26-04-2005 08:53									#1
	Is the ACLU good for America? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Just watched what's his nime, the Irish guy, on FOX. He was interviewing the mayor of Miami who was trying to get a law through which would make convicted sex offenders stay 500 feet from the beach. Apparently the ACLU will fight it...

Wtf is wrong with such a law? Keep the perverts away from their prey, protect the people, children, etc? Wtf is wrong with the ACLU?

	26-04-2005 08:59									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

Yes, unquestionably yes.

	26-04-2005 09:01									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: He was interviewing the mayor of Miami who was trying to get a law through which would make convicted sex offenders stay 500 feet from the beach. Apparently the ACLU will fight it...

Why in the Hell do sex offenders who have served their time get restricted from going on to the BEACH! That's ridiculous!

Rapists are not restricted from going on the beach. Those who have engaged in aggravated assault are not restricted from the beach. This law is utterly silly.

	26-04-2005 09:02									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You want sex offenders on the beach with your kids? (If you had em)

	26-04-2005 09:04									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Rapists aren't sex offenders?

	26-04-2005 09:05									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If they served their time, they should have equal access to the beach. Yes.

What, are we next going to say that sex offenders who have served their time get only one part of the state they can live and stay in?

Under this law, a 25 year old that sleeps with a 17 year old can never go on the beach, ever.

I'm guessing people can't never 'do their time' in your world. Once a criminal, always a criminal, right?

	26-04-2005 09:08									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lancer Rapists aren't sex offenders?

I assume they are passing this law for use for child sex offenders. I seriously doubt that they will be enforcing this against a rapist.

In fact, looking it up, the law was proposed because of sex offenses against children.

	26-04-2005 09:09									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"Under this law, a 25 year old that sleeps with a 17 year old can never go on the beach, ever."

Then they should change the definition.

"I'm guessing people can't never 'do their time' in your world. Once a criminal, always a criminal, right?"

Once a child molester or rapist, no more beach. Too tough? Too bad!

	26-04-2005 09:11									#9
	Got spare money?

And actually, Lancer, it seems you are wrong on the effects on the law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7592399/

quote: he city of Miami Beach is considering approving a law that would make it a misdemeanor for convicted sex offenders or sexual predators to live within 2,500 feet of places where there are a lot of children, such as elementary schools.

quote: "It's important within a city so densely populated and small like this to get these ticking time bombs out of the city," Miami Beach Mayor David Bermer said.

It seems the whole purpose to get sex offenders (and it seems it is child sex offenders here) to get out of the city entirely!!

	26-04-2005 09:12									#10
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"In fact, looking it up, the law was proposed because of sex offenses against children."

Then it should be extended to rapists. Certainly there are plenty of women that are as helpless as a child.

	26-04-2005 09:14									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Then they should change the definition.

It's called statutory rape, Lancer.

quote: Once a child molester or rapist, no more beach. Too tough? Too bad!

Too unconstitutional? Too bad!

When the purpose is keeping any child sex offender out of the town, it isn't going to survive Constitutional muster. You are violating their right to live in the city they wish.

	26-04-2005 09:14									#12
	Support Apolyton

quote: What, are we next going to say that sex offenders who have served their time get only one part of the state they can live and stay in?

The north coast of Alaska has oil and plenty of space for their one part.

	26-04-2005 09:15									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

"It seems the whole purpose to get sex offenders (and it seems it is child sex offenders here) to get out of the city entirely!!"

2500 feet isn't out of the city...

These guys are monsters who shouldn't be breathing imo. Keeping them 2500 feet from elementary schools doesn't seem too harsh to me.

	26-04-2005 09:16									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Lancer "In fact, looking it up, the law was proposed because of sex offenses against children." Then it should be extended to rapists. Certainly there are plenty of women that are as helpless as a child.

Hey, why don't we extend it to drunk drivers on the roads! We are all helpless against the drunk drivers. I suggest passing a law prohibiting them from coming 50 feet of a roadway.

	26-04-2005 09:18									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lancer "It seems the whole purpose to get sex offenders (and it seems it is child sex offenders here) to get out of the city entirely!!" 2500 feet isn't out of the city... These guys are monsters who shouldn't be breathing imo. Keeping them 2500 feet from elementary schools doesn't seem too harsh to me.

From the article:

quote: "It's important within a city so densely populated and small like this to get these ticking time bombs out of the city," Miami Beach Mayor David Bermer said.

It seems 2500 feet from an area with children is intended to get them out of the city.

Frankly, I think the religious right are monsters who shouldn't be breathing. That doesn't mean I can keep them 2500 feet from me... or, better yet, an abortion clinic.

	26-04-2005 09:19									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: When the purpose is keeping any child sex offender out of the town, it isn't going to survive Constitutional muster. You are violating their right to live in the city they wish.

Can be made part of their sentence upon release, we're nice people and dont want you to spend the rest of your life in a cage so we'll give you a second chance. But since you cant be trusted, stay the **** away from kids and maybe we'll let you live freer than you would in that cage.

	26-04-2005 09:23									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Can be made part of their sentence upon release

Condition of parole, perhaps, but I'd say that such sentancing restrictions are violative of the person's right to travel after the jail sentance has fully concluded.

I mean what about the sex offender, who reforms in prison, finds Christ (or whatever), gets out and has a child? He won't be able to drop his kid off at school or take her to the beach? What BS!

	26-04-2005 09:25									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If they want to keep these people away from places where children could be... they might as well keep them in prison... where you know everyone there is over 18.

	26-04-2005 09:25									#19
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Hey, why don't we extend it to drunk drivers on the roads! We are all helpless against the drunk drivers. I suggest passing a law prohibiting them from coming 50 feet of a roadway.

We restrict their driving privileges and do so increasingly if they re-violate. But since people understand many people do drive drunk and do so without hurting anyone we know there is a big difference between a drunk driver and a child molester who leaves at least 1 victim everytime they violate the law and that victim is likely messed up the rest of their life even if they dont get murdered.

	26-04-2005 09:26									#20
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I dunno... I'm gonna sound like a libertarian here but if we keep on legislating against everything that poses a potential danger... well, I think we've got problems.

	26-04-2005 09:29									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: We restrict their driving privileges and do so increasingly if they re-violate. But since people understand many people do drive drunk and do so without hurting anyone we know their is a big difference between a drunk driver and a child molester who leaves at least 1 victim everytime they violate the law and that victim is likely messed up the rest of their life even if they dont get murdered.

Yes, we restrict their driving privileges, but we DON'T say they can't go certain places. They have the right to travel, just not driving themselves.

Many people also drink and drive and hurt others. Maybe not every time, but they are inherantly unsafe on the road. Furthermore, child molesters actually have lower recidivism rates than other criminals (IIRC, it was a stat put up on another one of these debates not long ago). Therefore, we should be more confident when letting them go that they will not repeat offend.

	26-04-2005 09:32									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Drunk drivers have made a choice to break the law by willingly drinking and then driving... however they are not prohibited from ever driving again. A convicted sex offender goes to the beach. At most we can say he's chosen to go for a swim... it cannot be said that he has chosen to offend.

	26-04-2005 09:33									#23
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II If they want to keep these people away from places where children could be... they might as well keep them in prison... where you know everyone there is over 18.

Precisely. The point of prison to keep society safe from the criminal, and to repay the criminal's debt to society. When the criminal is released, that is an acknoweldgement that the debt has been paid. All the laws that then try to make ex-prisoners second class citizens operate under the assumption that they are still in debt to society. And that is stupid. If they still are in debt to society, they should still be in prison.

All this backdoor stuff is pointlessly devious and underhanded. I don't think that many people would be opposed to harsher sentences to (child) sex offenders. Just, once they're released, let them live.

	26-04-2005 09:36									#24
	Support Apolyton

Sick society that protects its sex offenders instead of its children. Those who advocate such crap are out of their minds. I'm just sickened, and done with this thread.

	26-04-2005 09:40									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Yes, we restrict their driving privileges, but we DON'T say they can't go certain places. They have the right to travel, just not driving themselves.

Thats right, they cant get behind a wheel and drive - a restriction on what they can do. And they didn't molest a kid, they drove drunk. Lotsa people have done that and learned their lesson and stop driving drunk and their privileges are restored. Compare recidivism rates and compare the nature of the crimes, they dont support your analogy.

	26-04-2005 09:42									#26
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Sick society that protects its sex offenders instead of its children.

Sick society that denies that some of its populace may actually have rights after they've served their time.

Hell, the US protects pornographers instead of children (children may see the porn!! OMG!!). Does that sicken you as well, oh moral crusader?

	26-04-2005 09:45									#27
	Support Apolyton

quote: Thats right, they cant get behind a wheel and drive - a restriction on what they can do. And they didn't molest a kid, they drove drunk. Lotsa people have done that and learned their lesson and stop driving drunk and their privileges are restored. Compare recidivism rates and compare the nature of the crimes, they dont support your analogy

Drunk drivers are also caught FAR less. Many people have, after being convicted of drunk driving, continued to do so and just haven't been caught. In fact, I indirectly know some.

The restriction is simply on driving the car. They can still go wherever. Driving a car is a privilege, that is why you need a license. When going to the beach or near a school requires 'papers' like the old Soviet Union, then maybe you can convince me that traveling is a privilege as well (instead of a right, as it is in the US).

	26-04-2005 09:45									#28
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm halfway against registering sex offenders. I understand it, but really, isn't it safer and better for everyone to assume that there is a sex offender living near them? However, not being a sex offender, I'm for it.

Banning them from the beach? So they will be able to tell sex offenders by their pasty white skin?

ACK!

	26-04-2005 09:49									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Banning them from the beach? So they will be able to tell sex offenders by their past white skin?

British tourists would be in for a nasty surprise...

	26-04-2005 09:55									#30
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Drunk drivers have made a choice to break the law by willingly drinking and then driving... however they are not prohibited from ever driving again. A convicted sex offender goes to the beach. At most we can say he's chosen to go for a swim... it cannot be said that he has chosen to offend.

If that drunk driver keeps violating the law they do lose their license for more and more time, permanently would be fine. Thats based on our observation they keep repeating the crime - high recidivism rate. There's a high recidivism rate among molesters, and the nature of the two crimes mixes apples and oranges.

quote: When the criminal is released, that is an acknoweldgement that the debt has been paid. All the laws that then try to make ex-prisoners second class citizens operate under the assumption that they are still in debt to society. And that is stupid. If they still are in debt to society, they should still be in prison.

Why is prison the only way to repay that debt? How about a combination of jail and a less limited access to society?