Megan's Law

[Japher]

why do you oppose someone simply making a list of certain types of offenders?

It's not "someone" it's the government. This isn't like the list of cops who kill gang members people put out. This encourages vigilantees, and makes it easy for someone to get "revenge" or "justice". IMO, it is a nice idea, but it can potentially endanger someone whose debt to society has already been filled.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
IIRC, one's juvenile records are already sealed. I just support the status quo. People do dumb things when they are kids. It shouldn't be held against them.

But obviously the most heinous crimes should be treated differently.

You mean like a 25 year old going out with a 17 year old? That is covered under Megan's Law as well, you know.

But, in the end, I believe that if your serve your time, you shouldn't be further punished.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DanS
Of course. Why not?

Cause they served their time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What are you talking about? Did your friend have to sign a registry by law so that everyone in the neighborhood would know what he did and know if he moved, and if he had moved, would everyone living there been informed of his infracture?

If not, then he had far more privacy than a sex-offender, pedophile or not, gets.

Everyone who mattered to him knew, and his street address was not a concern (though they could certainly have found when he bought his house, since that too is public record - they could even find how much he paid for it)

And btw, the neighbors arent informed unless they choose to search the database.

[DanS]

This is just too damn bizarre position to take. You have no right to privacy for crimes committed as an adult. None! Even if you think you have that right, none will be accorded to you.

Y'all have lived in cities for far too long!

[Imran Siddiqui]

You shouldn't be put into a position where the government is basically encouraging vigilanteeism. You should have a right to privacy against that!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Cause they served their time.

That is irrelevant to this discussion. These criminals aren't being punished again. They are free. Obviously, public record of their crime is part of the deal. It isn't an additional punishment.

[Kuciwalker]

No one knows the answer to my question?

[Imran Siddiqui]

These criminals aren't being punished again. They are free. Obviously, public record of their crime is part of the deal. It isn't an additional punishment.

That's silly. Of course they are being punished again.

You don't think that sex offenders get beaten up or constantly humilated by their neighbors when they find out the information?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

So its ok to put it in the paper, and ok for the paper to have a searchable database. But if the STATE has a searchable database, thats a violation? Theyre violating privacy by making it easy to find something thats already a matter of public record (unlike, say, medical records)?

Papers should have the right to anounce convictions, yes, freedom of press. The state also has all the criminal records of an invidiual, so on this point, the state and the individual citizen are equal. That is NOT the issue- you commit a crime, and everyone in your hometown will know.

The issue is this: imagine your friend, wanting to rebuild his life, decided to start fresh and move- he gets to a new town, and is told he has to sign a register that will be made public to tell everyone what his crime is. Murderers, arsonists, war criminals, burglars, robbers, none of these people have to, but YOU do. That is the issue, the fact that one type of crime is singled out for special, extra punishment. If people honestly believe pedophilia is either an unforgivable act, or inherently uncurable (if it is a disease), then make the punishment life.

Seems to me this is less about privacy than about the assumption that parents of kids are loonies who will lynch ex child molestors.

This is a valid issue-note the very discussion on the thread- what is the issue of knowing? Why not demand the same information about murderers? Burglars? Robbers?

A problem technology has given us. I dont see the answer as at all clear.

Technology did not create a law that demands behavior different from sex offenders than form all other types of criminals. If I kill a man, I can move and don't need to tell every one of my neighbors I am a convicted murderer.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You shouldn't be put into a position where the government is basically encouraging vigilanteeism. You should have a right to privacy against that!

So because some loon MIGHT commit an act of vigilantism, I shouldnt be able to tell my kid to be particularly wary of a particular individual? How about we assume people will act intelligently, and then if someone commits an act of vigilantism, we prosecute them and send them to prison?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Everyone who mattered to him knew, and his street address was not a concern (though they could certainly have found when he bought his house, since that too is public record - they could even find how much he paid for it)

And btw, the neighbors arent informed unless they choose to search the database.

depends on the state. The point is there is no database for any other ex-convicts.

And the issue of your friend is irrelevant- for GODS SAKE he was a politician, of course everyone knew him! Thats the point of being a politician!

[DanS]

You should have a right to privacy against that!

Imran, this is a ridiculous position. By your argument, whenever any specific crime information is made public, the government is encouraging vigilanteeism and is punishing the perp twice.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


depends on the state. The point is there is no database for any other ex-convicts.

And the issue of your friend is irrelevant- for GODS SAKE he was a politician, of course everyone knew him! Thats the point of being a politician!

whereas the point of being a child molestor is to slink about in the shadows?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
This is just too damn bizarre position to take. You have no right to privacy for crimes committed as an adult. None! Even if you think you have that right, none will be accorded to you.

Y'all have lived in cities for far too long!