arstechnica.com— A new bill introduced by Senator John McCain last week would require all registered sex offenders to give their e-mail addresses, IM screen names, and chat room handles to the government.
Dec 11, 2006View in Crawl 4
This is nothing more than Legislative masturbation: It doesn't really accomplish anything, but you feel kinda good afterward. The only thing this will lead to is people being harassed. Let people serve their term and leave them alone.
The problem with this is the potential new law is that only those who are trying to better themselves and become productive members of society will abide by the new law. Not all sex offenders will re-offend. Those who think they will are ignorant and stupid and would vote for people who purpose laws like this.I am not against a registry for law enforcement use only as long as it includes all criminals. If it singles out any one group over another then I am against it.I believe that more focus needs to be placed inside the prisons and jails to work on rehabilitation on offenders than on silly laws that can't be enforced. If you can rehabilitate a criminal he/she is less prone to re-offend.Speaking from experience with the ex-cons I have worked with the more support they have from family, friends, and support groups the less likely they are to re-offend. Also they are more likely to tell someone in their support network when they feel over whelmed.Don't get me wrong. There are those who don't want to change. There are those who will never change. But there are those who do want to and who can change. Don't make their lives hell just because you want some false sense of security. Parents need to step up and be parents. It is not the job of the government to monitor what you child is doing on line. It's yours. Just my thoughts. Take it or leave it.
At this time I can not think of any other way to enforce rules keeping known sex offenders off social networking sites. When myspace began blocking known sex offenders and one of the first comments on digg was that this will do nothing and people will lie about their identities. Did anyone not see this as the next step. The reason there is a public list of sex offenders versus other crimes is that it is a very violent and horrible crime, plus people who do it are more likely to repeat their offenses.I don't think people that pee against a wall or bushes in a dark alley/party should be grouped with these people. However people that pee from a balcony onto other people or in the middle of a crowded street where children an see their wii... I can see how that would anger parents.
Yes people can register another email address and screen names, but what if every adult(18+) in the US had a government assigned email address (they could have as many others as they would like) and if you wanted to sign up for a social networking site you would have to use that email address. (which you could change later) Websites that would not like anonymous users could require the government email address to be used while communities that did not care would allow any email address.You could have some anonymous sites and some non-anonymous sites. There was a time closer to when the country was founded that nobody was anonymous (except some authors). Communities were small and people still had free speech. They were just accountable for what they said. If you called somebody a whore you were likely to get popped in the face, but you weren't arrested. If you called all your customers of your employer douchebags in a public place you would get stomped and maybe fired... but not arrested.This is just a thought. Yes you have more responsibility if you comment on the net non-anonymously, but your voice also has more power. Yes there would be people hacking the system and problems would arise... thats why its just a thought.
@heffer2k02This law apparently catches all sex offenders in a dragnet. The amendment is only a thinly veiled attempt to get votes from people like you. It is sad that politicians resort to unnecessarily harassing people who have already served their sentence, often long ago, to get elected.
What this does is to assist McCain in his "look what I can do" parade. This will be impossible to police. The sexual predator stigma needs to be alloted to those who are truly predators, and not the teenage kid who diddled his underage girlfriend or peed in public. Hell, most guys would be classified as predators if it went retro. That being said, I agree big time with pedophiles and the like having to make their presence known. Our children need to know they are in their midst. Not to scare them to death, but to give them a healthy respect of the world in general so they can protect themselves.
Ozymandias42:What I wrote is NOT "hate speech," but an attempt to counteract the negative, and false, statements that were made about the Serbs for well over a decade. Some of the worst of the blood libel against the Serbs came out of the mouth of John McCain. It was all a lie, and nobody should ever trust him again in regard to anything whatsoever.The reason I keep emphasizing the word "Christian" is because the Bosnian Muslims and the KLA were, and still are, doing everything they could to persecute, expel or kill all of the Christian Serbs that they could, simply because they were Christian. They were, and are, trying to obliterate all traces of Christian Serb presence in the areas under their control, so that they could falsely claim that the Christians were never there in the first place. This involved not only opening graves and scattering their contents, but also destroying grave markers, demolishing and obliterating medieval churches and monasteries, and even ransacking tombs of saints.leighj:It is very difficult to get anything expunged from a court record. One major obstacle to expungement has to do with the fact that courts sell their records to companies that handle background checks, and once that data goes out, there's no getting it back.silenceHR:I am not going to condemn you for being a Croatian; I just wish you'd be a little more of a Christian. During World War II, the people of your country did their utmost to exterminate my ethnic group. In a vain effort to avoid further conflict, we have observed a taboo on discussing this, although the name Jasenovac should be familiar to you. Suffice it to say that, after WWII, one of my cousins went back to Vojvodina to look for our relatives, and found no trace of anyone. With regard to Srebrenica, the Muslim combatants did not attempt to surrender to the Serbs, nor did the Serbs kill them en masse. The Serbs did kill some of them in combat, after which time, the Muslims either made a fighting retreat or simply fled to parts unknown. Most of the Muslim combatants were not killed; many turned up in other units later on, or showed up on voter rolls and the like. For all I know, they're probably still alive now. It just sounded better from their point of view to claim that the Serbs killed them, rather than admitting that they ran away. And, of course, it was more useful for the Clinton Administration to appease the Muslims, because they thought that was the best way to guarantee a good supply of petroleum in the future.
When my brother was 18, he had a girlfriend who was 13. She said she was 17, and apparently many people thought she was that age. My brother had sex with her, and her parents knew about it. It was only when her father found out my brother's age that it became a problem. He pressed charges for rape (at the time there was no subcategory for statutory rape). At my brother's hearing, the bailiff came up to him and said, "That girl over there is looking at you. If you play your cards right, you might get some tonight." My brother looked at the bailiff and said, "She's the reason I'm here!" The bailiff went to talk to the judge. He was shocked to find out her age, too. My brother accepted a deal for sexual misconduct. This was in 1990. In 1995, Megan's Law went into effect in Missouri, but at the time he didn't have to register. A few years ago a police officer knocked on his door and said he would have to begin registering. He did his "duty" until this past summer when the state Congress passed a law saying anyone convicted or accepting a plea bargain before the law went into effect (Jan. 1, 1995) did not have to register because that would make it retrospective in nature. However, the data that was collected from before can still be posted on the web. When sex "offenders" like my brother have to register, it is further punishment because some apartment complexes won't allow them to live there, they cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare, etc. My brother couldn't even pick his children up from school because of it. He's not a threat to society. He was misled and made a mistake when he was younger. He accepted probation and complied with the judge's orders. Why should he have to be subjected to societal punishment ex post facto? Also, how can something be called a "civil duty," yet if you do not comply you can be prosecuted for it? It sounds like an additional sentence to me.
Closed AccountDec 12, 2006
This is nothing more than Legislative masturbation: It doesn't really accomplish anything, but you feel kinda good afterward. The only thing this will lead to is people being harassed. Let people serve their term and leave them alone.
jpb78Dec 12, 2006
The problem with this is the potential new law is that only those who are trying to better themselves and become productive members of society will abide by the new law. Not all sex offenders will re-offend. Those who think they will are ignorant and stupid and would vote for people who purpose laws like this.I am not against a registry for law enforcement use only as long as it includes all criminals. If it singles out any one group over another then I am against it.I believe that more focus needs to be placed inside the prisons and jails to work on rehabilitation on offenders than on silly laws that can't be enforced. If you can rehabilitate a criminal he/she is less prone to re-offend.Speaking from experience with the ex-cons I have worked with the more support they have from family, friends, and support groups the less likely they are to re-offend. Also they are more likely to tell someone in their support network when they feel over whelmed.Don't get me wrong. There are those who don't want to change. There are those who will never change. But there are those who do want to and who can change. Don't make their lives hell just because you want some false sense of security. Parents need to step up and be parents. It is not the job of the government to monitor what you child is doing on line. It's yours. Just my thoughts. Take it or leave it.
sotopheavyDec 12, 2006
At this time I can not think of any other way to enforce rules keeping known sex offenders off social networking sites. When myspace began blocking known sex offenders and one of the first comments on digg was that this will do nothing and people will lie about their identities. Did anyone not see this as the next step. The reason there is a public list of sex offenders versus other crimes is that it is a very violent and horrible crime, plus people who do it are more likely to repeat their offenses.I don't think people that pee against a wall or bushes in a dark alley/party should be grouped with these people. However people that pee from a balcony onto other people or in the middle of a crowded street where children an see their wii... I can see how that would anger parents.
senturionDec 12, 2006
Good idea because we all know a new email address or IM name is hard to come by.
sotopheavyDec 12, 2006
Yes people can register another email address and screen names, but what if every adult(18+) in the US had a government assigned email address (they could have as many others as they would like) and if you wanted to sign up for a social networking site you would have to use that email address. (which you could change later) Websites that would not like anonymous users could require the government email address to be used while communities that did not care would allow any email address.You could have some anonymous sites and some non-anonymous sites. There was a time closer to when the country was founded that nobody was anonymous (except some authors). Communities were small and people still had free speech. They were just accountable for what they said. If you called somebody a whore you were likely to get popped in the face, but you weren't arrested. If you called all your customers of your employer douchebags in a public place you would get stomped and maybe fired... but not arrested.This is just a thought. Yes you have more responsibility if you comment on the net non-anonymously, but your voice also has more power. Yes there would be people hacking the system and problems would arise... thats why its just a thought.
pingvenoDec 12, 2006
@heffer2k02This law apparently catches all sex offenders in a dragnet. The amendment is only a thinly veiled attempt to get votes from people like you. It is sad that politicians resort to unnecessarily harassing people who have already served their sentence, often long ago, to get elected.
faskippyDec 13, 2006
What this does is to assist McCain in his "look what I can do" parade. This will be impossible to police. The sexual predator stigma needs to be alloted to those who are truly predators, and not the teenage kid who diddled his underage girlfriend or peed in public. Hell, most guys would be classified as predators if it went retro. That being said, I agree big time with pedophiles and the like having to make their presence known. Our children need to know they are in their midst. Not to scare them to death, but to give them a healthy respect of the world in general so they can protect themselves.
bigkittyDec 13, 2006
Ozymandias42:What I wrote is NOT "hate speech," but an attempt to counteract the negative, and false, statements that were made about the Serbs for well over a decade. Some of the worst of the blood libel against the Serbs came out of the mouth of John McCain. It was all a lie, and nobody should ever trust him again in regard to anything whatsoever.The reason I keep emphasizing the word "Christian" is because the Bosnian Muslims and the KLA were, and still are, doing everything they could to persecute, expel or kill all of the Christian Serbs that they could, simply because they were Christian. They were, and are, trying to obliterate all traces of Christian Serb presence in the areas under their control, so that they could falsely claim that the Christians were never there in the first place. This involved not only opening graves and scattering their contents, but also destroying grave markers, demolishing and obliterating medieval churches and monasteries, and even ransacking tombs of saints.leighj:It is very difficult to get anything expunged from a court record. One major obstacle to expungement has to do with the fact that courts sell their records to companies that handle background checks, and once that data goes out, there's no getting it back.silenceHR:I am not going to condemn you for being a Croatian; I just wish you'd be a little more of a Christian. During World War II, the people of your country did their utmost to exterminate my ethnic group. In a vain effort to avoid further conflict, we have observed a taboo on discussing this, although the name Jasenovac should be familiar to you. Suffice it to say that, after WWII, one of my cousins went back to Vojvodina to look for our relatives, and found no trace of anyone. With regard to Srebrenica, the Muslim combatants did not attempt to surrender to the Serbs, nor did the Serbs kill them en masse. The Serbs did kill some of them in combat, after which time, the Muslims either made a fighting retreat or simply fled to parts unknown. Most of the Muslim combatants were not killed; many turned up in other units later on, or showed up on voter rolls and the like. For all I know, they're probably still alive now. It just sounded better from their point of view to claim that the Serbs killed them, rather than admitting that they ran away. And, of course, it was more useful for the Clinton Administration to appease the Muslims, because they thought that was the best way to guarantee a good supply of petroleum in the future.
fury1984Dec 13, 2006
When my brother was 18, he had a girlfriend who was 13. She said she was 17, and apparently many people thought she was that age. My brother had sex with her, and her parents knew about it. It was only when her father found out my brother's age that it became a problem. He pressed charges for rape (at the time there was no subcategory for statutory rape). At my brother's hearing, the bailiff came up to him and said, "That girl over there is looking at you. If you play your cards right, you might get some tonight." My brother looked at the bailiff and said, "She's the reason I'm here!" The bailiff went to talk to the judge. He was shocked to find out her age, too. My brother accepted a deal for sexual misconduct. This was in 1990. In 1995, Megan's Law went into effect in Missouri, but at the time he didn't have to register. A few years ago a police officer knocked on his door and said he would have to begin registering. He did his "duty" until this past summer when the state Congress passed a law saying anyone convicted or accepting a plea bargain before the law went into effect (Jan. 1, 1995) did not have to register because that would make it retrospective in nature. However, the data that was collected from before can still be posted on the web. When sex "offenders" like my brother have to register, it is further punishment because some apartment complexes won't allow them to live there, they cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare, etc. My brother couldn't even pick his children up from school because of it. He's not a threat to society. He was misled and made a mistake when he was younger. He accepted probation and complied with the judge's orders. Why should he have to be subjected to societal punishment ex post facto? Also, how can something be called a "civil duty," yet if you do not comply you can be prosecuted for it? It sounds like an additional sentence to me.
archdukevalidusDec 13, 2006
www.dodgeit.com anyone?
liquidtimDec 17, 2006
GENIUS!