Registered sex offender and social networking websites

[Armed Citizen]

I read a story online today that the Indiana ACLU is contending that prohibiting registered sex offenders the use of social networking websites is a violation of the sex offenders 1st amendment. They also claim that there are existing laws in Indiana that makes it a crime to use the internet to prey on children for the purpose of sexual gratification.

IMO - one of the lowest forms of life is a person that sexually assults a child. There is no excuse for this and they should not have access to children, live next to them, live near a school, have access to the internet or anything. I think they should be branded on their foreheads "SEXUAL PREDATOR" so the whole world can see them for exactly what they are, SCUM OF THE EARTH!!! Once again, it seems like victims have no rights, who cares if their 1st amendment rights are violated, they did not care about their young victims when they were violating them.

I check online each month to see if there are any sexual predators residing near my home. I have three that live within a mile of my home.

Not trying to sound like a keyboard commando here, just stating the cold hard facts, if any of my 4 children were ever sexually assulted by one of these scum, there would be no need for a trial for them, they would not be around for that, I would NOT even waste the tax payers money or the court's time. "Yes, Your Honor, I did and I would do it again"

Sorry, I had to vent my frustrations.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As I said here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ussion/216656-free_speech_under_attack-2.html

The point at issue is that those who would deprive us of rights will pick the target least likely to inspire public sympathy and hold that person up as the 'justification' for truncating or effectively eliminating such rights as in this case free speech, or using a drug dealer who got away after an improper search as the justification to trash the Fourth Amendment.

The threat I see here is that once it becomes a thoroughly-accepted practice to deprive selected groups of rights on account of real or perceived deviate conduct, using those least likely to generate public sympathy as the poster children for the power grab, then there is a strong likelihood that it will follow that most people other than the 'special ones' will be demarcated as 'deviate' persons and therefore relegated to second-class or third-class citizenship for life, even for petty offenses like traffic tickets at some point in the future--you know, the same way that your Second Amendment rights can be eliminated for a completely non-violent felony.

 

[Kutnupe14]

IndyDave is spot on. The Constitution makes no exceptions regardless of how despicable a person is. One must also keep in mind that a person convicted of a sex offense, isn't solely combined to children. Prior to the "Romeo Juliet" law just passed recently, an 18 that had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend would be a sex offender.

 

[rambone]

.... SCUM OF THE EARTH!!! Once again, it seems like victims have no rights, who cares if their 1st amendment rights are violated, they did not care about their young victims when they were violating them.

The point is that rights are not "given" and "taken away".

Encouraging restrictions on speech and intrusive internet policing weapens the 1st Amendment for all of us.

I side with the ACLU as it fights back against big, intrusive government regulations. Its a feel-good concept, impossible to enforce.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I suppose that I should have addressed the issue of how little I care for molesters. My shotgun doesn't like them very well, either. Still, allowing the .gov to use them as a tool to set the rest of us up is at best very unwise.

 

[Benny]

IndyDave is spot on. The Constitution makes no exceptions regardless of how despicable a person is. One must also keep in mind that a person convicted of a sex offense, isn't solely combined to children. Prior to the "Romeo Juliet" law just passed recently, an 18 that had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend would be a sex offender.

If child molesters (I'm talking about video evidence/DNA evidence where there is zero doubt they are guilty) were just shot and killed as soon as they are convicted, this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If child molesters (I'm talking about video evidence/DNA evidence where there is zero doubt they are guilty) were just shot and killed as soon as they are convicted, this wouldn't be a problem.

Indeed, back in the 'good old days' in which such a person's boots would mysteriously appear in a hog lot with no feet in them...

It works for me!

 

[Benny]

Indeed, back in the 'good old days' in which such a person's boots would mysteriously appear in a hog lot with no feet in them...

It works for me!

Hell yeah, that's even better. Farmers can put in their bid for cheap hog chow in advance. No need to even waste the lead, just let that sack of **** get eaten alive.

Again, that is only for cases where we know for a fact that they are guilty...Accidentally putting an innocent man to death via hogs would not be cool.

 

[Sylvain]

I dont think that the registered ones are the most dangerous and that you shouldn't focus too much on them and watch them.
They probably dont do it again after they are being caught the first time and since they know they are being watched.
The ones that live next door and who never got caught, or never acted yet are way more dangerous I think.

 

[canav844]

The thing here is that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by the creator to all men, created equally. They have the right to free speech, they have the right to not be punished unusually or tortured. Just because they denied rights to others, doesn't mean we should be able to necessarily justify denying them natural human rights.

Now Congress cannot pass ex post facto laws, when Smith V Doe came up on this very topic, the SCOTUS said that it was ok, because they felt that making them register and be labeled and have their neighbors know what they did and take extra actions to continually update the state was non-punitive.

Now my personal opinion is, if what they did makes them, predator and scum and so evil, then it's something that need to be taken care of in the courtroom at sentencing; not after these people are already sentenced, not after they've served their time and been set free of the prison system, not after their right to appeal is now a lawsuit and not a continuation of their criminal proceedings. If the person is such a danger to society that they need to register, then why were they not sentenced according, or released on probation/parole? If they're not so dangerous that they don't need to be locked up then why have them register? If it's something that's a result of mental issues, why not commit them to a treatment facility? Cant tell how long it'll take for them to not be dangerous, set a minimum sentence then use indeterminate sentencing after that, and allow the parole board to determine the level of danger the offender presents to the public upon release. That list is no more effective than patting down grandma at the airport, while the TSA guy waves the drug runner through the look through your clothes machine; it's basically kept up on the honors system unless they have interaction with the offender and catch that he's missed an update, it doesn't stop them from going about their neighborhood or other places they aren't allowed, and LE doesn't have the time to monitor everyone on the list 24/7 so until they're caught, it does no good and when they're caught it's usually too late. But that list makes soccer moms feel safe when they see the subdivision they're buying a house in has no little squares in it. It also categorically reduces people to a label, then discriminates against them after the completion of their jail/prison term.

I'd rather see a judge impose it as a condition of release at sentencing for those whom the stipulation would be reasonable measure in preventing the recurrence of the crime, based upon initial actions by the individual, that a jury convicted on, that may eventually grow to have supporting case law; than a blanket after the fact regulation, because in hindsight the government found a means to take more rights from it's populous.

 

[ATOMonkey]

People love a class society and an aristocracy.

I'm surprised the republic has lasted as long as it has.

 

[JoshuaW]

If they have "served their time", then we are in no position to restrict their rights. If they are still a "threat", then they should not be integrated back into society. That is the problem, and the solution is not to withhold rights, but instead to strengthen the punishment for the crime.

 

[mrjarrell]

Just because someone is on the sex offenders registry doesn't mean they molested or harmed a kid in any way, shape or form. I've looked at my local one and only one of the guys on there was a child molester. The rest of them weren't child related, (as far as could be told by what they were convicted of). There's a lot of jumping to conclusions here. As others have stated already, if they've served their time then they should be allowed to come back into society will all their Rights intact and restored.

 

[JettaKnight]

.... I think they should be branded on their foreheads "SEXUAL PREDATOR" so the whole world can see them for exactly what they are, SCUM OF THE EARTH!!! Once again, it seems like victims have no rights, who cares if their 1st amendment rights are violated, they did not care about their young victims when they were violating them.

And they should be concentrated together in small zones and not given any contact other people so all they have to do is sit together and think of molesting their next victim!

There's a fine line between protecting freedom and protecting the public. I for one, don't know where that line should be drawn, but examining a issue from all sides is a start.

I've played enough online gaming to know there's children (they're the ones whoopin' me), but I also know that there's not a lot of chatter and anything close to, "Hey, what RU wearin" won't get you anywhere but banned. Seems to me to be more feelgood legislation with no proof that it's based on any anecdotal or statistical evidence and no proof that it fixes anything. But hey, it's an election year.

 

[mcolford]

I dont think that the registered ones are the most dangerous and that you shouldn't focus too much on them and watch them.
They probably dont do it again after they are being caught the first time and since they know they are being watched.
The ones that live next door and who never got caught, or never acted yet are way more dangerous I think.

WRONG!

There was one that lived accross the street from my inlaws.... I watched that S.O.B. every time we were over there... As I didnt want him even looking at my little girl (and NO I dont care about his alleged rights).. He is up on FEDERAL charges of Child Porn and soforth, thus making him a REPEAT OFFENDER!

Once a child molester, always one. I deal with them EVERY DAY at work... They are dangerous, and dont care about anything but feeding their sick, disgusting desire. As far as Im concerned, they should be shipped to an undisclosed location, where not even the crows can land their droppings.


-MColford

 

[JWAS]

CANAV844

AWESOME POINTS!!!!!!!!!

One thing that is showing promise regarding the questions you were asking is restortative justice and reintegrative shaming (sorry, RJ and RS were my focus in college [if i could post my capstone about them and their use on high risk sex offenders i would])

MCOLFORD
-Wow... I understand protecting your family.... but if your comment isnt solely based on labels and stereotypes with little to no evidence (besides you reading someones crimes, and working with a few of them [and labeling them as well]) then I dont know what is. considering the vast majority of sex offenders do not recidivate (about 80% do not do anything again after being punished).

 

[mcolford]

CANAV844

AWESOME POINTS!!!!!!!!!

One thing that is showing promise regarding the questions you were asking is restortative justice and reintegrative shaming (sorry, RJ and RS were my focus in college [if i could post my capstone about them and their use on high risk sex offenders i would])

MCOLFORD
-Wow... I understand protecting your family.... but if your comment isnt solely based on labels and stereotypes with little to no evidence (besides you reading someones crimes, and working with a few of them [and labeling them as well]) then I dont know what is. considering the vast majority of sex offenders do not recidivate (about 80% do not do anything again after being punished).

Maybe if you did my job for a couple years and dealt with them, you would understand my views. Until you DO my job, you wont understand it. Its that simple.I know a few folks that have made that list. To date one person out of my class was caught molesting his YOUNG niece, one guy I looked up to when I was younger was busted for some of his actions... I could keep going, but I wont. These two that I listed are folks that you would NEVER suspect, as their personality would lead you to believe they are amazing folks that would do anything to help anyone. I have talked to both since they got out. They seem the same to me personality wise. I dont trust them, its that simple. I also have a couple friends that were victims. That is something they will forever live with. You can send them to counseling and what-have-you, but THEY DONT FORGET!


So to give an offender the chance in hell to possibly offend again is stupid.

 

[JWAS]

I work at a behavioral health care clinic and DO deal with them daily on a clinical level... as well as other criminals.... The main program I work on deals with getting inmates who are being released into the community treatment and help them find jobs/or means to make sure the do not recidivate. So yes, i do understand, but again, we cannot label people and punish them just because of our own personal experiences/opinions about them without facts to back those opinions. Just because "a lot" of people you know are sex offenders doesnt mean they all are the same, that's labeling them all and using a stereotype to define them all, which is what I said to begin with. PS- therapy is not there to help forget something, it is there to help someone no longer dwell on the experience, to become better than that, to let them live their life as a "normal" person, to just make them stronger and empower themselves.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Be careful not to get derailed from the point which actually matters, which has nothing to do with any particular crime, sexual or otherwise. The point at issus is that dangerous people should not be roaming the streets. They should either be incarcerated or else buried and forgotten. Those who are freely roaming should not have any encroachments on their rights in the name of public safety, the children, or anything. If they are that dangerous, again, they should be either locked up or dead. The problem which will necessarily follow if we continue to allow the rights of some free people to be truncated is that most people will eventually become demarcated as restricted/improper/second-class individuals in which we will have a small elite with something along the lines of the rights to which we are accustomed as citgizens while the remaining majority of us will be demoted to subjects with progressively fewer rights until the point comes at which we can no longer be said to have any rights whatsoever. Be careful what you wish for, even it truly righteous indignation.

 

[strahd71]

part of the problem is the definition of "sex offender" is the 18 year old who bangs his 17 year old girl friend on his 18th birthday? yesterday it was legal? the guy who goes streaking at the football game while a douche bag is now labeled sex offender. is he really a threat? also there is no differentiation between types of sex offenders. we naturally assume a sex offender on the registry is a child molester but it could be any kind of sexual miss conduct, i've even heard of guys getting taking a **** in public ending up on the registry. just like felons not being allowed fire arms is not a one size fit all ruling neither is this.

now child molesters where there is absolute proof should be dead and there shouldnt be any worrys about them and facebook, for the rest tho we need to fix the system and the definitions and go from there first and then figure out what to do. ultimately i agree that if someone who can not be fully released back into society and trusted shouldnt be released.

jake