Illinois Bans Social Network Use By Sex Offenders 587
RobotsDinner writes "Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has signed into law a bill that bans all registered sex offenders from using social networks. '"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), a sponsor of the measure and a governor candidate. "The idea was, if the predator is supposed to be a registered sex offender, they should keep their Internet distance as well as their physical distance."'"
Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you can ban them from talking to the punishment here is far too harsh to not be challenged.
Social Networks? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder when we'll receive calls for govt. regulation of websites to keep it safe for children.
This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Either they've served their debt to society or keep them in jail. This half-assed "you're out of jail but you can only do X" is ridiculous.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are sex offenders treated worse than murderers (Score:5, Insightful)
People labeled "sex offenders" (could be from mooning someone, urinating in an alley, having manga, and other little things) are treated worse than murderers in the US. Murderers don't have to tell the community after serving time that they killed someone. They can rent apartments almost anywhere. There's no online database anyone can browse to find murderers living in your area...
It saddens me as, basically, it's better for the perp's punishment to rape a child, kill them, and dispose of the body than just raping them.
Re:how is this enforceable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, but also not all convicted sex offenders are convicted for crimes that imply all of the outrage associated with the title "convicted sex offenders". As many other posters have pointed out, things like two underage people having consensual sex, public urination, texting a naked picture, etc require registation as a sex offender and apparently being banned from popular social networks. The Economist had a great article about this very subject (cover article actually). They pointed our rightly that the situation is unlikely to get better because no politician wants to be branded as being against coming down tough on "sex offenders".
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfortunately there are a lot of advantages to the current approach. Off the top of my head: The state doesn't have to pay for housing or worry about jail overcrowding, doesn't have to face court or public opinion challenges for unreasonable sentence lengths -- high school lovers where the male goes to jail might actually catch media attention if they were sentenced to life, and this way they get a PR boost every time they can think of a new way to screw over every supposedly-free person labeled a sex offender.
This is an instance of politicians doing a ridiculously good job of optimizing things; if only the voting public weren't so fucking stupid, there'd be a downside to it and their behavior would change.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it.
After you've been convicted of a crime, you can certainly have civil rights taken away as a punishment.
But there's something else people might not realize: civil rights under our system can be regulated if there is a compelling public interest in doing so and the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. My freedom of speech does not entitle me to speak my opinions through a bullhorn at 3AM in a quiet neighborhood. I am required to find other means of expressing opinions. A law against talking at 3AM would be too broad; a law against talking so loud that people inside their houses are unable to ignore it is narrow; it doesn't prevent me from communicating other ways or at other times.
Telling a sex offender he can't communicate with his friends ever again would be unconstitutionally broad. Telling him he can't use social networking sites to do so is a more narrow restriction, what's more there is a rational justification for it. A social networking site provides access to many, many more potential victims than tradtional ways of making and having friends. Not only is there a "law of averages" effect, it's an ideal laboratory in which to hone a script for convincing a victim to put himself at danger. You can be rejected hundreds or even thousands of times, but if you try something different at or near the point of failure, eventually you'll have a diabolically effective approach.
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
If they aren't ready to be re-introduced into society then they shouldn't be, it should be as simple as that.
The idea was, if the predator is supposed to be a registered sex offender, they should keep their Internet distance as well as their physical distance
You thats where the problem lies - you know why people go to prison? To keep their Physical distance away from everybody. If they aren't able to handle that reimmersion they shouldn't be. If the guy can live on his own he should sure as hell be able to surf the net alone.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Telling him he can't use social networking sites to do so is a more narrow restriction, what's more there is a rational justification for it.
No, the "justification" is most irrational.
Lumping violent repeat rapists in with people who pee in the woods when they think they're alone, and claiming that "it's for the children" is 100% completely and totally emotional, and therefor about as far from rational as you can get.
Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime (Score:2, Insightful)
Facebook is a fad, like Myspace, and Geocities. You won't be using it in 3 years.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
but rape that involves no weapon or fighting is just not something I would call "violent."
Bullshit. It's rape if one of the partners doesn't consent to the activity. The fact that the rapist wasn't armed really shouldn't enter into the calculation, except in so far as that they wind up charged with additional weapons offenses in addition to the rape charge.
Mind you, I don't think statutory rape should be regarded in the same manner as what I described above, but to say that rape isn't a violent crime just because no weapon was involved kind of misses the mark, IMHO. You don't regard it as a violent act to have something penetrate your body against your will?
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Why on earth would you allow someone out of jail if you expected them to commit their crime over and over again?
Well, one reason is because there is the concept of "due process of law" in this country, which makes it illegal to hold people indefinitely just because they worry you. People are convicted and sentenced for their crimes, and once they have served their sentence they have the right to go free. (*)
You could argue that sex offenders should have longer sentences, but you really don't want to give policement/guards/politicians the ability to keep prisoners in jail indefinitely just because they don't like them. That kind of power quickly leads to the kind of abuses that habeus corpus was made to prevent.
(*) In theory, anyway -- in practice, it seems you can get around this by calling the person a terrorist, at which point the person's civil rights magically evaporate. But just because the application of law is currently f*cked up doesn't mean we should try to make the situation worse.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:America's unjust sex laws (Score:5, Insightful)
In some states, the age of consent and child porn statutes have the same age limits.
For instance, a quick read of NV law shows the AOC to be 16. Child porn is defined as sexually explicit blah blah blah involving a person under 16. Federal law makes it a crime with a person under 18, but there may be some state line/interstate commerce nexus that needs to be fulfilled.
I didn't feel like looking at too many states, but found this same AOC/CP thing with NH-16/16.
Many states forbid distributing/exhibiting obscenity to people under 18, regardless of their AOC/CP statutes.
SO, excluding the feds, it's not a crime to have sex with a 16 year old or film it. But, she can't watch the tape afterwards. It's a crime to allow her 16 year old friend to watch the act as it occurs, but not a crime to have her join. Neither of them can smoke a cigarette or have a beer afterwards. If either one were to rob,beat,kill one of their fellow participants, they would be tried as an adult in every state in the country.
Re:Why are sex offenders treated worse than murder (Score:3, Insightful)
in your scenario, they would still be a sex offender.
Yes, but not a registered sex offender. That was the point. Assuming they successfully disposed of the body they could still be convicted of murder but it would be much harder to prove rape. The murder charge would carry jail time, but there is a significant possibility of them eventually being released from jail and from that point on they would be in the clear. On the other hand, the sex offender charge would be a life sentence. Only part of that sentence would be jail time, but the time after release from jail could very well be worse than the time spent in jail.
This relates to the "law of unintended consequences". We all agree that rape is bad, but assuming that rape has been committed the current state of law provides incentive for murder. Having committed rape, the perpetrator is very likely better off killing and disposing of the victim rather than releasing them.
Re:This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
You're advocating punishing people for crimes hey might commit - I think you have a very confused notion of "strong civil liberties leanings".
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
If you:
Then no, it is not violent. Violent crimes involve violence of some sort. A lack of violence makes the crime non-violent. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it seems pretty fair to set the threshold of a "violent crime" to be "violence was involved." This is not to say that it is perfectly fine to rape someone -- violence is not the sole factor in determining whether or not something was wrong -- but I absolutely would separate a violent rape from a non-violent rape.
Re:This is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
And the right to bear them is guranteed by the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
Part of which (the Constitution) says:
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Thus it seems that for better or worse the Constitution has a provision that allows for the deprivation of the liberties of convicted criminals who have been accorded due process of law. If we can take away their right to vote and keep and bear arms, why not the "right" to use Facebook?
Re:This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Either they've served their debt to society or keep them in jail. This half-assed "you're out of jail but you can only do X" is ridiculous.
"Served his debt to society" is not coterminous with "does not pose a threat to the rights of others -- we would failing our duty to preserve those rights if we did not take reasonable steps to reduce the risk to society as we attempt to reintegrate prisoners into society. We know that some will succeed and some will fall back into crime but, of course, we don't know how it will play out in each individual case. We could keep them all in jail a lot longer because some are still dangerous or we could let them out under reasonable restrictions. The latter seems much more humane, IMO.
The most obvious is the law prohibiting convicted felons from owning firearms. On /. it's easy for people to insist that felons should have all their rights back but I can just imagine how the public would react to a politician that proposes restoring gun-ownership rights for convicts.
Another fairly clear-cut case are the provisions banning those convicted of certain white-collar financial crimes from taking a position of trust (aka, being accountants) over others' money. It seems reasonable that once you are convicted of embezzling your clients'/company's money, that line of work is off limits.
[ IMO, the instant case turns on how narrowly or widely the term "sex offender" is construed -- if it really means "violent people that prety on children" versus "had sex while he was 17 and she was 16". In the former case, I'm not going to lose sleep over child rapists not browsing facebook -- in the latter, well, that just goes to show how retarded our sex-crime laws can be. ]
Those are old and short-horizoned (Score:2, Insightful)
This was published in 2003 but reflects data from the first 3 years after releases in 1994.
For something that can be as deeply engrained as age-based sexual attraction or sociopathic tendencies that lead to rape, I would like to see 10-years-after-release statistics comparing various sex-offender scenarios with each other and with non-sex offense scenarios.
We also must stop lumping people together as "sex offenders." It's simply not a useful category when it comes to protecting the public from perceived future recidivism risk.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not fight, shout, shove, or resist in any way
So we can only call a crime violent if the victim is willing to resist in same manner?
Are not being threatened with a weapon of some sort
Weapons are not limited to guns and knives. If you were a 100 pound female facing a 200+ pound male who has three or more times your muscle mass are you seriously going to argue that it shouldn't be considered a violent crime just because he didn't happen to have a firearm, knife or some other technological piece of weaponry?
Were not poisoned or endangered
Being raped is endangerment. Ever heard of STDs? Ever heard of the ones that can't be cured and which are eventually fatal? There's a reason why most states (even the liberal blue ones) allow for the use of deadly force when confronted with a would-be rapist. A rapist is arguably every bit as dangerous as a loaded gun pointed at your head or knife at your throat.
Violent crimes involve violence of some sort
I would argue that having your body penetrated against your will is an inherently violent act.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:2, Insightful)
"You don't regard it as a violent act to have something penetrate your body against your will?" If you:
Then no, it is not violent. Violent crimes involve violence of some sort. A lack of violence makes the crime non-violent. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it seems pretty fair to set the threshold of a "violent crime" to be "violence was involved." This is not to say that it is perfectly fine to rape someone -- violence is not the sole factor in determining whether or not something was wrong -- but I absolutely would separate a violent rape from a non-violent rape.
Wanna go camping?
Re:Bzzt! Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. And all those things are also wrong.
Creating an underclass of ex-cons who can no longer integrate effectively into society is a great way to ensure that criminals re-offend. Voting, in particular, is a right, not a privilege, and the government should never have the power to take that right away, ever (well, unless you like the idea of the government disenfranchising people based on the very laws they passed).
Re:Social Networks? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is key. Everything is becoming social. Blogging, which might one have been viewed as publishing, is now social because Google has tied FriendConnect to Blogger. Legitimate job seeking tools like LinkedIn are very heavily social-network oriented.
This is stupid for a variety of reaons, but in a few years it will be the equivalent of banning them from using the Internet.
Re:Social Networks? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Due process of law does not mean passing laws further punishing people that have already paid their debt to society. They took the time to codify that you can't be arrested for doing what was legal yesterday but made illegal today, I fail to see how this is really a different concept.
Would you argue in favor of a law that executes anyone convicted of shoplifting, ever in their life? Do you honestly consider that due process?
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
but rape that involves no weapon or fighting is just not something I would call "violent."
Bullshit. It's rape if one of the partners doesn't consent to the activity. The fact that the rapist wasn't armed really shouldn't enter into the calculation, except in so far as that they wind up charged with additional weapons offenses in addition to the rape charge.
Mind you, I don't think statutory rape should be regarded in the same manner as what I described above, but to say that rape isn't a violent crime just because no weapon was involved kind of misses the mark, IMHO. You don't regard it as a violent act to have something penetrate your body against your will?
I think we have some pretty sociopathic mods when a post like this is modded Troll. The simple fact is, being subjugated against your will is a form of violence. The definitions of the words rape and violence imply this.
Go look it up. In the mean time, and as usual, go fuck yourself.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
Being raped is endangerment. Ever heard of STDs? Ever heard of the ones that can't be cured and which are eventually fatal? There's a reason why most states (even the liberal blue ones) allow for the use of deadly force when confronted with a would-be rapist. A rapist is arguably every bit as dangerous as a loaded gun pointed at your head or knife at your throat.
By this logic (STDs exist) you are also endangered by consensual sex. So do states also have laws permitting the execution of anyone caught copulating, for their own protection? That logic means that your boyfriend is every bit as dangerous as a loaded gun pointed... blah. I can't even finish typing it.
Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Although ironically, having someone known to go around beating women into submission to brutally murder them being restricted from social networking sites has not even been proposed.
How reasonable is this again?
Re:This is incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, most municipalities interpretation of the sex-offender list pretty much precludes this. In some major cities, the "off limits" sections are so widespread that you basically can't live there legally. Mass murderer released after 25 years? Come on down! On the list? Not in this town, buddy...
Whole premise is irrational (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
While the definition of "firearm" is pretty straightforward to include a deadly weapon that can kill over a distance of more than a kilometer, I seriously doubt that you, me or anyone else could draw a solid, non-disputable boundary around "social networks".
Is a hotmail account serving social functions? I think so.
Is it connected to a network of some sort? Well, yes.
Is it a "social network"?
What about a Slashdot account?
What about Adult-Friend-Finder and its cousins?
What about platforms like World of Warcraft?
What of that is a "social network" and why do we treat them differently than a physical, brick-and-mortar tennis club? Or a mobile phone? There are SMS dating services for them as well.
Do we ban sex offenders from there, too? Do we cut off Internet access for sex offenders?
The way I see it, sex offenders are the lowest hanging target for politicians to present themselves to be "tough-on-crime". Nobody can say anything good about sex offenders so we can tax, imprison and legalize them to hell - can we?
No matter if they're on the sex offender list for petty "crimes" they did in college or heavy violent rape, they should do their time in prison, locked up for as long as the judge ordered and then they're free humans again.
Cases with Capital Punishment don't need to be discussed here, but other than that the sentence should fit the crime and could carry several decades of imprisonment in extreme cases. After that, they're either still dangerous - and we could as well throw away the key - or they're free humans again.
Either we regard them as humans or we don't. We can do either, but it tells a lot about us "innocents" as well.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:2, Insightful)
Suppose someone is suicidal and willingly takes a gunshot to the head
I highlighted the difference between your strawman and the crime of rape.
You cannot say that it is violent just because the victim did not want it to happen.
In the case of rape, yes I can. Go talk to a rape victim and then try to tell us that it isn't a violent action. Try to convince us that the action of having your body violated is not an inherently violent act.
I would personally resist a rapist with my last ounce of strength. The fact that some people might be too scared to do so does not reduce the violence of the encounter in any way, shape or form.
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you feel about probation then?
How does the punishment of lifetime probation fit the crime of peeing in the woods?
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:2, Insightful)
We should only call someone a victim when it can be proven that
they actually are. Some double standard notion of merely believing
the "poor helpless female" really doesn't cut it when you are talking
about accusations of heinous crimes.
This isn't the dark ages. There's forensic medicine that covers this
sort of stuff. So if there aren't any signs of assault or battery then
we really shouldn't assume that it has occured.
Both of these (assault and battery) are ancient crimes that are well
defined and haven't been diluted by modern liberals.
Destroying the rule of law just to "protect the helpless female" is not ultimately productive.
Women as adults (legally and biologically) should be expected to act
as such and be expected to look after their own interests. They should
be no more or less responsible for their actions than a man.
Modern feminism really should be more egalitarian rather than resembling some anti-bellum idealism.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
It's rape if one of the partners doesn't consent to the activity.
We're talking about statutory rape here. Please try to keep up.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
This is also true outside of rape.
The person outside of the rape agreed to the encounter. There was nothing stopping them from making an informed decision about the encounter and taking steps to protect themselves. Of course not everybody makes an informed decision but that's a separate discussion.
The rape victim has had this choice taken from them. That's why it's different. I should think this would be obvious to anyone who was interested in paying attention to my point and not nitpicking it to death with comparisons with consensual activity.
I can't believe that I'm receiving troll mods for arguing that rape is a violent action. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me repeat myself: Is it not violent to be shot in the head just because you are willing to be shot? This is not a strawman; you said that rape must be violent because the victim is not willing to have sex, and I am asking if, by that logic, a being shot is only violent when you are not willing to be shot.
"I would personally resist a rapist with my last ounce of strength. The fact that some people might be too scared to do so does not reduce the violence of the encounter in any way, shape or form."
Except, of course, that we consider it to be "rape" when a 15 year old has sex with a 25 year old, even when the 15 year old was not forced to do so. The fact that you automatically associate "rape" with something that involves fear, trauma, or a lack of willingness only demonstrates that statutory rape is a misnomer and that we need to find a new name for the crime.
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that you automatically associate "rape" with something that involves fear, trauma, or a lack of willingness only demonstrates that statutory rape is a misnomer and that we need to find a new name for the crime.
The fact that you couldn't be bothered to read the part of my original post wherein I said "Mind you, I don't think statutory rape should be regarded in the same manner as what I described above" only demonstrates that you aren't interested in listening to my point or acknowledging the fact that I'm not talking about statutory rape.
I hope for your sake that you are never unfortunate enough to be a victim of this crime yourself or know someone who is. It's a thoroughly vile, disgusting and violent act and other than murder I'm hard pressed to think of a worse crime that can be committed against the person.
Relatives and friends (Score:3, Insightful)
"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington)
Obviously he doesn't know what she's talking about. Nearly all "predators" are related to, or are good friends with, the victim. Social networking sites aren't even on the radar.
I hate politicians.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
No, sorry. Your example about statutory rape where the 'victim' is in fact consenting is an example of a non-violent crime.
Rape against a non-consenting victim is sexual violence. There is violence inherent in the act of violating someone's body. Think for two seconds about what is actually entailed and this should be obvious.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
> Should sites like Facebook make an attempt to restrict access of registered sex offenders from certain
> subsets of the population? Perhaps, depending on the crime, what the judge had to say about it, parole board, etc.
Think you are close to the answer. Social networking sites that allow minors access should have a check box for members to mark that they are under court orders not to interract with minors. When checked minors just don't see that member at all.
If a couple of the big sites implemented such a feature it would then be reasonable to require registered offenders to only use those sites and have it set up such that their parole officer can monitor that they are indeed properly flagged.
Extended a little more it would be just as easy to have adults see a small warning icon to note the person they are interacting with is a known offender but it would be all too easy for such a thing to be abused by the same unholy coalition of do gooder Democrats and bible thumping Republicans to the point the warning would be ignored by overuse...
But really, longterm there is a better solution. If somebody can't be trusted not to reoffend don't let their ass out of the joint.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a better solution, but just to play devil's advocate, isn't your proposition "cruel and unusual punishment"? Specifically, it's disproportionate to the crime. You might as well just kill them. (I know some people would be fine with that, actually.)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Reasonable? If your goal is to win the love of your irrational constituents, then persecuting "sex offenders" (which often includes public urinators and the like, and in any case is highly subject to selective arrest like everything else) who are an easy target (no one loves to speak up in their defense) makes a great deal of sense.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
And if one of the participants looks 21, is in a bar that serves alchohol, had a legitimate looking id, and is actually 17-- then what?
It's happened recently -- in the news in the last couple months.
The guy was screwed since he was over 19. Statutory rape.
---
Even more horrifically, a bud of mine went to new orleans.
Had sex with a girl AND her boyfriend in a three way.
Turns out she had had a drink--- which apparently means she wasn't legally competent to consent in louisiana. Even tho she was probably blowing a .04 or less.
He finally got out of it. After losing his job, spending a lot of money on a lawyer.
I'd have fallen for the same thing- she was pretty and enthusiastic the night it happened apparently.
I will probably never go to New Orleans again in my life. Or I'll bring a breathalyzer. :-)
Re:This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. A young girl living next door to a former sex offender has a statistically far higher risk of being raped by her father than the sex offender. Should we then ban all fathers from contact with their children?
I mean, think of the children!
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whole premise is irrational (Score:3, Insightful)
The premise is irrational, but prison is most certainly punishment, as evidenced by the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, not cruel and unusual "protection for society". Are perpetrators of so-called crimes of passion a threat to society at large? A woman who drowns her babies? A man who kills his spouse and her lover upon discovering them in bed? Probably not. Even a parent who abuses their children. All we'd have to do is take away her children, maybe get her spayed, don't allow adoption, and the problem is solved, right? We don't put them in prison to keep society safe; we put them in prison to punish their actions. You can argue that the goal *should* be rehabilitation and/or reintegration, but as it stands that's a separate issue.
So the fact that we let unsafe people out of jail isn't irrational -- they've served their sentence. The irrational thinking here is twofold: First, most sex crimes are committed against people with whom the offender is already intimately familiar. The reason the ratio of publicized rape cases to actual rapists is so high is because sex crimes against strangers are extremely rare, and thus newsworthy. There is an argument to be made that social networks (whatever the fsck that means) can be avenues to making new social connections, which could lead to recidivism, but by that logic we should be ban from *any* social contact, which is clearly both impossible and absurd.
Second, as previously stated, one needn't be a rapist or a molester to end up on a sex offender registry. But more importantly, what is it about crimes involving sex that makes them inherently worse than other crimes, aside from morality. Why is stealing panties worse than stealing cash or a television? Why is a crime committed pursuant to the offender's own sexual gratification worse than a crime committed pursuant to the offender's fiscal gratification? Or megalomaniacal gratification? Or even psychopathic indifference which, I would argue, is a far more dangerous trait. If we are to use motivation to determine the severity of a crime, then it should be reserved for cases where motivation excuses the act, not where it reinforces the idea that the act should be illegal -- that's why the law exists in the first place*. This is especially true because rape is, at its root, an act of power. This is evident even by the context in which the word is used -- nobody sees an attractive person and says "I'd sure like to rape them!" They might use lewd terminology, but certainly they wouldn't be sexually gratified by raping them. On the other hand, rape is frequently a threat made by people who are angry at each other. People who want to, but usually cannot, impose their will on others. (See also: nerd rage). This is also the root problem of "hate crimes," because every crime is a crime of hate, or of deciding that someone else's value is less than your own, and acting accordingly.
* For example, killing to defend your own life is sometimes acceptable. It's acceptable when someone else initiates a threat against you, but obviously attempting to mug someone with a knife and having them pull a gun isn't an excuse to slash their throat.
Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime (Score:3, Insightful)
the law has to be made so that even if YOU get caught up in it, its fair.
this isn't at all a fair law. its the scarlet letter reborn.
very unamerican in its very concept. this is just grandstanding from politicians but sadly, its a 'third rail' that you cannot touch.
until we remove third-rails from our laws (or 'sacred cows' if you prefer) we will continue to be a poster-country of how NOT to keep its citizens 'safe'.
there is no safety in this; its pure emotive vote-getting. and its sickening.
I can only hope anyone who passes such laws ends up (by mistake, oh my!) on the other side, somehow. that would be sweet justice.
laws like this are too easy to abuse and once someone's life is ruined, its ruined for good. THIS is a really dangerous law. I dare say, it does more damage than it tries to 'correct'.
if someone is unsafe for society, keep them out of society. this 'law' ends up being the worst possible of both scenarios.
in NH, the state slogan is 'live free or die'. I do wonder, if any one of us got caught up, by mistake, in this kind of tanglement, would we want to continue to live out our lives under such a harsh magnifying glass? if you KNEW you were falsely accused? this probably does end badly for a lot of people. I don't think our 'lawmkers' even think one minute about it, either. they simply want VOTES.
what a shame this country has become.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
I sort of agree with the sentiment that releasing someone may be the problem ... but how can you know when/if it will be? There's a really basic problem with the so-called "justice" system in the US, in that it no longer attempts to rehabilitate people. And punishments are so late (I read yesterday about a trial finishing FOUR YEARS after the crime!!) and disproportionate to the offence (on top of crap like "big" drug players getting sweet deals while "small" ones get their lives ruined), that expecting sanity is unreasonable.
That's a serious misconception. Today, they're fundamentally about punishment ("sit in this overcrowded and dangerous hellhole for a few years"), and secondarily about segregation ... and in effect, also secondarily training about how to become a repeat offender.
Of course, if prisons had effective rehabiliation efforts then the repeat-offender training would become a non-issue. And there'd be a lot less of this "throw everyone (but mostly minorities) in prison, and never let them out" crap. But the prison-industrial complex wouldn't be so profitable then either.
Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the other problem with this law: What defines a social networking site? Just about any website that allows profiles and posts could be considered a social networking site. And is it just limited to websites? What about IRC or chat rooms? It wouldn't be hard to consider *any* network activity to be social in nature, ergo social networking, and they're effectively banned from the internet. If the internet is the important tool that politicians make it out to be -- requisite for education and competition in the modern and post-modern world -- then that should be a serious consideration.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:1, Insightful)
It's funny that the 15 year old can't consent to sex with the 20 year old (because the 15 year old "isn't an adult"), but if that exact same 15 year old KILLS the 20 year old (or anybody else), there's a good chance that they will be tried as an adult. WTF is wrong with our justice system?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:2, Insightful)
The biggest problem in my mind is that the term "sex offender" is applied far too broadly. See, when most people hear that term, they think of the sociopath who kidnaps little girls, rapes them to death, and leaves their bodies in ditches. Or the creepy old uncle who touches his young nieces and nephews. For such people, these laws aren't harsh enough.
However, a lot of "sex offenders" aren't anything like this. They earned that dubious distinction by, say, pissing in the bushes while drunk ("public indecency"), sending half-naked pictures of themselves to their highschool sweethearts while under 18 ("making and distributing child pornography"), or having sex with said similarly-aged sweetheart ("statutory rape"). It's one thing to put harsh measures on the child molesters in the first paragraph, but do the offenses I just mentioned really merit all this? Does somebody really deserve to be stripped of his rights to vote, own a gun, live where he wants, and live in privacy just because he took a piss in the bushes one day? Should stupid horny teenagers be labeled as rapists the rest of their lives for screwing on prom night and getting caught?
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
The most obvious is the law prohibiting convicted felons from owning firearms. On /. it's easy for people to insist that felons should have all their rights back but I can just imagine how the public would react to a politician that proposes restoring gun-ownership rights for convicts.
The problem with politics is that it only attracts politicians. Politicians aren't in the business of being leaders -- they're in the business of getting elected, and the best way to do that is to mirror the sentiment of their electorate, no matter how uninformed or illogical that sentiment might be. In other words, the fact that a politician would never say something is absolutely no reason to believe it's the wrong thing to say.
I've seen no evidence to suggest that disallowing firearm ownership for felons either effectively restricts access or decreases recidivism, and an ineffective law is worse than no law at all. It's just wishful thinking, and wishing never solves real problems. That a politician would never admit this, let alone campaign on it, only means that it is the public's mind that needs to be changed, not the politicians'.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to weigh in here. I'm old enough, I've been privy to the details of a number of "encounters" that later went to court. I've had freinds, both male and female freinds involved.
First, let's ground ourselves in reality. In Africa, today, (semi)organized gangs of men prowl the villages searching out female victims. Not only are the victims used and abused violently, but they are often cut and mutilated intentionally in an attempt to sterilize and degrade them. If the women survive, so be it, if not, tough. Victims range in age from infants to very old women.
Compare common cases in the civilized world to the actions of those thugs in Africa. I could sit in judgement of those savages, and uniformly award the death sentence from now until hell freezes over.
Here, in America, statutory rape has been abused to the point, that if a boy and girl have been dating for months, and he celebrates his 18th birthday before she does, he can be charged with rape, no matter that she consents, or maybe even initiates an evening of sex. THAT is a case of being raped by the system.
There is a wide range of "rapes" in between the two extreme ends that I've just painted. And, anyone who believes that our court system is adequate for judging all of them has a few screws loose, IMHO.
Real violent, brutal rape is simply not punished severely enough. The man who can use his fists to pummel a resistant woman into submission, should NEVER walk the streets again. In fact, I can justify the death penalty for many of them.
On the other hand, having a casual relationship with someone met in a bar, only to be charged with "rape" later, because she has some "multiple personality disorder" is about as bogus as things can get. (I've been close to two cases like that.)
I don't have any numbers to offer, but at a rough guess, I would say that nearly 10% of "offenders" in this country never should have gone to trial. Prosecuting attorneys seldom care about "justice", it's all about numbers.
The laws regarding registered sex offenders do not go nearly far enough to differentiate between the classes of offenders. As already stated, the worst offenders shouldn't even see sunlight, but there they are, walking the streets. Others, if they really DID do anything wrong, should serve a year of probation and be forgotten - they are no threat to anyone.
Laws like the one in TFA don't do ANYTHING to see that justice is done. They only create beauracratic hoops for a captive audience to jump through. They create jobs for people who get off on minding other people's business. They contribute to an Owellian society, something we are moving toward just as quickly as possible.
Personally I can't see any justice in a law like this. Dangerous people belong in a dungeon or a coffin, and non-dangerous people need their rights restored.
The system doesn't work, and laws like these will only make the system worse.
Re:Bzzt! Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
Society has decided that owning a gun and driving a car are not rights, but are privileges that you generally (usually) must obtain a license to do.
While I don't agree with firearms restrictions (and I don't think that applies to every state), you would also remove a drivers license from someone who goes blind, or is diagnosed with severe narcolepsy, neither of which are crimes. You may also loose the privilege to drive if you get caught speeding or have multiple reckless driving tickets, etc
Driving, being something that you must earn through a test and maintain annually or at least every 10 years or so.
There are many other things like this, but "visiting Facebook" isn't one of them.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Public urination? Sex offender? WTF?
I find urinating in public generally more or less offensive (much more so if it's done at a random corner on the street, not really so much in a concealed bush), and would really like the drunked idiots in the city to stop doing that on the street (yeah, it happens), but seriously, if it counts as a felony that you have to register as a sex offender for... someone has a rather weird idea of a sexual act.
Not that long ago. (Score:2, Insightful)
The crazy thing is, sodomy laws (which encompasses oral sex as well any other non-procreational sexual activity) were only finally ruled unconstitutional in 2003 [wikipedia.org] in the U.S.
Naturally these laws had nothing to do with protecting children; they were usually used to target homosexuals. In fact, of the 70-or-so countries where these laws are still in place, 40 of them only target male homosexual acts.
So the (typically religious) nuts get all fire and brimstone about gay sex between dudes (which is icky and gross and you put it where?) but when it's between women, oh! well... well surely if God had wanted hot lesbian action to be illegal wouldn't have made it so damned arousing. No, can't go making that illegal.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
Here, in America, statutory rape has been abused to the point, that if a boy and girl have been dating for months, and he celebrates his 18th birthday before she does, he can be charged with rape, no matter that she consents, or maybe even initiates an evening of sex. THAT is a case of being raped by the system.
I don't disagree. Sane "age of consent" laws have provisions like my state -- the age of consent of 17 but there's also a four years age difference provision (i.e: a 19 year old can have sex with a 15 year old). I'm not so sure I think that a 19 year old needs to be having sex with a 15 year old but at least the law allows for the high school lovers scenario without sending someone to prison because he or she turned 18 a few weeks before their partner.
Real violent, brutal rape is simply not punished severely enough. The man who can use his fists to pummel a resistant woman into submission, should NEVER walk the streets again. In fact, I can justify the death penalty for many of them.
I would have no problem with the death penalty being applied for these scumbags. I would also have no problem if the woman had blown him away before he managed to get that far. Someone willing to do that deserves nothing more than a quick exit from this world and a face to face meeting with whichever god or gods he believes in.
As already stated, the worst offenders shouldn't even see sunlight, but there they are, walking the streets. Others, if they really DID do anything wrong, should serve a year of probation and be forgotten - they are no threat to anyone.
I completely agree. Someone who molests children or beats the shit out of women and rapes them should never see the light of day. Someone who wound up taking an underage chick home who got into the bar with a fake id and was downing shots of vodka should be charged with stupidity and given a slap on the wrist.
The sex offender registries bother me because they negate the concept of paying your debt to society. If someone is so dangerous that I need to know when he moves into my neighborhood why the hell is he getting out of prison in the first place? If he doesn't that dangerous then why do you need to tell me about him?
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:1, Insightful)
"In 1993 a 12 year old responded to the "You show me yours I'll show you mine" question of someone who was younger then him with the answer "Sure".
Two years later, someone other then the two directly involved decided that they didn't like that idea. In 1995 the boy, then 15, was charged, and eventually plead to, two counts of child molestation first degree.
Move forward to now. The child, now 28, has been declined employment and housing because he is required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his natural life. He has no other felony record, a few minor traffic infractions, and a decent work history, but can never hold a security clearance, nor a upper management job.
Did the child fail society? Or did society fail the child?"
The above question was posed to me by friend of mine, who is also an attorney. Somehow, it seemed relevant.
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
That's your assertion but I think a white collar criminal that is banned for life from being an accountant after his 10 year fraud sentence definitely shouldn't remain in prison. He's not a danger to anyone so that's $40k/yr wasted on keeping some middle aged guy behind bars just because, if he got out, he might defraud someone again?
You really think it's more humane to keep him in jail for another 20 years?!
You completely misunderstood me. I think that being banned for life is, on its own, unreasonable, as in "too harsh". I'm not talking about 20 years of jail instead - where'd you get that? I'm just saying: why should a guy still be forbidden from using social networks if he did something 20 years ago? That's just stupid, and cruel and pointless.
And if he really is potentially dangerous after that long, then he should remain in prison.
Re:Bzzt! Wrong! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that many accused "rapes" go like this:
Guy 1: Hey, Dude, can I have $5
Guy 2: (into his third or fourth beer) Sure dude, here's $10
Guy 1: Awesome!
[3 days later]
Guy 2: What the fuck, Guy 1 stole $10 from me! I need to go and file a police report!