Sex Offenders, we can all agree, are fairly vile criminals, they violate one of the most intimate and important parts of human lives, the relationship and trust that is built into sexual intercourse between two people. A new operation put forward by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has had several game companies with online content shut down the accounts of registered sex offenders. Now, while this is all for the good some might say, I'd like to point out that not everyone who is registered as a sex offender is actually guilty of rape or child molestation, and the registry of sex offenders rarely makes a distinction between out right rape, child molestation, or statutory rape.
To give a seriousness of the allegations here, read this article here. In 2009 this case went to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Fourteen year old boy with a trio of girls, 12 and 11. Even I find the concept distasteful, but the fact of the matter is that the boy would be registered, for life, as a sex offender, in his later years this would hamper his ability to get a job, to go to college, and any number of other things because the registry makes no distinction that the act was consensual between minors. Things like this are why simply putting down a blanket "registered sex offenders should be banned from online games because they could use them to prey on minors as online predators.
Now, even ignoring that people who don't deserve to have their basic liberties stripped from them are having them stripped because of what is, let's face it, a glorified error in the paper work, the idea that the government is nannying us in this manner is frankly, disturbing. Yes, the government should take steps to prevent online predators from being able to do what they do, but that should be through non invasive means, not that they should put the onus of this on the game companies, holding them responsible for removing and banning sex offenders. See, by making it the companies' job to ban these people, rather than by policing such elements themselves, they are effectively making the companies responsible for these people.
If the government wants to police these groups, there are far better and more efficient, and far far more ethical methods than simply stripping them of their rights, especially given the sticky and vague definition of "registered sex offender" that can be applied to perfectly innocent teenagers and strip them of large parts of their futures. If the government, federal or state level, wishes to police known sex offenders, then it can simply be utilized via a program they are required to put into their computers that monitors what they're looking and sends back logs of any key words or specific key stroke combinations that pop up on their machines. Flagging them for companies to keep an eye out for, in case they are accused of sexually inappropriate behavior on the company's website, is also a valid move. Simply blocking them off so that they cannot access content is wrong though.
I believe that the registered sex offenders list is a mistake. There are so many people on there who did not commit a serious sexual offense. Yet regardless of that, to ban registered sex offenders from online games is just an angry nation looking to restrict more freedoms. I especially agree with your conclusion, there are better and more efficient methods to make sure that the general public is safe from these people. Truthfully, the punishment will not help the public that much, so why limit their freedom in such a way.
ReplyDeleteYou can be a registered sex offender for peeing in public...twice. Hence, I agree with your stance and the foggy definition of a sex offender needs to be clearer if we are going to have harsh restrictions such as this. If you want to punish a group, first define the members of the group in a clearly.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as Brenton says, this punishment won't help the public that much. Nor do I think it would deter predators, either. Instead, the laws should focus there effort towards being preventative. What kind of other punishment could they institute that would be more consequential than losing the right to play online games? I agree with your approach, to restrict access when they actually show some shady behavior.
-Chunder
This post, as others have commented, deals with a two different issue. First, there are serious problems pertaining to the categorization and identification of sex offenders in the American legal system. To put serial rapists and child molesters on similar lists as those who urinate in public or streak while drunk in college is ludicrous. There must be a detailed and vast overhaul of the sex offenders list. Secondly, beyond the logistical issues posed by the sex offenders list, this is a perfect example of the government stripping away civil liberties. I am in no way defending what people who are legitimately on the sex offender list have done, yet I must voice disagreement with the governmental overreach present in policy suggestions like these.
ReplyDeleteI don't quite understand how banning them from online games is going to make less dangerous. I understand we are living in a world today driven by the internet but what happens when these offenders are walking the streets, or even worse living around your neighborhood. There are far better ways that they can prevent REAL sex offenders from the public than simply banning them the rights of being online. Many peoples lives are based around the internet and this move is only taking away the freedom that this country strongly believes in. These things can be monitored differently which can prove far more efficient.
ReplyDeleteLike your post and some of the other comments have suggested, the term "sex offender" has become too broad and harsh. Labeling someone as a sex offender has become an easy way for people to rush to judgment in today's society. I agree with your post that we need to figure out a better way to police this issue. With the ability to do basically whatever you like on the internet, along with other outlets, it seems ridiculous to make "sex offenders playing video games" a major issue.
ReplyDelete