Megan's Law

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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?

LOTM -costs to the individual would be greater, for no marginal benefit. One is a prudent act, the other is not. Nice rhetorical trick, though.

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.

LOTM -we as a society HAVE NOT said that. You WANT us to say that.

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?


LOTM - thats a very large issue, with many debatable answers. Some of which absolutely DONT involve questions of debt to society. Whatever the purpose is, I dont see why that means you shouldnt do some prudent like this.

Its hypocrasy- its medieval and barbaric.

LOTM - its done by non-Greek speakers. Check.

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.

LOTM - This happens NOT to violate any of those.

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

LOTM - according to you. According to its advocates, it would enable parents to take reasonable prudential steps.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

If, as you imply, there is NO danger once someone is released, then its NOT prudent to limit hiring based on a prior criminal record. If you would make such a check it implies that you believe there IS still a danger.

[Whaleboy]

LOTM - according to you. According to its advocates, it would enable parents to take reasonable prudential steps.

Yes but according to the advocates of Nazism, we should all be talking German right now. Would you, as a parent, take reasonable steps in this situation? What if you have the joyous glories of "group-think" to play with? You'd really need kids of your own or at least younger siblings to understand this.

If, as you imply, there is NO danger once someone is released, then its NOT prudent to limit hiring based on a prior criminal record. If you would make such a check it implies that you believe there IS still a danger.

Not really... you might be a little annoyed that your neighbour killed a couple of geraniums with his lawnmower, felt angry, decided to look him up... oh look here! He was convicted of sleeping with a 15 year old when he was 17....

A wide postcode-based check ignores that of course, previous arguments about fear stand.

[Shi Huangdi]

I think that once somebody has completed their sentence, the state shouldn't take any further sanctions against them. I think it is important for rehabilitation that people be allowed to put their past life behind them.

[asleepathewheel]

Count me as against Megan's law. If the government is truly afraid of recidivism, then they should do something about them in a court of law, not increase punishment through back door methods, which the US loves to do.

If it must be in place, then I would argue only the most heinous be placed on it, and that it be at the discretion of the judge, not a mandatory penalty, which I believe it likely is now. Judges are politicians, but I trust them more than a bright line statutory test.

Also it must be limited to certain crimes. A rape while bad, should not be the focus of this. Only crimes against children, real crimes, should be included. Judicial discretion would help eliminate listings for things like statutory rapes between boyfriends and girlfriends of disparate ages or even similarly aged minors. Keep it to a minimum.

Is the penal code's purpose punitive or rehabilitative? Philosophy perhaps, but that is where the answer for you lies.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


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?

there is significant evidence that sex offenders are criminals for life

JM

[Japher]

I think that is true for a lot of crimes, Jon. Look at what ppl are in for the 3 strikes law. Mostly theft, but assault and murder as well.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


there is significant evidence that sex offenders are criminals for life

JM

depends on the definition of sex offender.

In some people's views, some of our peers here are sex offenders

[korn469]

I think what this boils down to is the intention of the law. To me Megan's Law seems punative, and if extending the punishment for sex offenders is the primary purpose of this law, then I think they should repeal it. Judges have to rely on sentencing guidelines for the most part to determine punishment for any given crime, because it seems that our system of justice implies that similar crimes deserve similar sentences. This prevents judges from sentencing speeders to death or giving murders a ten dollar fine. Megan's law lacks any structured punishment, so some registered sex offenders might not experience any negative reactions while other might get lynched. This disparity seems like proper grounds for overturning the law.

If the law doesn't have a punative purpose, then it seems logical that only people who are at higher risk should have access to the list. So I think in that case they should take it off of the internet, and take it back to the police office. Parents could still have complete access to all of the information about offenders in their area, and people who don't need the information wouldn't have it. Also they should rank the offenders on basis of danger. A person who takes a piss in public doesn't deserve the same scrutiny as a man who rapes a ten year old.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


there is significant evidence that sex offenders are criminals for life

JM

Fine, give them life in prison then.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If, as you imply, there is NO danger once someone is released, then its NOT prudent to limit hiring based on a prior criminal record. If you would make such a check it implies that you believe there IS still a danger.

Sorry, wrong. Employers are given huge latitude in hiring and firing- based on their rights. You keep bringing this up, and its utterly irrelevant: Am eployer has the right to say NO- that does not interfere with the right of a ex-convict to not have to sign on a government watch list essentially.

This is a red herring at best-at worst, an unimportant tangent.

[GePap]

LOTM -costs to the individual would be greater, for no marginal benefit. One is a prudent act, the other is not. Nice rhetorical trick, though.

Since when in this thread have you said anything about the rights of the convicted?? As for "marginal" benefit, its immense- everyone would know instantly that someone had a criminal past-think how great that is to keep the children safe....

LOTM -we as a society HAVE NOT said that. You WANT us to say that.

Sorry, but only one kind of crminal offense has been penalized as we are discussing- obviously SOCIETY HAS SAID THAT, but made an exception out of fear for one category of crimes- I think that is wrong.

LOTM - thats a very large issue, with many debatable answers. Some of which absolutely DONT involve questions of debt to society. Whatever the purpose is, I dont see why that means you shouldnt do some prudent like this.

It would be endlessly more prudent to keep them in jails, or institutions- why do you support half-asses prudency?

LOTM - according to you. According to its advocates, it would enable parents to take reasonable prudential steps.

You and every American is free to pay a company to spy on all your neighbors and know what websites they visit even- the state is not here to make things easy for you to be "prudent"- its there to protect the health and safety of its citizens and their rights: laws like Megan's law violate those aims:it either tramples on rights, or fails to protect the public enough. Half-assed safety vs half-assed civil protections- I say, gtet rid of it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

You know what's going to kill programs like this?

Eventually, somebody is going to sue the state of California, claiming that the state's disclosure of sex offenders living in their neighborhood caused property values to decline. And that will be the end of Megan's law, because this is America.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
You know what's going to kill programs like this?

Eventually, somebody is going to sue the state of California, claiming that the state's disclosure of sex offenders living in their neighborhood caused property values to decline. And that will be the end of Megan's law, because this is America.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Sava
death penalty for child molestors

yall are a buncha pussbags

its california, they never execute anybody.