Megan's Law

[Imran Siddiqui]

By your argument, whenever any specific crime information is made public, the government is encouraging vigilanteeism.

Whenever there is a specific government database where child molestors are required to register, where as GePap said there is no such database for murderers, war criminals, etc, etc., then yes, the government is encouraging vigilanteeism. I bet that most of the politicians that make such a law don't give a crap if the people who are forced to register get beaten up. They probably feel that is fair.

[DanS]

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?

Hear, hear.

Whenever there is a specific government database where child molestors are required to register, where as GePap said there is no such database for murderers, war criminals, etc, etc., then yes, the government is encouraging vigilanteeism.

There should be such a database for other serious crimes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How about we assume people will act intelligently

Oh, you were being serious.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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

Your friends case is utterly irrelevant because:

1. He was a public figure-obviously his misdeeds will be in the public scrutiny more than a private citizens
2. The fact everyone knew was based on the very nature of his acts, and not on any law empossing something new.

As for your assertion- someone who gets out of prison after serving their time is a convicted offender, yes, BUT in the eyes of the system, they are now free-their action was in the past-they have payed their dues to society. To demand that they register themselves every time they move to keep track of their movements, and so that everyone else can do so is to state they ARE NOT free-that they are being watched, that their due to society has NOT been paid- why only for sex offenders? Is not murder the greatest crime? Yet murderers don;t have to do so- explain to me why sex offenders should be treated differently form all other criminals?

That is the issue.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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?



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.

Then thats an argument for including other crimes in this. I think including murder would make sense.

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.

Look, if you hire someone you can ask for their criminal record - if you dont like what you see you dont hire them. A parent cant go up to each person in the neighborhood and ask for their criminal record, and refuse them admission to the neighborhood on that basis. All they want is the information to take reasonable precautions. Reincarcerating the person is NOT a reasonable precaution.

And BTW, IF the state has the RIGHT to incarcerate for life WHY doesnt it have the right to impose particular post incarceration, and even post-parole conditions? Why is it obligated to incarcerate, if it sees a life long concern? Why cant there be a life long concern that doesnt require life long incarceration.?

[Arrian]

Does the list give any sort of detail on the conviction, or is everyone convicted of any sort of sex offense lumped in to the list w/o explanation?

If it's the later, the list doesn't seem likely to be of much use beyond scaring people.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Your friends case is utterly irrelevant because:

1. He was a public figure-obviously his misdeeds will be in the public scrutiny more than a private citizens
2. The fact everyone knew was based on the very nature of his acts, and not on any law empossing something new.

As for your assertion- someone who gets out of prison after serving their time is a convicted offender, yes, BUT in the eyes of the system, they are now free-their action was in the past-they have payed their dues to society. To demand that they register themselves every time they move to keep track of their movements, and so that everyone else can do so is to state they ARE NOT free-that they are being watched, that their due to society has NOT been paid- why only for sex offenders? Is not murder the greatest crime? Yet murderers don;t have to do so- explain to me why sex offenders should be treated differently form all other criminals?

That is the issue.

Fine, add murder to the statute.

[DanS]

As for your assertion- someone who gets out of prison after serving their time is a convicted offender, yes, BUT in the eyes of the system, they are now free-their action was in the past-they have payed their dues to society.

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There should be such a database for other serious crimes.

"serious" To be decided by you, right? Just felonies? Well I think some misdemenors are serious as well. How about we just put in a database EVERYONE'S crimes, no matter when they did it or what the penalty was. Then we could type in names and find out all we wanted.

How is someone who wants to reform themselves supposed to do so if his crime is guarenteed to follow him around everywhere?

[DanS]

Originally posted by Arrian
Does the list give any sort of detail on the conviction, or is everyone convicted of any sort of sex offense lumped in to the list w/o explanation?

If it's the later, the list doesn't seem likely to be of much use beyond scaring people.

-Arrian

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

felons have additional punishment, such as not being able to vote.

Which is totally absurd.

[DanS]

"serious" To be decided by you, right? Just felonies? Well I think some misdemenors are serious as well. How about we just put in a database EVERYONE'S crimes, no matter when they did it or what the penalty was. Then we could type in names and find out all we wanted.

If the dividing line was felonies only, I would be fine with that. If there was no dividing line at all, I would be fine with that as well.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS

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.

I'm actually not sure where I stand on the privacy debate you guys are having - I have to think about that more - so I figured I'd have a look at the practical side. And if it's just a big list w/o any sort of distinction between crimes, then that side doesn't look very good.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

There should be such a database for other serious crimes.

"serious" To be decided by you, right? Just felonies? Well I think some misdemenors are serious as well. How about we just put in a database EVERYONE'S crimes, no matter when they did it or what the penalty was. Then we could type in names and find out all we wanted.

How is someone who wants to reform themselves supposed to do so if his crime is guarenteed to follow him around everywhere?

Its a tradeoff. You balance the likely cost in rehabilitation against the benefits in precautions. Thats the legislatures job. Note that in the case of employment, we give the employer the right to ask for criminal records, and REFUSE to hire the individual, which probably has a more negative impact on self reform than all the parents asking their little tikes to avoid the ex child molestor. Its cause this is state action that theres an issue, NOT cause theres a problem with self reform.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Then thats an argument for including other crimes in this. I think including murder would make sense.

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.

Look, if you hire someone you can ask for their criminal record - if you dont like what you see you dont hire them. A parent cant go up to each person in the neighborhood and ask for their criminal record, and refuse them admission to the neighborhood on that basis. All they want is the information to take reasonable precautions. Reincarcerating the person is NOT a reasonable precaution.

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.

And BTW, IF the state has the RIGHT to incarcerate for life WHY doesnt it have the right to impose particular post incarceration, and even post-parole conditions? Why is it obligated to incarcerate, if it sees a life long concern? Why cant there be a life long concern that doesnt require life long incarceration.?

That is a fine question:

Ours is a system of rights- one of them is presumed innocence- there is a reason why a lot of time prior offenses are not allowed in as evidence, because each act is supposed to be seen as an individual action, unless the state can establish that they are all connected to one issue (like say, an incurrable pathology like being a sociopath). Forcing sex offenders to register is to say that they have some sort of pathology which is a public danger, without having actually determined that legally, and thus being forced to take concrete action. Its branding someone. Why not just tatoo it on their face? (and yes, I am very well aware of all the connotations of that statement, and its the very reason I use it)