Beta
×

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!

MySpace Agrees to Share Sex Offender Data

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the not-so-anonymous dept.

The Internet 297

mikesd81 writes "The Seattle Times is reporting that MySpace will be providing a number of state attorney generals with data on registered sex offenders who use their site. Attorney generals from eight states demanded last week that the company provide data on how many registered sex offenders are using the site and where they live. MySpace obtained the data from Sentinel Tech Holding Corp., which the company partnered with in December to build a database with information on sex offenders. Attorneys general in North Carolina, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania asked for the Sentinel data last week."

cancel ×

297 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Call me an idiot... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19213847)

... but do regular people actually sign up with their real name / information, and even if they do, is it likely that sex offenders do too?

Re:Call me an idiot... (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213873)

and even if they do, is it likely that sex offenders do too?
Everything on the internet is true and accurate. Honestly. It really is. On the internet, I mean ... in real life, I'm tall, thin and good looking.

Re:Call me an idiot... (4, Interesting)

Deagol (323173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213971)

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, right?

Given the broad range of things that gets you the tag "sex offender" (and a lovely scarlet "S" in the bargain), the whole sex offender registry thing is kinda silly. I mean, if you got a citation for pissing in the bushes at your local park, and got into your state's sex offender registry, would *you* really take the restrictions seriously? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I imagine that "real" sex offenders wouldn't either -- at least the ones who are total morons [ksl.com] , anyway.

Re:Call me an idiot... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214091)

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, right?
"On the internet, men are men, women are men, and children are the FBI!"

I mean, if you got a citation for pissing in the bushes at your local park, and got into your state's sex offender registry, would *you* really take the restrictions seriously?
My favorite one is turning 18 before your girlfriend/boyfriend does.

Re:Call me an idiot... (4, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214351)

I mean, if you got a citation for pissing in the bushes at your local park, and got into your state's sex offender registry, would *you* really take the restrictions seriously?
Depending on which restrictions exactly you're referring to, you'd better, lest you become the victim of the newest up-n-coming politician who realizes that stopping child molesters (er, sex offenders, same thing to him) is the fast track to political success. So you get thrown into jail for failing to keep your registered sex offender address current or whatever, even though your original `crime' is a joke. Or should be.

Re:Call me an idiot... (4, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214579)

Here in Florida, most communities are enacting completely unconstitutional laws barring exactly where "sex offenders" can live. In one community in the Tampa Bay area, they set the distance limit to something like 2,500 feet from *any* bus stop, church, school, library, etc. There were a few small areas in the town left over, which the city promptly added school bus stops despite there being no demand for them, effectively chasing out every sex offender, regardless of actual offense.

It is a scarlet letter. It isn't like the Puritan punishments meant to shame someone in front of their community to deter crime. In fact it does the opposite by creating lists of names, addresses, and photos of free offenders (as in, not in prison). It's a political tool, plain and simple, and it's only a matter of time before it is struck as unconstitutional and, hopefully, some "offenders" will have a free shot at the governments that put them on the list.

And before you mod me as a troll or other nonsense, I'm not advocating any sort of behavior. Child molesters, for instance, are in a separate class as mere sex offenders.

Maybe if we freed the ridiculous number of jailings of petty criminals we'd have room for those that actually deserve--and need--the confinement of prison.

Re:Call me an idiot... (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214891)

Given the broad range of things that gets you the tag "sex offender"

There was a recent story of a teenage boy who had sex with a teenage girl a year younger than him and became a "convicted sex offender". He'll be in such a registry and it gives me the creeps to think he's going to be watched the rest of his life. Let's face it, if at age 17 you weren't having sex with teenage girls, you wanted to (or if you're female, vice versa).

It also kind of creeps me out that "sex offenders" have become a completely separate class of criminal. Why shouldn't burglars, drunk drivers, embezzlers or other white collar criminals be kept on a registry and be exposed to any community into which they move? Why not shoplifters or people who've been convicted of any drug offense?

Considering the percentage of elected officials who've been convicted of crimes, we'd have to create special island communities in which they could live.

Re:Call me an idiot... (1)

hottoh (540941) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214011)

but do regular people actually sign up with their real name / information, and even if they do, is it likely that sex offenders do too?

A good fraction of sex offenders became sex ofenders because an underage person had sex with another under age person.

Would you cower for the rest of your life for having had sex at 16 with your 16 year old BF/GF? I would not.

Re:Call me an idiot... (1)

alisson (1040324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214019)

Many people do, but as for sex offenders? I'd be curious...

Re:Call me an idiot... (2, Insightful)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214023)

I know plenty of MySpace Morons in real life and have seen more than a few of their garishly decorated user profiles. I can assure you that plenty of "regular people" sign up with their real names and "information". MySpace shifted the IQ bell curve of Internet users like no other website before it.

Re:Call me an idiot... (2, Funny)

ergean (582285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214591)

Now I know where the "ASL" people have gone.

Re:Call me an idiot... (1)

ovideon (634144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214895)

Fortunately, it hasn't shifted the bell curve. It's lopped off the lower third and isolated it from the rest of us.

Re:Call me an idiot... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214313)

How long till someone registers at MySpace with the name etc of a registered sex offender they want to cause problems for? Especially if the "registered sex offender" has an open wireless network where they can really make it look like they are that person, at least under the assumption that the owner of the connection is the one using it? There are groups that are as nutty about going after "sex offenders" as there for abortion clinics.

Re:Call me an idiot... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214809)

Don't even start me on the asshats at Perverted Justice [pervertedjustice.com] ...

Re:Call me an idiot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214755)

I usually sign up with my real name, I've done so for years now and have yet to have any problems. All my contact information is readily available for anyone inclined to find it.

AC because I'm too lazy to sign in at work.

Privacy (2, Insightful)

GoodOmens (904827) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213897)

While I can see the ACLU taking this to court for invasion on personal privacy I personally applaud this. Those who break these type of laws and are still at risk for doing it again should have restricted privacy for the safety of others. More so when it involves innocent defenseless children.

Re:Privacy (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213941)

If they're not reformed, they shouldn't be allowed back into society.

The problem is that the prison system has nothing to do with treatment.. it's all about "punishment".

Re:Privacy (1)

GoodOmens (904827) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213993)

I agree completely but unfortunately you have judges that give these people little to not sentences at all.

Re:Privacy (1)

Belacgod (1103921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213951)

If they're that dangerous, keep them in jail longer. Myspace is only one tool--anyone who would abuse children via myspace would abuse them in other ways and is best off behind bars. Conversely, anyone who is safe enough to let walk the streets should be safe enough to let wander the internet.

Re:Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19213961)

Actually, they shouldn't need to worry about privacy because they should never make it out of prison (or possibly the grave). The low sentences that these predators often get (sometimes as low as a couple of years) are appalling.

Re:Privacy (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214207)

Then we shouldn't be complaining. After all, the justice system is an extension of the peoples' will.

If we're letting the predators out after a couple of years, then we shouldn't be complaining when they attack again.

I'm surprised the victims' families don't go after the judges responsible, though. Maybe someone should set up a website where criminals can be looked up, and the judges, prosecuting and defending attorneys, and jurors involved in their case are all listed.

Bullshit. (5, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213973)

If they are at risk of re-offending, don't release them.

It is really fucking lame to let these guys out as if they had 'paid their debt' like any murderer, rapist or thief and then treat them as second-class citizens. The murderers don't have people telling them where to live! Thieves don't have to sign up for a 'watch list' and tell people when they move, because they might steal again!

What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

I've had enough of my rights infringed upon in the name of the 'innocent defenseless children' so that dog won't hunt. Try another angle, brotha!

Re:Bullshit. (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214097)

What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that.

Re:Bullshit. (1, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214127)

Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that
To actually make that accurate, you'd also have to ask someone who'd died, and preferably someone who'd gone through both.

Re:Bullshit. (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214147)

Death is clearly worse than rape.. otherwise rapists couldn't use death as a threat for rape victims to be submissive.

As is mutilation, threating family members, etc.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214433)

Uh, how would you hear from the person who had been murdered?

Re:Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214571)

Ask someone who was raped, and get back with me on that.

Most rape victims believe being dead is worse than living with the memories of rape, regardless of what they say. The proof is that they haven't committed suicide.

Seriously, if you've been raped, and you really think you'd have been better off if they'd have killed you, what's stopping you from finishing the job? Oh, I guess rape isn't as bad as murder, after all.

I know this sounds a bit "flamebaity", but I'm really sick of people exaggerating their plight. Sure, rape's awful, but you are better off than murder victims, so quit pretending you aren't to get sympathy. The only reason people even consider rape to be worse than murder is because murder victims don't whine about it. Because they are dead.

Re:Bullshit. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214647)

well, i haven't been murdered, because i'm posting this, so i can't honestly compare and critique the two experiences, but i do think if i'm given the choice next time, i'll take a bullet in the head over rape. i will fight to the death to avoid that experience again. as to the "the proof is that they haven't committed suicide" bit, i've got to disagree that that constitutes proof. i'm staying alive out of spite, honestly. i'm not going to give them the satisfaction. also, it's harder to kill yourself than to have someone else do it.

Re:Bullshit. (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214137)

The murderers don't have people telling them where to live!

Unless they got life parole, which they sometimes do.

What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

Well, I agree, but you have to realize that this is an objective question.

I've had enough of my rights infringed upon in the name of the 'innocent defenseless children' so that dog won't hunt. Try another angle, brotha!

My problem with the system isn't that it exists, it's that it's way too easy to get into it.

For example a 17 year old fucking a 15 (or even 16!) year old is a misdemeanor in California, but it could still get you on the offender list in this and many other states. And so for the rest of your life, for doing something really quite reasonable (insofar as that you cannot stop teenagers from fucking) you could be required to go door to door and state that you are a sex offender.

In fact you basically have to check ID every time you fuck someone who looks young now, because "she told me she was 18" is not a defense even if you have her statement on tape. Is this intended to "protect the children"? Of course not. The idea is to make it more difficult and dangerous to have casual sex, because GOD SAID IT WAS WRONG.

You know, the same reason you can only get first-trimester abortions...

Re:Bullshit. (2, Funny)

realisticradical (969181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214481)

In fact you basically have to check ID every time you fuck someone who looks young now, because "she told me she was 18" is not a defense even if you have her statement on tape.

So, after you ask for verbal consent for sex on tape, do the women usually stick around?

Re:Bullshit. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214589)

So, after you ask for verbal consent for sex on tape, do the women usually stick around?

I don't know, never tried it. I have checked ID, though. No joke. And yes, she stuck around, although that relationship is over now (she dumped me, then I found an upgrade; meanwhile she got knocked up, by the guy who came after me. this is the second time this has happened to me so far... I may not win the lottery, but at least I'm not accidentally breeding)

Re:Bullshit. (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214627)

do the women usually stick around?

That's what he paid them for, isn't it?

Re:Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214161)

Climb down off your fucking soapbox and take a moment to really think of the children. They need to be protected and this is the least intrusive manner of doing so. As such, it passes constitutional muster, since an intrusion on your rights (to privacy per se) is allowable as long as (a) it is in the public interest, and (b) it is the most minimal intrusion necessary to satisfy (a).

A little intrusion on the "rights" of a child raper is A-OK in my book and doesn't get me to shed one fucking solitary tear.

Re:Bullshit. (2, Interesting)

Belacgod (1103921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214367)

Actually, the most minimal intrusion would be to make child rape punishable by life in prison. That wouldn't intrude on the liberties of people who piss in the bushes, and 19-year-olds who screw 17-year-olds, and would intrude on the liberties of people who really should have their liberties intruded upon. Child rapists are capable of traveling 1000 feet, or 1000 yards, or however long to get to where the kids are. They're capable of making false internet identities. What they're not capable of is doing any of that while locked up.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214429)

Actually, the most minimal intrusion would be to make child rape punishable by life in prison.

Forcible rape of a young child (say, I don't know, under 10 or 12) should be a capital offense, especially if there's a pattern of it. If they're dead, they can't re-offend...

-b.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214559)

i would say it depends on the details
Maim/Kill the kid= you die S L O W
if the kid lives = you get certain parts removed (includes certain tendons in the foot)

bonk a bunch of kids before you get caught= Pinhead wouldn't go that slow (or cause that much pain)

It depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214389)

> What's worse? The death of a human or the sexual abuse of a human? Since I don't believe in that nonsense about an 'afterlife', I must say killing is worse than sexual abuse. Way worse. Way WAY worse.

"Worse" in what way? In terms of pain, it would depend on the manner of death and the manner of rape. "Rape" usually includes people who are legally unable to give consent, so it might involve a consenting 17-year-old and a 21-year old. That's an extreme case, but there are degrees. Also, are we talking pain-at-the-moment, or how it messes someone up in the long term? The cost to the individual, or to society? The degree to which it offends our morals?

Also, it depends on the morality of the people involved. A repentant rapist or murderer has some major issues, and they do exist. I'd rather be raped than rape, because how do you live with yourself knowing you've raped a person? Murder is easier to justify in some circumstances, but only some.

Re:Privacy (1)

paleo2002 (1079697) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214063)

I'm all for protecting children and I may quite literally be playing devil's advocate here, but there are some problems with this kind of disclosure. 1) What if MySpace decides to hand over the personal information of people who they suspect of drug abuse, underage drinking, etc. to the government and justice system? The road to fascism is paved with good intentions. 2) If we want to restrict where sex offenders live, what kinds of jobs they can have, who they can talk to, and to what extent they may access the internet; if we don't want to bother reforming them (and yes I know there's evidence that they simply can't be reformed), then why don't we just leave them in jail? It'd be a lot safer for everyone.

Re:Privacy (3, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214163)

I don't know where I personally stand on the issue, but I'm absolutely certain that letting people out of prison but not letting them continue their lives is worse than either letting them completely free or keeping them in prison.

Re:Privacy (1)

Belacgod (1103921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214541)

Mod this one up!

Re:Privacy (4, Informative)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214217)

I personally applaud this. Those who break these type of laws...
Which laws are we talking about?

Oral sex is illegal in: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C. (OK, I admit, I got great head in MN)

An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin. (Lock me up for pretty much every time I had to read to the class in French classes during my teens)

In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor.

In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk to dirty in his wife's ear during sex.

In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!).

Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop's meat freezer.

In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face.

Source [sfsu.edu]

I say lock the dirty bastards up and throw away the key!

Or, alternatively, accept that demonising people for being sexual deviants, without classification as to the act, is complete b.s.

Re:Privacy (1)

instagib (879544) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214893)

The people in Washington must be dangerous because of all those restrictions. Oh wait ...

Re:Privacy (4, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214321)

Touchy subject.

Personally, while many may subscribe to your view, your view is helping to undermine all of our civil liberties.
This notion that it's ok to monitor this one group of people for the remainder of their lives seems unconstitutional.
They were convicted, sentenced and then served their time. But that's just the beginning... now they will be watched and monitored till they die.
Do we do the same for a convicted murderer or armed robber?

I have never seen any homicidal watch lists.
Aren't murderers and robbers as well as those convicted of DUI also likely to reoffend?
Why don't we watch these people.

Why aren't these people who are at high risk of killing you, those you love and our children being put on watch lists and having their movements tracked?

The Constitution explicitly states that we shall not single any one group or individual out for "special punshment" (not the exact wording, but in the spirit. Also, we shall not have cruel and unusual punishment.

Well, the way this country and others handles crimes of a sexual nature against children flies in the face of these notions of eqaulity and fairness under "civilized law", even being accused of a crime such as this causes such social stigma and outrage against the accused, they are already guilty in the eyes of the public. And then even if exhonerated and found innocent, they will still bear that burden. But being found guilty, they must now do a prison sentence and then forever bear that label, even having to announce that to any community they try to move to. Forever will they be subject to court imposed ridicule, humiliation and be made the target of public anger.

Do we force convicted murderers to undergo the same fate? Must you advertise that you killed a person?
If you were convicted of a DUI, would you not think it cruel and unusual punishment to be forever held to that and made to make that public in whatever community you lived till you died?

I'm not trying to diminish or deny the great amount of harm and suffering these people inflict. Personally, I find these people just as sickening as you do. However, this "Think of the children" BS is dangerous and all too often we see people willing to throw away their principals over this charged emotional issue.

And when we start seeing the constitution ignored for the sake of going after something that sickens and terrifies us, what good is that document? For over time, we will allow more and more "bending of the rules" and "blind eyes" to be turned in the name of the children or terrorism.

And we do see more and more excesses being taken and more liberties infringed in a rapidly increasing manner since 9/11.
And perhaps you may feel confortable with the infringement upon all our liberties to go after pedophiles, but I think the system would be better off to find more creative solutions that follow both the letter and spirit of the Constitution that all laws are meant to uphold.

The death penalty for pedophiles that Texas is considering is a worthy example. It falls within existing law, does not single out a group, only widens an existing group. And while I am no death penalty advocate, that solution would be effective in insuring that pedophile did no further harm. Perhaps a more "humane" route would be mandatory life imprisonment. More suiting, since no life was taken.

So as you see, the idea here is not to turn a blind eye, or to be more lenient. But to make the sentences and treatment of these offenders both strong and in line with the Constitution.

Re:Privacy (2, Insightful)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214889)

I have some issues with some of your points.

This notion that it's ok to monitor this one group of people for the remainder of their lives seems unconstitutional.
They were convicted, sentenced and then served their time. But that's just the beginning... now they will be watched and monitored till they die.
Do we do the same for a convicted murderer or armed robber?


People who are molested at an early age tend to do it to other people when they get older. It's like CFCs for society. Murderers don't cause their victims to murder, armed robbers don't cause their victims to rob.


I have never seen any homicidal watch lists.
Aren't murderers and robbers as well as those convicted of DUI also likely to reoffend?
Why don't we watch these people.


They do have lists for these things, and you do lose privileges when you commit certain types of crimes. Get dangerous enough on the road, for example, and no more driving for you. They aren't nearly as likely to reoffend, though. A lot of people who do crimes like these are just being stupid. They don't think through the consequences of their actions or how they affect other people. It's not the same with sexual crimes. You can stop being stupid a lot easier than you can change your sexual nature.

And when we start seeing the constitution ignored for the sake of going after something that sickens and terrifies us, what good is that document? For over time, we will allow more and more "bending of the rules" and "blind eyes" to be turned in the name of the children or terrorism.

Yeah...and what's with this not letting children work thing? Next thing you know, nobody will be allowed to work! Why is this a slippery slope? Terrorism does seem to be - I can point to a lot of things that have been done in the name of terrorism that have nothing to do with it, and can ask "when will it end?" This isn't that kind of thing.

I think its been pretty clear from the beginning of the US that children lack most rights that everyone else gets (like privacy and free speech) and in exchange some rights can be taken away from other people (the same rights, but only as they relate to children) for their benefit. Obviously, this ends when there's no benefit to children. It won't go further than that, because children have no almost no political power even by proxy.

I have no problem with this exception.

Your other points are quite valid. There is, however, the problem of "guilty until proven innocent" with the current laws that I can't abide (i.e. even if not convicted, you're on the list). Also, the issue that the list doesn't distinguish between kinds of crimes in any way.
Public indecency, rape, child molestation, psycho-girlfriend got mad and filed a police report...whatever. It's all the same on the list.

Practically speaking, that makes it very difficult to actually make use of the list. How can you tell if you've got a sexual predator in your neighborhood that you have to be careful of if they put so many mostly harmless people on it?

Re:Privacy (1)

tmarthal (998456) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214711)

I agree that the ACLU should be all over this.

If the data should be made public, shouldn't they just release the person's sex offense registration? I mean, they are registered after all. Now, if the people want the registration information, including where they live, or what sort of internet activity they partake in, why don't they contact the state/federal agency which maintains the registration? Most likely because its not constitutional to do so.

These AG's have really no law for which to claim these records.

Re:Privacy (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214839)

Those who break these type of laws and are still at risk for doing it again should have restricted privacy for the safety of others. More so when it involves innocent defenseless children.

You're taking a bold stand there, chief. It's not often that you hear someone in the U.S. coming to the defense of the innocent children, especially in support of laws which have been shown to have little or no effect in protecting those children. Sigh.

Correction for the anal (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19213917)

"state attorney generals" => "state attorneys general"

General is an adjective, not the noun. You pluralize the noun not the adjective.

Re:Correction for the anal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19213969)

wouldn't that be "State Attorney's General"?

Re:Correction for the anal (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214265)

It should be "attornies", but for some stupid reason, the word "attorney" isn't pluralized the way other words are. It probably has something to do with that unnecessary 'e'. It'd be better if we just used a plain-English word for them, "lawyer", and stopped using the stupid pretentious word "attorney". Lawyers are always trying to make themselves out like they're in some noble, respectable profession, like doctors, and they're not; they're mostly a bunch of lying dirtbags.

Re:Correction for the anal (2, Informative)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214291)

"state attorney generals" => "state attorneys general"

General is an adjective, not the noun. You pluralize the noun not the adjective.

wouldn't that be "State Attorney's General"?


No, because that would completely change the meaning of the sentence. Adding the apostrophe and then an "s" makes the word 'attorney' be possessive. Therefore, you are turning 'general' back into a noun, and saying that the attorney possesses the general.

The GP is right; the correct format would be "State Attorneys General." As he stated, 'General' is an adjective that modifies 'State Attorneys.' It's a little-used style of notation, so that's why it may seem foreign to read it that way. It's almost the same as if you were to write it like, "State Attorneys (General)."

Re:Correction for the anal (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214231)

Hey, at least they got it right the second time.

Though if you really want to make me happy, how about we drop this practice of adding exceptions to English just to satisfy the format of the language it was adopted from? Call them "General Attorneys" and "General Surgeons". I want my adjective modifiers BEFORE my nouns, dagnabbit!

myspace profile (0, Offtopic)

Pugzilla (946437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213921)

time to ctrl+c and ctrl+p another profile

Re:myspace profile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214305)

Copy and print?

Do you like archiving sex offenders' profiles?

Private offender databases (4, Insightful)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213935)

Joe Slashdot: >www.myspace.com

"You are not permited to access myspace. Your IP is on the Sentinel watchlist"

JS: WTF??? What is 'Sentinel'??? Ok, >google 'Sentinel'

"We at Google regret to inform you that you cannot access Google at this time. Your name has been flagged by the Arkansas State Outstanding Warrants Project"

JS: I've never been to Arkansas in my whole fucking life!!!! >Yahoo search

"Yahoo does not do business with people who have overdue library books"

JS: Ok, I'll ask slashdot! People there know everything. >slashdot.org

---Message from Southwestern Cable Services: Your account has been terminated. &%.,78(*...NO CARRIER ,.^$.!G*...

Re:Private offender databases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214361)

"Rapist coming - don't get raped!"

Re:Private offender databases (1)

realisticradical (969181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214567)

I'm glad the parent comment got modded insightful. If you have a common name doing linkings like this could easily create some incredible horror stories. I wonder how many stories there are out there of people being harassed because they share the name of an offender and decided to move to a new town.

Does anyone have web sites where you can search names to see if they're on an offender list? I invite everyone to search for their own name, think of it like a credit check.

leprosy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214817)

leprosy is a terrible thing...

Really mixed feelings (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213945)

This case has me ambivalent. On the one hand, what about having a Myspace account is worthy of automatic surveillance? On the other, the recidivism rates for many sex offenders are incredibly high. Also, there are often many other embarrassing restrictions already placed on their lives much closer to home where people know them. I know, it's a touchy issue, but the more you think about it, the less clean-cut it seems.

More homogeneous feelings (3, Informative)

Peter Mork (951443) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214271)

the recidivism rates for many sex offenders are incredibly high.

From the Bureau of Justice [usdoj.gov] :

  • Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
  • Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
  • Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

To me, these statistics do not indicate an "incredibly high" recidivism rate. Sure, sex offenders are more likely than non-sex offenders to commit a sex offense, but if 2.5% recidivism is high enough to justify lifetime tracking, then 1.2% (for murder!) is as well.

Re:More homogeneous feelings (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214609)

The reason that people say that the recidivism rates are high is because they've heard it repeated time and time again on TV, so it must be true because Stone Phillips said it was true. You are right, however, that statistically they are 1) a minority of offenders and 2) statistically much less likely to re-offend (or at least, unlikely to be re-arrested, though that variable would count for any previous offender).

Re:Really mixed feelings (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214277)

u-bend, your facts are indeed around the u-bend.

Sex offenders statistically have the LOWEST recidivism rates of ALL offenders. Go look it up, it's been shown time and time again.

This fact is inconvenient for various persecutions and pogroms so people choose to ignore it.

You've bought into the media frenzy. Check your facts before you post next time.

Re:Really mixed feelings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214475)

Posting anon for obvious reasons.

It's especially hard when you know an offender. While I'm not on the registry and never will be, I've known convicted sex offenders who've wanted nothing more than to make reparations for what they've done. People can change, and it's sad to see someone who wants to clean up their lives and make it up to the victims (by apologizing and staying the hell away from them) but society won't give them a chance and the laws won't let them be anonymous.

I'm not defending what these men have done, quite the opposite, but some of these men could go on to lead good lives and be a force for good in others' lives as well if we would just let them. I'm not saying we should make it easy on them, but we should at least make it possible.

Before Cletus gets his rope... (5, Informative)

Bonker (243350) | more than 7 years ago | (#19213955)

... do remember that it's never been easier to commit a sex crime that requires that you're place in a registry. Even people who get busted for 'indecent exposure' while urinating in an unwise place can end up on a sex offender registry.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/in decent.html [criminal-l...source.com]

Theoretically, you have to be trying to 'assualt' someone by exposing yourself. Of course any DA with an agenda can make certain charges stick with a plea-bargain deal, even when they might not otherwise be applicable.

How many people can afford to hire lawyers necessary to try to defend themselves in such a case? If you do try to fight it, I hope you've got a damn good Public Defender.

Re:Before Cletus gets his rope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214835)

Even people who get busted for 'indecent exposure' while urinating in an unwise place can end up on a sex offender registry.

Fortunately my small dick does not protude from my baggy pants, so I don't expose myself while urinating in public.

Problem & Solutions (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19213967)

Problem: People (children included) seek viable mates via MySpace. Prospective mates turn out to be rapists or sexual deviants.

Solution A: Don't seek mates on MySpace & teach your children common sense about acceptable human mating practices. Show your children how to safely use the internet, how to meet real people and make friends in reality instead of through a virtual layer.

Solution B: Police MySpace at the expense of everyone's (180 million) privacy.

Now, which solution is the correct one? The one that involves you being a responsible person/parent or the one that involves you infringing on a person's basic rights? If you are going to argue for the latter, first answer how they will acquire information about sex offenders without first examining everyone's behavior.

Re:Problem & Solutions (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214353)

Problem: People (children included) seek viable mates via MySpace. Prospective mates turn out to be rapists or sexual deviants.

That can be true in real life. It's not like everyone does thorough background checks on people that they date.

-b.

Age verification? (2, Insightful)

brainburger (792239) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214015)

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that not all inter-generational relationships are abusive, it's easy to prove adulthood, by demanding a credit-card check. However, how is it possible online to robustly age-verify a person as under 18?

Does anyone know if any provider has made any progress on this?

Re:Age verification? (3, Informative)

RWarrior(fobw) (448405) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214463)

> it's easy to prove adulthood, by demanding a credit-card check.

That is a defense in American statutory law, but not in practice. There are any number of outlets where anyone of any age with a sufficient amount of cash may buy a Visa gift card. [allaccessgift.com] I once sent an 8 year old to do it and he came back to me with a legally-purchased, fully working card I used to buy a subscription to a porn site.

Indeed, Visa specifically prohibits using a Visa card number as an age verification mechanism in their Rules for Merchants [visa.com] :

"The merchant must not use the account number for age verification or any purpose other than payment."

(Approximately 60% of adult industry transactions carried our by credit card on the net are carried out with Visa cards.) cite [ccbill.com]

Even if Visa permitted such a use, the merchant fees make it unworkable: Visa charges a percentage of every transaction, and the acquiring bank charges a fee as well, generally anything from a quarter to a dollar per transaction, PLUS a percentage, ranging anywhere from 2.3% to 15% of the ticket price, depending on a lot of factors they won't tell you about. This means that it simply isn't economical to use credit cards as a verification mechanism: It costs the merchant too much. To make a credit card transaction pay for itself, the merchant must make enough profit on the transaction to cover the fee, and if there's no fee, there's no profit one can use to cover the cost of the transaction, so it's a money-losing proposition.

So, right now, there is no way to effectively prove age, either adult or minor, on the internet. None.

Re:Age verification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214537)

"it's easy to prove adulthood, by demanding a credit-card check" ...because the little darlings could NEVER take Mommy and Daddy's credit card off the dresser and use it to sign up themselves, could they...?

There's no such thing as reliable verification of age or identity online, full stop. The only answer to protecting children on the Internet falls squarely in the laps of their parents. Folks, if you pop the sprog out in the first place, *you* are responsible for protecting it - and that means you don't let them on the Internet without supervision until you've taught them well enough and they've reached an appropriate age where they won't become a target for predators.

For the love of god, won't somebody *stop* forcing me to think of your children? I've chosen not to have kids (and should I ever change my mind, I'll raise them properly and with supervision). Why should I have to jump through hoops just because you felt the need to spread your seed, but couldn't be bothered to look after the result? What's next, should I have to feed and clothe your kids too because you'd rather spend the money on a new flatscreen?

You guys may have the first post here... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214021)

But I've got the first post in their database!

Validity Of "Sex Offender" (5, Interesting)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214029)

Up until the last couple of years, consensual homosexual acts have been able to put you on the sex offenders register in many states. Sex with a consenting partner, in a park, after midnight, when all children should long since be in bed - you're a sex offender. Oral sex in Utah? Mississippi's ludicrous "sex with a minor unless you can prove she was not of previously virtuous character.."? They all merit a place on the list.

I don't dispute that identifying those who prey on children may have its merits. Given the sex offender registry is a great way of stitching red letters on the chests of anyone that offends good conservative taste, that is hardly its sole effect.

Given how open to abuse the system is, how long before the MPAA figures, "Hey, there's hardcore porn on them there torrents. I wonder if we could get anyone that uses them labeled a sex offender, destroy their lives, and kill off torrents that way, without worrying about trying to prove actual piracy."?

I've never got caught having sex in public nor getting a blowjob in Utah. I also happen to be straight. Still, even if I had been caught for any of those acts, it's absolutely none of their business whether I use MySpace.

Mind you, I also grew up in England where, after the Daily Mail posted a list of 1,000 sex offenders, including some errors, a paediatrician got their house burned down. Dirty paediatricians! I hate the way they look at and touch children!

Age verification.... (2, Informative)

twigles (756194) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214037)

I enjoy reading the repeated calls for age verification on social networking sites. Never does anyone making this demand suggest a feasible solution, they just pound their shoes on the table and say, "make it happen!" Even better are the calls for requiring parental permission for minors. Think for about 30 seconds about how one might accomplish that feat. Yeah.

Re:Age verification.... (1)

dfjunior (774213) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214339)

Easy. Simply require registrants to input the RealID number from the barcode tattoo on their arm.

Sex Offenders Yawn, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214051)

and change their login from "John James Sexoffender" to "Jayjay Sexoffender". Attorneys general wonder what happened to their cunning plan.

Given the treatment... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214055)

...I've read about where people have ended up living under bridges because there's nowhere that's not too close to something, they should probably be happy they didn't get collectively banned for hanging out at the same place many young people do. While I do understand the need for protection, the US looks like the kind of place where you're so utterly, completely head-to-toe screwed that you can't possibly redeem yourself and live a honest and normal life. And I'm not talking about the babyraping kind, the kind that was drunk, horny and didn't catch the jailbait signs.

Let's Face it (-1, Flamebait)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214061)

To head off all of the "You are invading my privacy" mongrols, if you are a convicted sex offender, you have no rights... at least you shouldn't.

When you sexually violate someone, you can guarantee a life of pain and suffering for the victim. Ask a lot of them, and you'll be suprised how many wish they were murdered instead of victimized as such. I'll even go as far as calling it "torture", but that is too mild a word.

Unfortunately, I am broadly encompassing people who have sex offender status, but I honestly believe shouldn't. This includes the gay man busted with his lover, because his next door neighbor is a homophobe. The solution there isn't to be lighter on sex offenders, but rather get some sane classification where "Anal Sex" isn't lumped in with a "child molester".

Just my opinion, but I would have no problem cooking people who rape a mother or molest a child. Actually, death is too good for them.

Re:Let's Face it (2, Insightful)

Belacgod (1103921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214155)

Then why are they out of prison? These registries are populated entirely by people who should be in prison for life or worse, and by people who should never have been punished. Nobody actually belongs on these lists.

Re:Let's Face it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214517)

MMmm. Yes. Let's put everybody in prison forever. That's a really good idea.

I saw a mother actually touching a child's arse. She said she was changing its nappy. But she was enjoying it, the fiend, therefore she is a pervert.

Let's face it - there's no rationality in any of this bullshit, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with harm to children, real or supposed.

It's about the Bogeyman, the primal need to hate something.

About 40% of all adults are capable of experiencing sexual feeling towards "minors". Yes, that dear old Uncle Fred cracking a fat while nursing little Janie on his knee ... it happens a lot, folks.

I for one wanted to fuck the shit out of Tracy Lords. No-one told us she was under 18 when she did all that porn.

Re:Let's Face it (1)

Belacgod (1103921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214573)

Read what I wrote. You're responding to a strawman here.

Re:Let's Face it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214427)

"Actually, death is too good for them."

Do you beleave in forgiveness? Do you beleave harm to one person should lead to the destruction of another?

Hate by any other name is still hate.

Morally you don't appear to be too well off.

Re:Let's Face it (0, Flamebait)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214725)

Let's try a little perspective. You get a phone call at work saying your wife is in critical condition because someone on a PCP binge raped her for 6 hours and threw her out of a mooving car. You spend the next 6 months at the hospital every moment you can, while she sits as a vegetable in a coma. In the meantime, your kids are neglected, not only because you are spending what time you can with your wife, but they don't have their mother around... then she wakes up. While over the next year, through physical therapy, she gets physically better, but she doesn't talk... to you or anybody else. Most of her day is spent crying. She pulls away when you try to touch her. She can't even sleep in the same bed as you. The kids not being able to cope become deliquent. One of them starts doing heroin... and soon you learn they have HIV. Your wife eventually leaves because she can't cause you or the family anymore pain. Another kid drops out of school.

For the rest of your life, every day, you won't be able to have a moment where you feel ok. The life you had is gone. All inclination to pick up the pieces and start over is gone.

Tell me how forgiving you are going to be... how forgiving you SHOULD be?

Re:Let's Face it (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214899)

You get a phone call at work saying your wife is in critical condition because someone on a PCP binge raped her for 6 hours and threw her out of a mooving car. You spend the next 6 months at the hospital every moment you can, while she sits as a vegetable in a coma. In the meantime, your kids are neglected, not only because you are spending what time you can with your wife, but they don't have their mother around... then she wakes up. While over the next year, through physical therapy, she gets physically better, but she doesn't talk... to you or anybody else. Most of her day is spent crying. She pulls away when you try to touch her. She can't even sleep in the same bed as you.
It depends. Is his wife a sex-offender? If so, she deserves that and more!

Re:Let's Face it (0)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214855)

Just my opinion, but I would have no problem cooking people who rape a mother or molest a child. Actually, death is too good for them.

I agree, but I think it should be extended to other bad crimes like murder. We should also adopt lesser capital punishment, where only a part of a person is killed. E.g. a thief should have his hand chopped off, and DIU-offenders should have their liver removed. I saw similar laws in action when I visited Saudi Arabia, which really has a handle on crime. You could walk around freely without having to fear for thieves or beggars, and people were happy. I really think this would cut down on crime and make society a truly better place to live for our children.

I just had an evil thought (1)

Deagol (323173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214077)

Firstly, I think the whole sex offender registry thing is unworkable and misguided at best. However, if you really wanted to fuck w/ someone, just locate them [state.ut.us] (link to Utah's Sex Offender Registry search form), use tor, a few chained proxies, or a Starbuck's wifi spot, then sign up under the offender's name/address.

Hilarity will soon follow, I'm sure.

Re:I just had an evil thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214511)

Utah's Sex Offender Registry? Wonder if they track the searches? Everyone should go there and search for "Darl McBride".

Privacy.... (4, Insightful)

Kazrath (822492) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214111)

While /. usually is all for privacy in cases such as this I believe the sex offender made a choice to give up their privacy as soon as they performed the criminal act.

Unfortunately there are numerous cases that have caused a person to be labeled as a "sex offender" that should have never occurred. In some cases children (People under 18) have been convicted of child molestation. Or parents who take pictures of their children in the tub have been arrested for child pornography. Right now the major issue is that laws designed to protect children can be used against children.

I don't remember if it was on /. or somewhere else but I do remember reading a very heated discussion about sex offenders recently.

 

"Sex Offender" is such a broad term... (1)

HullBreachOnline.com (1104555) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214439)

...that it covers half the MySpace population. Don't the majority of people use MySpace for getting sex? Being a /.er, I wouldn't know. Also, being married, I don't know much about sex these days.

YOU FAIQL IT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214173)

and build1ng is

Errr... (1)

omgamibig (977963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214197)

How does Myspace get those informations?

Sort of fitting (1)

madsheep (984404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214219)

Well the first response above is one of my own reactions. How hard is it to just use fake information? How exactly are they narrowing down sex offenders on MySpace? Then I realized that most sex offenders are morons and this probably would nab them. Then again what happens to people in the same general area that have the same or a similar name? I am a little confused as to what this will prove. How do you know the MySpace account wasn't setup as someone pretending to be the sex offender trying to get them in trouble? There seems to be a lot of murky areas here.

Not morons (1)

geek (5680) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214663)

Most child molesters / sex offenders are actually quite intelligent. They setup and exploit national as well as international rings to share photos etc. They commit their crimes dozens, sometimes hundreds of times under the radar without being caught. Never ever dismiss them as morons. They are often the hardest criminals to catch and furthermore convict. The worst ones are also the best at the manipulation, not just of children, but of the justice system.

Case in point, the Catholic churches issues with sex offenders. They masterfully manipulated an entire international religious organization and continue to do so to this day. It takes a lot of resources to deal with these people and it takes a huge emotional toll on the people who do it for a living.

Re:Sort of fitting (1)

budword (680846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214887)

Most sex offenders who GET CAUGHT are morons. There are far more who are never even suspected. I worked with a sex offender (as his minder, sort of). I had to attend some of his group sessions. Nearly 100% of CAUGHT sex offenders in this county were borderline retarded or worse. These people only get CAUGHT because they are even more brutally stupid than the police. The brighter ones never get caught. Myspace might be able to find these already caught already verified brutally stupid sex offenders, but the ones we need to worry about won't even spike the radar this way. More power to them. And for the people who claim this is a violation of the sex offender rights, they almost always agree to some sort of supervison, as a condition of their release. You lose certain rights when you are convicted of a crime. (Right to vote, in many states, for one, there are many others.) I have no problem with privacy being one of them, for convicted felons.

Oh boy... (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214303)

I read this and I'm wondering what this will be used for first, catching the pedos or target marketing to them.

Bleargh...Twitch...ATTORNEYS GENERAL!!! (3, Informative)

W. Justice Black (11445) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214341)

The summary has both "attorney generals" and "attorneys general." Does anyone care to hazard a guess as to which one is correct? The word "general" describes the attorneys--it's "general" the adjective, not the noun.

That and "son of a bitches." Bah. It's SONS OF A BITCH or SONS OF BITCHES (depending on the number of dogs involved). Our science isn't advanced enough to generate one son from more than one female dog, damn it!

This could be interesting. (5, Informative)

Evil Poot Cat (69870) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214459)

And since Georgia is one of the states mentioned in this article, let's observe that Genarlow Wilson is still in prison, http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php [wilsonappeal.com] , and will be on one of these lists in about 8 years when he gets out. Not bad, for getting a blow job from a 15 year old when you're 17.

re: This could be interesting (1)

Evil Poot Cat (69870) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214497)

Crap...mispost. The interesting part would be testing for login and/or message patterns, by offender type and profile (as generated from the offender pool).

Re:This could be interesting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214923)

Let me guess. He got a blwjob from 15 year-old, white and rich cheek :O) and her parents found out... didn't I seen this already in some movie.

Well, I'm with the "this is stupid" camp. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214643)

The vast majority of sex offenders will not reoffend. Out of thos ewho will reoofend, the vast majority are not going to put anyone at risk by using MySpace. In fact, most sex offenders commit offence against people they already know. Many people who are on the list committed very minor crimes, or had sex with someone a couple of months younger than them when they were teens, or even are simply considered to be at risk of committing a sexual offence.

On the other hand, any sex offender who has never been caught or convicted will be able to use MySpace with impunity.

catholic church devastated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19214773)

priests everywhere delete their myspace accounts

witch hunts not helpful (5, Insightful)

hherb (229558) | more than 7 years ago | (#19214833)

I am a doctor who has some "sex offenders" among my patients. They range from rapists and paedophiles to people who harmed nobody but those with a narrow religiously based world view (eg people having sex in a public place without intent of being discovered, like in a bush after dark in a park).

I define sex offenders as people who cause grief to others through non-consensual acts.

However, U.S. legislation has a much broader view on this, depending on state - in some states the term includes virtually everybody who doesn't fit into a very narrow minded strongly religiously biased cultural view.

My first observation would be that very different people are lumped together under the same tag, a tag which will cause suffering way beyond whatever suffering they may or may not have caused to others.

We all remember the case of a female teacher having had consensual sex with a physically fully developed but legally under age boy. She was convicted as a sex offender, put to jail, and after she was released, the boy married her. Who has suffered here? The boy? Obviously not. He said so, and he demonstrated it by marrying her after she was released from prison. Only he woman suffered grievously under the assault by the legal system, and will probably suffer from the consequences of the conviction and the label of "sex offender" the rest of her life. To what avail? Just to have satisfied the puritan narrow minded views of a few judges and religious zealots.

Plenty of legal cases, mostly from the US, going along similar lines.

The point is that a number of people are deprived of their constitutional and basic human rights. While I agree that in some extreme cases this might be necessary in order to defend others, in the majority of people who are tagged with the label of "sex offender"this is definitely not the case.

The US judicial system is increasingly mutating from a system designed to protect people into a system to enforce the narrow world view of a few zealots; a system that cannot even be reconciled with the constitution.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?