Sex Offenders fight for Facebook access

[brian577]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...r-access-to-facebook-20120530,0,3931121.story

Can we really ban people from an Internet service based on their criminal record? As much as I side with the public, this seems like a complicated issue.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Banning someone from contacting a victim or category of potential victims (e.g., banning a child sex offender from contacting anyone under 18) makes all the sense in the world. But banning any use of social media? I think that's really pushing it constitutionally, and I question how useful it would even be.

 

[Leroy]

People also need to remember that sex offender =/= pedophile people that end up on sex offender lists include homeless bums caught peeing in an alley, sexual assault on another adult, and even young children!

 

[Alidar Jarok]

If the question is "can we," I think the answer is yes. Convicted criminals are subject to many draconian restrictions, so I don't think this is any different. Should we? Probably not. There's a point where the extra safety to society is minimal, but the harm to the individual (even if he is a convicted sex offender) is way too high.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Facebook gets to choose who they do business with, as long as they don't discriminate against any protected classes. Criminals are not a protected class, so they're SOL.

 

[Mr. B]

I think it would be best for those restrictions to be set by a judge on a case by case basis. Pedophiles are one thing, but an 18 year old who had consensual sex with a 16 year old could end up on the sex offender registry.

 

[horatio83]

People also need to remember that sex offender =/= pedophile people that end up on sex offender lists include homeless bums caught peeing in an alley, sexual assault on another adult, and even young children!

Children and peeing homeless people as sex offenders. One can always measure the degree of civilization of a society by taking a look at how it treats its weakest members.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think it would be best for those restrictions to be set by a judge on a case by case basis. Pedophiles are one thing, but an 18 year old who had consensual sex with a 16 year old could end up on the sex offender registry.

I agree. I think ending up in a registry (the kind where you have to inform your neighbors) should be reserved for the truly egregious offenders: people convicted of child molesting and forcible rape. Public nudity, statutory rape? Come on.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, they require sex offender registration very liberally for any potentially sex-related offense. Guy got charged with indecent exposure because he was urinating in public (don't think he was overly open about it), which would have required sex offender registration. It really should be case-by-case, but I can understand they'd rather be overinclusive that to fail to register someone only to have them later do something far worse (not that it would really have prevented something).

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Exactly who has to register varies drastically from state to state. I agree that urinating in public and some statutory rapes (depending on how old the offender and victim are) shouldn't be included. In Maryland, they're not.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I don't think it should be based on the crime, but based on the individual who committed the crime.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

^AJ, what characteristics might predict whether they will commit another sex crime more reliably than the kind of crime they have already committed? I don't think there are any.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I agree you have to look to the nature of the crime, but you have to look to the circumstances, not the charge. In addition, you can look to prior history and psychological evaluations to help make a determination.

 

[bluedana]

The article doesn't discuss the differences among sex crimes, or the levels of sex offenders on the registry. Judges ban people from the internet for lots of reasons, generally on the basis that the use of the internet has some connection with the offense of conviction (or alleged offense, if pre-conviction). It's not unusual for a condition of pre-trial release for a fraud involving the internet to be no computer access at all -- to the extent of cutting off internet access for the residence if you're out on bail. A post-conviction ban on internet access, especially chat-site or social media access, makes sense if the crime of conviction involves online predatory behavior (whether sexual or otherwise), and I would certainly ask for that at sentencing, just as I would ask for mandatory AA/NA counseling for a drug defendant with addiction issues.

A full out ban on social media access without regard to the nature of the sex offense make very little sense.