Ny state sex chat room intimidating comment
2007 Subject: A.9859 (Lentol) / S.6875 (Skelos) (AN ACT to amend the correction law, the penal law, the executive law and the state finance law, in relation to the protection of people who use internet services from convicted sex offenders).
Position: OPPOSED This legislation proposes a broad regulatory scheme that is intended to address the “clear and present danger” posed by “sexual predator[s]” who engage in communication via the internet.
With the introduction of this legislation, New York State continues to address the problem of sex offenses by pursuing policies that have the effect of marginalizing or banishing sex offenders. Patty Wetterling, whose son’s tragic death prompted the creation of federal and state sex offender registries, has been an outspoken critic of the use of such registries to marginalize and harass sex offenders. We need to look at what can help those released from prison to succeed so that they don’t victimize again – and that probably means housing and jobs and community support." There is considerable research that identifies the components of a best-practice model for preventing recidivism among sex offenders.
"Many states make former offenders register for life, restrict where they live, and make details known to the public. That model involves a coordinated program of monitoring, supervision and treatment, based upon a rigorous psychological and behavioral assessment of the individual.
This provision is based upon the assumption that all registered offenders are, to use the bill’s generic term, “predators.” This supposition is demonstrably false; nevertheless this bill will authorize the state to turn over to private internet service providers the personal identifiers of every individual registered under New York’s sex offender registry with the clear intention that such persons shall be barred or restricted from access to the internet.
As a policy matter, this measure drops all pretense of tailoring the provisions of e-STOP to regulating the conduct of individuals who pose a risk of recidivism or for whom the anonymity of the internet may serve as a disinhibitor.
Disclosure of Internet Identifiers Section Five of e-STOP authorizes the state to disclose the complete database of internet identifiers used by all classes of sex offenders for the purpose of enabling an internet entity “to prescreen or remove sex offenders from its services or, in conformity with state and federal law, advise law enforcement and/or other governmental entities of potential violations of law and/or threats to public safety.” “Authorized internet entity” is defined as any entity “providing or offering a service over the internet which permits persons less than eighteen years of age to access, meet, congregate or communicate with other users for the purpose of social networking.” This proscription is sweeping in scope.
Moreover, it is unlikely that the proposed regulatory scheme will prevent registered sex offenders from using the internet; it will, however, place significant and constitutionally impermissible burdens on the use of the internet for legitimate and lawful purposes. threats to public safety.” The legislation would also impose mandatory restrictions upon certain registered sex offenders subject to probation, parole, and conditional discharge or release.
The problem the legislation seeks to address is poorly understood; as a consequence the proposed regulatory scheme is misguided.
The sponsor’s memorandum accompanying the e-STOP legislation speaks of a grave security risk posed by predators who utilize the internet to perpetrate sex crimes.
(This paradigm is addressed in more detail in the closing section of this memorandum.) The proposed regulatory scheme is flawed by vagueness and overbreadth When government acts to restrict speech based on the identity of the speaker or the content of his speech, such restrictions must be narrowly tailored in furtherance of a compelling government interest.
Courts have recognized that a greater degree of deference may be granted to restrictions upon conditions of probation; however these restrictions must not undermine constitutional rights in ways unrelated to rehabilitation.
Following release from state prison, sex offenders are rarely subject to arrest or conviction for another sex offense.