New York Culls Sex Offenders From the Online Gaming Ranks 511
A reader 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 will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Informative)
Yah, make sure they have lots of spare time they don't know what to do with now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are preventing them from engaging in commerce and public life.
It's basically Amish shunning or Hawthorne's Scarlet letter but without the obvious initial "buy in" of joining an extremist religious cult first.
The sacred cow will ensure the precedent is set in general so that it can be applied to YOU next time.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are preventing them from engaging in commerce and public life.
It's basically Amish shunning or Hawthorne's Scarlet letter but without the obvious initial "buy in" of joining an extremist religious cult first.
The sacred cow will ensure the precedent is set in general so that it can be applied to YOU next time.
I believe the intent is to prevent pedophile pedators from clandestinely communicating with potential underage prey. However, since sex-offender status is applied to more than just pedophiles, I would think that this is overly broad.
But since creepy and pervy is so creepy and pervy and decent people don't want to be associated with creepy and pervy and doing so may alert law enforcement, I doubt anybody will actually object to this treatment. They basically adopt the "don't do kiddie porn, don't fark teens and kiddies, don't rape or grope anybody and don't expose yourself in public if you want to play online games" attitude.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the intent is to show the public the current rulers are "tough on crime", children and citizens be damned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, and another law for the law-abiding.
Oh, i am sorry, of course the people planning bad things gave all their info over. Silly me for thinking the truely evil ones might not obey.
Maybe, they prevent a couple of people from spur of them moment naughty things...hardly seems worth punishing so many.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, some people by their previous actions have proved that they are a danger to others, and need to be monitored and controlled.
Despite the fact that sex offenders have the second-lowest recidivism rate around (after murder) [wikipedia.org]?
The alternative to keeping a close watch on a convicted paedophile and restricting his freedom is simply to chuck him in prison and throw away the key.
Well, despite the fact that there's evidence that most sex offenders do not re-offend (as above), and are thus not particularly dangerous to children, wouldn't they be better off in jail than living like this [wikipedia.org]? That's the kind of "restricting his freedom" you are talking about.
I'm all for keeping kids safe and obviously think that sex offenses against children are despicable (and isn't it sad I have to say that?)
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the intent is to prevent pedophile pedators from clandestinely communicating with potential underage prey.
It's an attempt to prevent people that have been convicted of a crime and paid their dues / served their time from participating in legal activities on the basis that they *might* commit the same crime with new victims.
Are car thieves prevented from owning/driving cars? Are bank robbers prevented from having bank accounts. Are rapist prevented from dating and/or getting married and/or having children? Nope, but as a sex offender, they can't play WoW - along with a whole bunch of other things they must do, like register themselves everywhere, avoid schools and parks, etc...
I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate and the laws are intended to "protect the children" (or others) but isn't this simply shifting the responsibility of parents to teach their children, and for the children themselves, to act safely and responsibly and for parents to monitor their children properly?
You know the financial industry gets away with the disclaimer, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results," and their failure rate is probably worse than the sex offender recidivism rate. But, I guess it's okay to ruin people financially, just don't show them your winky.
Re: (Score:3)
Drunk Drivers are often prevented from owning/driving cars; or at least forced to own a car with a built in sobriety detector.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Informative)
Not on a first conviction!!!!
You aren't branded for life with one DWI conviction...and don't suffer that type of punishment.
You have to have been convicted in most places like 5+ times to get that kind of driving ban placed on you.
Hell, there's people out there with 2-3 DWI convictions under their belts, driving again perfectly legal after paying their 'legal dues'.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Informative)
I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate
This is a common misunderstanding as two minutes on Google will show. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism [wikipedia.org] sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5.3% (or 43% when considering any crime rather then sex crimes) compared with 68% for non-sex crime recidivism.
The way it's done in Canada is at sentencing the judge can include things like being put on the sex offender registry and being banned from certain activities if appropriate.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate
This is a common misunderstanding as two minutes on Google will show. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism [wikipedia.org] sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5.3% (or 43% when considering any crime rather then sex crimes) compared with 68% for non-sex crime recidivism.
Thanks, I did not know that and fell victim to the common perception. I didn't think to actually check...
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:4, Informative)
just wanted to point out the obvious here, but a rapist IS a sex offender.. sex offenders are not just poedophiles. Stat rape is defined as having sex with someone below the age of consent despite that person willingly having sex with you. In some states a 17yr old can only concent with an older person within a year or two of their age. So 16 and 18 are ok to have sex, a 16 and 19yr old have consentual sex and the 19yr old is a sex offender for the rest of their life.
Re: (Score:3)
just wanted to point out the obvious here, but a rapist IS a sex offender.. sex offenders are not just pedophiles.
Thanks. I knew/know that, but wanted a more specific example case and didn't mean to misrepresent. The up-shot is that sex offenders are harassed and punished long after they've paid their debt to society and it's wrong. Yes, they may commit future crimes, but so may all other criminals. All individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions, not (ex-)criminals.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the intent is to prevent pedophile pedators from clandestinely communicating with potential underage prey. However, since sex-offender status is applied to more than just pedophiles, I would think that this is overly broad.
Exactly. In many jurisdictions, you become a sex offender simply by peeing in a back alley in the dark after the bars close.
There really needs to be a legal redefinition of the terminology to weed out the pedophiles from the person on the losing side of a he-said/she-said.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
So if someone set up a new church in the middle of the area to guide the lost sheep, would they all be forced to move again?
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this same type of continued persecution follow convicted murderers, which would arguably be LESS on the 'bad' scale, since they actually ended someone's life?
Are convicted murderers, once term served and not on probation still required to register wherever they go...and have this type of ban placed on them?
Re: (Score:3)
If someone has served their time...why are they still being persecuted?
Public safety. The criminal justice system is a mixture of punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society.
Most murderers who are not professional criminals do not re-offend, as their crimes tend to be domestic and caused by a unique set of circumstances. The ones who are deemed to still be a danger to society stay in prison for a very long time, if not for ever (at least here in the UK).
Re: (Score:3)
Quoting a previous poster on this thread:
"This is a common misunderstanding as two minutes on Google will show. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism [wikipedia.org] sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5.3% (or 43% when considering any crime rather then sex crimes) compared with 68% for non-sex crime recidivism."
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that in this case, their status is a result of their actions.
The problem is that in the US, "sex offender" is a catch-all for many different types of behaviour, not simply pædophelia. Therefore many people who are "registered sex offenders", but who pose absolutely zero threat to minors, are being grossly punished. (And this applies to many things far outside of online gaming, for certain.)
A great example is of a 16-year-old girl who takes a naked picture of herself and sends it to her 16-year-old boyfriend; an authority finds out; and she is charged with felony production and possession of child pornography. It has happened. [slashdot.org] A lot. [google.com]
Fortunately, some places are trying to bring common sense thinking [cbsnews.com] to this. But not enough, not yet. (Btw, the douchebag threatening felony charges against the 16-year-old girl was District Attorney George Skumanick, who was thankfully voted out of office in part because of this in 2009.)
Re: This will obviously help. (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize what these lists ACTUALLY are, right? Yes, they include rapists and molesters. They also include people who got drunk and pissed in the bushes that one time on college, or went streaking, or skinny-dipping (basically any form of public nudity) or sent topless pictures of themselves to their significant other when they were 17......
Lots of ways to end up on these lists. Some are not even in your control.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
A clue you may have missed: not all people with the title "sex offender" was caught doing bad things to children, or even to other human beings.
If the label were applied only to those who sexually assaulted children, then you might have had a point.
Re: (Score:3)
We could debate, endlessly, whether or not this market-based theory about child sex abuse actually makes sense in today's
Re: (Score:3)
what if the first time someone is caught they are caught with drives full of child porn?
Does it matter if someone has multiple hard drives full of child abuse imagery? The point I was making was that the censorship of such imagery is meant to target the producers of it, not the consumers or collectors; the theory behind making it illegal, and the only reason such censorship passed constitutional challenges, was that by attacking the consumers the cash flow to the produce
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the game.
If it is a game aimed at children where children are the primary demographic then it is just as right as the rest of the law.
If it is a game for general audiances where children often play then it is a bit more worrisome.
Basically there is a big difference in banning someone from "My Little Pony Online" vs "Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang."
And if it is a game aimed primary at adults which children under a certain age shouldn't be playing then this is simple harassment because authorities don't like this population of people.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:4, Funny)
Basically there is a big difference in banning someone from "My Little Pony Online" vs "Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang."
Not to mention games aimed at adults, like Call of Booty, Bang Bang ur mom.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is often a human rights violation in and of itself. Do you have any idea how common schools are? X miles often puts these people out of fair housing. Also this is often applied to offenders whose offence had nothing to do with pedophilia and never harmed a child.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but what are human rights are protection from double jeopardy and retroactive sentencing. When you have paid your debt to society, society can't say "wait a minute, we now also want to restrict you from ...". No matter whether it's a $0.01 fine, public flogging, or being banned from activities that others can join.
If you really want sex offenders serving life time sentences, you need to give them life time sentences. Changing the sentence afterwards is a direct human rights violation.
And unless you're very stupid and short sighted, you do not want to hand out the maximum sentences when you can avoid it. If that's what a rapist is facing, what would stop him from killing the victim and get rid of the witness? If he's going to get the maximum penalty anyhow, there's nothing to lose.
What this is is moral indignation, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with feeling superior to those you take out your anger on. Because they are not us, and thus does not have to be treated like us.
Fucking double standards.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the prison you go to after you get out of prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you think this will stop them? Do you have any idea how easy it is to be anonymous on the interent? I dont see how this will solve anything other then putting them in the shadows so they can do what they want.
I mean, if the guy is going to offend and he is stupid enough to do it with his name he gives to the cops, then at least he can get caught and removed from society for a few years, going this route will just force them to learn how to play the internet and it truly is not hard. Also, maybe its t
Re:This will obviously help. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's getting to be a guy can't commit sex crimes without lasting consequences anymore. Sheesh.
If you think the jail time wasn't enough, then petition for the sentences to be longer. Don't "free" them when their term is over, really free them. Even murderers get a better shake at life out of the big house.
Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
rationality doesn't really come into play with "sex offender" laws.
p.s. you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or had a piss behind a dumpster after drinking one night.
It's stupidly easy to get on the list, realistically it's so watered down that it does not really mean anything useful. I looked up the ones near me once and something like half were for BS reasons.
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
More like, what good is a list to protect kids if it's populated by people who are of no threat, and never have been?
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why God made McDonalds.
Lord knows you shouldn't eat there.
Re: (Score:3)
Just a note: where I live there are *almost* no public bathrooms. McDonalds only allows some people into theirs and then only if you spend money, other places lock the bathrooms between 9pm and 7am (ignoring the laws that say they cannot do this, but no repercussions so far). There are almost no options available and many are miles apart.
I don't approve when people pee into the bushes, but I do understand it. If you don't own a car - or if you are drunk and responsibly not driving it - you are SOL in 90% of
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!
Meanwhile the TSA can scan/grope children to their hearts content because the same government that passed this law passed some other ones too.
The TSA is a dream job for a pedophile [google.com].
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Funny)
Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.
They're going to need an instruction manual to do that. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3)
And the only people knowledgeable enough to write the manual aren't allowed to communicate electronically!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever was convicted under such a charge likely had shit for a lawyer.
Or a deliberately overworked public defender.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You clearly are a pedophile sympathizer, if not a pedo yourself!
In all seriousness, though, we won't get rational sex crime laws until a significant cultural attitude shift occurs. Especially when children are involved. These are just some of the problems involved with living in a sexualized but sex negative society like the US.
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather side with pedos than with people who crap out laws like that.
Think rationally about it: The pedos will never harm me. Those laws, on the other hand, might if I take a piss in the wrong spot.
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect because no one wants to spend resources developing that sort of functionality. It is probably also seen as far "safer" and easier for companies to simply ban those offenders, than it would be to track and restrict them.
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the sex offenders whose crimes had *nothing to do* with children? What if they took a piss behind a bush and a 70 year old lady happened to see them and reported it? It's not a "touched little kids" list, it's a "any act that uses any part of the part of the body conceivably used for sex" list.
What you're doing is the same as lumping everyone who has ever had a speeding ticket or parking violation in with DWI offenders and then saying that *none of them* are allowed to go to bars just because a small subset of the group has done something bad related to alcohol.
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the sex offenders whose crimes had *nothing to do* with children? What if they took a piss behind a bush and a 70 year old lady happened to see them and reported it? It's not a "touched little kids" list, it's a "any act that uses any part of the part of the body conceivably used for sex" list.
What you're doing is the same as lumping everyone who has ever had a speeding ticket or parking violation in with DWI offenders and then saying that *none of them* are allowed to go to bars just because a small subset of the group has done something bad related to alcohol.
Well, the guy DID have a penis with him when he got drunk a the bar...
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, the guy DID have a penis with him when he got drunk a the bar...
And he didn't later?!? Jesus, those DWI punishments have gotten steep.
Re: (Score:3)
> It's called consequences.
That's what prison is for.
Their "debt to society" is already paid.
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of like losing your right to vote...
Which is another matter I find to be completely insane.
Re:Why not just block messaging? (Score:4, Informative)
Plenty of people on sex offender lists are neither rapists or molestors.
Labels (Score:5, Funny)
I would be much less worried about this, if it weren't for the fact that the label of "sex offender" is used for everything where genitalia are involved.
Did the cops follow you 20 yards into the thick forest along the interstate to catch you peeing? Sex offender.
Did your top get ripped off and carried away in the surf at Jones Beach? Sex offender.
Did you scratch yourself when a cop was looking? Sex offender.
Re: (Score:3)
I would be much less worried about this, if it weren't for the fact that the label of "sex offender" is used for everything where genitalia are involved.
Did the cops follow you 20 yards into the thick forest along the interstate to catch you peeing? Sex offender.
Did your top get ripped off and carried away in the surf at Jones Beach? Sex offender.
Did you scratch yourself when a cop was looking? Sex offender.
Even worse is that all of those offenses have nothing to do with online behavior. The punishment doesn't fit the actual crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I can confirm the first at the very least, having had a cousin fined for it.
"Fined" is not equivalent to "labeled as a sex offender". Did your cousin get added to a sex offender registry because of this? I'm guessing not... he was cited for public urination, that's all.
Re:Labels (Score:4, Funny)
Happens all the time actually.
Absolutely yes, in the US. In the past public urination was charged as indecent exposure. There was little thought to how that was worded until the sex offender registry became so broad that it included all who were convicted of this crime. Thousands of people register for public urination, mooning, streaking and many other acts that don't fit the image we have of a sex offender.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_get_put_on_the_sex_offenders_registry_for_public_urination [answers.com]
Re: (Score:3)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_get_put_on_the_sex_offenders_registry_for_public_urination#ixzz20ShoPVh1 [answers.com]
Re:Labels (Score:5, Informative)
Your ignorance is showing.
A 17 year old girl can get on the list for having consensual sex with a 15 year old boy:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003101190_offender03.html [seattletimes.com]
Two 14 year olds boys got put on the list for putting their naked butts on the faces of two 12 year old boys :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017081/Two-teenagers-branded-sex-offenders-life-horseplay-incident.html [dailymail.co.uk]
You can get put on the list for answering the door undressed:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2887/is-it-indecent-exposure-if-im-visibly-naked-while-on-my-own-private-property [straightdope.com]
A few more dumb reasons for being put on the list:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sex_offender_registry_stupidity/ [outsidethebeltway.com]
In short, sex offender lists are being applied for anything having to do with nudity and on the other being used to justify barring people from anything to do with children. It's clearly bullshit but as most people don't pay attention to how laxist laws have become on placing people on the list they are easily swayed by prosecutors looking for a cheap & easy public display of how hard they are working.
Re: (Score:3)
And none of the examples you linked have anything to do with the crap the OP mentioned.
There are legitimate arguments to be made for the abuse of sex offender charges, but spouting out pure hyperbole like "scratching yourself in front of a cop" isn't really helping the case any. That was my point, and the one everyone seems quick to denounce, comically enough.
Re: (Score:3)
What everyone is denouncing is that the point you are trying to make is willfully ignorant of the facts & that you make up strawman arguments ("scratching yourself in front of a cop"). Only 6 states have changed their laws to exclude public urination from being indecent exposure which will get you put on the sex offender lists. All it needs is one cop as a witness who want's to push it.
Re:Labels (Score:4, Informative)
In my state, the police can charge you for being at a strip club if the stripper touches your shoulder (or any part of you) while being topless. It is rare but can and does happen when the cops want to shake a place down if they haven't been paying their bribes to vice.
Ditto for consensual relations with any type of paid sex worker, such as prostitutes, etc. The cops leave the storefronts (massage parlors and whatnot) alone if they have paid their monthly dues, and arrest the employees & customers if not.
These "sex crimes" result with you being on the sex offender registry for life, having to register everywhere you live, knocking on neighbors doors, and apparently not being able to play video games. Maybe having guys paying for sex isn't something you want in your community, but it isn't the same thing as being a rapist or pedophile.
Paying $100 for dinner with a girl, and having sex = ok.
Skipping dinner, giving the girl $100, having sex = Cant play videogames for your entire life. What?
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out you might have no idea what it takes to end up on one of these registries until you are on one.
Sex Offenders (Score:5, Insightful)
Because a dog that's constantly beaten and scolded is the one that behaves best, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the issue is that, unlike bank robbers or most other criminals, sex offenders (not talking the unlucky people who are just technically charged) tend to have actual psychological issues at the heart of their problems. Maybe a dad or priest molested them as a kid or something. Point is, the concept of rehabilitation for an actual sex offender isn't cut and dry. A lot of sex offenders that have "successfully" lived a post-offense life say the same things about rehabilitation. Namely, that the urges
Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty safe to bet that the US will go there eventually.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
A certain percentage will never agree that sex offenders have ever "served their time". They'd like everyone who's ever earned that title to either:
a) Be in prison for life
b) Go kill themselves
c) Stay a zillion miles from anywhere they go
So their answer to your question is "Yes, all of the above and we're still too nice to them."
Re: (Score:3)
And if you think sex offenders should be in prison for 998 years rather than 999 years, you're callous towards victims!
Why not just keep them locked up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Overcrowding in prisons. The sex-offenders need to be cleared out to make room for more drug-offenders.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
CEOs involved in fraud - never let them hold money again, they might misuse it.
Let's slip into these sexually offending moccasins (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
WOW... (Score:3)
...this gives me a whole new perspective on the practice of "teabagging" someone you've just shot in a multiplayer setting...
So picture this... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're on a road trip driving on an empty road in the middle of nowhere, and you desperately need a pee. There isnt a town or anything at all for at least 50 miles and theres no way you can hang on that far anyway.
You finally have to pull over to the side of the road and take care of business. Unfortunately a cop car goes by at the wrong moment and he spotted you, turns around and arrests you for peeing in a public place. Congratulations you are now a registered sex offender. Thats how easy it is and how fucked up the system really is.
The real problem is religion (Score:3)
The real problem is sex offenders with religious power and organized support for cover-ups. The Catholic church has had a huge problem with this for decades. Now it's coming out that the New York ultra-Orthodox Jewish community [nydailynews.com] has a similar problem. They're having big rallies for a sex abuser. [nydailynews.com] Not for the victim, for the abuser. The 12 year old abused girl "wore supposedly indecent clothing, read People magazine and questioned God's authority in a religious school class", which in that community is considered justification for sexually molesting her.
And New York State is worried about video game chat.
Brilliant plan.... (Score:3)
Yeah, brilliant plan, take away the thing that most of them used to kill time to "protect children." Leaving them more time in the real world to become bored / jaded and for the actual pedos out there plan how to get get their hands on more kids since they have time and nothing to do with it. Meanwhile the non-violent offenders get ostracized even further.
Not to mention they will just "forget" to report that throwaway email they registered with, and get pissed even more at society at large / the state than they already are.
But hey, the lawmakers can stroke themselves harder for a while because they "protected the children."
Different Games (Score:5, Funny)
Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine, if you classify sex offenders as the very kind of person you describe.
People who were romantically involved around that magical 18 year old bullshit, or had to answer the call of nature without proper facilities being available, should NOT be lumped in with actual predators.
Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read tfa, a 12 year old boy was 'groomed' for a period of months by a sex offender using a Playstation. After gaining the youth's trust the sexual assaults began. Sex offenders do not belong around kids at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.
Then you'll just have to keep them locked up forever, unless you're willing to better define "around kids," because the damn things are everywhere (kids, not sex offenders).
The standard cliche (in the UK, at least) is that paedophiles groom children with the promise of puppies - better ban sex offenders from keeping pets!
A few months ago two men seriously sexually assaulted a child in a shopping centre - better ban sex offenders from shopping!
Forfty percent of all sex offenders have jobs and eat bread - well, you see where I'm going with this.
PS You've conflated sex offenders with paedophiles. Not all of one are the other.
Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (Score:5, Funny)
you sound hot.
Re: (Score:3)
>But, this is really going to help protect children :)
This is the most moronic thing I've read in a long time, especially since the vast majority of *real life* sex abusers are family members. It's stuff like this that trivializes and distracts from the real issues.
--
BMO
Re:Too Much (Score:5, Insightful)
I do have to wonder if this will every be challenged as "Cruel and unusual".
They paid their time, if they were to be punished more throw them back behind bars, otherwise stop actively harassing them. Realistically they probably would have gotten off easier had they just committed a good ol' fashioned murder.
Re:Too Much (Score:4, Insightful)
No... it's C&U that someone is convicted, served their time and pays any fines; then are constantly hounded for the rest of their lives, even when trying to engage in perfectly legal activities.
It'd be on the scale of, you being in a drunk driving accident, and then not being allowed to purchase a car every again.
Re:Too Much (Score:5, Interesting)