Ohio will turn untried people into sex offenders - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kutulu · 09-01-2006, 12:11 PM

How did this happen? Did we just decide to throw out the constitution? Everyone involved with this should be run out of the state by the voters. But they won't be, we will do anything to 'protect the children'

link

Quote:

SEX OFFENDERS
Plan gains to publicly identify accused
Ohio panel backs registry proposal

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

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.

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.

Brewmaniac · 09-01-2006, 12:32 PM

I think this will end up in a higher court, as soon as someone gets put on this list. It sure sounds unconstitutional to me.

kutulu, you might want to add more to your post to help promote discussion, to avoid a mod locking this thread.

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 12:53 PM

Innocent until proven guilty. You're both right that it's unconstitutional, and I pray that this gets resolved by a responsible judge or justice.

Ch'i · 09-01-2006, 12:59 PM

I hope that even if it is passed, someone will take it to the higher courts to abolish it. The ACLU will hopefully be all over this.

Ustwo · 09-01-2006, 01:07 PM

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.

Maybe we just need a list of ex-priests.

MSD · 09-01-2006, 01:27 PM

"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."

But a civilly defined offender is one who criminal courts could not prove had abused in the first place ...

Fuck this, just another step down the authoritarian slope to totalitarianism. I remember the days when I idealistically believed it when my teachers told me that "our judicial system is based on the idea that we would rather let nine guilty men go free than convict the tenth, who is innocent."

flstf · 09-01-2006, 04:27 PM

I read the article and I sure hope there is more to this than what it contains.

Quote:

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.

If I understand it right someone can have a grudge against you and claim to be a victim without having to prove it thereby putting you on the sex offender list. Once you are on the list you can petition the court to remove your name after six years.

I just don't get it. For what possible reason do our polititians want to do this? Why would we want to put innocent people on a sex offender list. If all we have to do is to ask a judge to declare someone guilty, why even have a court system? From what I have read there are some borderline crazy judges, prosecutors and attorney generals out there.

There simply has to be more to this, nobody (including our polititians) would agree to something so ridiculous. Can you imagine all the false accusations that will be made?

Val_1 · 09-01-2006, 04:36 PM

If it wasn't for dumb laws written by and passed by politicians what would keep the lawyers in business?

lindalove · 09-01-2006, 05:19 PM

Do these people even know what the constitution is? I mean, what the hell? I'm a definite hawk when it comes to going after sex offenders, especially those that target children, but there is still the basis of the judicial system that has to be upheld. Without it, we are not worth calling a civilized society.

Terrell · 09-01-2006, 09:35 PM

I think that this is wrong too, but I don't support the sex offender laws to begin with because you don't have to be a rapist or child molester to be labeled as a sex offender. Check out http://www.sexcriminals.com/megans-law/ and pick a state, you'll find out that in some states there are convictions that require registration as a sex offender that don't involve rape or molestation. Check out Florida and Louisiana as a couple of examples.

n0nsensical · 09-01-2006, 09:53 PM

as if you needed another reason not to live in ohio.

analog · 09-01-2006, 10:43 PM

This will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

The judge who put the OK on this needs to lose his bench, permanently.

ObieX · 09-01-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewmaniac

I think this will end up in a higher court, as soon as someone gets put on this list. It sure sounds unconstitutional to me.

kutulu, you might want to add more to your post to help promote discussion, to avoid a mod locking this thread.

Yep, this is the type of thing that the courts are there to stop. When the politicians are afraid to step up forfear of the election time blow-back the courts step up to the plate (most of the time anyway) and knock this kind of stuff down.

lindalove · 09-02-2006, 10:59 AM

Whether or not there is more to it, the simple fact that there can be such a ruling without a trial is wrong.

Ustwo · 09-02-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

There simply has to be more to this, nobody (including our polititians) would agree to something so ridiculous. Can you imagine all the false accusations that will be made?

Thats what I figure as well, this wont' be the first time the interweb had an incomplete story which turned out to be only half, or less than half of the truth.

Edit:looking around I can't find anything on this. Anyone else have a link?

snowy · 09-02-2006, 11:15 AM

We have due process for a reason.

Regardless of the crime possibly committed, let's keep it that way.

Lady Sage · 09-02-2006, 02:20 PM

God I love living in Ohio (can you see the dripping sarcasm?)

As soon as I bought this house 3 1/2 years ago I started getting "the mail"
"The Mail" is made up of letters telling you how close an offender lives to you, what they have done and their picture. It also includes other tasty lil tidbits.

Here is another problem... the offender(s) live anywhere from 500-1000 feet from my property line. I live close enough to an elementary school that I can hear the children playing on the play ground at recess..... why are they permitted to live so close to a school?!?!?!?!?!?

Psycho Dad · 09-02-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

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.

Because people seem to automatically think that all sex offenders are child molesters and these days you can damn near get support for anything as long as you say it is for the children.

magictoy · 09-02-2006, 04:09 PM

This is only the logical consequence of allowing the confiscation of a john's car for solicitation (in effect, a fine of thousands of dollars for a very petty, victimless crime, which the police are thrilled with, due to the influx of money), "thought crimes" such as "hate speech," and all the other injustices/bad laws that we allow, because they don't affect us. Does anyone remember just a few months ago, when a judge decreed he would put a sixteen-year-old in a foster home if he didn't consent to chemotherapy?

We can't complain as long as we allow our elected officials to get away with such travesties.

I for one have always been willing to work to overturn lifetime appointments for judges.

Toaster126 · 09-02-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

Because people seem to automatically think that all sex offenders are child molesters and these days you can damn near get support for anything as long as you say it is for the children.

Really? I figured no one opposed this because they didn't want to be "the one opposed to keeping our children safe". It's politics, man.

longbough · 09-02-2006, 04:36 PM

Solution:
What if someone just decided to file a police report that the Attourney General sexually assaulted them?

lindalove · 09-02-2006, 05:15 PM

A quick re-read showed me that this just passed committee, not the full legislature. It could be like other things that end up dying at the end of the agenda.

Psycho Dad · 09-02-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

Really? I figured no one opposed this because they didn't want to be "the one opposed to keeping our children safe". It's politics, man.

No matter how you look at it it's sad that none of them wanted to be the one who wanted to protect the citizen's rights to due process.

The_Jazz · 09-03-2006, 09:20 AM

Why do I get the feeling that if this were ever passed into law, a bunch of frat boys at OSU would get the idea that it would be funny if they were all on the list? Or that they would try to get someone in a rival frat on the list? There just seems like way to much opportunity for misuse here. I'm all about keeping an even keel, but this is just ridiculous, should it ever actually happen.

dksuddeth · 09-03-2006, 03:12 PM

Let's hypothesize and say this passed state court muster. Would this make a court 'illegitimate'? an obvious ruling against the 5th amendment?

09-01-2006, 12:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
Brewmaniac Searching for the perfect brew!	I think this will end up in a higher court, as soon as someone gets put on this list. It sure sounds unconstitutional to me. kutulu, you might want to add more to your post to help promote discussion, to avoid a mod locking this thread. __________________ "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

09-01-2006, 01:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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. Maybe we just need a list of ex-priests. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-01-2006, 04:36 PM	#8 (permalink)
Val_1 Addict Location: In a State of Denial	If it wasn't for dumb laws written by and passed by politicians what would keep the lawyers in business? __________________ I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. -Frank Sinatra

09-01-2006, 09:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	as if you needed another reason not to live in ohio. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

09-02-2006, 11:15 AM	#16 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	We have due process for a reason. Regardless of the crime possibly committed, let's keep it that way. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

09-01-2006, 12:53 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Innocent until proven guilty. You're both right that it's unconstitutional, and I pray that this gets resolved by a responsible judge or justice.

09-01-2006, 12:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	I hope that even if it is passed, someone will take it to the higher courts to abolish it. The ACLU will hopefully be all over this.

09-01-2006, 01:27 PM	#6 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	"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." But a civilly defined offender is one who criminal courts could not prove had abused in the first place ... Fuck this, just another step down the authoritarian slope to totalitarianism. I remember the days when I idealistically believed it when my teachers told me that "our judicial system is based on the idea that we would rather let nine guilty men go free than convict the tenth, who is innocent."

09-01-2006, 05:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
lindalove Registered User	Do these people even know what the constitution is? I mean, what the hell? I'm a definite hawk when it comes to going after sex offenders, especially those that target children, but there is still the basis of the judicial system that has to be upheld. Without it, we are not worth calling a civilized society.

09-01-2006, 09:35 PM	#10 (permalink)
Terrell Insane Location: Orlando, Florida	I think that this is wrong too, but I don't support the sex offender laws to begin with because you don't have to be a rapist or child molester to be labeled as a sex offender. Check out http://www.sexcriminals.com/megans-law/ and pick a state, you'll find out that in some states there are convictions that require registration as a sex offender that don't involve rape or molestation. Check out Florida and Louisiana as a couple of examples.

09-01-2006, 10:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
analog Banned	This will be struck down by the Supreme Court. The judge who put the OK on this needs to lose his bench, permanently.

09-02-2006, 10:59 AM	#14 (permalink)
lindalove Registered User	Whether or not there is more to it, the simple fact that there can be such a ruling without a trial is wrong.

09-02-2006, 02:20 PM	#17 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	God I love living in Ohio (can you see the dripping sarcasm?) As soon as I bought this house 3 1/2 years ago I started getting "the mail" "The Mail" is made up of letters telling you how close an offender lives to you, what they have done and their picture. It also includes other tasty lil tidbits. Here is another problem... the offender(s) live anywhere from 500-1000 feet from my property line. I live close enough to an elementary school that I can hear the children playing on the play ground at recess..... why are they permitted to live so close to a school?!?!?!?!?!?

09-02-2006, 04:09 PM	#19 (permalink)
magictoy Crazy	This is only the logical consequence of allowing the confiscation of a john's car for solicitation (in effect, a fine of thousands of dollars for a very petty, victimless crime, which the police are thrilled with, due to the influx of money), "thought crimes" such as "hate speech," and all the other injustices/bad laws that we allow, because they don't affect us. Does anyone remember just a few months ago, when a judge decreed he would put a sixteen-year-old in a foster home if he didn't consent to chemotherapy? We can't complain as long as we allow our elected officials to get away with such travesties. I for one have always been willing to work to overturn lifetime appointments for judges.

09-02-2006, 04:36 PM	#21 (permalink)
longbough Soylent Green is people. Location: Northern California	Solution: What if someone just decided to file a police report that the Attourney General sexually assaulted them?

09-02-2006, 05:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
lindalove Registered User	A quick re-read showed me that this just passed committee, not the full legislature. It could be like other things that end up dying at the end of the agenda.

09-03-2006, 09:20 AM	#24 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Why do I get the feeling that if this were ever passed into law, a bunch of frat boys at OSU would get the idea that it would be funny if they were all on the list? Or that they would try to get someone in a rival frat on the list? There just seems like way to much opportunity for misuse here. I'm all about keeping an even keel, but this is just ridiculous, should it ever actually happen. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-03-2006, 03:12 PM	#25 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Let's hypothesize and say this passed state court muster. Would this make a court 'illegitimate'? an obvious ruling against the 5th amendment? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."