President Bush, joined by "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh, signed a new law Thursday that requires convicted child molesters to be listed on a national Internet database and face a felony charge for failing to update their whereabouts.
Wonder if I'm included in that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You shoud seriously find the hell out.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
IL and MI both have sites up, they both show the exact name of the offense, which is nice.
Shik, the bad news is that you will probably be listed, there doesn't seem to be any good news other than the charge will be there also, or should be, so you shouldn't get lumped in with guys that raped 5 year olds.
I would check out the law to be certain, but the people need to feel safe so the law will probably be a pain in the ass. A great 'victory' for the Bush and the Repubes.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
A lot (if not most) states already have their own databases available. This will just have everything in one place.
Personally, I see this as a good thing. Alabama's own list was one of the first things I checked when looking for a place for my family to live recently.
And don't think I don't know about the other side of this - my best friend from high school (he graduated Valedictorian, I was Salutatorian) is on Georgia's list.
B.J.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, but, y'know, Georgia! Why, I bet sleepin' with one o' them there nigrah girls is enough to get you on the list. So what's the story then?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Well, if it was Arkansas it would be a cousin or half-sister so it wouldn't count.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
It was obscene internet contact with a child, who was actually an undercover cop. He was lucky that he only got probation, because since then, Georgia instituted a mandatory 10 year jail sentence (minimum).
This may sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, but since I know him very well and know at least his side of the story (he says he thought that he was talking with an adult), I have no problem having him around my kids. Of course, I'd still like to whap him upside the head for being an idiot in the first place!
B.J.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...he says he thought that he was talking with an adult..."
Which, in fact, he was, from what you said.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: A lot (if not most) states already have their own databases available. This will just have everything in one place.
Personally, I see this as a good thing. Alabama's own list was one of the first things I checked when looking for a place for my family to live recently.
And don't think I don't know about the other side of this - my best friend from high school (he graduated Valedictorian, I was Salutatorian) is on Georgia's list.
B.J.
I too see this as a good thing. I mean it least shows that there are people who still care enough to protect children from actual threats like child molesters. Now if they'd only reform the foster care system and child protective services...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
AH, but tha's where this law shines- it (in part) mandates background checks for all foster care providers and sets a fixed standard on adoption applicants. Prior to this, there were huge variations between states on who could be a foster care provider- indeed, the biggest scam in the children's services has been scumbags having five or six foster kids- to collect the government stipend- and abusing the children or treating as virtual slaves.
But the database is scary too- there are literally hundreds of slackers calling themself "Jason Caldwell" out there- who's to say that one of those guys is not on the list? What protects me from being mistaken for them?
Surely the list can not post the convicted's (and presumably released back into society) social security numbers or photos? Either would make a target for "mob justice" out of anyone on the list whenever a child disapears. There has to be a comprimise between "having served a debt to society" and this scarlett letter treatment.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yeah, I'm all for protecting children, but I also believe that after a person has served out his/her sentence in penalty for an offense, he/she should be accepted back into society and not have to face further (legislated) consequences. And this online database does indeed smack of Minority Report-esque Information AgeTM scariness.
-MMoM Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"What protects me from being mistaken for them?"
Why, the totally infallible government-appointed people who manage and control access to the database, of course. What's the matter? Don't you trust them to carefully review requests for information before handing it out? Or do you perhaps have something to hide? DO YOU?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Let me get back to you on that, after I burn my Anarchist's Cookbook. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I don't know about the federal list, but I know the list they have here in St. Louis County has addresses on it. In fact, I just noticed that there's someone on there in the same apartment complex I recently moved to.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, the adresses would be a good clue, except if this other Jason is listed as non compliant, then you could have issues.
The other thing is the photo that most include, so, unless it is a freakish twin incident you should be okay.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I guess so, but how many background checks will do a photo check? You can bet that this sort of check will be a standard for everything from apartment rentals to job applucations (particularly for teachers and child-care workers).
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Yeah, I'm all for protecting children, but I also believe that after a person has served out his/her sentence in penalty for an offense, he/she should be accepted back into society and not have to face further (legislated) consequences. And this online database does indeed smack of Minority Report-esque Information AgeTM scariness.
-MMoM
I agree with you that criminals should be accepted back into society once their debt to society has been paid, its just that some of the creeps who'll end up on the list will most likely commit their crime again.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
But again, on what basis is it determined who "will most likely commit their crime again"? I think attempting to guage the likelihood of potential crimes and applying legal sanctions to those who might commit them is dangerously iffy ground to be treading on. What happened to presumed innocence until guilt is proven?
And how do you address cases such as Shik's? Or the issue of just how arbitrary the definition of a "sex crime" is these days? If you can't separate those who pose a genuine threat from those who don't, then it's a Very Bad DealTM. Someone once said that part of the basis of our justice system is the idea that it's preferable to let ten guilty men slip through the cracks than to unjustly usurp the rights one innocent man, and I agree with this sentiment.
-MMoM Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
One might also point out that any justice system created and operated by flawed humans is, in and of itself, flawed. Put another way, not everyone convicted of a crime is actually guilty thereof.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)