Ohio Moves to Register Sex Offenders Without Trial

[madmusic]

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.

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/09/05/ohio-moves-to-register-sex-offenders-without-trial/

Original story linked to from there: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWS

Am I the only one so concerned about where all this is leading? Am I the only one revolutionary mad about it? Who's next, you ask? I'll tell you. If you are going through a bitter divorce, watch out. If you are a biker, watch out. If you do or have ever done drugs, watch out. If you have ever been arrested for anything, watch out. Ever had a drunk driving? Watch out. Have the wrong religion? Watch out. Ever had an abortion? Watch out. Own a gun? Watch out.

But "it's for the children." Bullshit! The Framers of our Constitution knew who children were, and they knew what tyranny was.

The Right blames the Left, the Left blames the Right, but Fascism will use either and both. It is an equal opportunity tyrant.

Watch out. This is only the beginning, and you might be next.

[1monster]

1. That is outrageous and completely unconstitutional.

So I guess that means "God help us all."

[AndyA]

2. Further proof that America is changing.

I make no excuses for sex offenders. The violent acts against others should not be tolerated, and they should be held accountable for those violent actions. But this is America, and you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Once convicted in a court of law, I have no problem with this information being made available, but not before then. This Ohio program is ripe for abuse.

[Kutjara]

3. And, of course, the burden of proof in civil cases...

...is significantly lower than in criminal ones. It's the difference between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'the balance of probability.' To get a criminal conviction requires hard evidence. Civil judgements are often made on the basis of 'he said/she said.'

Nobody should be subjected to the humiliation, ostracism and risk to their life and limb that placement on an offenders' register entails, without the full due process of a criminal trial. Anything less is an invitation to a witch hunt.

And I agree this is the dangerous thin edge of the wedge. Today 'sex offenders'; tomorrow 'homosexuals approaching children' (according to the wagging tongues of slit-brained curtain-twitchers).

And remember, kids, turn mommy and daddy in to the DHS and you could win a new mountain bike!!!!

[madmusic]

10. Hadn't thought of that one...

Did you piss your kid off? Watch out!

For the record, I had no problem with registration with the police. That was deterrent enough, and everything since is more or less moral panic that doesn't do any good at all, and does more harm than good.

Now it's like the war in Iraq, once in, no way out. Shoot anything that moves.

EDIT: damn typo :)

[silverweb]

4. Just great.

So in essence, anyone could have someone's life completely destroyed for any reason just by claiming to be a victim with an unsuccessful legal case.

So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for due process of any sort.

The ACLU needs to hop on this one!

[LostInAnomie]

5. Can you imagine the effect this would have in bitter divorce cases?

Angry at your spouse and want to make sure that you not only get the kids but ruin their life? Accuse them of being a child molester.

I personally am not a fan of the whole idea behind the sex offender registry but I accept it because I know it may be a necessary evil. But this bullshit is unconstitutional and will lead to witch hunts.

[Nutmegger]

6. This is sick. Who the ^&%%# can support this?

I don't know what to say. It's getting harder and harder to live in Bush's Amurika.

The vigilantes will target these people when in fact they are guilty of NOTHING!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I don't know. But when asked, they usually start with...

"oh god I hope you don't have children!"

Or some damn thing.

[LostInAnomie]

9. I can think of quite a few people who would support something like this.

There are a lot of people out there that care nothing about the Constitution. They would gladly allow something like this to give them a sense of false security and create a permanent underclass.

[Bluebear]

13. See this thread for instance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2047005

[madmusic]

21. Thanks.

Though this is a dup, it's good to know not every American has lost it and lost faith in the Bill of Rights. Not yet, anyway.

That's a relief.

It's still pretty damn scary that any legislature would even consider it though, for any reason.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Witch hunt.

Sex offenders are the new witches.

[OzarkDem]

11. Its a compromise w/ the Catholic Church over its sex offenders

In lieu of allowing civil lawsuits against priests who were guilty of sexually molesting kids, they will just track them instead. Its a favor to the church and will save them a lot of money, but it seems terribly unfair to the kids who were molested.

Maybe Petro is giving Betty Montgomery something to talk about on the campaign trail. At this point it looks like she is the only GOP'er with any chance of winning statewide office. No doubt those wealthy Catholics will make generous donations to the GOP, too.

snip from the Toledo Blade article...

"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."

[madmusic]

19. Yeah, the Constitution sucks everywhere...

Statute of limitations - Stogner v. California (June 26, 2003)
The Court overturned a California statute that allowed sexual molesters to be prosecuted after the statute of limitations had expired on their alleged crimes if it was within one year of when the victim first reported the abuse. Holding that the Constitution bars states from revising, or extending already-expired statutes of limitations, the Court concluded that California’s law was unconstitutional and therefore, many previous convictions under the law must be overturned.

Disclaimer, this is about respect for the Constitution, not pity for the offenders, if they were actually guilty after 20, 30, 40 years or more. At least a few people had to jump on the gravy train.

[partylessinOhio]

12. Ohio is a bad place to live. If I had the means I would leave here.

As I remember states (example Florida) have enough trouble tracking the convicted sex offenders. I'm sure this would be used "selectively" against political enemies and such.

[readmoreoften]

14. Good lord, I need to make a list of all the states I need not step foot in

In that case, all some sick fuck has to do is make something up about you and you're toast.

[whistle]

15. Similar to the Nazi Germany habitual and dangerous criminal laws...

...and Nuremberg Laws

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/timeprint.html

[madmusic]

18. That's scary!

Really.

EDIT: And Right wing? I thought Hitler was supposed to be a liberal. That's what the Right is always saying.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. That is some scary stuff

The people there realize that this will be abused and apparently they don't care. If a person meets the criteria of a pedophile today, they will still meet it six years from now. If they believed in what they're trying to sell, they would not suggest the offenders can petition to get off after a six year period has elapsed.

It's all about a false sense of safety. This is dangerous not only to our rights as Americans, but also to the very children it pretends to protect.

Most sexually abused children never report the abuse. Even if all the people registered as sexual offenders were put on an island someplace, your children are still not safe. Even if you live in a community that restricts registered offenders from living there, that doesn't mean your neighbor isn't molesting their child. Most of the people who are doing this to children are getting away with it unfettered. Why? Because the victims feel ashamed of what's been done to them.

The best way to protect your children is to talk to them and educate them, and make sure they're not afraid/ashamed to talk to you.

[DeSwiss]

17. So where the hell is the ACLU????

They've got time to see that a Nebraska KKK State Trooper keeps his job, but no time to sue for this!!!

<<<<DeSwiss walking away from computer for the day>>>>

[sable302]

20. I suddenlry remembered that I read somewhere that

sex crimes were down 85% per capata compared with 20 years ago.

I googled it and found the following link and more like it:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003070426_rape19.html

Sex crimes more rare now than ever before, but the public is more skeeeered than ever! Go figure.

Case and point, I posted about this when the rape down 85% story broke, and got the whole 'but what about the children, don't you care about the children' crap.

I am not for public registry anyway, but a registry of those who are even simply accused of crime, this is waaaaay over the top and needs to be stopped.