Is the ACLU good for America?

[Seeker]

I'm sure anyone who has ever done some Law school or even pre-law can tell you why the ACLU takes on these cases that can be viewed as 'morally repugnant', it's for the same reason that defence lawyers are necessary and indeed a noble calling, it's because enduring legal principles and precedent are more important than any one case or odious individual.

[Zkribbler]

I came in about halfway through the O'Reilly interview. As I understand the proposed law, it will keep convicted sex offenders 2500 feet (~ 1/2 mile) away from all schools, parks and other places where children gather.

The potential problem comes from the mayor's admission that this will leave only two very small areas within the city in which these people can live -- effectively banning them from the city. This "ban" is why O'Reilly thinks the ACLU will show up.

The ACLU makes it its task to defend the constitutional rights of the lowest of the low. Their theory is, if the rights of these vermin are protected, so will the rights of the rest of us.

I don't think the law has yet come to grips with child molestation. As I understand it, these people have a horrible record of repeat offenses. Thus, even when they've served their time and are released, they are ticking time bombs. Who wants their kid living next to an ex-con child molester. :sacred: Yet these people have the legal right to life somewhere.

The ugly truth is, if we can't develop some kind of effective psychological treatment, we need to either not release these people back into society or else to have some kind of chemical or actual castration.

Right at the end of the interview, the mayor threw in IMHO a great argument. Currently the city bans adult bookstores for anyplace within 1/2 mile of a school. Why should sex offenders be allowed closer to children than adult bookstores?

[Seeker]

I'm still in favour of the Arctic Exile option proposed in another thread.

[Admiral]

I actually have the utmost respect for the ACLU. They are always the organization that defends the people that no one else cares about, they are always the organization that dares to question the establishment when others are silent. In the past, they have a tendency of being on the side of Justice in important cases. Scopes, after all, was represented by the ACLU. Typically, the people who are against them are the hypocrites, the people who like to talk about their support of freedom and liberty, but in the end actively try to suppress parts of freedom or liberty. And, despite the portrayal of some on the right, it is a nonpartisan organization. Bob Barr, the ultraconservative former representative from Georgia, currently works for the ACLU.

So, though this is only the topic of the title and not the thread, yes, the ACLU is good for America. And I worry about those who question its value.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If that drunk driver keeps violating the law they do lose their license for more and more time, permanently would be fine.

If they are caught. Much harder to catch a drunk driver. Hell, look at how many people get away with speeding.

Why is prison the only way to repay that debt? How about a combination of jail and a less limited access to society?

Tell me, for drug offenders, would you say it was a good idea to sentance them to the same amount of jail time and then say they can't go in a certain area of the city when they get out for an undetermined time (until the judge says its ok... and who knows when that is)?

The reason the payment of the debt is only applicable to prisons is because keeping you from a certain area just extends your sentance beyond the maximum and is seriously overinclusive. What if you reform yourself and have a kid later... you can't drop them off at school?

As I understand it, these people have a horrible record of repeat offenses.

Apparently their recidivism rates are very low compared to other crimes... especially other felonies.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/199670_e.asp

Although the long-term recidivism rates for the child molesters were substantial, the recidivism rates for the nonsexual criminals were even higher, 61% versus 83.2%, respectively, for any reconviction. That nonsexual criminals have higher recidivism rates than child molesters runs contrary to the common assumption that child molesters are a particularly high risk group of offenders.

the mayor threw in IMHO a great argument. Currently the city bans adult bookstores for anyplace within 1/2 mile of a school. Why should sex offenders be allowed closer to children than adult bookstores?

It's not a good argument. Adult bookstores are prevented because of zoning laws. Once again, its a privilege to be allowed to open a commerical enterprise in the city. You can't just set up, say, a grocery shop in a residential area.

That's different than the Constitutional right to travel.

[Berzerker]

Drunk drivers are also caught FAR less. Many people have, after being convicted of drunk driving, continued to do so and just haven't been caught. In fact, I indirectly know some.

True, but we understand that once caught many learn their lesson because its so hard to have your driving privileges restricted to just driving to work and the local mart on the way home. Lower recidivism rate...much less severe crime...

The restriction is simply on driving the car.

And the restriction on the molester is staying away from children. Seems like a small request given how we gave them a second chance and let 'em out of jail. They're damn lucky for that...

Driving a car is a privilege.

So is being let out of jail after committing such a horrible offense.

When going to the beach or near a school requires 'papers' like the old Soviet Union, then maybe you can convince me that traveling is a privilege as well (instead of a right, as it is in the US).

You're equating innocent citizens with convicted child molesters, but national ID is on the way.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It seems the whole purpose to get sex offenders (and it seems it is child sex offenders here) to get out of the city entirely!!

Such laws are used against homeless people in cities which don't want to pay for shelters, drug treatment programs, or mental health care to treat the causes of homelessness. Instead they just try to make life intolerable for the undesirable group so that they move some where else.

That's not good but many people are like this mayor in Maimi and would just like it if the problem would go away and become someone else's problem.

[Zkribbler]

Although the long-term recidivism rates for the child molesters were substantial, the recidivism rates for the nonsexual criminals were even higher, 61% versus 83.2%, respectively, for any reconviction. That nonsexual criminals have higher recidivism rates than child molesters runs contrary to the common assumption that child molesters are a particularly high risk group of offenders.

Interesting stat. I would have guessed that it would be a lot higher. Still, a 2 out of 3 chances of repeating the act, isn't good.

Adult bookstores are prevented because of zoning laws. Once again, its a privilege to be allowed to open a commerical enterprise in the city. You can't just set up, say, a grocery shop in a residential area. That's different than the Constitutional right to travel.

Bookstores trigger 1st Amendment concerns. IMHO, these are stronger than the "penumbra" right of travel -- or in this case, the right to live in the city of choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So is being let out of jail after committing such a horrible offense.

Um, no it isn't. That isn't a privilege, that is a right! You can't serve your full sentance and then the warden says we're going to keep you still behind bars.

We aren't talking parole here.

And I thought you were a civil libertarian.

national ID is on the way.

Will you be required to show it whenever your cross state lines or when you go to certain cities? That'd kind of be unconstitutional.

[Dinner]

Currently if you are convicted of a sex crime you have to register with the police as a convicted sex offender for the rest of your life and the public gets notified via postings in a free public web site about where you live. These guys have made their bed so to speak and sex offenders have the highest recitivism rate of any offender but punishing people for the rest of their life seems unfair.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Bookstores trigger 1st Amendment concerns.

No they don't. You can't put a bookstore in a residential area because of "1st Amendment concerns". They are commerical enterprises and have to follow zoning laws.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Currently if you are convicted of a sex crime you have to register with the police as a convicted sex offender for the rest of your life and the public gets notified via postings in a free public web site about where you live. These guys have made their bed so to speak and sex offenders have the highest recitivism rate of any offender but punishing people for the rest of their life seems unfair.

I keep on hearing this again and again, but it seems pretty fishy to me. Wouldn't you get much higher recitivism with something like speeding tickets or petty theft??

[Imran Siddiqui]

These guys have made their bed so to speak and sex offenders have the highest recitivism rate of any offender but punishing people for the rest of their life seems unfair.

They don't have the highest recitivism rate, first of all. Secondly, you are exactly right with punishing people for the rest of their lives. If you want to do that, send them to jail. The problem, of couse, is that the max sentance for molestation without death or such aggrevating factors is NOT a life sentance. So these punishments actually extend the sentance beyond the max sentance. It is a way to punish the person beyond the max allowed.

[Tuberski]

Yeah but what is the max sentence?

ACK!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No they don't. You can't put a bookstore in a residential area because of "1st Amendment concerns". They are commerical enterprises and have to follow zoning laws.

1st Amendment concerns are triggered when Imran's House of Happy Children's Books is allow to open up across the street from a school but the evil Zribbler's Wide World of Porn must keep at least 1/2 mile away.