×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Online Sex Offender Database Leads To Murder?

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the just-think-what-open-government-will-lead-to dept.

Privacy 1001

nem75 writes "The LA Times reports on the story of Michael A. Dodele, a convicted rapist, found murdered in a Lakeport trailer park. He moved there after having been released from prison just 35 days before. A 29-year-old construction worker has been arrested in the attack, and explained that he killed Dodele to protect his son from child molestation. He found out on the internet about Dodele being a sex offender, via the 'Megan's Law' database. The public entry for Dodele in the database was wrong — though he was found guilty of committing crimes against adult women he was not a child molester. Dodele's entry in Megan's Law DB has been removed." Update: 12/11 15:51 GMT by Z : Moved link to non-reg article.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Duh. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656089)

The whole point of these laws is to make you miserable for the rest of your life. If some whack-job kills you, all the better.

This is the purpose of creating a society of hate.

Re:Duh. (5, Insightful)

Potor (658520) | about 7 years ago | (#21656357)

I was gonna mod you up to save you from obtuse mods, but you're AC. Your point, nevertheless, is right on target.

Things like the police and civil society were formed to protect us from each other. When you stick something up like a db of criminals and their houses, you effectively remove this protection, and create a society of fear, which becomes a society of hate.

But to make time for RIAA-orchestrated police raids [google.com] , I guess you need to relieve the police of some of their responsibilities.

Re:Duh. (1)

deesine (722173) | about 7 years ago | (#21656405)

These laws are the point of intersect between the cult of child and the limits of incarceration in eliminating/diminishing criminal sexual behavior. In other words, when the "save the children" people meet Chester Molester, who experts tell us, has every bit as strong of sexual urges for children that he did 15 years ago despite having spend those previous years incarcerated, well then you have a lot of people who are scared, angry, and willing to chuck the constitution out the window.

Trailer Park (2, Funny)

dintech (998802) | about 7 years ago | (#21656101)

Wow, I can't believe someone that dumb can use a computer. I hope he wasn't too distracted from the latest episode of "Ow! My Balls!".

Re:Trailer Park (2, Interesting)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 7 years ago | (#21656199)

Slashdot totally needs more Idiocracy references. :)

There's another channel that would opiate some of these troglodytes. In the movie THX-1138, there is an entertainment channel that's just continuous footage of two android cops hitting a human prisoner with billy clubs. It made me wonder if a Violence Channel would do well. All it would be is things crashing, blowing up, fights and whatnot all culled from movies and news footage and sports.

Re:Trailer Park (5, Funny)

chakan2 (1106731) | about 7 years ago | (#21656311)

THX-1138, there is an entertainment channel that's just continuous footage of two android cops hitting a human prisoner with billy clubs. It made me wonder if a Violence Channel would do well.
We have Spike, it's basically the same thing, and I think it's doing alright.

Re:Trailer Park (1)

dintech (998802) | about 7 years ago | (#21656365)

Well spotted there good sir. But I got a -1 Troll for my efforts anyway. :)

We've already got that (0, Redundant)

kennylogins (1092227) | about 7 years ago | (#21656375)

It's called Hollywood.

Re:Trailer Park (0, Redundant)

alta (1263) | about 7 years ago | (#21656551)

we do, it's called spike.

Re:Trailer Park (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656205)

After he got done with that he was going to go down to "Starbucks" for a "Latte"*.




*If you don't get this, this along with the previous mention of "Ow! My Balls!" is a reference to the movie Idiocracy previously mentioned in the article about the new Brawndo drink. This post is intended to be humorous and is being posted AC and karma free to avoid the inevitable OT mod. This disclaimer brought to you for the enlightenment of the humor impaired.

This is great. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656253)

I hate sex offenders. We need more people like this man who will go out and bring these monsters waht I call old fashioned justice.

These kind of monsters need to be all hung. I have no sympathy, even if you're 18 years old and you go out with a 17 year old. You are a fucking monster.

Sincerely,
A Follower of The Right Way

Re:This is great. (5, Insightful)

sk8king (573108) | about 7 years ago | (#21656635)

Not to defend anyone, but just to pose a question.

If you are 18 and are going out with a 17 year old and you're a monster, what are you if you are 17 and going out with a 16 year old? What are you if you are 18 1/2 and dating someone who is 17 3/4? In three months, you'll both be "18". I guess we could ask if you are 18, just about to turn 19 and you are going out with someone who just turned 18, what are you then. And then why is it okay for a 45 year old man to marry a 35 year old woman? What is this thing that happens to a person's mind during that day just before his/her 18th birthday through the day of his/her birthday? And what if you're just going out for ice-cream?

I'm just trying to figure out what "The Right Way" is. It is my understanding that 18 is a rather arbitrary age since voting, consuming alcohol (legally), and driving (legally) all have different ages associated with be able to perform said actions.

Notification of neighbors (2, Interesting)

Gigiya (1022729) | about 7 years ago | (#21656105)

Wouldn't he have had to inform all of his neighbors within a certain radius that he was a sex offender, anyways? Or is that only for those convicted of molesting children?

Re:Notification of neighbors (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656147)

No. The cattle brand on his ass and yellow star are sufficient.

Re:Notification of neighbors (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656581)

Some jurisdictions have a Community Notification, a letter is sent to people living in the community. This is usually handled by the police or parole board.

Having the offender in question go door to door would be a death sentence. Also it would be hard to explain, "Hello little boy is your mommy or daddy home? I need to talk to them."

Am I the only one? (-1, Flamebait)

ttapper04 (955370) | about 7 years ago | (#21656107)

Who thinks he may have gotten what was coming to him?

Re:Am I the only one? (2, Insightful)

Embrionic (152953) | about 7 years ago | (#21656133)

I'm sorry, I still believe in our fading Republic.

Re:Am I the only one? (-1, Troll)

matria (157464) | about 7 years ago | (#21656195)

And you've most likely never been raped.

Re:Am I the only one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656173)

I concur.

Re:Am I the only one? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656181)

No, sadly, you're not the only one who has confused "tough on crime" with "tough on criminals". You and yours make the rest of us spend billions and billions of our tax dollars doing stupid shit that won't save a single life or stop a single crime, just so you can feel high and mighty and say "he got what was coming to him".

All I can say is I hope you pick a girl up at the bar and she has second thoughts the next morning, and you get "what was coming to you".

Re:Am I the only one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656321)

You and yours make the rest of us spend billions and billions of our tax dollars doing stupid shit that won't save a single life or stop a single crime

You're all over the map here. What are you talking about? Jails? We shouldn't at least isolate extremely antisocial and violent people from the rest of society? That flies in the face of all empirical evidence. Do you mean we we jail people for things that don't pose a threat?

As for billions of dollars, well, just killing criminals will save that money.

You are not clear and you are not making sense.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | about 7 years ago | (#21656621)

As for billions of dollars, well, just killing criminals will save that money.

....and so would killing the sick, infirm, and disabled, but you don't see many CongressCritters pushing for the "Save a Buck/Kill a Gimp" bill....

Re:Am I the only one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656567)

All I can say is I hope you pick a girl up at the bar and she has second thoughts the next morning, and you get "what was coming to you".
 
Maybe people should just avoid situations like that in the first place? It's a risky practice any way you look at it.

Commensurability? (5, Informative)

nem75 (952737) | about 7 years ago | (#21656305)

Who thinks he may have gotten what was coming to him?
I realize that this will probably not be deemed sufficient by you, but the victim had spent the last twenty years of his life either in prison or in hospital. He was 67. His last offense dates back to 1987.

Re:Am I the only one? (3, Funny)

wattrlz (1162603) | about 7 years ago | (#21656361)

Yeah, pretty much.

Tough call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656629)

On the one hand:
Yes, rapists, and child molesters certainly should be killed. That type of stuff is a "red card" offense and you should get kicked out of the game of life.
On a jury, if I was convinced of the victim's guilt, I would acquit the killer regardless of the evidence. Jury nullification is part of our judicial system.

On the other hand:
Rape (both adult and especially child) is often a false accusation.
Many kids are talked into claiming rape by "child welfare" professionals with an agenda. The number of kids traumatized by brainwashing by "professionals" that pretend to help them is amazing. Those people should really be jailed.
Also, we all know that rape is often any sexual act to which the women later regrets.
I had a friend accused of rape. What happened was her boyfriend came up the next day (after her cheating with my friend; she was all over him, to the point of giving him a BJ in the common area and then dragging him off to get condoms). She broke down. He started offering reasons why she might me crying, and she latched on to rape. See, she had sex but it wasn't her fault. She later recanted. But, he had to suffer with the expulsion from the school; petitioning to get reinstated; and the stigma thereafter.
I would suggest that about 50% of rape claims are false. Also, I would guess that a large percentage of rapes go unclaimed/unreported.
So, you can't just go straight to punishment with a rape accusation, you have to spend a great deal of time and effort examining every bit of evidence.

This would make... (0, Troll)

tkid (821402) | about 7 years ago | (#21656111)

A perfect Law & Order episode... I hope the guy who thought killing some convicted felon that did his time gets raped in jail for being such a dumbass thinking he was protecting his son by killing others. There's certainly other ways to protecting your children and yes, computers make mistakes cause their controlled by stupid humans. :)

Re:This would make... (5, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | about 7 years ago | (#21656223)

I hope the guy ... gets raped in jail

Nobody deserves rape. You should be thankful that most of society does not share your sense of justice.

Re:This would make... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 7 years ago | (#21656685)

I believe the notion is "eye for an eye". It's actually quite common. Rape is better than murder, and a lot of people support the death penalty.

I'm sort of on the fence. I like the high road from an idealistic point of view, but revenge is so very sweet.

Re:This would make... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 7 years ago | (#21656241)

Wishing rape on someone, that's just wonderful.

Re:This would make... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 7 years ago | (#21656281)

Law and Order episode? I think it's been done. Multiple times.

I had a friend (have a friend) who was trying, training, to become an elementary school teacher. He had some clashes with The Administration he was dealing with (and, quite frankly, I think they were probably right about a lot of it; the guy is a nut) and eventually, one of the teachers there initiated some trumped-up, ridiculous (really- deserving of ridicule and lots of it- vampires were involved) sexual harassment charge against him on behalf of one of the girls. It was ultimately dropped after not-too-long, but he sure wasn't going to be a teacher anymore - and if it had gone further, it would have been a terrible injustice (though a likely one) for him to end up on some list. And if he had been killed by some vigilante? All the more so.

Re:This would make... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656411)

But when THAT rapist comes out, he might get murdered!
Think of the cycle of violence!

FYI (4, Informative)

nem75 (952737) | about 7 years ago | (#21656113)

From TFA:

Although Oliver did not say he killed Dodele (...)
The suspect admitted attacking the victim and everything so far seems to point to him being the killer, but he has not actually confessed that yet. Which is why this was not claimed in the original story submission.

Re:FYI (1, Informative)

RandoX (828285) | about 7 years ago | (#21656175)

"...this was not claimed in the original story submission"

Guess I was wrong. Apparently the editors actually DO something around here.

Re:FYI (1)

sm62704 (957197) | about 7 years ago | (#21656533)

Apparently the editors actually DO something around here

Actually, they do, as I can attest from the following stories I've submitted, none of which were posted without an editor changing something or other. At least one submission bore little resemblance to what I submitted. In most cases I liked the changes they made.

Matter Discovered Traveling at Near Light Speed
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/13/1552224 [slashdot.org]

Racketeering Trial of MS and Best Buy Can Proceed
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/15/2313225 [slashdot.org]

Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace Rocket Crashes and Burns
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/22/1631212 [slashdot.org]

Diebold Voting Machines Vulnerable to Virus Attack
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/04/1941227 [slashdot.org]

Leonard Nimoy to Play Spock in Next Star Trek Movie
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/165205 [slashdot.org]

Student Arrested for Writing Essay
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/27/1626243 [slashdot.org]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/01/0316215 [slashdot.org]
Brains Hard-Wired for Math

-mcgrew [slashdot.org]

Re:FYI (1)

pmbasehore (1198857) | about 7 years ago | (#21656479)

I would have loved to read TFA so I could respond intelligently to your comment. Alas, I have to log in to the LA Times to read it. Could we post stories with articles we all can read?

Re:FYI (1)

nem75 (952737) | about 7 years ago | (#21656527)

The link I originally submitted should have been to the non-registration part of LA Times. At least I could read it and I definitely never logged on there (or created an account, for that matter).

TFA (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656143)

Megan's Law listing may have led to slaying
Lake County Sheriff
Ivan Garcia Oliver 29, has pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder, burglary and elder abuse.
Lake County prosecutors have investigated the possibility that information in the Internet database might have been the motive for the killing of a convicted sex offender.
By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 10, 2007
LAKEPORT, CALIF. -- Convicted rapist Michael A. Dodele had been free just 35 days when sheriff's deputies found him dead last month in his aging, tan mobile home, his chest and left side punctured with stab wounds.

Officers quickly arrested Dodele's neighbor, 29-year-old construction worker Ivan Garcia Oliver, who made "incriminating comments, essentially admitting to his attacking Dodele," the Lake County Sheriff's Department said in a statement.

Prosecutors said they have investigated the possibility that the slaying of Dodele, 67, stemmed from his having been listed on the state's Megan's Law database of sex offenders. If so, his death may be the first in the state to result from such a listing, experts said.

Oliver pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder, burglary and elder abuse when he was arraigned Nov. 30.

In a jailhouse interview Wednesday night, Oliver said he has a son who was molested in the past, and he took action to protect the child.

"Society may see the action I took as unacceptable in the eyes of 'normal' people," Oliver said. "I felt that by not taking evasive action as a father in the right direction, I might as well have taken my child to some swamp filled with alligators and had them tear him to pieces. It's no different."

Although Oliver did not say he killed Dodele, he said that "any father in my position, with moral, home, family values, wouldn't have done any different. At the end of the day, what are we as parents? Protectors, caregivers, nurturers."

In fact, Dodele was not a child molester. But a listing on the Megan's Law website could have left Oliver with the impression that he had abused children because of the way it was written.

Although Dodele's listing has been taken down since his death, a spokesman for the state attorney general said the site described the man's offenses as "rape by force" and "oral copulation with a person under 14 or by force."

"He was convicted of other bad things, but nothing involving a minor," said Richard F. Hinchcliff, chief deputy district attorney for Lake County. But "it would be easy to understand why someone might think so looking at the website."

Dodele's crimes involved sexual assaults on adult women, records show.

A neighbor at the Western Hills Resort & Trailer Park, a tattered collection of mobile homes and bungalows, said that two days before the killing, Oliver "told every house" in the park that he'd found Dodele listed on the website of convicted sexual offenders and was uncomfortable living near him.

"He looked it up on the computer . . . ," the neighbor said. "He said [Dodele] can't be around here."

The park resident requested anonymity because of a fear of reprisal, but reported Oliver's visit and statements to sheriff's deputies after the slaying. "A lot of people told them" about Oliver's claims, the person said.

Officials in Lake County -- a patchwork of wealth and poverty, vineyards and mobile home parks just north of Napa Valley -- would not offer a motive for the killing.

Hinchcliff acknowledged, however, that one possible motive investigated by the district attorney's office was that Oliver knew Dodele was on the Megan's Law list and did not want him as a neighbor.

According to court documents, Dodele committed his first offenses at age 15 and spent the last two decades either in prison or at Atascadero State Hospital receiving treatment.

His last attack was the 1987 knife-point rape of a 37-year-old woman on a Sonoma County beach.

Those were the charges that were listed on the Megan's Law website.

"I think [Oliver and Dodele] are both victims of the Internet," said Charlene Steen, a psychologist who examined Dodele on behalf of the defense in two 2007 trials about whether he should be recommitted to Atascadero.

Both ended in hung juries. Dodele was freed Oct. 16 and was hoping to start over in the crowded little mobile home park, where neighbors described him as open and friendly.

"The family is just sick," Steen said. "They finally got him back. They all thought he had made such great progress, and then this happened. It's pretty bad."

At 10:14 a.m. Nov. 20, an anonymous woman called 911 to report that a man was bleeding from his hands and directed medical personnel to Dodele's space at the mobile home park, according to a written statement from the Sheriff's Department.

When deputies arrived, they found Dodele's body.

The dead man's "immediate neighbors and other residents" sent the deputies to Oliver's home, the statement said, because "he had been seen recently leaving Dodele's residence with what appeared to be blood on his hands and clothing."

There was blood on a car in front of Oliver's house and at the front door of the concrete-block duplex. Inside, deputies reportedly found Oliver with blood on his hands and clothing and "injuries to his hands, consistent with having been in a physical altercation."

Authorities will not divulge exactly what Oliver said when he was arrested.

Steen wrote a letter to a local paper decrying Dodele's death "simply because he was a sex offender whose name and picture were on the registry."

Shortly after the letter was published, Steen said, a woman describing herself as Oliver's wife called to complain.

"She said, 'We have a child who was molested, and my husband is very upset to have a child molester living nearby'," Steen recounted, noting the irony that Dodele's crimes all involved adult women.

Steen said she had not talked to police about the phone call. Oliver said that the woman with whom he lived in the trailer park was his girlfriend, and the two were not married.

Attempts to reach the woman failed. One neighbor said she had moved away after the slaying.

Oliver is being held without bail, a police statement said, because he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in San Diego and was on parole when Dodele was killed.

Speaking from behind a thick glass divider in the visiting area of the Lake County Correctional Facility, Oliver said his son had been molested, but he declined to give the details of his son's assault or to give the child's name.

Although he spoke of "the action I took," he would not describe what happened in the aging mobile home the Tuesday morning before Thanksgiving.

Oliver would not comment on whether Dodele had ever approached his son.

But Oliver said he saw the older man looking at the boy.

"It was more than watching," Oliver said. "You could see his eyes. He was fantasizing, plotting. Later on down the line, who knows how many other children he could have hurt."

Research indicates that, in general, the older rapists get, the lower their risk of re-offending, said L.C. Miccio-Fonseca, chairwoman of the California Coalition on Sex Offenders, a group of treatment providers, probation and parole officers.

In addition, she said, sex offenders who target grown women over the course of many years are unlikely to victimize children.

But when told that Dodele's victims were women and not children, Oliver seemed unfazed. "There is no curing the people that do it," he said.

Oliver's preliminary hearing is scheduled for Jan. 7.

Asked about what he thinks will happen to him, he said, "It's hard to tell at this point. There's no doubt I'm looking at a numerous amount of years. I'm not a lawyer. We haven't gone over the evidence."

But he also said that he "would never change who I am or what I do because of what society thinks is right or not right. I have always been who I am and always will be."

Hmmm (5, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | about 7 years ago | (#21656153)

I'm conflicted. On the one hand I'm against these databases; once you've served your time you should be a free man in every way.

On the other hand, the responsiblity for the murder is solely on th eman who committed the murder. Ironically one of the victims of this murder is the very child the murderer was trying to protect, who will grow up without a father.

On the third hand*, maybe the kid's better off without a violent dumshit like that around.

-mcgrew [slashdot.org]

*The Mote in God's Eye, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656217)

On the third hand*, maybe the kid's better off without a violent dumshit like that around.
The ironing is delicious.

Re:Hmmm (1)

sm62704 (957197) | about 7 years ago | (#21656389)

Oh come on now, the "M" is just one key away from the "B". I bet you have an atomic clock! [slashdot.org]

Re:Hmmm (1, Informative)

Anubis350 (772791) | about 7 years ago | (#21656359)

On the *gripping* hand! Turn in your geek card and all your gadgets at the door! :-p

Re:Hmmm (1)

o517375 (314601) | about 7 years ago | (#21656371)

Where is it stated in the law that "doing time" is the only form of punishment possible? The punishment must fit the crime. Because child molesters are notoriously recidivist, simple jail time doesn't fit their crime unless that jail time is a life sentence. It seems to me that registering and being on a few lists are light punishment in addition to jail time.

Re:Hmmm (2, Informative)

assassinator42 (844848) | about 7 years ago | (#21656539)

Who says they are notoriously recidivist? From what I can find, they have a relatively low recidivism rate.
US [csmonitor.com]
Canada [ps-sp.gc.ca]

Re:Hmmm (2, Informative)

orclevegam (940336) | about 7 years ago | (#21656579)

Not that it negates your point, but in the context of this article I'd like to point out that the victim was not a child molester.

Re:Hmmm (3, Insightful)

mark_wilkins (687537) | about 7 years ago | (#21656631)

The Supreme Court has ruled that being included on one of these lists isn't "punishment," and thus is not subject to normal constitutional limits on judicial punishment. Figure that one out. (It's the same situation, by the way, with civil forfeiture.)

Re:Hmmm (1)

Rycross (836649) | about 7 years ago | (#21656689)

Can you cite a study for the "notorious recidivism?" It seems to be one of those "but everyone knows that...!" things.

Furthermore, child molestation isn't the only thing that can get you on one of these lists. Hell, in some areas being caught urinating in public can get you on the list. In this case, while the list did state the charges, they used ambiguous phrasing ("oral copulation with a person under 14 or by force.") which caused confusion. That means that, even if your trivial charge is stated, you can still get lumped in with the child rapists.

Finally, there's no evidence that these lists make people safer. The only reason for the lists seems to promote ostracism and vigilantism.

In a perfect world where we could use such a list justly, and only if the perpetrator deserves it, then I'd be all for it. In our current world, the existence of these lists means that, if you're accused of a crime that gets you on this, you should seriously consider killing yourself. Once you get out, you're branded for life, and the public at large isn't going to give you a fair chance to rebuild your life.

Re:Hmmm (1)

prattle (898688) | about 7 years ago | (#21656373)

On the third hand*

That would be the "gripping" [wikipedia.org] hand.

Re:Hmmm (3, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | about 7 years ago | (#21656451)

All valid points. What good is a system of state-sponsored punishment if after you've paid your debt, you're still considered guilty? Why would that make any prisoner want to reform, if he/she knew they would be treated the same no matter what? Yes, there is the problem of recidivism, but I think that is exacerbated by this kind of thing.

Re:Hmmm (2, Insightful)

RandoX (828285) | about 7 years ago | (#21656673)

Ask his rape victim if she's back to normal. Her life is changed forever. Why should his be any different?

Re:Hmmm (1)

The Analog Kid (565327) | about 7 years ago | (#21656731)

I'm conflicted. On the one hand I'm against these databases; once you've served your time you should be a free man in every way.

Child molesters and rapists are likely to continue to molest and rape after they get out of prison. I'm also guessing the probability of not wanting these people living next door to you is pretty close to 1. Is there a way for the community to know someone like this has moved into the neighborhood without revealing their identity? Probably not, even if the police don't tell who it is, gossip travels like a wild fire through a community and it's likely to get out anyway.

In other news (3, Insightful)

moogied (1175879) | about 7 years ago | (#21656191)

Scientists announced today that after extensive research they have decided that murder, unless in direct self defense, is still murder.

This guy was going to kill someone, somewhere, somehow. The fact that he a rapist living near him means nothing. If he didn't have the database, he'd grab the yellowpages.

Re:In other news (3, Informative)

Qzukk (229616) | about 7 years ago | (#21656333)

This guy was going to kill someone, somewhere, somehow.

Oliver is being held without bail, a police statement said, because he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in San Diego and was on parole when Dodele was killed.
Looks like he had already tried.

Re:In other news (0)

Churla (936633) | about 7 years ago | (#21656587)

Actually, in self defense it is still, be definition, murder. It's just that not all murders are bad things, some are justified and get to wear fancy names like "manslaughter".

Re:In other news (3, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | about 7 years ago | (#21656721)

No, by definition murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Self-defense is usually lawful and therefor isn't murder.

From Webster:

Murder - 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

"Register or log in" (3, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | about 7 years ago | (#21656209)

Google is your friend [upi.com] .

-mcgrew [slashdot.org]

Megan's Law FTW (5, Insightful)

spungo (729241) | about 7 years ago | (#21656213)

Another victory for hysterical knee-jerk legislation.

Society of Fear (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 7 years ago | (#21656215)

The media and the government have worked for the past few decades to make sure that everyone lives in fear of everything all the time. These sex offender databases are part of that. There have been sexual predators for as long as there have been people. Attacks have always been relatively rare, and most people will never be victimized. However, you put these lists and databases out there, people see that a sex offender lives near them, and they freak out.

We are constantly bombarded with reports of what we should be afraid of this week ("find out about the new threat that could kill your children, tonight on 9 news at 10!"). We have also been conditioned through the use of these databases and sensationalist segments like "To Catch a Predator" to believe that everyone ever convicted (or even accused) of a sex crime of any kind is out to get our children. Given all this, it's not at all surprising that someone would snap and do something like this.

Re:Society of Fear (4, Insightful)

superwiz (655733) | about 7 years ago | (#21656449)

A good percentage of the people in that database are "criminals" who committed the statutory rape of having sex while in high school (because the other person was under age). We can laugh it off, but we are talking about these people having to register their entire life for what was essentially an innocent act. The problem here is not computers. It's the legal system. If someone is a threat to society so much so that they cannot live a free person, they must not be allowed out of a prison or hospital. And innocent behavior should not be a crime.

Re:Society of Fear (1)

droptone (798379) | about 7 years ago | (#21656703)

You know, if this was Wikipedia you'd need a reference for your claim of "a good percentage"...

Re:Society of Fear (1)

techpawn (969834) | about 7 years ago | (#21656511)

We are constantly bombarded with reports of what we should be afraid of this week ("find out about the new threat that could kill your children, tonight on 9 news at 10!").
The number one threat for weeks running has (and always will be for me): BEARS!

rarity of molestation (3, Interesting)

misanthrope101 (253915) | about 7 years ago | (#21656561)

I don't think molestation is all that rare (not like struck-by-lightning rare, anyway). It just is vastly more likely to occur in the home or that of a relative than by a stranger. But "stepfathers are the most frequent molesters" doesn't have the stranger-as-threat, outsider-as-enemy utility people like so much.

I was once told by a woman of an ethnic background I'm not going to share with you that she didn't know any women of her ethnic background who hadn't been molested. I'd bet good money that was quite an exaggeration, but the bare fact that she said it, and the matter-of-fact tone she was using, creeped me out. No, I'm not presening anecdotal evidence. It's already well-known that most molestation occurs in the home, and not by marauding gay activists. It was just a weird thing to hear from a friend of my then-wife, who is of the same cultural background.

Re:Society of Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656589)

This societal analysis scares me.

Re:Society of Fear (3, Interesting)

orclevegam (940336) | about 7 years ago | (#21656681)

Maybe we should just go that last step and make them wear a big scarlet P, or maybe R on their chests. Is it just me, or does it seem like the media is behind at least 50% of the social problems in America? Between the news channels, the MAFIAA and crooked politicians being themselves it's amazing anything gets done for all the arm waving, knee jerk reactions, and lawsuits.

Re:Society of Fear (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 7 years ago | (#21656737)

Try and speak out "for" the rights of those accused and/or convinced of child molestation. Go ahead and do it in a more public forum, and watch yourself get lynched. "Think of the children" trumps all common sense.

The irrational fear of this is beyond anything I have ever seen. I hear otherwise normal, educated people say that anyone accused should get the death penalty, or "if they get raped in prison, they deserve it. I hope they die of AIDS" and the like. The total hatred and desire for the accused to suffer a horrible death is pretty frightening in itself.

Right now in America, if you tried to pass a law that says that everyone 'ACCUSED' of sex crimes against children gets lethal injection without a trial, and put it up to a general vote, it would pass. Thank god we aren't a true democracy.

Here's a link that works and doesn't require reg. (1)

atari2600 (545988) | about 7 years ago | (#21656221)

Re:Here's a link that works and doesn't require re (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 years ago | (#21656625)

No registration link since our editors aren't too bright

Well, your link doesn't work either (I get asked for a password), so maybe you should cut the editors some slack.

Cheers

Bleeding hearts vs peasants with pitchforks (3, Interesting)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | about 7 years ago | (#21656237)

There seems to be two groups or two positions at work here: one which holds that all offenders can be reformed, the other that certain types of offenders cannot. Our current law is a mishmash of good intentions with no single theoretical framework holding it together. It takes the 'people can be reformed' position in allowing for the release of rapists ( both those who prefer adults and those who prey on children ), and then takes the opposite position with the creation of lists of people who are 'going to do it again'.

I don't understand the psychology of rapists, so I can't say which position is correct. But I wish that our criminal justice system would either choose one or the other.

Re:Bleeding hearts vs peasants with pitchforks (4, Informative)

JohnFluxx (413620) | about 7 years ago | (#21656599)

> I don't understand the psychology of rapists, so I can't say which position is correct.

So do some basic research. The first hit on google gives a government paper on the reoffending rates:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r164.pdf [homeoffice.gov.uk]

To summarise, less than 5% reoffend. It seems the 'bleeding hearts' win.

It's all about the screwup (4, Insightful)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | about 7 years ago | (#21656255)

Imagine the outrage and press if the database hadn't gotten the offender's entry wrong.

Oh, right. There wouldn't be any.

In my opinion, that's sick. Because of a government agency's screwup, it's suddenly not A-OK to murder a released convict? If the man actually HAD been a child molester, you would never have heard of this story. Everyone would have shrugged it off. Eh, the murderer was twisted, but at least he was protecting his kid. The murdered guy was a sick child molester, so he deserved it anyway, right?

The sex offender list isn't any more wrong because of this. The murder isn't any more wrong because of the list's screwup (and the victim isn't any less of a sick person because of it). All this is is just another example why a sex offender list is stupid and unconstitutional -- it's just that it wouldn't be noticed if somebody hadn't screwed up.

Re:It's all about the screwup (1)

nem75 (952737) | about 7 years ago | (#21656413)

Imagine the outrage and press if the database hadn't gotten the offender's entry wrong.
Actually the first report I read about this (I think it was Reuters) didn't mention the screwed up database entry. And I may be mistaken, but when researching the story this morning it seemed to have a damn low profile... not much of an outcry there anyway.

Re:It's all about the screwup (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 7 years ago | (#21656605)

When the newspaper in my area investigated the publicized list, it turned turned out that the list was outdated, basically the state didn't make sufficient effort to check the list before publicizing it. So people were getting harassed just because they lived in the "wrong" house.

I think the Megan's law type stuff is misguided anyway. All this stupidity in response to one crime. The worst part is that rational thought has to be put aside to "protect the children". Heck, if this story is true, then someone was murdered on the presumption that the crime would be repeated, basically an execution based on pre-crime.

Re:It's all about the screwup (4, Informative)

wattrlz (1162603) | about 7 years ago | (#21656701)

... it's just that it wouldn't be noticed if somebody hadn't screwed up.
Mr. Google and I would have to disagree...
  • http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/17/national/main1501271.shtml
  • http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002456680_sexoffender30m.html
  • http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14562826/detail.html

Containing the damage (5, Funny)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | about 7 years ago | (#21656259)

Well, at least they have removed his erroneous entry from the database. Hopefully, that will ensure that he is not murdered twice.

Re:Containing the damage (1)

bigdavex (155746) | about 7 years ago | (#21656399)

My country for a mod point.

Re:Containing the damage (1)

deniable (76198) | about 7 years ago | (#21656447)

No, it was routine maintenance. There's no point keeping dead people on these lists. It'll be interesting to see if the victim has any family to sue for negligence or defamation. What the hell, it will keep the lawyers busy.

The tradegy of it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656275)

Know what trailer park murders and trailer parks hit by twisters have in common?

Either way, someone's losing a mobile home...

Type-o lead to mruder!? (1)

Tiger Smile (78220) | about 7 years ago | (#21656287)

It's just the oldest story in the book. Reminds me of so many clerical error in the old USSR. :)

justice vs vengence (4, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | about 7 years ago | (#21656339)

Its the old justice vs vengence conflict all over again. Theoretically after their time in the penal system a convict has paid their debt to society, and has been their slate wiped clean. The public tracking websites appeal to a mob-mentality, fear based culture that suggests criminals can't reform, that you're at risk at all times, and that someone is out to get you and your family. Yes a number of child molesters (and other criminals) re-offend upon being released from prison. The question should be whether public tracking databases reduce this likelihood.

My personal opinion is 'no', in fact they exacerbate the problem by limiting convicts' abilities to reintegrate into society. Once branded with the scarlet letter, they live out their Les Miserables' existence being pursued by law enforcement and vigilantes for the rest of their days.

Child molesters are the boogeymen of the 2000s, just like drug lords were of the 1980s and 90s, gangs of the 60s and 70s, and communists of the 1950s. They pose a societal threat, but not somuch that you need to legislate around their existence and vastly expand policing powers beyond what already exists.

Re:justice vs vengence (1)

carpe_noctem (457178) | about 7 years ago | (#21656597)

"Child molesters are the boogeymen of the 2000s, just like drug lords were of the 1980s and 90s, gangs of the 60s and 70s, and communists of the 1950s. They pose a societal threat, but not somuch that you need to legislate around their existence and vastly expand policing powers beyond what already exists."

Wait a second, I thought that the terrorists were the boogeymen of our generation. Or are we supposed to call them "insurgents" now? Please, won't somebody tell me who to be afraid of... I can't decide these things on my own!

sexual crimes are different (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 years ago | (#21656615)

sexual crimes have a high recidivism

crimes motivated by financial gain are not something that has psychological basis. sexual desires are pretty hard wired, and once a pedo, you're pretty much a pedo for life. you can learn to control your impulses, but the impulses are still there. meanwhile, there is no hardwired deep psychological urge to go stand on a street corner and deal drugs

i'm not disagreeing with much else of what you wrote, but you imply the idea of a sex offender and a drug lord are easily interchangeable concepts in terms of criminal bogeyman. no, they simply aren't. there are fundamental motivational differences that makes sexual crimes special, and with a high recidivism rate, unlike the motivations that lead one to commit financial crimes, crimes motivated by money

other crimes against adults (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656343)

The murder isn't justified...
But... sex offenders of any type... I have 0 sympathy.

You know?

dexter? (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | about 7 years ago | (#21656353)

Who's this guy think he is, Dexter Morgan? Better watch out, he wouldn't want Showtime coming after him for copyright infringement.

It usually takes a few people getting murdered (1)

zullnero (833754) | about 7 years ago | (#21656355)

For people to realize the obvious...that public databases like this are really only the equivalent of making people who have committed various crimes wear "Scarlet Letters" on their clothing as they did in the colonial era. Back then, if a woman was an adulterer, someone in the village would see her letter and attack her. Not all people are rational or intelligent enough to sensibly deal with the concept of a scumbag living in their community. But that is the inherit assumption that these databases make. These databases exist so that parents can tell their kids to avoid certain areas and people...but that doesn't mean that the molester won't get up in disguise, go into a different neighborhood, and pretend to be someone else to trick a kid into coming with them. The real reason that these databases get so much support is because parents don't want to have to be accountable for where their kids go and what they do. They don't want to have to drive them too and from school, or drive them to their friends' houses. These parents want to do their own thing and they want something easy to reference, instead of being responsible and protecting their kids. These databases are also highly indiscriminate as well...there are cases of 19 year old kids getting put in these systems because they had sex with their 17 year old girlfriends and their parents found out and had the kid arrested. That kid would now technically be a sex offender for probably the rest of his life. It just then takes one paranoid parent who finds out that a "sex offender" lives in his neighborhood, and then goes after him. Or bosses that find out and just can him on the spot (and while that's a violation of labor law, we all know how creative employers can get at working the system). These public sex offender database systems just lead to more trouble than they're worth. Parents should just be held accountable for not taking better care of their kids and protecting them from screwups. Hardcore sex offenders should be stuck in mental asylums and kept there. The rest should just be monitored privately by the police.

The flaw in the guy's logic was... (2, Funny)

DJ Katty (1195877) | about 7 years ago | (#21656367)

...he should have used a Death Note.

Slashdot analogy trolls (1)

droptone (798379) | about 7 years ago | (#21656385)

Dearest Slashdot analogy trolls:
Please tear his analogy apart: "Society may see the action I took as unacceptable in the eyes of 'normal' people," Oliver said. "I felt that by not taking evasive action as a father in the right direction, I might as well have taken my child to some swamp filled with alligators and had them tear him to pieces. It's no different" (Source [upi.com] ).

Bonus points will be awarded if you cite Wikipedia entries on logical fallacies.

Re:Slashdot analogy trolls (4, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 7 years ago | (#21656683)

Some people live next to swamps withs alligators. They manage by taking appropriate measures such as proper fencing and keeping their eye on small children.

Of course, some take a different kind of initiative by going out into the swamp and shooting everything that floats, crawls or looks like an alligator in any way.

The difference between alligators and sex offenders is that alligators have laws protecting them.

Megan aside, (5, Funny)

misanthrope101 (253915) | about 7 years ago | (#21656387)

can anyone give a reason why ALL people convicted of ANYTHING aren't in a database? Since privacy is no longer important when it has to compete with safety on any level, why give it even a token protection? I'm all for protecting children from child molesters, but don't you also have a "right" to know if a convicted car thief lives in the neighborhood? Why can't you look up your new neighbor and find out that he shoplifted a package of underwear 12 years ago? Don't you have a right to sleep soundly at night? Why do we need to know that a child molester lives in the area, but not a convicted murderer? How about drug offenses? Shouldn't we just put all criminal records online? Isn't public safety more important than the "privacy" of criminals?

Tradeoff... (3, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | about 7 years ago | (#21656395)

So the guy "protected" his son from molestation (even though the risk was pretty damned small), and in return gave his son an absentee father, visits to the penitentiary, almost certain divorce (assuming he was married), and a long span of whispers and looks.

Oh yeah, he made a GREAT choice - a real bargain.

Re:Tradeoff... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656665)

Darwinism in action?

Psychotically pro-active father (2, Insightful)

Jtheletter (686279) | about 7 years ago | (#21656415)

Well the article is for registered users only so I can't read it, but I feel like there's something missing from this story. Some key detail like Dodele hanging around the contrustion worker's trailer constantly or something. Otherwise this killer is just using his son as an excuse for being batshit psycho. What did this guy do, log in to the sex offender registry on occasion to see if any molesters lived near him so he could kill them with a clear conscience or with some feeling of vigilante style justice? With only the summary to go on it sounds like this construction worker was being more than just a proactive father. A proactive person complains to the park management, speak with the police, confronts the guy, talks to his own kids about steering clear, etc. Not up and decides "well there's a molester in the neighborhood, guess I'll have to be the one to *kill* him."

This of course is completely separate from the discussion of the usefulness, constitutionality, and accuracy of sex offender DBs.

Preemptive attack. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21656417)

Don't do this. This is morally wrong.

This contributes to war.

Even if he were a "child molester", he was killed without committing any crime -- just based on mere speculation. This is dying innocent...

GOD forbid me from judging others, but I want to show the wrong ways of those who expect justice from violence.

Violence breeds only more violence. Call me sissy if you want -- that won't change the world.

sensationalist title (1)

s31523 (926314) | about 7 years ago | (#21656421)

The title is a bit over dramatic, but obviously if you create a public database of despicable people there might be some vigilante justice. I am concerned that all offenses related to 'sex' will or are automatically entered into this database. I think before someone is publicly marked as a 'sex offender' a judge should have a chance to review whether that is something that would be in the best interest of justice. Basically it should be part of sentencing, like 1 year jail, 5 years probation and entry into the national DB for sex offenders, or whatever. Not that I am defending these degenerates, but when you start taking people's rights away and exposing them to public scrutiny I think careful consideration is in order.

i'm going to get -1 troll into oblivion but (-1, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 years ago | (#21656469)

i see nothing wrong with the sex offender registry. plenty of slashdotters here can articulate and appreciate the sentiment that guns don't kill people, criminals do. well likewise, if an a**hole uses the sex offender registry list as a to-kill list, we should point our outrage at the a**hole, not the list

and don't get me wrong, what this guy did was wrong, was not justice, and he should be severely punished. but it's not the fault of the list, it's the fault of the a**hole. the list should stay

because the good the list does far outweighs negatives like this. it's called megan's law for a reason: a paroled pedo killed and raped a little girl. so they made the registry: now people know if they are living next to a paroled pedo. the rate of recidism in sexual crimes is high

now i ask some of you: weigh the negatives of having this list, against the negatives of not having this list

false dichotomy? straw man? not in the least. it's reality

the real is messy. it's not a thought experiment. yes, you are asked to choose between two ugly scenarios, varying shades of gray. in this world, you are not asked to choose between roses and shit, you are asked to choose between varying piles of shit: a sex offender registry, with the occasional a**hole vigilante, or no sex offender registry, with the occasional dead little girl

now choose, as reality forces you too. not in a vacuum, where you look at the negatives of only one choice, and not the other, as if that means opinion is going to be valid

now mod me into oblivion

Re:i'm going to get -1 troll into oblivion but (5, Insightful)

faedle (114018) | about 7 years ago | (#21656655)

The "sex offender" registry hasn't prevented one crime against children, and has in fact caused more problems than it has solved.

From the US Department of Justice: 96% of female rape victims younger than 12 years old, knew their attackers. 20% were victimized by their fathers or step-fathers. 60% were victimized by another family member.

Sex crimes are the only crimes we continue to punish people after they've "paid their debt to society". We restrict their movement, restrict where they can live, and in many cases ensure through force of law that they never lead a normal life again.

If we, as a society, are convinced that child molesters are incurable, let's just keep them locked up. This idiotic list serves no purpose: if they are, indeed, almost certain to commit the crime again, why are we releasing them from institutionalization? If these people are "sick", let's transfer them from the penal system to the mental health system where they probably belong.

Not troll, but total lack of Insight. (5, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | about 7 years ago | (#21656739)

Well, why don't you tell me what is the benefit (to the public) of having a PUBLIC registry of convicted sex offenders (statutory rape anyone)?

The only reason for such registries, is to enact continuing lifelong punishment on the convicted criminal, even after the release, by virtue of harrassment by the members of the public who somehow have the free time to go browsing these databases (instead of taking care of their children).

What are you going to do if a sex offender moves next door to you? Have him evicted on a technicality? Torch his house? Stab him? Don't you think that whatever little chance there is of having this man re-integrate into society, will likely be ruined by this behavior? If you don't want to re-integrate this man into the society, then go ahead and lobby for life-sentences for any sex offense (18 sleeping with 17?)... or better yet - the death penalty. But if you take up the view that people can change, and can pay their debt to society, you have to accept your own conclusions.

But back to the main question - how is publicly-viewable registration going to increase public safety? Is it going to prevent a habitual rapist from raping? If not registering is a little crime, do you think that matters to someone who is pathologically going to commit far more severe offenses?

far fetched (1)

moondo (177508) | about 7 years ago | (#21656519)

To say that making the public aware of sex offenders online leads to murder is a bit extreme in my opinion. If that's the case all the media could be leading to murder by identifying and giving information on situations going on all around the world every single day. That information can be used to do a simple google search on the subject and google map his house. Finishing up the whole thing and doing the deed. That's what she said.

Re:far fetched (2, Informative)

Catbeller (118204) | about 7 years ago | (#21656607)

"To say that making the public aware of sex offenders online leads to murder is a bit extreme in my opinion."

Extreme? Like saying the Earth is round? The database led to his murder. Fact. He was innocent of said crime. Fact. Database indicated where to find him to kill him. Fact. Presence on said database leads hysterical parents to targets, fact. Database is frequently WRONG. Fact.

The Importance of Privacy (5, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 7 years ago | (#21656633)

And this, ladies and gentlemen, geeks and trolls, bots and overlords, is why privacy is important.

At least, that was my first thought. Then I realized that it doesn't have too much to do with privacy per se. After all, it doesn't matter if the data about the victim of the murder were accurate. It could have been entirely made up. Then, it's not really about privacy anymore, but about what people write about others, and how people react to that.

I recently moved into a new city. It would be easy for someone to tell the people in my new neigborhood that I am a child molester. If there is a respectable-looking website for posting this kind of information (and I'm sure there is), they could put a post up there for extra credibility. Doing so would be wrong, because I am not a child molester (of course, that's just me saying that, but just accept it for the sake of argument).

Then, someone might read the aforementioned post and conclude that I am, in fact, a child molester. That would be wrong, because they would have arrived at that conclusion by blindly believing what was written about me, without checking the facts. If they had checked the facts, they would have found that the claim was completely baseless.

Now let's assume that someone did, in fact, buy the claim that I am a child molester. Remember, they did so without checking the facts, the claim is baseless, and I am actually _not_ a child molester. But they think I am, and kill me to protect their child.

Mr. Dodele's case could be seen as a privacy case, because the information in the database supposedly was based on things he actually did. But in my (hypothetical) case, the claims were completely fabricated.

I think the real problem here is not that privacy is being violated, but that people (1) kill, and (2) do so without being sure their victim is actually guilty of the things they kill them for.

Assuming that the killer really did kill to protect his child, I think he did her a nice disservice - now she will have to live with the fact that her daddy is a murderer and an idiot, and probably an inmate, too.

The message I would like to send is (1) take everything with a healthy dose of scepsis, and (2) avoid doing things that are irreversible.

Have a nice day.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?