ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

National

MA: Mandatory GPS monitoring of some sex offenders violates privacy rights

Convicted sex offenders retain a constitutional right to privacy, and those rights are being violated by a state law mandating that everyone convicted of some sex crimes wear a GPS monitoring bracelet as part of their sentence, the state’s highest court ruled Tuesday. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. anon

    “The reproduction and dissemination of child pornography itself harms the children who are depicted and revictimized with each viewing,’’ Gaziano wrote. That would be the judge. Also, how does the victim know every time a person views it? I could see once someone is caught and paraded publicly and the government informs them that the images were found…

    • AO

      I recall a story during my time in counseling of one victim who was for years basically harassed and traumatized by the government. The woman was one of the well known victims (lots of videos and images of her). She became one of those victims that has a special status with other such victims that carries extra penalties if you’re caught with their material (I think it’s a federal thing). For a good long time, every time the government caught someone with her images, they’d sent her a notice. She loathed opening the mail box as she had to relive the trauma of what happened to her over and over. She begged the government for years to just stop sending her notices. But they continued doing so as a matter of policy. She finally sued and won to stop this BS. This was one of the best examples of the government not actually caring about the victims and instead just doing things to boast about of how fine of a job they and the registry is doing in keeping people safe.

      • Joe123

        AO,

        I appreciate the comment you just posted as it explains exactly what I was just writing: it is the notifications that re-victimize people. Thank you! Now if we can only instill this logical thinking into the brains of those that are in control.

      • AC

        Ah. Nice piece, AO.

        So, in other words, if my interpretation is correction: the government’s continuous tattling to her each time the video resurfaced was actually the main culprit contributing to anxious feelings of victimhood after every single mention.

        Looks like the petty behaviour of our system exacerbated the very problem that the system seated itself to be the master at abating.

        Hey, let the government do as it does. What’s funny is that prejudiced brats don’t seem to know/care that they’re behaviour will one day turn up in the pages of future history textbooks; you know, the way we today would laugh while reading how idiots thought it was socially appropriate to have black people sit in the back of the bus; the way we would role our eyes while reading on why Federal ever even made male-to-male “sodomy” such a big criminal deal.

        More than 2/3’s of what we learn in history classes comprises of the follies and imbecilia that past moronic moral coojswahs have turned society into.

        And then, on a half-relevant limb, what’s with adults and teenagers charged with child pornography each time they distribute “sexy” pictures of THEMSELVES to other people? Why exactly would they feel victimized if THEY’RE the ones consciously sending self-pics? How exactly are they predators and victims at the same time of property that obviously belongs to them and, furthermore, property which they authorized consent to show to others? I’m wonder how the lawsuits on this are coming along.

  2. AO

    This is cool and all, but how’s this right to privacy any different than our right to privacy of not having our PAST follow us around every corner of the internet directly because of Government’s decision to post said info explicitly to remove our privacy?

    • AJ

      @AO:
      It’s different because in our instance, it’s deemed to be republication of (mostly*) already public data and info. In the GPS case, it’s considered an unreasonable 4th Amdt. search of one’s “person[], house[], papers, and effects,.”

      *I still bristle that SCOTUS tossed in the catch-all allowing non-public information also to be collected and disseminated via registration. Where does that end, SCOTUS? So far, it seems nowhere.

      • AO @ AJ

        I suppose. But in practice, I think I might prefer to wear GPS that only cops technically have access to, than being worried that some psycho is going to murder me and my family in our sleep because my address is in full view with my criminal codes that paint a way different picture than reality.

        • AJ

          @AO:
          “I think I might prefer to wear GPS that only cops technically have access to”
          —–
          Therein lies the problem: technically. It starts with LEO-only, then someone decides it would be good for DCFS to have the info to ensure non-custodial parents aren’t where they “shouldn’t” be, or LE decides it would be a great way to ticket you for speeding, or then someone decides rehab facilities that receive public funds should have access to ensure you’re not at a bar, or whatever. Government has a horrible history of mission creep and the complementary rights infringement.

        • Will Allen

          AJ (March 28, 2019):

          Absolutely. Government only grows. Does it ever shrink? How? Where? I think only in areas that were going broke and they had no choice. Money is like oxygen to them, it has to be kept away from them.

          I find it alarming that people seem to just have accepted how large and out-of-control government is. People seem to have to have little problem with how many laws we have. It’s outrageous and ensures we can’t be a free country. It’s disgusting.

  3. AJ

    “In a 7-0 ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court decided that privacy protections found in both the state and federal constitutions apply to sex offenders, who are entitled to a case-by-case review of whether GPS monitoring is needed to protect society.”
    —–
    Two items in this paragraph warm my cockles (couldn’t resist the seafood reference, given it’s MA). First, it was a 7-0 decision. This wasn’t too surprising given SCOTUS’ Jones ruling and maybe one or two subsequent ones that slip my mind. But one chucklehead could’ve still dissented just to make a statement about the dangers of the scourge…yet none did. Nice. Second, the mention of, “a case-by-case basis review.” That’s synonymous to “individual risk assessment.” Now that I really like to see. Regardless what SCOTUS has said, State Courts of Last Resort, and at least one Federal Appeals Court, are finding that a necessary element. That’s *very* nice.
    =====
    “If you treat sex offenders [as] one category of people and you don’t treat them as individual human beings, the system isn’t going to work well from a public safety perspective,’’ he said. “From a public safety perspective, this is the best result.”
    —–
    Who does this judge think he is, calling us individuals, topped off by the phrase “human beings”?!? The nerve. Doesn’t he know we’re all filthy old subhumans cruising around parks and playgrounds in a van asking for help in finding our puppy while handing out candy as reward?

    • E @ AJ

      Totally agree and I love your sarcasm! It’s so appropriate. I’m just waiting to cringe when some dork thinks you’re being serious and “calls you out.”

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.