Passport mark for US sex offenders law challenged in court

[Credo]

I wonder if Bill Clinton would get his passport stamped as an offender?

How about Anthony Weiner?

[Galactus]

maybe not for ordinary sex offenders. it is too harsh.

a friend of mine was sentenced and labelled as a sex offender just bc he sent some explicit messages to his ex girlfriend!

and such stamp means stamping his family too when they travel together.

but if they out special marks on the passports of pedophiles and child sex abusers, i totally agree and support and all nations need to do the same IMO.

[Jingthing]

I wonder if Bill Clinton would get his passport stamped as an offender?

How about Anthony Weiner?

Clinton wasn't convicted of anything.

Don't remember about Weiner.

In any case, it's state by state.

The passport issue is that when someone is labeled SEX OFFENDER no distinction is made based on the nature of the actual crime.

Again see the list of offenses that can get a person on the list.

MOST aren't very serious.

If people are saying MAKE DISTINCTIONS and only stigmatize those convicted of serious sex crimes, I would agree.

I would even support denying such SERIOUS SEX criminals passports at all if that's constitutional. (Doesn't the U.K. do that?)

But these distinctions are NOT being made.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[Berkshire]

maybe not for ordinary sex offenders. it is too harsh.

a friend of mine was sentenced and labelled as a sex offender just bc he sent some explicit messages to his ex girlfriend!

and such stamp means stamping his family too when they travel together.

but if they out special marks on the passports of pedophiles and child sex abusers, i totally agree and support and all nations need to do the same IMO.

So your friend was actually convicted? Spent time in prison? I can't believe this is only for sending explicit messages...unless there were threats involved or something else.

[Galactus]

maybe not for ordinary sex offenders. it is too harsh.

a friend of mine was sentenced and labelled as a sex offender just bc he sent some explicit messages to his ex girlfriend!

and such stamp means stamping his family too when they travel together.

but if they out special marks on the passports of pedophiles and child sex abusers, i totally agree and support and all nations need to do the same IMO.

So your friend was actually convicted? Spent time in prison? I can't believe this is only for sending explicit messages...unless there were threats involved or something else.

i dont know the details 100 percent but there were definitely no physical offence, abuse or attack, that is what i know.

and his name appears as a sex offender.

[F4UCorsair]

I guess someone didn't dead "The Scarlet Letter" in high school.

Seriously though, the right to leave ones country is in the Magna Carta. It is not subject to your moral righteousness.

Are you seriously contending that one's PP can't be confiscated because the Magna Carta states that one has a right to leave his country?

Better tell the judiciary that.

[BookMan]

maybe not for ordinary sex offenders. it is too harsh.

a friend of mine was sentenced and labelled as a sex offender just bc he sent some explicit messages to his ex girlfriend!

and such stamp means stamping his family too when they travel together.

but if they out special marks on the passports of pedophiles and child sex abusers, i totally agree and support and all nations need to do the same IMO.

So your friend was actually convicted? Spent time in prison? I can't believe this is only for sending explicit messages...unless there were threats involved or something else.

i dont know the details 100 percent but there were definitely no physical offence, abuse or attack, that is what i know.

and his name appears as a sex offender.

The story you hear as a friend might be different from the actual facts of the case

[hawker9000]

I find the whole discussion rather pathetic.....

They should just ban them from getting a passport.

Getting a passport is a privilege given by a country and not a constitutional right !

Who the heck cares that you find it pathetic?

It's just plain false to assert that a passport is a "privilege". This is just another Obama boner & statist power grab. Having a passport is a matter of a citizen's freedom to travel, and absolutely NOT a matter of some "privilege" being granted by the state. Also, passports are identity documents, not criminal records. If countries want to exchange criminal information on travelers, they can certainly agree to do so (and that actually happens between Canada and the U.S.; and more broadly via Interpol and other look-up methods), but passports are not the appropriate means for doing that. If a person needs to be prevented from traveling for legal or other valid reasons, then the passport can be revoked. If pedophiles need to be prevented from travelling, and perhaps they should be, then that should be in the law and the judge should make that part of the sentence rather than some power-drunk, self-important bureaucrat or career politician coming along after the fact and passing what amounts to an additional sentence on their own.

I was sure this would get challenged in court. It's ill-conceived.

[SgtRock]

I find the whole discussion rather pathetic.....

They should just ban them from getting a passport.

Getting a passport is a privilege given by a country and not a constitutional right !

Who the heck cares that you find it pathetic?

It's just plain false to assert that a passport is a "privilege". This is just another Obama boner & statist power grab. Having a passport is a matter of a citizen's freedom to travel, and absolutely NOT a matter of some "privilege" being granted by the state. Also, passports are identity documents, not criminal records. If countries want to exchange criminal information on travelers, they can certainly agree to do so (and that actually happens between Canada and the U.S.; and more broadly via Interpol and other look-up methods), but passports are not the appropriate means for doing that. If a person needs to be prevented from traveling for legal or other valid reasons, then the passport can be revoked. If pedophiles need to be prevented from travelling, and perhaps they should be, then that should be in the law and the judge should make that part of the sentence rather than some power-drunk, self-important bureaucrat or career politician coming along after the fact and passing what amounts to an additional sentence on their own.

I was sure this would get challenged in court. It's ill-conceived.

Hawker.

A passport is a matter of privilege. That is why you have to apply for it and it is not issued at birth. It is a privilege that can also be revoked at any time.

This was a half baked idea that was not given any real thought and it should never see the light of day. A passport is a travel document that has also morphed into an identity document. It should certainly never be used as a criminal record indicator.

The motivation behind the idea is probably correct, like a lot of things, not a lot of thought has went into the actual implementation aspect.

Having said that, I would certainly be fully supportive of a clearly defined list of offences that would see a passport instantly revoked and that person be forever barred from holding another passport.

[Morakot]

A passport is a matter of privilege. That is why you have to apply for it and it is not issued at birth. It is a privilege that can also be revoked at any time.

[geriatrickid]

for once a sensible law being put in place, I would prefer they would put a tattoo on their foreheads, but this is ok as well, far too many nonces running around the world unchecked..

The problem is that many kids have been labeled sex offenders and it never goes away. There are states where 18 year olds who had consensual intercourse with a 17 year old are registered sex offenders.

No one would argue against a serial peso being labeled as such. However, Florida's insistence on a broad interpretation that can have someone making an obscene phone call designated a sexual offender defeats the intended purpose.

[up-country_sinclair]

It's genuinely stunning to me that people are making excuse after excuse for convicted sex offenders. "Oh, there are different levels of sex offender", "Oh, it was a long time ago", "Oh, it was a youthful indiscretion". Speaks volumes, really.

Of course these deviants should have marks in their passports so that other countries can make informed decisions about who they should allow to enter.

Do you want foreign sex offenders entering your country without having prior knowledge of their disgusting criminal history? Of course not.

[ukrules]

It's genuinely stunning to me that people are making excuse after excuse for convicted sex offenders. "Oh, there are different levels of sex offender", "Oh, it was a long time ago", "Oh, it was a youthful indiscretion". Speaks volumes, really.

Of course these deviants should have marks in their passports so that other countries can make informed decisions about who they should allow to enter.

Do you want foreign sex offenders entering your country without having prior knowledge of their disgusting criminal history? Of course not.

If all they did was take a piss up against a wall then sure, let them in. It's hardly the crime of the century.

I've taken a piss against a wall many times over the years when I was caught short, I've never been arrested for it though but I still did it.

Does this make me a sex offender who hasn't been caught yet ? Should I be blacklisted ?

[up-country_sinclair]

A friend who is a police officer told me that gays having sex in parks and other public places will often use the excuse "I was just urinating" if they are caught with their genitals exposed but not in a sexual act at the exact moment witnessed by police. The police can do no more than charge them with public urination even though it was highly probable that they were engaging in deviant sexual behavior. Imagine if children happened to come across men engaged in a perverted sexual act in a public place. As far as I'm concerned, that should be considered a sex crime.

And furthermore, he said that the percentage of people on any sex offender list for public urination is a fraction of 1%. This link supports what he told me.

http://www.familywatchdog.us/BlogView.asp?ID=1

[Morakot]

[theguyfromanotherforum]

A friend who is a police officer told me that gays having sex in parks and other public places will often use the excuse "I was just urinating" if they are caught with their genitals exposed but not in a sexual act at the exact moment witnessed by police. The police can do no more than charge them with public urination even though it was highly probable that they were engaging in deviant sexual behavior. Imagine if children happened to come across men engaged in a perverted sexual act in a public place. As far as I'm concerned, that should be considered a sex crime.

And furthermore, he said that the percentage of people on any sex offender list for public urination is a fraction of 1%. This link supports what he told me.

http://www.familywatchdog.us/BlogView.asp?ID=1

Imagine if children knew you came to Thailand for beaches and temples. Please think of the children.

[up-country_sinclair]

A friend who is a police officer told me that gays having sex in parks and other public places will often use the excuse "I was just urinating" if they are caught with their genitals exposed but not in a sexual act at the exact moment witnessed by police. The police can do no more than charge them with public urination even though it was highly probable that they were engaging in deviant sexual behavior. Imagine if children happened to come across men engaged in a perverted sexual act in a public place. As far as I'm concerned, that should be considered a sex crime.

And furthermore, he said that the percentage of people on any sex offender list for public urination is a fraction of 1%. This link supports what he told me.

http://www.familywatchdog.us/BlogView.asp?ID=1

Imagine if children knew you came to Thailand for beaches and temples. Please think of the children.

I'm of the opinion that people who have been found guilty of engaging in sexual acts in public places should be put on sex offender list. It's certainly your prerogative to disagree.

[hawker9000]

I find the whole discussion rather pathetic.....

They should just ban them from getting a passport.

Getting a passport is a privilege given by a country and not a constitutional right !

Who the heck cares that you find it pathetic?

It's just plain false to assert that a passport is a "privilege". This is just another Obama boner & statist power grab. Having a passport is a matter of a citizen's freedom to travel, and absolutely NOT a matter of some "privilege" being granted by the state. Also, passports are identity documents, not criminal records. If countries want to exchange criminal information on travelers, they can certainly agree to do so (and that actually happens between Canada and the U.S.; and more broadly via Interpol and other look-up methods), but passports are not the appropriate means for doing that. If a person needs to be prevented from traveling for legal or other valid reasons, then the passport can be revoked. If pedophiles need to be prevented from travelling, and perhaps they should be, then that should be in the law and the judge should make that part of the sentence rather than some power-drunk, self-important bureaucrat or career politician coming along after the fact and passing what amounts to an additional sentence on their own.

I was sure this would get challenged in court. It's ill-conceived.

Hawker.

A passport is a matter of privilege. That is why you have to apply for it and it is not issued at birth. It is a privilege that can also be revoked at any time.

This was a half baked idea that was not given any real thought and it should never see the light of day. A passport is a travel document that has also morphed into an identity document. It should certainly never be used as a criminal record indicator.

The motivation behind the idea is probably correct, like a lot of things, not a lot of thought has went into the actual implementation aspect.

Having said that, I would certainly be fully supportive of a clearly defined list of offences that would see a passport instantly revoked and that person be forever barred from holding another passport.

Incorrect, at least in the U.S. (and the Supreme Court has actually ruled it so). The fact that a passport is a document that's not issued "automatically at birth" and must be requested - simply because the government that issues it must confirm your identity and status as a citizen - does not make the freedom to travel a "privilege" rather than a right. A passport may certainly be revoked (or not issued in the first place), but that has to be for cause (and as the link mentions, things like back taxes or flight to avoid prosecution can quite logically & reasonably constitute such cause). 'Unbelievable anyone can be so relaxed about their rights as a U.S. citizen, and just assume something is a privilege rather than a right until someone has to prove it to them. It should be the other way 'round!

[Scott]

Posts violating the rules and replies have been removed.

[HLover]

I wonder what the proposed stamp will look like?

[Morakot]

I wonder what the proposed stamp will look like?

Please see here.