'One-click' sex offender reporting for MSN

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-08-25 07:10pm

It's true that being charged with a sex crime can be all kinds of ruinous even if you're clearly innocent, but I don't see people being formally charged because some kid clicked a button. The investigator would have to send it along to his supervisor, who would send it along to somone else and maybe even another link in the chain before finally turning it over to the Police dept., which would only choose to prosecute if it were credible. Anything less than that, and they will get the shit sued out of them, and whoever designed the program would know that.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-08-25 09:00pm

weemadando wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote: And how many innocent peoples' lives will be ruined by false reports? All it takes is the mere accusation of sexual crimes, and a person will have to move to a new city if they want to not get dirty looks when out in public.
What country do you live in? Being reported of a sexual crime does not get you placed on the sexual offenders registry. You must first be convicted of a crime.

*Edit - Not to mention if they wrongly arrest you then you can sue for lots of money.
Incorrect. May I raise yet again Tasmania's insane legislation that was THANKFULLY not passed (but was fucking considered -which is bad enough) where merely being in a position to commit a sex crime would be a registrable offence...

Remind me how it's logical to compare Tasmania law with UK law? Though I have to admit I was speaking strictly about the United States so I'm just as guilty in this case.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-08-25 09:03pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:What country do you live in? Being reported of a sexual crime does not get you placed on the sexual offenders registry. You must first be convicted of a crime.
And yet there is still the social stigma that you were in fact accused in the first place. To some people, someone being accused is still more or less pretty close to being guilty, even if they were cleared of all charges.

People have been fired and divorced, etc... over merely being accused of a crime, you know...

Yes, and I doubt those people were charged due to text in a chatroom. Let's keep it within the same country, and within context.

I have no idea how UK civil suits work, but I'd hope you could still sue the piss out of the state if you were accussed based off crappy evidence and then lost your life over it.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-08-25 09:07pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:What country do you live in? Being reported of a sexual crime does not get you placed on the sexual offenders registry. You must first be convicted of a crime.
And yet there is still the social stigma that you were in fact accused in the first place. To some people, someone being accused is still more or less pretty close to being guilty, even if they were cleared of all charges.

People have been fired and divorced, etc... over merely being accused of a crime, you know...
Exactly my point.

The same could be said of any heinous crime, but the evidence that brought them to being charged was more than just simple text. I misunderstood what you were saying though and I apologize.