Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Your Rights Online News

Proposed CA Bill Would Create Domestic Offender Database 131

Posted by Soulskill from the ex-post-facto dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proposed CA Bill Would Create Domestic Offender Database More

Proposed CA Bill Would Create Domestic Offender Database

Comments Filter:
  • Let he who is innocent cast the first stone.
    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
    • I note that this new database once again includes reference to crime by the normal citizen. What about a publicly searchable database of politicians and all donation sources plus business world affiliations and bills proposed by that politician?

      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)

        by clickclickdrone ( 964164 )

        What about a publicly searchable database of politicians and all donation sources plus business world affiliations and bills proposed by that politician?
        We have that in the UK - in fact one politician is about to be investigated by the police for not reporting a GBP100K donation to help him get elected recently. There is also an online db where you can check a politician and see how they voted on everything they voted for in parliament.
      • We already have all those things. We have public databases of donations to politicians (fec.gov), public databases of members of corporate boards and beneficial shareholders (sec.gov), and fully open information about bills sponsored by or voted on (thomas.loc.gov). What else do you want?
        • I want one that tells me about earmarks in bills.

          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)

      by kellyb9 ( 954229 )
      Honestly - I wouldn't date someone who didn't have a little bit of a police rap... i think that would be EVEN more suspicious.
    • That's not necessarily true. For example, this database might track those charged with domestic violence as well as those convicted of it...that would be bad. There are many cases of divorces and child custody disputes going bad, and then the wife trying to bring up charges of domestic violence in order to tip the scales...hell, a few men have probably tried it to.

      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)

      by Ying Hu ( 704950 )

      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).

      • This is old, old stuff. Law enforcement has been able to use commercial databases for quite some time. And as for the fingerprinting, every California teacher (and 4-H leaders too) gets fingerprinted and checked.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by b4upoo ( 166390 )
      I think background of all individuals should be freely available. If I ran into a female who was a repeat victim of domestic violence I might not want to form a relationship with her as the fact that she was attacked might indicate that she drives mates over the edge, And I wouldn't care to hang out with people who beat their wives either, I see nothing wrong with everyone knowing all about everyone else. Those that have bad histories would suffer a bit but they have earned that suffering.

  • City By The Sea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Friday January 18, 2008 @07:07AM (#22091528) Homepage Journal
    In "City By The Sea", there's a scene where Robert De Niro's character is layout out his history to his new girlfriend. He was married, but is now divorced, and has a son who hates him because his ex-wife has "done a number on him". Among other things, she calls him a wife beater. He explains that he "lost control" once, and that was the day he decided they needed to get divorced. 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, recognizes there is a problem and gets the hell out. Domestic violence laws don't take that stuff into account.. and that's the problem with profiling people.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tha_mink ( 518151 )

      There's never an excuse to beat up on a woman
      Clearly, you're not married....

      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)

        by bwd234 ( 806660 )
        These days, if somebody just says that their spouce hit them, it's over Johnny, somebody's going to jail.

        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.

        • 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)

            by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Friday January 18, 2008 @09:53AM (#22092990)
            Um, actually it does matter if its a man or a woman. Cops typically won't haul the woman away. Indeed, even filmed on Cops, the wife admitted he didn't hit her husband, she hit him, and they STILL cuffed the man and took him away.

            Justice indeed.
            • Sorry mate, but some of us don't base our beliefs on what we see on American Reality TV. I do expect you to get up-modded for your insights however.

              Truth be damned.
              • Sorry, what's your argument? That the incident in question didn't happen? Its not like the scenario is unheard of, I've heard plenty of similar stories. The fact that it was on national TV and no one blinked I think goes to show how accepting Americans are of blindly faulting the man.
                • I am not presenting you with an argument. I am merely stating that an episode of a US "Reality" TV show that you don't even have a bibliographic reference for does not prove that men get abused by the system and women do not. I have seen PBS shows that actually have had lawyers and psychiatrists and other experts on that have stated that women get screwed by the justice system and that the public perception that woman have more defacto rights in issues like this is just pure mythology.

                  Yes I am sure a TV sho
                  • I don't have a reference, but I do know some cops, and so do many of my friends.

                    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.
                    • I do not doubt this to be true. Things are often more complex then they appear. My whole entire point is and was that people should NOT diminish abuse or the effects there-of... whether it be done once or is habitual.

                      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)

                      by Grygus ( 1143095 )
                      That's silly. Every human that was ever born had it within themselves to kill another human. The combination of self-preservation and fear are very powerful. You have never hit anyone in anger, that's good and maybe you're right to be proud of it. Don't downplay it by claiming that it couldn't have happened. Don't for a moment think that it isn't in your genes, that's ridiculous.

                      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,
                    • I will elaborate. I have hit before. More so when I was NOT a legal adult but a child, and almost always out of self-defense (as far as I can remember). When I said it is "in my genes not to hit people"... well, I suppose I shouldn't have said that. As an adult certainly, I do not hit people, but I should have been more careful with the way I worded that.

                      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

    • 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".
      You lost me when you said "but".

      Yep, that's a pretty obvious BUT ...and you got modded as Insightful!
      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:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:City By The Sea (Score:4, Insightful)

        by zyzko ( 6739 ) <kari DOT asikainen AT gmail DOT com> on Friday January 18, 2008 @11:57AM (#22095270)

        I believe you meant to say, there's never an excuse to beat up on anyone.

        Yep, just today when driving to work I heard a brief news on radio about a recent study made in Finland (link [www.yle.fi] in Finnish).

        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)

          by gknoy ( 899301 )

          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.

          Interesting. Depends on what part of the problem you hope to address.

          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 ... but then I have a hard time even conceptualizing the bel

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by zyzko ( 6739 )

            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)

      by unlametheweak ( 1102159 )
      I'll add one more comment.
      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.

  • Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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?
    Perhaps they should be? Is a criminal record supposed to be secret? If so, then who are we trying to protect with such secrecy?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 )
      Anyone can request anyone else's criminal record.. it's public knowledge.. so if you really feel strongly that criminal records should be searchable, feel free to go request the criminal record of anyone you like and put it on the Internet.. Google will take care of the rest.

    • For one thing, just because something isn't specifically a "secret" doesn't mean it has to be outed to the world in general.
      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)

      by splutty ( 43475 )
      The thing about having all this 'public' (which it already is, actually, since you can ask for pretty much any court transcript), is that if you've done something 30 years ago, it'll still be there for anyone to google.

      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)

      by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )

      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.

    • Perhaps they should be? Is a criminal record supposed to be secret? If so, then who are we trying to protect with such secrecy?

      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

      • 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

        • You bring up two interesting points along these lines... one is in the sentencing. 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 molestat

          • 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

          • OK, so in my third paragraph, replace the vague "those" with "those murderers and/or child molesters," then see if you have any point of disagreement. My guess is that you just took that to be a more general statement than the rest of my message. It was not intended to be.

  • Over the Top (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tha_mink ( 518151 ) on Friday January 18, 2008 @07:10AM (#22091550)
    I think the Megan's law thing is great and all but it probably needs to stop there. I understand wanting to be safe and all put this goes towards public humiliation. Domestic violence laws are already kinda weird in regards to the situation where often, just the fact that the police get called means somebody HAS to go do jail. I don't think we need this kind of thing for every single violent crime. I think even Megan's law is a bit harsh and needs to be reevaluated since I'm sure, as with all other "Justice", there are a ton of people who's lives are ruined that probably didn't need to be. (ie There was that case in GA where a 17yr old boy got a BJ from a 15 yr old girl and got 10 years in prison and has to walk around with the 'Sexual Predator' moniker for the rest of his life) Let's leave it rest with Megan's law.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by etymxris ( 121288 )
      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.

      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

      • 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

      • Sex offenders, on the other hand, are usually incestuous, and the recidivism rate for these offenders is quite low, especially compared to the general prison population. Jump out of the bushes type of offenders are quite rare, and these people do have much higher recidivism rates.

        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.
        • I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that peeing in the bushes or an 18 yr old having sex with a 16 yr old deserves a place on these sex offender registries. And while such cases do sometimes end up on registries, they do not represent the "typical" sex offender. The most common crime on these registries, as far as I've seen by actually browsing through them, is child molestation. Excluding minor offenses such as the ones you mentioned seem so uncontroversial that it's not worth addressing.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ocbwilg ( 259828 )
            Excluding minor offenses such as the ones you mentioned seem so uncontroversial that it's not worth addressing.

            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)

        by rtechie ( 244489 )

        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

        • They KNOW what he is (they felt his fists on their face, remember?) and on some level, they LIKE it. That's why they're with him. I have talked to many abused women and it's literally impossible to convince them through REASON that "their man" is an abuser. Usually it boils down to "Leave this guy or the state will take your kids." and thy get angry at the STATE.

          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)

            by rtechie ( 244489 )

            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

    • I'm against public "lists" of people who haven't been convicted of any crime. However this bill is about people who have been convicted.

      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
      • It's a nice idea, but how does one decide whether or not someone is currently dangerous? Assuming that you could do this reliably, then why even bother with lists as opposed to keeping the dangerous criminals seperated from the rest of society until they are no longer dangerous?

        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)

    by VanillaBabies ( 829417 )

    '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.'
    You could act like an adult, make an informed decision based on the information you have, and its a done deal. No legislation required to prevent bad things from happening to stupid people!

    • Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Funny)

      by WombatDeath ( 681651 ) on Friday January 18, 2008 @07:31AM (#22091638)
      That was my reaction too - if you meet someone who's 'suspicious and a little creepy' it's possibly best not to date them.

      "OK, so he's drenched in blood and carrying an axe, but he has such lovely eyes!"
  • "Domestic Offender" is the most meaningless and undescriptive phrase I have heard in a long time. Can we get a new name for it?

  • Not acceptable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zelet ( 515452 ) on Friday January 18, 2008 @08:43AM (#22092116) Journal
    Absolutely, completely not acceptable. Megan's Law is already borderline acceptable. The only reason I see that Megan's Law should be allowed is that minors can't really control the situation they are in so it gives the parents a tool to help keep their kids away from situations/people that might take advantage of a child's lack of understanding. Adults can make decisions on their own. If a guy is exhibiting symptoms of domestic violence (jealousy, control, isolation) and the other ADULT doesn't decide to leave thats on him/her. Last I checked, once you serve your sentence your debt to society is paid - they shouldn't be continually exposed to harassment, social isolation, and discrimination.
    • Your debt to society is paid, unless, of course, you're a drug offender (even low level marijuana possession... ) Drug felons can't vote, own a handgun/possess ANY kind of weapon in most states (including, but not limited to, knives, box cutters, exacto blades, pepper spray/mace, stun guns, etc.).. They also can't get any kind of federal financial aid for school, any kind of federal housing assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and in many states, even medical assistance is limited. I'm willing to

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Zelet ( 515452 )
        I completely agree. I think that our entire justice system needs to be overhauled. Non-violent drug offenders need to be kept separate from the general, violent population. They need to be provided long term drug treatment. They also need to be provided skill based education beyond a GED. Essentially skills that are provided by community colleges. They need to be taught how to live in our society. How to manage a house-hold, how to hold a job, how to respect others and to care about society. It woul
    • There's a guy in Maine on a sex offenders list for statutory rape. OF HIS WIFE.

      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)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Friday January 18, 2008 @09:14AM (#22092436) Homepage Journal
    The first time someone called John Smith beats up his wife, all the other John Smiths will suddenly find it much harder to get dates.
  • Sex offenders will have to where a big red "S" on their outer most layer of clothing/jacket/etc, domestic offenders a big "D," and adulterers...

    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)

      by gknoy ( 899301 )
      In a future where people may have wearable augmented-reality-devices (e.g. the screen-contacts from an earlier story), and wireless networking, I imagine that rfid or other tagging, combinedwith such databases, could indeed allow people to put such indicators over other people.

      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 ... it's hard to pinpoint why. As a father, I would love to be a

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by nhstar ( 452291 )
        Maybe that's part of the problem... we figure that locking people up for a little while will be the only necessary deterrent... Apparently, that's not going so well. Stiffer penalties, maybe? Perhaps some actual rehabilitation?

        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)

    by kellyb9 ( 954229 ) on Friday January 18, 2008 @09:42AM (#22092828)
    But aren't things like police records not private??? It was my understanding that you could freely pull this kind of information anyway. Could be wrong...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thelexx ( 237096 )
      And there's a big difference between being on display in a disused lavatory guarded by a leopard and being beamed to everyone's wrist-top computer...

  • Well (Score:3, Informative)

    by caveat ( 26803 ) on Friday January 18, 2008 @09:59AM (#22093078)
    While I wholeheartedly think this is a TERRIBLE idea, aren't convictions a matter of public record already? Not that there's a handy-dandy easy-to-use website with all the information right there, but a trip to the courthouse or $40 paid to one of the online background check services can already get all the information... and not just for SA/DV, for everything down to speeding tickets..
  • The police, social services, doctors. That's it.

    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)

      by networkBoy ( 774728 )
      Grab your pitchforks boys!
      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
      • Personally i think the information should be available by request and censored to your needs... moving, have kids.. you get an AOK that the neighborhood is pedophile free, no names, no addresses - just a response message that confirms your request.

        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

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday January 18, 2008 @10:41AM (#22093748)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Many innocent men are victims of false allegations of domestic violence. Many are posting their experiences here. Not surprisingly, they all seem to be posting as Anonymous Coward.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I see lots of posts here, but I've had to actually experience in this matter.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is complete crap.
    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)

      by ocbwilg ( 259828 )
      I feel for you, man. The simple truth is that the courts are biased against men. Some people believe that in the past the courts had been heavily biased in favor of men, and that women got shafted. Many of those people now believe that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in a misguided attempt to "correct the injustices of the past." In the past, many victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse were not believed. As a result of re-education efforts an accuser is alway
  • i want a drug dealer database with the price information :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

Close