Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Guilty until Proven Innocent, with a six year waiting period
Submitted by Demonspawn on Fri, 2006-09-01 22:08
I don't know what to say about this other than I can't beleive it is true.
Excerpts:
A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit.
A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again.
If you are male, move out of Ohio.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Man, this has to be a joke.
Man, this has to be a joke. Right...?
So now you're ex girlfriend goes to the judge, says you are a meanie, and that's it - you're branded a pervert for the next six years and your life might as well be over. And as we all know how well that particular mud sticks, you might as well just give up and commit suicide now....
Jesus, this is sick.
I say good on them...
Honestly, as a long time member of the men's movement, I say good on Ohio. The men over there desere it. I'm so sick of these misandrist laws being passed and men doing nothing about it because they are afraid they are not going to get pu##y the next day. If men are not willing to fight such laws, then they deserve such laws. And I'm not just saying this, I mean it.
Due Process? Peonage? Or Is The US Constitution Toilet Paper?
Doesn't the US constitution require that there be "due process" before a man is punished or otherwise deprived of life, liberty or property?
Isn't peonage illegal in the US?
Oh, right, the laws don't matter if you have testicles. Got it.
WTF???
Let me get this straight: the proposal is going through because of some compromise with the Catholic church as opposed to the church getting sued because it used faulty judgement in selecting priests and retaining them (who says the church has fallen. They couldn't be right with this article) and now a lot of innocent men could be fucked over because of this action. That is totally fucked up but the most fucked up part about it is that there was no opposition to this fascism. That is the sad part about it. Where is the fucking ACLU on this? Where is a lot of supposed "civil liberties" groups on this? That is what I would like to know.
The ACLU?
The ACLU won't be found anywhere because it is largely men who will suffer from this law.
Welcome to the Gulag
If you can make it a law that anyone who is "accused" can be legally, publicly reviled on a web site, prosecuted without any recourse to the alleged facts of his crime, denied a jury that will decide on the basis of testimony, and sentenced on the whimsy of unproved claims, then what is left of justice and due process in this land?
Oh, I forgot.
VAWA and our domestic violence courts long ago threw out those anti-feminist principles.
All those aged millionaire white men in our elected Congress thought it best that men should have no rights.
Never mind.
libelous statements
It would seem to me that once this practice is put into place, individuals who are treated in this libelous manner would have the option of suing the state. Regardless, though, this does seem to go against the notion of due process. Perhaps it will take a female teacher being accused of an offense before this law is picked up by the ACLU--a sad but true testimony of the ACLU's apparent MO.
It's No Joke. Ask Any High School Girl.
One of my long-standing rants is about how women are sophisticated predators who understand how to use Third-party violence to terrorize men. (VAWA is their Holy Grail.)
I didn't make this up. It's well documented in Rachel Simmon's excellent book --
ODD GIRL OUT: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls.
And you only have to have one honest conversation with a high school aged daughter, niece, cousin, or acquaintance to know that female-on-female violence is off the charts in schools.
And, that F-O-F violence is just training for what the girls do to boys.
The phrase "Gender Wars" is too kind.
It's actually more like mutual Gendercide, courtesy of Feminism, Inc.
Feminism is no longer a mere ideology. It's a Big Business. Follow the money!
GaryB's got it right...
GaryB's got it right about one of the unintended consequences: this will really do a lot to make men want to go out on a date. And women think there's a man shortage now...
There are so many crazy and vindictive women out there, the last thing we need to do is encourage them. I can see some of `em just going through the list of their previous dates in their minds and signing guys up one after the other. It'll be like date-rape: pretty soon everyone male will be a perv and the concept will lose any real meaning. Eventually you'll be a perv if you're not on the list.
Sounds like another big mess in the making. I hope the rest of the Ohio legislature has a more sensible take on the proposal.
* MB
*** Not All Men Are Fools - Some Are Bachelors ***
You may be right about the ACLU
But Where are the other supposed "civil liberties" groups? No where to be found. I guess they are only "civil libertarians" when the government says it's okay. Otherwise they shut up. "Civil libertarians" and pussies sure look a lot a like.
Radical feminism cures chivilary
Some people tell me I need help
Some people can fuck off and go to hell
Debate and defeat
The reason for that
Thank the leader of the ACLU,feminist cunt Ramona Ripston,for that. That female teacher may be guilty as sin and this castrated chivilarous misandric society we are forced to endure will find any excuse to let her go. If an innocent man gets snare by this law these same assholes will find a way to make him look guitly. Don't believe me. Mark my words.
Radical feminism cures chivilary
Some people tell me I need help
Some people can fuck off and go to hell
Debate and defeat
Wow...
I am amazed that someone would have the gaul to even PROPOSE something like this, let alone actually try to get it passed by an assembly.
FTA: A criminal conviction is a very high bar. We can't always establish criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt even though we know for certain the person has done very bad things.
Gee. Wow. Criminal conviction is supposed to be a very high bar. That's kind of the point. We don't throw people to jail when there is reasonable doubt that they committed the crimes. In this 'free' country, people aren't supposed to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a hearing proportional to deprivation. I absolutely LOVE how they skirt around the Due Process clause by giving them a hearing SIX YEARS after the fact, with NO potential for appeal.
Also FTA: A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again.
Wow. 'unlikely to abuse again'. Let's step through this logically, shall we? If they've been declared innocent by the courts, then for all intents and purposes, they are...INNOCENT! Isn't it incredible how this works?
Not only has this thoroughly RAPED due process, but one also has to consider how it's going to be used in a society. I can picture women going through a divorce right now looking at this as a wonderful opprunity to get full custody and everything the man owns by putting him on this list...and judging from the full text of the act here (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_17), that doesn't seem that difficult.
Well, if you get put on this list...you might as well go rape someone, because you're getting punished for it anyway.
Only when it's conveient.
If you read the whole thing here (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_17)...
The court may order that the individual's name be removed from the registry if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that since the individual was first listed on the civil registry the individual has not been found liable in damages in an action for assault or battery based on childhood sexual abuse, has not been required to register pursuant to section 2950.04 or 2950.041 [. . . ]
So, yeah. This is how I see it working out. Just one possible way.
Someone blackmails someone at work (i.e, Give me a raise or I'll put you on the list.) Foolishly assuming that we live in a society where people are innocent until proven guilty, you scoff and deny the person the raise. You get on the list.
Because you're now on that list, and it's treated basically the same as the normal sex offender's registry, you have to move away from metropolitan areas so you are no longer a threat to society. You are also fired from your job, because you are now a sex offender. You have to work at a gas station now.
Six years later, you go to court. In normal criminal court, the purpose is for the state to prove that you did something (i.e, "innocent until proven guilty.") But, here, the burden of proof is on the defense ("guilty until proven innocent". e.g, "..court finds by clear and convincing evidence that since the individual was first listed on the civil registry the individual has not been found liable..."). So...you're going to court not to be found guilty, but proven innocent. SIX YEARS LATER. Great.
Wow...
"If they've been declared innocent by the courts, then for all intents and purposes, they are...INNOCENT!"
Statements like this are the roots that laws like this sprout from. Once you make the assumption that a charge equals guilt, then punishment is deemed appropriate.
You are not found innocent by a court. You are innocent until proven guilty. If you accept that a court has to prove your guilt, then laws like this are clearly inappropriate.
Thanks for the link
I was searching for it when I submitted this story. I still can't belive that it is true. Here is the critical part:
2721.21
(D) If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence in an action brought pursuant to this section that the defendant would be liable for assault or battery based on childhood sexual abuse but for the expiration of the limitation period under section 2305.111 of the Revised Code, the court shall enter a judgment with that finding against the defendant and shall order that the defendant be listed on the civil registry maintained by the attorney general pursuant to section 3797.08 of the Revised Code. The court shall notify the defendant of the defendant's obligations under sections 3797.02, 3797.03, and 3797.04 of the Revised Code.
That is the critical part of this whole law. Preponderance of the evidence is what is needed in a civil trial. However, this is a civil trial with criminal punishment as the outcome. Is that not in violation of the 4th Ammendment? This defines cruel and unusual punishment for a civil trial.
--Demonspawn
I hope they do try and
I hope they do try and enforce this law and the ACLU makes a liar out of you.
Feminazi?
I hope they do try and enforce this law and the ACLU makes a liar out of you.
What are you? A feminazi? The ACLU is not going to help men on this law. Only when a woman is snared (even if she's guilty) by this law then they will get involved. Not before.
Radical feminism cures chivalry
Some people tell me I need help
Some people can fuck off and go to hell
Debate and defeat