Is the ACLU good for America?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah but what is the max sentence?

It usually depends on the state.

Usually the highest felonies have 20-30 years as a max sentence.

[Berzerker]

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?

Because lots of innocent people who never molested a child go to those stores?

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

Because they usually dont leave a body behind after violating the law.

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)?

Nope, drug use aint a crime inspite of what the politicians say.

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?

What maximum? They're getting another chance in exchange for less restrictive access to society. Why cant that be made part of their sentence and pass constitutional muster? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit us from making Martha whatshername wear a collar for a few months rather than sit in jail?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
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.

That's not a 1st Amendment issue. The city passing such a law (putting them under a different zoning requirement) uses the secondary effects doctrine, using statistics saying that adult stores depress property values and increase crime. Its considered a regulation of business and not a 1st Amendment issue.

As long as the law is not designed to eliminate adult stores and can prove the secondary effects through statistical analysis, it doesn't rise to a 1st Amendment issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because they usually dont leave a body behind after violating the law.

If they hit someone they do. I'd imagine there are much more DUI accidents than child molestation cases.

drug use aint a crime inspite of what the politicians say.

Um... if it's in the criminal code, it's a crime.

What maximum?

Statutory maximums for sentencing.

Where in the Constitution does it prohibit us from making Martha whatshername wear a collar for a few months rather than sit in jail?

I think putting a collar on someone definetly qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.

What happens is that the statutory max is 20 years for a type 1 felony. They serve 20 years, and then are forced to stay out of certain areas and notify people, etc, etc. They are being punished beyond the statitory maximum.

[Berzerker]

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.

I'll bet those numbers include consensual "crimes" mixed in with actual crime inflating the number. Busting some guy 15 times for drugs drives up the recidivism rate and no crime is ever committed (except to the drug user we keep jailing for exercising their freedom to use drugs). I'd be interested to see what the rate is for rapists and murderers. If its high they should have restrictions on them too, like keeping them in jail longer.

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.

The full sentence includes restrictions once they're let out. That makes being let out a privilege, pedophiles dont have a constitutional right to be let out of jail.

[Patroklos]

Can you give me a good reason for sex offenders (including rapists) not to be second class citizens?

If I had my way, they would all be worm food anyways.

[Lancer]

"If I had my way, they would all be worm food anyways."

Damn right.

Zero chance of ever molesting another child, raping another woman. That's a good rate.

Now I'm REALLY done with this thread.

[Patroklos]

Aren't felons already restricted from voting anyways?

Second class citizens are no violation of constitutional rights, it is simply an earned status like any other, and these people sure earned it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The full sentence includes restrictions once they're let out. That makes being let out a privilege, pedophiles dont have a constitutional right to be let out of jail.

And what about statutory maximums? You have a RIGHT to be let out of jail after your maximum is up. If you are not, then it is illegal imprisonment (you are in jail past when the state is allowed to keep you).

It is absolutely stunning to hear someone say that a person doesn't have the right to be let out of jail once they've reached the statutory maximum for how long they must be in jail for.

Can you give me a good reason for sex offenders (including rapists) not to be second class citizens?

Can you give me a good reason for sex offenders, who have done the max jail time to BE second class citizens? Saying they might, possibly do it again, isn't a valid response. In that case, why let anyone out ever for any crime? If their crime is so heinous then make their jail sentences longer.

Why are they so horrible, yet someone who kills a kid because he is driving negligently not? The involuntary manslaughter guy may get a 1 year in jail (or not) and some time restricted on the licence... and that's that.

[Berzerker]

If they hit someone they do. I'd imagine there are much more DUI accidents than child molestation cases.

And if they leave behind a body, the punishment is much more severe. We're talking about drunk drivers, not drunks who kill people. That was your analogy...

Um... if it's in the criminal code, it's a crime.

You think government created crime, I think government recognised crime and made laws... and mistakes. With your definition the government cant make a mistake, with mine, I can call slavery a crime based on natural rights. You have to defend it as not a crime because it was legal. Paraphrasing Lincoln, prohibition laws that seek to regulate a man's appetite makes a crime out of that which is not a crime.

Statutory maximums for sentencing.

Why does this preclude restrictions on access to society less severe than jail? You aren't explaining that...

I think putting a collar on someone definetly qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.

You gotta be kidding, we put people to death in this country. We put 'em in cages with violent people too. Making Martha wear a collar to ensure house arrest is silly in her case, but hardly unconstitutional or cruel. Ask her if she'd rather be sitting in that cage or wearing that collar.

What happens is that the statutory max is 20 years for a type 1 felony. They serve 20 years, and then are forced to stay out of certain areas and notify people, etc, etc. They are being punished beyond the statitory maximum.

And I said the punishment should change, we're not debating the constitutionality of expost facto legislation, we're debating if it would be unconstitutional to change the punishment for future offenders.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boshko
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??

I guess someone posted stats saying they weren't but I've always heard they were. I guess the common belief is incorrect.

[Berzerker]

And what about statutory maximums? You have a RIGHT to be let out of jail after your maximum is up. If you are not, then it is illegal imprisonment (you are in jail past when the state is allowed to keep you).

It is absolutely stunning to hear someone say that a person doesn't have the right to be let out of jail once they've reached the statutory maximum for how long they must be in jail for.

That statutory maximum can include restrictions on movement in exchange for being let out, true? Where in the constitution does it say pedophiles must be given a 20 year sentence and let out without further restrictions?

[Berzerker]

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??

Most people dont see speeding as a crime because so many do it without anyone getting hurt and the penalty is so small. So we ticket speeders, not throw them in jail as criminals. But if a guy keeps stealing thereby showing a high recidivism rate, they should be punished more severly. But many many people have committed petty theft and stopped stealing. That shows a weaker proclivity in our nature for petty theft compared to pedophiles and their specific nature.

[Lancer]

Got a pervert living next door? Find out!

http://www.nationalalertregistry.com/cgi-bin/clickthru.cgi?pid=NAR&sid=SC&atid=A

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dracon II
I dunno... I'm gonna sound like a libertarian here ....

Good, someone should as the professed Libertarians here seem to be falling down on the job.