ACLU suing all Hoosier counties; challenges law requiring sex offenders to allow computer searches

[Newsjock]

Source: Terre Haute Tribune-Star

TERRE HAUTE — A bill passed by legislators and signed by the governor may still die if courts decide it’s unconstitutional, which is exactly what many are hoping.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a suit to block a new law set to take effect July 1 on behalf of John Doe, Steve Morris and those similarly situated. It was filed last Tuesday against all of Indiana’s 92 county prosecutors, 91 county sheriffs and the mayor of Indianapolis.

It challenges an amendment to Indiana Code 11-8-8-8 requiring anyone who registers on Indiana’s sex and violent offender registry to sign a consent authorizing the search at any time of the person’s personal computer or device with Internet capability. It also requires a person to install, at his or her expense, hardware or software on the person’s computer to monitor Internet usage.

“The amendment represents a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment and is unconstitutional,” the complaint states. “Injunctive and declaratory relief is requested.”

Read more: http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_story_106235143.html

[sharesunited]

1. With certain crimes, you are never restored to full citizenship.

This is a principled challenge, but likely to fail.

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. They're not doing it properly. The ACLU should challenge hard.

The right way to implement this is in terms of voluntary monitoring programs, which can get their designation lowered and so forth and limit their social stigma, allowing them to become more integrated members of society and keep some dignity, while having a zero chance of re-offending.

[IntravenousDemilo]

3. Once you have served the time mandated by the court, that should be the end of it.

I don't believe in registering criminals after they've completed their sentences. I don't even think you should have to tell prospective employers if you have a criminal record. Once you've done the time, the new leaf is turned over to reveal a clean, white page that the rest of your life can be written on. If you've been sentenced to 10 years, it should be 10 years, period. If they decide you have to register afterwards, the 10-year sentence effectively turns into a life sentence, which is not what the court handed down, and it falls into the realm of "cruel and unusual punishment".

[ixion]

4. agreed

once you've served your time, once you've paid your debt to society, it should be over and done with.

[Political Heretic]

6. It's not that simple with sex offenders due to the ludicrously high rate of repeat offenses.

An individuals rights have to be balanced with the safety of the community.

Do you want a convicted sex offender opening a child day care in your neighbor hood and would you be happy if you sent your child there only later to discover his past offense? A certain degree of community protection from sexual predators is necessary.

But see my post below for the other side of the coin, and my full support of the ACLU in this case.

[bean fidhleir]

8. The "ludicrously high rate" is an artifact of measurement

A Canadian study found that, over 20 years, only 27% were convicted of a new crime of some kind (sex or "mundane") OR charged but acquitted. The other 73% remained completely clean.

A DOJ study found that "Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period." This was higher than the number of non-sex offenders later convicted of a sex crime (1.3%). However, the re-arrest rate for any crime was lower (48% vs 63% for non-sex offenders). Conclusion: most former sex offenders are more law-abiding after release than other offenders are.

[Political Heretic]

11. Can I get those sources please? This is sort of stunning.

I should point out in my defense, that I didn't get what I said simply based on the media or something - its what my own profession of social work taught me in my graduate studies to get my master degree. I'm shocked that even in education for a professional field people could still be so wrong.

I found another thing on this:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060516_predator_panic.html

And this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misunderstood-crimes&sc=rss

Totally shocking.... I'm a little upset, I think I plan to show all this to my professors and see how they react to the information. Will the demonstrate critical thinking or will they just clinch their teeth and dig in their heels.

[bean fidhleir]

14. Sources

The DOJ study appears at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm (but the online summary looks misleading). I relied on the PDF file.

The Canadian study is summarized --I couldn't find a copy of the full study cited-- at http://www.ps-sp.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200407_1-eng.aspx

[Political Heretic]

18. Thanks a lot! Really appreciate it

[Political Heretic]

13. Further response: Scientific American gives some important qualifiers to your information:

When providing clarifications about the lower than generally acknowledged rates of recidivism, we must be careful not to oversimplify. Recidivism research is as difficult as it is important. For instance, although average rates tell us what percentage reoffends one or more times, we also need to be aware that a subset reof­fends at a frighteningly high rate. In addition, there are reasons to think that published findings underestimate the true rates. Most research necessarily omits those offenders who were not detected and arrested or whose victims did not report the crime. Further, many sex offenders plea-bargain down to a nonsexual offense.

Still, there are other reasons to believe that recidivism rates may not be that different from what researchers have found. Frequent offenders are more likely than other offenders to be caught. Many safeguards probably help to keep the recidivism rate in check. Sex offenders released on probation are closely monitored, and those who are considered to be at high risk for recidivism are required to register with authorities. These registries are distributed to law-enforcement personnel. Finally, states are legally required to publicly identify higher-risk sex offenders. The Department of Justice coordinates a Web site (www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm) that enables anyone to search for the identity and location of known offenders.

So essentially, it would be possible to argue that due to the nature of the crime, sex offenders are less likely to be caught or have a charge that stays on their record as a "sex offense" and artificially likely to have lower recidivism numbers precisely due to the fact that they are so heavily monitored after release.

Something else to think about too...

[bean fidhleir]

15. Another confounding issue is the very definition of "recidivism"

I feel that convictions are the least-biased data, since anyone can be arrested and it's a commonplace that many ex-cons find themselves treated as "the usual suspects". Yet many definitions of "recidivism" inflate the rate with arrests, even when not followed by conviction or, for that matter, trial.

(edit) I'm a bit bothered by the handwaved assertion in SciAm that sex offenses are plea-bargained down. I suspect those that are, are the low-grade ones. But it would be nice if we had some numbers rather than such an unsupported assertion.

[Political Heretic]

17. That's a good point, the arrest vs. conviction

[IntravenousDemilo]

10. If I had my child enrolled in daycare, and nothing happened to my child,

and if I found out later on (after my kid had already started Kindergarten) that the guy running the daycare had been a convicted sex offender, why would I be unhappy after the fact? That would be kind of silly, and that's of course leaving aside the fact that most daycares are run by women.

Some sex-offence convictions, e.g. for statutory rape, result from actions committed by not-necessarily-legally-but-de-facto consenting teenagersn -- say, a boyfriend and girlfriend who happen to be a couple of years apart in age. And it's often worse for gay teens, say, one who is 18 and one who is 16, because the age of consent is higher in a lot of states. Such people technically convicted of statutory rape have fallen through an unnecessary legal crack. Would you deny one of those teen "sex-offenders" the right later on to operate a daycare? It wouldn't be as if they had ever indulged in paedophilia. And do you think it's fair that such a teenager should be branded with the label "sex-offender" for the rest of their lives?

[Political Heretic]

12. Its funny, I use almost your exact same example in my post down thread.

I don't have any response, I'm still absorbing the guy up thread who turned me onto information showing that the idea of a high recidivism rate among sex offenders is likely to be a myth

[bean fidhleir]

7. Well said. Once the person has "paid their debt to society" they shouldn't owe anything on it

any more. Even the record should be legally invisible in everyday life, with anyone who reveals it being subject to an action for slander/libel.

[joeglow3]

16. Is this not part of their sentence?????

Thus, they never truly "complete" their entire sentence.

[EstimatedProphet]

20. Exactly - that's the point of sentencing, isn't it?

You do your time, and you've done your time. The mood these days seems more in line with the Scarlet Letter than anything else, and the neverending aspect is simply wrong. Why not just execute everyone for everything instead, if there's no intention to let people move past their actions and heal?

[Political Heretic]

5. Good for the ACLU.

Here's the thing:

The constitution really doesn't mean much if we only defend the bill of rights when its convenient. I understand that dealing with sexual and violent offenders who have served their time is a very serious and challenging issue. I understand the high rate of repeat offenses and the need to address issues of community safety.

However, those concerns need to be balanced with the principles of our guaranteed rights. The person's in question have served their time for their crime. If we don't believe these particular offenders can ever be rehabilitated and reenter society, then we shouldn't release them. But once they have served their sentence there is some danger in believing that it is still okay to violate their constitutionally protected rights.

I'll tell you when it gets really complicated: statutory rape convictions. My friend's brother went to jail for having sex with his girlfriend - they were three years apart in age. When released, he will be required to register as a sex offender. Not only will his life be ruined in that way, but if he lived in this state he would also have to surrender his privacy and submit to the state monitoring his life.

It's complicated, the state is going about it the wrong way, this goes to far, and its good that an organization like the ACLU is willing to take the tough and unpopular cases.

It's why I love them so much.

[Occulus]

9. WOW- unconstitutional as all hell

Check this out, I think I found the amendment they're referring to in the article:

SOURCE: IC 11-8-8-8; (07)SB0078.1.13. --> SECTION 13. IC 11-8-8-8, AS ADDED BY P.L.173-2006, SECTION 13, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS : Sec. 8. The registration required under this chapter must include the following information:
(1) The sex or violent offender's full name, alias, any name by which the sex or violent offender was previously known, date of

birth, sex, race, height, weight, hair color, eye color, any scars, marks, or tattoos, Social Security number, driver's license number or state identification number, principal residence address, and mailing address, if different from the sex or violent offender's principal residence address.
(2) A description of the offense for which the sex or violent offender was convicted, the date of conviction, the county of the conviction, the cause number of the conviction, and the sentence imposed, if applicable.
(3) If the person is required to register under section 7(a)(2) or 7(a)(3) of this chapter, the name and address of each of the sex or violent offender's employers in Indiana, the name and address of each campus or location where the sex or violent offender is enrolled in school in Indiana, and the address where the sex or violent offender stays or intends to stay while in Indiana.
(4) A recent photograph of the sex or violent offender.
(5) If the sex or violent offender is a sexually violent predator, that the sex or violent offender is a sexually violent predator.
(6) If the sex or violent offender is required to register for life, that the sex or violent offender is required to register for life.
(7) Any other information required by the department.

(7) seems to be, "and anything else we want". Clearly unconstitutional any way you look at it. Suppose you live with an offender and the one, lone PC you own is in a place s/he has access to? Does that mean your privacy rights are dust, too? You would be completely innocent of any crime at all! Where are your rights? Do you just give them all up by default if you live with someone defined by this law? Are your rights somehow less than everyone else's now?

Don't anyone dare say "well, no, but...", because there is no "but".

[and-justice-for-all]

19. ACLU has taken this action because of where such a law..

might lead to in the future.

I have no problem with said such offenders being on a registry, they should be. But to "sign a consent authorizing the search at any time of the person’s personal computer or device with Internet capability." is only going to lead everyone down a road we do not want to travel.