SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-about-being-aware-of-your-surroundings-instead? dept.
An unexpected catch:
In an informal investigation by Senators Jeffrey D. Klein and Diane J. Savino, staff members took a list of 100 registered sex offenders across New York City and compared it with locations where Pokémon Go players could collect virtual items or use other game features.
In 59 cases, those locations were within half a block of offenders' homes. The staff members, who played the game for two weeks, also found 57 Pokémon — which appear on players' phones as if they exist in the real world — near the offenders' homes, according to a report the senators released on Friday. Such overlap has been reported in other states, including California and North Carolina.
In New York, those discoveries prompted Mr. Klein, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, and Ms. Savino, a Staten Island Democrat, to propose two pieces of legislation, scheduled to be introduced next week.
The first would prevent moderate or high-risk sex offenders from playing so-called augmented-reality games — like Pokémon Go — and the second would require the games' creators to cross-reference their virtual landscapes with lists of offenders' homes and remove any "in-game objective" within 100 feet of them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by mendax on Monday August 01 2016, @03:05AM
Sex offenders do still have civil rights. The ban from playing "augmented reality" games probably would not pass constitutional muster, and would be very difficult to enforce anyway. Besides, sex offenders as a group are not at a high risk to reoffend, even those who are at moderate risk. This is well-known fact. This political idiot does not seem to know this, or does but has chosen to walk over the rights of the perceived scum of the earth in our society.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @03:43AM
Pokemon, Muslims. Democrats, Republicans. What's the difference?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday August 01 2016, @07:53AM
The difference is that, as far as I can tell, nobody has yet done a suicide attack in the name of Pokémon.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by thegothicguardian on Monday August 01 2016, @04:50PM
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday August 01 2016, @08:59PM
OK, I clarify: A real-world suicide attack.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 01 2016, @02:00PM
Pokemon, Muslims. What's the difference?
Um...pretty much everything?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by deimios on Monday August 01 2016, @04:34AM
But, but, but, if he was caught peeing in the bush at night once, he might do it again if he drank water! We should ban water!!! Or maybe we should just chemically castrate them, I propose the tests be done on politicians as the have nothing to lose, they have no balls anyways.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 01 2016, @04:59AM
Constitutional muster? The sex offender's lists don't even pass.
Either a person is dangerous, or he is not. If he's dangerous, you have three choices: Execute him if he's dangerous enough, imprison him for life if he's not dangerous enough for execution, or "rehabilitate" him in a psychiatric facility. Turning him out into the streets with the equivalent of a demonic tattoo on his forehead is obviously "cruel and unusual punishment".
Note that execution is not cruel and unusual, because we all die. There is nothing creul or unusual about death, although there may be cruel and unusual methods of execution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @05:02AM
Murdering someone is different from them dying naturally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @10:45AM
Shhh! Runaway is having an opinion! He probably got it from those disreputable news sources he reads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @05:55AM
Execution by the state violates self-sovereignty - my life is my own, the state does not own it and thus does not have the right to end it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @06:31AM
Didn't the Civil War teach you anything about how the Union treats sovereignity? Or y'know debtors prison and lots of other rank shit America did before, during, and after the Civil War both at home and abroad.
Self-Sovereignity is like national sovereignity. It is only exists when the other guy is too scared to skirmish with you, or you are hard enough to take his for yourself.
Really if you look at it objectively, the average criminal is the epitome of self-sovereignity (if compared on equal terms to actual nations, which are often quite sociopathic in nature.) Take what you want, defend your holdings, and if someone stands against you, put them down.
^ Above is an example of why self-sovereignity doesn't work in 'sovereign society'. Furthermore following this train of thought, sovoreignity allows you to deprive others of their rights if they cannot defend themselves (unless a large body of sovereign entities codify a set of rules that they can selectively enforce on either themselves or everyone weaker.), and other's sovereignity can be taken away if you are strong enough.
Food for thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @09:36AM
I believe that is the prime driver behind this rush for gun-ownership these days.
You may not take 'em all down, but you will likely get one or two people that think they are gonna take your stuff.
Knowing there are a lot more like you than there are of them.
Like Flight 93.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 01 2016, @10:20AM
If/when you violate a lot of other people's self sovereignty, then you forfeit your own. Rape, murder and pillage to your heart's content, until the state invokes "self defense" in the name of all of it's citizens.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday August 01 2016, @06:58PM
Other people have claimed that your idea of a sex offender doesn't match the people they put on the list. I've certainly heard of cases where that isn't true, but I don't know how frequent that is. Still, an 18 year old who dates a 17 year old would not, for that, be considered a sex offender in any reasonable society. And that doesn't count as violating anyone else's self-sovereignty.
You might consider that inflammatory labels are often put on people which have little relation to what the people actually are. And this may be often done by those with authority just as an exercise of authority, to make them feel important. (There may be other reasons, but sometimes I can't imagine any that aren't even more despicable.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @10:49AM
my life is my own, the state does not own it and thus does not have the right to end it.
Yeah, that's what she said! So I guess we will just leave it up to the people you have wronged to end your miserable existence! What's that? You would prefer a fair trial by a jury of your peers, AND a prohibition on cruel and unusual and Runaway1956 approved punishments? Well, that sounds like something that we would need a state to organize and enforce, as opposed to the lynch mob.
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Monday August 01 2016, @12:44PM
Execute him if he's dangerous enough
I used to be into that idea myself. Why we have a 100% effective justice system and why not kill those who deserve it. Then it turns out that despite the justice system's absolute best efforts, you add a layer of bottomless funding from anti-death penalty people and add some new science like DNA and stuff and at least 10% to 20% of people executed provably didn't do it. Its incredibly expensive to get the error rate below 1/3 or so, which sounds insane but its true.
Now throwing people in a hole for half a century is not very humane especially since they get even less attention therefore less justice so lets assume 1/4 of people in the hole for a life sentence are innocent, but at least theoretically they could be set free in the future when they raise enough money to buy justice or are just plain ole lucky. And on a regular basis lots of innocent people are set free years, decades later. But its hard to right wrongs after the victim was killed byt the state.
There is also the moral/ethical argument that sure I was in the army and all that and I'll pull the trigger on a killer. I wouldn't even feel bad. Like putting down a rabid dog, sure it would suck if it was my dog, and every dog is somebodies dog, but its rabid so its gotta go sry abt that. There's no way in hell I could pull the trigger on someone convicted in the USA and given the death penalty; damn, at least 1/4 of them are innocent, probably more. With my luck I'd be killing an innocent civilian. It takes a serial killer mentality to just blow away random innocent civilians, that I simply don't have. I support the theory of a death penalty, but in practice it amounts to killing great piles of innocent civilians. Its just not worth it. Its like carpet bombing the inner city; you'll kill a lot of dirtbags, but its just not worth the collateral damage.
Its like the witch trials centuries ago. Kill witches? Sure, whatever, if you find a real one lets kill it. Real witches if they existed would totally suck. But the victims were 100% just unloved old women with property that needed stealing. Our justice system being a complete pile of shit is hardly a new problem.
Now obviously the standards are infinitely lower for mere sex offenders. They're just on a list, have to wear a scarlet letter, etc. Would totally not fall out of my chair if someone claimed that upon further review, 50% of tried and convicted and punished sex offenders never did anything wrong. They just wanted the police to stop beating them, their family to not be bled financially dry, felt the odds of pleading to a lesser crime were better than going to trial, whatever.
Yeah without investing $$$$$$$ in justice, good luck figuring out which half did it and which half is just getting railroaded. If it takes $10M per case to clear an innocent mans name on death row, times all convicted sex offenders, that's like the nations GDP or something. We can't afford our broken justice system. So we're just going to have to get used to the idea that half of offenders that are being punished never did anything.
You can combine two threads to fascinating results.
We can assume the people railroaded are pretty randomly distributed and its very rare life experience, so lightning striking twice almost never happens. Now that is suspiciously close, isn't it, that half the people never did anything, certainly not what they're being punished for, and half the people being punished never repeat.
Here's a non-controversial analogy, probably. I've never falsified nuclear weapon component export paperwork (kryton switches, stuff like that). In fact that would be an impressive achievement seeing as I've not worked directly with hardware like that. But lets say an ex-girlfriend got real butthurt about me or a lower level coworker "needs" my job or someone got sick of me shitposting on SN or HN and I got framed and convicted of illegal arms exportation, to a nuclear degree, or whatever exact arms control violation that is. Seeing as I never done it never gonna do it not interested in doing it, the odds of my violating nuclear arms treaties again after I get out are about 0%, so I'll be part of the ex-con population of nuclear arms exporters that is NOT a repeat offender. Now does that tell you more about nuclear arms exporters (remember I'm not one, although convicted) or does it tell you more about our shitty excuse for a justice system?
I'm just saying only a fool would think our justice system exceeds flipping a coin by very much, so that factor needs to be added in to repeat offender rates, given that maybe half of offenders never did anything and never will, the "real" repeat rate of "real" offenders must be darn close to 100%.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Bruke on Monday August 01 2016, @03:01PM
The main problem with the sex offender lists is that they bypass Due Process and the Ex Post Facto clause. I'll give an example based upon my own situation and personal knowledge. I committed a crime in 1993, shortly before turning 21. I realized I'd made a bad decision and came forward of my own free will to confess my crime. I spent a bit over 12 years in prison and was discharged in 2005. Since that time, I've (obviously) not committed any additional crimes. At the time of my confession, I was given a plea agreement in return for my cooperation - I was told that I would be able to "start over again, with a clean slate" after I served my time and paid my debt to society. I won't pretend I was a decent person back then - I had relations with a 14 year old prostitute while I was 20 - but I served my sentence.
However, in 1995 - two years after I was sentenced - the legislature decided to enact the sex offender registry for my State; they applied it retroactively so I was told that I would have to register once per year until 2020. A few years later, they changed the law so that I would have to register every three months. A bit later, they changed the law so that I would have to pay a one-time fee. Then they changed the law so that my "one-time" fee was to be paid every year. Oh, and they decided that I would have to register for the rest of my life instead of just until 2020. All this, plus being told where I can live.
The ironic part is, I sponsored my wife's immigration. As a registered sex offender, I had an additional burden of proof that I had to pass before I could sponsor my wife - I had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was not, and would never be, a threat to my wife or any children that we might have. I had to prove this to the Department of Homeland security - only the Director of the Department of Homeland Security could sign off and return to me my right to sponsor my wife for immigration. It took me nearly five years, but I was successful - I was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the Director of the Department of Homeland Security that I am not and never will be a threat to my wife or any potential children.
But, I still have to be on the registry for the rest of my life, paying a fee every year, with restrictions on where I can live and work. It doesn't matter that I can prove I'm no longer a threat to anyone - clearly it isn't about protecting people but instead it's meant to be a scarlet letter.
I've tried to claim that this is a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause; that it violates Due Process; that it's so broad and sweeping as to be void for vagueness. The courts don't seem to care. The justification for this is what is called "legislative intent" - the courts have deemed that this is a civil issue and that the legislation wants to protect people; it's viewed through the same lens as requiring a drivers license or a gun license. The fact that the registry and the associated laws are, in application, punitive, is swept aside by the argument that the legislation didn't "intend" for it to be punitive. Apparently, this intent is more important that the real-world consequences of that intent. There was a brief period of time where some federal courts considered a two-prong "intent-effects" test but ultimately when the Supreme Court took up the case they chose to use a pure "intent" test and thus upheld the registry as constitutional.
Every few years, I get to see what new punishments I am to receive for my 1993 crime. It's Microsoft Windows, only even worse...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 01 2016, @04:04PM
You are a person whose opinion I would like, regarding capital punishment. There are a lot of arguments, both pro and con, both good and bad. But, you, who are being victimized by the system - what is your opinion? Should a person who is deemed a genuine danger to society be subject to the death penalty? Ideas on the burden of proof required, or a threshold of danger?
(Score: 1) by Bruke on Monday August 01 2016, @08:33PM
Runaway1956 - This is a very difficult question and I've spent a surprising amount of time trying to come up with a good answer for you. I feel that the complexity of the issue means a good answer in this format simply isn't possible but I'll try.
Your question was, "[s]hould a person who is deemed a genuine danger to society be subject to the death penalty?"
My short answer, given a literal interpretation of your question, is, "yes, absolutely." If it can be determined with certainty that a person is a danger to society then society must be protected. But what is really meant by a "genuine danger to society" and how was this person deemed as such? As you mentioned, the real questions involve the burden of proof and the threshold of danger. I'll try to share my muddled thoughts on these concepts.
The current burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's a fine standard, if it is applied correctly. It's very hard to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Over the years, I've known only a very small handful of people that were wrongfully convicted. In most cases they appealed their convictions and ultimately won their freedom. Most, but not all; I know of a fellow that, even after his brother came forward and confessed, lost two appeals and his right to further appeals. In another matter, a judge sustained a conviction on a man accused of abducting a woman for the purpose of making her smoke crack (this abduction was her explanation for why, while on probation for drug possession, she failed her mandatory drug test; note that she alleged only that he made her smoke crack and in no other way molested or harmed her). In those cases, discrimination and corruption seemed to be the motivation for the failure of the appeals (in the first case, the fellow was a pre-op transsexual in a conservative town while in the second case the "victim" was from a wealthy family with ties to the community while the defendant was a poor minority scape-goat). If the issues of discrimination and corruption could be addressed, there's still the matter of poorly handled evidence and confessions elicited from those that are either intimidated or mentally incompetent.
In addition to the burden of proof, there's also the question of danger. There's been quite a bit of fear-mongering over the dangers of crime but few people really take the time to do the research. There are only a few crimes for which the death penalty is an option under state law; it varies by state but usually such crimes include premeditated murder and aggravated rape (c.f. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty [deathpenaltyinfo.org]). The federal government really opens up the scope of the conversation, including crimes against the state such as treason and espionage (c.f. http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004927 [procon.org]). Each type deserves a full analysis but as there's a limit to what I can reasonably type here I'm going to limit my answer to those state-level convictions involving aggravated rape and premeditated murder; suffice it to say that crimes like "treason" are often in the eye of the beholder and deserver more of a case-by-case examination (e.g. Edward Snowden, the Rosenbergs).
For violent crimes, hard numbers can be found from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (c.f. http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm [bjs.gov] et al.) but the data for crimes that would force a choice between the death penalty or a lifetime in prison is harder to come by because there is a relatively small sample compared to other crimes - such crimes occur less frequently and those convicted for such crimes are released rarely. Without better statistical data, it's impossible to accurately assess the risk posed by these criminals. If we are to rely only on my own experiences and anecdotal evidence, I would say that most of the "lifers" that I've known tended to be more ethical and trustworthy than the average prisoner - but that's in a controlled environment and it's impossible to really say what would happen if they were let loose in the world after having become so institutionalized over the years. Much of that "trustworthiness" seems to stem from their resignation that they're never leaving, and a desire to not "shit where they eat"; people with out-dates know that their experience is only transitory and thus have less regard for the environment.
This begs the question, how can anyone ever really be "deemed" as such a danger with any degree of confidence? Setting aside your question, in which it is a given that the person has been correctly deemed a danger, and looking at the question as it exists in the real world, it's better to error on the side of caution then to execute people. I'm opposed to involuntary executions for the simple reason that it's very hard to really be sure - and the consequences of being wrong are unacceptable. You may have noticed that I said "involuntary" executions; I'll explain.
While I was inside, I met quite a few men with life sentences and "basketball score" sentences (like 80-110 years). I spent the first few years of my sentence in a medium security prison which doubled as a medical facility for older lifers that had essentially been sent there to die. There was an entire housing unit dedicated to wheel-chair bound prisoners. The average age of the population was around 50 years and there where several hundred prisoners over the age of 70. Several of the men there told me quite simply that they would rather have been executed. These were men that had already spent 35 to 55 years inside the system and who were completely institutionalized. These men had come to terms with what they had done and were resigned to their fates; their lives had become a drudgery and a monotony. Some expressed to me their desire for anything other than to grow old, crippled, and infirm in the prison. Some said they'd volunteer for suicidal manned space exploration, others said they'd welcome one-way military missions into enemy territory. Some candidly admitted they'd even welcome lethal injection or a worse method of execution.
If the goal of the system was to punish those men, it was working quite well but at a terrible cost to the taxpayers; rehabilitation clearly wasn't even a consideration. The current system benefits no one, aside from those that make their living in the prison industry. The solution to the dilemma seems to be to give lengthy sentences when the crime merits it and then allow for prisoners that have been given these extreme sentences the right to choose a dignified death rather than die of age-related illnesses, saving the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year while possibly giving the offender a chance to do something good for society.
This would open the door to other challenges - for example if a prisoner is allowed to choose to enter into a medial study that would ultimately prove fatal but which would yield information that could save the lives of thousands, how could be make sure that the volunteer was volunteering of their own free will? No system is perfect and questions like that would require considerable thought... but it would still be a better system than what we have now.
I can't say I'm entirely satisfied with my own answer; I feel like I'm dancing around a very complex issue but there's only so much I can say in this format. I hope that some of what I've said is useful to you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:35AM
Thank you, and that was a pretty good job. There aren't any easy answers, for or against capital punishment. Thanks for the "food for thought".
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday August 01 2016, @06:04PM
Execution is not cruel and unusual because the 5th amendment makes it clear executions are a-okay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @09:27AM
Besides, sex offenders as a group are not at a high risk to reoffend
Reoffend?
Since the sex offender registry includes 18 year olds with 17 year old girlfriends, underage same-age couples that were tried as adults for child porn possession, people with their own naked selfies tried for child porn possession, drunks peeing on a tree in the middle of the night close to an elementary school etc, etc...
... I'd say that (registered) "sex offenders" as a group are not at particularly high risk to even offend.
(I'm sure that there are actual sex offenders on that list as well, but too many innocents are on it for any meaningful usage.)