Ohio Sex Offender Registry: Guilty?/Not guilty? Who cares?

[Contrary1]

The terrorists don't have to worry about a thing. America is destroying herself.

SEX OFFENDERS
Plan gains to publicly identify accused
Ohio panel backs registry proposal

"COLUMBUS - An Ohio legislative panel yesterday rubber-stamped an unprecedented process that would allow sex offenders to be publicly identified and tracked even if they've never been charged with a crime.

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.

The committee's decision not to interfere with the rules puts Ohio in a position to become the first state to test a "civil registry."

More...http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWS

[The Straight Story]

1. That's messed up

Maybe we can go accuse Taft and bush of being sex offenders, wanna bet their asses would not be put on the registry?

[wakeme2008]

2. AND YOU HAVE TO WAIT 6 YEARS TO GET OFF THE FU__ING THING

A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again.

.....

No court would approve of this...

[gaspee]

3. Tough one

It's hard to keep the argument unemotional when it comes to sex offenders. if you defend the rights granted to EVERYONE under the constitution, you're accused of defending sex offenders. No one wants to defend sex offenders.

This is blatantly unconstitutional.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. If they are not charged with a crime, what defines them as sex offenders?

Or has Ohio degenerated to the point where anyone can point at anyone else, scream, "WITCH!" and proceed to gather wood for a bonfire?

[mongo]

7. Short answer -- YES. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Man, I'm all over the lot on this .....

On the one hand, sex offenders need to be punished. On the other hand, why a sex offender registry and not a spousal abuser registry? Or as someone suggested during the Katrina aftermath, an insurance company CEO registry.

Then there's the matter of 'sex offenders' and "SEX OFFENDERS".

A guy busted for peeing in the bushes is a 'sex offender'. People wrongly accused - teachers are particularly vulnerable - of sex offenses find themselves on these scarlet letter lists.

The vengeful father part of me supports the idea of lists in the same way the vengeful husband part of me would favor the death penalty for the murder of my wife.

The rational, liberal me does not support any of these things.

The *actual* me is conflicted, but inclined to oppose.

[mongo]

6. JCARR commitee members

Who are all either asleep at the wheel or traitors to America, the constitution, the rule of law and due process. I vote for the latter.

Rep. Keith Faber
Vice Chair
Riffe Center 13th Fl
[phone]

Rep. Jon Peterson
Office: Riffe Center 13th Fl
[phone]

Rep. Clyde Evans
Office: Riffe Center 13th Fl
[phone]

Rep. Fred Strahorn
Office: Riffe Center 14th Fl
[phone]

Rep. Kenneth A. Carano
Office: Riffe Center 10th Fl
[phone]


Sen. Jay Hottinger
Chair
Office: Sen Ground Floor N.
[phone]

Sen. Robert Schuler
Office: Sen 2nd Floor N.
[phone]

Sen. Tom Niehaus
Office: Sen Ground Floor N.
[phone]

Sen. Robert F. Hagan
Office: Sen Ground Floor S.
[phone]

Sen. Kimberly Zurz
Office: Sen 2nd Floor S.
[phone]

[mainegreen]

8. Um, yeah THAT'LL surely pass constitutional muster.

Not.

[clark08]

10. Hard for me to decide...

I can see both sides. Hope this stays out of the campaigns because it's a loser anyway you go.

[Solon]

13. There are no "both sides"...

You can be put on the list WITHOUT EVEN GOING TO COURT! No trial, no jury, nothing, and your life can be ruined anyways. This is blatantly unconstitutional, I guess the presumption of innocence just went out the window.

[Cerridwen]

9. Oh, this is rich.

The concept was offered by Roman Catholic bishops as an alternative to opening a one-time window for the filing of civil lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse that occurred as long as 35 years ago. (emphasis mine)

Sounds like someone is trying to cover their own ass. Who in their parish has an offense dating back 35 years? How many do you think there are?


edit to add: hell, maybe I'm just misreading it.

[dsc]

11. The Cleveland diocese had a huge problem

one of the most aggressive lawyers was employed by them. They are covering for several abusers because they are afraid of being sued for good reason.

[dsc]

12. To those inclined to support this

would you want to be the gay teacher in a fundamentalist town the day after this was passed? How about the athiest one, or the one who flunks the star quarterback? This is a recipe for total ruination of innocents at the hands of angry kids or adults.

[OhioBlue]

14. they should remove the

statute of limitations - thus allowing legal means to prosecute those that are abusers. Taking this outside of the legal system just opens it up for all kinds of problems. One should be tried in a court of law. Although - I will say most abusers will not be found guilty nor ever tried for the crimes that they committed.

Would I want those that you mentioned to be victims of this? answer: no. However, I have another question...

What is the answer? What is the answer to deal with the very real, very prominent problem of sexual abuse? How is it proved in a court of law? If a young woman of 27 finds her courage and wants to prosecute the actions of a babysitter, step-father, uncle etc. What does she do? How does she establish proof?

We need to find a lawful, constitutional and fair way to deal with this very, very real problem. The current system isn't working. Even the Department of Job & Family Services isn't doing a great job at investigating such claims. And... even if you call them looking for assistance... they suck.

[dsc]

16. I don't pretend to know what the answer is

but the Founders were pretty clear about the fact that it is better to let some guilty people go free than to convict innocents. One thing is that sentences for convicted sex offenders should be much longer. That would help some.

[Odin2005]

15. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a dead concept in the US.

Nowdays you are allways assumed guilty by the Court of Public Opinion, if you are aquitted the populance assumes you had a good lawyer or the prosecutor was an idiot. A charge or rape or child molestation will distroy your life even if you are aquittted because people will never accept your innocence.

Lets face it, the reason the Reich-wingers can get away with trashing the Constitution is because the average American couldn't care less about the Constitution any more. They find it just dandy that Big Brother will come and protect them from the latest Boogey Man paraded on the MSM. I am rapidly loosing any hope in the restoration of American democracy, this country has lost it's soul.