tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post3317148568102425078..comments2024-02-28T05:56:28.293-08:00Comments on California Correctional Crisis: New Sex Offender Law Proposal: Restriction from Social Networking WebsitesHadar Aviramhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15200780666976305749noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post-25809639786069111332011-07-28T19:11:26.838-07:002011-07-28T19:11:26.838-07:00i understand there should be certain retrictions w...i understand there should be certain retrictions when it comes to social networking. however, if there are suppose to be age restrictions on the sites then they should punish the children and or parents for lying to get access to those sites as they want to punish others for doing so who have no intention of soliciting children.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post-74115047984577957722010-03-13T06:39:41.647-08:002010-03-13T06:39:41.647-08:00Sexual Predators: NOT an Internet Threat to Kids ....<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200908/sexual-predators-not-internet-threat-kids" rel="nofollow">Sexual Predators: NOT an Internet Threat to Kids </a>. Further, in California, even a probation or parole condition must have some nexus to the crime because "a condition of probation which requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.” (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, fn. omitted.) The application to those not even on probation or parole reaches much further, and this is not to mention the constitutional right to anonymous speech. All the SCOTUS approved so far was the registry on a limited basis because it was merely already public information. I will file if this becomes law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post-16345796670262806472010-03-11T10:25:49.330-08:002010-03-11T10:25:49.330-08:00Zot,
I definitely see what you are saying, and I ...Zot,<br /><br />I definitely see what you are saying, and I sympathize and understand with anyone who has a cautious and critical reaction to the proposed legislation given our society's tendency to view prison as the go-to solution to any social problem. Indeed, I think the larger issues behind this discussion may put people into two camps: 1) People who think the criminal process can be a vehicle for achieving positive goals in society, and 2) People who think the criminal process exacerbates and is at a minimum ineffective at resolving underlying social problems.<br /><br />However, if I had to characterize myself, I would hope to put myself squarely inbetween those two extremes. I think that in at least some instances the criminal process is a useful tool for authorities and by extension society.<br /><br />I have two basic reactions to the questions you raised. The first is that I think technology can absolutely be a solution to a social problem. Technology has many transformational attributes (both positive and negative) which affect society. Indeed, we are discussing a social problem which was created by technology. Thus, I don't see why it would be a mistake to look to technology to fix a problem.<br /><br />Secondarily, I think that it is obviously possible to counteract any technological solution to this problem. However I don't think everyone targeted by these restrictions would be able to use such a solution. <br /><br />In any event, part of the issue here is that it's difficult for authorities to do anything to prevent sexual abuse prior to the harm of a child. In other words, objectively inappropriate behavior displayed by a sexual offender towards a child might not serve as the basis of criminal liability until it has already harmed a child. Looking at certain photographs, or flirting online, or things of that nature, are difficult to serve as the predicate violation for stopping a sexual predator before they harm a child.<br /><br />By creating clear rules about how and whether sex offenders may interact with children, it's possible to trigger some criminal liability prior to actual harm.<br /><br />So what you are creating with this law is a tool that law enforcement could use to create some criminal liability for a sex offender who displays inappropriate behavior towards children but has otherwise not violated any law. More importantly, it would have the effect of increasing the post-incarceration monitoring of sex offenders without necessarily resulting in prison time, but documenting and recording each instance in which inappropriate behavior was demonstrated.<br /><br />Additionally, just as the police may arrest some individuals for minor violations with the intent of discovering evidence of a more serious violation, this violation could enable police officers to more easily have grounds to thoroughly search a sex offender's computer.<br /><br />So in essence, I think the "enforceability" argument here is in some instances not accurate. While it may not be a universal fix there will be at least some teeth to this provision.<br /><br />I hope you have found my arguments constructive, and I certainly thank you for your observations and analysis as well. I look forward to any response you might have.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17777451537750459794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post-77333228938085313032010-03-09T09:26:03.736-08:002010-03-09T09:26:03.736-08:00Steve, your arguments in favor of this bill really...Steve, your arguments in favor of this bill really do deserve a thoughtfull refutation but I wanted, in this comment, to address the issue of watchdog software you raised. In general it is a bad idea to rely on technological fixes to social problems. That applies here - were such software placed on my system all it would take is a CD or memory stick loaded with a linux distribution, a browser, and email and ftp clients to utterly circumvent it (untraceably, I might add). <br /><br />Rather than wasting a lot of time and effort chasing after phantoms who may or may not have nefarious goals, why not teach kids and parents to be sensibly safe on the net? Fold such training in with technical help (how do I share files and printers among the computers in my home? How do I make my system boot faster? Where is a good site for learning trig?) and have your schools promote it and you'd have greater safety with less scapegoating.Zothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00815325068082443907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post-89915083861341935632010-03-08T17:21:44.688-08:002010-03-08T17:21:44.688-08:00I don't see this measure as punitive, but rath...I don't see this measure as punitive, but rather preventative in nature. Moreover, it's a restriction of freedom, but how different is it to say a sex-offender cannot be within a certain distance from schools and saying they can't access social media where there is regular interaction with underage children? To say they are entirely different is to put form over substance. The issues are the same. The internet and social media has changed how people interact but thus-far our protections against abuse have not increased with the technology.<br /><br />I think sex offenders are generally seen as being in a different category of offenses as compared to other individuals convicted of crimes. Sex-offenders are compulsive in their behaviors, and therefore it does not fit neatly into any criminal theories such as deterrence which make more sense for a bank robber. Rehabilitation for a sex-offender is a life-long process that may be more difficult to overcome than other criminal behaviors.<br /><br />But beyond punitive and retribution issues, I think as part of any correctional reform there has to be discussions of post-incarceration programs. Just as we would be discussing substance-abuse treatment for parolees, I think we have to think about how to address the compulsive behavior of sex offenders. Tracking and controlling their internet usage should be apart of such a post-incarceration program to help sex-offenders avoid the kinds of behaviors that led to their incarceration.<br /><br />Without a doubt there's an element of social paranoia here. But realistically social media has dramatically increased the risk of young children interacting with sexual predators. I think we can quibble over the numbers, but I think few can deny that it's a pervasive issue. True, this measure would hardly put a dent in the overall risk, but would certainly deal with the known risks and steer some people towards a healthier lifestyle.<br /><br />One thought about enforceability is to put software onto sex-offender's computers which would control and track their use of the internet - a sort of "e-parole officer" that for a period of time makes sure a sex offender is not using the internet for predatory purposes. That would get around at least some the issues of aliases and other problems with enforceability. By increasing the protections against abusive behavior for sex-offenders while on parole, we reduce the system's reluctance to release sex-offenders in the first place and thereby serve to reduce prison populations and longer sentences.<br /><br />Obviously, to a degree internet usage cant be controlled on other computers connected to, for example, free wi-fi, but it would at least provide some protection. And I agree, this proposal is motivated by politics, but it's nevertheless a real issue and if approached sensibly I think some good can come of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17777451537750459794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post-18288249431491822082010-03-08T16:40:32.906-08:002010-03-08T16:40:32.906-08:00I will leave a discussion of the constitutional is...I will leave a discussion of the constitutional issues to the lawyers. As to the substance of the proposal, like just about all legislation targeting sex offenders, it is extremely over-broad. The category of sex offenders is very large and quite heterogeneous. Regarding the numbers of children solicited on-line, how many of them were solicited by convicted sex offenders? I would wager that many were solicited by peers. What's more, a solicitation is in itself not especially scary. A sensible child is not likely to respond to an invitation from a stranger. The particular appeal of this legislation, I suppose, is that it tries to appeal to parents who cannot easily monitor their children's computer use, and the legislation is costless. It doesn't require the state to do anything. David Greenberg, Sociology Department, New York UniversityUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12374874172912546386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post-36723948394005543642010-03-08T15:40:58.337-08:002010-03-08T15:40:58.337-08:00I tend to agree that there are no electoral costs ...I tend to agree that there are no electoral costs in lobbying for more sex offender legislation. And for a candidate who supports community corrections and opposes the death penalty, sex offenders are the "trump card" because they do not tend to generate public sympathy. Maybe this is the punitive "angle" that is meant to compensate for Harris' support of less "tough on crime" and more "smart on crime" policies.Hadar Aviramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15200780666976305749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8107037609455779557.post-10389179404010828792010-03-08T15:29:36.697-08:002010-03-08T15:29:36.697-08:00I've heard these little 1 in 5 and 25% factoid...I've heard these little 1 in 5 and 25% factoids before and, on their face, I see considerable verifiability problems. (If we take as true that "only 25%", or some minority of children, ever told their parents, how can we know how many in total were solicited? How do we know many "children" (however we define that term, all persons under 18?) are online?) These numbers seem very "truthy" to me.<br /><br />I think sex offenders in general are one of the more recent candidates for the devils we tend to see out in the dark woods of the American cultural collective unconscious (see, e.g.: witches, communists, drug dealers, terrorists, et cetera ad nauseum). Accordingly, my view is that this is probably mostly if not purely symbolic. Put a proposal that sex offenders be penalized in some way before a candidate for office, what exactly is the downside of their supporting it? Loss of support from the sex offender lobby?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08067759626108987472noreply@blogger.com