Online Sex Offender Database Leads To Murder? 1001
nem75 writes "The LA Times reports on the story of Michael A. Dodele, a convicted rapist, found murdered in a Lakeport trailer park. He moved there after having been released from prison just 35 days before. A 29-year-old construction worker has been arrested in the attack, and explained that he killed Dodele to protect his son from child molestation. He found out on the internet about Dodele being a sex offender, via the 'Megan's Law' database. The public entry for Dodele in the database was wrong — though he was found guilty of committing crimes against adult women he was not a child molester. Dodele's entry in Megan's Law DB has been removed." Update: 12/11 15:51 GMT by Z : Moved link to non-reg article.
Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the purpose of creating a society of hate.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was gonna mod you up to save you from obtuse mods, but you're AC. Your point, nevertheless, is right on target.
Things like the police and civil society were formed to protect us from each other. When you stick something up like a db of criminals and their houses, you effectively remove this protection, and create a society of fear, which becomes a society of hate.
But to make time for RIAA-orchestrated police raids [google.com], I guess you need to relieve the police of some of their responsibilities.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a bad idea. I think all public records should be easily accessible and searchable.
and a list of who their neighbors were at the time, as well as their immediate family. Make it accessible to the public so everyone can see, we'd be so safe then that we wouldn't need the police anymore.
The rest of your post is just nonsense.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool! Do I have your permission then to go into your DMV file and obtain your social security number and address?
The point being of course that even public databases can have reasonable privacy protections in place. I fail to see why someones criminal record should be accessible to all after they have paid their debt to soceity. In the specific case of sex offenders, if they are so dangerous that we have to notify people when they move into the neighborhood, then why the fuck are they being released from prison?
Either they are that dangerous, in which case lock 'em up and throw away the key, or they aren't, in which case, WTF is up with being punished after you get out of prison?
I'd tend to be with the lock 'em up and throw away the key crowd as far as child molesters and rapists go.... but other sex "offenders" (teenagers having sex when one or both are under the age of consent) are also finding themselves on these lists. I don't see how any reasonable person can condone that.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not, because soceity recognizes that there are legitimate reasons for withholding it, even from public records. I filed bankruptcy a few years ago -- if you were so inclined you could go pull every single document and fling from my case off PACER -- but the SSN is redacted from all of them.
Likewise, I'd like to think that if you pay your debt to soceity (i.e: you aren't on parole or in prison) then soceity shouldn't judge you for your past actions. I'm also a member of the minority that thinks it's abhorrent to deny convicted felon's the right to vote -- after they have completed their sentences. Why the hell should you be disenfranchised from soceity for the rest of your life if the crime wasn't harsh enough to warrant a life sentence?
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Because youve proven to society that you make bad descisions.
Hence, why we disenfranchise divorcees, people who've declared bankruptcy, owners of large SUVs, and fans of American Idol. And I'd recommend only selective voting registration for Slashdotters with enough negative moderation too.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you aren't willing to personally lop off their heads you shouldn't be willing to permanently disenfranchise them either. Ensuring that there's little point to their possible redemption will simply remove any remaining motivation to be something other than an animal.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
But then I read the rest of your post and realized that you were less interested in actual justice (the administering of deserved punishment or reward justice defined [reference.com]) and more interested in living in fear.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, you did what the killer did.. misunderstood the crime and lept to assumption that this person was much worse then they are.
I view this Oliver as a far worse human being.... based off guesses and the excuse 'but my child was abused once!' this person is justifying murdering someone. And the sad, sick thing is many will probably agree with him and call him a hero (or even justified) when in reality he was a dangerous idiot who needs to be kept behind bars for a LONG time.
A rape is a terrible thing, but the guy was not sentenced to death for it,.... some yokle in a tailer park does NOT have the right to second guess the justice system and kill the guy anyway.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how many people speak up and say that the punishment fits the crime (such as the jury that convicted these people in the first place), there will always be someone saying it doesn't go far enough. And who wants to go on record and side with the convicted sex offender? So punishments will get harsher and harsher, and there will still be people saying it's not enough.
Punishment is only part of the solution. Punishment feeds our hunger for retribution and revenge, but it's the least effective at actually solving the problem. Please don't forget about things like the scientific method, deterrence, rehabilitation and proactive assistance for potential criminals. Yes, some people will convict crimes after being released from the criminal justice system. Most will not. Is it really appropriate to punish those people just because they might commit another crime in the future? I've never been convicted of a crime, but 100% of those that are convicted of a crime had never been convicted prior to their first conviction, right? Why not suspect everyone of being a potential offender?
Every so often, someone does need to step up and say, please think of the sex offenders! What kind of a society are we giving our precious children? A suspicious, fascist, paranoid police state? Look at the big picture here.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You could argue that the effect is the same. The modified law represents the "new" debt to be paid to society by people convicted of these crimes. But that's not why the law was modified. Society didn't decide that the punishment should be harsher, they decided they wanted to track the evil child molesters that The System loosed upon society.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife and I have to move around whenever sex offender laws get passed. It's to keep me away from schools. Dumb mistake in my life that really blows.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Funny)
A fake story on the internet? Fairly common I would say.
Re: (Score:3)
Fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate... hate leads to suffering!
Maybe George Lucas was onto something...
Re:Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
With repeat offenses so high among sex offenders, We should have the opportunity to have the information necessary to protect our families. I'd like to know before I send my kid to little Johnny's house to play whether Johnny's dad or older brother has a history of molesting kids. I lived in a neighborhood where a recently released child rapist/murderer had moved in with his parents right before we moved into our house. He'd done the crimes while a juvenile so he had a shorter sentence (10 years) and he wasn't in the online db. You can bet it would have affected our decision to buy a house in that neighborhood.
Police can't protect you. They can only clean up the mess afterwards and hope to be a deterrant. The only way we can protect ourselves and our families is if we have the information at our disposal to do so.
Doesn't information want to be free, anyways?
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at the DOJ statistics for recidivism and sex offenders (easy way to get a good analysis is via the Skeptics magazine from earlier this year, it'll be on their webpage). Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders re-offend at a much lower rate than most other felonies.
But popular society right now has a lot invested in the idea that there's a pedophile behind every rock, so no one pays attention to the real numbers (since we're out of commies now, and terrorism is all wrapped up by Jack Bauer, this must be the "new thing" to worry about when we're not making PSAs about the "autism epidemic").
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
But popular society right now has a lot invested in the idea that there's a pedophile behind every rock, so no one pays attention to the real numbers (since we're out of commies now, and terrorism is all wrapped up by Jack Bauer, this must be the "new thing" to worry about when we're not making PSAs about the "autism epidemic").
meta study [csom.org] ~39% for rapists ~53% for child molesters after 25 years
3 year study [usdoj.gov] ~5% after 3 years (mixeD)
Canadian study [ps-sp.gc.ca] ~27% after 15-20 years. (mixed)
Another Canadian one [johnhoward.ab.ca] ~42% after 15-30 years.
Variations are due to different criteria for re offenses. Some count only second convictions, others count second arrests. All note that this classification of crime is often under reported. Most of the long term studies point to a coin flip whether a person will do it again.
Re:How do these compare against other crimes? (Score:5, Informative)
Violent crimes such as murder and assault outside the family tend to be a "young man's" crime. The recidivism rate for murder tends to be quite low, in part due to the long sentences and in part due to "aging out" of testosterone-laden anger.
Family violence and for that matter sex with live-in children tends to go down if the person is not living with anyone after release. Duh.
How are the statistics affected by such factors as stable employment, stability of housing, stable family life, availability of affordable, no-stigma-attached psychological help, etc.? Today's "crucify them all" society increases the risk of recidivism by making pariahs out of those who need stability the most.
Some of the highest-recidivism rates are things that are not enforced much. I bet 99% of people who have ever gotten a ticket for speeding committed a similar crime within a month of paying their fine and I bet 99% of them do it at least monthly if not daily. They just make sure they don't get caught. What would society look like if all convicted speeders had to put a speed-regulator on their car for the next 10 years and put a "convicted speeder" bumper-sticker on their car as part of their punishment? The roads would be a lot safer I'm sure, but I don't want to live in that world..
Treatment helps a lot. Dropping the rates by 1/2. But some do not think they have a problem and do not want or seek treatment. Thus I think sentences ought to be indefinite unless they accept treatment. Because this type of crime can destroy a life.
Also, all rates are suspected to under estimates. For instance Karl Toft admitted to have molested over 200 boys during his lifetime while only 28 came forward to press charges.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
So here we have an individual who is 86-94% likely not to reoffend. Do you think his chances to stay out of trouble and not cause harm to your child are improved by living under the bridge [cnn.com], not having a decent job, only having other sex offenders as friends and having reasons to hate potential victims (us)? Do you think Jonny's son is likely to grow up an upstanding citizen if his family is hated and he is shunned by everyone in school?
Police tries to protect society overall by reducing crime rate. By taking justice into your own hands, you are only thinking about yourself at the expense of the rest of your community. Even if your actions are technically legal, you may be actually hurting your and your family's safety due to your lack of experience. Showing hate to someone is sure likely to make you a preferred target of their potential future crimes.
Innocents get hurt by vigilantes (Score:5, Informative)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2D6153AF933A15751C0A963958260 [nytimes.com]
This was an early case, and the county government screwed up - they took the extra step of delivering flyers to the neighborhood, freaking everyone out and thus whipping up a lynch mob. Nevertheless, the same principle stands. Yes, people have a right to know, but they don't have a right to pre-emptively use violence. Practical as well as moral reasons.
There's a reason why we give law enforcement to the police. They can make mistakes like anybody else - but who the hell knows what a fired-up, untrained, possibly psychotic random lynch mob can do, to *innocent people*?
FYI (Score:4, Informative)
TFA (Score:5, Informative)
Lake County Sheriff
Ivan Garcia Oliver 29, has pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder, burglary and elder abuse.
Lake County prosecutors have investigated the possibility that information in the Internet database might have been the motive for the killing of a convicted sex offender.
By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 10, 2007
LAKEPORT, CALIF. -- Convicted rapist Michael A. Dodele had been free just 35 days when sheriff's deputies found him dead last month in his aging, tan mobile home, his chest and left side punctured with stab wounds.
Officers quickly arrested Dodele's neighbor, 29-year-old construction worker Ivan Garcia Oliver, who made "incriminating comments, essentially admitting to his attacking Dodele," the Lake County Sheriff's Department said in a statement.
Prosecutors said they have investigated the possibility that the slaying of Dodele, 67, stemmed from his having been listed on the state's Megan's Law database of sex offenders. If so, his death may be the first in the state to result from such a listing, experts said.
Oliver pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder, burglary and elder abuse when he was arraigned Nov. 30.
In a jailhouse interview Wednesday night, Oliver said he has a son who was molested in the past, and he took action to protect the child.
"Society may see the action I took as unacceptable in the eyes of 'normal' people," Oliver said. "I felt that by not taking evasive action as a father in the right direction, I might as well have taken my child to some swamp filled with alligators and had them tear him to pieces. It's no different."
Although Oliver did not say he killed Dodele, he said that "any father in my position, with moral, home, family values, wouldn't have done any different. At the end of the day, what are we as parents? Protectors, caregivers, nurturers."
In fact, Dodele was not a child molester. But a listing on the Megan's Law website could have left Oliver with the impression that he had abused children because of the way it was written.
Although Dodele's listing has been taken down since his death, a spokesman for the state attorney general said the site described the man's offenses as "rape by force" and "oral copulation with a person under 14 or by force."
"He was convicted of other bad things, but nothing involving a minor," said Richard F. Hinchcliff, chief deputy district attorney for Lake County. But "it would be easy to understand why someone might think so looking at the website."
Dodele's crimes involved sexual assaults on adult women, records show.
A neighbor at the Western Hills Resort & Trailer Park, a tattered collection of mobile homes and bungalows, said that two days before the killing, Oliver "told every house" in the park that he'd found Dodele listed on the website of convicted sexual offenders and was uncomfortable living near him.
"He looked it up on the computer . . .
The park resident requested anonymity because of a fear of reprisal, but reported Oliver's visit and statements to sheriff's deputies after the slaying. "A lot of people told them" about Oliver's claims, the person said.
Officials in Lake County -- a patchwork of wealth and poverty, vineyards and mobile home parks just north of Napa Valley -- would not offer a motive for the killing.
Hinchcliff acknowledged, however, that one possible motive investigated by the district attorney's office was that Oliver knew Dodele was on the Megan's Law list and did not want him as a neighbor.
According to court documents, Dodele committed his first offenses at age 15 and spent the last two decades either in prison or at Atascadero State Hospital receiving treatment.
His last attack was the 1987 knife-point rape of a 37-year-old woman on a Sonoma County beach.
Those were the charges
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the responsiblity for the murder is solely on th eman who committed the murder. Ironically one of the victims of this murder is the very child the murderer was trying to protect, who will grow up without a father.
On the third hand*, maybe the kid's better off without a violent dumshit like that around.
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
*The Mote in God's Eye, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
All valid points. What good is a system of state-sponsored punishment if after you've paid your debt, you're still considered guilty? Why would that make any prisoner want to reform, if he/she knew they would be treated the same no matter what? Yes, there is the problem of recidivism, but I think that is exacerbated by this kind of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Otherwise, why not just put rapists to the death too?
Your argument is one of emotion, not logic.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Cite please.
Cite please.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Convictions _are_ public info (Score:5, Insightful)
People may well be prejudiced. However stupid, that is their right except where limited by law. A bigger problem is differential privacy, where some people can hide things and others cannot. A boss might be less inclined to go after a gay employee if his own divorces and DUIs were equally public. Likewise for the cop.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
US [csmonitor.com]
Canada [ps-sp.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
It's kind of like the system is set up so that the deck is so stacked against someone who has been in prison, they want him or her to do something bad again so they can pass even harsher laws.
If Megan's Law really did lead to this murder, then the parents of Megan share a portion of the blame and deserve to be treated as co-conspirators. The law doesn't bring their child back, but apparently it did deprive a once-sick man who had paid his debt to society from life. There, does that sound enough like the guys who think homosexual prison rape is a desirable punishment?
(Make no mistake, I do not sympathize with rapists, but if we do not have the rule of just law, we have nothing).
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
Gee, it sure seems like the guy convicted of assault with a deadly weapon had a much higher recidivism rate. Not to mention that the guy he killed never molested a child, or a male. Maybe we should just have an offender registry that lists everyone who has ever been convicted of any crime? After all, maybe you don't want to buy that house on the same block as the lady who has received 5 speeding tickets... your kids wouldn't be safe in the front yard. After all speeders are notoriously recidivist, and the cause of many highway fatalities.
In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy was going to kill someone, somewhere, somehow. The fact that he a rapist living near him means nothing. If he didn't have the database, he'd grab the yellowpages.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Informative)
From Webster:
Murder - 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
"Register or log in" (Score:4, Informative)
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
Megan's Law FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
We are constantly bombarded with reports of what we should be afraid of this week ("find out about the new threat that could kill your children, tonight on 9 news at 10!"). We have also been conditioned through the use of these databases and sensationalist segments like "To Catch a Predator" to believe that everyone ever convicted (or even accused) of a sex crime of any kind is out to get our children. Given all this, it's not at all surprising that someone would snap and do something like this.
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
I play rugby, if anyone has been to a Rugby game or been around the Rugby community, you may notice that we're pretty improvisional about most things. Often pitches are just some open field with some 2x4 uprights, etc. Never have I seen a locker room and bathrooms are usually port-a-potties.
Prior to a 7s tournament (7 vs 7 for 7 minute halves, large tournaments have easily 500 people) someone was changing near the pitch and then kneeled down and peed on a tree.
Cop who obviously didn't notice the 499 other people doing this, decided to make an example out of this guy. He now has to register on the list.
Guy was going to be a elementary school teacher (and had just graduated). Although I guess it's better than being dead, right?
FEAR EVERYTHING AMERICA. THINK OF THE CHILDREN. (on the other hand I grew up around it, both my parents played and I don't think I could see much of anything that doesn't shock me and if I don't like it, I don't sit and stare and cry foul, I turn away.)
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Funny)
Changing in public and urination in public have to register too.
As well they should. Unfortunately, the law does not go far enough to protect the children. Did you know that, at this very moment, there are hundreds of millions of people in the US currently in possession of genitalia that could be used to commit any number of sex offenses? These people are allowed to walk around in public right next to children while carrying concealed genitalia. It is time to put a stop to this and make sure that all parents are aware of the threat that these sickos pose to our children.
Re:Society of Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen this logic posited many times in the past, and I don't get where you're coming from - perhaps you can explain. You seem to be saying that it's not harmful if the other person is also underage, but that it is harmful if the other person is overage. This doesn't make sense - if it's harmful, it's harmful, and that's that. Logically, it's actually more harmful if the other person is underage because the other person is less likely to be responsible about safety/birth control. Right?
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Leviticus 25:44 allows you to own slaves, provided they are from neighboring nations.
You may also sell your daughter into slavery (exodus 21:7).
There are dozens more, its a fun read.
Overall, if you want to live by the laws in the bible, thats fine. But you are not allowed to pick and choose the ones that you like and ignore the rest.
Face it, you are more than likely guilty of dozens of its laws and thus subject to death by stoning.
Have a nice day.
rarity of molestation (Score:4, Interesting)
I was once told by a woman of an ethnic background I'm not going to share with you that she didn't know any women of her ethnic background who hadn't been molested. I'd bet good money that was quite an exaggeration, but the bare fact that she said it, and the matter-of-fact tone she was using, creeped me out. No, I'm not presening anecdotal evidence. It's already well-known that most molestation occurs in the home, and not by marauding gay activists. It was just a weird thing to hear from a friend of my then-wife, who is of the same cultural background.
Re:Society of Fear (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
The irrational fear of this is beyond anything I have ever seen. I hear otherwise normal, educated people say that anyone accused should get the death penalty, or "if they get raped in prison, they deserve it. I hope they die of AIDS" and the like. The total hatred and desire for the accused to suffer a horrible death is pretty frightening in itself.
Right now in America, if you tried to pass a law that says that everyone 'ACCUSED' of sex crimes against children gets lethal injection without a trial, and put it up to a general vote, it would pass. Thank god we aren't a true democracy.
Re:Society of Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Take terrorism, for example. More Americans died fighting in Iraq than died on 9-11. Fewer than 3,000 people have died this entire century on American soil from terrorism, while half a million Americans die from cancer every year, another half million from heart attacks. The terrorists I'm more scared of are the terrorists who run the fast food and tobacco companies!
Meanwhile 40,000 Americans die on the highways every year. I'd like to see some of that Homeland Security money go to some guardrails - it would actually save some lives rather than being a political circus.
But guardrails don't give government officials more power.
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
Obligatory Penny Arcade link (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/09 [penny-arcade.com]
Bleeding hearts vs peasants with pitchforks (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand the psychology of rapists, so I can't say which position is correct. But I wish that our criminal justice system would either choose one or the other.
Re:Bleeding hearts vs peasants with pitchforks (Score:5, Informative)
So do some basic research. The first hit on google gives a government paper on the reoffending rates:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r164.pdf [homeoffice.gov.uk]
To summarise, less than 5% reoffend. It seems the 'bleeding hearts' win.
It's all about the screwup (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, right. There wouldn't be any.
In my opinion, that's sick. Because of a government agency's screwup, it's suddenly not A-OK to murder a released convict? If the man actually HAD been a child molester, you would never have heard of this story. Everyone would have shrugged it off. Eh, the murderer was twisted, but at least he was protecting his kid. The murdered guy was a sick child molester, so he deserved it anyway, right?
The sex offender list isn't any more wrong because of this. The murder isn't any more wrong because of the list's screwup (and the victim isn't any less of a sick person because of it). All this is is just another example why a sex offender list is stupid and unconstitutional -- it's just that it wouldn't be noticed if somebody hadn't screwed up.
Re:It's all about the screwup (Score:5, Informative)
Shekespeare on killing all the Catholic priests (Score:5, Funny)
"Save the children!" the Rabbi exclaims.
"FUCK the children, the lawyer snarls.
"No time for that!" says the priest
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait -- when was it ever OK to murder a released convict?
Actually, you would. (Sibling posts have links.)
I hope I never get as cynical about other people as you are right now.
If
Containing the damage (Score:5, Funny)
justice vs vengence (Score:5, Insightful)
My personal opinion is 'no', in fact they exacerbate the problem by limiting convicts' abilities to reintegrate into society. Once branded with the scarlet letter, they live out their Les Miserables' existence being pursued by law enforcement and vigilantes for the rest of their days.
Child molesters are the boogeymen of the 2000s, just like drug lords were of the 1980s and 90s, gangs of the 60s and 70s, and communists of the 1950s. They pose a societal threat, but not somuch that you need to legislate around their existence and vastly expand policing powers beyond what already exists.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Megan aside, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Megan aside, (Score:4, Funny)
Tradeoff... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, he made a GREAT choice - a real bargain.
Psychotically pro-active father (Score:3, Insightful)
This of course is completely separate from the discussion of the usefulness, constitutionality, and accuracy of sex offender DBs.
The Importance of Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
At least, that was my first thought. Then I realized that it doesn't have too much to do with privacy per se. After all, it doesn't matter if the data about the victim of the murder were accurate. It could have been entirely made up. Then, it's not really about privacy anymore, but about what people write about others, and how people react to that.
I recently moved into a new city. It would be easy for someone to tell the people in my new neigborhood that I am a child molester. If there is a respectable-looking website for posting this kind of information (and I'm sure there is), they could put a post up there for extra credibility. Doing so would be wrong, because I am not a child molester (of course, that's just me saying that, but just accept it for the sake of argument).
Then, someone might read the aforementioned post and conclude that I am, in fact, a child molester. That would be wrong, because they would have arrived at that conclusion by blindly believing what was written about me, without checking the facts. If they had checked the facts, they would have found that the claim was completely baseless.
Now let's assume that someone did, in fact, buy the claim that I am a child molester. Remember, they did so without checking the facts, the claim is baseless, and I am actually _not_ a child molester. But they think I am, and kill me to protect their child.
Mr. Dodele's case could be seen as a privacy case, because the information in the database supposedly was based on things he actually did. But in my (hypothetical) case, the claims were completely fabricated.
I think the real problem here is not that privacy is being violated, but that people (1) kill, and (2) do so without being sure their victim is actually guilty of the things they kill them for.
Assuming that the killer really did kill to protect his child, I think he did her a nice disservice - now she will have to live with the fact that her daddy is a murderer and an idiot, and probably an inmate, too.
The message I would like to send is (1) take everything with a healthy dose of scepsis, and (2) avoid doing things that are irreversible.
Have a nice day.
What do we expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, the victim was on the sex offender list for raping adult women, but this psycho was so convinced that sex offenders are dangerous predators that can't be cured, that he actually believed his son was in danger. His own words, referring to the victim looking at his son:
"It was more than watching," Oliver said. "You could see his eyes. He was fantasizing, plotting. Later on down the line, who knows how many other children he could have hurt."
So raping adult women = lusting after young boys?
We shouldn't be surprised by this type of tragedy after the media and politicians have gleefully embarked on a decade long scare campaign designed to convince the public that sex-offenders are pure evil incarnate. That they can't be cured. That they are worse than murderers. That they lurk behind every tree and every bush, waiting to attack children. That all sex offenders=child molesters and all child molesters=baby-butt rapers.
This alleged murderer may be a low-functioning individual, or he just may be crazy, but nevertheless our society has reinforced his paranoia and justified it. The real tragedy about all of this is that we have allowed our "modern" society to behave like some medieval village.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be convenient to think that this guy is somehow mentally handicaped, but that's a dangerous assumption because it implies that this kind of behavior is only possible from other low-functioning individuals. The quotes you have of
Keep in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Preemptive Justice (Score:5, Funny)
A friend of mine.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to have sympathy for molesters and rapists but when you hear of people released from prison whose only option is to live under an overpass because that's the only place not near a child I do feel some sympathy. I mean, shouldn't the government designate an area childfree in each state that these guys can live? If not, just put them back in prison for the rest of their lives. It's more humane than under an overpass.
Re:A friend of mine.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, remember that we will also need a women-free area for the rapists, and a property-free area for the thieves. Also a brain-free area for the fuckwits to come up with these "protect the children by fucking up someone's life so he's sure to not re-integrate into society" ideas.
Missing the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me a minor party hack published that it was okay to exterminate folks with a particular ancestry in Europe about 70 years ago, and that Milosovic basically published that it was okay to kill bad folks in Croatia and Bosnia about ten years ago. For those US folks that think "it can't happen here", a governor of a US Midwestern state published in the 1830's that it was ok to exterminate an entire group of people just for what they believed. That order wasn't officially rescinded until 1976.
Now then, I won't argue whether the convicted man was good or bad -- because most child molestors do not reform -- nor will I argue that folks don't have the right to protect their kids from unreformed molestors. What I will argue is that publishing a list in a manner as easily accessible as the Internet may be the wrong way to go about protecting the neighborhood. Because otherwise mob and/or vigilant justice takes control and can very easily get out of hand. Leading to murder and/or genocide.
This is why those lists are bad (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=BF0FA813-7607-4666-B1F081D6A6C701CC [guidemag.com]
Prior to that, two more child predators were killed from the same list by someone else. My feelings for child molestors aside, people can be on the list for not so bad things, and end up dead. That's a problem.
Could be worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, even though the database of sex offenders has his address as A7 and has pictures (he looks nothing like me), the police insisted that I was a sex offender until I provided an ID to show we had different birthdates.
So now I have to worry about whackos trying to kill the other guy and getting me instead? Great.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's another channel that would opiate some of these troglodytes. In the movie THX-1138, there is an entertainment channel that's just continuous footage of two android cops hitting a human prisoner with billy clubs. It made me wonder if a Violence Channel would do well. All it would be is things crashing, blowing up, fights and whatnot all culled from movies and news footage and sports.
Re:Trailer Park (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is great. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are 18 and are going out with a 17 year old and you're a monster, what are you if you are 17 and going out with a 16 year old? What are you if you are 18 1/2 and dating someone who is 17 3/4? In three months, you'll both be "18". I guess we could ask if you are 18, just about to turn 19 and you are going out with someone who just turned 18, what are you then. And then why is it okay for a 45 year old man to marry a 35 year old woman? What is this thing that happens to a person's mind during that day just before his/her 18th birthday through the day of his/her birthday? And what if you're just going out for ice-cream?
I'm just trying to figure out what "The Right Way" is. It is my understanding that 18 is a rather arbitrary age since voting, consuming alcohol (legally), and driving (legally) all have different ages associated with be able to perform said actions.
It is worse than you imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
* I know this information because for a few weeks I worked as a developer for a major national sex offender search website until my morals caught up to me and I realized what a colossally bad idea the sites are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
hey, yer on slashdot AND you have a woman. You're not a child molester, you're a paradox.
The rule of thumb I always heard was "half your age, plus seven". [wikipedia.org] So a 16 year old is ok if you're 18 or less. At 28, you could have gone down to age 21 without a problem. So dating that 23 year old was not a problem. At 50, you should stick to 32 or above. And an 80 year old shouldn't look below 47. Holds up pretty well.
Re:This is great. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This would make... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody deserves rape. You should be thankful that most of society does not share your sense of justice.
Re:This would make... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying rape is a good thing, or that it's not horrible to endure, but claiming that "It's worse than death because some women will kill themselves because of it." leads to a terrible precedent. The bottom line is that some people WILL kill themselves if they get depressed. Putting anything that causes that depression on the same level as murder is just idiotic.
And no, I've never been raped. By your logic, I guess that makes me unqualified to speak on the subject. Of course, given that we can't ask ANYBODY whose been murdered, we're going to have to start accepting testimony from people who didn't experience all these things.
Re:This would make... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand "meaningful relationship" is a pretty vague term. I'm not entire
Commensurability? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Paraphrased: You're just not arguing from emotion enough.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Extreme? Like saying the Earth is round? The database led to his murder. Fact. He was innocent of said crime. Fact. Database indicated where to find him to kill him. Fact. Presence on said database leads hysterical parents to targets, fact. Database is frequently WRONG. Fact.
Re:i'm going to get -1 troll into oblivion but (Score:5, Insightful)
From the US Department of Justice: 96% of female rape victims younger than 12 years old, knew their attackers. 20% were victimized by their fathers or step-fathers. 60% were victimized by another family member.
Sex crimes are the only crimes we continue to punish people after they've "paid their debt to society". We restrict their movement, restrict where they can live, and in many cases ensure through force of law that they never lead a normal life again.
If we, as a society, are convinced that child molesters are incurable, let's just keep them locked up. This idiotic list serves no purpose: if they are, indeed, almost certain to commit the crime again, why are we releasing them from institutionalization? If these people are "sick", let's transfer them from the penal system to the mental health system where they probably belong.
re: No, I'd mod you up if I had points... but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even IF we, as a society, decide that keeping these "sex offender" lists available for public searching is a "good thing", we certainly need to modify the laws themselves first.
Right now, the law doesn't differentiate at all between the man who has sex with 4 year olds in a childcare facility while working there, and the man who has sex with a 15 year old who lies about her age, and possibly even produces a fake ID showing her age as older than she really is.
In my mind,
Not troll, but total lack of Insight. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason for such registries, is to enact continuing lifelong punishment on the convicted criminal, even after the release, by virtue of harrassment by the members of the public who somehow have the free time to go browsing these databases (instead of taking care of their children).
What are you going to do if a sex offender moves next door to you? Have him evicted on a technicality? Torch his house? Stab him? Don't you think that whatever little chance there is of having this man re-integrate into society, will likely be ruined by this behavior? If you don't want to re-integrate this man into the society, then go ahead and lobby for life-sentences for any sex offense (18 sleeping with 17?)... or better yet - the death penalty. But if you take up the view that people can change, and can pay their debt to society, you have to accept your own conclusions.
But back to the main question - how is publicly-viewable registration going to increase public safety? Is it going to prevent a habitual rapist from raping? If not registering is a little crime, do you think that matters to someone who is pathologically going to commit far more severe offenses?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>> the rate of recidism in sexual crimes is high
Not true. It's about 5%.
Re:i'm going to get -1 troll into oblivion but (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, my point of view is that the lists are not making children safer. Rather, they seem to be aimed to exact punishment far after the criminal has paid his or her dues.
Finally, if there is a risk of recidivism, then we need to keep the person in jail and therapy. Releasing them and placing them on a "harass this person" list just encourages criminal behavior. After all, we are releasing people who are still dangerous (after all, high recidivism, right?) and then promptly removing any chance for them to integrate with normal society and develop a support network.
We're letting out dangerous people and encouraging them to recommit!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Re:Slashdot analogy trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, some take a different kind of initiative by going out into the swamp and shooting everything that floats, crawls or looks like an alligator in any way.
The difference between alligators and sex offenders is that alligators have laws protecting them.
Re:Notification of neighbors (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is where my problem with this law comes in. Being able to sidle into my den with a cup of coffee, turn on the computer, and find out who in my neighborhood is registered is a very different level of commitment than going to the police station. And it makes it possible for a whack job like this guy to find out that information without alerting police. No leads, then, when he kills the guy.
But that's not the full extent of my issue with it. My main problem is that you can't add things to someone's sentence after the fact. If you want to tell every sex offender from now on that they'll be on this list, that's fine. But to add someone who was convicted in, say, 1975 and spent ten years in prison is ethically wrong and quite possibly unconstitutional (under the 5th and/or the 14th amendments, perhaps). From a practical standpoint, it adds punishment after time served and could be argued to deny the convict of life (in this case), liberty, and even property (given that it's probably pretty much impossible to get a job if you're on the website).
There are a lot of dirtbags out there who are listed on the websites, and I do worry about them not only in general for society but for the safety of my own daughter. But dirtbags or not, you can't just tack more on to a sentence after they get out (sometimes years after they get out) because their crime is more repellent than most.
And I know, there is a higher chance of recidivism among sex offenders. So again, make it part of the sentence now. Eventually, all sex offenders will be on the website. Not a perfect solution if you're scared that you live near an offender, but if we start making exceptions to the law for hot-button issues, the entire concept of liberty is sunk anyway (for all of us, not just the sex offenders).