sex offenders being barred online?

Um, if his risk of re-offending is so great, why is he not in jail? Seems to me that his internet use should be of less concern than that he is free to molest more children.

Bingo.

Idaho wrote



We can't put people back in jail until they commit another crime and are found guilty. If this person served his sentence on his first or subsequent charges, he can't be put back in jail again until he breaks the law again or violates parole (if he is on parole).

You can keep him away from schools and playgrounds. You can restrict his internet use. You can make the community aware of his presence. These would be some deterrents to his re-offending. But you can't put him back in jail again until he again violates the law.

The risk to the community has to be balanced against this man's civil liberties. It is a real dilemma when you know the person has a high probability of re-offending. I don't think we have an adequate system for dealing with sexual offenders.

I don't understand the logistics of this, i.e. the methods by which such a ban could be enforced. Is he going to be under 24-hour surveillance to ensure that he doesn't go into a library and use one of the public computers? Will the court monitor his purchases to ensure he didn't buy a laptop and hide it somewhere in his dwelling? One does not need a license to purchase and use a computer so there's no way to warn a prospective seller, a la the firearms laws, that the purchaser is a convicted felon. The whole thing boggles the mind. I don't necessarily disagree with the judge's opinion, but I fail to see how it is enforceable.

It's probably just as difficult to monitor the man's every move. I doubt that the police can follow him every day to make sure he is not near a playground, school or ball field 24/7.

In a public library you must show some ID to use a computer, so local libraries could be alerted and deny him use. It is possible, I suppose, to find out whether he is using an internet provider. You couldn't really stop him from purchasing a computer or laptop since that would be next to impossible.

Like any condition of supervised release, this one would be enforceable only up to a point.

But, is it really fair to the man to deny him all internet use, particularly if that would make him unemployable?
If he made obscene phone calls would you deny him all use of a telephone? If he sent or received child porn, would you deny him all use of the mail?
I suppose that's the crux of the legal dilemma.

I read a bit more about the case, which explains the judge's ruling.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364089680