No Internet for Sex Offenders

[Dreamstalker]

Well, one of the last kids that they know of based on what we all see. Then again, there's a certain sense of improper entitlement in some areas around here, so... It is ultimately down to upbringing, maybe there's a chance to turn things around yet.

From fourth to sixth grade, I lived in Montpelier VT. Mom worked late, and sometimes I would walk down to the restaurant in the evening to have dinner with her and the staff before she got off work (if I did most of my homework first). There were a few local characters, but they were polite and harmless. I was taught--as soon as Mom found out there was a possibility of me roaming the streets alone--what to do if approached by a sketchy person as well as how to deal with weird phone calls.

Yes, we didn't have internet in those days, but I was a pretty smart kid and somehow innately knew what not to do online. The only real supervision I had when we got internet was was someone telling me to get off the second phone line as they wanted to use it ^_^

I'm a firm believer in the "inoculation" theory of child-raising. Don't shield them from everything--protect them, yes, but teach them how to handle things themselves.

[crazylegs]

New Jersey is now going to ban sex offenders, who used computers to commit their crimes, from using the internet.

I think that the important part to read here is Used computers to commit their crimes, this implies that the Sex Offender has already been convicted, and this was the tool in which assisted them to commit it.

There are rights available to them but I cannot see how removing one avenue (which has been abused by the criminal) can remove any human rights.

The victims of abuse have the right not be abused, the vistims of abuse have the right not to have their images broadcasted across a huge area for anyone to see, especially as most will not have given consent to have explicit images taken of them.

I do however think that those who are accused of sex crimes (in whatever capacity) should have the same right to anonymoty as the victim until such time as they are proven guilty in court. There are uncountable occasions of people sustaining abuse even after the allegations have been proven to be unfounded/malicious, see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm for examples

[myswtghst]

I'm a firm believer in the "inoculation" theory of child-raising. Don't shield them from everything--protect them, yes, but teach them how to handle things themselves.

I'm completely in agreement. I live near Chicago, and I was allowed to take the train into the city with a friend when I was 14, so long as mom knew where I was going, who I was meeting, etc. I knew not to talk to strangers, and to stick to places I knew, never going anywhere alone. It was rather the same with the internet - I was allowed online, to do as I pleased, but knew that sending my picture or chatting with people I didn't know wasn't the best idea.

My parents didn't beat me over the head with things, they had trust in my common sense, and that by telling me something the right way, it would work better than yelling it at me, over and over.

And I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread, so as not to go too far OT I"ll comment on that too. Our society, as a whole, has taken things in a direction of paranoia and hysteria, and often times, people are swayed by an accusation, even if it's proven untrue. I know that, much as I want to be open minded, if I found out someone had been accused of a crime like that, it would throw me for a loop. I don't want it to, and I wouldn't judge them or form an opinion without the full story, but I have to be honest that my reaction wouldn't be clear cut sympathy.

I'm grateful that they're starting to enact laws to punish people for faked rape accusations, I'm just not sure how they'd enforce punishing fake pedophilia claims, unless the claim-er was an adult. Granted, I do think it would be wise, if it was found that a child made a false accusation, that the child be put into some form of therapy, to try to find out why they said it, and to teach them not to do so in the future.

I think the biggest thing that bothers me is people making these claims don't seem to keep in mind the long-reaching consequences of their actions. Much as I hate to use pop culture, Atonement was an example of this - making an uniformed and/or impulsive statement can completely destroy someone's life. And given that (barring reincarnation) we only get one, I think it's rather unfair and selfish to ruin someone else's life for anything less than the truth.

[Hellbound Alleee]

The term "sex offender" is very. very broad. A person with a "sex offender" offense is assumed to be a rapist of some sort, when there are many other offenses that fall under this giant umbrella.

A young couple caught skinny-dipping are "sex offenders."

A young couple having consensual sex before the age of majority are "sex offenders."

People caught masturbating in porn theatres are "sex offenders."

People who are caught selling sex toys in the wrong state are "sex offenders."

People who accidentally sell adult items to minors are "sex offenders."

People caught with more than the legal number of sex toys are "sex offenders."

Do these people deserve to have to register their names and be without internet?

Are these penalties helping us to be more safe?

[crazylegs]

Do these people deserve to have to register their names and be without internet?

And again, do these people use the internet to commit their 'offences'? The legislation clearly states it will only be used as a tool against people who have used the internet to commit their offences. So no, none of the people you listed would have their internet access revoked.

[thrifty]

One thing I am wondering though, if what if the person who committed the crime using the internet is trying to better themselves. Let's say 22 year old Bob had sex with 15 year old he met on the internet. Or heck 50 year old John had sex with a 15 year old he met on the net.

They served their jail time, served their time on house arrest, served out the rest of their probation, and have taken their sex offender course (I'm not sure if this happens in all states but this does happen in Michigan). Now let's say they realize how wrong they were and just want to try and get their life on track.

Let's say they decide they want to go back to school, or maybe get a job working with computers, should they be denied that opportunity because they slept with a 15 year old? Wouldn't it be good if sex offenders (of course not all can) could be rehabilitated? Wouldn't it help them if they could access the net for school or work, especially in this day and age where the internet is becoming more and more prevalent?

Personally if Bob is going to re offend I don't think telling him he can't use the internet is going to stop him, on the other hand if Bob regrets what he did, is just trying to be a law abiding citizen, the banning of the internet could make his life even harder.

And believe me the life of a sex offender isn't easy even with the laws they have in place now.

[AFPheonix]

Again, how would this even be enforceable? Can they stop them from heading to internet cafes or the library or even a friend's house to use their connection?

How about if they head into a WiFi hotspot like Downtown Portland with their trusty laptop?