Megan's Law

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't know how it is in New York, but in my neck of the woods, felons have additional punishment, such as not being able to vote.

And I am totally against these laws as well.

[DanS]

Which is totally absurd.

But something that is specifically contemplated by the constitution (from an amendment specifically designed to guard civil rights, no less!). You have to hold that position in order for your overall position to be consistent.

[Sava]

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

If people commit crimes like that, then they should be prosecuted. We shouldn't suppress information that is public record just because of fear. Do you want fear to dictate your actions? THE TERROISTS HJAVE WON!!#!@#

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No one knows the answer to my question?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


No, thats an arguement for whether it should be done for ANY crime.

and i dont see why the punishment should be life imprisonment. The person MIGHT be cured - some parents just dont want to take the chance, and want to be able to warn their kid to stay away.

Its not up to parents to decide that- a trial decided that. Society said the person has paid their dues. If parents want to be vigilant, then do a search on every neighbor,it will cost you a few bucks, but you can easily do it, and find out everything about them, everything using a private system. This is about what the State states the problem remaining is.

What if i dont know the name of every neighbor? what if when i ask, they lie about their name? What if I fear than when I ask, they will respond by targeting me?

Look society said they paid their dues, by saying that the crime warrants imprisonment for x years. Society ALSO said, via the legislature, that there should be a database that makes it easy to find them. Thats what society did, and so it IS up to the parents to decide that, based on what society has allowed. Youre saying society SHOULDNT decide that.

You dont like punishments other than incarceration? People are sentenced to alternative punishments all the time. When youre convicted you lose the right to certain freedoms everyone else has. Society CAN choose to deny you all freedoms (well almost all) by incarcerating you - or they may choose to limit some.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


You don;t have the right to refuse to let someone into a neighborhood unless its a cooperative neighborhood in which all share holders have a right decide who buys shares. The very fact you said this shows WHY this law is wrong- its tramples on basic rights, like the right of free association, and freedom of movement, as well as property rights.

it doesnt prevent you from moving, or associating with anyone who wishes to associate with you. all it does is provide people with more information about you - granted other people dont have information handed out by the state about them, but thats the consequence of this particular crime.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


What if i dont know the name of every neighbor? what if when i ask, they lie about their name? What if I fear than when I ask, they will respond by targeting me?

Its not up to the state to make up for your fear.

Look society said they paid their dues, by saying that the crime warrants imprisonment for x years. Society ALSO said, via the legislature, that there should be a database that makes it easy to find them. Thats what society did, and so it IS up to the parents to decide that, based on what society has allowed. Youre saying society SHOULDNT decide that.

I am saying society was wrong to do so- that we need to be consistent, and not undermine the rights we have- society will elect a despot if given a chance, driven by fear. I am talking of upholding the rights that keep despotism away, even in the face of fear.

You dont like punishments other than incarceration? People are sentenced to alternative punishments all the time. When youre convicted you lose the right to certain freedoms everyone else has. Society CAN choose to deny you all freedoms (well almost all) by incarcerating you - or they may choose to limit some.

Yes, society can-its not a question of capability, iots a question of whether that is consistent with the rights and pricinples we claim are the foundation of our society. I don't think this is, at all, nor do I think disfranchising felons is right either. I don;t care if epople out of fear or loathing want to do this- people will do terrible things out of fear and loathing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it doesnt prevent you from moving, or associating with anyone who wishes to associate with you. all it does is provide people with more information about you - granted other people dont have information handed out by the state about them, but thats the consequence of this particular crime.

And what's the use of the information? If you have already done the time, why should anyone know? Why should they "take precautions"? To do so is to assume a lingering danger- if that is true, why put the person back on the streets? What state puts people dangerous enough that everyone must know about them back on the street? Seems to me a negligent state does that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Its not up to the state to make up for your fear.

Look society said they paid their dues, by saying that the crime warrants imprisonment for x years. Society ALSO said, via the legislature, that there should be a database that makes it easy to find them. Thats what society did, and so it IS up to the parents to decide that, based on what society has allowed. Youre saying society SHOULDNT decide that.

I am saying society was wrong to do so- that we need to be consistent, and not undermine the rights we have- society will elect a despot if given a chance, driven by fear. I am talking of upholding the rights that keep despotism away, even in the face of fear.



Yes, society can-its not a question of capability, iots a question of whether that is consistent with the rights and pricinples we claim are the foundation of our society. I don't think this is, at all, nor do I think disfranchising felons is right either. I don;t care if epople out of fear or loathing want to do this- people will do terrible things out of fear and loathing.

Fear is sometimes rational, and rational measures can be taken in response. Fear is not always bad, nor is it incompatible with a free society.

Incarcerating people without reason is despotism. Incarerating those who have commited a crime need not lead to despotism. Denying the vote without reason is despotism. Denying the vote to those who have commited a crime need not lead to despotism. I do not see one as necessarily more despotic than the other.


IF we tell people that democracy CANNOT do things that to them are abundantly rational and simple (like letting them know easily which of their neighbors is an ex-child molestor, and so whom to tell the children to be wary of) then that WILL undermine democracy.

You dont like fear. Fine. Not every one agrees, or should. I dont think public policy can or should be made based on a transvaluation of emotional states.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And what's the use of the information? If you have already done the time, why should anyone know? Why should they "take precautions"? To do so is to assume a lingering danger- if that is true, why put the person back on the streets? What state puts people dangerous enough that everyone must know about them back on the street? Seems to me a negligent state does that.

a danger thats too low to justify incarceration, but is still higher than for the average individual.

Ever hire a baby sitter GePap? Would you hire someone you knew to be an ex child molestor whod "done their time"? If there is no further danger, why not? Danger isnt binary, there are different levels of risk.

[Whaleboy]

It is not vigilantism. Parole board members are human and can make mistakes in evaluating whether a sex offender has truly reformed and is eligible for parole.

Theoretical negligence on the part of parole boards is no justification for applying this idea to all who are released from jail.

Why would you tend toward secrecy in this case?

This isn’t a tendency toward secrecy, it’s a tendency toward common sense and reason. You take a community of normal people, and tell them one in their midst was a SEX OFFENDER!!!! Oh and by the way he’s served his debt to society, context of crime and govt. doesn’t consider him a threat, what’s going to happen to the said innocent citizen?

If you had children you would feel differently about this matter.

That’s precisely why parents or the victims shouldn’t have a monopoly on deciding the judicial course of action. The symbol for justice is a set of scales, and is so for a very good reason .

LOTM: Either way, I assume they committed a felony. Why is it in the state's interest to tend toward secrecy about a conviction presumably prosecuted at considerable expense to the state?

Can’t answer for LOTM and I answered your point about secrecy, it is about a state having a responsibility to protect it’s citizens from attack, retribution or a known threat. If the state deems that they need to be punished further, then they should remain in prison. Being in public presupposes that they have paid their debt and are no longer a threat. Of course it doesn’t always work out that way, which is an endictment on the very people that introduce Megan’s Law, which is “incompetence but oh well we’ll let the mob sort it out”. Because that’s what’s going to happen, people are naïve and frankly a little stupid if they think this information is only going to be used by scared mothers to alter the routes they take their kids to school.

It's for the community to judge whether the felon should be integrated into the society, not the state.

What? That sort of logic tends to popularism, so it’s right if it’s popular. So if someone was done for witchcraft or homosexuality or something that belies the understanding, sympathies or inclinations of the majority, they should be made to suffer where it is either not illegal or in this case they have paid their debt to society?

What's wrong with using the power of shame to help enforce the laws? It's used all the time in small towns and rural areas across the nation. Arrested for DUI? You will have your name in the local paper the next day -- everybody knows it.

The use of shaming tactics works by making the offender realise that he has responsibility for his action. Firstly, that only works where there is no personal risk to the offender, secondly it is used as the, or part of punishment. If someone has been released from prison, then surely their punishment is over.

LOTM: Further, why should he be accorded more privacy just because he moved somewhere where people didn't know him or what he did?

Why does the individual have a right to protection from murder or other harm where there is grounds to expect such a threat?

Liberals are supposed to want information to be made available to the public.

Generally, liberals would prefer a tolerant society and move away from vigilantism.

Yes, and they should be able to know my criminal history.

The only exception I would make is for juvenile offenders.

Why? If you differentiate between juvies and adults then presumably that’s because of the capacity to change from a potential criminal to a potential law abiding citizen. Is this not the idea behind releasing prisoners in the first place?

Secondly, the sheer quantity of prisoners in the USA would have an extremely negative effect on the housing market and accordingly consumer spending, so with that economic motivation, it just ain’t gonna happen .

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

If a parent is presented a threat to their children, you can bet they’d get the rope out. I know I would if people I love were threatened.

Of course. Why not?

Because logically ones criminal record has a similar status to ones health records, you could draw a particularly close analogy to mental health. By that logic, neighbours should be made aware if one has the flu or another infectious illness. That’s plainly absurd.

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!

This is not solely an American question, since there are strong calls for the analogous Sarah’s law in the UK. Should the laws for the majority of the US population (IIRC, cities and suburbs) be centred around hillbillies? It’s a case of Schumachers “small is beautiful”, the principle you are espousing will simply fail, like all cases of applied Marxism (because that’s what it boils down to) on larger applications .

No one knows the answer to my question?

Remind me?

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?

The assumption that people will act intelligently is one of the most unintelligent assumptions one can make.

I think this is the most important thing. Enough information should be given so that some context can be inferred. I would always opt for more information from the file rather than less.

SEX OFFENDER!!!! insert technically correct discourse that will be ignored by the common man whereupon the words “sex”, “abuse”, “rape” and “children” etc. are mentioned

Which is totally absurd.

Seconded.

But something that is specifically contemplated by the constitution (from an amendment specifically designed to guard civil rights, no less!). You have to hold that position in order for your overall position to be consistent.

Actually no, it is down to you (burden of proof) to show how civil rights are guarded by this measure if you are a proponent of it, and then we can debate it. As it stands, my view is completely contrary that the idea of preventing felons from voting is absurd and has not been repeated to my knowledge in any other democracy, certainly not here.

If people commit crimes like that, then they should be prosecuted. We shouldn't suppress information that is public record just because of fear. Do you want fear to dictate your actions?

Fear relies on uncertainty, which certainly does not exist here. This isn’t speculation, this is something anyone with half a brain geared to history, psychology or sociology can understand.

Look society said they paid their dues, by saying that the crime warrants imprisonment for x years. Society ALSO said, via the legislature, that there should be a database that makes it easy to find them. Thats what society did, and so it IS up to the parents to decide that, based on what society has allowed. Youre saying society SHOULDNT decide that.

It seems prudent, I assume you are saying that “tossing you to the wolves, to be subjected to the whim of said wolves” is part of the punishment? I thought that kinda thing ended when Rome fell .

You dont like punishments other than incarceration? People are sentenced to alternative punishments all the time. When youre convicted you lose the right to certain freedoms everyone else has. Society CAN choose to deny you all freedoms (well almost all) by incarcerating you - or they may choose to limit some.

Yes but all are set and discrete, otherwise they can fluctuate, vary and become inconsistent. Remember the scales concept of justice?

Fear is sometimes rational, and rational measures can be taken in response. Fear is not always bad, nor is it incompatible with a free society.

Sorry, not going to work there, it certainly is no basis for ruining someone’s life

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Fear is sometimes rational, and rational measures can be taken in response. Fear is not always bad, nor is it incompatible with a free society.

Incarcerating people without reason is despotism. Incarerating those who have commited a crime need not lead to despotism. Denying the vote without reason is despotism. Denying the vote to those who have commited a crime need not lead to despotism. I do not see one as necessarily more despotic than the other.

You are branding people as criminals for life- what is the point of prison then? Why not cut hands off, or tatoo letters on people? The question is, can someone pay their dues to society, and how can they do so. We as a society have said that i you commit a crime, you do time. The assumption being your debt to society is paid off by that act. Once you are out, you are free. Things like Megans Law, or taking away the vote say there is NO paying your due-you are always guilty, your rights shall forever be limited. If you trully think a person deserves lifelong denial of basic rights, or a scarlet letter with them for life, then what is the point of the prison system?

Its hypocrasy- its medieval and barbaric.

IF we tell people that democracy CANNOT do things that to them are abundantly rational and simple (like letting them know easily which of their neighbors is an ex-child molestor, and so whom to tell the children to be wary of) then that WILL undermine democracy.

Ours is NOT a democracy- we hold up certain rights to be so vital that not even a democratic assembly can;t take them away unless 2/3 of our representatives nationwide agree.

You dont like fear. Fine. Not every one agrees, or should. I dont think public policy can or should be made based on a transvaluation of emotional states.

Megans Law is the type of law built soley around fear, and not question of just or reasonable criminal policy.

[Whaleboy]

IF we tell people that democracy CANNOT do things that to them are abundantly rational and simple (like letting them know easily which of their neighbors is an ex-child molestor, and so whom to tell the children to be wary of) then that WILL undermine democracy.

Or, say, butchering an unpopular writer/artist/politician for the joys of the masses?

You dont like fear. Fine. Not every one agrees, or should. I dont think public policy can or should be made based on a transvaluation of emotional states.

It should account for it, but not be based for it. It should account for vigilantism and fear of the unknown, retribution and the nasty tendency of insular communities to feud. It should not be based on said emotions, leading to state-sponsored vigilantism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


a danger thats too low to justify incarceration, but is still higher than for the average individual.

Ever hire a baby sitter GePap? Would you hire someone you knew to be an ex child molestor whod "done their time"? If there is no further danger, why not? Danger isnt binary, there are different levels of risk.

A prudent consumer will check up on their possible employees. That is irrelevant to the discussion. A background check available through private companies will give you all the information you need.

And why is the danger higher!? The danger could only be higher is you are making an inference on the nature of what leads to being a sex offender, and that that is different from other crimes. If that is true, if the nature of a sex offender is inherently different, hence leading to a different level of inherent danger, then the states only obligation is to make the information available?? So the state should protect people indefinately from sex offenders, but only through church bulletins?

[Whaleboy]

We're also forgetting the danger of driving ex-cons underground, where they won't get support they need and so the risk of re-offending is higher. Ultimately, we can talk about retribution and justice, but if more kids and women get hurt, the conversation is kinda pointless, and prevention *is* better than cure. Megans law