone can get any screen name and email address anyway they want it. Next thing you know, people will be setting up the "virtual neighborhood" off shore.
This is one of those feel good law with some truthiness in mix!
myspace innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
They mean new software like:
if (user == sex-offender)
then (drop)
else (proceed)
Won't they just, er, get another account? It's like CAN-SPAM deja vu. Must be election time.
Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
How is a sex offender defined? I'm thinking there could be a whole range of sex offenses, from minor infractions to major ones.
If anything, if someone commits a major sex offense, then the judge in his or her right mind should consider removing Internet privledges. Wouldn't that stop the potential of the sex offender luring any more persons?
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
The furore over internet child abuse is great for headline writers, the combination of two topics which catch peoples attention and of course legislators do love their headlines. I'm surprised we don't see more of this kind of cross-topic headline grabbing. Legislation to outlaw the use of
- iPods to smuggle polonium
- Segways by terrorists
..
Oh maybe the headline writers didn't take best advantage of the oppertunity presented by the recent "No luxury goods for short fat dictators" legislationParent
Re:Comments (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone who has extra marital sex ?
Someone who has "sex not for the sole purpose of reproduction" ?
You can define that in a lot of ways...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
define: sex offender (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, making out in a car in a quasi-public place can likewise be considered a "sex offense", if I'm not mistaken, though in practice, the cops tend to crack down only on gay couples doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Sex offenders just ain't what they used to be.
Re:define: sex offender (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Tacitus (Score:5, Insightful)
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
I can see it now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a sex offender and don't want to support those in particular, but juridically, I think these questions still need to be asked:
- Why only sex offenders? Are other criminals not as dangerous? Do these not use e-mail?
- What happened to jail penalties clearing them of their crime after it's over? Or do I misunderstand part of their intent?
- How is this legislation going to be enforced? Will a sex offender willing to abuse kids be willing to register the mail address used for this?
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
2) No. The legal system takes a sharp turn to revenge, not reintegration. Actually it's been doing that for quite a while now, I'm not even sure if it was even ever any other way.
3) Not at all. But the idea seems to be that, when you have some case and someone is a suspect, you check his email activity and if he dares to have an account that's not registered you can already throw him back into jail and seize his equipment.
Parent
Cops and Lawyers... (Score:3, Informative)
What this will produce (Score:5, Interesting)
The latter will simply register some waste-spam addy, get a new freemail addy and go hunting again.
The former will register their mail addresses. Now, let me predict the next step. The next step would be to make those mail addresses public so "you can see if your kids are mailing to a bad man", maybe including a tool for the really dumb parents who can't figure even that out.
First of all, those registered addresses will drown in spam, because a legit mail address is gold for a spammer. Second, they will drown in hate mail from overzealous self appointed protectors of innocence and other bullcrap. I bet my rear that there will, no week after that list goes public, be a mailing list, so you can reach all of them at once. The net effect of this is either that they get a new mail address they can use (and don't register it), or they turn towards a "society hates me so I hate it too, to hell with it!" stance.
In either case, all you get is that those people go further underground and get more careful, and are thus harder to track and catch.
Great job. Really, I feel a damn lot safer now.
If I was a viagra spammer... (Score:4, Funny)
Bad, bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever received junk mail addressed to a former occupant of your home?
Have you ever been refused credit because of a bad debt run up by a former occupant of your home?
I can answer yes to both questions. I've even received late-night faxes from abroad on my voice line, because my phone number used to be a fax number (the telco had run out of never-before-used numbers and so had to give me a recycled one; it had been out of service for over a year, but that didn't help against some overseas scumsucker with an out-of-date phone book).
Now think of the way that information tends to hang around on the internet: somebody sees an interesting story, makes a copy of it on their website, the original goes away but the copy persists. Also, "sexual offences" cover a broad gamut. Legally there is no distinction between someone who has non-penetrative sex with a 15 year, 364 day old girl who managed to get into an over-18s bar; and someone who participated in gang-rape of a pre-school child. Being caught taking a leak in the street (in times when councils are closing public toilets, and bars and restaurants are erecting bogus "toilets are for customers' use only" signs [they're bogus because entering the premises for the purpose of using the toilet makes you automatically a customer]) is also deemed a sexual offence.
Still think all this tracking of sexual offenders is a good idea? I know exactly why this man [google.co.uk] did what he did.
Re:Bad, bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, the whole paedophile issue is totally overblown anyway. Sure, paedophiles exist and when they're caught then impose the stiffest possible penalties on them - but the fact is that there are simply *NOT* hordes of them cyberstalking children on the Internet. Yep, there's a few wierd people out there but kids are a lot more at risk from bullying by their peers, whether on the streets or on the Internet, than they are from paedophiles.
We have a legal system that is supposed to punish criminals to a point where they can be rehabilitated into the community when they have served a long enough sentence - this is no different whether they have stolen a car, burgled a house, murdered someone or committed an indecent act with a minor. If convicted paedophiles are released back into the community only to re-offend, then it is the legal and rehabilitation systems that need to be changed; this is no different to when a convicted burglar starts breaking into houses again.
"Sex offenders registers" do absolutely nothing apart from giving small-minded people someone to feel superior over and to justify their behaviour as banner-wielding thugs - you only need to look at these people in news reports to see that they are probably not the sort of people who should be reproducing in the first place.
Sure, have the legal authorities monitor rehabilited criminals but let them get on with doing that - for the rest of us, it really is none of our business what those who have "paid" for their crimes have done in their pasts.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just paint the whole world map and wait for a sane law to appear and cross that country out. It's less work that way 'round.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2c
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and so was whatever crime they commited that made them a sex offender. Those that will try to do it again are the ones least likely to comply with the law in full. All this will do is help ostracize the ones trying to do things right from now on.
Ars Technica had an article [arstechnica.com] about this also, here's a quote from it: