Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Facebook Idle

New York State Releases Sex Offender Facebook App 252

Posted by samzenpus
from the zynga-game-coming-soon dept.
Just in time for Halloween, the New York state Division of Criminal Justice Services launched a Facebook application to help families know which houses contain sexual offenders. “Knowledge is power. New Yorkers now have another way to access up-to-date information about sex offenders in their neighborhoods,” DCJS Acting Commissioner Sean M. Byrne said in a release. “With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as strangers’ homes. The Facebook app puts that important information at parents’ fingertips, whether they are at home or on the go.”
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York State Releases Sex Offender Facebook App

Comments Filter:
  • Scarlet Letter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:40PM (#37847854)

    Might as well have them wear a big ol' S.

    • Re:Scarlet Letter (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @05:40PM (#37849358)

      Reminds me of je Jew star jews in the 3rd Reich had to wear.

      Also, why not Wall Street bankers? (Fake golden bling S.)
      Every single one of them caused more harm than all sex offenders of New York combined.

      The point of jail is, that when one is out, one is officially forgiven!
      If you think they shouldn't be forgiven that "early", you should, you know, increase jail time! Duh!
      And if you think it's long enough, then forgive them!

      But hey, the problem is jail itself. As it does not only do absolutely zero to help those people to change. (Yes, help. They need help. Because there's a reason people become sex offenders. And it's not pretty. Which won't change. No matter how much you hate them.)
      No, it even makes things worse.
      Those people will only be more mentally fucked-up after jail. Never less!
      So they are more likely to do it again. Even (especially?) when they think it changed them.

      Which means, that people who just jail sex offenders, instead of actually fixing the cause and the problem, are just as much responsible for them doing it again.
      It's like when you get hit in the face, and you don't defend yourself but just lock him him with a pack of wolves. When he comes out of course he's gonna kick your ass even more! And you knew it would happen too!

  • by ccguy (1116865) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:40PM (#37847860) Homepage
    There's a lot of other crimes that are dangerous to neighbors, why just this one? And no I'm not advocating for all (or none), just asking why this one is singled out.
    • by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:43PM (#37847902)
      Why? So you can move into a house in 5 years and wonder Facebook labels you a sex offender.
      • by goldcd (587052) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:19PM (#37850738) Homepage
        and therefore make a great target for any politician/newspaper wanting to drum up some publicity.
        Ever noticed anybody willing to put their head above the parapet and defend them?

        Attempting to do so is way beyond my personal abilities, but the f'in inconsistencies in the arguments beggar belief.
        Just to take an example - is paedophilia a crime or a disease? If it's a disease, something they have no control over, then it should be treated like any other with care and compassion - but it can't be a disease, because then we wouldn't feel comfortable demanding they're strung up from the nearest lamp-post.
        So - we're stuck with 'crime', a voluntary act they chose to make because they're 'evil' (we so so so want them just to be evil (like Nazis), rational analysis throws up so many 'hard-thinks'). So. Criminals they are - except they're not allowed to be rehabilitated. Their crime is so great that it must be branded upon them for life. Their houses must be marked. Neighbours must be warned. People must cross the street - I'm pretty sure these are all wonderfully well targeted techniques at integrating people back into society.

        There are loads of parallels you could take as examples - how for example the USA gets pulled into politics in certain parts of the world.
        The "USA" is a great big complex thing, that's done some good things and some really bad things. It's not an actual thing you can point, shout or reason with - it's an amorphous concept. Yet - in many parts of the world, if things are going a bit badly locally, you can guarantee you can just rip into the USA, blame it for all your ills, chuck up a statue of your crusading-pig-dog image of choice, start making some nukes for them and get the crowd cheering. Sure it might screw things up a bit in the long term, but it gets you through that tricky patch.

        And to summarize...(I believe this is what you're supposed to do at the end).

        The concept of a state publicly marking its citizens, for any reason at all, is distasteful and dangerous. No special cases, no exceptions. Quite likely not to end well, if history is anything to go by.
        Actually - bit presumptuous of me to tell you what you should think. I also know damn well if the list went online near me I'd be on there like a shot.
    • Politics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by davidwr (791652) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:49PM (#37847990) Homepage Journal

      Sex sells.
      Fear, uncertainty, and doubt sell.
      Providing a "solution" to fear, uncertainty, and doubt sells.

      Combine all 3 and it's the politician's re-election trifecta.

      • Sex sells.
        Fear, uncertainty, and doubt sell.
        Providing a "solution" to fear, uncertainty, and doubt sells.

        Combine all 3 and it's the politician's re-election trifecta.

        I'm going to guess it's this, plus the one/two punch of being able to look like you're doing something (as opposed to actually fixing a problem) and who will step up and defend these "offenders" by pointing out the silliness of it all? Makes it pretty easy to institute more and more controls that can easily be expanded later.

    • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:50PM (#37848014)
      Because most people forget(willingly or not) that most children are kidnapped/molested by family members or people that are familiar to them (close neighbors, family friends, etc). People also forget that "sex offender" covers a lot more than just rape. They could have been 17 and had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend. They could have hired a prostitute. Or they could have simply pissed in the park. "Sex offender" is to the state what "terrorism" is to the federal government. Is it a real problem and a serious concern? Yes. However, it is usually pulled out and used as a boogeyman to scare people, or to make people feel like something has been done when nothing has.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @04:04PM (#37848162)
        They also forget that "sex offender" doesn't just mean pedophile. Large portions of the "sex offender" list, even those not convicted of frivolous offenses, would have no interest in molesting your child.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by nbauman (624611)

          Actually, they're not allowed to post Level 1 sex offenders online.
          http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/SomsSUBDirectory/search_index.jsp [state.ny.us]

          You can search for the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act to find out what that is.

          I checked the postings to find horror stories of 20-year-old guys busted for having sex with their 16-year-old girlfriends, but I couldn't find any.

          These guys seem to be real creeps, having sex with 13-year-old girls, 9-year-old boys, etc.

          I wonder what the recidivism rate is. Unless

      • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @04:06PM (#37848184)

        I want to know how broad this covers.
        31 y/o having sex with a 5 y/o?
        18 y/o having sex with a 17.9999999999 y/o?
        Drunk college kid peeing on a dumpster at 2 am "exposing" himself?
        What about the 16 y/o that sent nude photos of her/himself to another 16 y/o. One getting charged with creation of and the other distribution of 'child pornography.

        In its current form most states "sexual offenders list" is dang near useless.

        And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.

        • Not to be picky but the age of consent in NY is 17 so that 18 year old is fine having sex with the 17.9999999 year old as would be a 77 year old.

          • by sjames (1099) on Thursday October 27, 2011 @02:26AM (#37852728) Homepage

            However, the point stands that a couple in their junior year of high school will have an arbitrary window where they are 'eligible' top be branded for life. The day before that window and the day after, the same activity is just fine from a legal point of view.

            Of course, we reach maximum absurdity when a 16 year old sexts and gets charged for child pornography. Naturally, the DA wants to try them as an ADULT. And you thought wave/particle duality was confusing.

        • And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.

          Their heads would explode if they learned they themselves were more likely to sexually assault their own children than some stranger.

          • Their heads would explode if they learned they themselves were more likely to sexually assault their own children than some stranger.

            Statistics: you're doing it wrong

        • by davidwr (791652)

          Most states have Romeo and Juliet laws and those that don't typically don't AUTOMATICALLY put young offenders with close-in-age partners on the sex-offender registry even if they are convicted of statutory rape or equivalent.

          Most states don't put first-time misdemeanor offenders on the registry. This includes the drunk exposing himself when he didn't know there were kids around AND when there weren't likely to be children around.

          While some teens have been charged with sexting to age-peers, most states and

          • by AlamedaStone (114462) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @05:44PM (#37849400)

            I wonder how common forced/coerced incest is among 2-child families where the male is 2-10 years older than the female

            You know, women can commit sexual assault too... Assuming a sexual aggressor is always male is the same kind of reasoning as the parents who assume a stranger is more likely to kidnap their child. Our society seems to hold less animosity towards female-on-male sexual abuse, but it still happens.

        • by Isaac-1 (233099) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @04:36PM (#37848652)

          The sad thing at least around here is so many people that are registered sex offenders are on the list by taking a plea bargin to avoid the chance of going to jail. Many is not most of these cases have no evidence, and are just he said / she said. Cases where the ex wife bribes the teen age daughter to tell the police the deadbeat dad molested her, and similar. Without going into too many details I know of one case where charges were filed 10 years after the "incident" where the girl charged the then 18 year old brother of her friend with molesting her during a sleep over, the brother had proof he was not in the house that night (working night shift at a grocery store), yet he still ended up as a registered sex offender, and was banned from living in the same house with his own children.

          • by suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @05:52PM (#37849474)

            In other words, the Court system will happily allow itself to be used to commit a crime, as long as you pretend the issue is sexual.

            Thanks Puritanism, you've done wonders for the nation.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            He said / she said and the real victim is too poor to get a decent lawyer, and you get listed for life. Hurray for social justice in the land of the free, right? Right?

        • 18 y/o having sex with a 17.9999999999 y/o?.

          If you can't wait 1/500000th of a second, you deserve whatever happens to you.

        • by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @05:49PM (#37849460)

          What about the 16 y/o that sent nude photos of her/himself to another 16 y/o. One getting charged with creation of and the other distribution of 'child pornography.

          My personal favorite is when they want the 16 year old who took the picture of him/herself tried as an adult for creating child pornography.

          So you have an adult (assumed maturity and greater power) being charged for taking pornographic pictures of a child (assumed innocence and inability to fight back) when the adult pornographer and the violated child are THE EXACT SAME PERSON AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

          How did we develop a legal system so retarded that an argument that requires you to doublethink a single person into mature victimizer and immature victim doesn't get laughed out of court and is instead made precedent?

        • Don't forget the 25 year old having sex with a 16 year old they met at a bar (She got in with a fake ID) and she then told him that she was 19.

    • There's a lot of other crimes that are dangerous to neighbors, why just this one? And no I'm not advocating for all (or none), just asking why this one is singled out.

      Right. I think I'd like to know if I'm living next to an arsonist or cat burglar too.

    • It isn't just sex offenders, it includes all strangers:

      With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as strangers’ homes.

      Do people these days really need a smartphone app to tell where strangers live?

      Or do loads of people have friends who are sex offenders?

      • Or do loads of people have friends who are sex offenders?

        This may not be so far-fetched, considering how easily someone may be added to the sex offender list. We are told by the media that the people on the sex offender list are people who rape little children, but there is a whole spectrum: a 19 year old who had sex with a 16 year old, a guy whose computer stored child abuse photos/videos, someone who had sex with a drunk woman, someone who urinated in public, etc. It is like asking if there are large numbers of people whose friends were convicted of drug o

    • by Fnord666 (889225)

      There's a lot of other crimes that are dangerous to neighbors, why just this one? And no I'm not advocating for all (or none), just asking why this one is singled out.

      Because the data is available. Sex offenders are unique in that they are required to register their residence in many states and that information is public. I do not believe there is a similar registration requirements for drunk drivers, for instance. Combine that with the nature of the crime and you have an easy application to sell.

    • by rikkards (98006)

      Just waiting for the app that basically figures out who lives at what house and what crimes they have against them. All of this is public accessible. You can find out for sure the last big blowup your next door neighbor had who got charged with a domestic and if it stuck.

  • by symes (835608)

    More ammunition in my daughter's quest for an iPhone 4s

  • But Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:47PM (#37847968) Journal
    Why would you avoid sex offenders on Halloween? They always have the best candy!

    On a more serious note, while "knowledge is power"; garbage in still means garbage out. "Level 1", "Level 2" and "Level 3" are practically designed to tell you fuck all of actual use. Is a "level 3" forcible rapist with no interest in children more dangerous than a "level 1" pedophile? Well, that sort of depends on who you are, doesn't it? Are sex offenders(those who actually target strangers, rather than the common-but-less-polite-to-discuss trusted adults known to the victim) actually dumb enough to do their re-offending on their own doorsteps, rather than at less obvious locations?

    This application seems like a fantastic tool for people afflicted with nebulous anxiety who feel the need to refine that into focused, concrete fear; but it seems magnificently ill-suited to any actual public safety objective...
  • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@NoSPam.barbara-hudson.com> on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:49PM (#37847992) Journal

    What it says

    parents now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations

    What it really means

    vigilantes now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as beat the crap out of them and torch their homes, even if it means endangering others at the same location, or targeting the wrong person because the perp moved elsewhere and nobody updated the database.

    • Happened in England.

      NOTW published the addresses up and down the country. Got at least one wrong and at least one innocent person got beat up.

      Murdoch, such a classy guy.

    • But as far as I know there are already interactive maps showing this same info out there, New York just make it slightly easier to access.

    • by StikyPad (445176)

      What it really means vigilantes now have another tool to learn where offenders live so they can ensure their children stay away from those locations, as well as beat the crap out of them and torch their homes, even if it means endangering others at the same location, or targeting the wrong person because the perp moved elsewhere and nobody updated the database. ...because vigilantism is perfectly okay as long as the person deserves it.

  • Hmmmm... I wonder how many people will use this app to find a date.

  • by vlm (69642) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:51PM (#37848022)

    With Halloween around the corner, parents now have another tool to ...ensure their children stay away from ... strangers’ homes

    For real? In NY kids only trick or treat at family and friend-of-families houses? That must be weird. Everywhere I have ever lived, kids visit every house that has a light on, like a candy assembly line or something.

    Locally we worked around the whole offender thing by passing one law that forbids offenders from living within Z thousand feet of an elementary school, another law requiring elementary schools in the city limits to be within 2 * Z thousand feet of each other, and finally only permitting new housing developments where the most distant home is less than Z thousand feet of the local elementary school. There are weird corner cases of grandfathered in homes in the old parts of the city and bordering industrial areas where the offenders all live. I have checked the maps and its certainly a growth industry, the offender rate must exceed at least 0.1% of the population. They are forming dense little colonies of perversion within those restricted zones.

    I frankly worry a heck of a lot more about my neighbor with eight DUIs running my kids over, or the biker gang down the street getting in a shoot out (note, move in "nearby" a biker gang, because they're smart enough not to soil where they sleep, and other criminals are scared of them, so its actually a very pleasant crime free neighborhood...

    • This American Life did a story [thisamericanlife.org] on the very thing you mention, although probably in a different city. In Miami, you have to live 2500 feet from a school, park, or daycare if you're a sex offender. Try going half a mile in a major city without running into one of those things. Pretty difficult. So, as in your case, they just move to the corner cases. Specifically, camping under a bridge.
    • Laws like what you describe are very common. Most counties have enacted similar ones. Unfortunately, by pushing people further and further away from normal society, they're making rehabilitation and reintegration more difficult than normal.

      This is especially troubling, given the useless nature of the sex offender list in most states. Public urination? Sex offender. Take a photo of your own teenage body? Sex offender. Now the NIMBYs in villages like yours are pushing these people out of society.

      It i
  • Now I'll know... (Score:3, Informative)

    by DigiTechGuy (1747636) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @03:53PM (#37848046)
    Now I have yet another source to see where every dude in town who had to take a leak really bad and went in the bushes lives. Newsflash, the vast majority of "sex offenders" haven't violated anyone's rights. They are not child molestors, rapists, or anything like that. Most are just people who took a discrete leak in public and someone happened upon them or other nonsense like that. This "war" on sex offenders is getting to be as ridiculous as the "war" on drugs. The "sex offender" label is just another way to collect taxes and ruin people's lives, which seems to be the goal of the police and courts anymore. There are already laws against assault, abduction, and other truly violent crimes. No need for "sex offender" laws as it's already covered under so many other laws.
  • You mean BookFace has found yet another niche demographic to appeal to?

    The "like" button is replaced by "offer candy to"?

  • by rish87 (2460742)
    I've always hated the "sex offender" label and how they are all lumped together and put on display. I've read articles about guys in some states being labeled "sex offenders" because of indecent exposure charges against them due to peeing outside. I've looked at the sex offender maps around where I live and there are poor guys on there because they were 18 and had sex with a 17 year old, visible right next to the 50 year old man who raped a 1 year old baby. How can we pretend these are equivalent crimes
    • Just a technocality: I think most states there have to be a two year age gap between the kids... so it would be an 18 y/o with a 16 y/o... ... don't disagree with what else you say though.

      • by compro01 (777531)

        Just a technocality: I think most states there have to be a two year age gap between the kids... so it would be an 18 y/o with a 16 y/o

        Nope, not most states. A total of 8 have such an exemption. NY has criteria that affect whether it is a felony or "merely" a misdemeanor, but no further sanity than that.

        • Age of consent in New York is 17 anyway so there won't be any poor 18 year old guys on there after having sex with their 17 year old girlfriend.

          And 31 states have a full "Age Gap" provision - meaning there is no crime - which I am pretty sure is a majority.

          • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

            An "age gap" provision doesn't necessarily mean there is no crime. It may make an offense a misdemeanor rather than a felony, or it might just make it permissible defense against charges in court. Other defenses exist in some states, for instance, if you didn't realize the person was underage*, or if they're your spouse**.

            *this defense is probably much more likely to be convincing if the minor is 15 than if they are 5
            **possible in some states, with parental and/or a judge's approval

            • Those 31 are specifically ones that don't have any crime. The site I referred to (http://www.ageofconsent.us/) specifically doesn't count those with misdemeanors:

              * Note: Some states make an age gap less of a crime but still a crime; where this is the case we have also listed 'No'.

              That site also allows you to read the specific laws for each state.

              • by Coren22 (1625475)

                I figured I would look up my state, and I have to say I don't get subsection 2

                (a) Prohibited.- A
                person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another:

                (1) by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of
                the other;

                (2) if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a

                • by dissy (172727)

                  So, if you marry a quadriplegic, it is rape to have sex with them?

                  It follows the spirit of the law perfectly, which of course is to force upon other people what they can and can not do while consenting in the privacy of their own home.

                  In most states it was illegal to have anal sex, even with your married partner that is opposite sex and over 18.

                  In quite a few states it was illegal to give oral sex in any fashion, also with your married partner of opposite sex over 18 years of age.

                  These laws have been struck down from most states, but it took until the year 2003 to do it.

          • Unless it happened elsewhere and they moved to NY. It's a *national* registry!
        • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

          If we're talking about most states, we might as well point out that 16 is legal anyway in most states.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws [wikipedia.org]
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_North_America.svg [wikipedia.org]

    • Agreed. If you're going to tack a life-long punishment to somebody for a "sex offense" then just send them to prison for life. I thought that once you've paid your debt to society you are no longer in debt, these registries are basically just modern day scarlet letters.
  • Status update: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xiao_haozi (668360) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @04:05PM (#37848172) Homepage Journal
    NYPD just tagged you in a photo.
  • This app is only to let people know where to group if they want to lynch mob a pedophile....as no pedophile would sit at home to "watch" their prey....they go out to do this....so as to be able to blend in and act casual, so if they go near a park, they might be reading a paper on some bench, with side glances towards their intended victim, I am not sure of any use that someone would have to use their personal home as the location of a stake out....?

  • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @04:06PM (#37848182) Homepage

    Are these people safe reformed citizens who should be free intermix with normal people.
    Or are the dangerous criminals who should be locked up.

    • by pclminion (145572)
      You see, we'd PREFER to keep them locked up, but we need to make room for marijuana smokers in the jails. Marijuana smokers are obviously far more dangerous to us than child rapists. See, it's all based on logic.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @04:32PM (#37848592)

      The statistical answer is that they have the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime other than first-degree murder.

      The political answer differs substantially.

      • Depends, of course, on how you define sex offender. Guy who pees in a corner in view of a child? Won't ever do that again. Guy who sent his 16 year old girlfriend a picture of his junk? Won't ever do that again, either. Guy who was abused as a child and who gets off by molesting 3 year old girls? I can guarantee he won't stop until he is dead.

    • Are these people safe reformed citizens who should be free intermix with normal people.
      Or are the dangerous criminals who should be locked up

      Are you talking about registered sex offenders or people obsessed with finding out where registered sex offenders live?

      Just curious.

  • I'll bet the main use of this app will be for teenagers to pick which houses to vandalize.

    I wonder if features a map tagging the homes where "sex offenders" are registered with a bulls-eye or rifle cross-hairs.

  • I am a New York state resident, and I think it's ridiculous that taxpayer money (be it state or federal) was spent on this. If you're that concerned, check a state website before your kids go trick or treating - why do we need Facebook or an app for this? Now excuse me while I figure out exactly who paid for this and write a letter to the (ir)responsible party.

  • Trick or Treating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by residieu (577863) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @04:11PM (#37848282)
    Teach your kids Common Sense when they go Trick or Treating. Don't go into the houses of anyone you don't know. Don't trick or treat alone. I seriously doubt any sex offender is going to snatch children out of a pack of Trick or Treaters and drag them into their house to molest them.
  • an app to discriminate and ensure recidivism.
  • Is there a way to voluntarily register myself as a "sex offender"? Sometimes I have naughty thoughts and I've peed outside at least once... but more importantly I don't particularly want kids annoying me on 31 October and I figure if everyone's labelled a sex offender then the whole stupid list will become useless.

    tl;dr I'm Sexy Spartacus!

  • This sounds like a marvelous idea. We definitely don't want our children molested by child rapists! Those guys who were registered for public urination might have been within 100 miles of a child when they did it. They may as well have just been pissing in the child's mouth!

  • by dweller_below (136040) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @04:24PM (#37848468)

    I need an app that will help me track abusive policemen.

    At this point, it seems like there is a much greater need to track abusive policemen than sex offenders. After all, if a sex offender causes problems, you call the police and they get put away. But if you are abused by a policeman, then calling the police just gets you more abuse.

    I have a much greater need to track Tony Boloney http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/19/tony-bologna-with-a-side-of-pepper-spray-docked-10-vacation-days-videos/ [addictinginfo.org] than some random kink.

    Abusive police we have with us always. We can't get rid of them. Our only defense is to track them and keep our distance.

    Miles

  • ...takes on a whole new meaning.
  • I'll tell you where this is all headed. It's obvious. While I may think sex offenders are some of the most mentally sick and twisted people to walk the earth, if I were to continue to plot a line as to where all these laws against these offenders point to, it becomes very clear. The next step is to chip these people like cattle and brand them on their forehead. Politicians will be praised and hardly any of their political enemies will fight them on this. Too politically suicidal to do so.

    I say, give it anot

  • This is cruel and unusual punishment. Listen, either these individuals are dangerous and shouldn't be let out of prisons, or they are 'reformed' (whatever that means) and they are let out of prisons because they are NOT dangerous.

    You can't continue punishing people once they are done with their actual punishment, this is insane.

    • It turns out that sex offenders have some of the lowest recidivism rates of any category of crime. We let far more dangerous criminals out of prison all the time, and we do not require them to wear the scarlet letter. The whole sex offender registry concept was a knee-jerk reaction to an exceedingly rare event.
  • While convicted offenders may present a certain risk; its the ones who haven't been caught yet that you really have to watch out for.

    But seriously, none of them present a threat as long as parents take care of their children and actually go with them. The people who present the threat, are the people prone to irrational violence or are running criminal enterprises out of their homes.

  • I am gravely disappointed that they have created an app for sex offenders to use! That is the exact opposite of what they should be doing! And shame on facebook for accepting it!
  • by GrahamCox (741991) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:32PM (#37850854) Homepage
    Outlaw "Trick or Treat". Or "demanding moneys with menaces" as it's known in the rest of the world. Only in the USA is such an odious 'tradition' encouraged and made part of the culture. Unfortunately it's spreading to other countries through the usual cultural imperialism. JUST SAY NO!

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...