This (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS24/608290360/-1/NEWS) strikes me as insane. Not one legislator stood up to oppose a rule allowing a person's name, address and photograph to be added to the civil registry even if they've never been charged or convicted of a crime. 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.

This comes hot on the heels of an 8th Circuit Appeals ruling (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp) allowing the confiscation of large sums of cash without the owner being charged with a crime. Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Suspicion seems to equal guilt in these cases, and the rights of individuals come to naught.

Venting.

What is even more insane is this... If you are caught pissing in public (even if behind a bush), and a cop decides to ticket you.. you can be added to this list (at least in Michigan). Most often not, but if you get a prick for a judge.. you can be a registered sex offender for draining the lizard outside the house.

Note to self....stop carrying around those rolls of thousand dollar bills. :o

Seriously though....the Ohio thing needs to be fought by a higher court, that is SO not due process.

On the other, wonder if the phrase "resonable doubt" every crossed their minds.

Yeah, I need to keep my money in a bank, and not under my mattress. I never know when the police might come in and decide to make a "withdrawl".
Reason is as reason does....

Kepp your guns clean folks, the day envisioned by the forefathers is getting closer every day.

While the idea behind the legislation ostensibly was to allow the identification of the clergy without necessitating criminal proceedings, the result is an entirely different matter. While it does not provide an outline of the process required to add a name to the list, one would hope that some investigation would be necessary before labelling anyone with such an appalling classification.

It really is discouraging learning there were no legislators willing to dissent.

I need to start making a list of everyone that seriously pisses me off. Since no proof is needed, no criminal or civil case, I can just call the police and accuse anyone that's a major asshat of being a child molestor (I live in Ohio).

Yes, I am just kidding, but that doesn't mean other people won't try stupid shit like this just to fuck with someone. This will easily get overturned the first time someone appeals to the Supreme Court about being put on said list without Due Process.

edit to add: Since I have a young daughter, I get emails from the authorities with names/address/pictures of people within a certain distance of my house that are on the child predator list. I'll be interested to see if I get many new names because of this piece of legislation. If I get large amounts of new names, I'll let you folks know.

What? dissent and be labeled as someone wanting to free the child molesters? or remain silent, avoid political suicide by the sound bite culture of ignorants we live in today and hope the machine will show restraint with it's ever growing totalitarian power?
tough choice unless you like the egalitarian(sp) life style we've let our politicians create for themselves and thier wealthy friends.

edit to add: Since I have a young daughter, I get emails from the authorities with names/address/pictures of people within a certain distance of my house that are on the child predator list.
Point of curiousity, Tal, but how many persons on that list are within X distance of your home?

I think 3. 2 are in apartment complexes a ways from where I live. One is about 3 blocks away.

Along the lines of law enforcement overreach, I'll add this (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nL07868974&imageid=&cap=&from=business), the second detainment of a UK citizen who happens to head an online gambling company.

This comes at a time when an anti-gambling bill has passed the House and is working its way through the Senate. Bill Frist considers this a priority (http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3630541): "Internet gambling threatens our families by bringing addictive behavior right into our living rooms," Frist said in floor remarks. Of course, this ban wouldn't apply to state lotteries, despite the simple fact that they are a most easily "abused" form of gambling. He may as well ban ashtrays and shotglasses.