Megan's Law

[GePap]

Originally posted by bfg9000



Good idea. Until we can effect that change in the law, however, we should be thankful that Megan's Law is in place to aid us in the protection of our children.

Except it does not do so. If you care about your kids so much, make sure to investigate all your neighbors.

[Whaleboy]

bfg, if Megans law is the conclusion of a failure in the penal system, we should lament that failure and the governments resorting to popular viglantism in order to solve it .

(Furthermore to my arguments that Megans law is actually detrimental to children's safety, to which I add the notion that while a community is busy conducting a witchhunt, it's back is turned to any abuse that may be going on at that moment)

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by GePap


Except it does not do so. If you care about your kids so much, make sure to investigate all your neighbors.

People are innocent until proven guilty. With regards to your childs interaction with the neighbors, treat the innocent ones with a healthy degree of caution and the guilty ones with a healthy degree of suspicion. I dont need to investigate the innocent ones. I'm satisfied with the government providing me information on the whereabouts of the guilty ones who have a track record of violent antisocial behavior directed at children.

Just try for 30 seconds to imagine that you have complete responsibility for another human life. Imagine that human is weak, defenseless, and suggestable. Consider what obstacles you face on a daily basis trying to raise that human to adulthood. You would welcome any help the government can give in identifying those who would interfere with your guardianship of such a person.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
bfg, if Megans law is the conclusion of a failure in the penal system, we should lament that failure and the governments resorting to popular viglantism in order to solve it .

(Furthermore to my arguments that Megans law is actually detrimental to children's safety, to which I add the notion that while a community is busy conducting a witchhunt, it's back is turned to any abuse that may be going on at that moment)

I believe incidents of vigilantism are isolated and not the norm. At least in the US. You are overreacting the UK story you mentioned earlier and posts from trolls like Sava which support this idea of "witchhunts". Is that the extent of your proof of vigilantism?

BTW, you said in your OP that you can see "both sides" of this issue. It appears to me that you are entirely against this type of law. Did you change your mind?

[Whaleboy]

Well I can only speak about what would and has happened in the UK, if things are less violent in the US then it's commendable (but time will surely tell), though the logic of self-policing still applies against Megans Law. Sarah's law in the UK would be a completely disaster of course.

BTW, you said in your OP that you can see "both sides" of this issue. It appears to me that you are entirely against this type of law. Did you change your mind?

I didn't make the OP . For the record, I can see both sides of the issue, and as I've said, if anyone ever threatened my brothers, or a sex offended moved into my street, he'd find himself in hospital pretty quickly. I understand the need to protect children, I understand the failings of the justice system and I do my best to understand the mindset of paedophiles and violent people, but I also understand the counter argument, and in my mind, the argument against Megans/Sarah's law is far stronger, and the consequences are something I find rather terrifying as a fan of justice, hence my passion.

[Boris Godunov]

I just find the law unneccessary. As has been mentioned, you can obtain all this information as a matter of public record. Just go do background checks on your neighbors, if you're that paranoid.

I seriously doubt this law will save anyone from harm, but will likely cause a lot of unneccessary grief to some people whose debt to society has been paid. Especially since it's not just child molestors here, but any "sex offender." That term is woefully imprecise and vague.

[Whaleboy]

Indeed that's the worse thing.... most people aren't aware of necessary and sufficient conditions... you mention a group that paedophiles are part of (sex offenders) and suddenly everyone in that group (the 17 year old who slept with someone a month under 16) becomes a paedophile .

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I just find the law unneccessary. As has been mentioned, you can obtain all this information as a matter of public record. Just go do background checks on your neighbors, if you're that paranoid.

And if you live in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, go outside everyday during hurricane season and search the horizon for hurricanes because the government is not responsible to give you warning when a hurricane is upon you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bfg9000
And if you live in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, go outside everyday during hurricane season and search the horizon for hurricanes because the government is not responsible to give you warning when a hurricane is upon you.

Unless one is a meteorological expert, searching for hurricanes in such manner is not particularly helpful. One need not be a criminal law expert to check out the backgrounds of your neighbors, just know where the courthouse is. Not a very good analogy.

Besides, hurricanes aren't living beings whose rights and safety we have to consider. Not to mention the interest of the government in warning people about them is of an entirely different nature.

How about we don't just limit the database to people convicted of sex offenses, but to anyone accused of sex offenses? I mean, that would be even more helpful, because no doubt certain offenders got off on technicalities or due to slick lawyers and such, right?

And it's not as if the government isn't "warning" people in the sense that the information is supposedly there and available to anyone who asks. But why the double standard? Why not for all criminal convictions? Even violations? Theoretically, you, my neighbor, could be a threat to my child because of that DUI you got 15 years ago. I don't want my kids going near a drunk driver. Guess we better establish a registry and have your name on it!

[Whaleboy]

And if you live in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, go outside everyday during hurricane season and search the horizon for hurricanes because the government is not responsible to give you warning when a hurricane is upon you.

A poor analogy. Asides from the obvious conscious free-will problems, ex-cons have rights, furthermore they have been punished. You are using the presumption that they will reoffend. If they are a risk, they should not be released, but the change that needs to occur is in the penal system, not to introduce ML.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


We don't execute every retarded. It is just that for some crimes, we punish even though the person is retarded (doesn't mean that they don't know wrong from right).

That will be a relief for all American mental defectives, I'm sure.

[korn469]

Does anyone have any before and after statistics on recidivisim rates of sexual offenders for states that enacted Megan's Law type statues? It seems like if recidivism rates held constant then the laws aren't effective. Because if they truly worked wouldn't a higher awarness of possible dangers cause the community to lower the oppertunity for committing the crimes, and thus effect the rate?

Also DanS I disagree with the small town mindset warding off crime. One of my ex-girlfriends came from a town that had per-capita the highest murder rate in the state of Virginia one year, (three murders and maybe a population of 1,000 people). I have lived in many small towns and never bothered to get to know my neighbors or get involved in any of their gossip. Plus, the county I grew up in has some of the highest rates of property crimes in Virginia because of OxyCotin. Big deal if every in town knows certain people use drugs...that does little to stop anything.

[Sprayber]

Megan's Law was enacted to make people feel better as are many of the laws that states pass. The states pass these laws in waves. One state does it and suddenly every state has to have one. Same with the anti-terror laws that swept the nation. A far better solution is to keep these people in some kind of state institution for the rest of their life. I don't feel the need to give these people a second chance and I won't lose any sleep over them staying in prision until they die. Until that happens I won't shed any tears for these people having to register and face the shame and sometimes violence of the population at large either. If someone is found to have targed these people with violence then there are laws on the books for that to and they should be prosecuted to the full extent allowed just like the pedophile was.



One question I would like to ask is if anyone thinks that convicted pedophiles should be barred from living in certain areas that are close to children?

[SpencerH]

These types of laws are useless. Their only use is to assuage legislative guilt. The public is no more safe with this kind of info than without unless they take matters into their own hands and impose the sentences on these scum (castration and/or death -whichever comes first) that should have been carried out in the first place.

[Whaleboy]

Sprayber, I agree but I lament any law which opens the door to vigilantism.