Sex Offenders Aren't People (moral, punishment, sex, moral, Article)

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

Why would you expect them to identify as 'conservative Christians'?

Are you asking me? I didn't say that they would.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by doppleganger

Courts have generally viewed sex offender registration and mobility statutes as more like "civil regulations" than "criminal penalties." It is a legal fiction necessary to avoid the Ex Post Facto Clause. Of course, these regulations certainly do add additional consequences for prior criminal acts based upon the conviction, which seems to have the effect of a criminal penalty.

They are criminal registrations. Right now, one has to actually be charged and convicted in order to be a sex offender. However, let's look at Toledo,Ohio (edit-again):
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...290360/-1/NEWS

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.

This is civil regulation. Basically, the people throw out due process. The surprising part of the article is that, without a formal charge or apparently due process, a "victim" can have someone listed as a sex offender.

edit: This is a repeated link. I forgot that YamiB already linked to this information and wish to duly credit Yami for first posting it. I leave the post just to point out my small addition to the discussion.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by gnomon

This is civil regulation. Basically, the people throw out due process. The surprising part of the article is that, without a formal charge or apparently due process, a "victim" can have someone listed as a sex offender.

It has several interesting implications. One is certainly possible violations of Due Process if governments are participating in creating these databases without following a formal procedure for adjudicating guilt and innocence. As far as private citizens listing people, aside from being dangerously silly, it seems likely to spawn a host of civil defamation lawsuits and undermine the credibility and reliability of the data.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by doppleganger

As far as private citizens listing people, aside from being dangerously silly, it seems likely to spawn a host of civil defamation lawsuits and undermine the credibility and reliability of the data.

If the person believes what they are saying they can say it.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

If the person believes what they are saying they can say it.

Sure they can. But if the target isn't a "public figure," then they can also lose a civil lawsuit for damages for saying it and possibly a civil injunction against further saying it if it is false. Defamation/libel/slander, whatever one might think of it, may still serve as the basis for a civil lawsuit.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by doppledanger

Sure they can. But if the target isn't a "public figure," then they can also lose a civil lawsuit for damages for saying it and possibly a civil injunction against further saying it if it is false. Defamation/libel/slander, whatever one might think of it, may still serve as the basis for a civil lawsuit.

All the court tv shows I watch always say if the person obviously thinks it is true then them saying it is not wrong... If you set them straight, however, then I believe if they continue to do it it is slander...

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

All the court tv shows I watch always say if the person obviously thinks it is true then them saying it is not wrong... If you set them straight, however, then I believe if they continue to do it it is slander...

It varies somewhat from state to state, but ordinary negligence in investigating the factual truth of the statements is typically enough to prove a defamation claim - unless the target of the comments is a "public figure," in which case, to prove defamation he/she would have to show that the person making the statements did so with knowledge that they were false and with intent to harm ("malice").

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by doppleganger

It varies somewhat from state to state, but ordinary negligence in investigating the factual truth of the statements is typically enough to prove a defamation claim - unless the target of the comments is a "public figure," in which case, to prove defamation he/she would have to show that the person making the statements did so with knowledge that they were false and intent to harm ("malice").

Thats the laws for the media ;-)

Someone who thinks they found a bug in their soup can go outside the restraunt and tell everyone what they found. Someone who thinks they found a bug in their soup can do the same. However someone who has never been there cannot do anything of the sort.

This is why those protestors at funerals can technically get away with what they are doing without facing deformation law problems. They are going around saying bad things about the person in the funeral (usually have pictures of the guy also) but they believe what they are saying and their intent is to "inform" (I don't buy that, but eh) so they technically shouldn't be arrested for this.

Deformation of character claims can only be won if the person making the claim doesn't believe what they are saying and are only saying it to make the person look bad. The media however has to follow different laws.