Trigger warning for discussion of rape and mention of domestic violence and child abuse.
The title of this AlterNet article is New Laws Banning Sex Offenders From Social Networks and Online Gaming May Go Too Far.
…Really. Never would have guessed that that could possibly be the case.
From a civil libertarian perspective, I’ve always been deeply uncomfortable with sex offender registries and other laws limiting their freedom. They strike me as cruel and unusual punishment. There is a reason we do not keep people in jail forever; many of them are probably innocent. Even for those who aren’t, being forced to live under Miami Bridge is not really recommended by any scientifically validated criminal rehabilitation programs.
Even worse, all this actually contributes to the rape culture. It creates the idea that rapists are some kind of slavering beast-monster very different from Our Kind of People and as long as we keep them away from decent folk and under Miami Bridge we’re at no risk of rape. The problem, of course, is that most rapists are undetected, and that nearly all rapists are perfectly ordinary people. You are not safe from rape because you avoid the sex offender next door; in fact, you’re at far higher risk of being raped by your partner, parent, or friend.
These new laws simply expand the security theater of sex offender registries. In a world where about 1 in 20 men and an unknown number of women are rapists and even more are abusers, banning sex offenders from Facebook, xBox Live, or Match.com just gives you a false sense of security. In reality, most of the rapists and abusers on these websites are undetected.
It also gives people a sense that they’re Doing Something about rape. Stuff is Getting Done. The problem is being Dealt With. But in reality, as in most cases when someone wants more to be seen dealing with a problem than to actually solve it, the action is completely fucking useless. Everyone gets to feel good about those horrible sex offenders being segregated to their own part of the Internet far away from all the good people. And meanwhile children are being molested by their grandparents, women are being hit by their husbands, men are being raped by their boyfriends…
I mean, holy shit, the dating sites aren’t even banning people with domestic violence convictions. The hell? That’s not even half-assed. That’s quarter-assed.
It also helps people ignore other problems that are real problems. I’ve been online since I was ten years old. In that time, I’ve gotten quite a few people twice my age hitting on me. You know what I did? Blocked them, ignored them, made fun of them, politely thanked them for the compliment but demurred, or (once or twice) flirted back in an entirely consensual and mutually enjoyable manner. On the other hand, the use of the Internet to bully is an enormous problem; Facebook means that kids can’t escape their tormentors, even when they go home. Hell, there are some comments (mostly deleted) that have left me sobbing at my computer. Are you telling me that that one creeper who hit on me in sixth grade (I deleted his message and laughed) was more damaging than those comments?
That’s not even getting into the issue of the sex offenders themselves. First of all, there’s a reason we don’t allow indefinite and lifelong punishment for most crimes: it’s a civil liberties violation. For all we know, Joe Sex Offender is innocent (after all, the Innocence Project has proved that many people have been convicted of rapes they did not commit) and really should be allowed to play xBox and have a Facebook in peace.
Second, think about the recidivism rates! Which kind of person is more likely to commit a sex crime again: a person who feels marginalized from society and has nothing to lose, or a person who has a job and a bank account and friends and a favorite video game, and knows very clearly that if they commit a sex crime they’re likely to lose it all.
It always has irritated me when people focus one what others “deserve” rather than on improving the world we live in. Everything bad that anyone has ever done, that’s a sunk cost for getting to where we are today.
It’s almost enough to make me want to throw out the whole “deserve” concept entirely.
There’s also a deep tendency to try to deny the humanity of those who have commited crimes, sometimes without regard for the severity or the nature of the crimes. I’ve been trying to figure out where this comes from.
I have to say: political organizing that used to takes months, now takes 5 minutes with Facebook and the handy-dandy “create events” and “invite” features. Indispensable for any serious political activist.
And more people actually attend, too.
“I mean, holy shit, the dating sites aren’t even banning people with domestic violence convictions. The hell? That’s not even half-assed. That’s quarter-assed.”
Would you argue that someone convicted of domestic violence is less likely to be innocent than a sex offender? There isn’t exactly a high quality of evidence required, not to mention all the “no drop” policies.
I’ve never had a facespace account. I think it’s just kind of useless, and their privacy policy is just plain horrible…
Anyway, no one should be banned from using the internet, ever. I mean, we don’t tell criminals to stop using the postal service, or that they can’t use a telephone, or watch TV… why should the internet be any different? It’s just a more versatile means of communication.
I’ve been thinking along the same lines. I think, as previously mentioned, a lot of it stems from a desire to punish “the bad guys”. Sometimes hurting the guilty becomes more important than protecting the innocent. Also the thought of a stranger sexually targeting children is too much for most people. The need to protect children is massive, and further boosted by the notion that sex is inherently harmful to anyone under 18. So yeah, they lose all sense of reason, and they assume that sex offender means child molester. Meanwhile there are tons of stories of young people who… Read more »
Ullere and ozymandias42: It is kind of interesting that whenever that statistics show up no-one wonders to what extent women self-report using coercion and physical force to obtain sex. Some researcher have: Anderson (1998, 1996), presented self-reported prevalence rates for women’s sexual coercion of between 25% and 40% and for physically forced sexual contact between 1.6% and 7.1%. Of perhaps greater significance was the women’s self-reports of engaging in a classic date-rape scenario – taking advantage of someone who was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When asked about initiating sexual contact with a man when his judgment was… Read more »
You are exactly right! Thanks for shedding light on this dark subject. We need to restore the civil rights of those on the registry…now!
“I mean, holy shit, the dating sites aren’t even banning people with domestic violence convictions.”
I dunno, is this a bad thing? I mean, all the arguments you’ve made for not excluding sex offenders apply to domestic violence offenders too.
I’m a US Army veteran and recepiant of a US Congressional award for community service. I’m also a registered sEX-offender (misdemeanor not involving a child) that helps cancer patients and the homeless. I am co-owner of a gaming center and cyber cafe. I am running for city council in Lake Forest California and a dad. I will not descriminate against ANYONE from playing in our center, but I will control against what is inapropriate behavior!
Ullere: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/ Given the high rate of rape (1 in 6 women, 1 in 12 men) it’s really not implausible.
1 in 20 men are rapists? Source? Cause wouldn’t that mean somewhere in the region of 30.5million men in prison in the US alone? Seems very unlikely that people are more likely to be rapists than say any other kind of non violent crime. since the US has 3million people in prison, some 2.7 million men, even if every person in jail is a rapist your only catching 10% of all rapists in the USA. Seems very unlikely and dubious a figure. That aside good article, I don’t like life long criminal undesirable lists. Nor do I believe in any… Read more »
@Dorkboy: I don’t think that vengeance is as big a part of the justice system in Europe as it is in America, if it is a part at all. Take for example Norway’s reaction to Anders Behring Breivik’s shooting. And in Germany, if I recall correctly, there is a tendency to convict young adults (slightly over 18) as juveniles to allow for better rehabilitation, whereas in America it’s more like the other way round. Germany is far from perfect when it comes to sex offenders, though. First of all, even though a court might order therapy for them, they might… Read more »
Western culture, and American culture in particular, is obsessed with punishment. People talk about focusing on rehabilitation instead of punishment like it’s “letting [sex offenders, etc] get away with it” because they’d rather have some twisted sense of vengeance fulfilled than actually solve the problem.
And yeah, that’s not even touching the people who got on the registry for things like pissing in public or “sexting” while underage.
LOVE this. Thank you. As a registry reform advocate I experience the ignorance on a daily basis from all kinds of people who think they’re “better than”, that they “know more than I do since they’re older”, or claim “I would feel differently if I was a victim”. Well, actually, I AM a victim of a crime that apparently, is perfectly fine. My ex husband beat the shit out of me for 4 years. And ironically, who saved me from that life? My child molesting, horrific depraved fiancee, who is a sex offender because during a lifetime of severe sexual… Read more »
@Schala: People talk about pointless stuff. Apes delouse each other, humans talk about the weather, what they have eaten etc. Nowadays they do that via Facebook.
Kristine (not on FB)
This is a really good post. Thanks, Ozy. :] @Schala: That’s not borne out by my own experience. I started using Facebook about midway through my time in high school and since then it’s become a fairly vital resource for a number of my social circles: clubs I’m part of have groups on Facebook, post events on Facebook, send messages on Facebook. Yes I can get that information without Facebook, but it would take a lot of extra time and effort that, frequently, I don’t have. I’m assuming that the younger generation, who’s had Facebook since the beginning of their… Read more »
To me Facebook is a way to get harassed, and mostly to post about generally pointless things like brushing your teeth or eating a sandwich, or adding friends just to play browser games that are taxing to computers (since they run in flash), while being generally low-quality.
In other words, if you go more often than necessary to see cute cat pictures, you have more time to waste on your social life (online or offline) than I ever would. I do play MMOs 15 hours a day though.
I’m 29 btw, so my elementary was 1987-1994, and my high school 1994-1999.
“@Schala- I imagine that when you’re a kid and EVERYONE has facebook, getting rid of it could mean you feel left out of the loop in your friendship circles. It is entirely possible that kids who get bullied on facebook also find facebook a source of support and comfort in some ways.” As a kid I had no friend and got bullied from left and right, with the administration blaming it on me, and my parents powerless to stop it. Facebook didn’t exist. I played mostly by myself or with my younger brother (who sometimes sided with bully, since he… Read more »
@Schala- I imagine that when you’re a kid and EVERYONE has facebook, getting rid of it could mean you feel left out of the loop in your friendship circles. It is entirely possible that kids who get bullied on facebook also find facebook a source of support and comfort in some ways.
“On the other hand, the use of the Internet to bully is an enormous problem; Facebook means that kids can’t escape their tormentors, even when they go home. ”
Close Facebook. You’re not missing much.
Politicians buying votes with pure PR stunts. Far worse: the voters.
“I mean, holy shit, the dating sites aren’t even banning people with domestic violence convictions.”
Public Urination: Sex crime, you’re banned. Domestic Violence: Not a sex crime, come on in.
@Danny: Yes. That. SO much.
Not sure about social networks. Could definitely justify restrictions (i.e. no games aimed at kids, etc.) but this is pretty questionable.
That’s not even getting into the issue of the sex offenders themselves. First of all, there’s a reason we don’t allow indefinite and lifelong punishment for most crimes: it’s a civil liberties violation. For all we know, Joe Sex Offender is innocent (after all, the Innocence Project has proved that many people have been convicted of rapes they did not commit) and really should be allowed to play xBox and have a Facebook in peace.
And that’s not even counting people that are on sex offender registries for non sexual things like pissing in public.