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.
Eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not just cut off his balls?
Monitoring yes, complete ban in this age? No. (Score:1, Insightful)
Given the increasing amount of professions that require the use of a computer, it would make more sense to monitor.
Re:Monitoring yes, complete ban in this age? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I want to see guilty people get punished, things like this that are a de facto sort of life sentence (even after release from jail) don't make sense either.
Restraint of trade? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are computers now so ubiquitous, and potentially so broadly defined, that they're a necessity? Is an Android phone a computer? What about your Tivo? Is banning someone from a computer restraint of trade these days?
Re:Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it would be cruel and unusual punishment?
The obvious parallel (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the heck do we have judges who are so out of touch with reality making these sorts of mistakes? If the guy can't use a computer and really wanted to meet kids online, what's to stop him from getting an iPhone or a Blackberry? Justice isn't about revenge, it's about upholding the law and meting out punishment and forcing rehabilitation onto perpetrators. Along the way it became about taking someone off the streets for a time while teaching them the best way to commit crimes and not get called. (It's called jail). And now, we've moved onto some judges literally telling criminals that even when they're not in jail, they can't be a part of modern society at all? [sarcasm] That'll work really well to keep pedos from kids [/sarcasm]
Re:Restraint of trade? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
As terrible as the crime is, this was WAY too overzealous.
This needs a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention it's impossible to rectify a mistake or miscarriage of justice. (Which is most of the reason why I'm against the death penalty, though that's somewhat beside the point)
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
The computer doesn't do the molesting, molester's do the molesting. The computer is one utility of many. If we start piecemeal restricting people from the things that could be used to aid in causing harm, what will we have left? Typical America, treating the symptoms, not the problems.
Props to the appeals court for finally realizing this stupidity.
Well, no shit. Phones are computers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monitoring yes, complete ban in this age? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the type of monitoring. I think it would be reasonable to prohibit the use of certain services and websites, but there's a lot of potential for abuse here especially once you get into spyware territory. We can't simply discard concerns about government intrusion and abuse of power just because the case involves sex offenders.
People organize their entire lives on computers, they're a virtual extension of your mind in many ways. If we get used to the idea that government can impose total monitoring on a computer because of some criminal punishment, what sort of other offenses will it end up being used for?
Re:Restraint of trade? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is scary for those convicted of such crimes is that computing devices are so ubiquitous that they're being integrated into common devices such as phones and televisions. An increasing number of televisions and content provider set-top boxes allow apps for access to twitter, facebook, instant messengers, etc.
Furthermore, essential services which used to be "offline" are now, effectively, online. Landlines and television are now provided to millions over IP. For those banned from computers and internet, I imagine the growth of technology will make it impossible for them to comply with their restrictions, either forcing a change of law and/or sentencing, or shoving these people back into jail due to inescapable consequences of the moving technology landscape.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The criminal justice system is for justice, not revenge.
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people look at things like homosexuality and pedophilia the completely wrong way. There is no cure because there are no symptoms. The results and causes are reversed. This person likes males/little boys/whatever because he is a homosexual/pedophile/whatever. Not: the person is a homosexual/pedophile/whatever because of X Y and Z.
Re:Let's keep this in context (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of having a free society is once you have paid your debt via restitution you should be free.
If he was really that much of a danger to society he should be in jail. But seeing as he didn't actually -do- anything, I don't see the point of him being in jail.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention it's impossible to rectify a mistake or miscarriage of justice.
I have to say, I've never understood this argument. I would regard the loss of my freedom as being as bad as the loss of my life. Are you really going to tell me that the state can repay someone who spent 30 years behind bars for a crime they didn't commit?
Re:Monitoring yes, complete ban in this age? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, why don't we do this? Your first DWI should be a mulligan -- but the second, third, forth and fifth ones? When I worked in the insurance business I saw DMV reports of people who had that many DWIs. Why the fuck are we putting them back on the road?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I want to see guilty people get punished
I agree and all, and I know I'll get flamed for this, but the guy was found guilty of trying to meet a 13 year old for consensual sex. I realize 13 is young, but he's not an inherent danger to society like say, someone who committed a few armed robberies. Seriously... if he succeeded with an actual 13 year old, it would hardly be some kind of shocking tragedy. And even though I agree with the law and that 13 is too young, the "punishment" for these kinds of crimes could be some counseling.
The idea that we've got federal agents working to find these people and expose them is kind of pathetic. Who is safer? If your 13 year old is open to the possibility of sex, they will probably find a way to do it, and someone to do it with.
Standard disclaimer: I agree that what the guy did was wrong, I just consider him as much of a danger to society as someone who litters.
Re:Let's keep this in context (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy set out to methodically groom what he thought was a 13 year old girl for sex. If you think a 30 year computer ban is too harsh, then fine, let's just throw him back in jail instead. Happy now?
The key word here is thought. Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes? And precisely who is the victim here (other than the defendant, and possibly the taxpayer)?
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Your Fat. Court ordered Ban on Fork use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
CPAs aren't so hard to find that I can't go out and find one with no felony conviction record.
Re:Let's keep this in context (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, we're doing a really bad job separating the folks that "just want to have fun" with the folks that want to rape and murder children. Sometimes there is "crossover" where someone that apparently just wanted to have fun turns around and kills their next conquest.
Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
The alternative would be just keeping them all in jail or killing them. Both are pretty expensive - the cheap solution is to find a way to make sure they can't re-offend, or if they start to display offending behavior that their parole is violated. Not anywhere near as certain as keeping them in prison or killing them, but much much cheaper.
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
i find the fact that you are comparing homosexuals to pedophiles to be disturbing.
Re:Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Other than the object of attraction, how are they different?
Re:Unfair?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think counterproductive is probably a better way to describe it than unfair. If you expect someone to be released from jail and become somehow productive again, you can't really deprive them of the use of a computer these days. It may make sense for some sort of usage restriction, like you can only use the computer access at some sort of kiosk or supervised area or at work, but you can't own one or you can't have internet access or something like that.
However, a complete ban on usage of computers these days is like banning him from using a phone or the mail. Otherwise you might as well hand him an address for a homeless shelter and instructions on how to pick up his welfare checks, because he's going to be entirely useless to anyone from then on. I think the only thing worse than releasing a predator back into the community is having to pay taxes to keep said pedophile alive while he could be working for a living (and paying his own taxes).
Re:Eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
"If someone is a human being, there is only one sure fired way to make sure they never do anything bad, a bullet through the head, or a more humane method if that is your preference."
Fix'd
Re:Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it not justice?
Justice is about punishment, not rehabilitation. It has never been about rehabilitation.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just playing devil's advocate. As an aside, most teenagers start having sex at 14, 15, 16 years of age with other teenagers. Chances are all of those teens fucking each other will grow up and continue fucking. Sure, there's always someone who is raping someone, always someone who is taking advantage of someone. The downside is that if someone turns 18 before their girlfriend/boyfriend does, they get to enjoy being permanently associated with the 80 year old down the road that gouged out 4 year old's eyeballs and raped them to death. I'd much rather let the cases where both sides consent slide then force these fringe cases to suffer in the name of "the children".
Re:Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pedophilia does not happen when pedophiles have access to children. It happens when someone is a pedophile. And did it ever occur to you that there are pedophiles that wish they weren't pedophiles, and would never, ever act upon those urges? They're out there, and they deserve some god damned respect.
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
kids
Well there lies the problem.
Does kid mean 17? 15? Or perhaps whether you get shot or not should depend on what state (or country) you happen to be in when you do it?
Think back to when you were a teenage boy. Would you have been damaged forever if an older women had slept with you for some reason? *shrugs* seems like shooting the women might be a bit overkill.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yeah, one thing I learned in prison was this little saying, "Fuck You!"
Makes me glad I just robbed, stole and shot people, along with slinging drugs, guns and explosives.
Paid back all the money you stole yet? Paid off the hospital bills you caused when you shot people? And you dare curse those of us who elected to spend ridiculous sums of money to keep you away from society rather than have you take a long drop from a short rope?
Looks like they called it right the first time around - you are a sociopath.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you're trolling, but I'll give an answer anyway.
The difference is in the power differential. With pedophilia, the relationship is between an adult and a child. The child hasn't the maturity to understand the relationship, to make a decision for him or herself about whether or not the relationship is right or wrong, and to meaningfully disagree with the adult. Because all the power in the relationship is in one side, the relationship cannot be balanced and healthy. When the child is prepubescent, he or she would not have the same physical attraction as an adult, and therefore cannot participate in the relationship at the same level. Pedophilia is equally wrong when the adult is male or female, or the child is male or female.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a relationship between two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex. They are both presumed to be mature enough to understand what a sexual relationship means, and to consent to be in one. Although one individual may have a somewhat more forceful personality than the other, both have the ability to influence the relationship, and to leave it if they choose.
So, when a male hockey coach has sex with the 9 year old boys on his team, that is reprehensible because it is pedophilia, not because it is homosexual.
The reason pedophilia is considered reprehensible is because it tends to leave the children emotionally damaged, unable to form proper relationships, and generally messed up for life.
There is one respect where they are similar. Most people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex who are similar to them. Mature adults are very different from children, so an adult who is sexually attracted to a child is very unusual, like someone who is sexually attracted to a dog or a toaster. Some research shows that about 1% of the population is primarily attracted to children, and about 10% is attracted to the same sex.
In summary: being attracted to the same sex is somewhat unusual (~10%), whereas being attracted to children is very unusual (~1%). Engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult of the same sex is no worse than (and no better than) a mature relationship between equals of the opposite sex. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is a highly uneven relationship which results in severe psychological damage to the child.
That's how they are different.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1, Insightful)
> I have a friend who went to prison for armed robbery
> Makes me glad I just robbed, stole and shot people, along with slinging drugs, guns and explosives.
Stunning lack of sympathy for either of you.
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
By your rationale, you should be lucky they let you have it back at all. In many countries such a case would be buried to spare embarrassment.
Just because justice cannot be 100% accurate does not mean that crimes should go unpunished. And I'm all for the death penalty for cases that are especially heinous, rehabilitation especially unlikely, and where the proof of guilt is especially compelling. Hardened criminals aren't afraid of jail, and true psychopaths aren't afraid of anything, but will alter their behavior to stay alive. To risk letting the worst of them harm a guard or even another prisoner is grossly irresponsible, and there is no more expensive prison time to taxpayers than solitary.
Re:Contradictory rulings (Score:3, Insightful)
Walking free is also a right, yet many people get life sentences. That's not really an argument, unless you're from a country like mine, where there a no life sentences.
Re:Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
- Mahamta Ghandi
The law has to be concerned with miscarriages of justice, thats why the "eye for an eye" (or rape for a rape) will never work.
Re:the cure is (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks someone should lose their balls for pedophilia would most likely also agree that loss of internet for file sharing is as just.
And any judge who thinks that loss of internet is too harsh of a punishment for pedophilia must also agree that loss of internet for filing sharing is too harsh.
Unless the judge thinks that file sharing is worse then pedophilia that is.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
The justice system is designed to mete out justice, not revenge. When the punishment is only loosely correlated to the crime, you aren't dispensing justice. The only purpose it serves is to turn people against the law, because they see punishments as unfair. While fuckheads like you and the imbecile who modded you up may get behind it, most sane people are not. It makes a mockery of justice and all the stupid lists they make... people will eventually start ignoring those lists because so many non-offenders are on them, and then where does that land you? You can no longer tell a dangerous pedophile from a 19 year old kid who fucked his 17 year old girlfriend. So things go two ways... either you listen to the list, and turn the kid away, and he really becomes a criminal because that's the only avenue open to him, or the lists get ignored and you get a pedophile working with kids.
The fact that the USA has a much higher percentage of it's population incarcerated than any other first-world country should scare the shit out of you, because there are not a higher percentage of antisocial assholes over here than anywhere else. It means that we've got a system for breeding criminals, rather than trying to get people to behave in society.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, many gay and bi males still want offspring and produce them, even though their primary attraction is to other males. I know a few gay/bi people who have successfully reared children.
And don't forget - there are heterosexual pedophiles too. The notion that homosexuals are more likely to mollest children was FUD spread by the religious right in the late 80s and early 90s to whip up public vehemence against gay people.
No wonder jailed people keep going back to jail (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about who is paying the cost of making sure someone a criminal for life...that's gotta hurt the tax wallet.
Perfect Sentencing (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it would be better not to sentence innocent people in the first place. It's pretty hard to argue about punishments as long as you can't even trust the system with that.
Ok, you invent the technique that only allows the conviction of guilty parties. The only one that currently exists is to have no law, therefore no guilt and no convictions. Total anarchy sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.
That doesn't mean that our system is perfect, or even that it doesn't have a few major problems. It will always have some innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit. It will take a truly significant "advancement" to change that. (some of those possible advancements would make Orwell cringe.)
Permanent (Score:4, Insightful)
30 years is actually an extreme version of a very common form of "things that are quite clearly permanent". If someone innocent spends 6 months in jail, it is just as permanent, equally unjust, only less damaging. They will never regain that time.
Similarly, someone who spends untold hours over several years fighting off a frivolous lawsuit (and earning the money to pay the lawyer's fees) has permanently lost time from their lives that they will never get back. It doesn't take criminal law to cause irreparable damage. Civil law does so regularly. (just less spectacularly)
Re:Your Fat. Court ordered Ban on Fork use. (Score:1, Insightful)
You're just not allowed to own one. They don't say that you can't walk past the gun store.
Also, you don't use a gun to apply for (most?) jobs.
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are heterosexuals who rape and take advantage of others, does that mean that heterosexual attraction in itself is a problem?
I happen to be gay myself, and I certainly dislike having my orientation compared to child molestation, but that is not a good excuse to continue to pretend that every pedophile is some inherently sick person who hurt little children. Some of them do, many of them would rather kill themselves than hurting the very people they love. To pretend that their feelings differ in origin or nature than those the rest of us have is nothing but self-righteous moralizing prejudice. It is unfortunately true that it will be hard for many pedophiles to deal with their situation, but to stigmatize them as mentally ill merely to justify my own sexual orientation is just something I will not do, no matter how effective such an argument may be to the ears of those who won't think about it for a while.
Theres a world of difference between having feelings for somebody you can't have, and taking advantage of them for your own pleasure, and the way our society treats pedophiles is downright uncivilized. What makes it even worse is the "witch-hunt" like way in which pointing this out to people results in suspicion and insinuation that you may be a pedophile yourself. If it was not for people speaking about how others were mistreated by society then where would we be today? I'm certainly thankful some brave people in history spoke out when we were treated in a similar manner, thus meaning I can now be open about being attracted to women without being perceived as mentally ill because of it.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Your Fat. Court ordered Ban on Fork use. (Score:1, Insightful)
there's a slight difference - a gun is for killing. a bat isn't. similarly, computers aren't for molesting.
I don't use a gun for killing. Not even hunting. I just like to go to the range and do some target shooting. So fuck you.
You are confusing pedophilia and molestation (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a difference.
Many pedophiles go without Heck, many gay men and straight men are celibate as well. Celibate pedophiles are still pedophiles.
Many child molesters are not pedophiles. They are motivated by power or other issues besides romance or their own orgasm.
In most countries, pedophilia is not a crime. In the few that it is a crime, it's the very definition of a thought-crime.
In most or all countries, child molestation is a crime, as it should be.
By the way, there are so-called "adult" relationships that are very power-imbalanced. Whether it's the boss with his secretary, or a sophisticated person with someone who can vote but has the emotional maturity of a middle school student, the result is the same: An emotionally unequal but usually perfectly legal relationship.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of a justice system is to try to persuade them to not do stupid things any more.
See, THIS is where we start having problems. The point of a justice system is to administer justice, NOT to try to disuade crime-- thats just one of the side effects. When you start getting into this mentality "whatever is best for society" when dealing with the judicial system, you can start to go really wacky places-- why not convict an innocent man of a crime if it would be best for society (if, say, the case was sealed, his guilt can be easily faked, and it would be a good deterrent)?
That train of thought is why we have these sorts of issues-- someone is convicted of a crime, pays the penalty, and then on TOP of that has the rest of his life basically ruined. Is it justice? No, but thats irrelevant!! What we're doing is good for society!
Re:Monitoring yes, complete ban in this age? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people do get their licenses taken away after the first or second one. I don't know in other states but I know in NY if you get your license taken away, it's quite difficult to get it back. Off course, then you get the problem of people driving around WITHOUT licenses.
Re:Eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
After reading this comment completely I can say without any qualms that people like you belong in jail, and that the fact that you made it out of there is a prime example of how the flaws in our legal system makes it incapable of protecting society from the worst criminals.
Many pedophiles, including most of the ones convicted, belong in jail, as they pose a threat to our children. But people with sick minds like you belong in solitary confinement, as they pose a threat to everyone in society including other inmates.
You, sir, managed to descend into a level even lower than the average child molester. I do get some comfort from the fact that recidivism of people like you is extremely high, so, mark my words: in less than eight years you will be behind bars again, where you belong.