Sex Offenders in your neighborhood?

Great post, mrp.

 

I dont see how you can say that if you have kids

Which leads me to your other statement...

The part you are leaving out is that most parents not only fear for their own children, they fear for children in general. When a parent turns on the news and sees a picture of Samantha Runnion on the local news...then the news cuts to a live scene of investigators peeking under a white sheet, that parent immediately thinks of what would they would be doing if God for bid, it was their child under that sheet.

I'm not saying that someone without children doesn't have the ability to feel the sorrow that I do. Its just different...I can;t explain it. I can say this with confidence because I know how I used to watch these reports in college...I was heartbroken but it was NOTHING like the hurt I feel now.

I don't know about the other parents on here, but I have a hard time even watching an ER episode if there is a sick child in it...let alone hearing about a Samantha Runnion or an Elizabeth Smart. I automatically picture my child in that situation and I have to turn the channel.

I just don't think that someone with a disinterested position in the matter can make a decision of what if the best way to deal with a child molester. Child molesters are even targets in prison for God sakes...rapists, murderes, etc aren't...child molesters are.

 

Cohen,
Notice that it's not required for ALL felonies, just sexual offenders. I wonder why?

An answer to this rhetorical question might go a long way to settling the dispute. Why does make sexual offenders special?

Their rights are apparently not violated, or the practice would be struck down by the courts.

I hope you aren't so naive as to think our court system is always right. Just because the Supreme Court hasn't invalidated the laws doesn't necessarily mean they aren't immoral, unethical and/or contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It means only that we have the green light to continue treating people the way we have.

They DID do something wrong.

They did something wrong and were put in prison for years. Then, when they are released, and sometimes decades after the crime, they're told, "oh, by the way, you have to wear this scarlett letter for the rest of your life. I know it wasn't mentioned in your sentence but it isn't really a punishment; really it is just an administrative deal." I've heard the legalistic argumentation that, imo, only obscures the subject. In its essence, this is punishment without trial.


If someone tries to hurt my daughter, I won't be reasonable.

Did I say that I was victimizing or persecuting anyone? I want to know what the threat level is. As Sonny said...damn.

I haven't beat or persecuted anyone.

As I already explained to Sonny, it wasn't my intent to insinuate something like that about you. I'm just having grammar problems. I'll refer you to my response to Sonny.

NJRocket, I see you are trying to argue your own point, but whenver I read your post I only see how it strengthens my own position. You say it creates a much stronger reaction within you to see children abused when you have some of your own. That says to me that you would legislate from an emotional response instead of taking a cool, rational approach that respected everybody's needs and tried to address all the problems. My feeling is that the latter is what we need in all facets of government. That you don't see how I can say (if I have children) I value the safety of ex-cons just as much as I value the safety of children disturbs me. Are you saying that ex-cons are less valuable? That they have less reason to live or to be allowed to live? That they are second-class citizens? I think your answers to these would be a sugar-coated 'yes.' I think our legislators feel the same way. That is why I'm complaining; because I don't think that is true.

 

They aren't allowed to vote, what do you think of that Juan? (I am not being sarcastic either)

Your response was valid and accepted. I understand your point, I just think that a non-biased group would not give the harshness needed to laws against sexual predators. I mean all predators, not just child molestors. Do you remove women from legislation just because they be more biased against rapist? Remove men because they may be less biased? Remove people with children because they would be more biased? Who is left to legislate?

 

Sorry, you gave me some more to respond to while I was posting.


I understand what you're saying.

For me, children = innocent and vulnerable. Ex-cons, neither.

I guess this is the crux of the disagreement and probably one where we won't be able to convince one another on. I'll give you that children are vulnerable. I don't see how someone with kids can say they are innocent. From my experience (ie, take with grain of salt), children are hampered in evil-doing only by their ability. After all, all these ex-cons were children once too.


Someone else might be making that argument, but I didn't and I don't think Sonny was either. RM95 mentioned it, and I see it as tangential to the discussion.

If it is a sidebar, quit saying things like, "No one with children would say something like that."

I thinks that's a ridiculous assertion. Although you apparently would like to exclude parents from the debate, we are the ones ultimately responsible for the safety of our children. It is common sense that parents communicate their concerns to legislators.

I wouldn't exclude parents from the debate. I'm just telling you that you should not belittle a man's opinion based on the number of children he has. Parents are responsible for their children and the government does have some responsibility to help parents. But, the government has other responsibilities as well, like guaranteeing civil rights and dispensing proper justice. They cannot sacrifice these other duties just to keep children safe.

Should felons be allowed to purchase guns?

If it is outlined in a felon's sentence that he is stripped of his right to own a gun, then he shouldn't be allowed to own one. That is due process. But, if no mention of it is made at sentencing, then it would be wrong to take away a Constitional right. Same with voting rights, though I think it is a mistake (despite being legal and proper) to take voting away from criminals.

I'll reiterate Sonny (though I only addressed it earlier in this same post) that I'm not arguing that some people's voice should be taken away because they are biased. Obviously, we can't operate like that. I was only reacting to an implication that people who don't have kids are not qualified to speak.

You bring up an interesting point though: parents form a huge, huge, huge voting block. Convicted sex criminals have no political power at all (because they are stripped of the right to vote). It is impossible for felons to get a fair shake like that. I guess this is what de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority."

 

I think the thin line of neighborhood paranoia here is the great beginning to a novel. It's a classic story, but no doubt, one that makes you pick and choose sides. Then change your mind. Then change it back. Good suspense potential. Easily translatable into a movie or a book. And just like the movie "signs", the ending could be good or bad. You just don't know.

 

You've made a good argument JV. I really like that you've highlighted the basic values which will prevent us from agreeing on this.

You've put civil rights of ex-cons ahead of potential harm to children. This is a principled stand. An essential right over a potential harm. I feel the potential harm is just far too great, and am willing to waive that 'right.'

We disagree that the sexual offender has repaid his debt. I believe that the prison sentence was one aspect of it, and that the 'scarlet letter' (as you say) is another. Very harsh, I know, but indicative of how serious I believe the offense was. This difference is likely why I lessen 'essential right' referenced above.

 

the courts tend to agree with you....this Double Jeopardy argument has been made over and over again, but as far as I've read, it's not a winner.

 

The fact is JV, for the past few years (im not exactly sure how many...it may be less), those who have been convicted of sexual offenses against children know when they commit the crime that they will have to register as a sex offender if and when they are released from prison. Megan's Law has been in play for a short while so the scumbags know full well what the repurcussions are if they make it back to the free world.

Based on your comments, I guess you would agree that it is ok to make them register in the community, right?

 

I have a couple questions.

What happens if someone is convicted of statuatory rape - say sex with a 15-year old - and they end up marrying that person down the road? Should they still be required to submit to the same database?

Is there any time limit to this? I mean, could a person convicted of rape be taken off the list in, say, 30 years if they don't do it again?

I guess my question really is how much latitude do the courts have in waiving the offender database punishment either for good behavior or for extenuating circumstances? Is this just mandatory no matter what the crime?

 

I agree there should be latitude. High risk only? Dangerous or violent offenders?? I don't know.

I also believe you should not just do away with these warnings "no matter what the crime."

 

If an older woman had fulfilled my fantasies when I was 16, I'd say the judge should exercise sentencing latitude. But then, if she was on the record books, at least other 16 year old boys would ... oh never mind. I can't even take a sex offender thread seriously!

 

I'm hesitant to bring the thread up again since it seems to have settled nicely in its grave, but since there were so many people who addressed me, that I thought I should respond before we bury it.

bnb, I think you've done a good job of getting to the heart of it: that I've taken an idealist approach and you've taken a pragmatic one. To settle that dispute, we'd have to resort to a conversation about the most fundamental things of life (different thread, I suppose).

Cohen, I was splitting blame between you and Sonny on that no-kids argument. There were other folks besides. But, since you've asked, I'll quote you.

After RM95 said,

you said,

Apparently, you weren't sure if you were clear, but you seem to be implying here that RM95' claim that having nephews and nieces were good enough credentials is not true. I think you did belittle RM95's contribution by saying "there's no comparing them to your own child." I also did belittle the contribution's of parents as a response to this treatment by you, Sonny, and NJRocket (who didn't get mention before) to show that this sort of argumentation can easily cut both ways, so they (and you) should avoid using it.

As for your next point about incarceration, it goes in the same vein as gun-ownership and voting rights. The Constitution guarantees our rights will not be infringed upong without due process. When a person is convicted, the due process is satisfied. I would say, yes my major -- or at least first -- complaint is about grandfathering: rights are infringed upon without due process. Once (if ever) that was satisfied, my next beef would be: it is a decision that should be in the hands of the court to decide on a case-by-case basis as part of a person's punishment instead of a blanket policy established by the legislature.

Your last 2 points remind me why I'm arguing in the first place. That you don't understand that it is possible for a punishment to be too severe and that you seem to think tyranny is ok as long as it is only felons we're talking about scares me. I asked it of NJRocket, and I should probably ask you as well: do you think felons are second-class citizens?

NJRocket, I answered half your question in my response to Cohen, but I'll give you the rest of it. Grandfathering is only my first complaint. I think it should actually be considered unconstitutional to apply the resgistry retroactively. For recent convictions, I don't have that complaint. I think the registry is processed appropriately for those convicts. However, I still think it is a bad idea for all the reasons I have argued already in this thread. Additionally, I think it should be the domain of the judiciary to make these decisions (once given the power by the legislature) and not a blanket legislative policy that is blind to the specifics of a convict's case. (I know some registry systems have a ranking to determine the degree of threat, and thereby the method of handling. However, though it involves the judiciary, it is still an act of the legislature.) These, however, are merely complaints about governance and policy and besides the main point. The main point is this: (1) Retroactivity is unconstitutional, imo and (2) the whole system is, in its essence, an unjust (even if properly legislated) persecution of criminals for the benefit of others.

Jeff, I wish I had some answers for you, but I don't. My gut feeling is that both your hypotheticals would take a lot of legal work to get a person's name off the list. Before anyone argues with me about this, I will say it is an issue of policy and doesn't greatly concern me. Every system could use tweaking.

 

In DC they list the crime by it's legal "Rating" and from that you can determine how serious the offense was.