Sex Offenders Could Be Banned From Net

[The Straight Story]

Sex Offenders Could Be Banned From Net

POSTED: 10:09 am EDT May 22, 2006
UPDATED: 10:16 am EDT May 22, 2006

TRENTON, N.J. -- Should a person convicted of using the Internet to commit a sex crime lose the ability to use the Internet without supervision?

It might be possible, if a New Jersey lawmaker gets his way.

State Senate President Richard Codey is pushing legislation to keep those convicted of using the Internet to commit a sex crime from further using the Web to exploit kids.

His proposal would keep those convicted of an Internet sex crime from logging onto the Net only with a court order.

http://www.local6.com/technology/9253075/detail.html

Ummm, aren't we all already supervised by big brother??

[liberalhistorian]

1. And just exactly how in the hell

do they plan to enforce this???????????

[The Straight Story]

7. By spending a lot of money, years of meetings, and so on

then realizing it was a bad idea but keep the law anyway (who would vote to allow such people to surf the net unsupervised? would not go well during voting season) and then spend more money on it.

[SmokingJacket]

60. Maybe with some kind of net-disabling chip implant!! nt

[KingFlorez]

2. Good idea, but not possible to enforce

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Not yet, anyhow

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. It will be when

)*('s plans for surveillance and government supervision are fully in place.

:scared:

[Beelzebud]

56. Wrong. Totally possible to enforce. They do this with hackers already.

Kevin Mitnik, the notorious hacker convicted in the early 90's, as an example.

Basically your house is rigged with a device that sniffs the phone line, and/or cable line for net traffic. It's not much different than the ankle bracelets for house arrest. If the device sees network activity it "phones home", and you're in trouble.

[ThomCat]

3. This gets complicated

Supervision should be required for as long the person is on Parole or Probation. But I don't think anyone should continue to be punished after they have served their entire sentance.

If someone is still a danger then they shouldn't have been released from the system. If they have been released from the system then they are not criminals any more and shouldn't be treated as such.

Of course, that's rather idealistic, and reforms are definitely necessary, but that's my $0.02.

[madmusic]

28. It's probably already that way.

The judge can order any probation/parole restrictions he wants and the POs will enforce them.

This is more moral panic.

[ContraBass Black]

4. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

And really bad ideas.

[Tummler]

6. There goes the next FreeRepublic fund-raising drive! (n/t)

[liberalhistorian]

11. Ohhh, man,

you are BAAAAAAAAADDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And p.s.: You owe me a new keyboard!!!

[KingFlorez]

13. You are wrong for that one!

Wrong, just wrong! :spray:

[Poll_Blind]

8. If a person has served their time they have paid their debt to society.

If one believes that offenders have not paid their debt to society work to increase the sentences for said crimes. I never miss a chance to harp on this because it's a very slippery slope and will open up a can of worms the Boosh would love to exploit.

PB

[KingFlorez]

12. Right

I believe sex offender sentences should be much longer, too many times have people been harmed by repeat offenders.

[mrcheerful]

22. Again more false claims. Run a check on you states department of

corrections statistics its not repeat offenders committing the crimes its new cases. According to the michigan DOC 89% of sex offenders remain crime free after leaving prison. Why is this the only crime that has so much mis-information and myth's? This is another one of those play on peoples fears media hype. The people I worry about are the ones who aren't on any list as they are still unknown.

[KingFlorez]

30. I didn't say it was most cases

There are a lot of cases of reoffending, even if it's not a majority

[sandnsea]

32. That's not accurate either

That's a 5 year rate. The 15-25 year rate is between 35-55%, depending on the type of sexual offense. Incest is the least likely re-offense, and let's not forget that statutory rape is also a sexual offense. If we didn't lump everybody together, I would bet recidivism for the kind of sexual offender that ends up killing is very high. Those are the ones everybody is worried about, and they usually were accused previously.

[mrcheerful]

35. No they are not high, those type of offenders are on par with

serial killers. There were only 2 cases last year and both were in florida. That type of sex crime makes national media and gets covered to death. The greatest number of child molestation cases are touch cases where an adult male wrestles around with kids and he touches a breast or buttock. If said male does it more then once the courts say that shows intent on the males part and the courts feel justified to err on the side of the child. The lowest, except for child rapists/murderers, is abduction sex crimes against children, a stranger goes into a park and kidnaps his victim, which is where the fear of sex offenders is coming from. Your child is more at risk from family members or trusted friends. The next group in danger are the troubled kids, the run aways and the ones who use drugs. Yet this group of kids is the least talked about because they are putting them selves in harms way. Most of molestation could be stopped just by being a good parent and being aware of what your kids are doing and where they are hanging out at as well as who they are hanging out with. Its hard finding facts about these type of crimes as myths are far more numerous then fact and to support the governments stance on sex crimes against children, theres a lot of mis-information going around. Think about it without the emotion, who are the greatest risks to kids? Police, clergy, teachers, scout leaders and coaches top the list of child molesters. Child molesters seek employment that brings them the most contact with children. The facts are out there if you look instead of letting emotions and fears get in your way.

[sandnsea]

36. Two??

I think you need to educate yourself. I highly doubt this is all of the murdered children last year, but many of the ones listed were murdered by sex offenders.

http://missingandmurderedchildren.facesofthemissing.org/?cat=99

And no, the most common cases of child molestation aren't just wrestling around with kids, and oops, touched a breast or bottom. Good grief.

I don't know why you're defending child molsters, or blaming parents for the actions of criminals. Very peculiar.

[mrcheerful]

37. A blog for reference? Funny thing I noticed right off the top, no mention

of where these crimes took place. Also out of the blogs only 3 dealt with sex offense, the others were just kids being murdered. BTW, what does Snopes say about things that are vague about locations? Red flag time.

Example.........Jessica was kidnapped from her home in the middle of the night while she and her family slept. John Evander Couey, a registered sex offender who was living across the street from the Lunsford’s, is charged with the kidnapping, sexual assault and suffocation death of Jessica. His trial is expected to begin in February 2006.

Try going to snopes.com and look into the 25 hottest legends and see the missing child alert for Penny Brown or Ashley Flores. You'll see how these things your using are wrote about the same way as your examples of dangerous predators.

BTW, without a state or town nor any mention of who wrote alleged articles theres no way to check them out for facts.

edited for spelling

[sandnsea]

38. "just kids being murdered"

Yeah, because men just go around strangling kids for the hell of it. :eyes: Pathetic.

Dylan & Slade Groene
Idaho

So there's 4 beyond all doubt.

And I don't even know what your Snopes and red flag and Jessica Lunsford quote is about. Or your reference to Penny Brown or Asley Flores, they aren't on that list.

You can deny it all you want, but kids are killed by child molesters. It's appalling that you would pretend it's all an urban legend.

[mrcheerful]

40. Really? Then why are there no ages for the offenders? Why is the states

and towns missing from the stories? Without this information you can't even check the national registry to see if these people are real. All you got is the name and age of the kids, with names of alleged sex offenders that can't be checked out.

[sandnsea]

42. See #41

You're defending murderers over little kids. You can't be for real, just can't be.

[sandnsea]

41. 100 per year

"According to a 1997 study by the State of Washington’s Office of the Attorney General “the murder of a child who is abducted ... is a rare event. There are estimated to be about 100 such incidents in the United States each year, less than one-half of one percent of the murders committed”; however, “74 percent of abducted children who are murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction.”

Considered rare in this country only because we have such a horrific murder rate anyway.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=242#3

[mrcheerful]

43. what a bunch of puke garbage. estimated, they don't know how many?

give me a break, the people that can tell me to a dime how much I owe in taxes can't count dead kids.

[sandnsea]

44. Ignore

There really is no other place for you. Bye now.

[mrcheerful]

45. Why because I asked for facts and you couldn't come up with any

outside of a blog one word for that Freeper.

[mrcheerful]

19. That can of worms has already been opened here in michigan.

As of 1/1/06 any person on Michigan's sex offenders list are no longer allowed to be found on school grounds or be parked near a school zone longer then 15 minutes, regardless if said sex offender has children in the school. So if a sex offenders car breaks down and it takes him longer then 15 minutes to get it out of there he faces 90 days in jail. On top of that sex offenders are not allowed at or near public parks if schools use them for after school activities, which btw, schools don't advertise which parks they use or when they use them. Even after said person is off parole or probation. From my understanding some law makers wanted sex offenders banned from marrying any women of child bearing ages or dating women that could have children and I'm not talking about the most serious offenders but everyone on the list.

[Poll_Blind]

21. What an excellent example of well-meaning laws, out of control. n/t

PB

[kerry-is-my-prez]

9. They're going to used this as an excuse to "spy" on internet users.

I think that's what this is all about....

[jayfish]

53. That's Exactly What It's About.

In order to implement this for sex-offenders, they have to track us all. I'm sure the security crowd will just love it though.


Jay

[CoffeeCat]

10. Here's an idea...if someone...

is "convicted of using the Internet to commit a sex crime"...how about locking that person up for a realllly long time?

I'm assuming that most Internet sex crimes involved pedophiles producing/selling home-made child pornography--or arranging sex acts with minors.

These people should be locked up for several decades. Why are we wasting time discussing
the forms of media from which they'll be banned?

As a survivor of sexual abuse, I am so insulted by all of these absurd laws concerning sex offenders. Do something constructive to prevent these crimes and to convict those who offend.

Quit wasting so much damn time--banning them from living in certain areas---and now taking their Internet access away!

[madmusic]

29. How many years should someone get for...

Looking at a pic of a 17-year-old?

What about this?

Bush Admin Calls for Mandatory Web Labeling Law
From News.com
Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.

A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.

The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

"I hope that Congress will take up this legislation promptly," said Gonzales, who gave a speech about child exploitation and the Internet to the federally funded National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed law is called the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006.

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/004949.html

And the moral panic is debunked.

EDIT: I need to learn to take the http:// out of the links.

[CoffeeCat]

48. I'm talking about serial child pornographers...

and serial child sexual abusers who are vicious predators.

They should be locked away with life sentences. Do we agree on that?

You asked about the guy who looks at a naked 17-year old. Obviously, looking at a naked 17-year old and running a child pornography operation out of your home--are two different things. Also, looking at a naked 17-year old and watching a video of seven years being sexually abused--are different as well.

Obviously these crimes should be treated differently in a court of law. AND THEY ARE.

I don't see the big problem--because the less-serious offense and the more-serious offenses are penalized differently. Both crimes are considered "sex crimes" and will label someone a sex offender. Is that the problem?

Possibly, there should be different categories for sex offenders...I,II,III...depending on the crime.

Please remember though...a grown adult looking at naked, underage, teenage girls is a red flag. It isn't always a meaningless action. These actions can sometimes signal a more serious predilection toward pedophilia, and possibly molesting. My father molested me. He had a thing for 16-year olds. I'm sure if he had access to the Internet in the '70's--he would have been gawking at naked teenagers too. The action certainly signals the tendency toward sex abuse.

Furthermore, teenagers who are naked and exploiting themselves on the Internet--are being used by someone. Someone is taking those pictures. Someone is sexually exploiting those teenagers for profit and personal gain. Laws against child pornography and child sex crimes are not only about the predators. They're about protecting the children who are being exploited. Many have been victims their entire lives of child sexual abuse. I've met hundreds of survivors of sexual abuse, and it's daunting--the number of times they are victimized--because they've come of age believing that they are nothing, and that their bodies are not their own. They're on autopilot with PTSD--still playing out the trauma.

Those are my thoughts anyway...

[madmusic]

50. Very true

Of course someone who downloads a pic is different than the porn makers who actually create the porn. But it's like the war on drugs: if no one was buying, the problem would go away, hence severe laws to lock up the "buyers." And we are talking 10-20 years or sometimes more for child porn pics. These laws are based on the slippery slope of what someone MIGHT do, though there isn't any, can't be any, evidences that they actually would. If they made the porn, sure, throw the book at them, but laws that assume rather than prove are flat out wrong. It's like the laws against pot because it "leads to heroin." Sheesh.

I used to wonder why the FBI didn't publish the pictures of these kids to track down the offenders, but then learned they are afraid for their safety if they did. That makes sense. Someone facing that much time might kill any witness (the child). On the other hand, it does prove that letting them get molested is better than them getting murdered. We can all agree with that. A dead child can never be a survivor. But if the FBI was really interested in stopping kiddie porn in the U.S. they could figure out a way to learn who these children are. It's a good panic tool though and they like to milk it for all it's worth. For example, if they really wanted to catch these guys, they would slacken the laws so the sentence would not be worth harming the child to cover it up. But, no, like the mandatory 25-life laws, they would rather increase the risk of murder and let kiddie porn go on. How is that protecting children?

You say someone who looks at a pic of a 17-year-old is a potential pedophile, and sandnsea says a pedophile is a potential murderer. Hence, looking at a pic of a teen = murderer. There are on average between 50-100 "stereotypical kidnappings" per year, and not all of them end in death and not all of them are done for sexual reasons (could be for ransom, for example). Sure, 1 is 1 too many, and the Amber Alert law is probably only law passed so far than might actually save a child. If it doesn't get over used with false alarms like happens with car alarms.

Bad logic makes for bad laws and these moral panics one by one move us closer to fascism. A person should only be convicted for what he or she dose, not for what he or she might do, even if statistically he or she is likely to do it.

Statistically speaking, since you were abused, what if you are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, more likely to physically, emotionally or sexually abuse your own child. Should you be put in jail or sterilized to prevent any of these?

[SoCalDem]

14. Will each offender be provided with a 24-7 "minder"?

How else would they be prevented from going online at a cafe, or on a friend's computer?

Or.. are they all to be injected with an rfid capsule, and all computers fitted with a chip that rejects their login?

[ContraBass Black]

26. Here's how: Everyone will have to prove their identity

Before using the net. Scary yet?

[napi21]

15. Other than child porn, what kind of sex crime does someone

commit on the net?

If it's child porn, why not just eliminate the damn child porn from the net? Any ISA can shut down a site. Eliminate the opportunity, and you've eliminated the crom.

[KingFlorez]

16. Preying on children

A lot of them prey on kids online to set up meetings

[Heidi]

25. In that respect, isn't the owner of myspace.com also preying on children?

His company has a captive audience of more than 70 million registered participants, many of whom have lied about their age at registration in order to bypass the minimum age of 14; then, when these internet-related tragedies occur, he sells advertising around the fear-mongering Fox News (also owned by the same company) programming "reporting" on events that his online community helped create. If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. As an analogy, if a minor walked into a singles bar and the owner failed to adequately verify the minor's age before allowing that minor to pursue adult activities like consumption of alcohol and "hooking up" with adults, who would be at fault?

[KingFlorez]

31. That's not the point

There are actual sex offenders that go online looking for kids to committ illegal acts, that is a real danger.

[Heidi]

34. I agree it's a danger.

And providing predators with an unchecked smorgasboard of children to choose from contributes to the situation.

[Redstone]

18. No, the ISPs (not "ISAs") cannot control child porn. Most of it originates

in Russia, and other places out of the reach of American ISPs.

Child-porn freaks need to be put away forever. Their rate of recidivism approaches 100%.

Redstone

[madmusic]

27. 100 % ????

Really, lay off of Bill O'Reilly, FoxNews, Nancy Grace and CourtTV. You'll feel better in a couple of days and will be able to think for yourself again.

[Redstone]

57. Excuse me. You don't know me, do you? If you did, you wouldn't

make such a stupid comment.

Maybe you should spend a bit of time reading people's posts in order to know who they are before you make such idiotic accusations.

Redstone

[madmusic]

59. Brilliant reply.

What does knowing you have to do with the 100% being flat out wrong? That's a stupid statement.

[Swamp Rat]

17. The ONLY way to enforce this will be to restrict Internet access for

EVERYBODY... and this will likely happen someday.

With the right (wrong) legislation, electronic cybergates can be set up at different nodes in the network, from neighborhood telephone poles to secret rooms attached to ATT and BellSouth facilities.

[InaneAnanity]

20. I bet this ties in with the internet control laws

If they can control the speed at which people are allowed access, they can completely shut out people who visit illicit sites or do illicit things.

I can see that argument being made. Complete bullshit, but it'll catch with the bloodthirsty.

[genieroze]

24. More dumb laws from a law happy state. I'm from Joisey and our motto

is or should be "Come to NJ for vacation and leave on probation."

[XanaDUer]

46. Lol, that should be Florida's motto, too.

...

[jerry611]

33. O'Reilly would support this bill

I can hear him now:
"Anyone who is against this law supports pedophiles."

[anewdeal]

39. also

anyone who is for this law supports O'Reilly

[H2O Man]

47. It already happens.

In NYS, many sex offenders who are on probation or parole are not allowed to use the internet without supervision. And that's not a bad thing.

[Redstone]

58. No, it's not a bad thing.

Not a bad thing at all. Just simple justice.

Redstone

[Freedom_Aflaim]

49. would Make it difficult/impossible to hold an office job

Since viritually all office jobs require computer access and virtually all offices have at least minimal Internet connectivity.

Yea, that'll help. Make'm sit at home all day with nothing to do but think about the stuff they think about.....

[hunter]

51. I've been to the DU Lounge. They are ALL sex offenders.

Fucking perverts, the whole lot of them.

But seriously, to ban someone from the net they'd have to require identification before anyone used the net. Everything you did on the net would have to be tagged with your personal identification.

When that happens, we are all screwed.

[Bluebear]

52. We MUST check ID for ANYONE using the internet.

As you mention, everything you do on the net should be tracked and tagged to your national personal ID number. Think of the children. :sarcasm:

[noonwitch]

54. It does give prosecutors a way to take them off the streets

Usually, a sex offender would be given conditions of parole when released. Usually, one of those conditions would address internet usage, along with playgrounds and school zones.

That said, making a law against it does give prosecutors a law to prosecute in those cases, which would result in a new charge, a new sentence, and in some states, life (for a second offense). A parole violation results in a return to prison for a set number of days, not in getting a whole new charge and sentence. I don't know how they would be able to enforce this without violating everyone else's rights, but I can see a good reason behind it.

[hunter]

55. The implementation is where we go wrong.

In many neighborhoods, including my own, there are unsecured wireless internet access points. These exist for a variety of reasons. In some cases people just want to share (are they crazy?) but in most cases they are the result of technically unsophisticated people setting up their own wireless networks. I also suspect a lot of technically savvy kids also share internet connections paid for by their parents this way.

"Your mom won't let you go on the internet? No problem, use mine.

So if a sex offender has a laptop with wireless capability, maybe one procured covertly, how do you find him? If he has a library card, or internet cafe account, how do you find him?