DJE 11

The argument in this article is against a recently passed Illinois state law that would ban any and all sex offenders from "using a social-networking service defined as an 'Internet Web site containing profile Web pages...that include the names or nicknames of such members, photographs...or any other personal or personally identifying information.'" Larry Magid, the author of the article, believes that this law should not have been passed because it could potentially have negative effects. He believes that part of rehabilitating sex offenders is assimilating them with society and helping them find productive careers and he thinks that social networking sites and such are necessary to this process. He also argues that this law puts too much focus on those who have been convicted as opposed to looking for those who have yet to be caught.

Magid cites a number of organizations and task forces, such as the Crimes Against Children Research Center and the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, that have collected data that actually shows that very few adults are actually successful in harming a youth through the web. He uses one very convincing statistic, "A January 2009 analysis of Pennsylvania cases by the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use found, during a four-year period, that 'only eight incidents involved actual teen victims with whom the Internet was used to form a relationship,' compared to 9,934 children who were sexually abused in a single year in that state." Though sexual predators on the Internet have been made out to be a huge deal, this shows that there actually aren't very many incidents in this specific type of sexual abuse.

I have always had an issue with how we classify sex offenders. We lump them all into the same category and therefore assume that anyone listed as a sex offender is a terrible rapist or molester. This thought would make anyone want to ban them from even living near a child, let alone being able to access children through the Internet. However, as this article states, many people listed on the sex offender registry never actually committed a crime against a child. Some did something as harmless as streaking. Now, is streaking okay in public, probably not, but does someone who streaks deserve to be put in the same category as people who physically and mentally abuse children? Absolutely not. Also, I agree with the idea of trying to rehabilitate those offenders who are capable of seeking help and becoming productive members of society. I think that they should be heavily monitored but I do think that they should be given the help they need in order to never harm another child. In the world we live in today, social networking and news networks are absolutely necessary to assimilate with others in society and even to keep a job. Just think of how many networks we have become members of for this class alone. Let alone how many times you have gotten a hold of a coworker or even a boss via facebook or twitter. I think that there are certain offenders who should not have access, such as those who actually used the Internet to commit a crime against a child, however I also think that with monitoring, people who have served there time and are now trying to become productive members of society should have a chance to prove themselves and should not be kept from social networking.