The Netherlands has an interesting system for these background checks: You can go to City Hall and get a "Declaration of Good Behaviour". Basicly, it says you've never committed any serious crimes. These are demanded by certain jobs (schools, banks, police, government agencies). For certain jobs, specified declarations exist (For instance, taxi licences/driving violations, and sex crimes/working with children).
The nice thing about this system is that only the person itself can get them, and that other then you qualify or not, it shows nothing. You can either get the paper or not. So relatively it's a lot less intrusion on your privacy, and your employer doesn't get to hear any details about your past, that are probably not relevant but can be damaging.
The Netherlands has an interesting system for these background checks: You can go to City Hall and get a "Declaration of Good Behaviour". Basicly, it says you've never committed any serious crimes. These are demanded by certain jobs (schools, banks, police, government agencies). For certain jobs, specified declarations exist (For instance, taxi licences/driving violations, and sex crimes/working with children).
The nice thing about this system is that only the person itself can get them, and that other then you qualify or not, it shows nothing. You can either get the paper or not. So relatively it's a lot less intrusion on your privacy, and your employer doesn't get to hear any details about your past, that are probably not relevant but can be damaging.
This has the workings of something good. Even though it sounds like an award someone would get at the end of the school year in second grade, there's definitely something here.
Did some searching on the background check abuse here in Sweden.
You can request a statement of your records to see what's in them. This can be done for free once a year (no idea if you can do it more than once or if it'll cost you).
Companies started demanding to get this statement with your application - still in the envelope to prevent tampering.
The obvious flaw here is that you can only apply for one job a year if all companies start doing this retarded shit.
Just the very name "Megan's Law" makes me shudder... let alone the actual nightmarish content of it. The idea that lawmakers are so proudly holding up a single individual's hardship and saying "oh, lets end this now!" and then passing laws dedicated to that individual is just horrible. Laws should be made by people capable of putting aside their initial emotional response to something and look at things from all sides.
As for the actual content.. oh yeah, protect children by giving a bunch of vigilantes ammunition against people who have served the time given to them by the justice system... good plan, not.
The worst thing is that these laws are just the tip of the iceberg. Pedophile has become a playground insult, children are mortally afraid of any adult they don't know personally and the general population is utterly paranoid about such things. The press are permitted to know the names and faces of people who are not even being charged with anything, just being questioned... just going into the police station to discuss something you witnessed can be enough to have the morally bankrupt members of the press display your picture all over the newspapers and television, ruining your reputation and your life.
I remember very clearly when I was a child being told "if a grown up tries to get you into a car or touch you in bad places, kick them in the nuts, scream and run away".. thats protecting children. I remember all the kids in my local area being kept inside for a few weeks when a girl was molested in the local park.. we had to walk with our parents to our friends houses until the person was either caught, or our parents decided they couldn't keep us caged up anymore.. that was protecting children. Over reacting, waving banners, spray painting insults and throwing things at people who have done their time is not protecting children, its vigilantism.
Its very worrying how easy it is to be considered sexual predator these days as well.. I mean, not even taking into account the especially absurd things like "if you pee in a public place", its really scary, although of course it varies in different areas due to different laws..
.. hug a crying child? you molested them..
.. take a photo or video of a relatives school play or sporting event? Child porn..
.. your wife/girlfriend dresses up like a schoolgirl? Depicting children in a sexual context...
.. any sexual act where the other person lied about their age? Sexual abuse of a minor..
.. teenager and had sex with your partner who happens to be a day younger than you and therefore under the age? Pedophile..
And of course there are many, many, other situations it can happen.. today its actually very possible for a child to be a sexual predator against adults, although of course the general public would never admit it. I've heard children tell adults who were trying to get them to behave that "if you don't leave me alone I'll tell everyone you touched me!".
In my opinion, sexual offenses should be dealt with by the authorities using a "closed door" policy.. absolutely no details released to the press, or anyone not directly involved in the case, and all involved required to sign NDAs until the case is tried and convicted or thrown out. Furthermore, the identities of all involved should be kept a secret even after the matter is resolved. This would protect the victims from never being able to escape the memory of it (how many victims currently growing up will one day face "oh, hey, aren't you that girl who was in the news?") and innocent people from having their lives ruined just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As for the whole background check thing, I think only the police should be able to access criminal records.. have employers just apply to check names, a cop does it, if there is an actual court order preventing someone from working in that area then they can say "hey, no, this person can't do this"... other than that, the employer gets absolutely no information. All they need to know is Yes or No.
I personally think that demons are responsible for all the bad things in the world. Rock music, sex before marriage and evolution are the means by which Satan can infest are world in the form of these rotten, evil half-men who abuse our precious children.
We wouldn't need Megan's laws if everyone went to church more often.
And Pastor Rick will require your assistance to get him through this rough time. As you know the police are saying horrible things about what he did to a little boy. I'm sure everyone will donate extra this week to show our support.
That it's an evil, horrible thing, that you only do to someone you love very, very much? I'm not seeing the problem, there.
Besides, I read on The Onion that casual sex is only enjoyable and rewarding the first few decades you engage in it.
JamesKeenan on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
Last year, a proposition passed in CA that I found very scary. It was Prop 83, or "Jessica's Law". You can read up on it here if you want, but the gist of it is as follows:
A YES vote on this measure means:
Some sex offenders would serve longer prison and parole terms. Sex offenders released from prison would be monitored with Global Positioning System (GPS) devices while on parole and for life after discharge from state supervision. Registered sex offenders would not be allowed to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or park. More sex offenders would be eligible for commitment by the courts to state mental health facilities for treatment under the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) program.
GPS monitoring for life. And it's virtually impossible to find a place to live, at least in Los Angeles, that isn't 2000 feet from a school or park. Not to mention, there were already laws that expanded the penalty for child rape and called for the electronic tracking of high-risk sex offenders (i.e. child rapists) while on parole. Included in these laws were bans for such offenders on loitering around schools in parks, which seems a lot more effective than a straight ban on living in such areas. So really, the people who are an actual danger to children were already being taken care of by existing laws.
But of course, none of this mattered. It's almost impossible to argue against props like this without being labeled as pro-child-molester, so naturally the prop passed 70%-30%.
I have similar views on the way drunk drivers are handled, but that's for another thread.
Hi I'm Vee! on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I too have no knowledge of this field but the OP is very interesting. Truly, you are a giant stag-god-who-turns-into-a-monster among men.
The hate behind these laws is disgusting, and as I believe anger always has a root in fear, I wonder if it's our fear of committing sexual crimes ourselves which leads our society to 'Megan's Law' etc.
Some of the communities over here in Iowa increased the living distance restrictions to the point where sex offenders couldn't legally live in the city. This had the wonderful effect of forcing them all into certain areas or surrounding towns. (or in some cases, making them homeless) A lot of offenders just stopped registering.
I too have no knowledge of this field but the OP is very interesting. Truly, you are a giant stag-god-who-turns-into-a-monster among men.
The hate behind these laws is disgusting, and as I believe anger always has a root in fear, I wonder if it's our fear of committing sexual crimes ourselves which leads our society to 'Megan's Law' etc.
Or is that circular?
How is anger always based on fear?
Fuck man don't you ever listen to Yoda?
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thought that exact same thing.
I also noticed how the forumer that explained the idea to him had Yoda in his name.
Also, that GPS thing is fucking terrifying and disgusting. Every time I start to read how sex offender laws it just reminds me how I much I hate our society. Like what Than said about our attitude toward sex. It's so fucked up.
I too have no knowledge of this field but the OP is very interesting. Truly, you are a giant stag-god-who-turns-into-a-monster among men.
The hate behind these laws is disgusting, and as I believe anger always has a root in fear, I wonder if it's our fear of committing sexual crimes ourselves which leads our society to 'Megan's Law' etc.
Or is that circular?
How is anger always based on fear?
Fuck man don't you ever listen to Yoda?
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thought that exact same thing.
I also noticed how the forumer that explained the idea to him had Yoda in his name.
Also, that GPS thing is fucking terrifying and disgusting. Every time I start to read how sex offender laws it just reminds me how I much I hate our society. Like what Than said about our attitude toward sex. It's so fucked up.
Eh, you can't really rationalize raping someone though. For the other paranoid shit, it is definitely rediculous.
Also, look up civil commitment. They take people that have done their prison time and hold them indefinitely in a mental institution. The people that go to court and say " I recommend him for this ", are barely or not qualified to make such judgements.
I always think of that one adage: They came for the Jews, and I did nothing because I wasn't Jewish
They came for the Protestants, and I did nothing because I wasn't Protestant.
... And then they came for me.
Someone will get the smart idea to apply the SO stuff to all crimes, and then not happy times.
People definitely aren't entitled to a second chance or anything....
I too have no knowledge of this field but the OP is very interesting. Truly, you are a giant stag-god-who-turns-into-a-monster among men.
The hate behind these laws is disgusting, and as I believe anger always has a root in fear, I wonder if it's our fear of committing sexual crimes ourselves which leads our society to 'Megan's Law' etc.
Or is that circular?
How is anger always based on fear?
Fuck man don't you ever listen to Yoda?
I for one refuse to believe in Yoda's purported "Force Dichotomy". His arguments all basically boil down to "because I'm Yoda and I said so". Next thing you know, Yoda will tell us he talks to Jesus every night.
[
Eh, you can't really rationalize raping someone though.
...
Someone will get the smart idea to apply the SO stuff to all crimes, and then not happy times.
People definitely aren't entitled to a second chance or anything....
And you can rationalize murdering someone?
You could kill someone and go to jail, do your, time get out and get a job and it would be fine, unless you used your dick to do it.
You can get slapped with sex offender status if you are under age and have sex with an under age partner.
Your partner gets sex offender status too.
This is the part that really gets me. This and the public urination thing, because that is asinine, but this just seems malicious.
Like a really fucked up underhanded way of dealing with OMG TEEN SECKS.
Sealing the records of compliant sex offenders? Not ostracizing pedophiles because they're people, too?
...where did the "Intolerant of the Intolerant" thread go wrong?
:P
The general defense of Megan's Law, and I'm only guessing - I don't know, is would you feel safe with your own children if a former sex offender lived two houses down the road? Wouldn't you want to know and be able to determine for yourself whether he or she was harmless?
Really, what are the real defenses of Megan's Law? Everyone seems to be against it in this thread but how would someone for it respond?
Sealing the records of compliant sex offenders? Not ostracizing pedophiles because they're people, too?
...where did the "Intolerant of the Intolerant" thread go wrong?
:P
The general defense of Megan's Law, and I'm only guessing - I don't know, is would you feel safe with your own children if a former sex offender lived two houses down the road? Wouldn't you want to know and be able to determine for yourself whether he or she was harmless?
Really, what are the real defenses of Megan's Law? Everyone seems to be against it in this thread but how would someone for it respond?
Are the recidivism rates high enough to warrant ruining a person's life?
The general defense of Megan's Law, and I'm only guessing - I don't know, is would you feel safe with your own children if a former sex offender lived two houses down the road? Wouldn't you want to know and be able to determine for yourself whether he or she was harmless?
What sort of tests do you propose the average person should use to determine whether a sex offender is harmless or not?
The general defense of Megan's Law, and I'm only guessing - I don't know, is would you feel safe with your own children if a former sex offender lived two houses down the road? Wouldn't you want to know and be able to determine for yourself whether he or she was harmless?
What sort of tests do you propose the average person should use to determine whether a sex offender is harmless or not?
You could inquire if they're attending treatments regularly, how long it's been since they offended, talk to them and judge their character ... rip up their carpet and check to see if they're hiding child porn under the floorboards. I don't know but the tests would be similar to determining whether a person is sane or insane.
Are the recidivism rates high enough to warrant ruining a person's life?
If I had to guess .... yes?
They've been posted in this thread. Jesus, its only 2 pages long. Fucking read before you post, both of you.
I read the thread, but missed that part. Yes, I missed a key part of the first post.
I am blind.
MKR on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
I'm the constituent of a state legislator, Joel Kleefisch, who came up with this idea where sex offenders in Wisconsin would have to have bright orange license plates on their cars.
Because, you know, nobody else would ever need to use that car for anything ever. And certainly no passersby are going to play vigilante, especially not without knowing if the driver is the actual sex offender.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Out of curiousity, how many sex offenders in the US actually co-operate with the monitoring?
I wonder because the UK has a similar system of registration for sex offenders, where the person has to inform the police of their movements and location, but it isn't disclosed to the public. Currently, the rate of voluntary co-operation is about 97%.
There was a campaign for a "Megan's Law" over here, called "Sarah's Law," but it never really got anywhere, and I remember one of the primary reasons cited was the rate at which US law enforcement "lost" sexual offenders who stopped checking in and dropped off the radar.
The laws in Ohio are especially harsh for Sex Offenders. And they just got harsher earlier this year. I read an article a few weeks ago (found it), that scared the hell out of me, quite frankly.
We have a three tier system of labeling. But all of them are listed as "sex-offender/child-victim offender", even when the offender may not actually do anything with/to a child. The article relates the story of a former corrections officer who had sex with an (adult) inmate at the prison where she worked. Now she is listed as the highest tier offender, and will have to register for the rest of her life.
The laws in Ohio are especially harsh for Sex Offenders. And they just got harsher earlier this year. I read an article a few weeks ago (found it), that scared the hell out of me, quite frankly.
We have a three tier system of labeling. But all of them are listed as "sex-offender/child-victim offender", even when the offender may not actually do anything with/to a child. The article relates the story of a former corrections officer who had sex with an (adult) inmate at the prison where she worked. Now she is listed as the highest tier offender, and will have to register for the rest of her life.
Oh, how I love this state of mine.
If they weren't married when this sex occured she deserves far worse. That's just inexcusable.
JamesKeenan on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
You can get slapped with sex offender status if you are under age and have sex with an under age partner.
Your partner gets sex offender status too.
There was some NPR story about some young dude who got it on with his sister in some really tragic-sounding situation, and his status as a sex offender just chased him around his entire life.
The laws in Ohio are especially harsh for Sex Offenders. And they just got harsher earlier this year. I read an article a few weeks ago (found it), that scared the hell out of me, quite frankly.
We have a three tier system of labeling. But all of them are listed as "sex-offender/child-victim offender", even when the offender may not actually do anything with/to a child. The article relates the story of a former corrections officer who had sex with an (adult) inmate at the prison where she worked. Now she is listed as the highest tier offender, and will have to register for the rest of her life.
Oh, how I love this state of mine.
Ohio's the state where you can be put on the list without ever being charged with a crime, let alone convicted.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
My Aunt is a public defender, and one of her clients right now is a sex offender. His parole requires him to report in to an area that's off-limits to sex offenders, so he either violates his parole or violates Megan's law. So cool.
My Aunt is a public defender, and one of her clients right now is a sex offender. His parole requires him to report in to an area that's off-limits to sex offenders, so he either violates his parole or violates Megan's law. So cool.
He should sue!
Then it becomes a case on Megan's law!
Picardathon on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
I think you could get an interesting case with help from the ACLU. I would call it very much a 'cruel and unusual punishment.' You either comply, and get sent back to jail, or you refuse, and get sent back to jail.
It's gotten to the point where an adult can't help a lost child anymore. Good sense has been defenestrated because some politicians found out that talking about child rape garners votes. At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it started.
Posts
The nice thing about this system is that only the person itself can get them, and that other then you qualify or not, it shows nothing. You can either get the paper or not. So relatively it's a lot less intrusion on your privacy, and your employer doesn't get to hear any details about your past, that are probably not relevant but can be damaging.
This has the workings of something good. Even though it sounds like an award someone would get at the end of the school year in second grade, there's definitely something here.
You can request a statement of your records to see what's in them. This can be done for free once a year (no idea if you can do it more than once or if it'll cost you).
Companies started demanding to get this statement with your application - still in the envelope to prevent tampering.
The obvious flaw here is that you can only apply for one job a year if all companies start doing this retarded shit.
As for the actual content.. oh yeah, protect children by giving a bunch of vigilantes ammunition against people who have served the time given to them by the justice system... good plan, not.
The worst thing is that these laws are just the tip of the iceberg. Pedophile has become a playground insult, children are mortally afraid of any adult they don't know personally and the general population is utterly paranoid about such things. The press are permitted to know the names and faces of people who are not even being charged with anything, just being questioned... just going into the police station to discuss something you witnessed can be enough to have the morally bankrupt members of the press display your picture all over the newspapers and television, ruining your reputation and your life.
I remember very clearly when I was a child being told "if a grown up tries to get you into a car or touch you in bad places, kick them in the nuts, scream and run away".. thats protecting children. I remember all the kids in my local area being kept inside for a few weeks when a girl was molested in the local park.. we had to walk with our parents to our friends houses until the person was either caught, or our parents decided they couldn't keep us caged up anymore.. that was protecting children. Over reacting, waving banners, spray painting insults and throwing things at people who have done their time is not protecting children, its vigilantism.
Its very worrying how easy it is to be considered sexual predator these days as well.. I mean, not even taking into account the especially absurd things like "if you pee in a public place", its really scary, although of course it varies in different areas due to different laws..
.. hug a crying child? you molested them..
.. take a photo or video of a relatives school play or sporting event? Child porn..
.. your wife/girlfriend dresses up like a schoolgirl? Depicting children in a sexual context...
.. any sexual act where the other person lied about their age? Sexual abuse of a minor..
.. teenager and had sex with your partner who happens to be a day younger than you and therefore under the age? Pedophile..
And of course there are many, many, other situations it can happen.. today its actually very possible for a child to be a sexual predator against adults, although of course the general public would never admit it. I've heard children tell adults who were trying to get them to behave that "if you don't leave me alone I'll tell everyone you touched me!".
In my opinion, sexual offenses should be dealt with by the authorities using a "closed door" policy.. absolutely no details released to the press, or anyone not directly involved in the case, and all involved required to sign NDAs until the case is tried and convicted or thrown out. Furthermore, the identities of all involved should be kept a secret even after the matter is resolved. This would protect the victims from never being able to escape the memory of it (how many victims currently growing up will one day face "oh, hey, aren't you that girl who was in the news?") and innocent people from having their lives ruined just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As for the whole background check thing, I think only the police should be able to access criminal records.. have employers just apply to check names, a cop does it, if there is an actual court order preventing someone from working in that area then they can say "hey, no, this person can't do this"... other than that, the employer gets absolutely no information. All they need to know is Yes or No.
We wouldn't need Megan's laws if everyone went to church more often.
And Pastor Rick will require your assistance to get him through this rough time. As you know the police are saying horrible things about what he did to a little boy. I'm sure everyone will donate extra this week to show our support.
Besides, I read on The Onion that casual sex is only enjoyable and rewarding the first few decades you engage in it.
GPS monitoring for life. And it's virtually impossible to find a place to live, at least in Los Angeles, that isn't 2000 feet from a school or park. Not to mention, there were already laws that expanded the penalty for child rape and called for the electronic tracking of high-risk sex offenders (i.e. child rapists) while on parole. Included in these laws were bans for such offenders on loitering around schools in parks, which seems a lot more effective than a straight ban on living in such areas. So really, the people who are an actual danger to children were already being taken care of by existing laws.
But of course, none of this mattered. It's almost impossible to argue against props like this without being labeled as pro-child-molester, so naturally the prop passed 70%-30%.
I have similar views on the way drunk drivers are handled, but that's for another thread.
Fuck man don't you ever listen to Yoda?
I also noticed how the forumer that explained the idea to him had Yoda in his name.
Also, that GPS thing is fucking terrifying and disgusting. Every time I start to read how sex offender laws it just reminds me how I much I hate our society. Like what Than said about our attitude toward sex. It's so fucked up.
Also, look up civil commitment. They take people that have done their prison time and hold them indefinitely in a mental institution. The people that go to court and say " I recommend him for this ", are barely or not qualified to make such judgements.
I always think of that one adage: They came for the Jews, and I did nothing because I wasn't Jewish
They came for the Protestants, and I did nothing because I wasn't Protestant.
... And then they came for me.
Someone will get the smart idea to apply the SO stuff to all crimes, and then not happy times.
People definitely aren't entitled to a second chance or anything....
I for one refuse to believe in Yoda's purported "Force Dichotomy". His arguments all basically boil down to "because I'm Yoda and I said so". Next thing you know, Yoda will tell us he talks to Jesus every night.
It is not Yoda that speaks in confusing metaphors, it is confusing metaphors that speak in Yoda.
Oh I see how it is.
I bet you think Kermit is some sort of crackpot too.
He is a racist bastard.
Your partner gets sex offender status too.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You could kill someone and go to jail, do your, time get out and get a job and it would be fine, unless you used your dick to do it.
This is the part that really gets me. This and the public urination thing, because that is asinine, but this just seems malicious.
Like a really fucked up underhanded way of dealing with OMG TEEN SECKS.
...where did the "Intolerant of the Intolerant" thread go wrong?
:P
The general defense of Megan's Law, and I'm only guessing - I don't know, is would you feel safe with your own children if a former sex offender lived two houses down the road? Wouldn't you want to know and be able to determine for yourself whether he or she was harmless?
Really, what are the real defenses of Megan's Law? Everyone seems to be against it in this thread but how would someone for it respond?
Are the recidivism rates high enough to warrant ruining a person's life?
If I had to guess .... yes?
What sort of tests do you propose the average person should use to determine whether a sex offender is harmless or not?
You could inquire if they're attending treatments regularly, how long it's been since they offended, talk to them and judge their character ... rip up their carpet and check to see if they're hiding child porn under the floorboards. I don't know but the tests would be similar to determining whether a person is sane or insane.
I read the thread, but missed that part. Yes, I missed a key part of the first post.
I am blind.
Because, you know, nobody else would ever need to use that car for anything ever. And certainly no passersby are going to play vigilante, especially not without knowing if the driver is the actual sex offender.
I wonder because the UK has a similar system of registration for sex offenders, where the person has to inform the police of their movements and location, but it isn't disclosed to the public. Currently, the rate of voluntary co-operation is about 97%.
There was a campaign for a "Megan's Law" over here, called "Sarah's Law," but it never really got anywhere, and I remember one of the primary reasons cited was the rate at which US law enforcement "lost" sexual offenders who stopped checking in and dropped off the radar.
Nah, fuck Yoda. Philosophy, psychology, introspection and Buddha. That's where my view comes from.
Lucas is just lucky he ripped off such great source material.
We have a three tier system of labeling. But all of them are listed as "sex-offender/child-victim offender", even when the offender may not actually do anything with/to a child. The article relates the story of a former corrections officer who had sex with an (adult) inmate at the prison where she worked. Now she is listed as the highest tier offender, and will have to register for the rest of her life.
Oh, how I love this state of mine.
If they weren't married when this sex occured she deserves far worse. That's just inexcusable.
There was some NPR story about some young dude who got it on with his sister in some really tragic-sounding situation, and his status as a sex offender just chased him around his entire life.
Ohio's the state where you can be put on the list without ever being charged with a crime, let alone convicted.
He should sue!
Then it becomes a case on Megan's law!