Federal Appeals Court Says Sex Offender's Computer Ban Unfair 478
crimeandpunishment writes "A federal appeals court says a 30-year computer restriction for a convicted sex offender was too stiff a punishment. The man, who was caught in an Internet sex sting, had been ordered not to own or even use a computer." The D.C. Circuit Court's opinion in the case against Mark Wayne Russell is available as a PDF; slightly longer coverage from the Courthouse News Service.
Will hackers also be able to get computers back as (Score:2)
Will hackers also be able to get computers back as well? as some of them have been banned as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I want to see guilty people get punished, things like this that are a de facto sort of life sentence (even after release from jail) don't make sense either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As terrible as the crime is, this was WAY too overzealous.
This needs a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
CPAs aren't so hard to find that I can't go out and find one with no felony conviction record.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People do stupid things. The point of a justice system is to try to persuade them to not do stupid things any more. When the punishment is not even closely correlated to the crime, you start running a government that is against the people, even if some fuckheads like you and the imbecile who modded you up agree with it. That's a good way to start a revolution, to start people disrespecting and breaking the laws because they see them as unjust.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of a justice system is to try to persuade them to not do stupid things any more.
See, THIS is where we start having problems. The point of a justice system is to administer justice, NOT to try to disuade crime-- thats just one of the side effects. When you start getting into this mentality "whatever is best for society" when dealing with the judicial system, you can start to go really wacky places-- why not convict an innocent man of a crime if it would be best for society (if, say, the case was sealed, his guilt can be easily faked, and it would be a good deterrent)?
That train of
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
The justice system is designed to mete out justice, not revenge. When the punishment is only loosely correlated to the crime, you aren't dispensing justice. The only purpose it serves is to turn people against the law, because they see punishments as unfair. While fuckheads like you and the imbecile who modded you up may get behind it, most sane people are not. It makes a mockery of justice and all the stupid lists they make... people will eventually start ignoring those lists because so many non-offenders are on them, and then where does that land you? You can no longer tell a dangerous pedophile from a 19 year old kid who fucked his 17 year old girlfriend. So things go two ways... either you listen to the list, and turn the kid away, and he really becomes a criminal because that's the only avenue open to him, or the lists get ignored and you get a pedophile working with kids.
The fact that the USA has a much higher percentage of it's population incarcerated than any other first-world country should scare the shit out of you, because there are not a higher percentage of antisocial assholes over here than anywhere else. It means that we've got a system for breeding criminals, rather than trying to get people to behave in society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I want to see guilty people get punished
I agree and all, and I know I'll get flamed for this, but the guy was found guilty of trying to meet a 13 year old for consensual sex. I realize 13 is young, but he's not an inherent danger to society like say, someone who committed a few armed robberies. Seriously... if he succeeded with an actual 13 year old, it would hardly be some kind of shocking tragedy. And even though I agree with the law and that 13 is too young, the "punishment" for these kinds of crimes could be some counseling.
The idea that we've got federal agents working to find these people and expose them is kind of pathetic. Who is safer? If your 13 year old is open to the possibility of sex, they will probably find a way to do it, and someone to do it with.
Standard disclaimer: I agree that what the guy did was wrong, I just consider him as much of a danger to society as someone who litters.
Re: (Score:2)
YOU'RE NOT THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!
Guards! Arrest this swine! Send him to "reeducation!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
YOU'RE NOT THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!
You are? Clearly you are a pedophile then.
Re: (Score:2)
If your 13 year old is open to the possibility of sex, they will probably find a way to do it, and someone to do it with.
This isn't boy and girl meeting for milkshakes at the mall: An adult would clearly have influence and power over a 13 year old in this relationship. There's also a big difference between a 13 year old curious about sex, and a 13 year old being manipulated by an adult to have sex. By trying to meet for sex, he's long crossed the boundary of contemplation and into attempted molestation. I'm sure he claimed that it was his first time and boy did he learn his lesson.
i'm not sure i can simply equate contact
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the problem - some pedophiles (or perhaps more nicely put "underage sex enthusiasts") have no problem with rather forcibly non-consensual sex often ending with murdering the "witness". Others have no interest in this and would be soely interested in apparently consensual sex. I say apparently because the people in question are considered incapable of consent.
I don't have much information on the "crossover" between the two groups, but I am pretty sure that it happens. So how do you tell the differ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just playing devil's advocate. As an aside, most teenagers start having sex at 14, 15, 16 years of age with other teenagers. Chances are all of
Re: (Score:2)
I was 17 ... ended up with me having a 37 year state sentence and a 21 year federal sentence run concurrent with the state time. Which I served 15 years of in prison and another 5 on parole.
Welcome back. Even though I have very little tolerance for those who commit crimes I am always supportive of those who better themselves. I'm glad to hear that things have worked out for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yeah, one thing I learned in prison was this little saying, "Fuck You!"
Makes me glad I just robbed, stole and shot people, along with slinging drugs, guns and explosives.
Paid back all the money you stole yet? Paid off the hospital bills you caused when you shot people? And you dare curse those of us who elected to spend ridiculous sums of money to keep you away from society rather than have you take a long drop from a short rope?
Looks like they called it right the first time around - you are a sociopath.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It grows until about 25. It's not that they don't understand the consequences, it's that the wiring of the brain discounts the personal danger. The "consequences" wiring is done somewhere in the 20s. So a 17 year old will know right from wrong, but will act more like an adult who knows he won't be caught than a person who considers the consequences.
(Early teens is fuzzy. L
Restraint of trade? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are computers now so ubiquitous, and potentially so broadly defined, that they're a necessity? Is an Android phone a computer? What about your Tivo? Is banning someone from a computer restraint of trade these days?
Re:Restraint of trade? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that you'd rather be in jail than live without a computer may only be insightful outside the slashdot crowd.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Computer" under a strict definition, would result in a life similar to jail. I couldn't operate my thermostat to control the temperature in my home, use any form of entertainment other than a book (no CDs, DVDs, TVs, etc.), and driving a new car would be banned as well. Though a carbureted car without a clock or radio might be ok. When you take the definition of "computer" to be any gen
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is an Android phone a computer?
You can run arbitrary apps on it, so yes it is.
What about your Tivo?
Hard drive/permanent storage device, interprets input data (TV signals, EPG, etc) - I'd say yes, it's a single-purpose computer.
Is banning someone from a computer restraint of trade these days?
I wouldn't say it's a restraint of trade - though depending on how you define computer ("an electronic machine which is used for storing, organizing and finding words, numbers and pictures, for doing calculations and for
Re:Restraint of trade? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is scary for those convicted of such crimes is that computing devices are so ubiquitous that they're being integrated into common devices such as phones and televisions. An increasing number of televisions and content provider set-top boxes allow apps for access to twitter, facebook, instant messengers, etc.
Furthermore, essential services which used to be "offline" are now, effectively, online. Landlines and television are now provided to millions over IP. For those banned from computers and internet, I imagine the growth of technology will make it impossible for them to comply with their restrictions, either forcing a change of law and/or sentencing, or shoving these people back into jail due to inescapable consequences of the moving technology landscape.
The obvious parallel (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the heck do we have judges who are so out of touch with reality making these sorts of mistakes? If the guy can't use a computer and really wanted to meet kids online, what's to stop him from getting an iPhone or a Blackberry? Justice isn't about revenge, it's about upholding the law and meting out punishment and forcing rehabilitation onto perpetrators. Along the way it became about taking someone off the streets for a time while teaching them the best way to commit crimes and not get called. (It's called jail). And now, we've moved onto some judges literally telling criminals that even when they're not in jail, they can't be a part of modern society at all? [sarcasm] That'll work really well to keep pedos from kids [/sarcasm]
Contradictory rulings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Walking free is also a right, yet many people get life sentences. That's not really an argument, unless you're from a country like mine, where there a no life sentences.
Simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
The computer doesn't do the molesting, molester's do the molesting. The computer is one utility of many. If we start piecemeal restricting people from the things that could be used to aid in causing harm, what will we have left? Typical America, treating the symptoms, not the problems.
Props to the appeals court for finally realizing this stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
I especially love the pattern of:
crime + computer = DOUBLE PLUS UN-GOOD CRIME
I mean, come on. Use the laws, precedents, and sentencing guidelines we already have. I just don't get why (aside from financial crimes) computers make judges and lawyers froth at the mouth.
(financial crimes - yea - you can effect a VERY LARGE amount of people. but still, even in these cases... a bit extreme)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Typical America, treating the symptoms, not the problems.
There's a lot more money to be made suppressing symptoms than there is to be made solving problems. Go go capitalism! /barf
Well, no shit. Phones are computers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget the emergency transponder, just plain no Car(it has computers in it). Or using an ATM, or an automatic ticket kiosk (for say mass transit system). Computers are everywhere. His credit cards may even violate that restriction.
Facilities department where I used to work would keep track of the systems we used. They could count PCs and VT240 terminals (because the 240 had a separate base unit) but for them a VT220 was a "monitor" and not counted. They ignored VAX and Alpha servers and such like.
Even if this guy gets caught out using an iPhone, he could probably get away with buying an ARM development kit under the heading of "electronics".
My wife calls her LCD monitor an "computer" and gets confused about why autocad won't run on i
I hope, one good thing will come out of this. (Score:2)
It should be possible to redirect all this the anger and popular hatred from pedophiles to sociopaths, and eventually ban them from positions of power as a far greater danger to other people than pedophiles. I don't care how "oppressive" or "undemocratic" the government will have to become to achieve this -- it will be still far superior to the current condition when positions of control, be it in government, business religious organizations, media or organized crime, inevitably end up being occupied by th
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It should be possible to redirect all this the anger and popular hatred from pedophiles to sociopaths
Sociopaths perform important functions in modern organisations. I don't like it anymore than you do but if the ship is going down somebody has to decide who gets a seat on a lifeboat.
Common sense (Score:2)
The verdict seems like one step towards common sense. Releasing artificially "impaired" individuals into society fails to promote the general welfare. If he can't use a computer, that causes more problems than it solves for the rest of us.
A bigger step towards common sense would be not releasing, true, hardcore sex offendors back into the general population. "Life in prison" should mean LIFE IN PRISON, for say, a violent rapist.
The final step towards common sense would be decriminilizing the mere posessi
Your Fat. Court ordered Ban on Fork use. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you beat someone up with a bat, wouldnt it be silly if a court ordered you to stay away from baseball games, sporting good stores, and ban you from every owning a bat again?
Re:Your Fat. Court ordered Ban on Fork use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
similarly, computers aren't for molesting.
So what do we do with these people? (Score:2)
First off, there is the pretty much proven idea that people that find children as acceptable sex partners (willingly or unwillingly) aren't going to change. Period. Nothing that we know of today will change this.
The current thinking seems to be that if a child is an acceptable sex partner and they are incapable of providing informed consent that there is no difference between someone that "seduces" a child and one that conks the child over the head, drags them into the bushes and rapes them. Probably kil
Car Computer (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the main reasons that a vehicle restriction is allowed is that there are alternatives; taxi, bus, bicycle, walk etc. What are the alternatives to computers? With a computer ban there is no possibility of any white collar job. Find one where you do not have to at lest read email.
Even finding a job at all would be a problem. The first thing an employment agency does is point one toward a computer and say "Do a job search". How many initial interviews include computer based testing? Many blue collar jobs require one to use a computer for time sheet entry.
By restricting a someone's employment opportunity severely there is only one means of survival; crime. Se we take a paedophile and push him towards a life of further crime. That is not rehabilitation.
TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're going to RTFA, read the actual opinion. It's in Jurisprech (a dialect of legalese), but if you can wade through it it's actually quite enlightening as to not only how sentencing works in this country (it is both more and less arbitrary and subjective than most people believe), but also to the work judges do in balancing competing needs. It's actually a pretty good read, and at 22 pages (with lots of whitespace and a rigid formatting convention that most C programmers would envy, opinions are not typographically dense) not even all that long... especially given that there are 2 concurring opinions and a thorough introduction.
Oddly enough, the judiciary, who are without a doubt the most lawyerish branch of government, also tend to write the most readable laws (and yes, their opinions ARE law... that's neither un-Constitutional nor new).
No wonder jailed people keep going back to jail (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about who is paying the cost of making sure someone a criminal for life...that's gotta hurt the tax wallet.
Re:Monitoring yes, complete ban in this age? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Monitoring yes, complete ban in this age? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, why don't we do this? Your first DWI should be a mulligan -- but the second, third, forth and fifth ones? When I worked in the insurance business I saw DMV reports of people who had that many DWIs. Why the fuck are we putting them back on the road?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck are we putting them back on the road?
Unfortunately they don't stop driving - or drinking & driving - just because they don't have a driver's license any more. They're just putting themselves back on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Most US states do already do this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people do get their licenses taken away after the first or second one. I don't know in other states but I know in NY if you get your license taken away, it's quite difficult to get it back. Off course, then you get the problem of people driving around WITHOUT licenses.
Re:Monitoring yes, complete ban in this age? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the type of monitoring. I think it would be reasonable to prohibit the use of certain services and websites, but there's a lot of potential for abuse here especially once you get into spyware territory. We can't simply discard concerns about government intrusion and abuse of power just because the case involves sex offenders.
People organize their entire lives on computers, they're a virtual extension of your mind in many ways. If we get used to the idea that government can impose total monitoring on a computer because of some criminal punishment, what sort of other offenses will it end up being used for?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it would be cruel and unusual punishment?
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention it's impossible to rectify a mistake or miscarriage of justice. (Which is most of the reason why I'm against the death penalty, though that's somewhat beside the point)
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention it's impossible to rectify a mistake or miscarriage of justice.
I have to say, I've never understood this argument. I would regard the loss of my freedom as being as bad as the loss of my life. Are you really going to tell me that the state can repay someone who spent 30 years behind bars for a crime they didn't commit?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Funny)
No, but at least they can let them out. Corpses stay in the ground.
Tell that to Jesus!
No. No, no, no. (Score:3, Informative)
The only source that says he existed is a single book, compiled from papers that come from almost a century later, that further contains all manner of information that can't be trusted - magic, superstition, etc. That doesn't make his existence likely.
No. We only have copies of the scrolls, codexes, etc. These all date fr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By your rationale, you should be lucky they let you have it back at all. In many countries such a case would be buried to spare embarrassment.
Just because justice cannot be 100% accurate does not mean that crimes should go unpunished. And I'm all for the death penalty for cases that are especially heinous, rehabilitation especially unlikely, and where the proof of guilt is especially compelling. Hardened criminals aren't afraid of jail, and true psychopaths aren't afraid of anything, but will alter their
Perfect Sentencing (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it would be better not to sentence innocent people in the first place. It's pretty hard to argue about punishments as long as you can't even trust the system with that.
Ok, you invent the technique that only allows the conviction of guilty parties. The only one that currently exists is to have no law, therefore no guilt and no convictions. Total anarchy sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.
That doesn't mean that our system is perfect, or even that it doesn't have a few major problems. It will always have some innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit. It will take a truly significant "advancement" to change that. (some of those possible advancements would
Permanent (Score:4, Insightful)
30 years is actually an extreme version of a very common form of "things that are quite clearly permanent". If someone innocent spends 6 months in jail, it is just as permanent, equally unjust, only less damaging. They will never regain that time.
Similarly, someone who spends untold hours over several years fighting off a frivolous lawsuit (and earning the money to pay the lawyer's fees) has permanently lost time from their lives that they will never get back. It doesn't take criminal law to cause irreparable damage. Civil law does so regularly. (just less spectacularly)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people look at things like homosexuality and pedophilia the completely wrong way. There is no cure because there are no symptoms. The results and causes are reversed. This person likes males/little boys/whatever because he is a homosexual/pedophile/whatever. Not: the person is a homosexual/pedophile/whatever because of X Y and Z.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you reorder the words in a sentence, doesn't mean anything changed, the end result is the same.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think what you meant to say is, attraction does not inherently lead people to rape the object of their attraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite honestly being homosexual, or being a pedophile in the most pure sense (someone who likes underage kids) is just the same as a man preferring say, latina women or asian women.
Personally I don't care what you like -- fantasize about having sex with kids to your hearts content. If you actually have sex with them though we should put a bullet in your head. Human beings are one of the few (the only?) species that can override our instincts/desires and exercise self-control. If your lack of self-control leads you to molest children then we owe you nothing more than a quick exit from this life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
kids
Well there lies the problem.
Does kid mean 17? 15? Or perhaps whether you get shot or not should depend on what state (or country) you happen to be in when you do it?
Think back to when you were a teenage boy. Would you have been damaged forever if an older women had slept with you for some reason? *shrugs* seems like shooting the women might be a bit overkill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada we just have a separate law about using positions of authority to take advantage of underage persons. This way the age of consent can be low (14 yrs until very recent) so when the 19 yr old goes with a 15 yr old at a party on the 15 yr old advance there is no crime.
On the flip side if you are in a position of authority over an underaged person and have sex with them you are pretty much guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that supermodels are rare, have fully developed mental facilities, and have enough money to hire whatever security they need to protect themselves. Children don't. Pedophilia happens when pedophiles have access to children.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i find the fact that you are comparing homosexuals to pedophiles to be disturbing.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, many gay and bi males still want offspring and produce them, even though their primary attraction is to other males. I know a few gay/bi people who have successfully reared children.
And don't forget - there are heterosexual pedophiles too. The notion that homosexuals are more likely to mollest children was FUD spread by the religious right in the late 80s and early 90s to whip up public vehemence against gay people.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
fully developed mental facilities
Apparently you've never seen the Tyra Banks show?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pedophilia does not happen when pedophiles have access to children. It happens when someone is a pedophile. And did it ever occur to you that there are pedophiles that wish they weren't pedophiles, and would never, ever act upon those urges? They're out there, and they deserve some god damned respect.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Other than the object of attraction, how are they different?
Re: (Score:2)
If you concede that heterosexuality is similarly comparable to pedophilia then I'll at least grant you're consistent.
I still won't agree with you, but you'll look like less of an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with me on what? I simply asked how they are different, other than the object of attraction.
As far as I can tell, the only difference is in whether or not society regards them as acceptable, and whether or not society thinks these groups are more or less likely to sexually assault other people.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you're trolling, but I'll give an answer anyway.
The difference is in the power differential. With pedophilia, the relationship is between an adult and a child. The child hasn't the maturity to understand the relationship, to make a decision for him or herself about whether or not the relationship is right or wrong, and to meaningfully disagree with the adult. Because all the power in the relationship is in one side, the relationship cannot be balanced and healthy. When the child is prepubescent, he or she would not have the same physical attraction as an adult, and therefore cannot participate in the relationship at the same level. Pedophilia is equally wrong when the adult is male or female, or the child is male or female.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a relationship between two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex. They are both presumed to be mature enough to understand what a sexual relationship means, and to consent to be in one. Although one individual may have a somewhat more forceful personality than the other, both have the ability to influence the relationship, and to leave it if they choose.
So, when a male hockey coach has sex with the 9 year old boys on his team, that is reprehensible because it is pedophilia, not because it is homosexual.
The reason pedophilia is considered reprehensible is because it tends to leave the children emotionally damaged, unable to form proper relationships, and generally messed up for life.
There is one respect where they are similar. Most people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex who are similar to them. Mature adults are very different from children, so an adult who is sexually attracted to a child is very unusual, like someone who is sexually attracted to a dog or a toaster. Some research shows that about 1% of the population is primarily attracted to children, and about 10% is attracted to the same sex.
In summary: being attracted to the same sex is somewhat unusual (~10%), whereas being attracted to children is very unusual (~1%). Engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult of the same sex is no worse than (and no better than) a mature relationship between equals of the opposite sex. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is a highly uneven relationship which results in severe psychological damage to the child.
That's how they are different.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've described child abuse, i was asking about pedophilia itself as an orientation.
Homosexuality isn't a relationship, it's an attraction to the same sex, a sexual orientation in the mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are heterosexuals who rape and take advantage of others, does that mean that heterosexual attraction in itself is a problem?
I happen to be gay myself, and I certainly dislike having my orientation compared to child molestation, but that is not a good excuse to continue to pretend that every pedophile is some inherently sick person who hurt little children. Some of them do, many of them would rather kill themselves than hurting the very people they love. To p
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes.
What's your point? I made one about both for an analogy. You may not like the way the analogy connects the two because one's obviously very bad.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well aren't you a precious little snowflake....
Beating people in prison for making picture books, sabotaging rehabilitation programs..... ...and you want to work in the criminal justice system. Fantastic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks someone should lose their balls for pedophilia would most likely also agree that loss of internet for file sharing is as just.
And any judge who thinks that loss of internet is too harsh of a punishment for pedophilia must also agree that loss of internet for filing sharing is too harsh.
Unless the judge thinks that file sharing is worse then pedophilia that
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the latest trend, as exemplified by this story. Prisons is out of fashion so the justice system is coming up with new and crazy ideas. They may not understand what they're talking about, but when has that ever stopped them?
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The criminal justice system is for justice, not revenge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it not justice?
Justice is about punishment, not rehabilitation. It has never been about rehabilitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Justice is about making people accountable for their actions by removing them from society because they are dangerous or taking away freedoms temporarily.
Hacking off body parts is permanent revenge, not accountability.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the world is wrong. Here in Portugal drug usage has been decriminalized, and you can actually get free help as long as you stick very firmly with the rehabilitation program; you move to a "center" (just a house, really) in the country and you get counseling and help from psychologists. On the other hand, you have to work there to pay for your stay.
By not treating them like criminals drug usage has been dropping constantly [time.com], in spite of the Church's FUD.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then he'd walk funny when he said Mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch. Well done ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re:Let's keep this in context (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of having a free society is once you have paid your debt via restitution you should be free.
If he was really that much of a danger to society he should be in jail. But seeing as he didn't actually -do- anything, I don't see the point of him being in jail.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You never did click on that link Anonymous Coward posted, did you?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Look, computers can not, and will not molest anyone. Heck, you can't even violate someone using -only- a computer. You can't commit rape over a computer or molest someone over a computer."
You haven't used Vista have you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy set out to methodically groom what he thought was a 13 year old girl for sex. If you think a 30 year computer ban is too harsh, then fine, let's just throw him back in jail instead. Happy now?
The key word here is thought. Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes? And precisely who is the victim here (other than the defendant, and possibly the taxpayer)?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, we're doing a really bad job separating the folks that "just want to have fun" with the folks that want to rape and murder children. Sometimes there is "crossover" where someone that apparently just wanted to have fun turns around and kills their next conquest.
Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
The alternative would be just keeping them all in jail or killing them. Both are pretty e
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, we're doing a really bad job separating the folks that "just want to have fun" with the folks that want to rape and murder children.
And the key word here is want. We are now putting people away for what they might want to do, instead of what they actually have done.
Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
And the key word there is re-offend. In order to re-offend, you must have offended in the first place. What bothers me as that thought crimes are now an offense.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Sir, please come with me.
Our records indicate you spend an unacceptably disproportionate amount of time thinking of the children. You have automatically been flagged as a sex offender, and as such are subject to permanent imprisonment or execution.
Now, before you panic, we realize you didn't harm anyone. Execution is unlikely. See? Nothing to be afraid of. Now, please be a dear and follow these nice guards out to the van. I'll see to it your family is notified.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yes.
You see, I believe in fair and proportional punishment. I also believe in not crippling someone's involement in society when they are released back into it. If he hasn't paid his dues, then why the fuck is he out of jail?
Put him in jail, put him in a mental facility, put him on parole... whatever you need to do THAT FITS THE SYSTEM (and doesn't go into the "crime + computer = OMG WTF KILL HIM" pattern)
Re:Unfair?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think counterproductive is probably a better way to describe it than unfair. If you expect someone to be released from jail and become somehow productive again, you can't really deprive them of the use of a computer these days. It may make sense for some sort of usage restriction, like you can only use the computer access at some sort of kiosk or supervised area or at work, but you can't own one or you can't have internet access or something like that.
However, a complete ban on usage of computers these days is like banning him from using a phone or the mail. Otherwise you might as well hand him an address for a homeless shelter and instructions on how to pick up his welfare checks, because he's going to be entirely useless to anyone from then on. I think the only thing worse than releasing a predator back into the community is having to pay taxes to keep said pedophile alive while he could be working for a living (and paying his own taxes).