Proposed CA Bill Would Create Domestic Offender Database 131
AMuse writes "The Ledger brings us a New York Times report that a newly proposed bill would create a web-searchable database of persons convicted of domestic violence. Fiona Ma, the bill's author, claims: 'If you're online, Googling and looking for information on someone you met in a bar or on MySpace, this would provide a tool for people to go and look to see if someone who is suspicious and a little creepy has a history of violence.' Is this evidence that the opponents of Megan's Law are correct, and sooner or later all of one's run-ins with the law will be searchable by the public?"
Not normally one to quote the Bible but (Score:2)
Almost everyone has broken the law in some way whether it's a parking fine, pinching pens from work or dropping litter as well as more serious crimes. Whilst I don't support having things like this searchable and available, I can't imagine there will be many people not on some database somewhere for some minor crime or other. Most of us probably manage to avoid being caught for the pen pinching etc. but that's between us and our concience and hopefully that would
Re: (Score:2)
The information exists already I imagine, but not in a single database available to anyone.
This new thing does seem a tad Orwellian to me. Just another vector to find fault with a citizen, which of course means greater control. I wonder how long you would stay on it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem is apparently that there's no punishment, other than a stern telling-off, for not declaring such *cough* affiliations.
Re: (Score:1)
Cheers!
OpenSecrets.org : Online Capaign Donations Record (Score:2)
I believe it's only for the US; sorry for not reading further into parent posters to see if they were from other nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I mean concise summaries of spending measures, not the full text of the bill, which I know I am already allowed read from stem to stern on the assumption that I have that much spare time. What I want is a report from a reviewer whose only job is to excerpt & summarize all new budget allocation language from every new bill, as soon after its text becomes public record as humanly possible. Do you have one of those, or do I need to build that and hire the
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or what a woman is dating some guy and he breaks up with her? She decides she wants revenge, so she slams a door on her cheek to give herself
Re: (Score:1)
Texas has already passed a law creating a criminal database run by the Texas Education Agency for every teacher, and indeed every employee and volunteer in any public school. They're going to fingerprint EVERYONE in those groups and do criminal background checks (which will pull in pretty much anything anyone has on record about each individual), and keep it. They're not even a law-enforcement agency. Of course I'm sure the innocent have nothing to fear (other than paying for the fingerprinting, perhaps).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
City By The Sea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, I agree with you because of the room for lies too. These days, if somebody just says that their spouce hit them, it's over Johnny, somebody's going to jail.
Re: (Score:1)
Here, let me fix that for ya...
These days, if somebody just says that their husband hit them, it's over Johnny, he's going to jail.
There ya go.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, let me fix that for ya...
These days, if somebody just says that their husband hit them, it's over Johnny, he's going to jail.
There ya go.
Actually, no. It doesn't matter anymore if it's a man or a woman. If they both say they got hit, they both go. That's where we are now.
I would never hit my wife and I know I'd have to be a much bigger asshole for my wife to hit me, but still...if there is some incident where a neighbor thinks they see something, do I want my reputation to be ruined by accident? I don't think I do.
Re:City By The Sea (Score:4, Informative)
Justice indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I am sure a TV sho
Re: (Score:2)
No where did I say the "system" was any better for women either; being that my wife was once married to an abuser, I know all too well where the system failed her. I merely said that many times the man is arrested when really it should be the woman. And again, that goes back to knowing cops and friends of cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course... the idea that it can even happen just ONCE is foreign to people like me. It is not in my genes to hit people. Some people tend to be more aggressive than others, and some people just know how to channel their aggression better. For those people, there will be no thought of excuses
Re: (Score:1)
If you haven't even the capacity for violence in your genes then you are not human at all! Your button hasn't been pushed,
Re: (Score:2)
I know I can get VERY angry, but I have learned over the process of many years to control myself and avoid situations where I can get angry. As an adult, i
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I've MET people like that, but I've never gotten to KNOW people like that. It was never a conscious decision on my part. It seems that people of like minds congregate together and people of unlike minds do not. I will certainly have a difficult time understanding the more anti-social element because of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm
(Not posted anonymously, since if people can't take sarcasm, they shouldn't be reading Slashdot. Or possibly this falls more into the category if cynicism...)
Re: (Score:2)
There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman, but there's a difference between a habitual wife beater and someone who falls victim to their rage...
You said it right when you said "There's never an excuse".
...and you got modded as Insightful!
You lost me when you said "but".
Yep, that's a pretty obvious BUT
I would never presume to reason why you say the things you do, but I have noticed a tendency for you to get overly emotional on Slashdot. I could only presume that you are the same way in real life, and hence your reasoning reflects your behavior.
People amaze me.
Of course databases are just another excuse to not do anything about a problem but react
Re: (Score:2)
There's no excuse for it, he shouldn't have done it. He was wrong and he admits it. Does that mean he should be continually punished for the thing he did wrong once? That "but" there does not contradict the fact that there is no excuse.
"Does that mean he should be continually punished for the thing..."
I don't know. Probably not. But that is just my opinion.
That "but" there does not contradict the fact that there is no excuse.
That "but" there is what is known as a Freudian slip. People's REAL intentions and meaning get explained AFTER the "but". Much the same as when he refers to abusers as being victims.
William Shakespeare (in Macbeth) used the phrase "Thou dost protest too much".
People do not NEED to be apologists for abuse if they have nothing to apologize about. Whether or how people should be punished
Re: (Score:2)
He explains that he "lost control" once
Yes John Hinckley Junior should not be victimized either because he only tried to kill a politician once, just like Robert Deniro in Taxi Driver.
I can understand that just because he did it once, does not mean that he will do it again. But that is besides the point. I am not making excuses about JHR, and then claiming that I am not making excuses. As with most people, I see hypocrisy. I'm sure in many cases this may be tho
Re: (Score:2)
So you're NOT complaining that there's a contradiction between:
There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman,
and
there's a difference between a habitual wife beater and someone who falls victim to their rage
because that certainly is what
You said it right when you said "There's never an excuse". You lost me when you said "but".
sounds like.
Correct. I was not pointing out a contradiction in the statements he made. I was merely emphasizing the significance of what he said after the "but".
Now you want to argue about the merits of comparing things to a particular movie, but you also complain
I always get the sense, that when posting, I need to explain that I am only attacking the arguments to which I am making reference to, and nothing else.
Your initial complaint made no mention of the movie, so its obviously not part of what you are arguing against
This is true, and not relevant. The fact that he is using a fictional Robert DiNero movie as an example to illustrate a point should be self-obvious. I was merely emphasizing the rather ridiculous nature of this fact in my subsequent post.
So before you were attacking his use of but. That was successfully refuted (there's no contradiction in his statement).
Wrong of course; you successfully refuted nothing. But I fail to see why you are contradicting me.
Now you are attacking his use of City By the Sea. I'll agree with you that the comparison to a fictional case does not really add anything to his argument. But could you please point out the hypocrisy?
The hypocrisy is impli
Re: (Score:2)
We see things very differently. I certainly enjoy a good verbal spar, but I can't see things progressing.
I will give you the victory.
QED
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:City By The Sea (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe you meant to say, there's never an excuse to beat up on anyone.
Briefly:
--
A two-part study was made in 2006 among 17-20 year old men serving their military service in Finland - a total over 2000 young men who had been in a relationship participated. Of those, nearly 17% said that they have been hit by their partner at least once. Critics of the study have commented that the definitions of "relationship" and "hitting" were not clear enough and that the number is therefore too high.
--
Violence in a relationship is NOT just a problem with men hitting woman, and I have seen opinion pieces in newspapers where those men who uphold the principle that they should "never hit a woman" are quite upset and shaken when their wife/girlfriend hits them (repeatedly) and only thing they feel they can do is try to protect themselves (and maybe their kids) from blows.
It is said that women who end up in abusive relationship tend to stick in that relationship despite of the violence (and there are many speculative reasons why) - and while this is propably true, so can be the opposite. It is really hard for a "man of principle who would never beat up a woman" to admit to himself, his friends and ultimately to the police that he is a target of violence from woman, and can't really do anything about it.
As there are (stereotypical) males who drink too much on a friday night and then hit their wife/girlfriend when they nag about drinking / don't want to have sex etc. there are women who can be loving wives and mothers, but when rage takes them on they can throw a frying pan at you (happened to a friend, multiple times...).
But exposing these types to the whole Internet to see forever (Internet remembers, the sentence is for life) is not right and won't solve the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Depends on what part of the problem you hope to address.
... but then I have a hard time even conceptualizing the bel
Will it stop rage-induced behavior? No. No one is acting rationally in a rage situation, and thus thoughts of consequences are rare.
I imagine it would stop people from thinking they could "get away with" such a pattern of behavior
Re: (Score:2)
It might help ensure that future potential partners (after the abusee leaves) would know what they were getting into.
Yes, it might - I'll admit that. But there are some serious potential problems:
- "Slippery slope". First sex offenders, now domestic violence - what's next?
- Abuses of the registry. Before it was "just" sex offenders who were sometime victims of the mob justice, now you can add nutcases who feel that beating up a "wife-beater" is a heroic action to the list.
- This "solution" has a potential to create a two-class society - those who are found in some public, searchable crime registry and those who are not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You said:
"...someone who falls victim to their rage"
Yes I understand that you think of people who commit spousal abuse as victims.
I was wandering if you just miss-poke and if you will publicly apologize.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that a LOT of people seem to think that beating woman up even once is excusable (hence people like yourself and quantumG claim that there is no excuse for this,
Re: (Score:2)
No one said that it would be ok to hit someone, even once. The objects have been against calling someone that did that a wife beater, which implies there's a pattern, even if there isn't.
How can you call one incident a pattern? You assume that they've done it before even without evidence. Yes, you are whats wrong wit
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons I don't involve myself in the Social Sciences very much anymore is because professionals in these areas get no respect and quite a lot of abuse. Nobody likes to be studied or criticized.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's okay to hit women if you just do it once? Glad I don't live near you.
He's not saying it's ok to do it. He's saying that people can make mistakes sometimes and there's a difference between someone who recognizes that what they did was wrong and doesn't do it anymore and a person who continues to do it because they don't see a problem with it.
That reasoning would be applicable if it were true. Unfortunately people are highly predictable. If they do something once, chances are they will do it again. If a person has a certain belief, chances are they are not going to change that belief because they go to an anger management class. If somebody cannot control their emotions in certain circumstances, then chances are if those same circumstances come up again then they will once again loose control.
People have free will when they do things right.
When
Re: (Score:1)
Its a shame people really believe this, because its certainly not true. My wife's ex was a wife beater; there's a difference between his line of thinking and the person that gets caught up in the heat of the moment.
Note that no one is excusing hitting someone; its still wrong, but to claim that if you do it once you'll do it again is simply amazing.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Your words remind me of a blog entry someone brought to my attention last year. A mother, who quite honestly held a POV completely alien to any life experiences I ever had, was lamenting to her online friends that she wished she had never given birth or that she had had an abortion.
The reason why? Her teenage son had been caught with a porn magazine. Once.
Her belief was th
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Are you presenting your opinions honestly? Are you that damaged that your world view is as you've presented it? Or are you simply one of the best trolls I've seen so far? I don't know. What I do know, what I have a certainty of belief and convictions in, is that the world works nothing like you've presented it. And if you honestly believe what you are saying, I hope that someday you receive the help you need.
As with most hypocrites: you are what you preach: a troll.
You at once describe a situation of a fanatical mother (and as you can tell from my posts I am against simple-minded fanaticism); and projected your own callous attitudes towards abuse on people like me.
Most people I have met who have ZERO morals and are 100% hypocrites are people who call be "damaged" and say I "need help"... Yes I've heard it all before, but the sad thing is that people like you spend more time demonizing people, and using dishone
Re: (Score:1)
Please, never take up science or anything that requires logic and reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any number of reasons (Score:2)
While it's not always the case, the legal system is not supposed to be for 'retribution.' However, it is intended to have the effects of deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the public at large.
The first two tend to be falling by the wayside. Yes, in a lot of cases you have to do something fairly bad to get a record. In a lot of cases, though, you can be a victim of poor ci
Re: (Score:2)
So now everyone knows that you at 17 years old smoked a joint (but of course you didn't inhale) and got caught by the cops. What exactly does this have to do with the life you're leading now?
This is exactly why all the digging up of facts for presidents, senators and all that disgusts me. Doe
Re: (Score:2)
Is a criminal record supposed to be secret? If so, then who are we trying to protect with such secrecy?
Then why put it out of band requiring a search engine to find? Why not brand it onto people's foreheads, so all their past crimes are displayed plainly for everyone to see?
The Scarlet Letter [gutenberg.org]
First they take away your Liberty, then they take away your Pursuit of Happiness, then they take away your Life.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, it used to be you could serve your time for a conviction, and then once it was served, that was it, your debt was paid in full. These databases make sure that your debt is never paid in full and that you will pay forever.
I'm kind of torn, having been a victim of molestation myself, because on the one hand, I hate child molesters with a passion and sincerely be
Re: (Score:1)
I'm kind of torn, having been a victim of molestation myself, because on the one hand, I hate child molesters with a passion and sincerely believe that most of them are not salvageable. OTOH, what about those innocent ones who get wrongly convicted and what about those who are salvageable, who do have the potential to change?
My perspective differs slightly, in that I don't believe in the existence of a salvageable child molester. Only those whose conviction is eventually overturned should ever be let out of prison. That is an unforgivable crime and the only reason not to apply the death penalty is the occasional wrongful conviction. Better to lock 10 guilty men away for life than to execute one innocent man.
Making child molestation a life sentence every time, without possibility of parole, is the best possible means of clear
Re: (Score:2)
The other is in the attitude you express here:
Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.
This attitude guarantees an unjust system with a high rate of innocent prosecution as well as eliminating any hope at all, of salvaging the salvageable. Not just with regards to child molestat
Re: (Score:1)
I would tend to share your view that it makes more sense to keep them behind bars.
The other is in the attitude you express here:
Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.
This attitude guarantees an unjust system with a high rate of innocent prosecution as well as eliminating any hope at all, of salvaging the salvageable. Not just with regards to child molestation, but all crime across the board.
How do you get "innocent prosecution" from what I said? That quote was specifically about child molesters and murderers. To generalize accurately, I only suggested people -- adults, not children in the juvenile justice system, whom I don't intend to discuss -- are fully responsible for considering the likely consequences of our actions.
A kid acting out his parents bad behavior of gluttony, is no different in nature than a kid acting out his parents bad behavior of violence or molestation or drug use or whatever.
Gluttony makes oneself fat, and is within a person's right, whatever your opinion of the wisdom of such habit. I respect your right to eat as much as you possibly can. I mi
Re: (Score:1)
Over the Top (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DV victims, on the other hand, tend to stay with those who abuse them. It's often the girlfriend/wife with black eyes that co
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reverse is true. DV perpetrators tend to have anti-social personality disorder. No, that doesn't mean they are shut-ins. Those with anti-social disorder have little trouble forming relationships, partly because they have no remorse about lying. They are very good about putting on a convincing face, and then turning violent and abusive once the relationship becomes serious.
And I hear you, but do we really need to apply public humiliation in that case. I just always wonder if such things can be practiced with any real justice. I just don't think that the government can fairly keep track of the real bad people vs the people who got caught in a lie or some other injustice. I guess the debate is whether such a list can do more unjust harm than good. Can we stop ruining the lives of relatively innocent people while exposing the real criminals for what they are? I doubt it an
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you until you spewed this garbage. "Sex offender" can be someone that pissed on a bush and got caught. Thanks for illustrating the problems with general labels though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Three problems with that. The first is that those "minor offenses" still get on the list. Secondly is that many states publish lists of offenders but don't actually list what they were convicted of. Thirdly, if you are on the list, you're on the list (usually for life). The school that you work for doesn't care that you're on it for pissing on a bush because you are now unemployable for simp
Re: (Score:2)
DV victims, on the other hand, tend to stay with those who abuse them. It's often the girlfriend/wife with black eyes that comes and bails out the abuser. If a database like the one proposed existed, then it could be used to pierce the facade that abusers put forth. And it could also help friends with suspicions to convince the woman the man is not as he presents himself.
You're kidding me, right? The relationship between "abusers" and domestic violence "victims" is largely symbiotic.
First off, in the United States, domestic violence is defined as "when a man hits a woman or threatens to hit a woman". Oftentimes the violence is going both ways but women are only very rarely charged. The fact that the woman was trying to stab him at the time doesn't get the guy off.
Second, women do not need to be convinced "the man is not as he presents himself". They KNOW what he is (they f
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit.
I've know several victims of domestic violence. Women often stay with abusive men because they can't get away, financially as well a
Re: (Score:2)
I've know several victims of domestic violence. Women often stay with abusive men because they can't get away, financially as well as spatially. They can't afford to leave, or realize that if they do, the abuser is likely to get even more pissed off, track them down, and really lay on a beating.
So this woman has no friends, no family, no church, etc? Why isn't she asking these people to do something about her abuser? If his legs are broken he's not going to be tracking anyone down. She might be poor, but does she have $200 to save her life? That's how much a cheap gun costs at the pawn shop. Hell, pepper spray is $4 and pretty effective too. Pepper spray and a brick will take down anybody.
They can't afford to leave,
This is what it's really about. Battered women tend to be stay at home moms (read: no job skills) and aren't
Megan's Law should apply to all dangerous criminal (Score:1)
I'm also against public "lists" of people who are not currently dangerous. Many people who would be on this list, and for that matter many people on the sex-offender registries, are no longer dangerous. There is something about having spent time in the Big House and not wanting to go back that keeps many people from re-offending. Having these people on public lists no
Re: (Score:2)
That's my problem with these lists, either someone is too dangerous to be let back into society, in which case they shouldn't be on a list and instead in some kind of institution or jail, or they have served their time and are no lo
Or better yet (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Funny)
"OK, so he's drenched in blood and carrying an axe, but he has such lovely eyes!"
Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and he's holding a case of Miller Lite!
charge rent (Score:1)
If you are accused of domestic violence you are given the choice of:
1. Contest the charge. You will have to find a new place to live. You will have an automatic restraining order against going to your home (even if you own it). You won't be able to see your family. This will last around 6 to 12 months as the case works its way through the system.
Just once I'd love to see someone who was arrested and kicked out of his house that he owned free and clear either try to sell, evict his family, or charge them rent.
The eviction or rental suit would probably drag on for years but eventually the courts would probably rule in his favor: It's his financial asset and he has the right to sell it or rent it to whomever he chooses. For him, the victory would come too late but it would be a useful precedent.
Bad (Score:2)
Not acceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The state pressed charges and used their child as "evidence" of the "crime" and now he has to register where ever he goes.
Some college buddies and I were joking around and saying half the shit we pulled on campus would now be considered a terrorist act. I thought about it later, and I seriously think that under todays laws as a teen I could have been charged as a terrorist (homemade fireworks and other experiments, but no bombs
Oh, dear. (Score:3, Funny)
Here's a nifty idea that's easier... (Score:2, Insightful)
this is just silly... These lists and databases post only enough information to be dangerous. Sure, the rest of the information is out there for people who'd actually spend the time to research it and judge for themselves, but who's really going to do that after seeing Joe Neighbor on the list..? This just caters to the idea of mob-justice.
Leave the databases wit
Re: (Score:2)
Might be kindof scary once you see peoples' criminal records floating over their heads as you walk down the sidewalk, though. I don't think it is a good thing, but then
Re: (Score:1)
There is no right answer, but I really feel that this is certainly low on the list of right... Having the knowledge is certainly one way to gauge threat-levels, but people need to take the responsibility to not try to do that with little more than a bullet-itemed name on a list s
Maybe I don't understand the situation fully (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well (Score:3, Informative)
There are some people who need this info... (Score:2)
These groups should be provided instant access to this information, based on zip, address, phone number and any number of other criteria that might be useful.
When a member of these groups has a case they are on where any sort of violence has occurred (kid beat up, mom beat up, random woman/man beat up, etc.) they check the records on that person AND their address/phone to see if there is a potential abuser in their home/neighborhood whom they may be married to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's mob response time!
Witnessed an argument between "some guy" and a woman (lives near the in-laws).
In the yelling that ensued (which I could hear clearly over the *lawn mower*) I learned that she did not want him near her kids because he was on the megan's law web site. He countered that her kids were the problem.
After the cops arrived no-one went to jail but he was "talked to" and she was issued a citation. I asked one of the cops what happened, as I was interested in my neigh
Re: (Score:2)
Need more general info... you could get a result that tells you "yes there are sex-offenders, within 100 miles of the address listed. please contact your local police for more information."
Suspicious person... submit the name or address and you'll get a yes or no
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
All the best responses are at Score 0 (Score:1)
If you set your filter to 0 and above for this story, you'll get the most interesting comments.
I have been to Domestic Violence Treatment (Score:1, Informative)
1. During a bitter divorce and custody battle, my wife claimed abuse. I made a counter-claim that she was abusive, and provided proof. But it was only me that was sent to a DV (domestic violence) evaluation.
2. The evaluation used my childhood history against me, my father divorced my mother when I was young, and he is an alcoholic. And the theory is little boys emulate their fathers...
3. They put in the parenting plan, I had to do
I'm calling bullshit (Score:1, Informative)
6 years ago I was going through a bitter divorce and child custody battle. As a person with money in the bank and a stable living environment, there wasn't much she or her lawyer could do with the *truth* to make a case that i shouldn't have custody of my child, so he (her lawyer) decided she should make stuff up. I.e. I was physically and/or sexually abusive. Divorce lawyers do this *all the time*
I think the domestic violence laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocenc
Re: (Score:2)
drug dealer database... (Score:1)