Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York State Releases Sex Offender Facebook App

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the zynga-game-coming-soon dept.

Crime 252

Just in time for Halloween, the New York state Division of Criminal Justice Services launched a Facebook application to help families know which houses contain sexual offenders. “Knowledge is power. New Yorkers now have another way to access up-to-date information about sex offenders in their neighborhoods,” DCJS Acting Commissioner Sean M. Byrne said in a release. “With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as strangers’ homes. The Facebook app puts that important information at parents’ fingertips, whether they are at home or on the go.”

cancel ×

252 comments

Scarlet Letter (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37847854)

Might as well have them wear a big ol' S.

Re:Scarlet Letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848006)

Yes. Once smartphones (or their successor) becomes ubiquitous, everyone will always be able to know where a sex offender lives. Then the functionality will be so common (for safety) that it will get built into the OS. Then it will just alert you automatically when you're nearby. So you might as well save all the time and effort and mark their residence with a giant 'S'.

Re:Scarlet Letter (4, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 2 years ago | (#37848224)

New York State also decided to kill 2 birds with 1 stone and also just released their "Catholic Church Locator" app.

Why just sex offenders? (4, Insightful)

ccguy (1116865) | about 2 years ago | (#37847860)

There's a lot of other crimes that are dangerous to neighbors, why just this one? And no I'm not advocating for all (or none), just asking why this one is singled out.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (4, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 2 years ago | (#37847902)

Why? So you can move into a house in 5 years and wonder Facebook labels you a sex offender.

Politics (5, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#37847990)

Sex sells.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt sell.
Providing a "solution" to fear, uncertainty, and doubt sells.

Combine all 3 and it's the politician's re-election trifecta.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 years ago | (#37848014)

Because most people forget(willingly or not) that most children are kidnapped/molested by family members or people that are familiar to them (close neighbors, family friends, etc). People also forget that "sex offender" covers a lot more than just rape. They could have been 17 and had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend. They could have hired a prostitute. Or they could have simply pissed in the park. "Sex offender" is to the state what "terrorism" is to the federal government. Is it a real problem and a serious concern? Yes. However, it is usually pulled out and used as a boogeyman to scare people, or to make people feel like something has been done when nothing has.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848162)

They also forget that "sex offender" doesn't just mean pedophile. Large portions of the "sex offender" list, even those not convicted of frivolous offenses, would have no interest in molesting your child.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (5, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 2 years ago | (#37848184)

I want to know how broad this covers.
31 y/o having sex with a 5 y/o?
18 y/o having sex with a 17.9999999999 y/o?
Drunk college kid peeing on a dumpster at 2 am "exposing" himself?
What about the 16 y/o that sent nude photos of her/himself to another 16 y/o. One getting charged with creation of and the other distribution of 'child pornography.

In its current form most states "sexual offenders list" is dang near useless.

And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 2 years ago | (#37848250)

Don't have mod points. +1, anyway.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 2 years ago | (#37848328)

Not to be picky but the age of consent in NY is 17 so that 18 year old is fine having sex with the 17.9999999 year old as would be a 77 year old.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (1)

kryliss (72493) | about 2 years ago | (#37848694)

$AOC having sex with ($AOC - .0000000001) y/o?

Re:Why just sex offenders? (4, Informative)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 2 years ago | (#37848768)

Well in NY you are relatively screwed but if you are less than 5 years older than the person under 17 you only get a Class A or B misdemeanor depending on what you did. Many states have nothing if you are within 2 years. It varies everywhere but believe it or not there is some sanity when it comes to these things.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#37848370)

And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.

Their heads would explode if they learned they themselves were more likely to sexually assault their own children than some stranger.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | about 2 years ago | (#37848618)

Their heads would explode if they learned they themselves were more likely to sexually assault their own children than some stranger.

Statistics: you're doing it wrong

Varies by state and time (3, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#37848544)

Most states have Romeo and Juliet laws and those that don't typically don't AUTOMATICALLY put young offenders with close-in-age partners on the sex-offender registry even if they are convicted of statutory rape or equivalent.

Most states don't put first-time misdemeanor offenders on the registry. This includes the drunk exposing himself when he didn't know there were kids around AND when there weren't likely to be children around.

While some teens have been charged with sexting to age-peers, most states and prosecutors look for other charges or are modifying the laws so these aren't considered registration-required offenses. Even the federal prosecutors are loathe to prosecute things that teenagers commonly do as sex crimes.

it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.

Or, possibly even more likely, an older or same-aged family member or neighbor. I wonder how common forced/coerced incest is among 2-child families where the male is 2-10 years older than the female AND where, as the older child, he's routinely been required to babysit the younger one from the time he was 11 or 12 until the time she was the same age?

I wonder how often the parents find out but, because they don't want to ruin their son's life with even a juvenile sex-offense conviction, they handle it "within the family," depriving the younger child of helpful counseling and POSSIBLY (if the local prosecutors have youthful-offender pre-trial diversion programs that the family may not be aware of) necessary counseling for the older one?

Re:Why just sex offenders? (5, Informative)

Isaac-1 (233099) | about 2 years ago | (#37848652)

The sad thing at least around here is so many people that are registered sex offenders are on the list by taking a plea bargin to avoid the chance of going to jail. Many is not most of these cases have no evidence, and are just he said / she said. Cases where the ex wife bribes the teen age daughter to tell the police the deadbeat dad molested her, and similar. Without going into too many details I know of one case where charges were filed 10 years after the "incident" where the girl charged the then 18 year old brother of her friend with molesting her during a sleep over, the brother had proof he was not in the house that night (working night shift at a grocery store), yet he still ended up as a registered sex offender, and was banned from living in the same house with his own children.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848710)

I want to know how broad this covers.
31 y/o having sex with a 5 y/o?

Not under NY law.

18 y/o having sex with a 17.9999999999 y/o?

Not under NY law.

Drunk college kid peeing on a dumpster at 2 am "exposing" himself?

Not under NY law.

What about the 16 y/o that sent nude photos of her/himself to another 16 y/o. One getting charged with creation of and the other distribution of 'child pornography.

Both yes, under NY law.

By the way, the GP post mentions visiting a prostitute; under NY law, that person would have to register.

Look, it's not a great system, but it's worth noting that system lists specific violation (though some of them are ambiguous about specific details, like Rape 2 covering a variety of methods of rape) and that the court, upon conviction, can keep the convict from being publicly registered (but still registered) if they are deemed "low risk" of presenting a harm in the future or repeating the offense.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848136)

I believe that most sexual crimes are perpetrated by members of the family too.

So really, this is just a witch hunt.
I think most people would agree that homosexuality is not a choice, and most would agree that people do not elect to be sexually attracted to children.

They need counselling and in the extreme cases some form of chemical castration.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848304)

Molesters need counseling for the same reason rapists need counseling. There is nothing inherently wrong with any sexual attraction, fetish, or preference.

The problem arises when people choose to act on their desires in a way that harms others. That is what needs to be taught; not just to rapists, but to everyone, because it is not only rapists who bring forcible harm -- physical, mental, sexual, financial, or otherwise -- but many other people as well, plenty of whom are not even regarded as the true criminals they are.

Mod parent insightful (5, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#37848404)

I think most people would agree that homosexuality is not a choice, and most would agree that people do not elect to be sexually attracted to children.

They need counselling and in the extreme cases some form of chemical castration.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

When you have a biological need that can only be satisfied by harming others or, for that matter, doing things that are so strongly counter-cultural that you must not do it in the culture you live in (e.g. polygamy in many countries or cultures, including most devout religious communities in the United States), then society not only MUST make counseling available but do so in a way that doesn't DISCOURAGE people from getting it. If people are afraid to tell their therapist "I'm in love with 2 women but I know God doesn't want me to sleep with both of them" or "I'm in love with my 6 year old cousin who lives next door but I know God and society don't want me to take him to bed" then we have a serious problem, one that will result in higher incidences of child abuse.

As for chemical castration:

Very few people are so controlled by their bodies that they cannot "say no" if they want to badly enough. However, it should be available as a tool to tone down the biological urges for those who would rather have low or no libido than live with a libido which they cannot satisfy without hurting others.

Chemical castration as a way to voluntarily lower libido isn't just for pedophiles and sex addicts. I wouldn't be surprised if more than one devout Roman Catholic man who has a civil divorce would prefer to lower his natural libido than be forced to live with a life of celibacy with his current sex drive. Unfortunately, because of its unpleasant side-effects, these drugs are too dangerous to use as a mere "lifestyle aid" when a libido which cannot be ethically satisfied is a mere annoyance - when it is not driving a person to want to sexually abuse others and it is not driving them to crippling depression or suicide.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#37848426)

I believe that most sexual crimes are perpetrated by members of the family too.

So really, this is just a witch hunt.
I think most people would agree that homosexuality is not a choice, and most would agree that people do not elect to be sexually attracted to children.

They need counselling and in the extreme cases some form of chemical castration.

Castration isn't the word you're looking for here. Not only would that not be effective in most cases (gonads or not, it's about power, not an orgasm), you're ignoring the huge swath of female offenders. The drugs they load people up with for "chemical castration" are either not effective (because they seek to block testosterone), or are effective, and would more aptly called "chemical lobotomization".

Castration (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#37848634)

For some, rape and child molestation is intentionally about power. Sadists and sociopaths fall into this category.

For others offenders, it's about a distorted world view that the victim loves you and wants to go to bed with you combined with a distorted world view that says there is NOT an imbalance of power.

For the latter, fixing the distorted world views will generally render the person harmless and in the best case, will make him so over-protective of children as a class that he'll boycott being around them and encourage other pedophiles to do the same.

This still leaves some who, despite re-education, are driven by a biological drive too strong to ignore. For them, libido-lowering drugs not only will help, but if a drug that lowered libido without having nasty side effects like osteoporosis were available, he'd probably gladly take it.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 2 years ago | (#37848418)

There's a lot of other crimes that are dangerous to neighbors, why just this one? And no I'm not advocating for all (or none), just asking why this one is singled out.

Right. I think I'd like to know if I'm living next to an arsonist or cat burglar too.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 2 years ago | (#37848424)

It isn't just sex offenders, it includes all strangers:

With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as strangers’ homes.

Do people these days really need a smartphone app to tell where strangers live?

Or do loads of people have friends who are sex offenders?

Re:Why just sex offenders? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#37848762)

Or do loads of people have friends who are sex offenders?

This may not be so far-fetched, considering how easily someone may be added to the sex offender list. We are told by the media that the people on the sex offender list are people who rape little children, but there is a whole spectrum: a 19 year old who had sex with a 16 year old, a guy whose computer stored child abuse photos/videos, someone who had sex with a drunk woman, someone who urinated in public, etc. It is like asking if there are large numbers of people whose friends were convicted of drug offenses.

Re:Why just sex offenders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848578)

Because, we need to protect children from people who took a leak in a park and eighteen year old who had sex with their seventeen year old girlfriends.

Great (1)

symes (835608) | about 2 years ago | (#37847872)

More ammunition in my daughter's quest for an iPhone 4s

Re:Great (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848410)

Is she looking to find wild dates?

Ugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37847884)

Because if you're not registered as a sex offender, you can't molest children.

Yes. Sex crimes (actual sex crimes, not peeing outside) are bad. But honestly, some of this is witch hunting.

Re:Ugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37847928)

If you defend sex offenders, you must also be a sex offender. At least I think that's how it goes.

Re:Ugh. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37847950)

But, but, nobody told me I had to get a license before I molested those children! It was an innocent mistake!

Sex offenders=horrible child rapists (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#37847922)

I don't like Child Molesters, but every 'sex offender' isn't a child molester. The sex offender label pisses me off.

Re:Sex offenders=horrible child rapists (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#37848110)

Like that woman in whatever state it was who allowed her 15 3/4-year-old daughter to have sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend (which, by the way, would be legal "parental consent" in many states)? The woman who is now labeled for life as a "sex offender" even though the daughter the boyfriend are now married and were never charged with anything?

I know of a case in Idaho, not many years ago, in which a man went to state prison for having oral sex with his WIFE.

I agree: actual, intentional molestation of a child is one thing. Many of our laws, though, have become something else entirely.

This "sex offender" BS is an embarrassment to America. It needs to go away.

Re:Sex offenders=horrible child rapists (1)

egamma (572162) | about 2 years ago | (#37848372)

Source please? Not disputing, I just cant find it.

Keeping it Kosher (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37847940)

I suppose this new App will point out mohels, especially the Orthodox ones who not only fondle and slice up little boys' penises, but actually suck blood from their wounded genitalia (penis-to-mouth); some perfectly healthy infant boys died in 2005 in New York after contracting genital herpes from the tainted mouths of some of these creeps.

Re:Keeping it Kosher (1)

krinderlin (1212738) | about 2 years ago | (#37848188)

*cough*

Whoa, that was creepy to read.

Re:Keeping it Kosher (1)

ExtremeSupreme (2480708) | about 2 years ago | (#37848240)

It's also perfectly legal in the US o' A.

Can we, please, do the same for sociopaths? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#37847946)

And ban them from being in any position when their decision affect other people, regardless of what they own? It's certainly more of a problem in modern society, and it looks like there is suitable infrastructure already.
Pretty please?

Re:Can we, please, do the same for sociopaths? (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#37848546)

So prevent them from having any privacy, and also prevent them from any meaningful employment or source of income. Surely then they will just "disappear" and not bother you anymore instead of oh I don't know, turn to crime to support themselves or I know, re-offend knowing full well they will get both food and shelter (and even privacy) when they are in jail again? Great plan.

Re:Can we, please, do the same for sociopaths? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848678)

Nope, that would encompass most politician and ceo's. I highly doubt they'll vote to put them selves in jail.

It will never happen (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#37848688)

Can we, please, do the same for sociopaths?

It will never happen. Not any time soon anyways, at least in America.

Too many of them find their way to high-level elected office or into the boardrooms or executive offices of powerful corporations.

Digital Scarlet Letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37847958)

Knowing where the bad guys are sounds great and all, but I worry about this "scarlet letter" of the digital age. Once information is on the net, it's difficult to erase, and while some may deserve lifetime scrutiny, what about people who genuinely reform?

And besides that, why is the government allowing a private entity to control, or at least assist, in the distribution of this kind of information?

Thankfully, this at least can be erased (2)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#37848038)

Once your registration expires or the conviction or registration requirement is overturned, sites that continue to claim you are a registered sex offender are not immune from libel/slander lawsuits if they keep the info up once they are notified that it is no longer current.

Most states REQUIRE that sites that have the full sex-offender-database online (vs. just a blog that happens to mention that one particular so-and-so is a registered sex offender as of the date of the posting) check it against the official list on a regular basis and remove outdated information.

Re:Thankfully, this at least can be erased (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#37848474)

Once your registration expires or the conviction or registration requirement is overturned, sites that continue to claim you are a registered sex offender are not immune from libel/slander lawsuits if they keep the info up once they are notified that it is no longer current.

Most states REQUIRE that sites that have the full sex-offender-database online (vs. just a blog that happens to mention that one particular so-and-so is a registered sex offender as of the date of the posting) check it against the official list on a regular basis and remove outdated information.

Which doesn't matter, because in most cases you're on that registry for life.

Lifetime-reg. erasure is moot (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#37848730)

If you are on the list for life, then getting outdated information erased OTHER than of course outdated addresses is a moot point.

Outdated addresses will be scrubbed as required by law, same as an expired registration.

Now, there will be inaccuracies where a person doesn't re-register after moving as required by law or where the agency he re-registered with after moving is slow to send their data to the state's central clearinghouse and to the state he was last registered in. But these problems should be cleared up when the new homeowner or tenant checks the registry and notifies his local police that the former registrant no longer lives there.

But Why? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#37847968)

Why would you avoid sex offenders on Halloween? They always have the best candy!

On a more serious note, while "knowledge is power"; garbage in still means garbage out. "Level 1", "Level 2" and "Level 3" are practically designed to tell you fuck all of actual use. Is a "level 3" forcible rapist with no interest in children more dangerous than a "level 1" pedophile? Well, that sort of depends on who you are, doesn't it? Are sex offenders(those who actually target strangers, rather than the common-but-less-polite-to-discuss trusted adults known to the victim) actually dumb enough to do their re-offending on their own doorsteps, rather than at less obvious locations?

This application seems like a fantastic tool for people afflicted with nebulous anxiety who feel the need to refine that into focused, concrete fear; but it seems magnificently ill-suited to any actual public safety objective...

Value of level-1/2/3 (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#37848814)

When done correctly, level-1/2/3 combined with a "likely target profile" can be helpful.

If done correctly,
"Level 3, adolescent females living in the same household, level 1 or lower, everyone else" or "Level 3, infants and toddlers, level 2, children and pre-adolescents, level 1 or lower, everyone else" is very helpful.

However, most (all?) states do it wrong. Not only don't they not break it down by victim profile, but they rely too much on "static" factors and not enough on "dynamic" factors. A 20 year old who molested an 8 year old boy might get a lot of "points" based on the static factors of "young age at 1st offense" and "young age of victim" and "male victim" but depending on how seriously he took therapy, he may be far less likely to re-offend than the 54 year old who dates 16 year old young women in a state where 17 is the age of consent but who holds society in contempt for daring to tell him that he's not allowed to love the lady of his choice.

Let the lawsuits begin ... (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | about 2 years ago | (#37847992)

What it says

parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations

What it really means

vigilantes now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as beat the crap out of them and torch their homes, even if it means endangering others at the same location, or targeting the wrong person because the perp moved elsewhere and nobody updated the database.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin ... (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 2 years ago | (#37848040)

Happened in England.

NOTW published the addresses up and down the country. Got at least one wrong and at least one innocent person got beat up.

Murdoch, such a classy guy.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848338)

They should release this information a few addresses at a time, and then the police should be ready to scoop up the people who attack and label THEM sex offenders. Their addresses can then be the next addresses to go up and so on.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin ... (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#37848156)

But as far as I know there are already interactive maps showing this same info out there, New York just make it slightly easier to access.

Move over cupid. (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 2 years ago | (#37847998)

Hmmmm... I wonder how many people will use this app to find a date.

Trick or treat is dead in NY? (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#37848022)

With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to ...ensure their children stay away from ... strangers’ homes

For real? In NY kids only trick or treat at family and friend-of-families houses? That must be weird. Everywhere I have ever lived, kids visit every house that has a light on, like a candy assembly line or something.

Locally we worked around the whole offender thing by passing one law that forbids offenders from living within Z thousand feet of an elementary school, another law requiring elementary schools in the city limits to be within 2 * Z thousand feet of each other, and finally only permitting new housing developments where the most distant home is less than Z thousand feet of the local elementary school. There are weird corner cases of grandfathered in homes in the old parts of the city and bordering industrial areas where the offenders all live. I have checked the maps and its certainly a growth industry, the offender rate must exceed at least 0.1% of the population. They are forming dense little colonies of perversion within those restricted zones.

I frankly worry a heck of a lot more about my neighbor with eight DUIs running my kids over, or the biker gang down the street getting in a shoot out (note, move in "nearby" a biker gang, because they're smart enough not to soil where they sleep, and other criminals are scared of them, so its actually a very pleasant crime free neighborhood...

Re:Trick or treat is dead in NY? (2)

MimeticLie (1866406) | about 2 years ago | (#37848384)

This American Life did a story [thisamericanlife.org] on the very thing you mention, although probably in a different city. In Miami, you have to live 2500 feet from a school, park, or daycare if you're a sex offender. Try going half a mile in a major city without running into one of those things. Pretty difficult. So, as in your case, they just move to the corner cases. Specifically, camping under a bridge.

Re:Trick or treat is dead in NY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848442)

Yeah I used to live right next to the Hell's Angels headquarters in NYC and it was a super quiet little street. Don't touch the bikes and they took care of making sure it was nice and quiet.

Re:Trick or treat is dead in NY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848506)

Such a nice fate for landing on a list you can get on by any number of harmless actions.

Now I'll know... (3, Informative)

DigiTechGuy (1747636) | about 2 years ago | (#37848046)

Now I have yet another source to see where every dude in town who had to take a leak really bad and went in the bushes lives. Newsflash, the vast majority of "sex offenders" haven't violated anyone's rights. They are not child molestors, rapists, or anything like that. Most are just people who took a discrete leak in public and someone happened upon them or other nonsense like that. This "war" on sex offenders is getting to be as ridiculous as the "war" on drugs. The "sex offender" label is just another way to collect taxes and ruin people's lives, which seems to be the goal of the police and courts anymore. There are already laws against assault, abduction, and other truly violent crimes. No need for "sex offender" laws as it's already covered under so many other laws.

If we have 'sex offenders', (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848052)

then why don't we have 'life offenders'? You know, for murderers and batterers and people who use baseball bats or hacksaws in public view.

Re:If we have 'sex offenders', (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848358)

Murder is OK. It's just like war on a very small scale, and it's pretty evident that the USA love war.

Sex offender facebook app? (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 2 years ago | (#37848080)

You mean BookFace has found yet another niche demographic to appeal to?

The "like" button is replaced by "offer candy to"?

Re:Sex offender facebook app? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848334)

A sex offender app for all your sex offending needs.

Augmented reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848106)

Enable camera, scan neighborhood houses; when you point at sex offender's house, Pedobear is superimposed over the image?

label (2)

rish87 (2460742) | about 2 years ago | (#37848124)

I've always hated the "sex offender" label and how they are all lumped together and put on display. I've read articles about guys in some states being labeled "sex offenders" because of indecent exposure charges against them due to peeing outside. I've looked at the sex offender maps around where I live and there are poor guys on there because they were 18 and had sex with a 17 year old, visible right next to the 50 year old man who raped a 1 year old baby. How can we pretend these are equivalent crimes that require public warnings?

Re:label (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 2 years ago | (#37848154)

Just a technocality: I think most states there have to be a two year age gap between the kids... so it would be an 18 y/o with a 16 y/o... ... don't disagree with what else you say though.

Re:label (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#37848324)

Just a technocality: I think most states there have to be a two year age gap between the kids... so it would be an 18 y/o with a 16 y/o

Nope, not most states. A total of 8 have such an exemption. NY has criteria that affect whether it is a felony or "merely" a misdemeanor, but no further sanity than that.

Re:label (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 2 years ago | (#37848386)

Age of consent in New York is 17 anyway so there won't be any poor 18 year old guys on there after having sex with their 17 year old girlfriend.

And 31 states have a full "Age Gap" provision - meaning there is no crime - which I am pretty sure is a majority.

Re:label (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | about 2 years ago | (#37848594)

An "age gap" provision doesn't necessarily mean there is no crime. It may make an offense a misdemeanor rather than a felony, or it might just make it permissible defense against charges in court. Other defenses exist in some states, for instance, if you didn't realize the person was underage*, or if they're your spouse**.

*this defense is probably much more likely to be convincing if the minor is 15 than if they are 5
**possible in some states, with parental and/or a judge's approval

Re:label (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 2 years ago | (#37848676)

Those 31 are specifically ones that don't have any crime. The site I referred to (http://www.ageofconsent.us/) specifically doesn't count those with misdemeanors:

* Note: Some states make an age gap less of a crime but still a crime; where this is the case we have also listed 'No'.

That site also allows you to read the specific laws for each state.

Re:label (1)

rish87 (2460742) | about 2 years ago | (#37848346)

Ah thanks for pointing this out, you may be right. A quick skim through the local registry shows a bunch of 2 year gaps but no 1 year.

Re:label (2)

gearsmithy (1869466) | about 2 years ago | (#37848246)

Agreed. If you're going to tack a life-long punishment to somebody for a "sex offense" then just send them to prison for life. I thought that once you've paid your debt to society you are no longer in debt, these registries are basically just modern day scarlet letters.

Status update: (3, Insightful)

xiao_haozi (668360) | about 2 years ago | (#37848172)

NYPD just tagged you in a photo.

Useless...except for lynching (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | about 2 years ago | (#37848174)

This app is only to let people know where to group if they want to lynch mob a pedophile....as no pedophile would sit at home to "watch" their prey....they go out to do this....so as to be able to blend in and act casual, so if they go near a park, they might be reading a paper on some bench, with side glances towards their intended victim, I am not sure of any use that someone would have to use their personal home as the location of a stake out....?

They should make up their minds. (5, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#37848182)

Are these people safe reformed citizens who should be free intermix with normal people.
Or are the dangerous criminals who should be locked up.

Re:They should make up their minds. (1)

pclminion (145572) | about 2 years ago | (#37848486)

You see, we'd PREFER to keep them locked up, but we need to make room for marijuana smokers in the jails. Marijuana smokers are obviously far more dangerous to us than child rapists. See, it's all based on logic.

Re:They should make up their minds. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848592)

The statistical answer is that they have the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime other than first-degree murder.

The political answer differs substantially.

Here's a brilliant fucking idea... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848194)

How about parents just walk WITH their damn kids, go to a decently well-lit neighborhood, and if they happen to go up to the door of a sex offender's house, well, chances are they'll never even know it. And what they don't know won't hurt them, or their kids.

Like the number of spiders the average human will swallow in their sleep, this is one statistic some people are simply better off not knowing.

Re:Here's a brilliant fucking idea... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#37848598)

Like the number of spiders the average human will swallow in their sleep, this is one statistic some people are simply better off not knowing.

Don't be misinformed. That rumor is just wrong.
Here's an infographic that explains the TRUTH. http://i.imgur.com/EyeGN.jpg [imgur.com]

Knowledge is power. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848206)

Guard it well.

V is for.... Vigilance or Vigilantism? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#37848222)

I'll bet the main use of this app will be for teenagers to pick which houses to vandalize.

I wonder if features a map tagging the homes where "sex offenders" are registered with a bulls-eye or rifle cross-hairs.

waste of money (1)

siliconwafer (446697) | about 2 years ago | (#37848258)

I am a New York state resident, and I think it's ridiculous that taxpayer money (be it state or federal) was spent on this. If you're that concerned, check a state website before your kids go trick or treating - why do we need Facebook or an app for this? Now excuse me while I figure out exactly who paid for this and write a letter to the (ir)responsible party.

Trick or Treating (4, Insightful)

residieu (577863) | about 2 years ago | (#37848282)

Teach your kids Common Sense when they go Trick or Treating. Don't go into the houses of anyone you don't know. Don't trick or treat alone. I seriously doubt any sex offender is going to snatch children out of a pack of Trick or Treaters and drag them into their house to molest them.

Re:Trick or Treating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848732)

So, don't ever go trick or treating, then? When I was a kid. we'd hit a hundred or two homes on halloween night. No sweat. Most people don't know their neighbors, much less their whole neighborhood, much less several streets. I've lived here two years and I've only met two of my neighbors.

More like... (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 2 years ago | (#37848344)

an app to discriminate and ensure recidivism.

Facebook? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848380)

Wait, so government money was spent on something that requires you to sign up for Facebook in order to use?

how can I voluntarily register? (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#37848394)

Is there a way to voluntarily register myself as a "sex offender"? Sometimes I have naughty thoughts and I've peed outside at least once... but more importantly I don't particularly want kids annoying me on 31 October and I figure if everyone's labelled a sex offender then the whole stupid list will become useless.

tl;dr I'm Sexy Spartacus!

awesome! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 2 years ago | (#37848406)

Can you use it to search for women sex offenders, ages 18-30?

Great! (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#37848408)

This sounds like a marvelous idea. We definitely don't want our children molested by child rapists! Those guys who were registered for public urination might have been within 100 miles of a child when they did it. They may as well have just been pissing in the child's mouth!

great app feature (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#37848460)

The app should have a map layer for nearby trees to make pitchforks out of.

I need an Abusive Policeman App. (5, Interesting)

dweller_below (136040) | about 2 years ago | (#37848468)

I need an app that will help me track abusive policemen.

At this point, it seems like there is a much greater need to track abusive policemen than sex offenders. After all, if a sex offender causes problems, you call the police and they get put away. But if you are abused by a policeman, then calling the police just gets you more abuse.

I have a much greater need to track Tony Boloney http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/19/tony-bologna-with-a-side-of-pepper-spray-docked-10-vacation-days-videos/ [addictinginfo.org] than some random kink.

Abusive police we have with us always. We can't get rid of them. Our only defense is to track them and keep our distance.

Miles

Poking you on Facebook... (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about 2 years ago | (#37848510)

...takes on a whole new meaning.

Gun Owners are a far worse threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848580)

Am I afraid of the registered sex offenders in my area harming my child? No, not nearly as afraid as I am of the gun owners http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori and there is no list for them. So some registered pervert might try to touch my kids wee wee or some unregistered pervert might blow his head off for knocking on the door... To hell with sex offenders, I am afraid of GUN OWNERS, they are far more dangerous and the law will protect them from you when they kill your kid... When will there be national and state registries for gun owners?

Hey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848624)

where is mine drugdealer app? running low on my shit...

Branded cattle (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#37848628)

I'll tell you where this is all headed. It's obvious. While I may think sex offenders are some of the most mentally sick and twisted people to walk the earth, if I were to continue to plot a line as to where all these laws against these offenders point to, it becomes very clear. The next step is to chip these people like cattle and brand them on their forehead. Politicians will be praised and hardly any of their political enemies will fight them on this. Too politically suicidal to do so.

I say, give it another 10 years.

Nazism was a warning, not an example. Godwin! There, I said it. Happy now?

Why is this on facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848638)

What does this app have do to with facebook? Why not just a NY gov't website where you can access the info? Why would New York pay facebook for an application that it could just as easily host on it's own website?

SWEET! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37848782)

I can't wait to start breaking into all these homes! Who's gonna convict me when there's a sex offender living there??

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...