Ohio State Senator Interested In Using 'Sex Offender Radar' To Alert People If Sex Offenders Are Nearby
from the civil-liberties-in-the-age-of-technology dept
For years, people have talked about the idea of a device (or mobile application) that could be useful for meeting available members of the appropriate sex. You could program in your likes and dislikes, and if you happen to be walking near a "match," it would alert both of you. It appears that some are looking to take that concept and use it in a very different way: to help worried parents know if convicted sex offenders are nearby -- and the idea is so intriguing that an Ohio state senator is considering regulating that certain sex offenders need to use the device. Basically, some convicted sex offenders would be required to wear a special bracelet. Then, anyone who was concerned could carry around a special device that would vibrate if one of those bracelets came within a certain distance. Of course, there wouldn't be any indication of who the person was or even where he was -- just that he was nearby. For obvious reasons, this has some folks questioning whether this violates various civil liberties. It also is hard to see how it does much good, especially since you still would have no idea who was wearing the bracelet. If anything, it would just make already worried parents more paranoid.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, radar, sex offenders
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Agreed
We need less paranoia in this day and age, not more. Beside, why only sexual offenders? Why not violent ones too? Although the constant buzzing might get annoying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agreed
> violent ones too?
If you stop at just violent crimes, then the most serious criminals would still be able to walk around with impunity.
I personally believe that copyright infringers should have to be tagged as well. After all, who wants their kids around that kind of scum?
Sincerely,
The RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grr
If they're dangerous, keep them in jail. If a judge or jury decides they're not dangerous, then treat them like any normal person - with no restrictions.
Your kid is way more likely to be molested by her uncle than by a random sex offender in your neighborhood.
If you're scared of random unknown sex offenders who might be in the area then you fail as a parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grr
Some of them aren't even dangerous. I found out you can be put on the sexual offender list by getting caught panty raiding. Yea, we all have a lot to worry about there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: grr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: grr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: grr
Who decides what is normal?
Who decides what constitutes productive?
Who are you to tell me what to worry about?
Talk less and think more, Anonymous Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point I'm trying to make here is that using the law to think FOR you is a very dangerous situation. When you depend on the "law" to make every decision for you and decide what is "proper" for people to do, you start down a very short road. I'm not speaking of pedophiles, rapists, or those who have PROVEN to be an ACTUAL danger to society...I'm speaking of those "peeing in public" and the like. YOU might think this is disgusting and have every right to believe that way. Personally I think that people wearing Aeropostale shirts should be maimed on sight for being walking billboards...but that's just me ;-)
On a side note, there are sites out there that give you the location of your local sex offenders. They don't tell you what they did exactly...just give you their names and addresses. Anyone else see someone getting drunk and thinking about "improving" our society by beating a few of these guys to death? I mean, it's not like we don't have people going around assaulting gays or anything right? Think about it.
In summary :
Raping someone = bad and worth strict penalties,
Peeing in public = inconsequential in the grand scheme of things and NOT WORTH THE TIME OR EFFORT.
My 2 cents,
Asmodeus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: grr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if they're going to go to all that trouble...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Code the Bracelet
Mostly, though, I agree with the comments above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bubba Clinton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presumbly this is some bizarre American sport!
As for the subject of the article, it may seem like a good idea on the surface but a small amount of thought exposes it as ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From Urban Dictionary:
3. Panty Raid:
The art or practice of someone stealing (even if momentarily) a pair of worn panties from a hot girl he/she knows. Usually for self-gratification purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jailing all sex offenders is expensive. I much prefer the idea that a well informed public and heavily restricted RSO's, in public, is a much better, less expensive, solution. I'm all for better at less expense. These people have offended and jail isn't the only way to make them pay their debt to society.
By the way, those creepy uncles don't only rape inside the family, they take advantage of any and all kids they can get close to. For many sex offenders this means the opportunity for access to a relative is much greater than access to a neighborhood kid. But, an opportunistic predator isn't going to "decline" the kid next door simply because they're not related.
Parents don't fail if they teach their kids to watch out for free roaming pedophiles. However they're better parents if they let their kids know that family members, teachers, coaches, priests and just about anyone could be a groomer or a rapist. The real failures are the creepy uncles.
Sex offender radar won't work because it puts the burden on the technology. The burden needs to be on the RSO, not everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worse than useless, dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, nothing could possibly go wrong...
or someone losing a bracelet, or someone deciding to
replicate the signal, or someone deciding to jam the
signal, or someone passing along one of these to an
unsuspecting person, or the Boston police department
going into a blind panic when they find one on the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better Use
I think most women have been made to feel so paranoid that they think every man around them is a rapist, so this would be useless for them, and bad parents just want the false security. I really don't see how being buzzed every time some guy who was labeled a sex offender for being 18 and having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend who ratted him out as some sort of revenge is going to do anything but scare people to the point that they don't leave their house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as woman are equally included in this scarlet letter campaign, go for it :-)
Equal rights = equal incarceration and stigmatization ! or does it ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was also in support of Meagans Law, but now believe that it is far too stringent and casts a wide net, never allowing the offender to get on with their lives. If he raped a kid, then we should keep the bastard in prison for life, but on these wobbler cases, streaking, being a stupid teenager and mooning someone, all are behavior that can result in a lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has all kinds of uses
Won't this make it easier for sex-offenders to find each other? This will really cut into their isolation and ostracism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just shoot them in the head
that way we can stop with all of this "the children" nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just shoot them in the head
Just like murderers not leaving witnesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drawing the line
look, i'm not saying i approve of sexual predators, but making them wear the electronic scarlet letter is opening up a huuuuuge can o' worms, and where do you stop? how many threats to society will we feel the need to be warned about?
now -- as a few commenters have mentioned, they'd rather know about pickpockets, or violent criminals. well, that's a logical next step. and if they were to put this in effect for people who'd been convicted of any felony, i know a few people who have committed crimes, and then went on to become productive members of society. could they do this if they were wearing little criminal locator beacons? or would they be rejected from everywhere -- retail locations, restaurants, public transit? people do rehabilitate you know. but not if they're driven out of society.
when you're talking about pervasive surveillance such as this, line drawing becomes such a complex issue, where do you stop? i'd rather not start, and use the old fashioned method of keeping my eyes on my kids and indoctrinating them to know it's always ok to tell if anyone touches them.
sorry for long rant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: drawing the line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just wear your ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gaydar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feel the buzz of a sexual predator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's to say they will stop at criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People Just Don't Know
First, a little look into your average male. Most males want sex. It's a fact, we can't help it, it's just the way we are built. Most of us can control our social reactions so that this obscene drive isn't noticeable. However, occaisionally we are driven to profess our drive to a woman. In these cases we are usually flushed with excitement, anticipation, angxiety, and the chemicals that go along with sexual attraction. Understandably we are a bit akward when professing this. We stutter, we blush, we stare off into nothing, and blurt out things that we really didn't want to blurt out. In short, we are nervous and really, really, really hoping the target female doesn't laugh in our faces. To combat this we often have a few drinks to "screw up some courage" before admitting to such vile emotions and feelings.
Now add to this mixture the fact that if the female feels "threatened" by the males advance she can have him arrested, fined, jailed, and ostracised for a minimum of 25 years. Just for asking for a date....
And just for kicks let's take into account highschool sweethearts, laws forbidding defendants from confronting thier accusers in court, laws turning failure to sign a piece of paper into a repeat sexual offense, and laws forbidding homes and jobs, and laws forbidding adult entertainment. No wonder there is a "problem" with sexual predators in our country, it's now a sexual offense to have male reproductive organs. Good thing I'm not....wait...anybody know where I can get a passport? The Sahara desert is looking really, really good right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole thing stinks...
[rant]
Penalties for crimes should have a set time frame after which you are free to resume life as a citizen again provided you obey the law. To create an underclass of the criminally convicted yet free is unjust. A criminal sentence is a debt that is owed society for the damage caused unto it. When you get a mortgage loan for your house, it specifies the term that the money is to be repaid over. Once you finish payment on the loan, you have no further obligations to the lender. The same should apply for those convicted of a crime, regardless of the nature of the crime. If you think that the "debt" given to the convicted is insufficient, then lobby for more prison time so long as the time is commensurate of the crime (i.e. life imprisonment for shoplifitng), not "perpetual punishment" post-release. While I personally disagree with many of these hard sentences for relatively mild crimes (e.g. drug possession), I am more willing to accept them than registration databases that really only track the ones that want to be tracked. Remember that criminals are those who do not obey the law, so if you are already breaking one law that will send you to prison for a long time, why not ice the cake (what is 5 years more on a 30 year sentence)?
[/rant]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This whole thing stinks
Every way we, the average citizen, turn we are brought up against the things we cannot do. Politically correct speach cannot eradicate prejudice. If it doesn't matter what color you are or what sexual preferrence you have, then why must I say that you are Asian American or have a Life Partner? If I slip in your store, because of a puddle of water, it doesn't mean you were criminally negligent. Accidents happen. And just because you shot, and killed, another person does not make you some inhumane monster. The worst crime we can commit is that of apathy, and it is sweeping this nation like a plauge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The list can be a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crime = Punishment
He was refering to "Panty Raids" and "Urinating in Public" being offenses that can get you on the Sex-Crimes list.
Very well, I see the point, and to a degree agree. However, the punnishment should fit the crime. In the US, of which Ohio is a part, the constitution bars cruel and unusual punnishment.
As much as I think some sexual crimes are very hideous, I think the US has gone overboard and ventured into punnishments for some of these crimes which are unwarranted. It's become popular to make these criminals targets of schemes that would be deemed rediculous for any other crime.
But back to the original point someone else brought up that "if you don't commit the crime you have nothing to worry about".
Everyone has broken a law at some point or another. Should we start executing people who pirate music, break the speed-limit, drink alcohol under age, go across on amber when they could have stopped, change lanes without signalling, tell lies about colleagues (slander), infringe on copyrights by taking a photo at dinner (and there is a painting in the background).
No, each crime has it's own punnishment. Let's not go overboard here. No one is a saint, and no one wants to live in a draconian society. People should serve their time and then be allowed to live their life unhindered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sex offender radar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please elect me because I hate sex offenders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]