They will have to go after the individuals, not Facebook, and already within the last hour, there are about 6 other pages created. And this is exactly why the registry must be taken offline. No criminal records should be available online.
By Josh Wolford
According to a UK High Court, Facebook is not allowed to host a page that publicly outs convicted sex offenders.
A Judge has given Facebook 72 hours to remove a page called Keeping our kids safe from predators, which routinely posts personal information and photos of child predators in Northern Ireland.
The decree stems from a suit brought by a convicted sex offender, only referred to as “XY.” XY claims that the Facebook page amounts to harassment, misuse of private info, and a violation of his privacy. He fears that he may be attacked or otherwise publicly degraded as a result of the page. Facebook has apparently already removed any mention of XY on the page, but the court’s ruling demands that Facebook take an extra step and nix the page altogether.
“Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law. He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle,” said the Judge.
The page owners have acknowledged the ruling, and are already suggesting alternative pages for pedophile tracking and claim to be in the process of setting up an alternate page in the event of the current page’s removal:
“Hi all, Unfortunately this page may be removed any time soon. On this other facebook page you can see daily paedophile crimes listed. So far over 17,000 UK paedophiles have been named on the website, and a few from each days court cases are posted on to the page below."
"The next page will be called “keeping our kids safe from predators 2″ and it will b coming from america at least there they wont take the page down so every1 keep and eye out 4 it,” they say.
“So the man, or I mean mess of a human being, that’s taken this page to court, he must want to be the head paedophile and rule over all sex offenders. He will be like a god to them.”
Facebook policy bans any convicted sex offender from operating an account, but this ruling takes a look at the flip side and looks to protect them from additional punishment via the actions of other Facebook users. What do you think? Should Facebook be forced to remove the page?
Friday, November 30, 2012
By MARY KLAUS
When sexual offenders seek church, synagogue, mosque or temple membership, faith communities need to balance protecting victims and members in the congregation with providing the offender a chance to worship, an Atlanta minister and attorney said Monday in Camp Hill.
When clergy use pornography, congregation members and leaders need to report it to denomination officials and police.
When faith communities don’t have “safe sanctuary” policies, they need to get them now, the Rev. Joy Melton told about 125 people Monday at a “Faithful Response to Burning Issues in the Church” seminar.
“I don’t say if the situation of sexual offenders wanting to be in your congregation will happen,” Melton, a nationally recognized leader in development of ministry protection and abuse prevention policies, said at the Camp Hill United Methodist Church. “I say when.”
Sponsored by the Ecumenical Task Force for Training on Sexuality Issues, the seminar attracted clergy and church leaders from several denominations. Melton, a recognized national leader in development of ministry protection and abuse prevention policies, said that up to 20,000 convicted sex offenders are released from jail annually.
Although some tell pastors that “they found Jesus Christ in jail” or “I served my sentence,” that’s not reason enough to incorporate them into the congregation, she said.
“You need to plan ahead for these situations,” she said. “It costs a lot more for your congregation to settle a lawsuit than it does to learn how to have safe sanctuary policies and procedures.”
OR - Woman coerced into sex by former Beaverton police officer (Joshua Jensen) settles lawsuit for $5,000
By Emily E. Smith
A woman who was coerced into oral sex by an on-duty Beaverton police officer in 2010 accepted a settlement in her lawsuit against the former officer and the City of Beaverton for $5,000.
Beaverton City Attorney Bill Kirby said the case resolved last month when the city agreed to pay $4,000 and former police officer Joshua Jensen agreed to pay $1,000 to his victim.
Jensen pleaded guilty to prostitution, official misconduct and coercion charges in June 2010.
The charges stemmed from two incidents that occurred in 2010, in which Jensen arranged to meet a prostitute in Beaverton and surprised them by showing up in uniform, in a marked police car. Both women told investigators he ordered them behind a garbage container.
The woman who sued him said he grabbed her head, forced it down and demanded that she perform oral sex. She told investigators and The Oregonian that she felt she had no choice.
Jensen was not charged with a sex crime and did not have to register as a sex offender. He was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. According to the state Department of Corrections, he completed his sentence in November 2011 through an Alternative Incarceration Program.
- Of course not, but if the average citizen did what he did, they'd have to. I thought police were suppose to be held to a "higher" standard?
In the lawsuit, filed by attorney Ted A. Martin, the woman alleges Jensen was not wearing a condom and did not pay her. She sued for one dollar less than $50,000.
She requested damages for lost income in the amount of $120, which she says was the "agreed price for a consensual encounter with the use of a condom," according to the lawsuit. She sought an additional $49,879 for "tremendous anxiety and emotional distress."
Kirby said although the city did not believe it bore responsibility for Jensen's independent actions, officials understood a jury might find otherwise. Leaving the decision up to jurors left the city at greater risk, Kirby said.
"We didn't want to admit in any way that (Jensen) was operating within the scope of his employment," he said.
But the settlement saved the city the cost of going to trial and offered certainty that the city would not face a much higher verdict award, he said.
- Yep, saving your own butts, and your officers. Things like this, when it involves police / government misconduct, in our opinion, should automatically be pushed to a jury trial.
Martin declined to comment on the settlement. His client did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.