IN: Child abuse database launched

So they created a new law based on a case that would not have been covered by the new law.

“A database that launched this week lists the names of people convicted of child abuse in the last five years.” [emphases on five years]

“The database was inspired by a case out of Elkhart County. Nineteen-month-old Kirk Coleman died in October 2014 after suffering a brain injury while in the care of a babysitter who had a history of child abuse. Officials say the woman had been convicted of child neglect in 2006.

The boy’s family said that had they known the babysitter’s criminal history, they would not have left the child in her care.”

Now I’m no math surgeon, but 2014-5=2009. So that means said database would not have provided the information to the family who’s case inspired the existence of the data base. That’s a special kind of stupid.

I’m actually glad they’re doing this new registry. Maybe when everyone is registered for something, we’ll do away with the whole damn thing (I’m not really glad, but it seems like that’s what many people would like).

Another list. Seems like they forgot a few topics. Since the list has been created new categories can be added and populated in a few key strokes. What little minion could resist that. The category that should be added next is Evil Law Writers, with home addresses and phone numbers.

Just stupid, this list will become something totally unplanned for. It will evolve. Who is responsible when crimes are committed because of the list. There is too much data for that to be ignored.

This needs to be challenged by someone on it as a Substantive Due Process claim, and not make the mistake of doing it under Procedural Due Process like Connecticut DPS V Doe (2003) did with public sex offender registration lists.

Unless a punishment or restriction is specifically placed on someone during their sentencing phase when both sides get to have their say, then no fair and appeal-able judicial determination has been made to them being a threat to children enough to warrant being on a public and easily accessible scarlet letter list.

This list won’t reach its goal either. Nobody is likely to put their child with someone they don’t already TRUST, and nobody is likely to look at this list if they TRUST that person. It’s useless, just like the Sex Offender registry is and has been proven to not reduce recidivism, but often increase it.

The state also had an option that would be less harmful. They could require anyone that wants to watch other’s kids that aren’t related to that kid to have a license, and not issue the license to those with appropriate convictions. There could be an added benefit of requiring CPR training, and no fee or minimal fee to encourage baby sitters to get it. If a mother is going to go to the trouble to look up someone on an online registry, that same effort would be made to ask to see a license. This way, the info on the person can’t be looked up by employers or landlords for free and cause discrimination beyond what criminals already have done using paid background check services.

You know what’s next, and already has precedent set to be found constitutional due to the accepted practice with sex offenders?

Individual cities could say it’s illegal for anyone that was ever convicted or had deferred adjudication for DUI in any state to drive on their roads. Imagine if you had to look up laws in every city you pass through due to any old conviction or even deferred adjudication with no conviction? That’s exactly what Sex Offenders have to do.