NYT: Sex Offenders Are Barred From Internet by New Jersey

[varkam]

New York Times
December 28th, 2007
AP
Link

EWING, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey enacted legislation on Thursday banning some convicted sex offenders from using the Internet.

In signing the restrictions into law, Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey, who is filling in while Gov. Jon S. Corzine is vacationing, noted that sexual predators were as likely to lurk at a computer keyboard as in a park or playground.

No federal law restricts sex offenders’ use of the Internet, and Florida and Nevada are the only other states to impose such restrictions.

The bill applies to anyone who used a computer to help commit the original sex crime. It also may be applied to paroled sex offenders under lifetime supervision, but it exempts work done as part of a job or search for employment.

More after the jump.

In this day and age, isn't this a bit like telling someone that they cannot use the telephone?

[TomInTib]

1. I guess it's the equivalent of a suspended DL for DUIs. nt

[varkam]

12. I see what you're getting at, but I think there are two problems with your analogy.

The first problem is that a license can be revoked for multiple DUIs, whereas this statute applies to first-time offenders. Also, you are able to get your license back after a period of time, whereas this bans offenders from the Internet for life.

The second problem is that access to the Internet is becoming something of a human right. Various human rights groups active in the technology sector have referred to broadband Internet access as something akin to a human right, given the benefits that the Internet provides. Driving, while convenient, is not similar enough to be analogous to Internet usage IMO.

[TomInTib]

14. I am with you, completely.

I was just trying to figure out where that ruling came from.

They are just chip, chip, chipping away at our Rights.

[Richard Steele]

19. I think his analogy is valid, but both concepts share similar problems in practical application.

I'm not really disagreeing with you- your points are pretty
much indisputable.

Long story short, this is an impractical piece of legislation
that cannot and will never prevent any bad thing from happening.

[KamaAina]

27. The third problem is that there is no such thing as an "Internet license" -- yet

The state grants DLs. Therefore, it can revoke them.

No state, not even NJ, grants "Internet licenses". That would be a sure sign of a police state. :scared:

[wtmusic]

32. Interesting. So the question is raised whether

people have an inalienable right to use the internet? :shrug:

[AlCzervik]

2. your link needs to be fixed.

[varkam]

3. Thank you. It's fixed now.

[AlCzervik]

4. and i have no idea how they'd enforce it, it looks like a feel good piece of legislation

imo, a paper tiger.

[varkam]

13. My first guess is with polygraphs.

But I'm not sure about the appropriateness of subjecting people who have completed their sentences to polygraphs under the authority of Probation & Parole officers.

Also, it might not even need to be enforceable, per se. For example, say a convicted sex offender tries to meet up with who he/she thinks is a minor that met on the Internet but turns out to be a Sheriff's Deputy. Well, attempted solicitation is a felony, and they already have one felony conviction on their record. They can then charge them with the new felony of using the Internet, and consequently slap a Persistent Felony Offender charge on them - thus putting them away for a very long time.

But my feeling is just that someone is coming up for election next year.

[wtmusic]

26. Polygraphs are inadmissable

but as you imply, pervert-hate will get someone elected.

[varkam]

28. Nonetheless, people are having their probation and/or parole revoked

after failing polygraphs.

[wtmusic]

29. ?

Do you have a link to that? It was my understanding that evidence is evidence, and you can't use polygraphs as grounds to revoke a parole any more than you could use hearsay, false experts, etc.

[varkam]

30. Here ya go:

http://objectivejustice.blogspot.com/2008/01/polygraphs-and-parole.html

[wtmusic]

31. The polygraph results were not used

This is a 5th amendment issue:

"There, the probationer’s probation had been revoked as a result of his
refusal to admit guilt during a therapeutic polygraph test. The trial court
proclaimed that had the defendant pled guilty and failed to confront the
details of the crime to which he pled in a therapeutic setting, he may be
subject to a parole revocation, if the sentencing judge deemed such a
punishment proper following a hearing to inquire about the purpose of the
polygraph and the questions asked during it."

[varkam]

33. Results? No. But the polygraph is.

It looks like it places people in the position of having to admit guilt (which, insofar as parole/probation is concerned, might not even be things that amount to crimes), or flunk the poly. I'll admit I'm a little unclear on this, but it seems that parole/probation officers are then able to revoke based on a failed poly or an admission of guilt.

[wtmusic]

34. This case deals solely with the validity of a confession the defendant

made while taking a polygraph and a subsequent retraction. It has nothing to do with whether he failed or passed.

[varkam]

35. But I think that...

placing an individual in a situation where they're going to be taking a polygraph is kind of coercive, isn't it? I guess I'm using the term "use" loosely.

[NashVegas]

5. That's Just Not Right

Put them behind bars if you're going to ... the internet has become too necessary to daily life to ban it from a paroled convict for any reason. Besides ... how're you going to keep them from using a machine at a public library?

[SPKrazy]

6. that's a bit of a high bar to try to meet

I'm thinking someone is just trying to make points with the public in an election year. Others have brought up how it could be enforced.

The other issue I see is this: is there any evidence that there is a benefit to enacting this law?

If there is, then it might be worth looking at how it could be enacted.

If it is just a knee jerk reaction and a feel good measure, then it is totally stupid.

JMO

[bklyncowgirl]

7. Good luck enforcing that one.

Are Internet providers supposed to check the sex offenders registry before signing up Uncle Creepy?

Are Public libraries supposed to run all of their patrons through the Megans Law database.

If someone plunks down a couple of bucks at an Internet Cafe or uses Burger King's free WiFI (yeah apparently they have it) will Burger King be liable if some slimebag starts hitting on a kid while muching on a whopper?

It's not enforcable and that's that.

[Sanctified]

9. It's quite enforceable.

They don't have to catch the person in the act of using the internet they just have to prove they used it at some point.

[Sanctified]

8. Individuals who use the internet to commit crimes regularly get banned from using it.

This is a fate that happens to hackers all the time, usually they get banned for a set period of time but for something serious like a person using the internet for raping children I see no problem with banning them for life.

[TZ]

10. not all convicted sex offenders on pedophiles or online predators

How many of them are people who simply had sex with someone underage (statuatory rape often with 14,15,16 yr olds). And even if they 'met their victims online , its not like banning them is going to stop them from meeting people IRL.

[varkam]

11. The key, of course, being regularly.

This statute applies to one-time offenders, as well. Also, bear in mind that the vast majority of these folks have probably never been convicted of raping or molesting anyone. I would imagine the vast majority of them have been convicted of child pornography related offenses (such as posession or distribution) or attempted solicitation (ala To Catch a Predator).

[americanstranger]

15. That story is incorrect, I think.

I just read a story about sex offenders in Suffolk County, NY from Mew York Magazine, and it mentioned this in the course of the story:

With wire glasses, salt-and-pepper hair, and a slight paunch, Bill has the look of a computer nerd. And, indeed, there’s enough secondhand computer equipment in his room to power a small company: nineteen PCs, two Macs, and three printers. Though Bill’s crime did not involve the Internet, his parole officer forbade his having Internet access, something Bill finds frustrating.

My best guess is it's not codified into NY law, but parole officers can recommend it. But it's not like other states are not already doing it.

That's an interesting article that raises some good questions, BTW.

http://nymag.com/news/features/42368/

- as

[varkam]

16. It's actually in Jersey.

Probation and Parole officers generally have some discretion, depending on who their client is. However, this ban has been signed into law in New Jersey (not New York). In addition, it extends to all sex offenders - not just those on supervised release.

[americanstranger]

17. I realize the OP was talking about NJ.

But the OP also said only Florida and Nevada enforce it.

I was just pointing out that NY does it, too - based on the cite of the NY Mag article.

- as

[varkam]

18. Right, but the article said that there is no federal law that enforces it.

Nor are there many state laws. The difference with the case that you cite is that it was a prohibition put in place by the probation officer - not state law.

[americanstranger]

21. Right. and I said that.

I did say "My best guess is it's not codified into NY law, but parole officers can recommend it. But it's not like other states are not already doing it."

Which was my point. the article mentioned Florida and Nevada, and I wanted to point out that it's already done in New York.

No big deal.

- as

[WinkyDink]

20. Murderers, however, can still use computers.

[wtmusic]

22. Even if they used a computer to help commit their crime

Go figure.

Pervert-hate has become a powerful tool for winning elections.

[Didereaux]

23. another well thought out approach to the problem...NOT!

Ten to one they also require the con to get a job! let's see they go down to the Employment Office, state or private and are ask to sit down at a computer and fill out the forms! and on and on and on. Justice is blind, but it is also very very stupid way too often.

Knowing judges to well is like knowing how your sausage is made.

[Heidi]

24. Another manipulative attempt to make the public feel safer

so that no one has to examine the fact that not much is being done toward rehabilitation or behavior modification of people incarcerated for offenses of all kinds, including sex offenses. The fact is, you pretty much have to rape and/or murder several people or attempt to assassinate an elected official in order to be kept in prison for life. So, if most felons are eventually going to be released back into communities, why aren't we insisting that our system do everything possible while offenders are still in prison to facilitate successful and safe reintegration of these people into communities?

[Nutmegger]

25. More stupid crap to make people feel good.

When will it stop? :puke: