[originally posted on 9 June 2007 - as we've come to see (and as I've discussed in later blogs), Senate Bill 10, which is the law that came out of these bills, targets the lowest risk offenders far more often than it does the worst offenders]

Is that principal who kissed his students' feet after losing a bet going to be forced to wear a GPS "bracelet" or register with the authorities for life?  It's possible.  Please read the following new Associated Press article about the new laws Ohio is concocting...after the article, I will share my own remarks on how this affects me.

House bills would punish worst sex offenders

By Associated Press

Friday, June 08, 2007

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Authorities would be able to monitor the whereabouts of the worst sex offenders for the rest of their lives and time limits for prosecuting sex offenses would be eliminated under three bills working their way through the Ohio House.

Certain sex offenders also would be required to supply information to authorities that includes their criminal histories, Social Security numbers, addresses, license plate numbers and photographs of themselves and their cars.

The legislation would match an act that Congress passed last year. States that do not comply with the Adam Walsh Act risk losing federal grants that pay for tools such as ankle bracelets and satellite surveillance systems that help keep track of predators.

One House bill divides the categories of sex offenders into three groups, ranging from least to most severe, with the worst offenders falling into a category requiring lifetime monitoring.

Under the federal law, the least offenses include sexual imposition, voyeurism and illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented material; the middle group includes sex trafficking, solicitation of a minor to practice prostitution and distribution of child pornography; and the worst offenses include aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact against a minor under 13.

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association does not object to any of the bills, said its director, John Murphy. The Senate unanimously passed all three bills and there is no known opposition in the House.

A fourth bill would require repeat offenders and certain others to wear devices that would track them by satellite. Twenty-nine states either have in place or are considering laws mandating such global positioning systems to monitor the worst offenders, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Ohio's bill would require GPS monitoring of repeat sexual offenders, those who commit child-victim offenses and people who have a documented history of sexually deviant behavior, or if "any other relevant evidence" is found.

Wisconsin has had a pilot GPS monitoring program since 2004 and currently has 41 offenders wearing ankle bracelets that allow authorities to track their movement. Seventeen of those were sentenced by courts to post-prison treatment programs and the other 24 were deemed by the Department of Corrections to be high-risk offenders, department spokesman John Dipko said.

The program will be expanded to include more than 100 offenders in January under a law that requires all high-risk offenders to wear the bracelets, Dipko said. Since the pilot program began, there have been no sexual assaults by those wearing the bracelets, he said. The cost of the expansion's startup is estimated at $5.8 million.

"We think that's a very useful tool in holding sexual offenders accountable," Dipko said.

Ohio's bill is stalled while lawmakers study the cost, said Sen. Tim Grendell, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. Prison officials have told the committee that Ohio's cost could be more than $20 million, but that savings from an expected drop in repeat offenses could offset much of that, said Grendell, a suburban Cleveland Republican.

Grendell said he doubted the bill would be ready for a committee vote before the end of June, when lawmakers expect to begin their summer recess, but he won't let the cost kill the bill.

"I'm not going to let the numbers keep us from protecting the people of Ohio," Grendell said.

On the Net:

Wisconsin Department of Corrections: http://www.wi-doc.com/

National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org

Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association: http://www.ohiopa.org/

My response:

The authorities are intending - or wanting you to think they're intending - to target only the "worst" offenders, the ones who pose the most danger to society.  If this were true, even I would have to think it's a good idea.  If someone serves time for rape and then gets out and commits another rape, then i'm not sure why that person should be released yet again.  He had his chance.  And if he does get out again, I would have no problem with expecting him to wear a GPS device for a while until he proves he's no longer a threat.  But read again this part of the article:

Ohio's bill would require GPS monitoring of repeat sexual offenders, those who commit child-victim offenses and people who have a documented history of sexually deviant behavior, or if  "any other relevant evidence" is found.

This is a perfect example of something looking like a great idea when it really is not.  Let me address each of the criteria I've emphasized with red text.

Repeat sexual offender:  I know by experience how the parole board defined "repeat offender."  Because I had been convicted of DUI (driving under the influence) - barely over the legal limit, but still wrong - prior to my "sex offense," I was deemed a "repeat offender" by the parole board (and this was part of their rationale for making me serve 11 years when I had been a model inmate and my sentencing judge had said he expected me to serve no more than four and a half years).   The foot kissing principal from my previous blog would be deemed a "repeat sexual offender" because he committed the same "crime" upon several "victims" as a result of losing the one bet.  Never mind that he had no sex and no sexual contact with his students.  Would society be any more protected by either forcing us to wear the scarlet letter S (for Sex offender) or forcing us to wear a GPS device for the rest of our lives?  Of course not. 

Child victim offenses:  Define child.  In some states a 17 year old girl is legally a "child."  So if a guy who turned 18 yesterday has sex with her, he can be labeled a "Child victim offender."  And define "offense."  What if he only kissed her feet, with her complete consent?  In Ohio, that is legally a "sex offense." 

Sexually deviant behavior:  By whose definition?  I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church where homosexuality was regarded as "deviant."  For that matter, so were masturbation, adultery, and oral sex (even between a husband and wife).  From this perspective, most Americans are probably deviant.

Any other relevant evidence:  This clause in the law is the blank check that allows the authorities to include everyone convicted of a "sex offense" in their present or future politically-popular schemes.  I have no problem, as I said before, with targeting the "worst" offenders, the ones who actually pose a danger to society.  But by including vague criteria like "deviant" and "any other relevant evidence" in the pending laws, the legislators are inviting abuse.  I've seen it happen before.  Next thing you know, we'll be wire-tapped without warrants or labeled "enemy combatants" and shipped to Guantanamo Bay.  Sure, I say that partly in jest.  But bear in mind that our government has already done the same exact things to more than one person and more than one organization that has probably never broken the law. 

What good did MySpace accomplish by deleting my primary profile because I'm a "registered sex offender"?  None!  I still have this profile and I'm still not harming anybody.  What ever happened to free speech?  What ever happened to civil liberties?  I served more time than my judge expected for a crime I didn't even commit.  Yet I am forced to pay forever, it seems, while the girl in my neighborhood who spent two years in prison for leaving her newborn baby to die in a garbage dumpster does not have to register her address with the authorities or worry about MySpace deleting her profile....

Salman Rushdie, the great but persecuted novelist, said that "Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself."  I wholeheartedly respect your (and everyone else's) right to "life itself."  Is it too much to ask for MySpace to respect mine?