State Senator Wants to Stop Incarcerated Sex Offenders from Seeing Pictures of Children

Pointless grandstanding

Willeecole

New York State Senator Chris Jacobs has proposed a law that would prohibit any person serving time for a sex offense against a minor from "possessing a depiction of any minor."

Taken literally, the text of the bill makes it a crime for such a person to receive a wallet photo of his own kid. Any magazine that wasn't AARP would pose a legal minefield. And if somehow the prisoner got his hands on a VHS copy of Home Alone, forget it. He's never getting out.

"How can the guards even manage?" asked Vicki Henry, president of Women Against Registry, an advocacy group that opposes public sex offender registries. Henry asks an important question. Will security guards be expected to confiscate every picture—and drawing—of a kid? Is a holiday card with baby angels contraband? Would prisoners have to snip Robin out of their Batman comic books?

And how would this make anyone even one bit safer?

Clearly the bill is not actually about safety. It's about optics. This state senator wants to appear as if he cares more than anyone else about protecting children. But all his bill would do is make life even more miserable for people already serving time for their misdeeds.

Comments

[Citizen X - #6]

Over-under on when New York State Senator Chris Jacobs gets caught having an affair with a teenager?

[Hugh Akston]

Teenager seems a bit optimistic. I'm sure he had to take his hankie out and wipe his forehead a number of times while talking about the terrible temptations that pictures of children pose to certain people.

[Citizen X - #6]

"Senator, could you please stand up so the audience can hear you more clearly?"

"No."

[Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"]

He is a member of a prominent, wealthy family, so I guess my answer would be: in the near future.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Free-Range Kids

KIDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEPICT THEMSELVES HOWEVER!

[Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"]

And how would this make anyone even one bit safer?

It wouldn't, but it would a job creator, because someone is going to have to go through each magazine and snip out each photo of a child.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

All my stuff has already been snipped!

[Citizen X - #6]

People tend to think that chemical and surgical castration are pretty similar, but in reality there's a vas deferens.

[SomeGuy]

see i know your joking but people think jobs that actually produce nothing someone boosts the economy or helps human race advance.

These are the exact type of jobs that are a net loss in reality.

[mad.casual]

"How can the guards even manage?" asked Vicki Henry, president of Women Against Registry, an advocacy group that opposes public sex offender registries.

"Won't somebody think of those poor prison guards?!?" LOL!

[Citizen X - #6]

Well, it's a practical concern. It probably wouldn't be too much of a stretch, though, given that most corrections employees already spend their free time cutting the eyes out of pictures in magazines.

[mad.casual]

It probably wouldn't be too much of a stretch, though, given that most corrections employees already spend their free time cutting the eyes out of pictures in magazines.

I thought the "They'll do even less work and use the contraband to whisk inmates off to double-secret jail." explanation was too blatantly obvious. Now, when a mild-mannered and quasi-innocent sex offender gets in trouble with more violent adult rapists and mass murders, it's even easier to justify his movement to solitary.

Images Of Children Banned From Prison - Women And Guards Hardest Hit.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Another state legislature that should probably be part time.

[creech]

All this spineless doofus is doing is helping some pressure group to believe they've "done something." He knows (and they know too) this will never get out of committee.

[Cynical Asshole]

Clearly the bill is not actually about safety. It's about optics. This state senator wants to appear as if he cares more than anyone else about protecting children.

That and slapping around sex offenders, especially ones who victimized children, is easy and not very likely to get much more than a shrug from 99% of voters. Pedo's aren't exactly the most sympathetic people in the world. So State Senator Jackass gets to claim credit for doing something "for the children" and whoever his opponent isn't exactly going to criticize him for smacking around "sickos."

[loveconstitution1789]

No matter how much people want to do unconstitutional things to sex offenders (sex offender registry), everyone sees this law is clearly unconstitutional, right?

There is nothing in the constitution that gives the government authority to restrict what people see. Not even close.

Then there is the 1st Amendment which restricts government from creating laws against what people see, talk about, worship, and do.