Friday, September 08, 2006


I hate rapists and pedophiles.
Personally, I think there should be a provision for the death penalty for them (and there is in Ohio, for child-rapists in some circumstances - Hooray!!).

However, this bugs me -

From the (blech) Toledo Blade:

Plan gains to publicly identify accused
Ohio panel backs registry proposal

COLUMBUS - An Ohio legislative panel yesterday rubber-stamped an unprecedented process that would allow sex offenders to be publicly identified and tracked even if they've never been charged with a crime.
Say wha? What happened to due process, jury of you peers and all that jazz?
Oh, yeah; you don't need it anymore!! See here:

No one in attendance voiced opposition to rules submitted by Attorney General Jim Petro's office to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, consisting of members of the Ohio House and Senate.

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.

The person's name, address, and photograph would be placed on a new Internet database and the person would be subjected to the same registration and community notification requirements and restrictions on where he could live.

Isn't this right out of the Democratic playbook? If (someone we don't like) is charged, that means they're guilty. ("The seriousness of the charges...")
The consitutional issues, as well as the massive potential for abuses, are nothinig short of staggering. And of course, the next step will be to extend this to other undesirables. Tax cheats, gun owners, speeders, whomever.
I don't have a problem tracking pedophiles, but what about the wrongly accused (I've seen some nasty divorce accusations before). What about the right to face your accuser (including the government) in front of a jury?
And " No one in attendance voiced opposition"? No one? Not one? Not even a little?

A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again.

Don't judges have too much power already? Now he could keep a person on a public list for life (although they don't come right out and say it, that is what it says), even having never been convicted? And track them?
And no one thought there was any problem with this?
What happened to the rule of law? Where are the Ohio Republican House and Senate members to back the Constitution?

Why do I see many many men in the middle of divorce cases being threatened with and/or actually put on such a list.

I called the Attorney General's office, and expressed my concerns. The AG's lackey first didn't know anything, and then said the AG, Jim Petro, just filed rules the Representatives wanted, but really didn't have anything to do with it himself.

As to the Constitutionality of anything, I was told if it's found unconstitutional, then so be it.
I then countered that someone could introduce a slavery bill, and if it didn't get found unconstitutional, we'd be back in time at the stroke of a pen. This caused some noticable consternation on the lackey's part! I almost got a "well, that's different" out of her, but she folded at the end.

Then I asked if the ever actually has an opinion on rules and law and was told no.
After I laughed and pointed out that was retarded, I was then informed that "maybe" he had an opinion, and she would have the "press people" get back with me, to let me know whether he had an opinion or not.

Never happened.

I also emailed my Rep Steve Bueher, and have never heard back.
Apparently, it's just not a big deal.
But I'm thinking maybe it is.

I'm going to do some more emailing, I guess.

Contact info here: Ohio Attorney General; Ohio House of Representatives; Ohio Senate.