this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024

126 points (100.0% liked)

News

22838 readers

3750 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

126

Michigan Supreme Court decision will likely strike hundreds from sex-offender registry (apnews.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Michigan’s policy of putting people on a sex-offender registry even if their crime was nonsexual is unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court said Monday.

In a 5-2 decision, the court said a portion of a 2021 law is “cruel or unusual punishment” barred by the Michigan Constitution.

A Wayne County man in 2015 was convicted of holding his wife and two children at gunpoint for hours. After his release from prison, he would face 15 years on the sex-offender registry because his unlawful-imprisonment conviction involved minors.

“Although defendant’s offense was undoubtedly severe, that offense contained no sexual element and no indication that defendant poses a risk of committing sexual crimes in the future,” Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement said.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Was this sentencing tactic a way to increase recidivism and guarantee a larger prison population? Because if you slap someone's name on the sex-offender registry, that dramatically reduces their ability to be employed post incarceration, which if they have served their time, they should be able to pursue a life beyond what they were before.

There should be investigations on the judges that allowed this in the first place.

The point of incarceration should be rehabilitation and not punishment for punishment's sake.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's an interesting case study going on at the moment with that one Dutch Olympian convicted for a sex crime with a minor in the UK who has served his sentence (UK sentence got converted to a Dutch sentence, which meant he was released early). I'm not sure where I fall on this. Morally, I want to agree that serving your sentence means that this history shouldn't play a role in otherwise unrelated matters. But somehow it also doesn't feel right to have a convicted pedophile represent Olympic values?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

Not really related to this, as these people were tossed on the sex offender registry without having committed a sex related crime.

But I understand your concern. Morally, the Olympics shouldn't allow convicted pedophiles, but if you're looking for morality and ethics at the Olympic committee level, you will find it decidedly lacking.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

“The majority opinion ignores that countless Michigan families rely on the registry to ensure their safety. ... Registration provides vital information for the parent who must choose a babysitter or entrust a child with a volunteer coach,” said Zahra, who was joined by Justice David Viviano.

Yes, of course the "ends justify the means" defense.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

Seems like a case to allow free background checks not put people on a sex offender registry. If they put enough of these non-sex related offenders on there, they're completely watering down the meaning of the registry which will give convenient excuses to people who actually belong on there allowing them to slip through the cracks.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You're way more likely to be the victim of burglary, theft, DUI collision, wage theft, voter suppression, and on and on - but we don't have publicly available databases of those perpetrators, do we?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Criminal background checks to show felonies at least

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I remember reading about a guy who got on the list because he got blackout drunk and peed on a fence. At something like 2AM. That fence? Happened to be an Elementary school fence. So his life got destroyed because he peed in the wrong place, while too drunk to even know where he was, even though there were absolutely no children in the area to “harm” at the time of the incident.

I am all for strong laws that put large barriers between actual pedophiles and children. But current laws are hoovering up far too many people who are not pedophiles in the least.