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.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your Fat. Court ordered Ban on Fork use. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you beat someone up with a bat, wouldnt it be silly if a court ordered you to stay away from baseball games, sporting good stores, and ban you from every owning a bat again?
Re:Restraint of trade? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
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?
They will have a hell of a better chance doing that if you aren't a corpse.
And what do you mean you don't understand it? If it's that horrible for you just go punch the ms13 leader if you can't bear it. Frankly I'm one of the people who would rather fight for thirty years than go with such a nihilistic attitude. Better off dead? Spare us the melodrama.
Re:Eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
Homosexuality is a genetic mistake that harms no one. We are basically programmed to reproduce and raise progeny in a healthy way to perpetuate the species. Homosexuals are satisfied to end their genetic line and enjoy the life they have. Not a problem. Homosexual child fuckers on the other hand are the most disturbing of their species as they are a virus to actual humanity and are mistakenly lumped in with the poor homosexual humans.
Car Computer (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the main reasons that a vehicle restriction is allowed is that there are alternatives; taxi, bus, bicycle, walk etc. What are the alternatives to computers? With a computer ban there is no possibility of any white collar job. Find one where you do not have to at lest read email.
Even finding a job at all would be a problem. The first thing an employment agency does is point one toward a computer and say "Do a job search". How many initial interviews include computer based testing? Many blue collar jobs require one to use a computer for time sheet entry.
By restricting a someone's employment opportunity severely there is only one means of survival; crime. Se we take a paedophile and push him towards a life of further crime. That is not rehabilitation.
TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're going to RTFA, read the actual opinion. It's in Jurisprech (a dialect of legalese), but if you can wade through it it's actually quite enlightening as to not only how sentencing works in this country (it is both more and less arbitrary and subjective than most people believe), but also to the work judges do in balancing competing needs. It's actually a pretty good read, and at 22 pages (with lots of whitespace and a rigid formatting convention that most C programmers would envy, opinions are not typographically dense) not even all that long... especially given that there are 2 concurring opinions and a thorough introduction.
Oddly enough, the judiciary, who are without a doubt the most lawyerish branch of government, also tend to write the most readable laws (and yes, their opinions ARE law... that's neither un-Constitutional nor new).
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
You've described child abuse, i was asking about pedophilia itself as an orientation.
Homosexuality isn't a relationship, it's an attraction to the same sex, a sexual orientation in the mind.
Re:Your Fat. Court ordered Ban on Fork use. (Score:3, Interesting)
similarly, computers aren't for molesting.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
People do stupid things. The point of a justice system is to try to persuade them to not do stupid things any more. When the punishment is not even closely correlated to the crime, you start running a government that is against the people, even if some fuckheads like you and the imbecile who modded you up agree with it. That's a good way to start a revolution, to start people disrespecting and breaking the laws because they see them as unjust.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, there are several "developed" countries where 13 is entirely legal including two EU countries, and several in Asia.
If he lived there, he'd be a creep, but not a criminal. Here, people are advocating bullets to the head and violent castration.
Interesting dichotomy.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
It grows until about 25. It's not that they don't understand the consequences, it's that the wiring of the brain discounts the personal danger. The "consequences" wiring is done somewhere in the 20s. So a 17 year old will know right from wrong, but will act more like an adult who knows he won't be caught than a person who considers the consequences.
(Early teens is fuzzy. Late teens is crystal clear.)
My 3 year old knows right from wrong. He'll get mad, hit, and when I say something he'll start professing his apologies. He knows it was wrong, and does it anyway because he didn't really think about it. He knows right from wrong at 3. But he doesn't consider the results at all for his actions yet. That phases in slowly to be finished some time in the late teens or early 20s for most people (some by 12, others never). And for those that do at least understand what the consequences might be before the act, there's a separate mechanism to discount the harmful consequences. The best time to put money away for retirement is as soon as you start work. But most don't until they are 30 or later. It's not because they need the money (though sometimes the case, that's not the driving reason), but that they don't consider what it will cost them in the long run, no matter how many times you tell them. I think you are confusing knowing right from wrong and recognizing consequences, with being able to accurately evaluate those consequences.
Re:Restraint of trade? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Computer" under a strict definition, would result in a life similar to jail. I couldn't operate my thermostat to control the temperature in my home, use any form of entertainment other than a book (no CDs, DVDs, TVs, etc.), and driving a new car would be banned as well. Though a carbureted car without a clock or radio might be ok. When you take the definition of "computer" to be any general use or specialized computer, the there's almost nothing you could do. Perhaps a ban on a personal computer used with no supervision may be closer to the intended goals, with work use being assumed to be supervised. But then, the ruling didn't make any such distinction or recognition of "computer" regarding different types.