Previous Entry | Next Entry

Feb. 20th, 2010

  • 8:16 PM
almighty_frog: (groo.)
I am alive. I have been hiding from the internet for personal reasons. I should have known it would take RAGE to bring me back.

LJ suspends 186 accounts of sex offenders registered in New York.


Let's start from the top, shall we?

1) Having read through the comments and the link provided in the post, neither LJ nor the New York Attorney General's Office have provided a reason for the suspension that is more than "they're registered sex offenders".

2) Apparently, pissing on a tree in public can get you on New York's sex offender register.

3) So LJ have suspended these accounts apparently without proof either that the internet was related to the offender's offences or that their current use of LJ is questionable.

4) Soooooo... That little human right about not receiving punishment without trial? Yeah.

5) Soooooo... That little body of research demonstrating the links between social isolation and sexual reoffending? That body "little" enough to form the basis of professional work with sex offenders (like the Thames Valley Sex Offender Treatment Programme) and government-funded projects (like Circles of Support and Accountability)? Yeah. Not that a social networking site like LJ has anything to do with valid social outlets. Of course not.

If those accounts were being used by people to commit further offences, or if those accounts were the accounts of people who had already been convicted of internet-related sexual offences, fine. In that case, LJ's move is a good move.

The problem is that neither LJ nor the Attorney General's Office are saying that's the case. They're just saying they've removed the accounts of registered sex offenders. And that's not good enough.

Law enforcement agencies have a duty to protect the public. However, any actions they take in the execution of that duty must be proportionate to the crime and/or risk, and must not unduly increase the risk of reoffending. Actions must also be accountable.

These actions? Stink.


jadey: greyscale a woman's face (ani difranco) eyes upward  (Default)
[personal profile] jadey wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2010 10:51 pm (UTC)
Yes. x1000 This is so frustrating - corrections and justice is one of those areas that people seem to want to know the least about while having the strongest and most bull-headed opinions. ARGH. And I will bet dollars to doughnuts that some of the people applauding this move are also (legitimately) frustrated by security theatre at the airports - but it's the *same* thing!

On a side note, I did research on the Circles of Support and Accountability for my grant proposal last fall. Frickin' awesome.
almighty_frog: (SHIELD THE BRAIN!)
[personal profile] almighty_frog wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2010 05:41 pm (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's the new witch hunt.

I found out about Circles because one of the Probation Officers I worked with left the service to go run it for the south of England. I'd volunteer if I hadn't worked for criminal justice agencies - even if I leave now I'm thinking it's still too much of a conflict of interest or privileged information or something like that. But hey, I'm doing something connected to it, just getting paid as well!