No Internet for Sex Offenders

[Greenday]

I was dropping off my grandparent's car to get a remote car-starter installed today, and as I was heading home, I heard about this briefly on the radio. New Jersey is now going to ban sex offenders, who used computers to commit their crimes, from using the internet.

I know, I know, it sounds like a good idea to keep their tools they used to previously used to commit their crimes away from them, but that's not the first thing I thought of when I heard about this. I thought, "Wow, way to deny them their rights." They are already on probation and are totally screwed if they do anything again. They went to jail, so by doing this, they are saying that jails are not doing their jobs, which is rehabilitation. So if this is the case, why the hell is my tax money being wasted on these prisons? I don't know, I just think this is a gross over-destroying their rights.

[Pedersen]

Damn. Makes my comment on CS (http://www.customerssuck.com/board/showthread.php?p=238879#post238879) all the more the right course of action for me, especially since I'm in IT.

I doubt very much that I could do my job without the internet anymore. And all it would take to destroy my life is for some kid to tell a lie about me. Or for some parent to decide to ruin me with a lie.

And people wonder why I don't want kids, and don't want to have anything to do with them?

[AFPheonix]

How is this even enforceable?

I don't mind kids, but politicians who use the causes of kids to advance their own careers need to be shot.

Woo! This Fat Bastard wine is pretty strong though...mmmmmm.........wine......

[CancelMyService]

Sex offenses are a political goldmine. No one would ever want to be seen defending someone who actually committed such crimes, so all sorts of horribly punitive punishments can be leveled all while keeping the definition of "sex offender" as wide and vague as possible.

It's WAY too easy for someone with an axe to grind to just completely destroy someone's life with an accusation. Even if there's not a shred of proof, every news outlet will be screaming with the headline of "______ ACCUSED OF HORRIBLE SEX CRIMES" which will forever link that person to the accusation no matter if they're acquitted or not.

I have a family-member-by-marriage who's serving time for molesting his step-daughter and I'm about 75% convinced he didn't do it. The girl in question is not mentally all there and it's very possible she either misinterpreted something or was told to lie by another family member who's extremely vindictive.

What can you do though? The people who actually do these crimes should be fired by cannon into the sun, but how can we determine someone's guilt without destroying innocent lives?

[rahmota]

Sex offenses are a political goldmine. No one would ever want to be seen defending someone who actually committed such crimes, so all sorts of horribly punitive punishments can be leveled all while keeping the definition of "sex offender" as wide and vague as possible.

You have hit the nail on the head. This is one of those things the current political agendas dont want to define narrowly as its too useful a tool.

Those who pass these sort of laws wind up Looking tough on crime, looking good for the moral zealots, and looking good for those with children. Its a win win scenario for the politicians at least. And yeah whos gonna stand up for a sexual deviant? Do that and the public turns on you too no matter how "right" you may be from a legal standpoint the fear of letting a "sexual predator" out on the streets to be around our children is too horrible to bear, dont you care baout the children THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! (Or at least thats how the usual rhetoric goes I've seen)

Now I'll agree that those who do actually harm children need to have something done to them unpleasant at the very least (to be polite) but like has been mentioned the tar and feather brush can be very wide and very shallow. The slightest excuse can be used to bring the powers that be down on a person with just an anonymous phone call away.

Just one more thign that this country needs to get its head out of its arse about.

[DesignFox]

This is very sad, indeed. :(

We give up more freedoms seeking protection than we do just watching out for ourselves...I think the whole root of the problem is a lack of personal responsibility.

"Big brother" shouldn't be stomping down doors every time someone cries wolf. And there should be penalties involved for people who place false accusations. It might make people think twice before picking up that phone to make a report. I don't think anyone ever thinks about the severity of the consequences of their actions.

[rahmota]

Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither. - Ben Franklin


Those founding fathers had some rather wonderful ideas didn't they? Wonder what ever happend to them?

[Seshat]

I know someone who was accused by his niece. She later recanted the accusation, but the family's never recovered from it. It used to be a very close family, but now it's torn apart.

[rahmota]

Seshat: I think just about everyone knows someone who has been affected by this in one way or another. One of the problems of the wide brush syndrome. The ease by which someone can just casually call up the children services or whatever agency serves as the gestapo in your region and say someone touched someone innaprpropriately is part of the problem.

[Greenday]

Yea, but we can't make it hard for the people who were actually harmed in some way to actually get help.

[Seshat]

Oh, I totally agree, Greenday. But we - society as a whole - needs to figure out some way to help the victims, punish the perpetrators, but not harm uninvolved innocents.

The current method isn't doing well enough on the first two, and has an abysmal record on the third.

[Greenday]

The only way we can change the system is to change as a society. But that's a huge change and I have a feeling will not happen any time soon. People aren't that trusting so people will still be screwed over by others looking for a quick buck. Also, society in general needs to stop being so damn greedy. We have a long way to go.

[rahmota]

No we can't make it impossible for those harmed to get help. I'll agree with you on that. Its just somewhere along the way we lost track of the whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty thing." Nowadays just being accused is proof of guilt in many cases. The media hassle and attention is like a shark feeding frenzy and then if it turns out to be false you never see huge headlines blaring "duh we wuz wrong bob is innocent." No if it gets any media coverage at all its buried on page 27 under the used car ads.

You are right that this society needs an enema from top to bottom. Greedy politicians lookign for more power, gredy media moguls looking for more bucks, certain members of society in general looking for safety or someone to lookafter them so they dont have to think about it.... Bah! It makes me wonder why i bother trying to do anything. Seriously looking at this country/world sometimes I just say let the dang place fall and we'll try again.

[Dreamstalker]

How is this even enforceable?

I don't mind kids, but politicians who use the causes of kids to advance their own careers need to be shot.

My thoughts exactly. I don't exactly trust the majority of the government to make the decision how to do that (if they even know where to start). All the ways I could think of would fail badly in practice, and the ways that wouldn't fail are either a egregious violation of rights and/or not possible yet.



Those who pass these sort of laws wind up Looking tough on crime, looking good for the moral zealots, and looking good for those with children. Its a win win scenario for the politicians at least. And yeah whos gonna stand up for a sexual deviant? Do that and the public turns on you too no matter how "right" you may be from a legal standpoint the fear of letting a "sexual predator" out on the streets to be around our children is too horrible to bear, dont you care baout the children THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! (Or at least thats how the usual rhetoric goes I've seen)

The "think of the children" battlecry pisses me off. Yes, kids should be protected, but that doesn't mean shielding them from everything possible. Especially if the ones doing the shielding try it at the expense of others.

I read somewhere that the overall majority of molestation incidents are committed by someone known to the victim.
We give up more freedoms seeking protection than we do just watching out for ourselves...I think the whole root of the problem is a lack of personal responsibility.
*nodnod* Most parents today expect everyone else to do their parenting for them. Adults know that they can get away with blaming everything/everyone but themselves, because politicians and the media are too dim to think otherwise.

My parents and I have said that I'm one of the last kids to grow up with a healthy moral compass.

[Seshat]

My parents and I have said that I'm one of the last kids to grow up with a healthy moral compass.

I sincerely hope not. I'm working hard to avoid that being the case, with my nieces and nephews (both genetic and honorary).

I know other people who are working hard in the same cause - let's hope we prevail!

[Dreamstalker]

Well, one of the last kids that they know of based on what we all see. Then again, there's a certain sense of improper entitlement in some areas around here, so... It is ultimately down to upbringing, maybe there's a chance to turn things around yet.

From fourth to sixth grade, I lived in Montpelier VT. Mom worked late, and sometimes I would walk down to the restaurant in the evening to have dinner with her and the staff before she got off work (if I did most of my homework first). There were a few local characters, but they were polite and harmless. I was taught--as soon as Mom found out there was a possibility of me roaming the streets alone--what to do if approached by a sketchy person as well as how to deal with weird phone calls.

Yes, we didn't have internet in those days, but I was a pretty smart kid and somehow innately knew what not to do online. The only real supervision I had when we got internet was was someone telling me to get off the second phone line as they wanted to use it ^_^

I'm a firm believer in the "inoculation" theory of child-raising. Don't shield them from everything--protect them, yes, but teach them how to handle things themselves.

[crazylegs]

New Jersey is now going to ban sex offenders, who used computers to commit their crimes, from using the internet.

I think that the important part to read here is Used computers to commit their crimes, this implies that the Sex Offender has already been convicted, and this was the tool in which assisted them to commit it.

There are rights available to them but I cannot see how removing one avenue (which has been abused by the criminal) can remove any human rights.

The victims of abuse have the right not be abused, the vistims of abuse have the right not to have their images broadcasted across a huge area for anyone to see, especially as most will not have given consent to have explicit images taken of them.

I do however think that those who are accused of sex crimes (in whatever capacity) should have the same right to anonymoty as the victim until such time as they are proven guilty in court. There are uncountable occasions of people sustaining abuse even after the allegations have been proven to be unfounded/malicious, see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm for examples

[myswtghst]

I'm a firm believer in the "inoculation" theory of child-raising. Don't shield them from everything--protect them, yes, but teach them how to handle things themselves.

I'm completely in agreement. I live near Chicago, and I was allowed to take the train into the city with a friend when I was 14, so long as mom knew where I was going, who I was meeting, etc. I knew not to talk to strangers, and to stick to places I knew, never going anywhere alone. It was rather the same with the internet - I was allowed online, to do as I pleased, but knew that sending my picture or chatting with people I didn't know wasn't the best idea.

My parents didn't beat me over the head with things, they had trust in my common sense, and that by telling me something the right way, it would work better than yelling it at me, over and over.

And I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread, so as not to go too far OT I"ll comment on that too. :o Our society, as a whole, has taken things in a direction of paranoia and hysteria, and often times, people are swayed by an accusation, even if it's proven untrue. I know that, much as I want to be open minded, if I found out someone had been accused of a crime like that, it would throw me for a loop. I don't want it to, and I wouldn't judge them or form an opinion without the full story, but I have to be honest that my reaction wouldn't be clear cut sympathy.

I'm grateful that they're starting to enact laws to punish people for faked rape accusations, I'm just not sure how they'd enforce punishing fake pedophilia claims, unless the claim-er was an adult. Granted, I do think it would be wise, if it was found that a child made a false accusation, that the child be put into some form of therapy, to try to find out why they said it, and to teach them not to do so in the future.

I think the biggest thing that bothers me is people making these claims don't seem to keep in mind the long-reaching consequences of their actions. Much as I hate to use pop culture, Atonement was an example of this - making an uniformed and/or impulsive statement can completely destroy someone's life. And given that (barring reincarnation) we only get one, I think it's rather unfair and selfish to ruin someone else's life for anything less than the truth.

[Hellbound Alleee]

The term "sex offender" is very. very broad. A person with a "sex offender" offense is assumed to be a rapist of some sort, when there are many other offenses that fall under this giant umbrella.

A young couple caught skinny-dipping are "sex offenders."

A young couple having consensual sex before the age of majority are "sex offenders."

People caught masturbating in porn theatres are "sex offenders."

People who are caught selling sex toys in the wrong state are "sex offenders."

People who accidentally sell adult items to minors are "sex offenders."

People caught with more than the legal number of sex toys are "sex offenders."

Do these people deserve to have to register their names and be without internet?

Are these penalties helping us to be more safe?

[crazylegs]

Do these people deserve to have to register their names and be without internet?



And again, do these people use the internet to commit their 'offences'? The legislation clearly states it will only be used as a tool against people who have used the internet to commit their offences. So no, none of the people you listed would have their internet access revoked.

[thrifty]

One thing I am wondering though, if what if the person who committed the crime using the internet is trying to better themselves. Let's say 22 year old Bob had sex with 15 year old he met on the internet. Or heck 50 year old John had sex with a 15 year old he met on the net.

They served their jail time, served their time on house arrest, served out the rest of their probation, and have taken their sex offender course (I'm not sure if this happens in all states but this does happen in Michigan). Now let's say they realize how wrong they were and just want to try and get their life on track.

Let's say they decide they want to go back to school, or maybe get a job working with computers, should they be denied that opportunity because they slept with a 15 year old? Wouldn't it be good if sex offenders (of course not all can) could be rehabilitated? Wouldn't it help them if they could access the net for school or work, especially in this day and age where the internet is becoming more and more prevalent?

Personally if Bob is going to re offend I don't think telling him he can't use the internet is going to stop him, on the other hand if Bob regrets what he did, is just trying to be a law abiding citizen, the banning of the internet could make his life even harder.

And believe me the life of a sex offender isn't easy even with the laws they have in place now.

[AFPheonix]

Again, how would this even be enforceable? Can they stop them from heading to internet cafes or the library or even a friend's house to use their connection?

How about if they head into a WiFi hotspot like Downtown Portland with their trusty laptop?