http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl
The fact this is happening in Ohio does not surprise me one bit.
| | Brett McCoy (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small} idragosani) wrote in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small} dark_christian, |
Say WHAT?!??!?!??!
Ohio legislature has approved a public registry of sex offenders, and you can get put on this list even without any criminal charges (if, say, a victim accuses you of some act, for instance).
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl
The fact this is happening in Ohio does not surprise me one bit.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl
The fact this is happening in Ohio does not surprise me one bit.
September 2 2006, 17:11:08 UTC 5 years ago
So we are punishing people without a trial and conviction?
September 2 2006, 17:33:34 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
September 2 2006, 18:43:40 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
September 2 2006, 17:15:29 UTC 5 years ago
Burn Him!
Boy, I can see a lot of spiteful ex-wives drooling in anticipation of this going into effect. This part disturbs me most:"No one in attendance voiced opposition to rules submitted by Attorney General Jim Petro's office to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, consisting of members of the Ohio House and Senate."
Apparently, no one in Ohio thinks that this violates Constitutional prohibitions against conviction without due process or cruel and unusual punishment. Apparently, no one wants to risk speaking out for the perceived "perverts". They might come after them next. What's next, pillories in the town square and identifying brands? It frightens me what we are allowing ourselves to become.
September 2 2006, 17:38:32 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Burn Him!
Precisely. My first thought upon reading this was "So much for due process".5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
September 2 2006, 17:42:27 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Burn Him!
AgreedSeptember 2 2006, 18:53:18 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Burn Him!
Yes, women are continuously poised to falsely accuse men of molesting their children. ::eyeroll::September 2 2006, 17:23:50 UTC 5 years ago
/sarcasm
September 2 2006, 17:36:38 UTC 5 years ago
September 2 2006, 17:41:20 UTC 5 years ago
Libel
So, for the dubious benefit of an exhaustive sex offenders list (extra fear, paranoia of your neighbors, decreased social activity for children), the State of Ohio is willing to foot the bill for countless numbers of libel lawsuits against the state?And they did it at the suggestion of the Catholic Church. Who probably intends to file some of those lawsuits itself.
Wow!
September 2 2006, 17:51:51 UTC 5 years ago
Nah, they're not intelligent enough to understand BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS, apparently. Just wait until a court gets its hands on this. It'll be overturned - it's completely unconstitutional.
September 2 2006, 18:46:49 UTC 5 years ago
September 2 2006, 18:53:50 UTC 5 years ago
So you can't even be removed for six years when you've been ACCUSED of being a sex offender. You don't even need to be convicted.
September 2 2006, 21:52:20 UTC 5 years ago
Damn straight!
September 2 2006, 23:40:13 UTC 5 years ago
AstroGeek Icon Love - Can I borrow it? :D
5 years ago
September 3 2006, 00:45:00 UTC 5 years ago
So it's not JUST an accusation. It's an accusation and a judge's stamp. You just don't have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (for criminal cases) or on the balance of probabilities (for civil cases). You just have to convince one judge, once.
5 years ago
September 2 2006, 18:48:09 UTC 5 years ago
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to go out and do something (basically innocent) just so I can get on this list... you have to have standing to challenge this nonsense.
At least the last two jobs I got hired at did background checks on me. The people that make this list without a conviction are going to rapidly become unemployable. The level of fear that must be behind this is just astounding.
September 2 2006, 18:56:16 UTC 5 years ago
Actually
"A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit.There is at least a two-step process here. It doesn't happen on a whim.
September 2 2006, 19:32:42 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Actually
Do you believe that prosecutors and state attorneys never do things on a whim? Let's say County Prosecutor Justus R. Uss thinks Joe Kokomo is a bad person, but he just hasn't been able to find a conviction that will stick. All he needs to do then is petition his friend and sometimes golfing buddy, Judge LeGrande Jurry that he has reason to believe that Slippery Joe is possibly a child molester. Judge rubber stamps petition, like so many do in cases involving domestic abuse, and BINGO! Prosecutor Uss now has a handle on Joe for at least 6 years. No evidence, no trial, no real effort and Joe Kokomo is a person under scrutiny. Justice doesn't even get a hearing.Goverment prosecutors will jump at the opportunity to show themselves to be great protectors of women and children, especially those who need to have political aspirations. Truth doesn't even have to enter the mix. If a vindictive ex-wife decides to get her ex on the list, don't think for a minute that she'll find it hard to get a prosecutor to take up her cause. The system is filled with corrupt individuals with their own agendas. True public servants are a vanishing breed.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
September 2 2006, 19:35:09 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Actually
But it still ignores due process of the law.5 years ago
5 years ago
September 2 2006, 20:13:34 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Actually
"A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit.Because we all know these people are TOTALLY trustworthy.
This law is an abomination and a violates "innocent until proven guilty" that is the cornerstone of our entire justice system. It is an end run around the rights of the accused.
September 2 2006, 21:42:12 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Actually
How about this.Someone is accused of being a sex offender. They get put on the list. It is later discovered that they, in deed, ARE a sex offender, and have done the crime they were acused of.
Any skilled lawyer can say "Well, you can't prosecute my client. Under Double Jeopardy, he has all ready been PUNISHED for the crime, by being put on the sex offender list."
5 years ago
5 years ago
September 2 2006, 20:03:59 UTC 5 years ago
Luckily, even if it were to pass, it violates a few amendments and would get struck down, but still.
September 3 2006, 02:05:30 UTC 5 years ago
I think this is the pertinent info:
If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence in an action brought pursuant to this section that the defendant would be liable for assault or battery based on childhood sexual abuse but for the expiration of the limitation period under section 2305.111 of the Revised Code, the court shall enter a judgment with that finding against the defendant and shall order that the defendant be listed on the civil registry maintained by the attorney general pursuant to section 3797.08 of the Revised Code. The court shall notify the defendant of the defendant's obligations under sections 3797.02, 3797.03, and 3797.04 of the Revised Code.
and
F) After the expiration of six years from the date on which a court orders pursuant to this section that an individual be listed on the civil registry maintained by the attorney general pursuant to section 3797.08 of the Revised Code, the registrant may apply to the court that issued the order to be removed from the registry. The court may order that the individual's name be removed from the registry if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that since the individual was first listed on the civil registry the individual has not been found liable in damages in an action for assault or battery based on childhood sexual abuse, has not been required to register pursuant to section 2950.04 or 2950.041 of the Revised Code or a similar statute of any other state, and is not likely to commit an act in the future that would subject the individual to the requirement to register under section 2950.04, 2950.041, or 3797.02 of the Revised Code.
and
(B) "Registrant" means a person against whom a court has entered a declaratory judgment under section 2721.21 of the Revised Code and issued an order that the person be listed on the civil registry maintained by the attorney general pursuant to section 3797.08 of the Revised Code.
So a judge has to make the declaration per the law. What I don't like about it is that it let's a judge make the call based on preponderance of evidence. I wonder if that is the standard of evidence normally used in a criminal or civil trial.
September 3 2006, 21:19:58 UTC 5 years ago
Most states (possibly including Ohio) prohibit ownership of firearms by anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony (also prohibited by federal law), in addition to other prohibitions against firearms ownership by anyone who's been convicted of certain classes of misdemeanors (mostly related to domestic violence/abuse/stalking offenses). I'm pretty sure registered sex offenders are included in those prohibitions as well.
Which means that now all that someone with an axe to grind has to do to both disarm and stigmatize anyone they don't like is to make a plausible sounding accusation of a sexual offense of some sort. You're still on the registry even after the case itself is dismissed, and not only do you have to post a notice on your door and make yourself a target for any self-appointed vigilante who doesn't like you living there, and possibly have to move anyway because you currently live too close to a school, but any guns you own are confiscated (and any concealed carry permit you have is revoked and confiscated as well) and you're at the mercy of the police who might arrive within a few minutes of you calling 911, or not, depending on how they feel about you. And all you did to earn that treatment was look or sound or dress a little "weird" in the eyes of someone who decided to make themselves a "morality enforcer".
The potential for abuse of the system is all too apparent. Not only will a lot of otherwise innocent people have their lives destroyed by this witch hunt mentality, but the people whose offenses really merited being put on a registry benefit from being able to hide the signal in the noise and exploit confusion ..