NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWS

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.

The committee's decision not to interfere with the rules puts Ohio in a position to become the first state to test a "civil registry."

The concept was offered by Roman Catholic bishops as an alternative to opening a one-time window for the filing of civil lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse that occurred as long as 35 years ago.

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.

The rules spell out how the untried process would work. It would largely treat a person placed on the civil registry the same way a convicted sex offender is treated under Ohio's so-called Megan's Law.

The person's name, address, and photograph would be placed on a new Internet database and the person would be subjected to the same registration and community notification requirements and restrictions on where he could live.

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.

Looks like the people in Ohio are not willing to take a chance on someone offending.

Would you support such a law? Do you think the law, if successful or unchallenged, will take other forms? Or do you think the law is doomed from the start?

You know, I could swear I've seen this thread before...

You know, I could swear I've seen this thread before...

I think it was called "Guilty Because I Say So". The law pretty much stinks and I expect it'll be struck down.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWS



Looks like the people in Ohio are not willing to take a chance on someone offending.

Would you support such a law? Do you think the law, if successful or unchallenged, will take other forms? Or do you think the law is doomed from the start?

I've seen this post, I replied to it, and frankly, I will say the following:

I live in Ohio and I think it should be wiped off the map. There are more stupid laws here than in any other state, it seems like. Name me ONE other state that thinks this is a good idea. Name me ONE other state that thinks that making people with DUI convictions drive with a different color of license plate is a good idea. Instead of lynching people, we're blacklisting them, and it's just as bad on some level. Yet Ohio thinks it's more civilized than that. Jeez, no wonder no one wants to live here. I sure as hell don't, and the minute I get my way out of here, I am, not that it will ever happen.

Despicable garbage, a shame on the whole country.

I can't imagine any of these incompetent disgraces or any scumbags defending this idea knows what "bill of attainder" means or has read the constitution.

It's another example of the Scarlet Letter mentality. It's a way people can feel like they're getting justice without actually getting justice.

Probably comess from people who are frustrated at the perception that a child molestor has gotten away with it, so they just say to hell with ideas like double jeopardy or cruel and unusual punishment, and have at it.

I think if that law passes, then anyone who finds himself/herself on that list should have a right to sue for defamation of character, considering we're talking about people who haven't even been accused of a crime or had a civil judgement against them. As I understand it, all you have to do is get ACCUSED of something in civil court.

Kinda like getting a criminal record for being charged, even if the charges are dropped or the case dismissed/acquitted.

My questions is this: Let's say it passes. There are a few possiblilties.

Does the Supreme Court or some federal judge strike it down? If it's not SCOTUS that does it, does Ohio appeal immediately or does someone who gets punished by this bill appeal? If SCOTUS says no, Ohio may be under a lot of pressure to back off depending on how high-profile the case is. Can Ohio say under the radar enough and not make too many waves in order to keep from being forced to overturn the law?

I understand the principle behind it - there have been quite a few child molesters who will never go to jail because the case is too old to prosecute. IIRC, there is no statute of limitations on child molestation (although I couldn't say that for sure), but memories are fuzzy and there certainly is no physical evidence in a 30-some year old case.

However, the law could be misused much too easily. There is a reason that we require certain things of the legal process.

I understand the principle behind it - there have been quite a few child molesters who will never go to jail because the case is too old to prosecute. IIRC, there is no statute of limitations on child molestation (although I couldn't say that for sure), but memories are fuzzy and there certainly is no physical evidence in a 30-some year old case.

However, the law could be misused much too easily. There is a reason that we require certain things of the legal process.

There may be no statute of limitations on child molestation in some states now but I doubt that's the norm. Otherwise why would we hear of bills being proposed to open up the limit to 10, 15, even 35 years? From my extensive legal background (Law & Order whenever it's on), murder is the only crime with no limit.

Anyway, it's a difficult problem, because we really do want to ... ahem ... think of the children, but in the climate of fear that hangs over us nowadays, we go too far. And having a list of people who have been accused in civil court, with no judgment having been brought against them, no criminal charges ... that's definitely too far. A defamation suit would be in order, but you know, the damage will be done and it's damage that no victory in court can repair. Get on that list and your life is over in that community.

I don't object to a scarlet letter, or to those distinct license plates for DUI convicts.

But this applies to law-abiding citizens. The state can, without any cause, single out people and declare them to be sexual predators, even without sufficient evidence to charge them with anything.

You can't punish people if they haven't done anything wrong. This is a terrible idea.

This is a gross violation of due process, and is not what the American justice system is supposed to stand for.

...Of course I've been saying that about various cases for a while now, so this just adds more fuel to the fire.

What is this, the God damned French Revolution? We have a constitution for a reason.

Despicable garbage, a shame on the whole country.

I can't imagine any of these incompetent disgraces or any scumbags defending this idea knows what "bill of attainder" means or has read the constitution.

Better include yourself among the clueless.

A "bill of attainder" is a legislative act, i.e., a "bill", that declares a specific person guilty of a crime (typically treason), and subjects the person to "attainder", i.e., loss of civil rights, inheritance, property, etc.

The proposed law does not declare any specific person, or group of persons for that matter, guilty of any crime, nor does it subject the person(s) to loss of civil rights, inheritance or property. The proposal may violate due process or fail to pass constitutional muster for some other reason, but being a bill of attainder isn't one of them.

Back to civics class for you, Sparky.

Well, I hope that some clever chappies come along and have the Governor, and all the State Senators, and the judges, the cops and the sherriffs all declared sex offenders.

Bye-bye stupid law.

Well, I hope that some clever chappies come along and have the Governor, and all the State Senators, and the judges, the cops and the sherriffs all declared sex offenders.

Bye-bye stupid law.


Er, in case you missed it, the proposed law requires such requests to be approved by a judge. Good luck finding any judge to make any blanket declarations of that nature.

Nice try, but it won't wash.

How can a person be an offender if they've never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted? That would be like punishing someone for being a thief even though they haven't stole anything, or a murderer even though they haven't killed anyone. It's crazy. Stupid, too. It will never survive a challenge in court.

Er, in case you missed it, the proposed law requires such requests to be approved by a judge. Good luck finding any judge to make any blanket declarations of that nature.

Nice try, but it won't wash.

How can a person be an offender if they've never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted? That would be like punishing someone for being a thief even though they haven't stole anything, or a murderer even though they haven't killed anyone. It's crazy. Stupid, too. It will never survive a challenge in court.


Right Here...
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.

now here's my question. if a bunch of people pettition to have the lawmakers put on this list. why would the judge toss it out?
such an event would automatically scream bias on the part of the judge. especially if others are also put on the list with less.

the down side is that now anyone claiming to be a victim can petition the judge directly. that's going to tie up the SAG, the CP, and the Judge. choke em with red tape so to speak.

and should they procecute anyone who is placing false claims, then all that will do is scare the real victims into silence. :(

hope it fails.

unless a clause can be put in. one that states, if the person who is on this list without a trial/arrest is found innocent, can he/she sue the state for Slander, Defamation and emotional duress.

unless a clause can be put in. one that states, if the person who is on this list without a trial/arrest is found innocent, can he/she sue the state for Slander, Defamation and emotional duress.

Even that would be profoundly unacceptable, the presumption of innocence turned upside down.

If this atrocious law is passed, we should indeed hope that it is made a mockery of, with claims and petititions filed against as many lawmakers and other public figures as possible.

Even that would be profoundly unacceptable, the presumption of innocence turned upside down.

If this atrocious law is passed, we should indeed hope that it is made a mockery of, with claims and petititions filed against as many lawmakers and other public figures as possible.the law itself is presuming Guilt without trial. thus should it pass, many will be labeled sex offenders without benefit of a trial or facing their accuser. thus, should they be found innocent, repayment in a fashion that the state would feel is fair. especially with the Hell those people would be living in while on the list and even after they were taken off.

the law itself is presuming Guilt without trial. thus should it pass, many will be labeled sex offenders without benefit of a trial or facing their accuser. thus, should they be found innocent, repayment in a fashion that the state would feel is fair. especially with the Hell those people would be living in while on the list and even after they were taken off.

I agree that enormous compensation would be owed, but I don't think it would be acceptable to pass the atrocious law even if it contained provisions for clearing one's name and being compensated.

I agree that enormous compensation would be owed, but I don't think it would be acceptable to pass the atrocious law even if it contained provisions for clearing one's name and being compensated.

hence my line "I Hope it Fails"

Right Here...
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.
I know how they think they can do it. I was wondering how, outside the lunatic asylum, anyone would think they could get away with it because:

now here's my question. if a bunch of people pettition to have the lawmakers put on this list. why would the judge toss it out?
such an event would automatically scream bias on the part of the judge. especially if others are also put on the list with less.

the down side is that now anyone claiming to be a victim can petition the judge directly. that's going to tie up the SAG, the CP, and the Judge. choke em with red tape so to speak.
All this is extremely and obviously true. The law is a recipe for witchhunts galore, all fueled by either social anxiety or personal, private hatreds, just like all witchhunts. And like most witchhunts, the hunters can easily become the hunted.

and should they procecute anyone who is placing false claims, then all that will do is scare the real victims into silence. :(
Only I don't think they will do that, because if they did, they would eventually have to face up to how stupid their law is, as the vast majority of claims would end up being dismissed as false. I'll go further and say that, with the right lawyers, 100% of the claims would be dismissed as false, since you can't be an offender if you haven't even been charged. To punish those who make false claims would be to acknowledge that the claims were false and that their law created a circumstance under which false claims could be made.

hope it fails.
Me too.

unless a clause can be put in. one that states, if the person who is on this list without a trial/arrest is found innocent, can he/she sue the state for Slander, Defamation and emotional duress.
A) Insufficient, because this law is pernicious and contrary to the entire concept of the US legal system and the British common law system on which it is based.

B) Also insufficient because the damage done to a person's reputation cannot be undone, especially in a country where people can argue whether a man was right or wrong to kill another man who he just suspected had molested his child, without firm evidence.

The best that could possibly happen would be that so many people will be put through this ringer of condemnation and lengthy legal actions to clear their names, that being branded by this law will become some kind of cynical badge of honor, like celebrities going through rehab. I don't really think that would be a good development, do you?

A) Insufficient, because this law is pernicious and contrary to the entire concept of the US legal system and the British common law system on which it is based.

B) Also insufficient because the damage done to a person's reputation cannot be undone, especially in a country where people can argue whether a man was right or wrong to kill another man who he just suspected had molested his child, without firm evidence.

The best that could possibly happen would be that so many people will be put through this ringer of condemnation and lengthy legal actions to clear their names, that being branded by this law will become some kind of cynical badge of honor, like celebrities going through rehab. I don't really think that would be a good development, do you?I Dunno, when it can be proven that your life was irrepairably damaged by your name being wrongfully put on this 'list', you could probably retire on what you could win from the state. heck, since this will only be within the state, you can probably Move to another state and still retire.

and if any background check still shows you on that list... you can again sue them again.

If they're stupid enough to make such laws legal... then bilk them for every mistake.


EDIT: sorry, I was still in a Captialist frame of mind from reading the "Who's more capitalistic than me?" thread.. http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9604/eusashifty9zv.gif

I Dunno, when it can be proven that your life was irrepairably damaged by your name being wrongfully put on this 'list', you could probably retire on what you could win from the state. heck, since this will only be within the state, you can probably Move to another state and still retire.

and if any background check still shows you on that list... you can again sue them again.

If they're stupid enough to make such laws legal... then bilk them for every mistake.

Oh, absolutely, let the miserable lying bastards pay for every swank dinner and every five-star hotel room for the rest of one's life, but of all the state-induced chronic pains in the ass that a person could possibly have to spend years of their life dealing with and correcting in big and little ways over and over, being publicly labeled a sex offender is one that I think it's better to avoid.

Also, this law's gross violation of every concept of legal ethics is so outrageous that I would not want to see it corrected by the natural attrition of civil torts. That would allow it to exist for too long. It has to be struck down. I am sure it will be.

<snip>
EDIT: sorry, I was still in a Captialist frame of mind from reading the "Who's more capitalistic than me?" thread.. http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9604/eusashifty9zv.gif
You don't have to apologize for that. I believe strongly in the right to sue as a check on both state and private power. I do think there should be some regulation of tort law, but the more I see of government actions like this, the more I like trial lawyers. :D

What is this, the God damned French Revolution? We have a constitution for a reason.

Closer to Germany, circa 1935...

I'll say this plainly and bluntly. I would rather 1000 children be molested than have this piece of fascist, unjust trash pass. Such laws molest the whole populace day in and day out, and spit on the graves of those who fought - on the battlefield and off - for a just and free nation.

I am now seriously concerned about our government's, and indeed our populace's willingess and ability to safeguard our rights.

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.' ~ a very wise group of men, whose sort is needed now more than ever it appears.

It sounds rather gitmo-ish doesn't it.

Is that even constitutional? Seems like a governmental invasion of privacy...

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWS



Looks like the people in Ohio are not willing to take a chance on someone offending.

Would you support such a law? Do you think the law, if successful or unchallenged, will take other forms? Or do you think the law is doomed from the start?

I think it's bloody stupid (they should at least wait until after the person's at least charged, or/and it should not be as stringent as it is) and could potentially help people make a lot of false claims against people, potentially resulting in not only less confidence in the justice system but also making things harder for genuine victims, as it will potentially be a lot easier to discredit them.

I think it's bloody stupid (they should at least wait until after the person's at least charged, or/and it should not be as stringent as it is) and could potentially help people make a lot of false claims against people, potentially resulting in not only less confidence in the justice system but also making things harder for genuine victims, as it will potentially be a lot easier to discredit them.
actually, they should wait till the person's CONVICTED.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWS



Looks like the people in Ohio are not willing to take a chance on someone offending.

Would you support such a law? Do you think the law, if successful or unchallenged, will take other forms? Or do you think the law is doomed from the start?

1. I would support no such law.
2. I hope not.
3. Yes...

Looks like the people in Ohio are not willing to take a chance on someone offending.

Would you support such a law? Do you think the law, if successful or unchallenged, will take other forms? Or do you think the law is doomed from the start?

Goddamnit, Ohio...

The distressing thing is that laws like this are becoming more and more popular, it seems likely that this could actiualy pass considering the child molestation moral panic has yet to die. Surely at least one person with power will notice that this completely contradicts the whole idea of innocent untill proven guilty.

How can a person be an offender if they've never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted? That would be like punishing someone for being a thief even though they haven't stole anything, or a murderer even though they haven't killed anyone. It's crazy. Stupid, too. It will never survive a challenge in court.

I know a guy who got acquitted of all the charges against him, but was still declared a sex offender. Basically, the court found that he sold comic books that weren't lewd to someone who wasn't a minor, but he was a sex offender anyways. Unfortunately, the money the ACLU had to defend him had run out, and I don't think the CBLDF was really active yet.

Interestingly enough, the same DA is now trying to get him, once again, on a similar charge, but I'm pretty sure the CBLDF is in this one 'til the end.

I know a guy who got acquitted of all the charges against him, but was still declared a sex offender. Basically, the court found that he sold comic books that weren't lewd to someone who wasn't a minor, but he was a sex offender anyways. Unfortunately, the money the ACLU had to defend him had run out, and I don't think the CBLDF was really active yet.

Interestingly enough, the same DA is now trying to get him, once again, on a similar charge, but I'm pretty sure the CBLDF is in this one 'til the end.

This is the kind of situation an independent judiciary is supposed to deal with, because politically, this is a no win situation. No politician in the world is going to burn capital on sex offenders, even if they've only been accused, because it's too easy to come back on you.

This is the kind of situation an [b]independent[b] judiciary is supposed to deal with, because politically, this is a no win situation. No politician in the world is going to burn capital on sex offenders, even if they've only been accused, because it's too easy to come back on you.

Unfortunately, most of the judiciary isn't all that independent though, is it? Many judges are elected - and also can't appear to be soft on sex offenders. Not to mention that judges are all too often buddy-buddy with the DA (which is pretty much the only way to explain the situation I described).

I'm rather displeased that my state has passed this law.

Unfortunately, most of the judiciary isn't all that independent though, is it? Many judges are elected - and also can't appear to be soft on sex offenders. Not to mention that judges are all too often buddy-buddy with the DA (which is pretty much the only way to explain the situation I described).

But if judges are appointed, the system is open to abuse by those doing the appointing. There's no easy answer to the problem.

I'm rather displeased that my state has passed this law.

I can certainly agree. Not really a surprise though, I think.

But if judges are appointed, the system is open to abuse by those doing the appointing. There's no easy answer to the problem.

No, there isn't. Our justice system (and our government in general) will always have one problem: it is run by people. But there isn't much of an alternative, so we just have to keep trying and trying to minimize the corruption and its effects.

No, there isn't. Our justice system (and our government in general) will always have one problem: it is run by people. But there isn't much of an alternative, so we just have to keep trying and trying to minimize the corruption and its effects.

The bitch of it all is, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, that the people who want power the most are the ones who should never, ever be allowed near it. And yet they're the ones with the necessary drive to get it.

I'm rather displeased that my state has passed this law.

I didn't think it was passed...yet. I have no confidence that it will be shot down, but in the meantime, there's still time for the lot of us to pack our bags and move to...I don't know...New Hampshire. Anything's better than this fascist, stagnant, corrupted, moralistic, guilty-screw-the-facts, self-righteous, self-important, half-drunk, football-obsessed, monumentally boring shit-heap that our government calls a state. Oh yeah, and the weather sucks here too. Year-round. This is not my state. It will never be my state. It's beyond repair.

now here's my question. if a bunch of people pettition to have the lawmakers put on this list. why would the judge toss it out? such an event would automatically scream bias on the part of the judge. especially if others are also put on the list with less.

The judge must still find that the request meets the requirements of the law. If the petitioners fail to do so, no amount of "screaming bias" will get the targets of the petitions put on the list. If they do meet the requirements of the law, then the targets will rightfully belong on the list. If "others are also put on the list with less", that means (a) that "less" was legally sufficient, or (b) the other judges failed to follow the law, in which case an appeal should be available.

But if judges are appointed, the system is open to abuse by those doing the appointing. There's no easy answer to the problem.

the key, like usual, would have to involve creating a society with more political engagement than just anonymous up or down votes (for either judges or the people who appoint judges). the current structures encourage a sort of unreflective non-participation that allows irrationalism to flourish.

The judge must still find that the request meets the requirements of the law. If the petitioners fail to do so, no amount of "screaming bias" will get the targets of the petitions put on the list. If they do meet the requirements of the law, then the targets will rightfully belong on the list. If "others are also put on the list with less", that means (a) that "less" was legally sufficient, or (b) the other judges failed to follow the law, in which case an appeal should be available.

Based on the information I can find, the "requirements of the law" are essentially "judge's discretion." Basically, any person can appeal to a judge to have the person placed on the sex offender's list without charge, trial, or conviction. If they can convince the judge, then the request will be granted and that person will be treated, for all intents and purposes, as a convicted sex offender.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWS



Looks like the people in Ohio are not willing to take a chance on someone offending.

Would you support such a law? Do you think the law, if successful or unchallenged, will take other forms? Or do you think the law is doomed from the start?

Sure. Great idea. Child molestation is bad, so any measure is justified in stopping it.

Hey! I just thought of something. Murder is bad, so we should do this with potnetial murderers too. Whenever we hear someone go "I'm gonna kill that bastard," we put him on the registry. He might never actually commit a murder, but why take the chance. If a hip-hop fan can be gangsta without goining a gang or commiting a crime, then why can't you be a murderer without ever commiting murder.

And terrorism. That's really bad. Whenever someone voices opposition to a politician then we should put him on a terror watch list.

And sarcasm's pretty bad to. People advocate all sorts of horrible things with the excuse of sarcasm. Sarcastic people should be put on such a registry.

In fact. Why bother with different registries? Why not just use the census?

This is pretty clearly a violation of the Due process clause of the US constitution.

Doesn't matter though, since we all know the constitution isn't worth the parchment it's printed on these days, especially if someone's an unpopular "sexual deviant".

Glad I don't live in Ohio, but it's still a chilling sign.

actually, they should wait till the person's CONVICTED.

Under a system that treats victims fairly, I would agree. The current situation in the USA is that, possibly depending on what US State you are in, victims of sexual crimes get treated VERY unfairly - plus too many sex offenders get away with further crimes due to the laws being balanced in their favour, for example if they are a serial sex offender, (again this may vary state to state) their previous sex attacks can't be mentioned but the victim's irrelevant consensual sexual history can be dragged up.

So untill that situation changes, then I stand by "charged" instead of "convicted"

Boy, when people gravedig a thread, it often appears to be mine...

Under a system that treats victims fairly, I would agree. The current situation in the USA is that, possibly depending on what US State you are in, victims of sexual crimes get treated VERY unfairly - plus too many sex offenders get away with further crimes due to the laws being balanced in their favour, for example if they are a serial sex offender, (again this may vary state to state) their previous sex attacks can't be mentioned but the victim's irrelevant consensual sexual history can be dragged up.

So untill that situation changes, then I stand by "charged" instead of "convicted"

Yes, rape victims are often treated very unfairly, but do you really think the way to fix that is to treat people who may have committed no crime unfairly instead?

I know a "sex offender." Do you know what he did? He sold comic books that weren't lewd to a person that wasn't under 18.