New Jersey to block sex offenders from internet, computer use
A new law in New Jersey gives authorities the right to take away computer and internet access from convicted sex offenders, regardless of whether computers or the internet played a role in their crime. Snip from Ars Technica:
According to one of the law's backers, state Senator John Girgenti, the law makes it easier for sex offenders to stay on the straight and narrow, "reducing the risk of them being tempted to be a repeat offender."Link (Thanks, Glyn)Bill S1979 gives the state broad authority to regulate a sex offender's computer and Internet usage so long as the person remains on parole. And the law is tough: anyone who uses a computer to help commit sex crimes will be prohibited from using computers or the Internet at all. The State Parole Board may also impose restrictions at its discretion on offenders even if they did not use computers to plan their crimes.
the latest
latest episodes
Everyone likes to hate sex offenders, for good reason; but the problem with this sort of thing is, they are saying "we want you to stay out of prison and reintegrate with society, but you will never be allowed to have a job".
Personally, I think allowing perverts to wank over internet smut might keep them away from live victims, not encourage them to find more.
we must stop computer monitor rape at all costs.
if they're so dangerous, why are they let out of prison? If they're safe to be let out of prison, why are they still being punished and restrained?
@AGOODSANDWICH: Becasue moral panics make politicians appear useful come election time. "Candidate Smith protected the children of New Jersey by cracking down on sex offenders" the ads will scream.
Of course, the fact that the overwhelming majority of sex offenses are committed by someone the kid knows or related to and stranger/internet solicitations make up just a small percentage of offenders gets lost in the shuffle.
Isolating them from society actually increases their likelihood to re-offend. After all, why bother reforming when it's assumed you're going to fail?
h, 'm f mxd pnns bt ths. sd t thnk wht GdSndwch sd, bt thnk th trth s tht w smply cn't tll wh s rfrmd nd wh sn't, wh wll rffnd nd wh wn't. W cn't kp thm ll n prsn frvr (ths th pc qstn, "wht's wrs: t mprsn n nncnt mn r t rls glty mn?"). nstd, stps r tkn t try t mnmz th rsk. Y cn fnd t f yr bbysttr s n th lst f pst ffndrs. Thy'r nstrctd t lv crtn dstncs frm schls. Th ntrnt bn wld b lng ths sm lns: n n swp w stp thm frm hngng t wth mnrs n rs whr thy cld sly d s thrgh th ntrnt: nln gmng, cht rms, MySpc, tc.
strtd t sy, "Th ntrnt s sch n ntgrl prt f scty, t wld b t hrsh t ct thm ff frm t" bt thn hd t snp bck t rlty nd rlz tht qt lrg prt f th wrld s dvd f ntrnt ccss, nd thy ddn't vn mlst nyn. Th ntrnt s prvlg, nt rght, nd prhps t's fr ngh t sy tht sx ffndrs hv gvn p tht prvlg.
Hwvr, t ds rmnd m f rdng Th Scrlt Lttr. t wht pnt shld w llw smn scnd chnc nd t wht pnt shld w brnd thm frvr?
I'm not sure that I disagree with this. The internet is just too attractive and it's too easy to circumvent any restrictions that this seems to me like a reasonable solution.
Fnarf:
"Personally, I think allowing perverts to wank over internet smut might keep them away from live victims, not encourage them to find more."
Nice theory, but it is wrong, and it ignores how people actually work. If you want to extinguish a behavior you don't do that by rehearsing it over and over and over. In treating any addiction, sex, drugs, gambling, you are unlikely to be successful by repeatedly engaging in the addiction.
Wouldn't it then make sense to simply bar all parents from using computers, since they commit the overwhelming majority of sex crimes. In fact, let's just have reverse age verification. Once you hit puberty, you're cut off.
What it actually ignores is the broadness of who is deemed "sex offender" these days. A girl I work with has a friend who is labeled "sex offender" for all eternity, because he STREAKED. Yes, ran across the street naked, on a dare. And is now branded forever.
Meanwhile, those who steal people's identities, commit internet fraud, and post youtube videos of themselves throwing a cat out a window still get full internet use. Brilliant.
LUNAMOTH #8 makes a key point in the discussion; I have a friend who was 18 when he had consensual sex with a 16 year old. Her parents filed charges and he will forever have trouble finding work, finding a place to live, etc.
By the way - someone should keep Datelines Chris Hanson away from the computor - that guy gives yellow journalism a bad name!
I remember seeing an article a few months ago stating that research studies had shown that the increase of availability of internet porn had, if anything, reduced the incidence of sexual crimes.
Excellent discussion here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1104chapmannov04,1,7432359.column
Many pundits had predicted the opposite, going on the same logic Noen suggested, that reinforcing the behavior will lead to more of it. The study showed the opposite. The web sites provided a harmless outlet for sexual urges.
I'm not entirely sure whether I like this idea or not, but I should point out, in response to Fnarf #1, that my morning (North Jersey) paper informed me that the law has an exception for computer use at work or in the course of looking for work. Which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms about who's going to claim they're looking for a job, really, and they just clicked on that porn ad by accident...
But yeah, there's a work exception.
@RealCatholicMen: The answer to the question of whether to imprison an innocent man or release a guilty man is in the basic tenants of the American justice system: Innocent until proven guilty, double jeopardy, & Ex post facto. The justice system is based around the belief that it is ALWAYS better to release a guilty man than to punish an innocent man.
Sex offender registries sound like a comfortable idea to most people, but forever branding someone based on something they did in the past doesn't sit well with me. Sure it may make us feel safer but it is essentially a life sentence for those on the list. For the example above, given by LUNAMOTH, I think everyone can agree that it's hardly fair to hand out a life sentence for what amounts to a sophomoric prank. In order to quell the "fears" of the populace these laws are written as broadly as possibly and have the unfortunate side effect of destroying the lives and livelihoods of innocent people.
I don't deny that there are people who may never be reformed and who it might be a good idea to keep an eye on, but punishing people who have already served their time based on the chance that some of them may regress goes against the societal values we have established.
Yes, rape is heinous. But the crime comes with a consequence, and once that time in prison has been served they have paid for their wrongdoing and shouldn't be punished further.
My question is, how do they enforce this law? Will every computer store in the state have a list of ex-offenders, or will there will be routine home checks by law enforcement of ex-offenders homes? And does this mean they can't just walk into their local public library and use their computers? Will they be given special library cards that say ex-sex offender on them?
I totally agree with LUNAMOTH. A guy my mother works with was arrested at work because he's a registered sex offender and forgot to update his address when he moved recently. He's a "sex offender" because he mooned an older lady when he was 18. Seems to me there should be some form of physical contact involved to deem something a sex offense.
I am 100% torn about this issue. My sister works closely with domestically abused women on a regualr basis. So on one hand, i think about what some of those women have had to go through and realize that there are people out there with such a skewed sense of what is okay to do and what is not that our justice system MUST do something to protect the public. Including, registries, keeping tabs on addresses, and/or limiting locations for residence.
but then the other side of me says that the justice system can't have it both ways. Either someone coming out of jail is reformed and safe or they aren't. We have this sort of grey area now that doesnt really do enough to stop recidivists and does way too much to people who are geuinely reformed.
IMO, the problem comes around when you start looking at the recidivism rates for sex crimes. There is most definetly a pattern and an excalation. The rates for sex crimes are astronomical when compared to armed robbery (just an example)
here's a good link to a long paper done about it:
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
And for the record, i would rather have a few "innocent" sex offenders on the list than have a few "guilty" ones unknown on the street. It sucks and i wish it could be fixed so only the guilty people get punished but sometimes that doesnt work out.
P.S. @14: physical contact is not necessary for sexual offense. Sex offenses escalate just like most other repeat crimes. Flashing/public masturbation/looking at kiddie porn are all sexual offenses that dont have physical contact involved (well, with other people) and are all HUGE warning signs of a future rapist or child molestor.
Flashing/public masturbation/looking at kiddie porn are all sexual offenses that dont have physical contact involved (well, with other people) and are all HUGE warning signs of a future rapist or child molestor.
Look, an entire we site devoted to the "sexual offense" of mooning Amtrak.
No one likes actual sex offenders, but some perspective is needed here.
so REALCATHOLICMEN let me understand that what you are saying is that we can't just look at someone and decide whether or not they are a threat to society. hat's the basic jist as I read it.
dont get me wrong, i never said that ALL sexual offenses are worth locking the offender up and throwing away the key. Absolutly, people are idiots and they do stupid things (including devoting an entire website to mooning Amtrak). Are these stupid things sexual offenses? under the law, absolutly. Should they be punished? probably not. But that doesnt mean that we should just write off all sex crimes that "dont involve touching" as silly frat boy pranks. Sex offenders escalate and while some actions may be sophmoric idiocy, others may be warning signs.
so the question then becomes, which would you rather have? some innocents getting the wrong label or possibly deterring some future sex offenders.
that was not a loaded question meant to sway one way or the other. i know my opinion, but i have no idea what the right answer is.
Sex offenders are categorized so I would agree that perhaps a level one sex offender might be given a clean slate. Level three... not so much. And I wouldn't be surprised if how you decide what level a particular offense would be is highly politicized.
as long as the guy that takes a leak behind a dumpster is on the same list as the guy that sodomizes a toddler, the sex offender registry will be a joke.
I also agree that if the state things you are a risk, you should still be in jail...can't have it both ways...either you are a danger or you aren't.
If someone commits a felony, they are pretty much branded for life anyway. They give up their rights under the Constitution when they fail to uphold the responsibility that comes with it. Personally I'm very much in favor of civil liberties, but with rights come responsibility. If someone demonstrates a fundamental lack of responsibility, be it mooning an old lady, or skinny dipping at an apartment complex like one of my buddies got busted for, or much worse, they deserve whatever election year laws get imposed on them.
"Deserve" -- there it is, the fundamental core of the American theology. It doesn't matter what's best for SOCIETY -- what's likely to stand the best chance of preventing the crime from happening again -- the only thing that matters is punishing the guilty. And punishing them again. And again. And punishing them even if they're NOT guilty, what the hell. As long as someone somewhere is being punished for wickedness, I feel better about myself.
I have problems with that, oddly enough.
When you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, isn't a "sex offense" the worst thing anyone could do?
This is one issue on which moonbats do not go nearly as far as they should in condemning our government.
The only problem with that "you give up your rights when you commit a felony" position, by the way, is that nearly everyone commits felonies.
Some of these comments are unbelievable. "Oh, I'm so torn about this. My FEELINGS are so conflicted."
Ask yourself this simple question: Would you rather your daughter were raped or had the fingers of her left hand chopped off with an axe? Because the axe-wielding maniac would serve of a lot less time than the rapist and would NOT be listed in the newspaper and on Internet registries as part of an "Axe-Wielding Psycho" list. Nobody gets the death penalty for grievous bodily harm.
It is because of these FEELINGS that Democracy doesn't work. The sooner we hand over control of our government to impartial robot overlords, the better.
Fnarf gets it right.
"Moonbat" is offensive.
"When you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, isn't a "sex offense" the worst thing anyone could do?"
No.
This is a religious debate.
I have come to the opinion that government has as much right to interfere with sex as they have with religion. ie NONE AT ALL.
I definitly do not mean that rape should be legal, or any similar stupidity it is still a very grevious form of assault. But thou shalt not commit buggery is right up there with thou shalt not worship the wrong god!
Oh and while I'm at it the "oops you have to wait till midnight before you're legal" is definitly stupid. It make it look like she's selling something! ... "You can't sell it to anyone under sexteen"
So where are these offenders going to put their energy into? I am more scared by this decision than news articles detailing their "actions."
In many states, urinating in public is deemed as a sexual offense. I'm pretty sure that makes every homeless person a sexual offender at some time or another. How many guys have been to a party where the bathroom has a line?
The list of sexual offenders has become so deluted that the effectiveness and reason for the list have become invalidated.
So the offenders would be banned from using game consoles, cellular phones, smart cars and most other modern electronic devices? Because they all connect to the net, in some way or another?
You people really make me sick. May be you should be banned from internet access for being so frakking stupid! Let me tell you something, Everyone is guilty of a CRIME! In fact, it turns out that the ones that try to draw attention to others are the likely culprits of said crime! Take some time to read the facts:
Protection or Privacy?
The general public is not being properly informed regarding the nature of sex offences and sex offenders. Drawing on personal knowledge from say, John Doe (who’s real name has been changed for privacy reasons), the feeling is that law makers, specifically John McCain (R-AZ) and Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), use misinformation to pass legislation that is “feel good legislation”, or legislation that is a band aid solution that make people think something positive is being done.
Megan’s Law, as sex offender registration is being called, was petitioned by the parents to the U.S. Congress and passed into law in 1996. The basis for the petition was that a young girl by the name of Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street from the Kanka family. Since then, the Kanka’s have made it their mission to see the enactment of such legislation in all fifty of the United States. The original intent of Megan’s Law was for “the most violent and predatory sex offenders” to be listed. Similar legislation has since been passed, coined Jessica’s Law, that puts tougher restrictions on where sex offenders are allowed to live and the punishments given for such offenses. Additionally, recently passed legislation has made it so sex offenders have to register their e-mail address so that socially oriented websites like Myspace have the ability to ban the use of their site by anyone convicted of a sex offense.
Because of the nature of a “sex offense”, most of the crimes committed by sex offenders are considered to be quite heinous in nature. When thought of, the term “sex offender” brings to mind the image of an older man that molests little children or the person that has raped an individual. As per the laws that have been enacted and largely unknown to the public, the simple act of a teenager “streaking”, or going to the bath room behind a bush, will commit an individual to have to register with authorities. In fact, John Doe was told by the registration agency he registers with that an 18 year old boy is commited to registration for ten years in the state of Colorado for simply pinching a girls rear end. Depending on where the offense is committed this can be for life, as it is in the state of Arizona.
Given the vast majority of cases normally reported by the news, sex offenders in general are not normally identified by their past crimes or the situations that drove them into to offend. Additionally, the news normally only mentions the name once, then refers to the accused only as “sex offender”. The point is that the general public is only given the information that is needed to hype fear and paranoia. The buying and selling of fear to get legislation passed. When that doesn’t work, it is in the name of the “children”.
According to the website www.SOhopeful.org, the main myths regarding sex offenders are as follows:
• “Most sexual assaults are committed by strangers. Reality - Most sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim or the victim's family, regardless of whether the victim is a child or an adult.”
• “Most sex offenders reoffend. Reality - This is the most common and most commonly exploited myth - and the easiest one to dispel with governmental research and reports. It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63% were rearrested for a nonsexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; 47% were reconvicted; and 41% were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics)… Similarly, 2,444 sex offenders were released from the Arizona Department of Corrections custody over the ten-year period. The average period of follow-up (to June 30, 1998) for all sex offenders was 54.5 months. Among the 2,444, 509 or 20.8 % returned at least once to the custody of the Department, including 346 or 14.2% with new felony convictions. While sex offenders returned to prison for a variety of new crimes, 78 or 3.2% returned for a new felony sex offense.”
• “Sexual offense rates are higher than ever and continue to climb. Reality - Despite the increase in publicity about sexual crimes, the actual rate of reported sexual assault has decreased slightly in recent years. The rate of reported rape among women decreased by 10% from 1990 to 1995 (80 per 100,000 compared to 72 per 100,000) (Greenfeld, 1997). In 1995, 97,460 forcible rapes were reported to the police nation-wide, representing the lowest number of reported rapes since 1989…”
• “Children who are sexually assaulted will sexually assault others when they grow up. Reality - Most sex offenders were not sexually assaulted as children and most children who are sexually assaulted do not sexually assault others…”
The issue with sex offender registration is that the requirement is a blanket policy. All sex offenders are considered the same regardless of their crime. This means that the guy who got caught relieving himself on the side of the road is considered just as dangerous as the guy who raped 10 people and killed 4 children. As the above mentioned research shows, less than 10 percent of convicted sex offenders reoffend. Seemingly this means that 90 percent of the registrants do not need to be monitored. Yet, the public has to pay the needed bills for upkeep of the websites, to staff the sex offender units, and to pay for officers to check residential address’s.
An additional issue mentioned by http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/commentary-fear.html. “The political and media co-mingling of issues of the "96+% and the RSOs (being registered sex offenders)" keeps the public hysterical and constantly fired up, so they -FEAR- some immediate threat! It blinds the public from seeing where legislation should be directed! Legislators, frustrated with real victims plight, and the seemingly unsolvable issues of the 96+%, legislate with a vengeance directed at RSOs. Their silent legislative voice is, punish the RSOs (an identifiable group) for newly committed crimes of the 96+% (an unidentifiable group), and the public legislative voice is -public safety (a pretext) not punishment-! Misguided and misdirected legislation! RSOs (and their Circle of Associations) live a unjustified life of denials of societal opportunities, harassment, vigilatism, SUBTLE vigilantisms, and hatreds, and following the legislative voice a blind hysterical society directs its vengeance also at all RSOs”. John Doe himself has received notes threatening his life in his mailbox, had notes posted around the neighborhood when his presence became known, and a few other minor threats. The collateral damage to family and friends is not taken into consideration when these “feel good” laws are passed. “Until legislatures admit error, "Fear, as a tactic," keeps former Sex Offenders (now RSOs) and their families as -Political Detainees- under Megans' Laws”.
The public wants to know about such offenders. The publication of their information makes it hard to acquire gainful employment to support themselves and their families. This is the main factor for recidivism. John Doe himself has tried to change trades to earn more, yet the past does not allow him to gain leverage in today’s job market. This makes daily living hardly bearable, which effects not only himself emotionally and psychologically, but effects those around him both at home and work. Additionally, the cost of registration can be high, as it is one-hundred and fifty dollars in the county of Arapahoe, Colorado. Comparatively, most offenders have to register every three months or every year on their birthday.
In conclusion, based upon personal experience and the evidence as seen above, a major overhaul of the sex offender system needs to be done. The cost is too high for the public to “feel” safe. The Declaration of Independence guarantees individuals the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” through the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Apparently this does not pertain to individuals convicted of a sex offense. Thus, any and all bills pertaining to this issue should be declared unconstitutional.
Am I the only one that sees a problem with this bill? From the comments, I think I'm the only one that actually read it...
1) The bill targets sex offenders that USED THE INTERNET IN THE COMMISSION OF THEIR CRIME. If a homeless guy urinates on the street, thereby exposing him or her self, he/she may be guilty of a sex offense in their town, but they will not be barred from the internet.
2) The bill contains a provision for job searches. The offender will be barred from using the internet but not from using online job search aids. They can search for jobs in the presence of their parole officer, for example.
I just don't see what all the hotting and hollering is about. If a person uses a gun to commit a crime, they should no longer be allowed to own a gun. Likewise with any sort of technology that is used in the commission of a crime, imho...if a person shows that they cannot use some piece of technology responsibly, they shouldn't be allowed to use the technology...
The bill that was passed is S1979. The complete bill text is here:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/S2000/1979_R2.PDF
As in my previous comment, the bill only targets offenders that used the internet as a tool in their crime. See S1979 lines 18-21. The article linked to in this post indicates that any offender is subject to the punishment. That article is clearly wrong.
The bill requires that any use of the internet by an offender be approved by a court. Using XBox Live and other online gaming, and pretty much any legitimate use of the internet, such as job-hunting, is perfectly okay so long as a judge deems that the offender can't use it their internet-enabled device to harm further victims.
From the bill text, it appears that an offender could have full internet access again fairly easily. The offender would just be subject to monitoring. Again, what's the big deal? The offender in question was found guilty of a sexual offense, and they used the internet as a tool in their offense. They deserve far worse than this bill does...
I thought branding was banned years ago.
h, gd ctch, Gmny. d ftn try t lk p th txt f css mntnd n strs bt ddn't ths tm, nd pprntly shld hv. Thnks fr dng th lgwrk.
'd sy tht mks th dcsn lt sr. f y s th ntrnt n th cmmssn f sxl crm (.g., mtng ndrg kds thrgh nln cht), thn slppng thm wth ftr rstrctn n ntrnt sg mks cmplt sns nd ll f th sd css w wr wrryng bt r rrlvnt.
f yr cmmnt hd bn th frst, ths wld hv bn shrtr thrd!
It's difficult for me to comment about this situation since I am a sex offender. But I would like to tell you something about my self because I want to know your reaction.
I was good kid once. I never stole or caused any kind problems. I even helped my family with bills ever since I was 14 years old. When I was old enough I joined the military to earn citizenship.
In 2003 I had just gotten back from a deployment and because I was gone for about six months my girlfriend of 2 years aborted our pregnancy and ended our relationship. I was feeling very low and I went out with some friends to celebrate my birthday.
While I was at a club with friends I met a girl and I took her home and we had sex and for a while I though of it as random on night stand.
She told a friend that she spent the night with a 21 year old Airman. And later as her parents found out and confronted her and she accused me of Rape. I did not rape her but I am ashamed that she was only 15 years old when I had sex with her and I was very stupid. I found out about her real age when police came to arrest me.
The military investigated me for 2 years and later charged me with liberties with a minor. And I went to prison for four years and six months. It did not really matter that she used a fake ID to get in the club. that matter is being argued in my appeals. But my point is ultimately I know I am responsible. In that situation I was the only adult and I should have shown better judgment.
I went through sex offender treatment program and humiliating plethysmograph test showing that I am not a Pedafile. But it does not change the fact that I have to register.
I went through prison and I lived with robbers, murderers rapist and child molesters. I know I have changed and I am struggling to adapt to normal life. I know that I will never be someone of importance but yet I work two jobs and attend online college. I have no-friends but yet I am always polite and hide my bitterness and anger. I know that I don't see kids as sexual objects but since I am labeled as a sex offender it effects me to avoid kids and even relationships. I have suicide thoughts but I am too much of a coward to do anything about it. I just don't really know what I am going to do with my life