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:2, 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.
It's an election year (Score:1, Interesting)
That other logic is called an election year. Politicians are not going to vote a against this kind of law. Otherwise, their opponents will air ads accusing them of helping child molesters go free and preventing the police from investigating them. And how will that politician respond? They think accused sex offenders should have a fair trial? Which statement do you think the voters will remember at election time?
How many "terrorists" are getting that hearing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone checked the submitter's link? (Score:1, Interesting)
The civil liberties issues around this bill are tremendous and really creep me out (I'd love to think that something like this would get laughed out of the legislature in my own state, but I don't have THAT much faith any more) - but the submitter creeps me out as well. Seems like the submitter is trying to conflate loving children with having sexual activity with them. Unless, of course, it's a very elaborate troll.
Yeah, posting as AC. So sue me.
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)
Re:Oh well! (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 dislike: "When am I innocent?" "You're innocent before we prove you're guilty." Same deal here: you're going to be found guilty, they just don't know when yet.
A phrasing more to your liking might be "Innocent unless proven guilty." There's no implication that you will ever be proven guilty of anything, and in fact that "unless" suggests to me that such proof will never happen. I mean, most of the time I hear "unless" in everyday speech it's right before someone describes something that we both know will never happen: "I can't get this to you before Friday unless I invent a time machine and prevent my boss from ever being born."
I know it's very popular on Slashdot to go all 1984 when the topic is language, and I'm not saying that's always wrong. But it's not always right, either. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes people can use different words to mean exactly the same thing.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is BULL SHIT!! (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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.
not as bad as it sounds (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm a second year law student, here's my take on this:
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). You might argue that being listed is enough of a black mark that it effectively bars finding employment or housing, thereby creating a due process issue, but that hasn't been borne out in practice yet.
If the accused can attend the hearing and present evidence in his defense before the judge, due process is satisfied so the above argument will be moot. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other part of the constitution this law would violate, but I haven't take con law yet so it's possible.
While I'm not in favor of this law, it's not nearly as bad as the knee-jerk reaction indicates. 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, lessening the effect of unfounded accusations even further. And for those worried about the crazy maverick judge who's just hell-bent on ruining your life, I would fully expect the decision can be appealed and the appellate court will review all the facts anew (on many issues the presiding judge has unchallenged discretion; this wouldn't be one of them).
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. Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable). Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems. Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled. Maybe what the person did is despicable but not criminal, e.g. someone with HIV who knowingly refuses to use protection or inform his/her partners. A criminal conviction is a very high bar. We can't always establish criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt even though we know for certain the person has done very bad things. Not saying I think this is the right approach, but it's not as harebrained as many here have suggested.
you aren't thinking (Score:2, Interesting)
No job in banking, law enforcement, health care, education, government. Not a big deal? Are you nuts?
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."
Re:oh, great, just what we need (Score:3, Interesting)
The feminists demand a conviction though, so the case goes on.
Re:In Ohio you are guilty! period! (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, it is the implementation that counts here. It appears this will require a judge's approval, and while this certainly isn't optimal, it will render it largely meaningless in most cases. I certainly hope it gets thrown out before it cause any serious breaches of civil rights.
As a caveat, it is fairly common to falsely accuse people of child abuse, particularly in divorce and custody situations. Quite a nasty new way to stick it to the ex.
Not the Buckeye States proudest moment (though 2004 was worse in my book).
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?
Re:Slander? Libel? (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 associates, angry neighbors, disgruntled customers or patients, the list goes on and on).
And there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
I take care of abused children in my ER, and I've seen some truly horrific cases. Some were heinous enough that they had me thinking the parents needed to be under the jail rather than in it... but there has to be a process to clear your name from this kind of thing if it's bogus. The "sexual offender" label is damaging and libelous enough that it could literally ruin your business, or your life.
Re:This is BULL SHIT!! (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. Clearly you aren't familiar with a judge's reluctance to sensence a mother to jail. I've seen, in person, in the courtroom, cases that would make you naseated with anger, the kind I feel right now, and you would want to severely hurt every single person who makes a knowingly-false accusation for selfish gains. And this law is now going to allow, no, encourage that. While it doesn't say, "Hey, accuse people for fun!" if people know that they can accuse and get what they want, they will. This also opens the door for blackmail. "Give me what I want, buy me what I want, or I will accuse you."
Re:not as bad as it sounds (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 illness, the same kind of attitude that our savior fought against 2000 years ago. Hypocrite!
COps deny a lawyer, because they are attempting to sweat a confession. Hours later, after filling him with coffe and water, they deny him use of the bathroom.
Well, if it was me who was subjected to such treatment, I'd just wet my pants or better: the officer's desk ;-)
Re:not as bad as it sounds (Score:3, Interesting)
So, should those living in a 5x10 cell have their sentence halved ?
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: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.
CREEPY. (Score:1, Interesting)
(I don't know if I need to say this, but any sexual contact with a child is abusive. It doesn't matter how "nurturing" or "responsive" you are, they just aren't emotionally equipped for it. at all. period. I'm not sure this is something these folks understand.)
I really do wonder, though, about the supposed preponderance of abusers and molesters out there. Do that many people -really- sexually abuse their children? While I'm certain it happens, I fear a witch-hunt occuring in the public mind, spurred on by overzealous litigators and politicans looking for an issue to latch on to for nothing more than voting purposes. Further, it's a topic I loathe to research personally, because it just makes me feel sick. I hope that somebody with a stronger stomach has or will step up to the plate. Someone put an end to this disgusting, freakish practice and even more disturbing witch hunt once and for all, and in a manner that will not disturb the civil rights of anyone.
I'm posting this as AC because I am thouroughly creeped out by this topic. I'm really creeped out by this topic, and I don't really want to be hounded about it, even though I've got something to say.