 |
| |
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
I came in about halfway through the O'Reilly interview. As I understand the proposed law, it will keep convicted sex offenders 2500 feet (~ 1/2 mile) away from all schools, parks and other places where children gather.
The potential problem comes from the mayor's admission that this will leave only two very small areas within the city in which these people can live -- effectively banning them from the city. This "ban" is why O'Reilly thinks the ACLU will show up.
The ACLU makes it its task to defend the constitutional rights of the lowest of the low. Their theory is, if the rights of these vermin are protected, so will the rights of the rest of us.
I don't think the law has yet come to grips with child molestation. As I understand it, these people have a horrible record of repeat offenses. Thus, even when they've served their time and are released, they are ticking time bombs. Who wants their kid living next to an ex-con child molester. :sacred: Yet these people have the legal right to life somewhere.
The ugly truth is, if we can't develop some kind of effective psychological treatment, we need to either not release these people back into society or else to have some kind of chemical or actual castration.
Right at the end of the interview, the mayor threw in IMHO a great argument. Currently the city bans adult bookstores for anyplace within 1/2 mile of a school. Why should sex offenders be allowed closer to children than adult bookstores?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
I actually have the utmost respect for the ACLU. They are always the organization that defends the people that no one else cares about, they are always the organization that dares to question the establishment when others are silent. In the past, they have a tendency of being on the side of Justice in important cases. Scopes, after all, was represented by the ACLU. Typically, the people who are against them are the hypocrites, the people who like to talk about their support of freedom and liberty, but in the end actively try to suppress parts of freedom or liberty. And, despite the portrayal of some on the right, it is a nonpartisan organization. Bob Barr, the ultraconservative former representative from Georgia, currently works for the ACLU.
So, though this is only the topic of the title and not the thread, yes, the ACLU is good for America. And I worry about those who question its value.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
If that drunk driver keeps violating the law they do lose their license for more and more time, permanently would be fine. |
If they are caught. Much harder to catch a drunk driver. Hell, look at how many people get away with speeding.
quote:
Why is prison the only way to repay that debt? How about a combination of jail and a less limited access to society? |
Tell me, for drug offenders, would you say it was a good idea to sentance them to the same amount of jail time and then say they can't go in a certain area of the city when they get out for an undetermined time (until the judge says its ok... and who knows when that is)?
The reason the payment of the debt is only applicable to prisons is because keeping you from a certain area just extends your sentance beyond the maximum and is seriously overinclusive. What if you reform yourself and have a kid later... you can't drop them off at school?
quote:
As I understand it, these people have a horrible record of repeat offenses. |
Apparently their recidivism rates are very low compared to other crimes... especially other felonies.
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/public...ns/199670_e.asp
Although the long-term recidivism rates for the child molesters were substantial, the recidivism rates for the nonsexual criminals were even higher, 61% versus 83.2%, respectively, for any reconviction. That nonsexual criminals have higher recidivism rates than child molesters runs contrary to the common assumption that child molesters are a particularly high risk group of offenders.
quote:
the mayor threw in IMHO a great argument. Currently the city bans adult bookstores for anyplace within 1/2 mile of a school. Why should sex offenders be allowed closer to children than adult bookstores? |
It's not a good argument. Adult bookstores are prevented because of zoning laws. Once again, its a privilege to be allowed to open a commerical enterprise in the city. You can't just set up, say, a grocery shop in a residential area.
That's different than the Constitutional right to travel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
|
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Although the long-term recidivism rates for the child molesters were substantial, the recidivism rates for the nonsexual criminals were even higher, 61% versus 83.2%, respectively, for any reconviction. That nonsexual criminals have higher recidivism rates than child molesters runs contrary to the common assumption that child molesters are a particularly high risk group of offenders. |
Interesting stat. I would have guessed that it would be a lot higher. Still, a 2 out of 3 chances of repeating the act, isn't good. 
quote:
Adult bookstores are prevented because of zoning laws. Once again, its a privilege to be allowed to open a commerical enterprise in the city. You can't just set up, say, a grocery shop in a residential area. That's different than the Constitutional right to travel.
|
Bookstores trigger 1st Amendment concerns. IMHO, these are stronger than the "penumbra" right of travel -- or in this case, the right to live in the city of choice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Although the long-term recidivism rates for the child molesters were substantial, the recidivism rates for the nonsexual criminals were even higher, 61% versus 83.2%, respectively, for any reconviction. That nonsexual criminals have higher recidivism rates than child molesters runs contrary to the common assumption that child molesters are a particularly high risk group of offenders. |
I'll bet those numbers include consensual "crimes" mixed in with actual crime inflating the number. Busting some guy 15 times for drugs drives up the recidivism rate and no crime is ever committed (except to the drug user we keep jailing for exercising their freedom to use drugs). I'd be interested to see what the rate is for rapists and murderers. If its high they should have restrictions on them too, like keeping them in jail longer.
quote:
Um, no it isn't. That isn't a privilege, that is a right! You can't serve your full sentance and then the warden says we're going to keep you still behind bars. |
The full sentence includes restrictions once they're let out. That makes being let out a privilege, pedophiles dont have a constitutional right to be let out of jail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
If they hit someone they do. I'd imagine there are much more DUI accidents than child molestation cases. |
And if they leave behind a body, the punishment is much more severe. We're talking about drunk drivers, not drunks who kill people. That was your analogy...
quote:
Um... if it's in the criminal code, it's a crime. |
You think government created crime, I think government recognised crime and made laws... and mistakes. With your definition the government cant make a mistake, with mine, I can call slavery a crime based on natural rights. You have to defend it as not a crime because it was legal. Paraphrasing Lincoln, prohibition laws that seek to regulate a man's appetite makes a crime out of that which is not a crime.
quote:
Statutory maximums for sentencing. |
Why does this preclude restrictions on access to society less severe than jail? You aren't explaining that...
quote:
I think putting a collar on someone definetly qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment. |
You gotta be kidding, we put people to death in this country. We put 'em in cages with violent people too. Making Martha wear a collar to ensure house arrest is silly in her case, but hardly unconstitutional or cruel. Ask her if she'd rather be sitting in that cage or wearing that collar.
quote:
What happens is that the statutory max is 20 years for a type 1 felony. They serve 20 years, and then are forced to stay out of certain areas and notify people, etc, etc. They are being punished beyond the statitory maximum. |
And I said the punishment should change, we're not debating the constitutionality of expost facto legislation, we're debating if it would be unconstitutional to change the punishment for future offenders.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2005 09:55
ACK!
|