Federal Appeals Court Says Sex Offender's Computer Ban Unfair 478
crimeandpunishment writes "A federal appeals court says a 30-year computer restriction for a convicted sex offender was too stiff a punishment. The man, who was caught in an Internet sex sting, had been ordered not to own or even use a computer." The D.C. Circuit Court's opinion in the case against Mark Wayne Russell is available as a PDF; slightly longer coverage from the Courthouse News Service.
the cure is (Score:1, Informative)
death, obviously
Re:Eh? (Score:2, Informative)
Well aren't you a precious little snowflake....
Beating people in prison for making picture books, sabotaging rehabilitation programs..... ...and you want to work in the criminal justice system. Fantastic.
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the world is wrong. Here in Portugal drug usage has been decriminalized, and you can actually get free help as long as you stick very firmly with the rehabilitation program; you move to a "center" (just a house, really) in the country and you get counseling and help from psychologists. On the other hand, you have to work there to pay for your stay.
By not treating them like criminals drug usage has been dropping constantly [time.com], in spite of the Church's FUD.
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada we just have a separate law about using positions of authority to take advantage of underage persons. This way the age of consent can be low (14 yrs until very recent) so when the 19 yr old goes with a 15 yr old at a party on the 15 yr old advance there is no crime.
On the flip side if you are in a position of authority over an underaged person and have sex with them you are pretty much guilty.
No. No, no, no. (Score:3, Informative)
The only source that says he existed is a single book, compiled from papers that come from almost a century later, that further contains all manner of information that can't be trusted - magic, superstition, etc. That doesn't make his existence likely.
No. We only have copies of the scrolls, codexes, etc. These all date from a hundred, or more, years after the time the story is placed in. There's no evidence whatsoever that there are four true stories. The book is full of fiction - magic, etc. - it is obviously a fabrication. Just because there are four chapters that purport to tell the story from four perspectives doesn't mean that any one of those perspectives is any more valid than the magical story of making wine out of water, etc.
The bottom line is that there is no contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Jesus. No tax records, nothing about the legal issues, nothing about the costs of the supposed execution, not one darned thing. All there is, is the NT, and it in turn isn't from the same time as the story. Every historical mention that talks about Christians (and what a pain in the neck they were, usually... some things just don't change) ...all of these mentions are about the Christian groups/cults of the day... not about Jesus himself.
People talking or writing about something -- even in a very emphatic and passionate manner -- is not evidence of the thing. Look at the Heaven's Gate cult. Those buffoons went so far as to off themselves... for an entirely imaginary premise. So the historical evidence that bands of Christians were running around causing havoc in the mid 50's is in no way a slam-dunk that there was a Jesus at all.
The only certainties about Christianity are that the leather and papyrus scraps that form the source for the NT are from 150 AD or later; that they are either each and every one a copy, and therefore we have no originals (this is the position of most reputable scholars, btw) or else they were created 150 AD or later; that there is no contemporaneous information about Jesus at all; and that the NT contains stories that are scientifically nonsensical.
Now, if that leads you to think that Jesus's existence is "likely"... well, you're one gullible person, that's all I can say. There's better book-evidence for the existence of Jack Ryan, CIA agent. At least the books that he is in don't have any magical malarkey in them. They do tell the story from multiple perspectives; they do refer to people, cities and geographies we can recognize; they do refer to events that actually happened... all of these places where bible apologists try to stand... but Jack Ryan stories are still 100% fiction. Odds hugely favor that Jesus is also fiction.