Plan gains to publicly identify accused (sex registry)

[meegbear]

COLUMBUS - An Ohio legislative panel yesterday rubber-stamped an unprecedented process that would allow sex offenders to be publicly identified and tracked even if they've never been charged with a crime.

No one in attendance voiced opposition to rules submitted by Attorney General Jim Petro's office to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, consisting of members of the Ohio House and Senate.

<snip>

A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit.

<snip>

A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again.

<snip>

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWSor%20http://www.smallerurl.com/?id=jxp3al4

---------------------------------------

Incredible - a person can make an accusation and someone can be put on the list, and for 6 years. That makes NO sense.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Yeah, I've got serious problems with this...

I mean, if someone's convicted in a court, that's one thing. But to be painted with a giant, red letter "P" just because someone accuses you of something goes against a lot of what this country is supposed to stand for.

[Yupster]

27. I'm with you Razor

We should accuse the members of the City Council and see if they still think it's a good idea.

[acmavm]

2. That is not right. Totally not right. Everyone is entitled to

due process and all that shit. No one should be punished without a trial and a conviction. That is WRONG.

Unless the bush** admin says you're a terrorist then I guess whether you like it or not it's gonna happen.

[Deep13]

10. Case law says it is not punishment, but remedial.

Case law from the Ohio S.C. on registration requirements states that criminal due process rights do not apply to reqistration requirements for someone who has been convicted of a sex offense since it is not punishment an merely disclosure of public record. It think the writers of this new law are relying on that case law for this new civil statute. One problem is that the courts may rethink this whole matter an may strike down the previously existing "Megan's Law" which until now applied only to convicts.

[acmavm]

14. Okay, I'm confused by your post...

You say:

criminal due process rights do not apply to reqistration requirements for someone who has been convicted

The way I understand this is that there hasn't been a conviction. Am I confused?

edit: went back and looked at this again. I was right

<snip>
...even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit...
<snip>

I would bet this can be beat in a court of law because there would be a horrible social stigma as well as the possible loss of jobs, friends, etc. attached to this kind of crap. Now if this isn't punishment, what is?

No, this is wrong. Very wrong.

(And this is coming from a woman who believes rapists and child molesters need to have their sex organs cut of with an electric pencil sharpener or a dull knife.)

[Deep13]

17. It's wrong. I'm just pointing out the reasoning behind it.

If registration really is remedial and not punitive as the Ohio S.C. has stated, then we have a real problem here. There are distinctions between the previous law and this new one (as you say), but I don't known if it is enough to get the courts past its previous blanket declaration that R.C. Ch.2950 is not a punishment. I'll tell you plainly, the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association urged the legislature not to pass this. This is an invitation to witch-hunting to be sure.

[Deep13]

3. More than just an accusation, but still...

...it's pretty bad.

Previously, registration was a matter brought by the prosecutor under a civil standard of proof, but only AFTER the subject was convicted of a sex offense. With this new law, the victim or the prosecutor may bring a civil action to put anyone on a sex offense registration list. Civil standards mean preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) rather than beyond reasonable doubt. It also means no appointed counsel and 3/4 of an 8-person jury rather than a unanimous 12-person jury. Also, since the supposed victim can bring it, the prosecutor cannot simply decline to pursue it, as many have said.

This is an over-reaction to the priest abuse scandal.

[gratuitous]

4. Didn't AG Petro sexually offend last month?

I don't know if that's true or not, but now that the accusation has been made, shouldn't his name go on the public registry? Of course, he can petition to have his name removed from the registry. In six years. Shouldn't be any problem, should it, Mr. Petro?

[Deep13]

5. Witch! Witch! She turned me into a newt!

I got better.

[NOLADEM]

21. supporters ponder the repercussions of their grand new plan

[MissMillie]

6. How can one be a sex offender if they've never even been charged?

What the hell happened to "due process"?

[Deep13]

8. Hear that flushing noise?

Point of fact, one can commit a sex offense without being charged. Unfortunately, it happens a lot. I agree, however, that the normal, criminal rules should govern this sort of thing and not some witch-hunt magnet.

[MissMillie]

11. Of course, one can commit any crime and not be charged....

but in such an instance said person is not yet guilty in the eyes of the law... and without due process cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property, at least that's what the Constitution says, right?

[Deep13]

12. Why do you hate our troops?

:evilgrin:

[MissMillie]

13. yeah... I hear ya

:hi:

[Xeric]

7. I've seen crackpots

right here on DU claim they can tell sex offenders just by looking into their eyes. How many people will be falsely accused by this insanity?
No good can come of this.

[Deep13]

9. Like who, for example?

[sendero]

15. Simply unconstitutional..

.. and anyone in public service should know that.

[Deep13]

19. Only if being put on a list at the request of a private person...

...is a state-imposed punishment within the meaning of the 5th and 6th Amendments. The respondents are not being fined, imprison or subject to forfeiture. I agree with all the posters here who think this is monsterous, but the case for unconstitutionality is no slam-dunk.

[sendero]

24. Being on that list..

... will deprive people of many opportunities and subject them to societal punishments.

I beleive it is unconstitutional - as a violation of due process.

[struggle4progress]

29. Being placed on a public list that is likely to result in death threats,

obscene phone calls in the wee morning hours, crowds of neighbors demonstrating outside one's house demanding one leave town, and so on might be an unconscionable intrusion on people by any reasonable standard.

You might look up some stories about (say) the experiences of people who got placed on public sex offender registries for (say) public urination or for sleeping with an slightly underage peer whom the "offender" later married to see how such lists can wrecking the lives of harmless people ...

[Deep13]

31. I agree that this is very bad, BUT...

...the things you describe are done by private persons and not the government. The Constitution is a restriction on governmental power. Maybe you are right. Maybe making the list is enough to constitute a punishment for 5th Amend. purposes. So far, however, the Ohio courts have held the contrary. Of course in those cases, the defendants were actually convicted of sex offenses. Still, the Ohio S.C. was careful to explain that publication of public information is not a punishment. The judgment of a civil court is public record.

Public urinating is not a sex offense in Ohio and the law concerning statutory rape is more flexible than most states (giving some leeway to participants who are close in age.)

[wakeme2008]

16. So Ex-Wifes can say their husbands were sexual abusers

and they get the big V on their forehead. :grr:

[Deep13]

18. That will be helpful for the divorce.

Some divorcing wives already abuse the living shit out of the civil domestic violence statute to get the upper hand in court. This is even better for manipulating the system.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. No one could have possibly seen a witch hunt coming.

[Deep13]

22. Nope no one, except...

...maybe for everyone.

[donco6]

23. Innocent until accused of something. . .

Wait - is that how it goes . . . ?

[truthisfreedom]

25. this is so wrong on so many levels. one of my best friends, a kind and

loving father, unfortunately had a complete psycho case for a wife. at one point after their divorce, she rammed her car into his garage door repeatedly WITH THE KID IN THE CAR, and then left him (3 years old) in the car in the middle of the night while she broke into the house and attacked my friend and his house-sitter with an electric guitar as they were sleeping, bashing away at his skull and smashing the girl's face repeatedly against a coffee table, leaving them both with permanent damage. they called the cops, and when they arrived, the assailant fell into the cops arms and claimed SHE had been attacked, and pretended it was her house! she should have gone to prison, but my friend was too worried what his son would think when he was old enough to understand that dad sent mom to prison.

skip ahead 2 years, now the kid is 5, and the psycho mom is telling the kid that his dad has been touching him improperly, and threatening the dad that she'll call the cops. there has been no abuse except on her part... if she did accuse him, would he end up on this list? and she's full-blown batsh*t crazy.

this idea completely bonkers.

[JackDragna]

26. Break out the scarlet letters..

..it's time for fear-mongering and paranoia. Christ.

[Tab]

28. Wait.... you're telling me you OPPOSE listing unaccused people??

You must hate our freedoms!

[Deep13]

32. They MUST be sex offenders themselves!

It is the only logical conclusion. :crazy:

[Odin2005]

30. BURN THE WITCH!!! BURN THE WITCH!!!

It's official, the average American cares jack shit about the Constitution. I am seriously starting to think I should leave this degenerate hellhole of a country. The Founders feared Mob Rule (Populism) for just this reason. The Republic is entering it's final state of disintergration, I want to get out of here before the American Caesar arrives...