It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Public Registry in Ohio Tracks Those Accused of Sex Crimes Without a Conviction

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Ohio has passed legislation that allows for the tracking of individuals that have been accused of committing a sex crime. A publicly available database would include the name, address, and photograph of the accused. To be entered into the database you only need to have been accused of being a sexual offender. No trial or verdict is necessary for entry and the individual would be tracked as if they were a convicted sex offender
 



www.toledoblade.com
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.

A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


What's really scary about this new law is it's potential for abuse. Image a couple in the midst of divorce. All it would take was for one of the individuals to go before a judge and accuse the other of sexual misconduct. Now that person is publicly labeled as a sex offender. If a person believes they are innocent, they can petition to have their name removed in 6 years, but in the mean time you could be barred from employment or possibly kept from helping out at your child's school.

For those of you who aren't worried because your not likely to be a sex offender, remember the old saying? "They came for the Jews, but I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew." It's a scary world when you can be publicly labeled and branded without even a formal charge being raised against you.




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Hmmmm interesting, living in Ohio never heared of the law before... that law is going to be abused to no end, even a dating couple who have a bad breakup could abuse this law..

I still think we should go with the pink license idea, if you rape someone forever onward you driver with a pink license plate so all can see you.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
How on earth hasn't the federal government struck this down? This is even scarier than wiretapping without a warrant, because at least wiretaps didn't make people in your own town fear you for the wrong reasons. Thank goodness I don't live in Ohio, because if I did all a girl would have to do to get revenge on me is to cry wolf and not even have a shred of credibility. I sure wouldn't want to loose job oppurtunities over a bad breakup if I lived there.

So much for justice these days.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I would-nt worry about it too much. If its not fixed I suspect you'll start to find some polititions and high ups in Ohio names on the list....



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
This is outrageous, are we still living in the middle ages? You only need to accuse someone of something and they are punished? This violates our constitutional right to due process and our fundamental belief of innocent until PROVEN guilty. Someone needs to challenge this in court as soon as it becomes law!


[edit on 1-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Outrageous, unconstitutional, and plain mean-spirited. You could ruin someone's life without a shred of evidence.

The only good thing is that this will be shot down at the first challenge. And I hope the accused presses for $millions in damages.

Who's behind this?

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.


I haven't figured that one out yet.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
jsobecky & WestPoint23:

Maybe now you are starting to see the degradation of our national principles I've been ranting about for some time.


Appalling, isn't it?

:shk:



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I don't know about that loam but yes this is appalling to say the least. It is unconstitutional and it's simply mind-blowing to think such a fundamentally flawed bill can get passes with little to no opposition. And thanks jsobecky for pointing out who was behind the idea, I shudder to think how far back we would still be if we didn't have the separation of church and state clause.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Don't be too sure that this law will be shot down. There are several States that have laws allowing accusations to be made part of someone's record. I know that Pennsylvania has at least two.

I know of a Pittsburgh Police officer who had to leave his job because his ex-wife said that he abused her. It turned out that he was in court at the time it supposedly happened, so the charges were dismissed. Problem is that if you have been accused of domestic violence you are no longer allowed to carry a gun. No charges or conviction is required, just the accusation is enough.

The other one is that an accusation of providing alcohol to minors is enough to prevent you from passing the background check required to be a teacher. My mother worked for a small restraunt that also sold beer. When I was waiting to pick her up from work I watched a guy go into the store and come out with several six packs of beet and give them to a group of kids in a pick-up truck in the parking lot. On their way out of the lot they were stopped by the Police. The Police arrested the girl working the cash register for selling alcohol to minors. It was later resolved, but the accusation was enough to keep her from getting her teaching certificate.

I am sure that other States have similar laws on the books.

You have to remember that judges at the State level are usually elected. Seeing as how sex offender legislation is the current hot topic, they are not going to want voters to think that they are soft on sex offenders. I look for the State Courts to up hold the law and to try to pawn it off on to the Federal Courts. Unfortunatly the Supreme Court of the US has a nasty habit of not accepting cases where controversial topics are involved. It could be several years if ever before this is resolved and the law remains in effect during that time.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

from loam
jsobecky & WestPoint23:

Maybe now you are starting to see the degradation of our national principles I've been ranting about for some time.

Well, why didn't you tell me that's what you meant?



Originally posted by JIMC5499
Don't be too sure that this law will be shot down. There are several States that have laws allowing accusations to be made part of someone's record. I know that Pennsylvania has at least two.

What you posted is depressing, JIMC. I know it's true, but it's still depressing.

Hopefully these laws don't have to be brought all the way to SCOTUS before they are shot down.

The problem with these laws is that nobody remembers if/when the person is acquitted. All they remember is the headline that said "Joe Schmo charged with XYZ". It sticks with you for life.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

from loam
jsobecky & WestPoint23:

Maybe now you are starting to see the degradation of our national principles I've been ranting about for some time.

Well, why didn't you tell me that's what you meant?





www.fotosearch.com..." border=0>


Well, I tried!!!


Have you seen the boarder patrol thread?

Look, things are getting more and more ridiculous by the day. The country is spiraling out of control... We need to hold the bozos in power accountable and clean up house.

Unfortunately, it's a desolate landscape out there... :shk:



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
This is crazy - but I am happy to see principled conservatives voicing their objections to this as well.

I think the precedent for this kind of thing has been set by asset forfeiture laws, many of which don't require a conviction (or in some cases even an arrest) in order for the person in question to have their vehicles, homes, and other property seized.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join