Abso Fucking Lutely Insane

[filkertom]

drzarron noticed this one, a new set of rules in Ohio:

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.

The attorney general's office said it continues to hold discussions with a group representing day care operators about one of the rules pertaining to what such facilities would do with information they might receive pertaining to someone on the registry if that person is living nearby.

[My emphasis.]

So it has come to this. Someone in Ohio can accuse someone else of being a sex offender, and the accused person could petition the court after six years to get their name taken off the list.

This is life-destroying.

This is so unconstitutional it's insane.

HOW CAN THEY DO THIS!? HOW CAN THEY NOT SEE THE ILLEGALITY OF THIS?

This is the shit we held an armed revolution over.

---

Update: From some of the comments, some noble folks are trying to see what was going on in the heads of the yahoos that came up with this joke. Some of you other folks, the ones who have invoked the Constitution and especially the Bill of Attainder, see what I'm seeing.

There is no grey area on this.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with sex offenders or sex offenses.

This is punishing someone accused of a crime without actually bringing them to trial.

If you've got enough evidence to convince a judge, you should be pressing charges and bring the shit to trial. If you don't, if you merely suspect or think or feel, find a way to get evidence or deal with it.

This could lead, literally, back to the Salem Witch Trials, where people were slain -- tortured to death -- on the say-so of pretty much anybody.

This isn't the rule of law. This isn't crime control. This is intimidation, suppression, and setting of precedent.

And if you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, it's really, really easy. It involves the answer to one question:

What crime is next on the list?

Comments

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I've got the same advice that I've been saying every time I see this - a bunch of citizens should get together and make sure that the very first names on the list should be the legislative panel and the governor. Who are, arguably, screwing the citizens without their consent.

Let them what brought it have to take it to the Supreme Court to undo it. Maybe that'll get through their thick, pointy heads.

[tropism.livejournal.com]

It's a freaking Bill of Attainder, which is outlawed in Article 1 of the friggin' constitution. I think that this will get squashed, rapidly, once the Supreme Court gets it before them.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Maybe. I agree with your analysis of its being unconstitutional; I just don't have much faith in this Court.

[scott644.livejournal.com]

Absolutely agree. It's a blatant effort to circumvent the criminal law process in order to criminally punish those not convicted of a crime, and thus unconstitutional.

[jhayman.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Trial WITHOUT judge or jury. Didnt' we toss that idea, oh, about a 800 years ago?

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

As usual, I'm seeing it both ways.

So very many sex offenders are never identified and are left free to prey on the public. My uncle did for at least two decades before there was any evidence to convict him.

On the other hand, this is a bad, bad, bad idea.
It's going to get used for spite.
It's going to ruin innocent lives.
It's not going to get the ones it's intended for.

It's not going to work.

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

Even if they've never been charged with a crime?

My jaw hits the ground. I'm all for a national registry, heck even international in some cases. But I already have some issues with how a perosn gets their name on it. For example, a pediophile with 6 or 7 offences is listed on the same list as the poor dude who had sex with his girl friend after he was 18 and her parents didn't like him and called the police. There is a world of difference, but some provinces and states have them listed on the same list. But to put a person on based simply on hearsay? Please!

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

Every time I wake up the world seems to have gone more insane. At the very least this country is no longer sane at the highest levels - and at the lover levels I suspect as well.

At the very least this will give divorcees a way to effectively permanently ensure that their spouses are screwed badly after the divorce.

Can I wake up from this nightmare now? Please?

[hanabishirecca.livejournal.com]

I don't think state representatives think anymore. It is much like the video game laws that states pass. It is surreal. A state proposes a ban or restriction on violent video games. The video game industry threatens to legally challange it if passed and warns it wastes tax payer's money. The state passes the law anyway. The video game industry takes it to court. A federal judge rules in favor of the industry and criticizes the state for being a bunch of morons.

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

Replace lover with lower in that last post please.

*drinks a coffee pot full of coffee*

[nelladarren.livejournal.com]

Well, if you live in Ohio better DON'T fuck lutes anymore...
(Just couldn't resist - your subject line was too tempting...) :o/

I wished this was unbelievably awful, but unfortunately it figures... that's the spirit of the 21st century.

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Not to mention all the federal politicians and celebrities you can imagine. Basically, anyone with the ability to take this to the media and absolutely kill it stone dead staked at the crossroads.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Anyone who cheers less loudly than their neighbors for the next escalation of the destruction of anyone that might possibly be a sex offender is committing political suicide, because as soon as you're accused of being "soft on sex offenders" the majority of voters (who can't see beyond a soundbite) will listen to any defense of your actions. It doesn't matter if it's blatantly unconstitutional, unfair, completely devoid of ethical foundation, and just plain bogus, any law that is presented as cracking down on sex offenders is going to pass unanimously.

[eibii.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure I saw this on an episode of South Park. Or, perhaps, several. Ye gods.

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

So when are they gonna bring back the stocks and branding people with the scarlet "S"? That should be coming just any minute right?

[mtgat]

That's where I'm stuck with this. On the one hand, I can't tell you how many rapists I know of who've never seen so much as the inside of a squad car, and this would be one possible way of outing them. On the other, yeah, without any kind of due process, you might as well put all our names on it right now, because anyone with a grudge or an agenda can and will use it, and it'll be useless.

*hates world*

I hate to bring something ELSE up on this, but ....

[capplor.livejournal.com]

"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."

Who came up with it? The people who brought you the inquisition! Of COURSE the concept of "sentence first, verdict later" doesn't bug the outfit that still thinks they are THE law and no other.

(Honest, not all religions are like that.)

Judge Actually

[baronet.livejournal.com]

A recently enacted law allows...victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender

I read that to mean that the judge would have to see some kind of evidence and make some kind of judgement. So it is a trial without jury, but at least they get a judge to shoot down some of the baseless claims. It is still (to my eye) unconsitutional. It seems like a great way to destory the life of someone you don't like, but could make a "plausible" accussation against.

Which really means that it will hard to get the legistative panel on the list.

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's time for another armed revolution. Thomas Jefferson once likened our form of government that needed to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I think it's past time to do a little watering with some tyrants' blood.

More Sex Crimes

[baronet.livejournal.com]

Maybe the government would start treating sex offenders better (read in accordance with the constitution) if we made accepting bribes a sex offense under the heading "Raping the voters". Heck while we're at it, we could add passing blatantly unconstitutional laws too, under the heading "Fucking around"

Re: Judge Actually

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

There are judges, and then there are right wing religious whacko judges. Judges have tried to put the ten commandments in federal courhouses, judges have sent people to prison over the flimsiest of evidence, judges have suppressed vindicating evidence just to see how the defense would handle it, and so on and so forth. Sure, their inane rulings eventually get overturned, and on rare occassion they are kicked off the bench, but the damage has already been done by then.

Of course, this could be just another Rove-ian ploy. When it gets struck down (I bet the ACLU is already on the way to the courthouse) the GOP can wail and moan that those liberal democrats want to protect sex offenders over the safety of the children and anyone who doesn't vote GOP are appeasing rapists and molestors.

*Sheesh* We really need to clean house.

Re: Judge Actually

[armb.livejournal.com]

In general, my understnding is that a civil case requires a judgement "on the balance of probabilities", rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of a criminal conviction. (O.J.Simpson, for example, was found not guilty of murder in a criminal trial, but guilty in a civil case for damages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson#Civil_trial).)

Which is enough of a protection that "make sure that the very first names on the list should be the legislative panel and the governor" isn't going to work, but weak enough that some completely innocent people could have their live completely screwed by vigilantes using the database and not caring what standards of conviction are used.

[batyatoon]

*froth spit snarl*

...yeah, I got nothin' constructive.

[renquestor.livejournal.com]

*brain asplodes*

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

Rev. Dimmesdale, Red Courtesy Phone....

I'm not defending it, but I see how they *think* they can do this.

In most jurisdictions the state can go to court and try to get someone committed to a mental health program if they think he has a problem that makes him ia danger to society. Being a civil commitment, the burden isn;t as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is hard because there isn't much that warrants a civil committment.

That being said, they've done this to *convicted* child molesters after they served their time (but refused to seek treatment claiming there was nothing wrong with what they were doing). But even there, the key was *convicted*. Someone found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before. Here they aint even doing that, but I'm sure they are saying what they are doing isn;t as bad as a civil commitment.

GGrrrrr.. Fuckin Grrrr