Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Government Sony Your Rights Online

New York Culls Sex Offenders From the Online Gaming Ranks 511

Posted by timothy
from the cradle-to-grave dept.
SternisheFan writes with a story at PC Mag that New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has announced that more than 2000 registered sex offenders have been kicked off various online gaming platforms, in an cooperative effort involving both the state and various gaming companies. From that article: "Earlier this year, the accounts of 3,500 additional offenders were removed from platforms operated by Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Disney Interactive Media Group, and Warner Brothers. New York State's Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP) law requires convicted sex offenders to register all of their email addresses, screen names, and other Internet identifiers with the state. Schneiderman's office then makes that information available to certain websites so they can make sure that their communities were not being used by predators. Operation: Game Over, however, is the first time e-STOP has been applied to online gaming platforms, he said. Since many online gaming platforms let users send messages to other players anonymously, it's unsafe to have convicted offenders using these services, Schneiderman said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Culls Sex Offenders From the Online Gaming Ranks

Comments Filter:
  • Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hatta (162192) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @02:06PM (#42350123) Journal

    The age of the average gamer is around 35. The pedo patrol is just fucking out of its mind. What's next, kicking people who have served their time out of movie theaters, restaurants, concerts, and sporting events just because there might be some kids around?

  • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @02:20PM (#42350325)

    separate problems.

    The law is overzealous. But don't tempt fate just because the law is stupid. You personally should make decisions in your own best interest. Vote against such overzealous laws if given the opportunity, but don't violate them while they're on the books.

  • So, Say you're a "Sex Offender". You're required to register all your on-line account information with some agency... Say you decide to "relapse" into your wicked ways and do some sexual offending. Wouldn't you just not register that new on-line account? That is to say, it would be just as effective to simply require that sex offenders don't do any more sex offending ever again, right?

    Bonus: Simply requiring sex offenders to stop performing sexually offensive acts would avoid the fairly brain dead Denial of Service that's now possible because they're letting deviants tell them which email addresses to black-list.
    "I hate that fucker, I'll just register their email under my sex-offender accounts; Screw you and your on line games! Ha ha!"

    Meanwhile, those that wanted to move on and be good people are constantly reminded of their past mistakes. Thus, the frustrating on-line processes, exclusion from parts of society, and reinforcement that they can never be cured will increase the chances that those who channel anger through sexual offenses will do so again.

    I know! Why don't we just make it illegal to do bad things! That'll stop all the crime! Also, if they don't do this for violence related criminals too, i.e., murderers then they're damned hypocrites. Killing humans is less heinous than Raping humans? WTF? Won't someone think of the Children!? I'd rather have a raped but still alive kid than a dead one...

  • Funny but true. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20, 2012 @02:27PM (#42350443)

    Public urination considered sex offense in Georgia, not enforced by police [wordpress.com]

    And don't get me started about 18 year olds having sex with their 17 year old boyfriends/girlfriends and then being charged. Or a 15 year old boy being charged for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

    If my teenage son did it with a 20 something or older, I'd first ask if he used a rubber and then I'd say, "Son, you did good! Are you in love with her?"

    The last question is just in case his heart is about to be broken and I'll be there to work it through with him if he so desires.

    As far as you folks with teenage daughters and expect them to be chaste, well, Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - *snort* - ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Your "little girl" is probably sticking her tits in some boys face and driving the poor kid nuts! *been there*.

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @02:46PM (#42350741) Journal

    This is PART of their punishment, it is not tacked on, it is IT! Punishment doesn't have to constrained to a jail sentence. It can include being banned from a job, restricted from an area, having to report at determined times, being banned from contacting certain individuals or groups, being banned from voting, from owning a gun, from getting a security clearance.

    It is in our modern society pretty damn rare to just get a prison sentence and that is it. A probationary period following it is the norm and during your probationary period there are a LOT of conditions and terms that seperate your from a free person. And that is both part of your punishment AND rehabilitation and that is not as contradictory as it sounds. A convict who is in jail is there to be punished BUT is also encourage to study to help his rehabilitation. IF it works it is supposed to be a carrot and a stick with the carrot getting bigger and the stick getting smaller. But the carrot and the stick work ONLY if they are used together on the convict, after all when he was a free man, the carrot was not enough to stop him from getting the stick. The stick alone works in extreme cases, the death penalty.

    Our entire legal system however is at the core little more then "stop, or I shall say stop again". It really just doesn't have a solution for those who think the law is for other people. A night in the slammer is enough to stop most people but not a "nutter". What do you do with a repeat offender who just isn't faced by the consequences of his actions? It is easy to say "well, we got to take that chance" but in a democracy the majority rules and the majority thinks that giving people endless free passes to re-offend is wrong.

    To give you an idea of how wrong it can go when you let the bleeding hearts in charge: http://nos.nl/artikel/453072-werkstraf-na-misbruik-stiefdochter.html [nos.nl]

    Man rapes his 15 year old daughter, is sentenced to 240 hours community service, the judge deciding that sentencing him to jail would be to hard a burden on the family consisting of the man, his wife, this daughter and a younger sister... who continue to life with him...

    He doesn't have to register, he can chat online but why would he. Two children right at home with him. Oh, he promised to undertake counseling... yah. Because that works instantly and with absolute success.

    The really sick truth of it all? Nobody in the world really knows how to deal with those who can't follow the rules. Hard, soft punishment, therapy, making things legal. Nothing really works. Take for instance weed, legalizing makes the crime surrounding it go away? Right... because there are no tobacco and alcohol smugglers and other related crimes anymore? Outlawing it will solve drug issues? Because outlawing stuff stops people? WHEN?

    The entire process of trying to stop crime, punish it and rehabilitate or otherwise deal with the criminals has been tried in countless way over thousands of years. And NONE work. Oh some claim some method works better then others but when you look at the figures it is pretty much like debating whether you tiger rock is better then my tiger stick. Both ultimately will have pretty much the same statistics.

    And the ultimate lie? Recidivism rate. It counts re-offending criminals whose crimes are reported, investigated, prosecuted, sentended and the sentence recorded. Do you know how the rate of sentencing on some crimes are? Belgium scores 4% on rapes. 96 our of a hundred rapes are NOT counted in recidivism figures yet we are to believe only 70% of rapist re-offend? ONLY 70%?

    THINK of the odds, what are they for a rapist who rapes twice to be sentenced TWICE?

    But hey, vote for the guy who promises to fix it all. I am sure YOUR guys tiger gadget really works.

  • Re:Too Much (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Derekloffin (741455) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @03:29PM (#42351433)
    Actually, in the extreme cases, it is like you being convicted of drunk driving while your car was turned off and you were drunk, asleep in the driver seat (yes, you can be convicted under these circumstances), but then later not only are you refused ownership of a vehicle, but can't even go to car shows.
  • by e3m4n (947977) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @04:13PM (#42351939)

    I dont know the specifics of this law, but may of the 'for the children' laws that go after 'registered sex offenders' often end up using too broad of a fishing net. In many states a 23yr old has sex with a 16 or 17 yr old consentually is still found guilty of statuatory rape due to laws concerning age of concent having some relative age component. This can be even more problematic when the said 16 or 17yr old uses a fake id to get into a club and lies about their age. At the end of the day the law is still considered violated and the 23yr old got branded a sex offender. Now fast-forward 10yrs later. I just dont see how this same person should be lumped into having all his rights violated in an effert to protect children from poedophiles. At no time did this person behave in a way dangerous to children. Its also very likely that now that this person is 33yrs old is also still only attracted to people that are still only a few years younger putting them at 30ish in age.

    I know in my city they used a dragnet law 3yrs ago that said registered sex offenders could not live within 1000 yards of a school, church, or daycare. Well there really arent but 4 or 5 places here that can escape 1000 yards of a freakin church let alone schools and daycares. This town is church crazy, a damn church is on every city block. As a result of this law they evicted, by force, everyone in violation after a 60 day notice. Now they all live in this one small area of town. This _includes_ a few people in the exact same scenario I painted. Those people had grown up and had kids of their own now, and are forced to live with thier children surrounded by _real_ child predators.

    I have no faith in government legislators being able to pull their heads out of their asses and write laws specific enough that stupid shit like this doesnt end up causing more problems than they hope to avert.

  • by Applekid (993327) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @05:20PM (#42352621)

    I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate and the laws are intended to "protect the children" (or others) ...

    This fact is the smoking gun that pedophiles need to be treated as mentally ill, not as hardened criminals. With all the after-effects beyond mere incarceration making it impossible to live or work practically any place, I can't imagine any freed sex offenders can ever afford the costs of treatment, let alone rebuild their life. Even when it's a sick compulsion and not necessarily a choice.

    Even insane killers, in our society, can get help in an institution. And they KILLED people.

    But, hey, can't make any money for the prison industrial complex and give government an excuse to monitor another citizen 24/7 until his death by being compassionate and sensible.

  • by thesandbender (911391) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @05:53PM (#42352949)
    If you read the original study, you're comparing apples to bricks. From Recidivisim of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (Langan, Schmitt, Durose)

    Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420) So the rate of recidivism for the same crime is higher among sex offenders. The likelihood of being arrested for a different crime is lower (43% compared to 68%).

    It should also be pointed out that all these stats are for the first three years after release only.

    With that said, your point that recidivism is not a forgone conclusion as the stereotype suggests is correct, Wikipedia just made a hash of the stats.
  • by Elldallan (901501) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @09:25PM (#42354917)
    Well they're not public records here in Sweden and I think that is preferable, once you have served your punishment society shouldn't penalize you furter, you should be able to put your life back together. If you forever isolate anyone who's ever been convicted that just forces em to sink deeper and deeper into criminality because no one will give them a decent job.

    Court proceedings are public records here as well(but your criminal record is not) but it's somewhat of a hassle to get them, you have to go to the specific court that handed down the sentence and you have to request the specific case.
    Yes I know about the sex offender registry and I find it despicable, even convicted criminals has a right to privacy and to not be harassed, again making a phariah out of someone only increases their chance of relapsing into serious criminality

    Well over here you can't get a firearms license either if you have a conviction which is fine but also firearms is extremely limited, you can pretty much only get one if you're a licensed hunter or a member of a pistol/rifle club.
    And I think it's wrong to deprive someone of their right to vote forever just because you made an error of judgement.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...