State of Ohio Establishes "Pre-Crime" Registry 761
I*Love*Green*Olives writes to tell us the Toledo Blade is reporting that State officials have rubber-stamped a "civil-registry" that would allow accused sex offenders to be tracked with the sex offender registry even if they have never been convicted of a crime. From the article: "A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit. The rules spell out how the untried process would work. It would largely treat a person placed on the civil registry the same way a convicted sex offender is treated under Ohio's so-called Megan's Law."
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:3, Informative)
Who was it that said, "how convenient it is when they're all guilty'?
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, it seems that the civil registry is designed to be very different from a criminal registry, so let us not assume it would deprive civil registrants of the same rights and liberties as criminal registrants. That said, it is still creepy and upsetting, from a civil liberties standpoint, and worth looking at with a very severe eye.
Imo: (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the proponents of this law are going to claim that the law doesn't declare them guilty, and doesn't punish them, but they're basically saying that these people are guilt of SOMETHING, otherwise they wouldn't be worth being watched. And, obviously, it's easy to see how being on such a list would be a punishment.
Actual text of the bill (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
This is BULL SHIT!! (Score:5, Informative)
Ohio already treats men like shit, especially fathers, and I can guarantee you that the majority of false accused will continue to be men. I am a woman on the board of directors of an internation men's rights organization specialising in fathers' rights, and I can see the effect that this will have on more than just the accused. Women already routinely accuse men of sex crimes to get sole custody of children. If they can now be registered as sex offenders based solely on accussations....
A form of this has been happening in California for many years, but now that one state has enacted it as a law will have a domino effect as other states follow suit. This is a system of abuse that slaughters our Consitutional rights that are supposed to be guaranteed.
Wait, rights? I forgot, WE ALREADY FUCKING LOST THOSE!!
In Ohio you are guilty! period! (Score:5, Informative)
The war on drugs made plastic baggies, scales, and anything you can smoke tobacco out of into drug paraphernalia which carries a 3 year prison sentence in Ohio.
The War on Terror made pretty much anything you can carry into a public venue a crime. Plus if you refuse the search they don't just let you go, they throw you to the ground and point guns at you.
Then Cincinnati made taking your shirt off in public a sex crime and put you on the sex offender registry for it. Yes, even if it is a guy.
Now someone can just say you looked at their kid funny and you are basically on house arrest for life. But then mutual sex between two 17 year olds also gets you on the list for life, so I guess I saw this one coming.
The worst part of politics these days is that no matter who you vote for you always lose to the crappy child safety laws. both sides want to look like they are tough on drugs terrorists, and sex offenders, so the rest of us must suffer. I think I might say my senator looked at my nephew funny and see how they like this law.
The only solution is to get rid of political parties or get a third party, but even then I doubt we will get a pro-child porn party, not that I would relly want one.
At least I don't live in West Virginia though. I hear they are blocking out Comedy central shows like south park and the daily show.
Then of course in england I would already be in jail for owning a few bondage videos.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
Thought you should know. (Score:3, Informative)
This was the 1st quote worthy gem I found.
Lesson: Consider the source.
"
Pedophile means child-lover. (Greek paidos, "child" + philia, "love, affinity"). If you hate pedophiles, you hate children too.
"
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes [wikipedia.org]. But I see no reason for Ohio citizens to be punished now for Mr. Timmendequas's crimes.
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:2, Informative)
Really?
It's called the Fourth Amendment [findlaw.com] and it's in the bill of rights.
I think it's pretty safe to say that since there were no wires to tap in 1787, the right to security in one's personal papers (letters, etc. .
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:5, Informative)
They saved the best for last -- the 10th amendment. If the constitution does not specifically grant the government power to do something, they cannot do it. Not the other way around. (all in theory, of course, current events show otherwise).
Re:not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Informative)
Useful? Sure. But these are exactly the kind of uses the Constitution forbids. If the evidence linking him to the crime is inadmissable but reliable, allowing the state to punish him anyway vitiates the prohibition against whatever bad act the state committed which made the evidence inadmissable. Statute of limitations expired -- same thing, punishing the guy anyway eliminates the protection of the statute of limitations. Victim unwilling to press charges or has fled -- punishing him anyway violates the Sixth Amendment. Despicable but not criminal? Punishing anyway eliminates rule of law entirely, allowing behavior to be made malum prohibitorum on an ex post facto and ad hoc basis by any judge. (did I get enough Latin in there?)
Yes, criminal conviction is a high bar. It's that way for a reason. If the state can't get over that bar, they lose; if they get to take action against the accused anyway (or without even trying), then all the protections in the criminal justice system have been eliminated.
Apologists for the law will of course claim being put on the list isn't punishment and therefore doesn't qualify for criminal protections. None of them, I bet, would volunteer to be put on the list to show just how it doesn't punish them. You can be sure that the list is or will be used to screen job applicants for many state positions, for licensed or regulated jobs involving contact with children, and for other things -- things which will just be added to as time goes on. Being put on a state-sanctioned blacklist is punishment, no matter how you word the law.
Re:Which country was this again? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:oh, great, just what we need (Score:2, Informative)
You don't know what you are talking about. I can't believe your comment has been modded up to five -this is absolutely ridiculous! What you have asserted is simply not true. Nothing about feminism involves what you are suggesting.
For the record, a feminist is any person who believes the following two statements. 1) women are disadvantaged, and 2) we should try to eliminate this disadvantage. Those are the defining beliefs of a feminist. While there are some crazy feminists out there, they are by no means representative of the philosophy of feminism.
Might as well! I know that's the first thing I would think of doing... ummmm?
Re:Actual text of the bill (Score:4, Informative)
It's still an attempt to punish people for a crime of which the State is not otherwise able to convict them. It's wrong, pure and simple. Being put on an emotionally-charged list (such as a sex offender list) is not something that should be treated casually, by administrative fiat.
Re:Actual text of the bill (Score:3, Informative)
Whoa, slow down there fella. Do you know the difference between civil and criminal court? You're mixing and matching teminology.
In civil court, the winner is the one with the "preponderance of evidence" on their side, because it's citizen v. citizen and one of them has to win. It's a very low (51%) threshold for victory. Although a judgment is rendered, the defendant is never said to be "guilty" or "convicted" of a crime regardless of the outcome.
In criminal court, the standard for proving guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," because it's government v. citizen and having our government punish an innocent citizen is considered the worst possible outcome. The evidence required in that case is WAY more than the civil 51%.
Now, if what you say about the bill is correct (and I read it the same way since it refers to everything as "civil" rather than "criminal"), it actually says the opposite of your interpretation. Since it only needs a preponderance of evidence, it can put people on the list who never would have been convicted of any crime, and never would have seen jail time as a result of any regular trial.
Since being put on the list amounts to government punishment, this is a vile end-run around the constitutionally guaranteed protections for all citizens.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:In Ohio you are guilty! period! (Score:5, Informative)
Won't work; it's too late. Poorly informed, hysterical and badly educated US citizens let the USSC declare that "registration" wasn't punishment (in order that sex offenders who had previously been convicted be forced to register without running afoul of the constitutionally declared right to be free of ex post facto punishment) and that opened the door (wide!) for the government to register you and yours for any reason it likes. It just has to declare it has "an interest" in you and that's it, buddy, you're on the list.
And as for revolution... don't count on it. The middle name of the America citizen is "gullible" and the surname should probably be "sheep." You'll do what you're told.
Re:not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Informative)
I made this point above, but it bears repeating: It is NOT punishment, because the US supreme court has specifically said so. Registration is a state function; they have an "interest", and that's all it takes to make a registry legal.
This was established during a process where someone who was convicted of a sex offense prior to the enactment of the Megan's Law group of laws was registered *after the fact* and not by order of any court. The sex offender claimed (entirely correctly, in my view) that this was "ex post facto punishment", and the USSC in a leap of illogic incomprehensible to me, declared that registration could not be construed as punishment, hence it wasn't ex post facto punishment at all, and the guy was registered.
What was established by this is that (a) the state declares it has an interest in keeping you on a list of some kind, then it can, and (b), it can punish you in a myriad of interesting and creative ways if you don't comply. It was one of most ill-considered and least well reasoned USSC decisions in recent history, comparable to the ruling that pot grown in California, for sale and use in California, was "interstate commerce" because it "could" have been sold over state lines (no really, that's the ruling... it sounds like it was made up, it's so unbelievably stupid, but that's the situation.) In each case, a complete mockery was made of what the intent of the constitution was; in each case, the "reasoning" was strictly convenience of the moment.
The problem is that there is no recourse. Oncce the USSC decides something, you're done. Period. This Ohio law can survive no poblem, all it has to do is refer to the reasoning that underlies the (non) ex post facto status of the currently existing registries.
We are ruled by idiots. The population won't do anything about it. Mostly, they're idiots too. There's no help for it.
Democracy: Where any two idiots outvote a genius.
Democratic Republic: Where any two idiot representatives outvote a genius representative.
Oh, wait. There aren't any genius representatives.
Re:That's not hot. (Score:2, Informative)
Indecent exposure (includes walking around without a shirt as well as streaking and getting caught in the back seat naked)
Public urination (like, when you've had a few beers, it's 3 AM, & you're too far from home and need to 'find a tree')
The catch-all is 'gross sexual imposition', which can mean anything from kissing a girl against her wishes to commenting about her attire ('Gee, you look HAWT in that string mesh bikini...'), to some kid still making out with their girlfriend/boyfriend AFTER they turn 18 to full blown violent rape (only in the violent rape cases, they plea bargain it down because their case is weak).
Hell, up in Nevada, they had some parents of a 6 year old girl try to sue the district for allowing a 'sexual assault' because a 6 year old boy kissed her on the playground. Shall we put that 6 year old kid on the list too?
Accusations ruining lives (Score:3, Informative)
Even with courts providing "balance", this is a difficult area for the rights of accused to be respected. Hopefully Cathy Fordham's excesses were an exception, but the irreversible fallout from this one person's manipulation demonstrates how carefully the justice system must handle such cases.
As with the death penalty, how many wrongful convictions are we willing to tolerate? What is more important; harsh punishment for the guilty or keeping the innocent free?
just remember that (Score:3, Informative)