iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Sex Offender's 30 Year Computer BAN Is Too Long, Court Rules

Computer

04/ 2/10 02:53 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — A convicted sex offender should not have been forbidden to use or possess a computer for 30 years after he was released from prison, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel agreed with prosecutors and the man's lawyer that the restriction was too harsh because it could never be modified over three decades.

Mark Wayne Russell of Columbia, Md., had been caught in a 2006 sex sting trying to meet someone he found through the Internet and believed was a 13-year-old girl.

The judges noted it is often necessary to use a computer to apply for a job, including at McDonald's and PETCO. Russell had served several years in prison and challenged the conditions of his release. The panel ordered a lower court to modify the conditions.

As part of his sentence, Russell was ordered not to own or use a computer "for any reason."

The 15-page appeals court ruling said that isn't fair, particularly to a 50-year-old man who worked for 10 years as an applied systems engineer.

"Even a lot of blue collar work requires some computer use," the judges wrote. "It is totally unsurprising in the realities of the modern world that in his post-release search for employment Russell has evidently found that computer use is required for filling out most job applications."

Such a 30-year ban on computer use hinders Russell's rehabilitation, the judges found.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

Filed by Bianca Bosker  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 74
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
11:02 AM on 04/05/2010
Ever heard of a pen and paper? Try it sometime, and the memories will come flowing back, I promise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arcanepsyche
03:01 PM on 04/05/2010
A lot of jobs don't accept any application unless it's done online.
05:02 PM on 04/04/2010
I didn't know McDonald's hired child sex offenders?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
01:27 PM on 04/04/2010
Then maybe he should just be sent back to prison.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kevin Atlanta
Active Citizen 54
12:39 PM on 04/04/2010
Here's an eye-opener:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY

This from the Cults of Jesus.

Is it any wonder that we're in a world of hurt in the USA?
01:04 AM on 04/04/2010
THREE BIG LIES THAT TOO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE
1. SEX OFFENDER IS THE SAME AS PEDOPHILE
(THE MAJORITY OF SEX OFFENDERS ARE NOT, NOT, NOT PEDOPHILES
2. STRANGER DANGER IS THE MOST COMMON KIND OF DANGER
ALMOST ALL SEX OFFENSES WITH CHILDREN HAPPEN IN THE FAMILY AND/OR BY SOMEONE THE FAMILY OR CHILD KNOWS !
3. ADDING MORE PEOPLE TO THE REGISTRY PROTECTS CHILDREN
IF ONLY THE TRULY DANGEROUS PREDATORS WERE ON THE REGISTRY, GARRIDO AND OTHERS LIKE HIM WOULD BE WATCHED BETTER AND CAUGHT SOONER
"You're more likely to get struck by lightning," he said, than to get raped and murdered by a stranger.
--taken from an article by Sarah Burge of The Press Enterprise (http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_W_offender08.4169fea.html)
"There's no way to create a zero-risk universe for this," said Franklin Zimring, a professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law. "That's not merely hard, that's impossible."
Statistically speaking, it might make more sense to spend limited resources not on sex offender registries, but on public safety problems that are more preventable and affect greater numbers of people, such as highway safety, Zimring said,

THOSE ON THESE BLOGS WHO JUST SPEW THE USUAL HATE STUFF ARE NAIVE AND DO NOT GET WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH THESE LAWS. EXCESS IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.
09:46 PM on 04/03/2010
As a pedophile who tried to use a computer to solicit sex from what he believed to be an underaged girl (and thankfully wasn't one!), he should be banned from *owning* a computer for life.

OTOH, I don't see why he couldn't *use* a computer under certain conditions -- such as at a job (if he can find one) -- where improper websites can be blocked and his activities monitored.
04:48 PM on 04/03/2010
while I hate child molesters.What do you classify as a computer.With smart phones so many other techs converging. it seem 's impossible to enforce.
photo
ReMarker
Facts and reason For The Win!
04:31 PM on 04/03/2010
A 13 years old? This guy is a pedifile. There is nothing to harsh for anyone hurting children!!!
photo
ReMarker
Facts and reason For The Win!
04:38 PM on 04/03/2010
Revision: There is nothing to harsh for anyone "abusing" children!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:35 PM on 04/03/2010
Why is he on the streets after going after a 13 year old girl. Why are people like this on the streets when someone doing marijuana can get 10 years and no parole. Our justice system is messed up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joel Redman
Proud liberal
05:27 PM on 04/03/2010
He was in prison as the article stated. Eventually, he got out.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
motoGpifupleez
watching with amusement
03:05 PM on 04/03/2010
Just join the church. Then it's "Ban? What ban"?
01:19 PM on 04/03/2010
technology will smoke that verdict before the ink is dry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iblogleft
Certifiable
12:30 PM on 04/03/2010
They should give him all the computer he wants, it is AIR he should be deprived of.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dr Scott
All I ask is that you make sense
11:07 AM on 04/03/2010
That does seem harsh. But the guy is fifty. I don't see him ever having a job again.
09:46 AM on 04/03/2010
While 30 years of no Internet may be too harsh, I don't think the death penalty for these sickos would be. There's a certain point that they serve no purpose to society and we should be expected to have to support their monitoring.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brendan H
10:02 AM on 04/03/2010
Sex crimes are notoriously easy to frame people for. How many innocent people does the government have to execute to make you happy?
02:39 PM on 04/03/2010
I'm surprised to see your viewpoint on HP really. It seems whenever sexual offenders come along it is always guilty until proven innocent. As a matter of fact, in the time I worked a part-time job at the county correctional facility for only six months in college, I saw more then what I would like of "guilty" sexual offenders, usually between the ages of 17-25, knowing fair well that they would have a scarlet letter when released. Now, I don't condone the guilty, but it is one of the hardest crimes to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is guilt. As such, society has adopted it be one of those crimes where you have to instead be proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Perhaps if there was a reclassification so sexual offenses could have varying degrees and punishments then the falsely convicted might not suffer as much as they do now. However, legislation on the topic just won't be seen, who wants to be the person defending sexual offenders? It doesn't matter how many entirely falsely accused you present to the public, Congress, or the courts, the view of sexual offenders remains the same, unfortunately. Until society can mature, there may as well be a death penalty for these crimes because their life is ruined, and at least then some individuals may be less likely to file false charges or there may be less jumping on guilty charges by juries.
photo
OMEGA MAN
A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.
05:49 AM on 04/03/2010
So basically the taxpayer will have to support this guy for the next 30 years. In my state a government worker doesn't have to pay taxes on their pensions. Why not make the government workers in the criminal justice system pay taxes in order to help support all the sex offenders they put on welfare.