Did anyone else read this article and realize that they were a sex offender?
Oh? ...me neither...
Silence Baker
· 3 months ago
Just about everyone would be considered a sex offender by today's standard. Maybe the government should just polygraph all Americans and ask they the question if they every experimented with sex as a minor. If they answer is yes or the person is being deceptive, then prosecute them as a child sex offender. A lot of our grand parents, great grandparents, and so on would be considered a sex offender in most states because they married someone under 16 and had sex with them. Since our government is so great at retroactive civil regulatory statutes, then they should label all these people as sex offenders. Even a lot of our forefathers would be considered sex offenders.
Paul
· 3 months ago
I liked it better when the governor of Illinois was a crook instead of an idiot.
When it comes down to it a lot of our politicians are sexual deviants such as Craig, Vitter, and Foley to name a few off the top of my head. There are a number of mayors, alderman, and councilmen too. Then you have the sexually deviant Judges and prosecutors also. So who is supposed to protect us from these sexually deviants? The government? Wait, they ARE the government.
Jason
· 3 months ago
You forgot to mention that would almost entirely prevent them from publishing anything on the internet. Most publishing tools like blogs fall under that broad definition as well. Therefore they are completely violating the first amendment with this law. Anytime states enact new "restrictions" on "sex-offenders" it seems an awful like a violation of the fifth amendment. They have already served their imposed punishment and now they're going back and revising their sentence over and over again. Somewhere we have to draw the line and say the constitution comes first. If you don't want sex offenders in the community. Change the law to increase mandatory sentences to 50+ years in prison. Otherwise we are going to slowly wear away at our protection under the constitution until we are living in a police state.
First they came for the sex-offenders and I didn't speak because I was not a sex-offender.
Chris McElroy
· 3 months ago
Your comment is the real reason it's a bad law. Thank you for not using the maybe he peed in public defence. Your comment is proof that the law is a bad idea and for the right reasons.
Matthew Lowery
· 3 months ago
Stupid POS, it'll never work they're wasting their time.
VDR
· 3 months ago
They're not wasting their time, they're wasting your money.
Yup, if you click through to the Salon link, you'll see they're actually quoting the Economist piece.
sluggahjells
· 3 months ago
Indeed they are.
Social media journalism is growing.
jef
· 3 months ago
You're right. I should have checked the links before I left a comment.
Chris McElroy
· 3 months ago
"Peeing in Public? You Might be a Sex Offender" That is the defense used most often by people who are against laws that restrict the behavior of sex offenders.
Of course urinating in public should not be cause to be added to the sex offender registry. neither should mooning someone, or consensual sex among teenagers.
But, those cases make up a very small percentage of the people in the sex offender registry.
I'm not even saying I am for a law that says that they can't use social networks because just as you said it cannot really be enforced. The only time it will get used is when a sex offender is arrested and they search his/her computer, then an extra charge will be added, giving them a longer term in jail.
That is ok by me. Right now, someone who breaks in and steals your stereo can get a longer sentence than someone who molests your child. So anything that gives sex offenders a longer sentence is good in my book.
But whether you agree or not, please don't use the "Maybe he only peed in Public defense" for sex offenders.
vlad
· 3 months ago
@ Chris McElroy: "Of course urinating in public should not be cause to be added to the sex offender registry. neither should mooning someone, or consensual sex among teenagers. But, those cases make up a very small percentage of the people in the sex offender registry."
Really? How do you know that? Would be great if you could post a URL to substantiate your assertion. Thanks.
Ryan
· 3 months ago
I had sex in back seat of car when I was 20 and old lady called cops on us. Got arrested and would have been added to the states sex offender list. Luckily they threw it out as we were living together and a couple.
Chris McElroy
· 3 months ago
Take it from someone who has actually had to go out and search for abducted children and the people who abducted them. Take it from someone who has had to deal with parents whose child has been molested by a stranger.
The percentages you are asking about vary from state to state. I notice you didn't provide any links to debunk the assertion. If you disagree, where are your links to back that up?
Again, I didn't say I was for this law. But people who are against laws that affect sex offenders always try and use the maybe he just peed in public defense.
Are you implying that the majority of the people on the sex offender registry really didn't commit a sex offence?
On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
OMG 5.3% were rearrested? So that means 94.7% have NOT committed another sex crime? Sounds to me like the laws are FOREVER punishing anyone who does something stupid - anyone who makes a "mistake" in life. I'll never look at another sex offender registry again - they are incomplete and inaccurate and they cause NOTHING but public humiliation. How are the registries protecting children when almost 90% of sex crimes are committed by someone known to the victim? They ALREADY knew where they lived! WAKE UP PEOPLE, EDUCATE YOURSELF before you wind up on the registry!
Chris McElroy
· 3 months ago
But here you go. You can check how many public urinators are on the list in your local area. All you need is an iPhone.
"OMG 5.3% were rearrested? So that means 94.7% have NOT committed another sex crime?"
You left out the within the first three years of release. You also left out that that % was caught. Do you believe they get caught every time? It does not say that none of them were convicted of a sex crime after the 3 years.
So no, it does not say that 94.7% of them never committed another sex crime.
Matt Searles
· 3 months ago
It just seems to me that if you were looking to do bad stuff to kids... twitter and linked in would not be where you'd turn.. or some of these other places..
I just think when legislation happens out of fear it never works right.
I'd be for some kind of thing that.. if you were making a social networking site.. you 'd have a thing that sex offenders would have to sign into that would make communication with minors or whatever.. not happen.. or I'd be more for that the banning all of it.
The other thing is.. say you have someone who's convicted of such a thing.. and say that person really does want to do right going forward.. I think we want to have a system that helps them to stay on the right path moving forward.. I think banning them from social networking sites makes it harder for them,, so on that level I don't think it makes sense.
I have no idea what percentage of sex offenders got into trouble for urinating in public.. but regardless of how small the percentages are.. I'd be against anything that kept them from using these sites..
Rick
· 3 months ago
Yeah, too bad for those people who don't deserve to be banned, right? Let's just punish all for the acts of some. Brilliant.
Please, don't use an excuse that actually uses logic for sex offenders. I'm guessing you've never had to pee in public.
Chris McElroy
· 3 months ago
The real answer is to clean up the list. I agree 100%. Then pass laws that violent sex offenders get more than a 3-8 year sentence. And have child molesters on their own list. Sex offenders is too broad. I wish they maintained a strictly child molester list.
Now if they did, would you support laws that frestrict their behavior? My guess from seeing some of the comments is that some here would still oppose any restrictions.
ActivistArtistA
· 3 months ago
At first glance it seems like a great idea, but where do we stop? Drunk drivers banned from owning cars, drug addicts from entering pharmacies, petty thieves from grocery stores, etc. I'm 100% behind punishing to the full extent of the law! I even believe that they should not be a protected class in prisons. Yet, when we continue to "prosecute" beyond "time served," we we are saying that the law obviously does not fit the crime-maybe we should revisit the existing laws. Keep in mind that the last thing I want is a down and out pedophile who lives under a bridge, can't network to get a job, etc... eventually he/she will see themselves as someone with nothing left to lose. That's scares me more!
ActivistArtistA
· 3 months ago
At first glance it seems like a great idea, but where do we stop? Drunk drivers banned from owning cars, drug addicts from entering pharmacies, petty thieves from grocery stores, etc. I'm 100% behind punishing to the full extent of the law! I even believe that they should not be a protected class in prisons. Yet, when we continue to "prosecute" beyond "time served," we we are saying that the law obviously does not fit the crime-maybe we should revisit the existing laws. Keep in mind that the last thing I want is a down and out pedophile who lives under a bridge, can't network to get a job, etc... eventually he/she will see themselves as someone with nothing left to lose. That's scares me more!
Stacie Davis
· 3 months ago
The main issue I have with this is the broad term of "Sex Offender"....an 18 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend could be banned in the same way a 45 year old man having sex with a 9 year old. ALL these laws apply to ALL sex offenders. My brother made a stupid mistake at 18 and he's grouped in with repeat offenders and rapists.....
StockC
· 3 months ago
The problem is that that 18-yr-old offender is marked for the rest of his law-abiding life. His future kids will be stigmatized by having their father in a sex-offender registry. In many communities he won't be allowed to be at home on Halloween, lest children go to his home for trick-or-treat. He won't be allowed to buy a home in the neighborhood of his choice if it is close to his kids' school. At the age of 48, he won't be hired by many companies since he'll have disclose a 30-yr-old unrepeated indiscretion.
Yes, the public needs protection from violent offenders, but that's only a small portion of the people faced with life-long discrimination for having to register as a sex offender. Registration, as it exists today, is overkill that serves to prevent now-responsible people from integrating into their communities.
Tonia
· 3 months ago
It appears that our politicians are taking away more of our constitutional rights day after day. What a waste of time and money. Our sex offenders laws are out of control and they do NOT protect our children. Do you really think public urination that leads to having to register as a sex offender is protecting our children? Do you think consensual teen sex that leads to having to register as a sex offender is protecting our children? WAKE UP AMERICA or tomorrow you could be a sex offender. Visit love-is-not-a-crime.com and you'll see what I mean. Public humiliation by our registries is unconstitutional. Taking away their freedom to go to church is unconstitutional. Taking away their right to employment and housing is unconstitutional.
Lizzie Pinede
· 3 months ago
I totally agree that this law is something that sounds great, but defiantly isn't. A teenager who once had a dream of being a teacher could have consensual sex with their girlfriend, and then get his dream slashed. Then to not allow him to go on social networking sites? You're making one (keyword) small and almost harmless mistake ruin his life, something he doesn't deserve.
David
· 3 months ago
I think this is a stupid law because if this becomes reality the following will happen:
Someone googles you and for some reason (maybe because you just don't like all this social media stuff) they won't find any facebook, twitter or other social media profile of you. If his or her first thought was not "This person is not existing" (which is pretty likely btw) it probably will be "Aha, yet another Sex Offender".
It's like not being allowed to walk in public parks if you are a registered sex offender. If you never visit parks, just because you have your own nice garden, people will think you are simply not allowed to visit a park, meaning that you are some sort of criminal.
In the end this law puts pressure onto everybody to be an active social media user, because otherwise you might be seen as a sex offender.
PS: Big Brother is watching you!
JDW
· 3 months ago
A hilarious waste of time from yet another politician who doesn't understand anything about the web.
michael lockyear
· 3 months ago
Difficult to enforce, therefore a stupid law. Now a law dealing with stupid laws and the people who make them...that would be useful!
Elizabeth K. Barone
· 3 months ago
I can totally understand why this would be appealing, since sites like MySpace tend to attract sex offenders. However -- and I thought this just before reading the second paragraph of this article -- it's totally against the constitution. Factor in that the definitions of "sex offender" and "social networking site" are entirely too loose, and you've got one big mess. I hope that instead of causing a lot of legal issues, websites that consider themselves social networks continue to self-police their users.
fallenone
· 3 months ago
Stephen Marshall, the man who murdered two registrants in Maine, used a wireless service to locate his victims and plot their brutal murders. A registrant holding his baby son is shot to death. Over 200 registrants shot to death. Forty percent of registrants and an equal number of family members have experienced vigilante violence as a result of over-saturation of the public registry coupled with abuse of the information contained within. The truth is, such information should be regulated, as these stories consistently show the public abuses the information rather than use the info wisely. These apps do not educate the public as to the truth about *ex offenders. FACT: most *ex crimes are committed by someone NOT on the list and most often by someone the victim knows. FACT: Most registrants never re-offend IN SPITE of the law. If you want more truth, go to www.oncefallen.com
Silence Baker
· 3 months ago
You are correct that people have been murdered because their name was on a sex offender registry. Besides the two people in Maine, there were two in Washington State up around Bellingham I believe. Maine has since changed their sex offender registry so that specific addresses aren't posted. A person has to jump through a few more hoops in order to obtain the address, but I can't remember what those hoops are at the moment. I think it involved knowing who the requester of that information is.
Indy
· 3 months ago
To me, this is one more step to the net being regulated for everyone. I'm waiting for Big Brother to come knocking.
My thing is? It's called parents. We don't need a bill, we need parents who actually watch what their kids do.
VDR
· 3 months ago
Very well said
Chris McElroy
· 3 months ago
So the only children that were molested were because of bad parenting? I see.
Concerned Mother
· 3 months ago
Not to bash you, because trust me there's plenty of people here to do that...but since you seem to actually Know something about this...how many children are actually molested yearly in the U.S. by somebody they met on the Internet as opposed to somebody they already know?
Silence Baker
· 3 months ago
90% of sexual abuse is by a parent or someone close to the victim. Stranger danger is largely a myth, but it sounds better than knowing someone close to you will rape or molest you. In quite a few cases where a stranger committed the act, it could have been prevented if the parent was actually watching their kid. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a misnomer that clamps down on formerly convicted sex offenders on the Federal level. It has never been proven that a sex offender actually killed Adam; although, they have closed the case stating that a sex offender did. They don't know for sure, but it helps support the act named after him. What people don't realize it that Adam could still be alive today if his mother Riva had watched him in the Sears department store rather than let the electronics department be the babysitter while she went shopping in another part of the store. Her act of bad parenting led to the opportunity for someone to harm her child. Riva should have been convicted of child neglect. Someone from Florida who I spoke with on a bus told me that a security guard had kicked Adam and a bunch of other kids in the electronics section out of the Sears store because they were unsupervised and rowdy.
In another example, Rosalina Cano, the mother of 4 year old César Ivan Aguilar-Cano let her 4 year old son run around the neighborhood unsupervised because people did it all the time in her native village in Guatemala. Moreover she was an illegal immigrant who lived somewhere near the Churchill Downs area of Louisville, KY. According to a friend of mine from Kentucky, the area where Rosalina Cano live was a bad area of town. If Rosalina Cano had properly supervised her child, he might still be alive today. So yes, bad parenting can result in someone molesting or raping your child because the parent refuses to act like a parent.
I have been to amusement parks where kids are commonly roaming about the park unsupervised, and being hoodlums in my opinion. It is common for parents to buy them a season pass, drop them off in the morning, and then return in the evening to pick them up. The amusement park in effect is acting as a babysitter for these kids who should be supervised by a parent or responsible adult while there. I have took a grandson to an amusement park many times, and never allowed him out of my sight even though he didn't want me around. Tough. I am the responsible adult in charge of the grandson while at the amusement park. The grandson was only 10 or 11 years old.
The Mall of America in Bloomington, MN near the twin cities had to implement a policy where minors couldn't be in the mall unsupervised. There were getting to be too many kids, mainly teenagers, who were hanging around the mall unsupervised causing problems. Some of them were in gangs.
Matt Searles
· 3 months ago
I just don't think its right to blame the parents.. its too close to blaming the victims.. On top of that I'm not sure that we were really aware of how bad sex abuse was at the time of Adam's abduction..
In my neighborhood parents actually drive there kids to the buss stop, and wait for them in there cars at the buss stop.. which just seems like over doing.. certainly when I was a kid this wasn't going on.. And you know.. its a small little well to do town with very low crime levels.. particularly in my this neighborhood.
Angela
· 3 months ago
How exceptionally stupid - a knee-jerk proposal from a clueless politician. Seems just as sensible as trying to use a bazooka to kill a mosquito.
Brad F.
· 3 months ago
"29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager"
This is just what I was thinking when I read the headline to this post. There are people who get caught up in the sex offender register that aren't really that bad of people. They just all get grouped together and when someone hears the word sex offender, the first thing they think of is "child molester". That's just not always the case.
And, as you said, how are they going to enforce this? I suppose if it really got bad, Illinois' neighbor states can expect an influx of sex offenders soon! Ha ha ha!
Concerned Mother
· 3 months ago
Thank you for comment! This happened to my son and it's completely devastating. I had not idea this really happened to kids until it happened to our family. I even live in a State that I thought was pretty liberal and progressive.
Brad F.
· 3 months ago
Ya. I knew someone that nearly found out about it the hard way as well.
dianne
· 3 months ago
Quinn- Is this what the general public wants; more laws against minors and teens having sex? Teens having sex; oh my lord, when did that start happening!? Lawmakers need to SEE who is really on these registries and STOP the madness. If I as a grandmother am shocked and saddened at what is happening to our young, why aren't YOU?
Tonia
· 3 months ago
Go to www.love-is-not-a-crime.com and see for yourself who is ending up on the registries. Or, go to YouTube and search "ToniasFight" and see who is ending up on the registries.
Chris McElroy
· 3 months ago
Tonia, I understand what you are saying and I agree that those people on your website do not belong on the list at all. I believe the list was a good idea gone wrong is all. It should be only violent sex offenders, period.
There is one state that wants to extend megan's law to include burglars and armed robbers and other criminals. They are abusing the list.
And I don't agree about the social network law either.
I also don't agree with the statements that defend actual offenders from being monitored or restricted.
The law the author wrote about is too broad as is the registry. My question is if the registry were restricted to only child molesters and violent sex offenders, would you be for or against restrictions on them at that point?
Josh
· 3 months ago
Further proof that the prison system about doing what's expedient for politicians like Pat Quinn, which usually means locking 'em up and throwing away the key. Unfortunately, this is bad for everyone except the politicians who get re-elected for being "tough on crime" and the companies that make money off the prison system. Warehousing offenders and cutting them off from society after they're released doesn't make communities safer.
This sucks.
Silence Baker
· 3 months ago
You are correct that it is bad politics. Our prison system is so overcrowded that states like California have a Federal Judge ordering them to release 40,000 prisoners in the next 2 years to reduce prison overcrowding. California is pissed that the Feds would order such a thing. Heck, we are even incarcerating people for the crime of not telling the government where they live, or failure to register as it is more commonly known. People who are no longer on parole or probation should not have to tell the government where they live, nor is it the government's function to track them after they are off supervision. All we are doing to adding to the overcrowding situation. Especially when you consider that 1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated in jails and prisons across the United States. We have more people incarcerated than any other country in the world. Yet we want to make political prisoners out of undesirables because some politician wants to appear tough on crime. In states like Georgia, a formerly convicted sex offender who is homeless will be incarcerated since they are considered not having addresses. In essence, Georgia has made homelessness a crime. States like Wisconsin will charge a person a person will failure to register even before they are released from prison if that person doesn't provide a release address prior to 10 days before release. The justification is that they didn't notify DOC prior to 10 days before moving, ie release; although, DOC knew they were releasing the person. Thus homelessness in Wisconsin can lead to an indefinite perpetual sentence. In other states Florida, residency restrictions have essentially led to formerly convicted sex offenders living under bridges, as these are the only habitable areas left.
Formerly convicted offenders can bring down the registries when you consider there are over a 1,000,000 people registered with the various offender registries. All they have to do is not register. Our court system and prison system would not be able to handle such an influx since both are already straining. All the offenders would have to stick together as it would mean arrest, and not accept any form of probation so that the overcrowded prison system would be further strained. The ones I am mainly talking about are the ones who are not on probation or parole, but yet are required to register. If a person on probation or parole, then they should not participate as it would mean a violation of their conditions.
Doc
· 3 months ago
You sed: "Formerly convicted offenders can bring down the registries when you consider there are over a 1,000,000 people registered with the various offender registries. All they have to do is not register. Our court system and prison system would not be able to handle such an influx since both are already straining."
This is a specious argument. I recall, back in the 60's when we were smoking herbs in the park. One of us quipped, "Hey man, they can't put us ALL in prison!"
Yeah, they actually can. And they won't break the system if you all refuse to register: They'll fill up those FEMA camps instead!
Dan
· 3 months ago
Wonderful. More "witch hunt" legislation by politicians looking for votes. I would put money on the sponsor of this bill (Rep Bill Brady R Bloomington) has a really nice glossy post card in the mail stating that he is "Protecting our Children" and is "Tough on crime" When do the Sex Offenders have to start wearing yellow stars on their sleeves?
Silence Baker
· 3 months ago
You are correct about this being another piece of "witch hunt" legislation. Here is an excerpt from Barbara Levine from "Barbara Levine: Learn the facts about parole process" in the July 5, 2009 edition of the Lansing State Journal. [quote] Get tough" policies, begun after 1992 and aimed at those convicted of assaultive and sex offenses, have turned our prisons into warehouses for people who have served the sentences judges imposed.
Ironically, we are denying release to the least dangerous prisoners because we confuse the seriousness of past harm with the risk of a future crime. Substantial research shows that assaultive and sex offenders have very low recidivism rates. They rarely return to prison for new crimes against people.
Research also shows that sheer length of time served has no relationship to re-offense rates. Once people have been punished appropriately, keeping them another year or two or three generally has little impact on future success. [/quote] "witch-hunt" legislation is so popular because politicians are confusing the seriousness of past harm with the risk of a future crime as the politicians appear tough on crime.
Concerned Mother
· 3 months ago
In case anyone is interested, here's a link to 146 page report by Human Rights Watch about Sex Offender laws and how they are currently poorly written, not to mention unconstitutional and not even supported by some of the families they were specifically labeled as being created for: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/09/11/no-eas....
Dan & Jennifer
· 3 months ago
“29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager”
?HUH? Does nobody see the madness here? Kids who have consensual sex with other kids considered sex offenders? have we all gone completely insane?
Sex Offender laws are in place to keep adults from abusing (read: assaulting) children or other adults. These laws spit in the face of [actually] abused children.
It's so sad and frankly disgusting to see sex offender laws being used by politicians for free media soundbites and votes-for-sale scams. Makes one wonder if these politicians are simply incredibly ignorant, or just bad to the core. One hopes for ignorant I guess...
-- Dan
Silence Baker
· 3 months ago
Like most laws, it is the beginning of legislating us all. First we do it to the undesirables, then we go after every one else once we have set precedence. The registries are expanding to include other crime types such as meth and drug offenders. Florida has a career criminal registry. In Ohio you don't have to be convicted of a sex crime to be listed on their sex offender registry. A Judge in a civil court just has to decide that the crime more than likely happened rather than the stronger beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even private organizations such as copwatch.net are creating registries of criminal cops. They have a list of over 15,000 criminal cops with more than 2,600 of them sexually deviant. The age group of preference appears to be children for the sexually deviant cops. Even the sexually deviant cops are being tweeted about on twitter. In the 1850's Northern states had black registries where free slaves had to register as free. Usually kept them from owning land in the Northern states. Where does the madness end?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)
All our politicians care about is votes to keep them in office for another term. They really don't care about the children. Copwatch.net has politicians listed too. The information is scary. Anything information linked to a public registry can be considered public information about you or I. The politicians really don't understand how the Internet works. Nothing really disappears as people are constantly archiving things found on the web.
A law banning sex offenders from social networks is unconstitutional as it can violate a person's right to free speech. Moreover it would be hard to enforce unless the agency in charge of registration is allowed to set up spyware on the offenders computer, give them polygraphs, and search their computers. All of this when the offender has fully served their sentence.
The best defense of a child being victimized on the Internet is the parent. Take away Internet, texting, and picture capabilities on the cell phone for any of your children. Take Internet access out of their rooms and into a public area where you can supervise what they are doing. If they don't like it too bad. You are the parent. Sexting is a relatively new phenomena that is going to get our kids listed on the sex offender registries for making, distributing, and possessing child porn.
Doc
· 3 months ago
@ Silence Baker, you are 100% correct!
If we're to enact any restrictive laws in this regard, we should restrict children from the internet and any technology.
I have a question: What if a former sex offender creates a social networking site?
Silence Baker
· 3 months ago
Dan wrote: [quote] I have a question: What if a former sex offender creates a social networking site? [/quote]
Good question. Depends on how the legislation is wrote. I don't think how the legislation was wrote would stop law enforcement from arresting the former sex offender for creating the social networking website.
Banning formerly convicted sex offenders from using social networking sites, while well intended, would have a chilling effect on free speech given the current state of the Internet. Heck even the states which required registered sex offenders to submit their email addresses and online ID's has a chilling effect on free speech. Now a person's pen name to speak out against unconstitutional or illegal acts of the government is known to law enforcement. Just think where we would be as a country if our forefathers such as Ben Franklin had to register his pen names with the government? We would probably still be under British rule.
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is another unenforceable piece of legislation that I think was eventually discontinued, but I am not positive. Websites ask for a person's age, but doesn't verify the age. It is assumed that the person accessing the website is telling the truth about their age. Our children are technically savvy enough to know that all they have to do is lie about their age to get around this block.
The current address verification compliance checks are also a danger to all of our liberties. Law enforcement, and in some states it is DOC, goes around to the addresses of all registered sex offenders to verify that formerly convicted sex offenders are living where they say they are living. It is not too far fetched to think that law enforcement then can go around using compliance checks to subvert the constitution because we allowed them to do it with undesirables such as sex offenders. Just think, a police officer wouldn't need probable cause to pull you over as long as the officer is merely doing a compliance check. They could search your car without a search warrant since they are merely searching your car to make sure that you aren't transporting illegal weapons, drugs, aliens. While they are at it, they can make sure that all your equipment is in working order to make sure that you are complying with the law. Compliance checks wouldn't be unconstitutional as they are merely civil and regulatory in nature.
In states where DOC runs the registry, it makes you wonder how civil and regulatory it is when it is DOC's function to monitor offenders while incarcerated, or on probation or parole. It is not DOC's function to monitor citizens when they are off probation as they have fully served their sentences. If DOC can continue monitoring formerly convicted sex offenders when they have completed their sentences, it makes you wonder who else DOC can monitor after completing their sentences?
In states where law enforcement rather than DOC runs the registry, law enforcement officers are becoming defacto probation officers. Especially when you consider all the restrictions being placed on formerly convicted sex offenders that law enforcement is charged with making sure formerly convicted sex offenders comply with. Moreover law enforcement are increasingly requesting and receiving JAG funds in order to hire and retain officers to function as defacto probation officers. These grants run in the thousands of dollars for each agency. I think that I read where Piece County Washington Sheriff department got something like a $295,000 JAG grant for the purpose of doing address verifications. Even if it wasn't that much, the amount they received was still huge. There really is no oversight in how these JAG (formerly Bryne) funds are spent by the requesting agencies to ensure that it is being used for the intended purposed that it was applied for. Most people probably don't realize that law enforcement is getting JAG funds in order to enforce the registry. Copwatch.net estimates that the registries are costing the states $250 million annually, and the costs are probably closer to $500 million annual cost when you consider the amount of money the the Feds kick in. It is estimated that the sex offender registry costs each state about $50 million annually. A report out of New Jersey shows that that the costs of enforcing and running the registry keeps going up each year as the legislature piles on more restrictions. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/22537...
samcaldwellx684867
· 3 months ago
Interesting thing about the seven texas sex offenders arrested to much fan fare some time back...they were on parole and had were arrested not for being sex offenders or for being involved in inappropriate online activity. They were accused of having violated parole restrictions against their internet use in general. Nonetheless, Attorney General Gregg Abbott turned this into a SEX OFFENDERS on MYSPACE issue for the media (probably because he has no idea how to use a computer much less interact online.
I have a better idea... PARENTS! Tell your children what we were told growing up: DON'T TALK TO STRANGERS. It works. But you can't legislate good parental skills.
gaia
· 2 months ago
IMO the whole system is a sham, nobody in america is living the way they should be, the idea of an eye for an eye is just asinine, nobody cares that you can copy and paste articles youve read about new laws and political figures, the fact is they run you, your screwed! And by trying to use governments rules as rebound is just lame... its like a demographic so they might as well just have everyone fill out a survey and decide who to make an "S.O.", because thats where its headed, just because someone does something bad doesnt mean you get them back, and if thats how you roll, the next time your little billy hits his brother, youd better have him punch billy right back, for a couple of years!!!, you wouldnt want him to forget your vengeance would you? its hipocritical in the least, this whole thing is going in the wrong direction, we werent put on earth for this...if people dont grow up and quit trying to get back at people to "teach a lesson" its only gonna get worse, 5 years ago there were 6 billion people on this earth, now its to around 12 billion, if you get where this is going and consider you get what you give, its gonna be a vicious circle in which we all end each other, maybe when we can get used to the fact that were actual beings and cant be assimilated into any demographic, then maybe maybe well succeed as a race, until then, hate creates hate, so grow up america and quit being the little kid that wants to hit back, you dont own anyone, you will never keep track of everyone and the more focused you get on your quaint little lives, pet peeving on everyone like the idea of basic manners were made for you, the more youll regret the moment before you die and look back on who you pushed out of your way to make your life perfect...
im talking about EVERYONE not just S.O.s , whoever needed something and knew in order to do that something negative would come of it at ANY point, Karma , you get what you give!
Walk in MY shoes!
· 2 months ago
OK, so then we should take this government's word for it that people who are charged with sex crimes really committed sex crimes? Look, it's really sad when kids are forced or tricked into something that hurts them either physically or emotionally, but the way the system is set up, and over zealous prosecutor who is running for re-election or trying to further her career (Janet Reno comes to mind) can add charge upon charge and basically force a citizen to take a plea deal rather than risk hundreds or even thousands of years sentences on a bogus charge.
So take it from someone who took such a plea, and from someone who knows how long it takes to appeal a guilty sentence from prison, and from someone who spend his ENTIRE savings, sold his home, liquidated all his assets only to lose them to lawyers and DA's and judges up for re-election, sometimes one must accept a plea deal if one wants to EVER see the light of day again.
Amber!
· 2 months ago
I think that this is a waste of time and money. There is no way that Police can keep an eye on every sex offender in the usa. Also if people are worried about the whole sex offenders seeing you on the internet think about who sees you when you go to the store...Another thing is they can use a fake name and picture. but if you are truly worried about it dont get a face book, myspace so on so forth. Or put them in privet. Then they can see a small picture and what area you live in. But you can put something fake on that to. It just doesnt make sense to me that we are wasting out tax money on something that can be fix if people just use there head. I mean for god people we dont even have the money to buy new books for our schools! and you want to use it on social media sites. Come on now people freaking think! But thats what i think and i am only 15 years old but i think its pretty reasonable.
All Comments
Oh? ...me neither...
Gov. Ryan thread: http://www.copwatch.net/forums/showthread.php?s...
Gov Blagovich thread: http://www.copwatch.net/forums/showthread.php?s...
When it comes down to it a lot of our politicians are sexual deviants such as Craig, Vitter, and Foley to name a few off the top of my head. There are a number of mayors, alderman, and councilmen too. Then you have the sexually deviant Judges and prosecutors also. So who is supposed to protect us from these sexually deviants? The government? Wait, they ARE the government.
First they came for the sex-offenders and I didn't speak because I was not a sex-offender.
Social media journalism is growing.
Of course urinating in public should not be cause to be added to the sex offender registry. neither should mooning someone, or consensual sex among teenagers.
But, those cases make up a very small percentage of the people in the sex offender registry.
I'm not even saying I am for a law that says that they can't use social networks because just as you said it cannot really be enforced. The only time it will get used is when a sex offender is arrested and they search his/her computer, then an extra charge will be added, giving them a longer term in jail.
That is ok by me. Right now, someone who breaks in and steals your stereo can get a longer sentence than someone who molests your child. So anything that gives sex offenders a longer sentence is good in my book.
But whether you agree or not, please don't use the "Maybe he only peed in Public defense" for sex offenders.
"Of course urinating in public should not be cause to be added to the sex offender registry. neither should mooning someone, or consensual sex among teenagers.
But, those cases make up a very small percentage of the people in the sex offender registry."
Really? How do you know that? Would be great if you could post a URL to substantiate your assertion.
Thanks.
The percentages you are asking about vary from state to state. I notice you didn't provide any links to debunk the assertion. If you disagree, where are your links to back that up?
Again, I didn't say I was for this law. But people who are against laws that affect sex offenders always try and use the maybe he just peed in public defense.
Are you implying that the majority of the people on the sex offender registry really didn't commit a sex offence?
On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-10302727-2...
You left out the within the first three years of release. You also left out that that % was caught. Do you believe they get caught every time? It does not say that none of them were convicted of a sex crime after the 3 years.
So no, it does not say that 94.7% of them never committed another sex crime.
I just think when legislation happens out of fear it never works right.
I'd be for some kind of thing that.. if you were making a social networking site.. you 'd have a thing that sex offenders would have to sign into that would make communication with minors or whatever.. not happen.. or I'd be more for that the banning all of it.
The other thing is.. say you have someone who's convicted of such a thing.. and say that person really does want to do right going forward.. I think we want to have a system that helps them to stay on the right path moving forward.. I think banning them from social networking sites makes it harder for them,, so on that level I don't think it makes sense.
I have no idea what percentage of sex offenders got into trouble for urinating in public.. but regardless of how small the percentages are.. I'd be against anything that kept them from using these sites..
Please, don't use an excuse that actually uses logic for sex offenders. I'm guessing you've never had to pee in public.
Now if they did, would you support laws that frestrict their behavior? My guess from seeing some of the comments is that some here would still oppose any restrictions.
Yes, the public needs protection from violent offenders, but that's only a small portion of the people faced with life-long discrimination for having to register as a sex offender. Registration, as it exists today, is overkill that serves to prevent now-responsible people from integrating into their communities.
Someone googles you and for some reason (maybe because you just don't like all this social media stuff) they won't find any facebook, twitter or other social media profile of you. If his or her first thought was not "This person is not existing" (which is pretty likely btw) it probably will be "Aha, yet another Sex Offender".
It's like not being allowed to walk in public parks if you are a registered sex offender. If you never visit parks, just because you have your own nice garden, people will think you are simply not allowed to visit a park, meaning that you are some sort of criminal.
In the end this law puts pressure onto everybody to be an active social media user, because otherwise you might be seen as a sex offender.
PS: Big Brother is watching you!
My thing is? It's called parents. We don't need a bill, we need parents who actually watch what their kids do.
In another example, Rosalina Cano, the mother of 4 year old César Ivan Aguilar-Cano let her 4 year old son run around the neighborhood unsupervised because people did it all the time in her native village in Guatemala. Moreover she was an illegal immigrant who lived somewhere near the Churchill Downs area of Louisville, KY. According to a friend of mine from Kentucky, the area where Rosalina Cano live was a bad area of town. If Rosalina Cano had properly supervised her child, he might still be alive today. So yes, bad parenting can result in someone molesting or raping your child because the parent refuses to act like a parent.
I have been to amusement parks where kids are commonly roaming about the park unsupervised, and being hoodlums in my opinion. It is common for parents to buy them a season pass, drop them off in the morning, and then return in the evening to pick them up. The amusement park in effect is acting as a babysitter for these kids who should be supervised by a parent or responsible adult while there. I have took a grandson to an amusement park many times, and never allowed him out of my sight even though he didn't want me around. Tough. I am the responsible adult in charge of the grandson while at the amusement park. The grandson was only 10 or 11 years old.
The Mall of America in Bloomington, MN near the twin cities had to implement a policy where minors couldn't be in the mall unsupervised. There were getting to be too many kids, mainly teenagers, who were hanging around the mall unsupervised causing problems. Some of them were in gangs.
In my neighborhood parents actually drive there kids to the buss stop, and wait for them in there cars at the buss stop.. which just seems like over doing.. certainly when I was a kid this wasn't going on.. And you know.. its a small little well to do town with very low crime levels.. particularly in my this neighborhood.
This is just what I was thinking when I read the headline to this post. There are people who get caught up in the sex offender register that aren't really that bad of people. They just all get grouped together and when someone hears the word sex offender, the first thing they think of is "child molester". That's just not always the case.
And, as you said, how are they going to enforce this? I suppose if it really got bad, Illinois' neighbor states can expect an influx of sex offenders soon! Ha ha ha!
There is one state that wants to extend megan's law to include burglars and armed robbers and other criminals. They are abusing the list.
And I don't agree about the social network law either.
I also don't agree with the statements that defend actual offenders from being monitored or restricted.
The law the author wrote about is too broad as is the registry. My question is if the registry were restricted to only child molesters and violent sex offenders, would you be for or against restrictions on them at that point?
This sucks.
Formerly convicted offenders can bring down the registries when you consider there are over a 1,000,000 people registered with the various offender registries. All they have to do is not register. Our court system and prison system would not be able to handle such an influx since both are already straining. All the offenders would have to stick together as it would mean arrest, and not accept any form of probation so that the overcrowded prison system would be further strained. The ones I am mainly talking about are the ones who are not on probation or parole, but yet are required to register. If a person on probation or parole, then they should not participate as it would mean a violation of their conditions.
This is a specious argument. I recall, back in the 60's when we were smoking herbs in the park. One of us quipped, "Hey man, they can't put us ALL in prison!"
Yeah, they actually can. And they won't break the system if you all refuse to register: They'll fill up those FEMA camps instead!
[quote]
Get tough" policies, begun after 1992 and aimed at those convicted of assaultive and sex offenses, have turned our prisons into warehouses for people who have served the sentences judges imposed.
Ironically, we are denying release to the least dangerous prisoners because we confuse the seriousness of past harm with the risk of a future crime. Substantial research shows that assaultive and sex offenders have very low recidivism rates. They rarely return to prison for new crimes against people.
Research also shows that sheer length of time served has no relationship to re-offense rates. Once people have been punished appropriately, keeping them another year or two or three generally has little impact on future success.
[/quote]
"witch-hunt" legislation is so popular because politicians are confusing the seriousness of past harm with the risk of a future crime as the politicians appear tough on crime.
?HUH? Does nobody see the madness here? Kids who have consensual sex with other kids considered sex offenders? have we all gone completely insane?
Sex Offender laws are in place to keep adults from abusing (read: assaulting) children or other adults. These laws spit in the face of [actually] abused children.
It's so sad and frankly disgusting to see sex offender laws being used by politicians for free media soundbites and votes-for-sale scams. Makes one wonder if these politicians are simply incredibly ignorant, or just bad to the core. One hopes for ignorant I guess...
-- Dan
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)
All our politicians care about is votes to keep them in office for another term. They really don't care about the children. Copwatch.net has politicians listed too. The information is scary. Anything information linked to a public registry can be considered public information about you or I. The politicians really don't understand how the Internet works. Nothing really disappears as people are constantly archiving things found on the web.
A law banning sex offenders from social networks is unconstitutional as it can violate a person's right to free speech. Moreover it would be hard to enforce unless the agency in charge of registration is allowed to set up spyware on the offenders computer, give them polygraphs, and search their computers. All of this when the offender has fully served their sentence.
The best defense of a child being victimized on the Internet is the parent. Take away Internet, texting, and picture capabilities on the cell phone for any of your children. Take Internet access out of their rooms and into a public area where you can supervise what they are doing. If they don't like it too bad. You are the parent. Sexting is a relatively new phenomena that is going to get our kids listed on the sex offender registries for making, distributing, and possessing child porn.
If we're to enact any restrictive laws in this regard, we should restrict children from the internet and any technology.
I have a question: What if a former sex offender creates a social networking site?
[quote]
I have a question: What if a former sex offender creates a social networking site?
[/quote]
Good question. Depends on how the legislation is wrote. I don't think how the legislation was wrote would stop law enforcement from arresting the former sex offender for creating the social networking website.
Banning formerly convicted sex offenders from using social networking sites, while well intended, would have a chilling effect on free speech given the current state of the Internet. Heck even the states which required registered sex offenders to submit their email addresses and online ID's has a chilling effect on free speech. Now a person's pen name to speak out against unconstitutional or illegal acts of the government is known to law enforcement. Just think where we would be as a country if our forefathers such as Ben Franklin had to register his pen names with the government? We would probably still be under British rule.
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is another unenforceable piece of legislation that I think was eventually discontinued, but I am not positive. Websites ask for a person's age, but doesn't verify the age. It is assumed that the person accessing the website is telling the truth about their age. Our children are technically savvy enough to know that all they have to do is lie about their age to get around this block.
The current address verification compliance checks are also a danger to all of our liberties. Law enforcement, and in some states it is DOC, goes around to the addresses of all registered sex offenders to verify that formerly convicted sex offenders are living where they say they are living. It is not too far fetched to think that law enforcement then can go around using compliance checks to subvert the constitution because we allowed them to do it with undesirables such as sex offenders. Just think, a police officer wouldn't need probable cause to pull you over as long as the officer is merely doing a compliance check. They could search your car without a search warrant since they are merely searching your car to make sure that you aren't transporting illegal weapons, drugs, aliens. While they are at it, they can make sure that all your equipment is in working order to make sure that you are complying with the law. Compliance checks wouldn't be unconstitutional as they are merely civil and regulatory in nature.
In states where DOC runs the registry, it makes you wonder how civil and regulatory it is when it is DOC's function to monitor offenders while incarcerated, or on probation or parole. It is not DOC's function to monitor citizens when they are off probation as they have fully served their sentences. If DOC can continue monitoring formerly convicted sex offenders when they have completed their sentences, it makes you wonder who else DOC can monitor after completing their sentences?
In states where law enforcement rather than DOC runs the registry, law enforcement officers are becoming defacto probation officers. Especially when you consider all the restrictions being placed on formerly convicted sex offenders that law enforcement is charged with making sure formerly convicted sex offenders comply with. Moreover law enforcement are increasingly requesting and receiving JAG funds in order to hire and retain officers to function as defacto probation officers. These grants run in the thousands of dollars for each agency. I think that I read where Piece County Washington Sheriff department got something like a $295,000 JAG grant for the purpose of doing address verifications. Even if it wasn't that much, the amount they received was still huge. There really is no oversight in how these JAG (formerly Bryne) funds are spent by the requesting agencies to ensure that it is being used for the intended purposed that it was applied for. Most people probably don't realize that law enforcement is getting JAG funds in order to enforce the registry. Copwatch.net estimates that the registries are costing the states $250 million annually, and the costs are probably closer to $500 million annual cost when you consider the amount of money the the Feds kick in. It is estimated that the sex offender registry costs each state about $50 million annually. A report out of New Jersey shows that that the costs of enforcing and running the registry keeps going up each year as the legislature piles on more restrictions.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/22537...
I have a better idea... PARENTS! Tell your children what we were told growing up: DON'T TALK TO STRANGERS. It works. But you can't legislate good parental skills.
im talking about EVERYONE not just S.O.s , whoever needed something and knew in order to do that something negative would come of it at ANY point, Karma , you get what you give!
Look, it's really sad when kids are forced or tricked into something that hurts them either physically or emotionally, but the way the system is set up, and over zealous prosecutor who is running for re-election or trying to further her career (Janet Reno comes to mind) can add charge upon charge and basically force a citizen to take a plea deal rather than risk hundreds or even thousands of years sentences on a bogus charge.
So take it from someone who took such a plea, and from someone who knows how long it takes to appeal a guilty sentence from prison, and from someone who spend his ENTIRE savings, sold his home, liquidated all his assets only to lose them to lawyers and DA's and judges up for re-election, sometimes one must accept a plea deal if one wants to EVER see the light of day again.