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."
Worst idea ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you can just accuse someone and ruin their life?
What the heck is the court even for, then?
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:4, Funny)
Why not? It's been happening for years in California.
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps then they would reconsider
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
So is wiretapping w/o a warrant. But remember, as long as we are fighting terrorists, squashing sex offenders, or expanding the powers of government we're doing something great for this country.
Keep up the great work Ohio. I'm very disappointed that I moved to a different state.
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.
Re:Imo: (Score:5, Interesting)
The restrictions on where you can live requirement is a big issue. Many states have created absurd rules for people on the registries, that basically make it illegal for them to live anywhere near a metropolitan area, because they can't live nearby a church, school, playground, anything.
In Dekalb County, Georgia, the sheriff said that there are no locations in the county where someone on the registry can legally reside... so those people have to move to the more rural areas. Hope the country-folk like having child molesters next door.
But I digress, the real deal with this thing is that it takes away a very important liberty interest for at least six years, with what sounds like a very limited procedure. We'll see, but this could turn out to be a violation of due process.
At any rate, I'm sure there are some spouses in divorce who are looking at this as a golden opportunity.
Re:Imo: (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, "again"? I thought we were talking about unproven allegations and an inability to get a conviction. I thought that if you weren't convicted you were deemed to be innocent, at least as far as the law's concerned.
This whole effort smacks of "there's no smoke without fire", and that's a shitty premise to pass a law on. Especially given the number of false allegations of child abuse [wikipedia.org].
Obviously no-one who abuses children deserves to escape unpunished, but I think that's kind of what we have "due process" for. Assuming the legal system (which has stood us in good stead for the last several hundred years) is still working, no extra loop-holes should be necessary.
Not sure about un-Constitutionality (Score:3, Insightful)
The prohibition of Bills of Attainder is specifically against things passed by the legislature against specific persons, at least as I understand it; it's a separation-of-powers issue, to keep the legislature from just saying that a particular person is guilty of a crime and punishing them. They
Re:not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, this means that some folks who are guilty will walk. We knew that when this system was created. It takes victims coming forward, it takes work on the part of investigators, and it takes community involvement in the trial. Sorry, I don't agree that it's okay to somehow shortcut it. Today it's folks we suspect might be child molestors, next week we go after Communists? Does no one remember Mccarthy? Kripes, just look at the numbers of people on Death Row who have been cleared with DNA evidence. Even in our current system we don't always get it right and now some dumbass wants to create lists for people we suspect but can't prove? Wow, just wow....
I know I know - we're doing it for the children right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have a court system and laws about what can be used for a very good reason. Shit like this list is just moving us closer to a gestapo state. Yeah, it sucks that guilty people get off sometimes. It doesn't mean the system is broken, just that that's the price you pay for protecting the rights of all citizen
Re:not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Being placed on the Ohio registry, according to the article, includes restrictions on where you can live. So this would seem to be a denial of liberty without the due process (conviction in a criminal trial for a sex offense) required for such.
Re:not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, should those living in a 5x10 cell have their sentence halved ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or you can look at it the other way: We're all prisonners of earth after all (or say... the solar system, that'll hold for a while). So finally being in a 10x10 cell or in a 20-planet solar system, it's all the same. We're all prisonners.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, he does. Because the cops fucked up. They should have stopped questioning him the second he asked for a lawyer. There's nothing wron
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the police can't get a conviction, then there is doubt that the person committed the crime. This is intentional, as it is better to miss a guilty man than imprison an innocent one.
Many jurisdictions *will* convice a person who knowingly causes the death of another
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem obviously is that such warnings will not only be read by people wanting to have sex with him, but also people wanting to employ him, living near him, etc., and some of them will deny him those other pursuits of happiness, even though they are completely unrelated to his illness.
Yes, you are advocating to discriminate on basis of il
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hereby accuse you of molesting my children. Of course I can't prove it, since I don't have any children, but you've been accused and can therefore be added to this list. See the problem ?
But nice attempt at "think of the children" -style moral panic nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For good reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and that's a good thing. It's important. All the things you mention -- rules of admissibility, statutes of limitations, right to face an accuser, and so on -- were implemented for a reason. These "technicalities" protect the citizen from the untrammeled power of the State. They are the bedrock of the rule of law. I realize that the rule of law has taken on a quaint aura lately but please, can we agree that we shouldn't jettison it wholesale?
Re:not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Christ, I think I see why we keep getting laws like this proposed. Not to to be offensive, but what are they teaching you in law school these days?
"First of all, it's a civil registry. I don't see an automatic due process issue because the state isn't meting out any punishment to those who are listed (i.e. there's no state-led deprivation of life, liberty, or property)."
Straight off the top of my head... there are already all sorts of laws controlling where someone on the sex offenders register can live. IANAL, but that looks rather like a deprivation of liberty, right there.
And if it's not state-led, who's maintaining the register, doing the enforcing, and deciding who gets put on there?
"If the accused can attend the hearing and present evidence in his defense before the judge... Tossing around any old accusation won't cut it; a judge will be weighing the evidence and making the decision. Presumably the accused can attend the hearing and present his own evidence... I would fully expect the decision can be appealed... (on many issues the presiding judge has unchallenged discretion; this wouldn't be one of them)."
Get enough assumptions and qualifiers in there, sport?
The fact is, you know pratically nothing about the details of the law, and everything you offer is your own personal opinion. And yet, on the strength of that, you're prepared to stand up and brand other people "knee-jerkers" for daring to suggest that the few details we've heard might just indicate it's a really, really stupid idea?
Your obvious respect and belief in the lawmakers is an admirable thing... but I doubt you'll find many people who'll agree with you. Even if the convictions^H^H^H^H^H sorry, allegations are appealable, you're still arguing that people should be punished who can't be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
"I can see where this law could be useful in cases where we know someone has committed a heinous act but the state can't punish him."
Kindly give an example of such a situation, where we simultaneously know (not "think" or "suspect")the person is guilty, some technicality of the law ensures they can't be convicted, and where disregarding said technicality doesn't do irreparably more harm to our entire society than letting one child molester free.
"Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable)."
Right, except that evidence is generally ruled inadmissable in court because rules have been broken to get it. We have rules for admissable evidence to protect people - this is what prevents spying or searching without a warrant, and all the other freedoms we enjoy. The minute evidence obtained like this is made remotely useful we might as well not have the protections at all, as they won't count for shit.
"Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems."
Erm, maybe you aren't aware of why we have a statute of limitations [wikipedia.org].
If you disagree with the fundamental idea then you'd be better off campaigning to have the SoL repealed than passing a stupid law to get around it.
"Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled."
If the victim is unwilling to press charges then (from the state's point of view) there isn't really a crime to prosecute, is there? Likewise if the victim flees. I'm sorry, but in a (non-victimless) crime if the victim won't act to ensure prosecution of their supposed wrong-doer then why should the state?
Gutting this exemption allows people to be prosecuted for anything the state likes, even if the "victim" doesn't want the prosecution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isn't a right or liberty so much as an extreme black mark on their record. It says their picture, name, and address would be added to a publicly searchable database. Good luck getting a decent job for the next six years. And, oh, the fun when one of your neighbors decides to take a peek and it gets around to everyone in the area. All based on the decision of one judge.
I mean, what's anyone supposed to do with "by the way, this guy 'might' be a sexual offender" coming from the government? Either you are or you aren't, and if the court can't build a case as per our constitutional legal system, even to civil standards (it says in the article it doesn't require a successful civil or criminal verdict), it can't publish an official "maybe."
I'm sure someone involved in this process had the best of intentions seeing cases fall apart on technicalities or something, but just... no. This can't be the way to fix it.
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Paving the highway to hell (Score:5, Insightful)
As much damage is done by self-righteous do-gooders as by all the evil men in the world. It's the same sin, an unshakable conviction that
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, I'm glad we are doing something about this. Sadly, I'm dissapointed that the efforts seemingly infringe on the very basic freedoms of life liberty and the pursuite of happyness that they are trying to protect for people. This is so much different from the NSA wiretaps or some of the other infringments on freedom we have seen of late. Some people act like there is no different but couldn't be more wrong. In this law, we are singling an indevidual or ondeviduals out, creating a label for them and placing restrictions on thier movment and ability to earn a living. Further more, we are intenting to place this labeling information along with personal identifyable attributes on the internet so to publicly humiliate a person "_never convicted of a crime_". It doesn't bother me that we do it to people who are convicted, the public needs protection from convicted offenders. But just an acusation is going too far.
I hope ot see this in the courts real soon. I only hope the person getting poped on this and challenging it is actualy inocent. I would have to send money to a legal defense fund for some one who is guilty just to gat some sanity back into the laws. But i can envision a defense fund being made and lots of people funding a fight on this.
How many "terrorists" are getting that hearing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
i also love this bit from the article...
A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again
unlikely to abuse again!? but if they've abused before then why havent they been convicted?
The article does state that this is an alternative to opening up a one time windoew to bring civil suits againts catholic priests for alleged sexual abuse but this seems like it has massive potential for abuse. even if this is only used for profiling priests it still doesnt address the issue that some of these priest may not have done anything wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
cool! i accuse the politicians responsible for this thing of touching me inapropriately.
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?
Suggestion (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Which country was this again? (Score:5, Funny)
With luck, the United States will soon invade, deposing that corrupt regime and give those cowed citizens the same constitutionally protected liberties Americans experience every day. Tony Blair has already pledged his support.
Do they have oil? Weapons of mass destruction? Are they trying to advance their knowledge of nuclear weapons? Do they have large chemical weapon stockpiles? Do they frequently piss off the U.N.? Can we allege they have a "School Of The [Whatever Region]" terrorist training camp? Can we accuse them of trying to destabilize entire regions? Do they "kidnap" citizens of other nations, holding them for torture and interrogation rather than uphold international law and conventions?
If we can answer yes to two or three of the above, I'm pretty sure we have grounds to invade.
Now who was it again?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Worst idea ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
See: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060501_constitution.
Re:Don't worry, it is unconstitutional and will be (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry, it is unconstitutional and will be (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you imagine how nasty those battles are going to get with this sort of law in place?
One of my friends ex-husbands can already get the cops to raid her house every few months if she pisses him off. They have to do it because he says she is hurting the child and they have to check it out.
Now he can ge her declared a sex offender as well. Sure she can do it back, but he can afford the better lawyers and would probably win.
This should be fun... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the US is not only not on the same page when it comes to male/female victums/perpetrator's of abuse, it's not even on the same planet. Why do we have a Violence Against Woman Act and women's self-defense courses up the wazoo, when men are far and away the #1 victums of violence? Why is it when a female school teacher has sex with a male student, it's "having an affair" rather than "statory rape"? Why is it when a man "murders" his wife we rush to put him in prison,
For those who aren't going to RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the kicker: "A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again."
In other words, molesters do not have to go to jail and as long as they behave themselves (or just don't get caught) for 6 years.
This doesn't strike me as much of a Mea Culpa by the Catholic Church.
this could be quite a mess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Witch hunts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Witch hunts (Score:5, Funny)
Slander? Libel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my physician colleagues just got an extremely unpleasant visit from Childrens's Services and a bunch of Police Officers for a bogus child abuse complaint... all phoned in nice-and-anonymously to a hotline. No consequences, no recrimination, and no worries for the little scumbag that made that bogus report. It certainly opens the door to plenty of harassment and abuse, particularly for people with a serious beef against you (ex-spouses, ex-gf/bfs, ex-business associ
I've got the torches. (Score:3, Funny)
Time for some good ole mob justice.
(just kidding, this kind of legislation is really unnerving for eurotrash such as myself)
That's not hot. (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, this new proposal is awful. What the hell happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't this just an end-run around the law? Of course, as it's being made into law, I guess it's a law to do an end-run around other laws. How awful.
I hope it doesn't stand. I hope the first person who experiences this sues to overturn it. I hope a huge financial penalty is imposed, and paid by the State, which in turn would hurt the taxpayers of that State. It's the only way to make them wake up and hold those responsible accountable.
Re:That's not hot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Something you probably don't know is what action they were convicted for.
In some cases, yes, the person committed a heinous crime and was duly punished. In many others, the person got drunk and pissed behind a bush at a party, or decided he and his girlfriend should go get frisky in the backyard.
To go out on a limb, I'm willing to bet a VAST MAJORITY of the people on the sex offender list are harmless. And that's the very problem. A list such as that should be reserved for those people that, knowing exactly what they did, you don't want to even be on the same planet with them.
Otherwise...well, this new law is just another advance in our state-sponsored witch-hunts. Remember, it's all to protect you against the Turrists.
Um... huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. I'm all for removing sex offenders rights (I'd support mandatory life sentences for child molesters with good proof of guilt), but this is nuts. Let's ignore the constitutional issues here, what about the people who are falsely accused? From what I hear it is hardly uncommon for women to accuse their husbands of things during divorces to try to get custody. Let's add on top of that people who accuse family members they don't get along with, the obvious blackmail possibilities (give me a raise or you go on the list), and this is just idiotic.
I'm amazed anyone would even have the gaul to propose this kind of thing, let alone try to actually pass it.
oh, great, just what we need (Score:3, Insightful)
And since the subject is sex, which conservatives consider icky and horrible unless it's to your spouse (someone of a government-approved gender), you're guilty to them, too. Conservatives aren't going to come to the defense of an "accused sex offender," and liberals don't want to "victimize the victim again" by giving you a trial, so you're just guilty. So if you're accused by anyone, you might as well go out and rape an orphan, because you're going to jail for it anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Total Security and Safety (Score:4, Interesting)
All we want in return is your Freedom.
Remember, the Terrorists hate our Freedom. We'll take it away, step by step, until there's nothing left for them to hate.
Potential for abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
The potential for abuse of this law is so insanely bizarre it amazes anyone growing up in America would even suggest it.
Sadly, things have changed a lot in the America I grew up in. It's really not the same place.
The war of words (Score:3, Insightful)
Actual text of the bill (Score:4, Informative)
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: (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
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!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly you haven't been in the courtroom when these accusations have come out. A woman claims molestation and the father is so severely stigmatized that he has no chance. Clearly you haven't heard of parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sole fact that these men can be put into a
If there is enough evidence for a "civil registry" (Score:3, Interesting)
On a related note, the Supreme Court of Canada decided a case this year of a woman studying to be a social worker in university that was falsly accused of being a child molester after her professor became "suspicious" of a paper she submitted on juvenile sex offenders that contained an appendix of graphic accounts of child molestation written in the first person. The professor felt that the first person narrative of the appendix constituted an admission of guilt to child molestation and contacted the program director who forwarded the appendix to Child Protection Services and the RCMP. Without going into the whole sordid story, suffice to say that the young lady was red flagged by CPS and the RCMP, dropped out of the social workers study she was undertaking on advice from the university (because she was red flagged, but the university did not tell her that), went almost three years without knowing she was a suspected child molester and upon discovering that she had a file that was red flagged, filed suit against the university. Up to this point absolutely no investigation had taken place. NONE. Just a suspicion of guilt from a professor at a university without any evidence of any kind. A jury found in her favor and she was awarded a large sum. The university appealed and won, and the young lady then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. By a miracle the SCOC took the case and found unanimously in her favor, establishing an important precedent. The university eventually did apologize, but there was outrage across Canada that this incident even occured. False accusations can and do happen.
I know a scheme slutty women run (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
"
Man going through divorce... (Score:3, Insightful)
These days, about the same time they take little girls asside in elementary school to explain about periods and stuff, I'm thinking they should take the little boys and explain to them how dangerous the game is getting for them...
the ACLU (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone else already mentioned that the ACLU is going to jump on this like white on rice, and they're probably right. In fact, just about every time some totally apeshit crap like this happens, the ACLU is right there, providing free legal help to someone, and 99% of the time, at least in my opinion, the ACLU is helping out the right side. Along the same lines, somewhat recently a friend of a friend was arrested for walking too near a local dam (terrorism, you know), which is patently absurd. I suggested to my friend that she should tell her friend (the one who is arrested) to call the ACLU. I didn't even have to think about it; I'm sure they would gladly represent her for free.
All of this got me thinking: when is the last time I gave money to support the ACLU? Never. Granted, last several years haven't been too great for me financially, but this year, I could afford to give something. And I ought to, because as far as I can tell, the ACLU is serving a vital purpose, for free, and I've never helped them out with that. Which is silly.
So, the point of posting this? It's just in case someone else feels the same way. Maybe I can give them a few bucks and motivate 1 or 2 other people to do the same. It seems like a worthwhile thing to do.
Be thankful that Bush was elected (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why it's so important to have a strict constructionist Court. The government is not a legitimate government if its laws are not its laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scalia is a "strict constructionist" up until he's ruling on the torture of "terrorists" or eminent domain for money grubbing corporate fuckwads. Thomas is probably our best judge but he's still an ass and still has plenty of his own pet issues wher
judicial review? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also you might read about sex offender laws in Kentucky. [enquirer.com] It was an interesting read from last month about a law restricting sex offenders from living within a 1000 feet of a school. I think it has a double jeopardy feel about it. The ACLU is on this one - the Ohio ACLU seems asleep on this latest development though.
A lot of posters have said this is just politicians crying "Won't someone please think about the children" but its not just politicians wanting to be seen as being tough but also the parents - if you read the article theres a feeling that "Sorry these laws are unfair but you shouldn't have done it." I dont think laws like this will ever go away as long as there are people who clamor "Keep us safe from terrorists/sex offenders/communists/atheists/witches/(boogey man) even if that deprives some of us of our rights."
I hope this law is found uncostituional but the solution is not passing laws and then having the ACLU fight for ages to get it declared unconstituional - its not passing them in the first place. I'm beginning to believe it my be worth having all bills pass through some intesive judicial review (no veto just a look over and a rubber stamp yes or a memo saying look at these bits a bit more) BEFORE actually being signed into law. This ought to be a much shorter proess than fighting the laws after they are passed. There is so much bad publicty to be had from opposing populist laws that its worth having another branch thats existence is mandated by the constituion be able to look at these laws and say "er... hold one one second."
This isn't new - it's just becoming "official" (Score:4, Interesting)
He had a child with that woman, even did a paternity test to be sure it was his after the divorce. Life moved on and he found a good woman who had a daugher from a previous marriage. So far so good, she operated a daycare business out of their new home - he worked for a Govt. agency. One day while they had his son for visitation the new girlfriend came upon the boy and her daugher playing a bit of "doctor". Alarmed that his young child would have such ideas he called in child protective services to have an investigation done. The day after the investigation was over with no wrongdoing found he had an officer visit his doorstep to deliver "papers" in a not so subtle manner. This in front of the folks picking up kids for daycare. The papers? Seems HE was being accused of molesting his son by the ex wife! Within a week the daycare business was toast, no one would dare take a chance with their kid right? An investigation ensued and like the previous investigation nothing was found - tit for tat right?
Guess who is now on a sex offender watch list.. Yup, he was! Apparently not one of those "offical" ones run by the Govt but some other - he had no trouble fidning it online after being told. I'm not sure how they worded it to avoid being nailed for slander but sure enough he couldn't get off of it - heh like an RBL! It didn't matter that he had been cleared, these zealots seemed to be keeping his name "just in case" because after all he's been accused right? Mind you this guy holds a top secret clearance that required a regular polygraph to retain and still retained when we last spoke a few years ago. The wife? Well, he didn't levy a specific accusation like she did, just a concern that was checked out by social services. She and the ex best friend aren't on any lists as a result.
Now I understand that parents today want to protect their kids (as did my parents) and that the serious offenders have a huge recidivism rate but does it make sense to put people on lists like this at the drop of a hat? That simply accusing someone is enough to ruin them? To make them so easily found that you can even find their homes on Google Maps? Ya, some are animals but do we strip them of all rights along with lesser offenders? When it's apparently so easy to get on the list? Some kid plays grab-ass in high school one day and gets branded for life - is that okay?
It used to be that sexual harrassment charges were what you had to worry about killing your career and life but wow this is ALOT worse. It's really scary just how over the edge our society seems to have gone. Where does it end? Have things gotten worse since I was a kid or has society just gotten way more paranoid?
Here's the big problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
Fine. Parents want to know where they live. Fine. People want to keep them away from schools. Fine.
But for the love of all that is reasonable, every fucking state in the nation needs to properly define what a Sexual Offender is. Everyone sees a name on a Sexual Offender list and assumes every person on it is a child molster. That that case of the guy who stalked and murdered two people in Maine last year that were on a list. One WAS a child predator. The other was 18 and banged his under age girlfriend and the parents caused a ruckass. That guy had no business being on that list. Hell, in some states, getting busted for public urination w/ your johnson hanging get's you on the Sexual Offenders list.
This bill and my retarded state just goes to prove my point. You're 30, poked your 16yo gf when you were 18. YOu got busted showing your dick in public while taking a piss on a drunk night. You don't deserve to be on this list, and harrased like a criminal because some asshat can't make understand the difference between sexual offenders, sexual predators, and sexual child predators.
Rant mode off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem most people have is with innocent civilians being treated like criminals. I don't think people have a problem with criminals being treated like criminals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes [wikipedia.org]. But I see no reason for Ohio citizens to be punished now for Mr. Timmendequas's crimes.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the founding ideals of our justice system is that once you pay your debt to society, you're free to live your life. Get rid of the registries and make sentences for sex offenders longer.
No room in the jails you say? Then perhaps we should stop tossing people into prisons for minor things. Then maybe we'd have room for, you know, the dangerous people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Making room in there for pot-heads.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly the issue at hand here, however. The guy who did that had already been convicted of a crime. Convicts, by definition, lose some of their rights, including the right to carry firearms and a lot of their right to privacy (even to some degree once they're out, ask any ex-con how well trying to keep something "private" from a parole officer works!)
What we're talking about here, is branding people with this permanent mark who have -not- bee
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good, so then you agree that this sex registry stuff is BS?
The most serious crime is murder. We should not be making up random bizarre laws and penalties and pseudo-penalties for other crimes, laws that do not apply to the most serious crime murder. We should not be passing bizarre irrational laws turning our legal system upside down for the sole reason that politicians can catch more god-damn headlines for crusading against some crime other than murder.
I once read an excellent and very appropriate quote:
The definition of a stable society is when some psycho guns down a schoolyard, and the law does not change.
Sadly, we obviously do not have a stable society.
The guy who raped and killed this seven-year-old had already spent six years in prison for sexually assaulting another child before getting his hands on Megan. He moved in across the street from her family and no laws were in place to give them any right to know. So their little girl was raped and killed, and no one thought to let anyone know to that a known-predator was among them.
And if Megan had not been a white blond-haired blue-eyed girl, do you seriously think there would have been a crusade and political grandstanding that Some Random New Law Must Be Passed? That Something Must Be Done no matter how bizarre and worthless it really is?
People commit crimes. It sucks. But you can't prevent crimes from being committed by passing Yet Another Law. You can make all the registries you like, someone who wants to shoot up a schoolyard... or kidnap and murder a white blond-haired blue-eyed girl... can and will still drive two miles down the road and commit a crime.
And the current story is a perfect example of just how insane this path is. No law is ever enough to prevent this sort of crime from being committed, and no matter how many laws have already been passed and no matter how bizarre they get, it still gets headlines and still produces Yet Anotehr Crusade that Something Must Be Done yet again, and the laws just get more and more bizarre without end. And now we have the registry list being extended to people who have not been - and presumably CANNOT be convicted of any crime. For people who are obviously quite likely innocent to be put on these lists, and have thier lives ruined by the government have have their liberty infringed and be subject to all sorts of on-going reporting requirements and other bizarre conditions under penalty of prison, and the government is going to do this to people based on mere allegation.
I knew a girl - manic depressive - who in fact admitted to me filing false police reports of abuse against at least one person. It is absolutely INSANE that anyone would think it was a good or even reasonable idea to have the government do this to innocent people on the unsubstantiated (and false) allegation of some malicious or disturbed individual.
-
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:In Ohio you are guilty! period! (Score:5, Insightful)
Human nature has already has a solution. After a society's founding and golden age, some people attempt to amass power and control the rest through force. Eventually this control pisses off a large enough number of the populace that civil war results. It has eventually happened to every single emergence of civilization since time began -- assuming they were not conquered midway through the process.
Re:In Ohio you are guilty! period! (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the pansy asses that make up most of the population now... my money is on economic collapse before the citizens wake up.
In Ohio guilty gets YOU. (Score:5, Insightful)
No - the USA is the only place that makes it almost impossible to NOT be a criminal. This is, after all, the purpose of the US Government: to enact so many stupid laws that EVERYONE is a criminal. Then the authorities can always arrest you for SOMETHING, and hence they have immense power over the *cough* voters *cough*.
Don't you see - without the power to arrest anyone at will, the government can't control you. Plus, you wouldn't actually be AFRAID - which is the reason you have a government OF the lawyers, BY the lawyers, and FOR the lawyers. FEAR.
It's the catch-phrase of the USA: FEAR.
Fear of terror
Fear of being poor
Fear of being arrested
Fear of losing your job
Fear of losing your car
Fear of being attacked
Fear of being left behind
Fear of being left out
Fear for your life
Fear for your teenager
Fear for any fucking thing you can think of.
God forbid a citizen should try to do something about it, because they're undoubtedly a file sharer, or a speeder, or a tax-cheat...
Re:In Ohio guilty gets YOU. (Score:5, Insightful)
the authorities can always arrest you for SOMETHING, and hence they have immense power over the *cough* voters *cough*.
If you are a felon you cannot vote. More and more crimes are being made felonies, including the crime of having too many misdemeanors. Misdemeanors can often be prosecuted without trial or at least without legal representation being made available. And of course in some states it is reported that even having unpaid speeding tickets can prevent you from voting because the police are waiting at the voting booth to take people to jail. If you want power in a Democracy you can either convince the majority of your view or prevent the majority of your opposition from voting. Guess which one our rulers have decided is easier to do.
Re:In Ohio guilty gets YOU. (Score:4, Insightful)
At it's simplest, the ruling party has a mechanism to decide who can and can't vote. That's not good. Everyone should have 1 vote. If there are enough felons voting for the repeal of all laws (for example) that it passes than that's democracy.
Maybe the threat of that might actually make people who aren't felons get off their arse and vote.
Of course the obvious reply to me is "What about age restrictions too?" and you've got me there to be honest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a felon you cannot vote. More and more crimes are being made felonies, including the crime of having too many misdemeanors. Misdemeanors can often be prosecuted without trial or at least without legal representation being made available. And of course in some states it is reported that even having unpaid speeding tickets can prevent you from voting because the police are waiting
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree, in part. I feel that both phrasings suggest the eventual determination of guilt. "How long am I innocent?" "Until we prove you're guilty." In other words, you're going to be found guilty eventually, it's only a matter of time. And for the phrase you di