A Stitch in Haste

Some items from the sex offender mania front:

ITEM: In Virginia, a new law requires colleges and universities to turn over the names and Social Security numbers of every applicant accepted for admission, even if the individual never actually enrolls or even sets foot in the state. The purpose of this privacy invasion? To catch sex offenders, of course. Because the best way for perverts to find potential rape victims is to take organic chemistry with them. And the best way to help rehabilitate convicted sex offenders is by making sure they don't get to go to college. And how this helps prevent child molestation is anybody's guess. (Via UnCivil Defense.)

---

ITEM: A challenge to Georgia's draconian sex offender redlining law has been initiated in federal court. The law "sets 1,000-foot buffers for convicted child sex offenders around all school bus stops, churches, schools, child-care centers and other places where children congregate." Perhaps the most intriguing challenge is to the "church" provision, which seems a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause. As for redlining in general, the relationship between the proscription and the goal seems far too weak in most instances to withstand scrutiny. Saying that a convicted child molester can't work in a day care center is one thing; saying he can't live down the street from one is another matter altogether.

---

ITEM: This is the one that has gotten all the headlines --

Penile plethysmograph testing is a procedure that “involves placing a pressure-sensitive device around a man’s penis, presenting him with an array of sexually stimulating images, and determining his level of sexual attraction by measuring minute changes in his erectile responses.” Although one would expect to find a description of such a procedure gracing the pages of a George Orwell novel rather than the Federal Reporter, plethysmograph testing has become routine in the treatment of sexual offenders and is often imposed as a condition of supervised release.

So begins a circuit court case, U.S. v. Weber, 05-50191 (9th Cir., June 20, 2006), considering the constitutionality of the procedure. First of all, I think Anthony Burgess is a better author to invoke than George Orwell. In any event, contrary to many of the reports and blogposts out there, the court did not rule the test unconstitutional on its face, but simply found insufficient facts to warrant its use on this particular convict. The case was sent back to the lower court for further hearings on the matter.

Let's assume the plethysmograph is even a reliable test (not a universal view). So what? A person may enjoy horror films, even snuff films. That doesn't make him a murderer. Enjoying images of burning buildings does not make you an arsonist. And getting an erection over naughty pictures does not make a sex offender a guaranteed recidivist. Expect more challenges, and more findings of impropriety, in the future. (Via Decision of the Day. More thoughts at ThePhalanx.)