Posting convicted sex offenders' pictures on internet...
boingo82
03-05-2003, 11:33 PM
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states can post sex offenders? photos and other personal information on the Internet, a step the states say is aimed at protecting people from criminals living nearby.
In a key first test of ?Megan?s law? provisions that are on the books in every state, the justices said sex-offender registries are not an unconstitutional extra punishment for offenders who already have served their sentences.
?The publicity may cause adverse consequences for the convicted defendants, running from mild personal embarrassment to social ostracism,? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 6-3 decision.
But the laws are intended, he said, ?to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender.?
About 35 states have Internet listings now, most of them featuring pictures, and the court?s ruling may encourage more.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a dissent joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, said listing people as registered sex offenders ?calls to mind shaming punishments once used to mark an offender as someone to be shunned,? like branding a murderer with the letter ?M.?
Kennedy compared the Internet listings to paperwork being kept in a government office, but said it is just more easily accessible. Kennedy said it was not like requiring ?an offender to appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality.?
The contested Alaska registry puts offenders? pictures on the Web along with information about where they live and work and what kind of car they drive. Repeat offenders must report to police every 90 days, notifying authorities when they grow a beard or change their appearance.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who provided the third vote against Alaska?s law, said offenders have lost their jobs, their homes and been threatened after being listed. He said the law wrongly punishes people who served prison time for sex crimes before the Alaska registration law was passed.
In a separate case, the court rejected a challenge from sex offenders who argued they deserved a chance to prove they are not dangerous in order to avoid being put in the registries.
The court ruled 9-0 that Connecticut did not have to hold separate hearings to determine the risk posed by sex criminals who have completed their prison sentences before putting them in a registry. That state?s Web site says officials have not determined if any of the offenders are dangerous.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states can post sex offenders? photos and other personal information on the Internet, a step the states say is aimed at protecting people from criminals living nearby.
In a key first test of ?Megan?s law? provisions that are on the books in every state, the justices said sex-offender registries are not an unconstitutional extra punishment for offenders who already have served their sentences.
?The publicity may cause adverse consequences for the convicted defendants, running from mild personal embarrassment to social ostracism,? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 6-3 decision.
But the laws are intended, he said, ?to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender.?
About 35 states have Internet listings now, most of them featuring pictures, and the court?s ruling may encourage more.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a dissent joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, said listing people as registered sex offenders ?calls to mind shaming punishments once used to mark an offender as someone to be shunned,? like branding a murderer with the letter ?M.?
Kennedy compared the Internet listings to paperwork being kept in a government office, but said it is just more easily accessible. Kennedy said it was not like requiring ?an offender to appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality.?
The contested Alaska registry puts offenders? pictures on the Web along with information about where they live and work and what kind of car they drive. Repeat offenders must report to police every 90 days, notifying authorities when they grow a beard or change their appearance.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who provided the third vote against Alaska?s law, said offenders have lost their jobs, their homes and been threatened after being listed. He said the law wrongly punishes people who served prison time for sex crimes before the Alaska registration law was passed.
In a separate case, the court rejected a challenge from sex offenders who argued they deserved a chance to prove they are not dangerous in order to avoid being put in the registries.
The court ruled 9-0 that Connecticut did not have to hold separate hearings to determine the risk posed by sex criminals who have completed their prison sentences before putting them in a registry. That state?s Web site says officials have not determined if any of the offenders are dangerous.
tonioseven
03-06-2003, 03:08 PM
As a father, I feel I should know about the perverts in my neighborhood! There's one about 3 blocks from my home and I found out about it through a website that lists such information. I will torture anyone that comes near my children with any malevolent intent whatsoever. I also work in a facility with juvenile sex offenders and although I'm not allowed to discuss details, you too would want to know the whereabouts of any sex offenders in your area if you knew what I know! :grey:
Jay!
03-06-2003, 03:13 PM
Was just discussing this last night, as someone left a flyer no my windshield about one in my area.
IMO, if they're released from prison, but branded for life as a sex offender, they're really never going to be able to maintain a normal life again. The treatment they'll recieve from society would easily qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
If nobody in society will let them have any rights after they've served their sentences, they should just keep them jailed forever. To that end, these people should work toward changing the law to mandate longer prison terms, rather than work on making sure ex-cons' lives stay ruined.
'Rehabilitation' is hard enough to judge. Nevermind the fact it's not even the goal of the U.S. prison system anymore. Even if a person really were rehabilitated, no one in our society would believe they were, anyway.
edit: for the record, I voted no in the poll, because i generally believe that criminals, once released, should at least have a chance at regaining a normal life, and said branding will never allow that. That said, when I'm a parent, you can believe that I'll be checking those lists...
IMO, if they're released from prison, but branded for life as a sex offender, they're really never going to be able to maintain a normal life again. The treatment they'll recieve from society would easily qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
If nobody in society will let them have any rights after they've served their sentences, they should just keep them jailed forever. To that end, these people should work toward changing the law to mandate longer prison terms, rather than work on making sure ex-cons' lives stay ruined.
'Rehabilitation' is hard enough to judge. Nevermind the fact it's not even the goal of the U.S. prison system anymore. Even if a person really were rehabilitated, no one in our society would believe they were, anyway.
edit: for the record, I voted no in the poll, because i generally believe that criminals, once released, should at least have a chance at regaining a normal life, and said branding will never allow that. That said, when I'm a parent, you can believe that I'll be checking those lists...
SiRI
03-06-2003, 05:30 PM
Though one, i'd think that they will have served their time in jail, so why ruin their life forever? But the public does have their rights to know so they can protect themselfs and/or their kids & family.
taranaki
03-06-2003, 06:22 PM
As far as my own feelings go,I would be deeply concerned if a convicted sex offender were allowed to settle in my neighbourhood.I can't see any situation where it would be appropriate to let offenders loose in the community,in much the same way as I feel that there is any place in society for aggressive dogs.Once these sick people have done their time, they need to be moved to a heavily supervised environment where contact with children is as minimal as humanly possible.I do not believe that jail time can ever pay fully for crimes of this nature,and have no qualms about sentencing them to a lifetime of controlled contact with society.
GTStang
03-06-2003, 06:38 PM
Wow!, this is a tough question... I feel that these flyers and websites etc.., are wrong. Someone who is released from jail or mental institutioin etc.., after thier time served is suppose to be rehabilitated. And once someone has served thier time and paid thier debt to scoiety they should be allowed to move on in thier live and not be branded for life.
I think that sex offendors should not be released until the system feels they are truly rehabilitated. Not just when there time is up. I don't care if they never are and spend the rest of thier life in jail. Even after they are released someone should monitor them closely for a period of time. I don't feel these people should go unchecked and just released blindly but they way things are right now I feel is unconstitutional.
I think that sex offendors should not be released until the system feels they are truly rehabilitated. Not just when there time is up. I don't care if they never are and spend the rest of thier life in jail. Even after they are released someone should monitor them closely for a period of time. I don't feel these people should go unchecked and just released blindly but they way things are right now I feel is unconstitutional.
taranaki
03-06-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by GTStang
I don't feel these people should go unchecked and just released blindly but they way things are right now I feel is unconstitutional.
And where does your constitution stand on the rights of children?If the choice has to be made,I'd favour the rights of children over those of perverts anytime.
I don't feel these people should go unchecked and just released blindly but they way things are right now I feel is unconstitutional.
And where does your constitution stand on the rights of children?If the choice has to be made,I'd favour the rights of children over those of perverts anytime.
KatWoman
03-06-2003, 07:36 PM
I fully agree with the info being made public. Some may say "hey they served their time leave them alone...it's cruel and unusual punishment to keep tarnishing their reputation." BUT what is it not cruel and ununusal to the victim to have to go thru that and be mentally scarred for life?? There is a relative in my family who was hurt by someone in this manner along with another child who was supposed to be watched by the girlfriend of the offender. She went off to do her own thing while the b/f did his "own thing". He hurt, he threatened and he intimidated. No child should ever have to face such a thing. It hurt me to see the "issues" this relative had after this had gone on. Those kinds of scars do not go away. My feeling is that if you are such a lowlife to do this to a child, a woman or any person for that matter, no matter what their age, gender, mental condition etc...you deserve to be branded and deserve to NOT have normal interaction with society.
If I had it my way, this guy that hurt my relative would have gotten battery acid injected straight into his weiner...that would teach him, not to mention prevent him from having the urge to do this again :devil:
If I had it my way, this guy that hurt my relative would have gotten battery acid injected straight into his weiner...that would teach him, not to mention prevent him from having the urge to do this again :devil:
speediva
03-06-2003, 07:39 PM
Do it. They should have considered that the sexual offense is wrong in the first place. If they didn't know it was wrong, they are mentally ill, and need to be institutionalized. Jail time isn't necessarily going to change a person. Behavior adjustment is not an easy task. I'd want to know if someone was a violent offender in my neighborhood.
Jay!
03-06-2003, 08:00 PM
I want to simplify my position.
I don't think the government shoud publish private information about any free citizen.
I don't think a particular sets of criminals should ever be set free.
The current situation of releasing said criminals and then publishing their private information is offensive to me on both counts.
I don't think the government shoud publish private information about any free citizen.
I don't think a particular sets of criminals should ever be set free.
The current situation of releasing said criminals and then publishing their private information is offensive to me on both counts.
MaximusGTR
03-06-2003, 08:18 PM
Sex offenders are fagots, why would you want to touch a child anyway? No Pu@#y getting bastards in my opinion. I would like to kick any sex offenders ass if I had the chance. What the hell were they thinking?:mad:
Jay!
03-06-2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by MaximusGTR
Sex offenders are fagots, why would you want to touch a child anyway? No Pu@#y getting bastards in my opinion. I would like to kick any sex offenders ass if I had the chance. What the hell were they thinking?:mad: Do you realize that if an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, who may well be peers in school, etc., were to have sex, the parents of the 17-year-old could charge the 18-year-old with stautory rape, and if convicted, said 18-year-old would be classified as a sex offender for the rest of their life.
An extreme example, I know, but you are talking about a broad group of people...
BTW, the registry here in CA ain't fer crap... They recently admitted they've lost contact with almost half of them...from Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02242003/utah/32389.asp)
...The Associated Press reported that 44 percent of California's sex offenders were unaccounted for.
Sex offenders are fagots, why would you want to touch a child anyway? No Pu@#y getting bastards in my opinion. I would like to kick any sex offenders ass if I had the chance. What the hell were they thinking?:mad: Do you realize that if an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, who may well be peers in school, etc., were to have sex, the parents of the 17-year-old could charge the 18-year-old with stautory rape, and if convicted, said 18-year-old would be classified as a sex offender for the rest of their life.
An extreme example, I know, but you are talking about a broad group of people...
BTW, the registry here in CA ain't fer crap... They recently admitted they've lost contact with almost half of them...from Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02242003/utah/32389.asp)
...The Associated Press reported that 44 percent of California's sex offenders were unaccounted for.
boingo82
03-06-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by MaximusGTR
Sex offenders are fagots...
On the contrary, statistics show that most sex offenders identify as "heterosexual".
My take on the issue, is that yes, it is unconstitutional to publish this kind of info on the internet.
However, in light of the type of crimes these people committ, I don't think they deserve basic human rights.
Sex crimes can effectively destroy another person's life...most strippers and prostitutes were sexually abused as children and are unable to feel self-worth above and beyond their value as a sexual object.
The bottom line is that pedophiles can control their urges just as well as anyone else. Yes, they may be attracted to children...but then a lot of the men here have admitted to wanting a coworker or friend..but that doesn't mean you kidnap and rape them. I was reading a Dan Savage column.. (http://www.thestranger.com/2002-09-26/savage.html) (he's a sex columnist) and someone wrote in, saying that they'd always been sexually attracted to children, since day one. However, knowing that their attraction was wrong, and not wanting to destroy another person's life, the writer had never allowed themselves to be in a situation alone with a child. I thought it admirable.
We all have urges to do things that are illegal or immoral..whether it be shoplift, vandalize, etc., but most of us don't, whether it's because of conscience or consequences. As for the people who prefer immediate gratification at the expense of others, I'd like to know who they are, or better yet, to have them exiled where they can torture each other.
Sex offenders are fagots...
On the contrary, statistics show that most sex offenders identify as "heterosexual".
My take on the issue, is that yes, it is unconstitutional to publish this kind of info on the internet.
However, in light of the type of crimes these people committ, I don't think they deserve basic human rights.
Sex crimes can effectively destroy another person's life...most strippers and prostitutes were sexually abused as children and are unable to feel self-worth above and beyond their value as a sexual object.
The bottom line is that pedophiles can control their urges just as well as anyone else. Yes, they may be attracted to children...but then a lot of the men here have admitted to wanting a coworker or friend..but that doesn't mean you kidnap and rape them. I was reading a Dan Savage column.. (http://www.thestranger.com/2002-09-26/savage.html) (he's a sex columnist) and someone wrote in, saying that they'd always been sexually attracted to children, since day one. However, knowing that their attraction was wrong, and not wanting to destroy another person's life, the writer had never allowed themselves to be in a situation alone with a child. I thought it admirable.
We all have urges to do things that are illegal or immoral..whether it be shoplift, vandalize, etc., but most of us don't, whether it's because of conscience or consequences. As for the people who prefer immediate gratification at the expense of others, I'd like to know who they are, or better yet, to have them exiled where they can torture each other.
boingo82
03-06-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by jay@af
My understanding of the law, (at least in Utah) is that in addition to one party being underage, there has to be at least 3 years between their ages in order for a crime to have been committed.
My understanding of the law, (at least in Utah) is that in addition to one party being underage, there has to be at least 3 years between their ages in order for a crime to have been committed.
Jay!
03-06-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by boingo82
My understanding of the law, (at least in Utah) is that in addition to one party being underage, there has to be at least 3 years between their ages in order for a crime to have been committed. The sources I've looked at (at least for California) don't seem to make any mention of age other than Minor < 18 years old.
My understanding of the law, (at least in Utah) is that in addition to one party being underage, there has to be at least 3 years between their ages in order for a crime to have been committed. The sources I've looked at (at least for California) don't seem to make any mention of age other than Minor < 18 years old.
Shortbus
03-06-2003, 09:35 PM
I'm all for it once a criminal always a criminal.
Sex offender's are tracked here.
http://www.azsexoffender.com/
Being young and stupid is overrated, if the girl says no it means no.
Sex offender's are tracked here.
http://www.azsexoffender.com/
Being young and stupid is overrated, if the girl says no it means no.
"Pandamonium"
03-06-2003, 10:19 PM
You forgot to put "Sex offenders in my Gun sights"
The Panda hates sex offenders!!!
:aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2:
The Panda hates sex offenders!!!
:aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2: :aug2:
Jay!
03-07-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by John
Being young and stupid is overrated, if the girl says no it means no. Not sure if you're refering to my example, but charges for stautory rape can involve consentual sex. No one says 'no,' and they can still get in trouble.
Being young and stupid is overrated, if the girl says no it means no. Not sure if you're refering to my example, but charges for stautory rape can involve consentual sex. No one says 'no,' and they can still get in trouble.
Purpura Delujo
03-07-2003, 03:46 PM
I always thought that most sex offenders were men who "liked" young boys. I think the majority of them are? What the hell are they doing? If anyone has voted no in that poll, they need some help as to why they should of said yes. If you were a parent living in a new neighbourhood you wouldn't know much about the area and you'd want to know if it was save for your kids. I'm not even a parent and I think if any of my kids were sexually abused by someone around my age as a parent(30+) I would literally kick their arse! I would want to kill!
Why can't they go back to the old days when people used to throw rocks and fruit at criminals? That would be fun, teach the bastards for disrespecting a young girls/boys life.
Why can't they go back to the old days when people used to throw rocks and fruit at criminals? That would be fun, teach the bastards for disrespecting a young girls/boys life.
Jay!
03-07-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Lowryda
If anyone has voted no in that poll, they need some help as to why they should of said yes.I'm the one who voted 'no.' Did you read why?
If anyone has voted no in that poll, they need some help as to why they should of said yes.I'm the one who voted 'no.' Did you read why?
Purpura Delujo
03-07-2003, 04:20 PM
Yeah ok thats understandable. But what will follow if they don't "Regain a normal life" Would you then vote yes? Because they did the same crime twice? Even after they were given a second chance? I think if any major crimes are commited by anyone they should be jailed for life or put in a detention camp, something like that. Even sexual abuse on a child can chage their life forever, so why not change the offenders life aswell so he/she knows what its like for the little kid they mentally scared for life.
boingo82
03-07-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Lowryda
I always thought that most sex offenders were men who "liked" young boys. I think the majority of them are?...
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/sexoff/sexoff.html
* In 1994 victims reported about 1 rape/sexual assault victimization of a female victim for every 270 females in the general population; for males, the rate was substantially lower, with about 1 rape/sexual assault of a male victim for every 5,000 male residents age 12 or older.
* Per capita rates of rape/sexual assault were found to be highest among residents age 16 to 19, low-income residents, and urban residents. There were no significant differences in the rate of rape/sexual assault among racial groups.
* Overall, an estimated 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of the offenders they described in single-victim incidents were male.
The vast, vast majority of sexual assault victims are females, so your statement is incorrect. On a national scale very few sex offenders are men who "like young boys".
I always thought that most sex offenders were men who "liked" young boys. I think the majority of them are?...
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/sexoff/sexoff.html
* In 1994 victims reported about 1 rape/sexual assault victimization of a female victim for every 270 females in the general population; for males, the rate was substantially lower, with about 1 rape/sexual assault of a male victim for every 5,000 male residents age 12 or older.
* Per capita rates of rape/sexual assault were found to be highest among residents age 16 to 19, low-income residents, and urban residents. There were no significant differences in the rate of rape/sexual assault among racial groups.
* Overall, an estimated 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of the offenders they described in single-victim incidents were male.
The vast, vast majority of sexual assault victims are females, so your statement is incorrect. On a national scale very few sex offenders are men who "like young boys".
jcrx
03-07-2003, 07:25 PM
I actually like the branding on the forehead Idea.When the molester decided to molest,he said "I don't want any human rights anymore",since he stripped a child of theirs.Child abusers should not only be tracked and publicly displayed for the scum that they are,but made to publicly apologize on national T.V. for their crimes.
MaximusGTR
03-08-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by jcrx
I actually like the branding on the forehead Idea.When the molester decided to molest,he said "I don't want any human rights anymore",since he stripped a child of theirs.Child abusers should not only be tracked and publicly displayed for the scum that they are,but made to publicly apologize on national T.V. for their crimes.
Now that I agree on, Nobody is sorry for raping a child NOBODY... People do it thinking they won't get caught so I agree on the branding issue
I actually like the branding on the forehead Idea.When the molester decided to molest,he said "I don't want any human rights anymore",since he stripped a child of theirs.Child abusers should not only be tracked and publicly displayed for the scum that they are,but made to publicly apologize on national T.V. for their crimes.
Now that I agree on, Nobody is sorry for raping a child NOBODY... People do it thinking they won't get caught so I agree on the branding issue
GTStang
03-11-2003, 01:08 AM
I postd before that this sex offendor posting shit was voilating these peoples rights. I also said the system is flawed and the need to change it. And for all of you who are so in love with this posting of sex offendors. I hope you know it doesn't do all the great of a job. Over 70% of these sex offendors who have been posted have gone and found a way to do it agian. So you can have your false sense of security. I was accused of not caring about the rights of the victims. I say if you really cared you would look for a real solution. Not be in love with something that doesn't work!
Jimster
03-11-2003, 01:27 AM
If I was a father and a sex offender moved into my neighbourhood- I'd buy a gun- pure and simple- if they never learnt thier lesson the first time they won't learn it again- hence I believe I have the right to shoot them in the head should they ever lay a finger on me kid (That being after he has been in jail for it)
1SlowAccord
03-18-2003, 02:01 AM
As someone else already pointed out, its not just people who rape that are having their personal information posted. There were two cases about a year ago very close to where i live about young adults both male and female who lost most of their rights for having consentual sex with a member of the opposite sex that was less than a year younger than themselves. But still a minor. Both of these "convicts" have to let the sherrifs department in different county's know when they will be arriving and leaving "their" county. There are a lot of parents who blow situations way out of proportion when they find out someone else's "pervert" of a child had sex with their angel. Maybe the girl thought that the older boy she had her eye on would like her if she had sex with him? And when she finds out it didnt change the way he thought of her she goes and cries to mom or dad, and a couple weeks/months later he has his picture on the internet and a ruined life. Now i do realize that most sex offenders do not fall into this or a similar catagory. And their personal information SHOULD be posted for people who want to make sure they are living in a somewhat safe environment. But i just feel that the system is flawed somewhat, and there should be steps taken to correct it. just my 2cents
YogsVR4
03-18-2003, 10:52 AM
This is a loaded question for sure. I say once they've done their time, they shouldn't have their picture posted. However, I also believe that they should never be released from prison and that it should subject to be escalated to a capitol offence if the situation is bad enough.
As for Jimmy's statement about getting a gun if one shows up in your neighborhood. I own several handguns. They are there to protect my family even though I don't know who may or may not live around me. Molesters, rapist, thieves and murderers all have to have a starting point. I will do what I need to so that my family isn't their first.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
As for Jimmy's statement about getting a gun if one shows up in your neighborhood. I own several handguns. They are there to protect my family even though I don't know who may or may not live around me. Molesters, rapist, thieves and murderers all have to have a starting point. I will do what I need to so that my family isn't their first.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025