Tired.

I weep for our nation. For the chicanery and stupidity of our congress, for the idiocy of our policiies... and for the people who get caught in them.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2007-12-13/news/sex-offenders-set-up-camp/full


We know about this.. but how many people look at them as people. How many see the depths of the insanity?

Normally.. write far more. But this is enough.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/08/31/sex-offender-new-hire-databases-could-be-linked/

heh. Maybe it isn't. How far will they go? As far as the hysteria can push them. Welcome to the future, friends. I hope you enjoy the world you're working for.
Read more!

Freedom, security, and sex offenders and the law

I've been doing a great deal of studing on the registry, and what, in the United States, constitutes civil and criminal law, as well as common law. This document discusses this, in detail.

Our law system is Common Law. It is a system of debates, of finding precedent and law, in all of its imperfections. The cases and precedents date back nearly to the 11th century that we know of, and possibly before. The system evolved, several times going to various swings of conservatism and liberalism, sometimes even going so far as to become oppresive, then brought back to heel by the populace.

During the reign of King John, a number of the lords of the land banded together, and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, a great charter that was designed to limit the powers of the King over people nominally his vassals. it established rules and laws, the ability of freemen to keep arms, and bear them in defense of the king and their land, and lords. It further created a nullification of the 'kings right', the right to enter any property and seize any person and property that they wished.

The trial by jury was tested in 1544, by the trial of Throckmorton for treason and Sedition. The jury was severely punished for freeing him against the legal counsel of the Judge. In 1649, the Lilburne trial was held, under the Cromwell Regeime, for a similar issue, and was the first to argue for juristic nullification of the law.

Later, in Bushnell's Case, the right to jury nullification was upheld again, creating a legal precedent in 1670, that lasted until 1990 in the US.

Currently, the statement of a juror regarding nullification is grounds for removal from the jury, as it is in voir dire, and instruction by the defense, or judge, is considered to be grounds for a mistrial.

Our nation is one of common law. It is, and has thus been, since its inception. Cases were judged, not by the law, but by precedent. Those who were on the prosecution, and those on the defense searched the books of precedent, in order to find the most applicable defenses and crimes, respectively. Common law was based in the rights of the people, the right of the accused to be innocent until proven guilty, and the right of the person to the best possible defense, as well as to appeal.

The reason I raise these points of history is to contrast several things. Civil law has two current definitions which are inextricably linked within the U.S. system. Civil law is the codified laws, the regulations, and structures that provide recourse for parties in a contract, including marriage, incorporation, lawsuits, and other 'private' proceedings. It is a system of agreements between persons, or entities declared as persons for the purpose of the law.

Specifically, civil law is considered 'adversarial' law. It is considered to be law that is inquisitorial, mostly because the rights of the people were ignored, one could testify against oneself, and be compelled to do so, as well as being forced into testimony that could be harmful to one's own case. Further, once the initial claim was passed with merit, the defending party had to prove their own innocence.

There were a few limitations, however. According to tradition and law, civil trials, and civil laws, could not provide punishment in the form of jail time. Civil laws could not even provide for a minute in restraint.

This is where civil and criminal laws differ. Criminal laws deal in punishment. They deal in terms of restraint and imprisonment, and this is the very definition of a criminal law. Criminal laws further are dealt with, at least in theory, from the standpoint of innocence until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the state or local enforcement agencies, rather than on the person, save in cases of defense by insanity.

In short, any law with a criminal punishment, a punishment for detention, attached, cannot be a civil law or a civil regulation.

The problem before the courts in Smith Vs Doe, 538 US 84 (2003) was a question, not on the legality of the law itself, but on the legality of the release of information. The release of information, by itself, was not a criminal code, as the release itself provided no punishment per se. However, if the law had been applied to the registry, rather than the release of information, I believe it could not have been found as a civil matter. The focus of the case, however, was on the release of information, rather than the registry itself.

In the Connecticut Dept of Public Safety vs Doe, 538 US 1 2003, the procedural due process grounds were nullified. This leaves the substantiative due process grounds, and a test of the Ex Post Facto, rather than on the release, on the inclusion onto the registry. This, I believe, is due to faulty wording on the nature of the substance of the Ex Post Facto claim.

Further, given the following information, historically, I would argue the point that the founding fathers did not intend Ex Post Facto to be attributed to civil laws.

At the time of the founding of the Constitution, civil laws were not in place in the United States. It was not until 1804 that any civil codes were passed. Civil law was designed under common law as a way to mediate the agreements between two private parties. Hence, the judges drew upon their common law knowledge (and common sense) to adjudicate a case where the agreement was in question, or the nature of the penalty of the agreement was. (financial penalties or torts, divorce cases, etc).

The reason the founding fathers did not discuss ex post facto in civil matters during the constitutional arguments was that it could not occur. Who would agree to the creation of a contract where they could be fined for things that occurred before the contract was created? And if they did, was it not their own fault for not reading it more closely?

Ironically, our nation since 1808 has suffered a major shift; we utilize civil law synonymously with Roman Law. Roman law was codified law, adversarial and inquisitorial, and did not include self-protection. Roman law also merged both the civil and the criminal codes.

Roman law is also known as Napoleonic law. Napoleonic law was an outgrowth of the Roman Law, as was a great deal of the law in Europe. The purpose of roman law was threefold; maintaining order, managing the people, and keeping the power in the hands of the Emperor and Senate.

Since 1808, we have had many laws placed on the books. Thousands upon thousands of them in fact, to the point where no man can know all of them, and even the computers have difficulty searching through them to find a meaningful result. Our laws grow more and more powerful, and become more and more punitive, even under the veil of 'civil' law.

But it cannot be 'civil' law, if it provides a punishment, can it?

Only if you mutate 'roman law' into 'Civil law'.

In our nation today, we become more and more interested in keeping control. How better to do this, though, than to legislate everything? We legislate eating, legislate drinking, legislate health and sickness, legislate how we can pay one another, legislate our taxes, legislate our lives.

And the more legislation there is, the more outlawry there is, not because people's behavior changes at first, but there is more to get into trouble for. The more laws we pass, the higher the crime, and eventually, people's behavior changes.

People are strange animals. We apply reason until we are hurt. We often, when hurt, cannot apply reason to prevent another hurt. We live in fear, in injustice, afraid to reach out and change it, but cannot get past the fear enough to realize that we can change it.

Emotions betray reason. They both bring us together, and break us apart. Wisdom falls before lust, falls before anger, falls before fear... but how can we control what we are? Because of reason...

There is no reason, however, to laws designed under the Roman statute. They are black and white, all or nothing, and the punishments as well are all or nothing. mandatory minima, no exceptions. They are systems of punishments designed to keep people in fear and under control, after all, if there is enough law, one can be tried for things that are ephimeral. With ex post facto, one can be tried for crimes that occurred before the law was passed.

Imagine an intersection. You cross it every day.. then someone places a stop sign there, and makes the stop sign retroactive for the past ten years. All the sudden you're guilty of fines for all the time the stop sign 'was there' legally. It is a civl law. it is ex post facto. is it right? No... no it is not. And this is why ex post facto is just as inapplicable under civil law as criminal.

One must agree to civil law, or it is not civil. Are we agreeing to the registry? Aye, we are.. but it is not civil law. It is enforced upon us by extortion, held against us by force, if we do not comply, we go to prison, often for longer than our original sentences. If we do not comply again... in some states we can go away for life.

is this reason? Is a man convicted fourty years ago still a danger? Perhaps... but only in the sense we are all a danger. We are all 'potential predators'. Every man, every woman, every child in the US is a 'potential predator'. Do you still insist on registering the potential problems?

That's the problem with potentials, with perceptions. The problem with definitions is that they change, and understanding them later can be difficult. This is why the constitution and common law worked the way it did. It applied concrete laws in ways that were flexible according to the case.

Mandatory minimum sentences subvert this process. They create a rule by writ of law, that cannot be considered beyond by the judge or jury on the prospective case. They have no oversight, they are a law unto themselves. In any situation where they say 'that is the law, I have no choice', you can bet that the Roman Law, the Napoleonic law, is behind it.

Is this really who we are? The Code Napoleon was used in Russia.. in fascist germany, in France, in Spain. It was embraced with joy by the Bolsheviks, carried by the Fascists in Italy.

It is a tool of subjugation, and war against the very people who give the power to the government.

Yes... People give the power to the government. The citizens cede those powers to the government. The government does not give rights, it can only take them. The people are, in truth, the ultimate arbiters of their rights and privileges. If a right has been given up, it is only by the acquiescence of the people.

We forget who we are, why we are here. It does not matter how few people there are in a group, or if it is even an individual. If it can be done to anyone, it can be done to all. The attack on a single person against their rights is an attack on all rights, converting them into privileges, which will be removed.

This is why we are not a democracy... we are a democratic republic. In a democracy, the only rights one has are those that others vote to give you. They can also, in a true democracy, vote someone out of a vote, and ultimately, only a few control the democracy, until one or more of them die and one takes full control.

Equal protection under the law is not just for those you like... when it fails in any case, and you allow it to fail.. you have slain your own rights on the altar of security. I keep repeating this point.. hoping it will sink in to those who read it.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.


Thomas Paine said it eloquently. in his 'Common Sense' of 1776.

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
Read more!

Realities?

The following is a work of fiction... a statement of potentials, and perhaps a caricature. I leave it for you to decide, reader, in a world filled with fear.

For the greater good: By Triedbyconscience.

The human race is dying. Sure, there are more of us than ever before, and we breed just as fervently as ever... but we are dying. Islands of sanity become more and more rare, acts of kindness and conscience, forgotten. In the daily news, story after story of rape, murder, and torture abound.. but do we ever see it anymore?

After a while, the eyes close, the heart hardens. Too many twists on the heartstrings, and they break. The part of the human race that dies is not the biological, but the spirit. We have no hope, only the momentary passions and fears, the hatred and greed.

The greed keeps us alive. The passions keep us from extinction, but are we truly human anymore?

A click of a pebble. I pulled out my pistol, looking toward the yard nearby. It was only a twig, fallen into the dirt. A twig fluttering with dead leaves. At least they weren't here, yet. It was only a matter of time.

I returned to writing, the computer shielded carefully in aFaraday cage made of old tin cans, and scavenged copper. I had disabled the ports I knew of, but... I hadn't survived this long by being so uncautious as to think I knew all. Even here, under the old concrete of an abandoned, burned-out service station, I could not afford to be complacent. They were watching.

"But what is greed?" I wrote "without hope? How did we get here in the first place, what led us to... death in life? The controls bound upon us, what happened to us? The only light in the universe that we knew of, blessed to life by some creator, in the old stories... yes, creator, I write this. Mock as you will, you have given up the reason for your creation."

Perhaps I am mad. I talk to my computer more than people. People are unsafe, they are dangerous. They would turn you in, in a moment, to get an instant away from their drudgery. Writing itself is forbidden for the most part. Reports and statistics are all that is printed, save for GovPress.

"You mock god.. I mock godlessness. To be free from god, you choose to abandon the idea of god, but in that abandoment, you have given up your freedom. If rights are not given by god, they are taken by man. They become privileges, writ in pencil to be erased at a stroke. They become empty ashes of promises, lost in the wind.

We talked once about freedom. We talked about a world where we could walk down the street, whenever we wished. Now our schedules are written as prescriptions by the government, for our own good, to follow them. After a time we came to accept this. Subversive ideas were dangerous, and so we burned the books. After a generation few remembered the history. The govcasts were history. It had always been thus, according to them, the beneficial government guarding and guiding the people, and if the conditions were brutal, it was the fault of the people for not working harder.

Pah. I spit on their kindness. Kind enough of them to provide cradle to grave, and if you refuse to eat of their provisions and poisons, you committed to being their flesh. After all, the medical service had to harvest spare organs from somewhere... and nobody would miss the subversives that might take away their dole.

But again I digress. How did we get here? With all the best of intentions, I believe. I found old books in abandoned caverns. I am not sure what happened to the people, why they hid them and never returned. I left them locked there. Perhaps someone else might find them, and know the damnation to which we're exposed.

The valley below me is full of smoke. That's true of everywhere anymore, the actinic scents of lightning and fire, the scents of the burning. Why care about the environment when your number could come up in either lottery tomorrow?

Why educate yourself, when it counted against your dole? When you had to work harder to maintain even the standard of living? Thence came the Wolves... people on the outskirts of society. Refusing both the dole and the lotteries, the Wolves were outlaws. They hunted the last of those down long ago.

Now we have the regressives... like me. People who educate themselves outside of the System. But are we regressive? Are we Wolves? Or are the Wolves those who feed upon the sheep that live in the society?

Long ago, there was a group. The name of the group isn't important, and wouldn't have any meaning today. Their crimes have become impossible. Nobody would care about them, when the thrill of watching someone fry for becoming rich due to the lottery has become boring. Sex and sex offenses... how long ago was that morality? The hysteria?

It made a good tool, though, for those in control, those 'politicians'. In the name of protecting the people, they isolated them, segregated them.. and nobody cared. They were just those offenders. They were all guilty of horrific crimes, they knew. They'd always do it again, and were a drain on society in general.

But were they really? Historical records indicate otherwise. Yes, some did horrible things, some offended, some reoffended... but the waste, the hysteria, the drain on society.. was from their politics in how to deal with them.

Left alone, I imagine some would have ended up in the prisons. A prison is... well, we call them work camps today. Imagine a work camp, though, where someday you could leave. Yes, I know, hard to imagine. Even know my soul is repulsed by the thought of meeting such a person after a work camp. The psychic scars are evident, even on my soul, when I'd at best be labeled a subversive, and burned on evening 'cast.

We didn't always have two hours required watching per day of executions. We didn't have the harvest shown, to get our dole. And we didn't always feel the anger that a person did something so foul that even their organs shouldn't be harvested.

No... that came into being fairly recently... two generations. I met an old timer hiding once. We talked for a long time. Even now it's hard for me to accept what he said, the StatePol programmed me very well.

Once there was blue skies. Once there were parks, and places for children to play, rather than creches they lived with their bio-parents. And the barbarism, they had guns, and used them. Sometimes on each other, sometimes on paper targets, sometimes on animals... but what a gift they had. Those weapons were the key to their freedom.

When the Sex Offenders became more vocal, the politicians became more aggressive in trying to silence them. When the restrictions reached a certain point, the offenders could no longer be ignored. It seemed that even the 'lowest of the low' had their limits in how far they would be pushed down, and they pushed back. They filed redresses, 'law suits' which were some kind of renumeration for inuries, and even attempted to enter the temple of these politicians, and show them where they were wrong...

It seems this angered the politicians, and they restricted them farther, pushed them into a creche, and ultimately, extended the registry to all. Yes, the citizen's registry came from a crime. We are probably more guilty in this than anyone in the work camps.

The hysteria was strong, the fear stronger. The politicians managed to whip up the people in hate against the offenders, and... *sighs* Even now, my brain says thanks to StatePol that they were right. Even when I know the truth. The truth is that they were normal citizens, in some cases. They were caught in wrongdoing, yes, but they were people. Some even had committed no crime at all, others henous crimes, and some recommitted horrific crimes. StatePol wants me to say that those who committed horrific crimes deserved what happened, and so did the others for having simply been associated with them, but... it wasn't always so."

A soft beep. Time to move. I closed my case, and nodded, looking around, and mounted my cycle. No, I didn't have the locator on it as required by law. I didn't have much of anything on it, that was detectible. The computer took care of all of that. I'd built the controls out of scrap. It would run father, on less power, for far longer than the originals, and even the police rigs. So much power was used for those tracking systems.

Better, it gave less signature to track. I dropped a package and moved out on the cycle, the hoverunit giving the softest hum under its Faraday's cage. Behind me I seemed to still be there, engrossed in my work. Hopefully the package would convince them. Hopefully.

With trepidation I activated the stealth field generator. It too was cobbled together from police parts. Yes, I'm such a regressive. Perhaps.. no. I won't go back to you people. I had come too far for that. There it was... a hiss and a streak of light, a crack. The building went up with an explosion. The StatePol would be here soon. I'd have to hide before that. An old tunnel was hidden nearby. I'd have to be careful to remain under the speed of sound. There was the first copter flying in. I flew a lot lower to avoid it, but higher than the laserlines down on the ridge.

There it was... an outcropping of rock. I shouldn't leave it, but... it was good sometimes to pretend I was free. I plummeted toward the rock, instincts screaming to pull up and away.. then through. The system recognized me, and closed the door behind me with real rock. Someday, I imaigne, they'll find me here... but I hope that day is a long time down the road. I have to commit an act.. an act so shocking that people will break their programming.

I sat down in the dark, and waited. The glow of the screen was dimmed by the cage over it, but even here I didn't dare remove it. The earth should nullify any signals, but how do you trust something made by StatePol?

I started to write again. "Yes, these politicians gave themselves the ability to lie to the people. The ability to look out and suspect each and every person. The people demanded more protection, they received mroe fear. And so was born, eventually, StatePol. State Politics, my friends.. came from the ruling elite grabbing police power. They were not granted it, they took it. In spite of what their programming wants me to believe, they did not, under their own rules, have the power to do so. They convinced the foolish, damned, gullible people to give it to them for their protection, even though they had convinced the other politiicans that the people deserved no protection.

Is it any wonder, as these people signed away their own rights, that they became ever more desperate for protection?

And now we live in a 'protected' world... where there are no rights, no joys, no hope... just more days of drudgery. When for being outside, we can be executed for increasing StatePol's health cost, when for having unprescribed sex we can be castrated. When for having a family, we can be executed. We're so much safer, aren't we? Aren't we?

So much safer, and so much more dead. StatePol.. safety from cradle to grave. They determine the cradle, and they determine the time of death. The whole planet is a prison now. We're all criminals under the eyes of StatePol, and nothing is safe.
Read more!

Trial by Travesty

I've researched, and been disturbed by something about which I dare not write... but I cannot remain, even so silent.

The writing of this passage may place me in danger, but again, silence would render me derelict in the duty to the Constitution, and to the people of the United States.

When one cannot speak for a group, cannot speak in their defense without being charged with the same kinds of crimes for which they are accused, then it is ever more vital to speak. To do otherwise would be to encourage both tyranny, and totalitarianism.

I've been watching with concern a number of laws passed by congress, and I propose a new test... a test of reasonableness, and of legality which is, prima facie, a test of what constitutes a civil right, of reasonableness and conscience.

The Wetterling Act provided for a central database of 'sex offenders' and created a system of access that allowed law enforcement to provide possible suspects for sex crimes. It was limited to only the courts, and only the police. This, I feel, was an utterly valid act, insofar as it only affected those whom were adjudicated after the passage of the law.

However, of late, myriad amendments, modifications, and adjustments of the law have passed, creating ever more draconian measures. Upon the opening of the registry (under 'Megan's Law') there have been increasing reports of both abuse, and vigilante 'justice' meted out by individuals. After the 'Adam Walsh Child Safety Act' the restriction on offenders, and the supervision was further increased, at their own expense, without the adjudication process, or a jury trial.

The latest attack comes on the internet. Though earlier references to the internet existed, the latest 'KIDS' act instantiates a ruling that, by nature of the act, substantially limits, and depending on interpretation, completely removes the rights of those judged as 'Sex Offenders' on the registry to be on the internet.

How is this bad, one might ask? It makes our children safer! Does it? Does it really provide any vestige of security?

Ask yourselves this: How common are these crimes, and how are they judged? The truth is, any question about sex, sexuality, or discussion of pregnancy or virginity is, by definition, a sex crime on the internet. Any discussion of responsible activity, the dangers of date rape, questions or surveys about masturbatory habits, and even this particular document, by fiat, are defined as a sex offense, simply because, if a child reads this article, it deals with sex.

Is this wisdom? Is it just or good?

Yes, some sex offenders engage children on the internet by deception. The same proportion equally have the criminal thinking allowing them to attack children, or adults, without regard to the internet. The criminality of the thinking does not change with the internet of without it.

However, in America, we cannot attack someone for what they 'might' do. Without regard for those esteemed congressmen who claim that we 'should' there is no constitutional power to do so, at the county, state, or federal level.

The only way rights can be removed, the only way restrictions can be placed, and the only way attainder can be processed is via the court of law, and trial by jury, including the doctrine of jury nullification that is, since the 13th century, the right by which the jury tries the very 'legality' of the law itself.

In our country, however, since 1990, and the O.J. Simpson case, we have abandoned this doctrine, and the courts are prohibited from speaking on it. The right still exists, but the defense cannot speak of it, nor can the prosecution or the judge, due to sanctions.

Is this a wise, or just course? Is it consistent with the jurisprudence to create a system by which a person is guilty, until they can prove themselves innocent beyond the shadow of a doubt.... and the shadow of a doubt bar is raised high enough that they can never again become innocent?

Were this any other class of persons, shoplifters, persons guilty of assault, identity thieves, persons guilty of banking fraud, or those guilty of gross and deliberate malfeasance of office, would we react the same?

The pertinent sections of the KIDS act (S 431) are as follows:

• 
  

SEC. 2. REGISTRATION OF ONLINE IDENTIFIERS OF SEX OFFENDERS.

(a) In General- Section 114(a) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification ACT(42 U.S.C. 16914(a)) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (5) through (8); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) Any electronic mail address or other designation the sex offender uses or will use for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting.'.

(b) Updating of Information- Section 113(c) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16913(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the time and manner for reporting of other changes in registration information, including any addition or change of an electronic mail address or other designation used for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting.'.

(c) Failure To Register Online Identifiers- Section 2250 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (b), by inserting `or (d)' after `subsection (a)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(d) Knowing Failure To Register Online Identifiers- Whoever--

`(1) is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.); and

`(2) uses an email address or any other designation used for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting which the individual knowingly failed to provide for inclusion in a sex offender registry as required under that Act;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

So.... if you are guilty of a misdomeanor sex offense (public urination, exposure 'mooning') due to Adam Walsh, you're on the registry. You may have recieved a one month sentence (or no sentence, but a warning 'not to do it again') but failure to register all online identifiers or routing identifiers is a felony punishable by ten years in prison?

Is this just? Is it reasonable for the purposes for which it is enacted? Will it be effective? Are there any less restrictive measures that could be emplaced?

The term 'other designation for routing' includes the following, off the top of my head that I know of: Anonymous UDP packet headers, DHCP discovery packets, IP addresses (often dynamic, and no notification when they change), email and email server routing systems (which are not under the user's control). MAC addresses (changes on every machine and router)

There is a further requirement to register chat names, defining a 'social networking site' as the following.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

Section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(15) The term `social networking website' means an Internet website that--

`(A) allows users, through the creation of web pages or profiles or by other means, to provide information about themselves that is available publicly or to other users; and

`(B) offers a mechanism for communication with other users.

End quote.

This defines any system (internet telephony, vocal communications, visual or optical communcations (including assistance devices for the deaf) political commentary sites, morse code via the internet, php scripts, bulletin boards, and any other potential communication systems, including games.

In effect, and in process, by writ, it removes the right to legal use of the internet by persons not convicted of any further crimes.

Let us extend this ruling to its logical ends! Since it is illegal to do any of this on the internet without registration, let us say that there is a greater danger in person. Therefore, no sex offender can go into any place without marking themselves with a tattoo, brand, or distinctive clothing, nor can they speak without first identifying themselves as a sex offender, nor can they write any publication for any newspaper without registering the article, nor can they speak in any assembly. They cannot attend churches, as they are a social networking site, and children may be present.

In effect, the law claims a clear and present danger for which these persons must be regulated, without regard for what their current actions are, and without regard for law, or due process. It creates a system of attainder with no judicial review, by which any new law can alter the original, and create a system of ever-changing laws, which must by complied with, without regard to what the prior amendments were.

In effect, it is a punishment, not for the crimes which the person has committed (For which the onus ended when the sentence did) but a punishment for the crimes which they may possibly commit in the future.

The actual recidivism rate (from the US DOJ, and the Arizona Department of Corrections) for sex offenses in specific is actually lower than for any other crime. The statistics say that sex offenders are more likely to recommit for a sex offense per capita than any other offender is... but still, and even so, other offenders account for over 92% of all new cases of sex offenses.

The specialization level of the small percentage (between 6 and 12%, depending on the population) is extreme. However, does this excuse the attainder of the rest of the population? Does it excuse marking them with a taint as deserving the punishment?

H.R. 4472 was emplaced, in the words of one of those discussing it (I can't call it a debate, as there was no room for amendment under the suspension of the rules) was, in the house:

From the Esteemed Congresswoman:
Quote:

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill that we have before us, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act.

February 23 marked the 1-year anniversary of Jessica Lunsford's death. I knew the family; I knew the grandmother. If Jessica were still with us, she would have been in the fifth grade. She would be learning about decimals and fractions and the solar system. Instead, her life was taken by a sex offender who assaulted and murdered her, and then buried her in his backyard. Tat is what this bill is all about, going after those, as someone once described, pond-scum predators.

End Quote.

The bill was described as legal in its ex-postfacto obligations because it served a regulatory purpose as well as not having any 'punitive intent'.

How is the above not a statement of punitive intent? How is a bill not punitive, when by any measure of the definition of punishment, it clearly creates legal obligations, subjects those obligations to criminal sanctions, requires the payment of fines and fees in regards to those sanctions, opens the person to both abuse and vigilante 'justice', and prevents in any way, form, or measure their self protection, in a time when the Supreme Court has judged that they have no individual right to police protection, and by the legislation, in many cases, have had their civil rights removed already, including the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms?

If such a legislation is not constitutional in any other case of offender, how is it constitutional in this case?

What makes an act punitive? Is it the intent of the act, or the way the act is used? I would argue that it is both, either, and more.

If such an act, placed up against any other class of persons, with the same penalties in a 'civil' action, can be viewed as punishment... then it is punishment.

If the act would be considered unjustified and cruel applied to congressmen, persons guilty of domestic assault, judges, murderers, city workers, bad check writers, adult kidnappers... how is it somehow not punitive here?

I concur, that the measure with congressmen, judges, city workers, is not the same measure as the others, nor are teachers, counters of the vote, or any other purpose.. but if the law would be considered punitive applied to them, the same standard applies.

In truth, though, I feel that, in spite of the prohibition in the Constitution of the U.S, under Article 1, section 9 against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder being only discussed in criminal cases, it is just as applicable in civil cases which can be no less punitive or wrong.

The attacked rights fall within the freedom of assembly, regardless of the venue. They are no less constitutional for being in a forum.

This is not to say that one cannot be prosecuted for acts done in such a forum. Slander, libel, and the like, are no less valid in an online forum than a real forum.

However, you cannot punish all for the acts of a few.
Read more!