When Worlds Collide

One of the hardest things about focusing on sex crime and sex offender issues is that for the most part, most people don't really care about what is at stake.  Sex offenders are not sympathetic and restrictions on them are overwhelmingly popular.  On the flip side, rape law reform has largely died out and most policymakers have little interest in trying to improve a very thorny area of law.  Occasionally, however, sex crime issues run into a larger concern for other demographic groups.  Sentencing Law & Policy has an interesting post about one such collision of worlds:

It is intriguing, but perhaps not surprising, to see a number of tech-orieted website discussing — and mostly complaining about — a new New Jersey law that bans sex offenders from using the internet (noted here).  Specifically, check out some of the commentary and comments in coverage from Slashdot and from E-Commerce Times and from Ars Technica (though I suppose you'd better just sign off if you are a sex offender in New Jersey).

Technology-focused users of those websites are really upset with what they see as a basic restriction of someone's liberty.  They probably are concerned about sex offenders specifically because they fear government restrictions on web access generally.  You don't see a similar crying out against residency restrictions because, for the most part, no subpopulation of Americans really fear a general restriction on people's liberty to live where they want.  And so, there is some backlash to web restrictions, but mostly silence regarding residency restrictions.

Comments

[ZMan]

"Sex offenders are not sympathetic"

I do not agree with this statement. MANY sex offenders are sympathetic for the victims, but, some are not. This sounds like you are saying ALL SEX OFFENDERS ARE NOT SYMPATHETIC, which is wrong...

[Corey Rayburn Yung]

I'm saying two things: 1) sex offenders as a class are not sympathetic; and 2) once you become a member of that class, you lose sympathy of an overwhelming majority of Americans. There may be particular offenders with very sympathetic stories, but because they are sex offenders, they end up being unsympathetic figures. That is why sex offender regulations pass with such ease and are so popular.

[Mark]

Zman i believe he is referring to how others relate to sex offenders, not about how sex offenders feel.

I agree with this article 100%. I have stated many times on the internet about these laws being made that the government is building a blueprint on how they can treat all american citizens if they see fit and because they are using sex offenders as their target most people turn a blind eye turn a blind eye to the ramification of these laws if left unchecked. There use to be two types of criminals (or at least labels for the type of crimes). People that committed a felony and those that committed a misdemeanor. Now there are felonies, misdemeanors, and sex offenses. Felons lost certain constitutional rights when they performed their crimes, people that committed misdemeanors didn't lose any of their rights and were considered normal citizens after they completed their sentences. Now we have sex offenses that are misdemeanors that take away more rights then regular felons lose and seem to allow for draconian laws and politicians to be able to tack on punishment after punishment long after these offenders have been sentenced and everyone is turning a blind eye to it because of their status. What politicians can do to sex offenders is the same thing they can do to everyone else, if people do not heed this warning they might find themselves in a bad situation and can do nothing about it because the laws against sex offenders set a precedence that makes everything ok.

[eAdvocate]

I am going to ask Corey to clarify his comment "sex offenders as a class are not sympathetic;" because I'm not sure I understand what he means:

Sympathetic towards ... (what)?
-or-
Sympathetic of ... (laws)?

I'll stop back when Corey clarifies that.

Beyond that, the NJ law is not applicable to ALL registered sex offenders and most reports concerning that topic are incorrect in their assumptions.

While it is a very complex law one must begin by reading the very end of the law (verbatim):

1[6.] 7.1 This act shall take effect on the 60th day following enactment 1and shall apply to any person who commits an offense subject to sentencing under section 1 of this act after the effective date of this act and to any person who is under probation or parole supervision, including community or parole supervision 2[or] for2 life, on the effective date of this act1.

Once you get past that there are more conditions that could cause a case to be excluded from the law, but it is very complex and long term I predict major portions of this law will be struck down.

Example: Most folks have phones (phone lines lead to the Internet), and some cell phones have direct access to the Internet, well the law requires that the state can tap ALL phone calls and that offender must pay for it. Thats going overboard for the state, but it is written into the law.

Now, there is a retroactive aspect also, to folks currently on parole or probation, and those on lifetime supervision (LS). I'm thinking as to those on LS this law may be declared overbroad and reach to excessive punishment.

There are many other aspects of this law that read as overbroad and will certainly have lawyers in court quickly.

[mike]

all sex offenders arent the same the public needs to be aware of this.the law base on very sad murders which all sex offenders are being punish for this is very wrong there over 600 thousand sex offenders if they couldnt be help prisons would be over flowed i dont see this happening the goverment the news put fear into people they didnt do there homework they are wrecking familys very sad quit putting the blame on them the prison let them out and they kill those kids i feel for the families blame the parole board for that and the people who suppose to keep a eye on them its not all sex offenders fault so back off and worry about your own dirty secrets

[Mark in Jersey]

In Jersey, the law will NOT:

1. Require you to register your email or online ID with law enforcement, or
2. Block you from using the internet UNLESS:
a. A judge orders that it MAY be applied as a condition of probation or parole, and
b. The probation or parole officer decides that it DOES apply in your case.

But remember, as this only applies to sex offenders on probation and parole, not sex offenders whom have completed their time, they are still in the corrections system and can have reasonable restrictions placed on them.

The courts must now decide if this is a "reasonable" restriction, or can run afoul of 1st amendment protections, right to legal research on the 'net, emailing your lawyer, starting sex offender legal blogs... and if I see the law doing this, I'll raise hell here in Jersey...

If you're a low-level offender on the up-and-up with your PO, from what I've seen, no problemo. OTOH, I can see a state like Georgia turning an idea like this into a mess.