 |
|  |
 |
|
Brundlefly
|
 |
United States
Nov 2001 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Except it does not do so. If you care about your kids so much, make sure to investigate all your neighbors. |
People are innocent until proven guilty. With regards to your childs interaction with the neighbors, treat the innocent ones with a healthy degree of caution and the guilty ones with a healthy degree of suspicion. I dont need to investigate the innocent ones. I'm satisfied with the government providing me information on the whereabouts of the guilty ones who have a track record of violent antisocial behavior directed at children.
Just try for 30 seconds to imagine that you have complete responsibility for another human life. Imagine that human is weak, defenseless, and suggestable. Consider what obstacles you face on a daily basis trying to raise that human to adulthood. You would welcome any help the government can give in identifying those who would interfere with your guardianship of such a person.
Last edited by Brundlefly on 06-01-2005 at 22:44
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:33
|
|
Well I can only speak about what would and has happened in the UK, if things are less violent in the US then it's commendable (but time will surely tell), though the logic of self-policing still applies against Megans Law. Sarah's law in the UK would be a completely disaster of course.
quote:
BTW, you said in your OP that you can see "both sides" of this issue. It appears to me that you are entirely against this type of law. Did you change your mind?
|
I didn't make the OP . For the record, I can see both sides of the issue, and as I've said, if anyone ever threatened my brothers, or a sex offended moved into my street, he'd find himself in hospital pretty quickly. I understand the need to protect children, I understand the failings of the justice system and I do my best to understand the mindset of paedophiles and violent people, but I also understand the counter argument, and in my mind, the argument against Megans/Sarah's law is far stronger, and the consequences are something I find rather terrifying as a fan of justice, hence my passion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by bfg9000
And if you live in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, go outside everyday during hurricane season and search the horizon for hurricanes because the government is not responsible to give you warning when a hurricane is upon you. |
Unless one is a meteorological expert, searching for hurricanes in such manner is not particularly helpful. One need not be a criminal law expert to check out the backgrounds of your neighbors, just know where the courthouse is. Not a very good analogy.
Besides, hurricanes aren't living beings whose rights and safety we have to consider. Not to mention the interest of the government in warning people about them is of an entirely different nature.
How about we don't just limit the database to people convicted of sex offenses, but to anyone accused of sex offenses? I mean, that would be even more helpful, because no doubt certain offenders got off on technicalities or due to slick lawyers and such, right?
And it's not as if the government isn't "warning" people in the sense that the information is supposedly there and available to anyone who asks. But why the double standard? Why not for all criminal convictions? Even violations? Theoretically, you, my neighbor, could be a threat to my child because of that DUI you got 15 years ago. I don't want my kids going near a drunk driver. Guess we better establish a registry and have your name on it!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, wrong. Employers are given huge latitude in hiring and firing- based on their rights. You keep bringing this up, and its utterly irrelevant: Am eployer has the right to say NO- that does not interfere with the right of a ex-convict to not have to sign on a government watch list essentially.
This is a red herring at best-at worst, an unimportant tangent. |
Im not talking about what RIGHTS an employer in general would have. Im asking whether it would be prudent to exercise those rights. Im merely trying to establish that "dangerous" isnt binary, its a continuum. Which seems relevant to me. Many of your arguments seem to imply that "dangerous" IS binary - either person A IS dangerous, in which case they should be locked up, or they are NOT, in which case theres no benefit to Megans law. Being dangerous is NOT like being pregnant - its not binary.
And yes, the state DOES have a role in helping you be prudent. The state uses tax dollars to collect data on safety records of different makes of autos, yet those autos are NOT banned. And yes, automakers have free will, unlike hurricanes. The state requires Tobacco to carry warning labels, and even funds warning campaigns about tobacco, out of funds collected from tobacco companies yet Tobacco is a legal good. "half assed" public policy is widespread, and with good reason - a binary choice would limit options, and lead to suboptimal public policy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|