Life in Prison for being Homeless

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Sex offender registration laws of any sort are immoral and unconstitutional.

Why? What case law can you cite?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Isn't that what GA is doing?

not on the state's tab, which is why it should be doing if it thinks these citizens are that much of a danger.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why? What case law can you cite?

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Which has been interpreted consistently to read that you cannot be tried nor punished twice for one substantial crime.

The fact that the judiciary does not read it this way (as far as I know) is a travesty of moral and civil law.

It is inherent to our national identity that we do not believe in punishing people unjustly, nor in punishments that exceed the scope of the crime. This sort of punishment is pure mob action, plain and simple, and makes no effort to protect the rights of the sex offender.

Remember, most MURDERERS are penalized less severely than this. Only a moron would suggest that most sex crimes are worse than murder; only aggravated (violent) rape would even be theoretically possible to be as severe, and I'd certainly disagree.

Add to that the fact that in most of these cases the punishment is retroactive ... which is BLATANTLY in violation of the fifth amendment.

Mob rule

Makes me wonder about the concept of democracy sometimes...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The fact that the judiciary does not read it this way (as far as I know) is a travesty of moral and civil law.

What's immoral about it?

which is BLATANTLY in violation of the fifth amendment.

How so?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.sex.offenders.ap/

"Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objection as punishment," he wrote for the majority. "The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."

[Dis]

I think first offenders should get life in prison. so I can't care about this case, sorry.

anyone under 14 = life in prison. nothing less.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's immoral about it?

which is BLATANTLY in violation of the fifth amendment.

How so?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.sex.offenders.ap/

"Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objection as punishment," he wrote for the majority. "The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."

That's an idiotic ruling. In fact, it largely supports my argument! The debatable part as far as i'm concerned is whether punishment of this nature is double jeopardy. I think it is, but admit it's not 100% solid. He agrees (implicitly) that it WOULD be double jeopardy, but argues it's not punishment.

Jack. The registry in and of itself, maybe not... maybe. Except for the whole scarlet letter thing. And the no living within some absurd distance of things we have roughly that frequently. I mean, i guarantee you in georgia they have a church every 1000 feet (1/5 mile) in some areas.

And, legally requiring you to register is most definitely a punishment.

The secondary effect is clearly to humiliate the offender, anyhow; it is a significant effect, and must be taken into account by a reasonable and unbiased judiciary.

Too bad we don't have one of those

What's immoral about it, is that the law serves little purpose other than continuing to punish an offender for a single offense, often a minor one, often for their entire lives; and in limiting their ability to choose a residence, and more than likely making it difficult to find a job or otherwise make a livelihood. It is a law of the mob, a law that is the perfect definition of the tyranny of the majority; quite frankly not different from the jewish laws of Nazi germany. Yes, these people have committed a crime; but they paid their dues, and essentially ruining their lives forever as the result of one crime that is often not nearly of the level of others with much less serious punishments, is a travesty.

This sort of law is what makes me have very little enthusiasm about the direction this country is going. When it gets to the point that laws are determined by popularity and pure selfishness, we might as well start over again; because that's not how laws should be determined. Once upon a time, laws were created in the interest of the People, not just the people; and were written and passed by men (and women) who thought about the effects of the laws, and chose the right ones for the right times.

Perhaps that 'once upon a time' is a fairy tale, but I'd like to think it really happened once; because then perhaps it could happen again.

Not in my lifetime, sadly...

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's immoral about it?

which is BLATANTLY in violation of the fifth amendment.

How so?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.sex.offenders.ap/

"Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objection as punishment," he wrote for the majority. "The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."

There is a difference between making information on people available, which is what that ruling says is OK, and creating restrictions on the ability of those individuals to live in certain areas of some locality they desire to live in. One is not an intrusion as the court says. The other is a HUGE limitation on their freedom, as restrictive or more than say being on parole.

[Blake]

Remember, most MURDERERS are penalized less severely than this. Only a moron would suggest that most sex crimes are worse than murder; only aggravated (violent) rape would even be theoretically possible to be as severe, and I'd certainly disagree.

I'm not certain that Murder is the worst crime. Although I suppose it's mainly a theological issue on whether it's "better" to kill someone, or traumatize them for life.

This kind of issue : "Murder is murder is murder is murder is the worst thing possible" is how we get to the euthanasia controversy, where suffering is greatly prolonged because death is bad bad bad. Yes I know there's a GOOD moral argument against euthanasia or "Our poor dear (and very rich) aunt is in mortal agony! We must pull the plug!", to some extent the suffering of some (many?) may be justified to eliminate possible exploitation, but uh, I think often morally weaker arguments are used, along the lines of "Death is utterly evil".

Ultimately it's really a very large gray area. Some people believe that killing a fetus and killing someone on the brink of death, are both every bit as bad as killing a young person at the peak of their life.

I think ultimately, the important thing, is acknowledging that there are shades of grey, and not trying to reduce everything to black and white. While black and white simplifies law, it's also JUST PLAIN WRONG.

(Oddly enough I think I'm actually making much the same point as snoopy).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Of course there's not, because who the **** cares about curing pedos?

Since we dont get to euthanize them, quite a bit of work has gone into trying to cure them. Why wouldnt it have? It can only benefit a society to remove a threat to itself.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Isn't that what GA is doing?

The offenders shouldn't be put be put in a catch-22, though. THAT'S the problem. This whole incident is the result of lawmakers making laws that result in incidents such as this without caring about the consequences because getting the public to go into righteous emotional mouth-frothing is good for getting votes.

[Odin]

Originally posted by snoopy369

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Which has been interpreted consistently to read that you cannot be tried nor punished twice for one substantial crime.

The fact that the judiciary does not read it this way (as far as I know) is a travesty of moral and civil law.

It is inherent to our national identity that we do not believe in punishing people unjustly, nor in punishments that exceed the scope of the crime. This sort of punishment is pure mob action, plain and simple, and makes no effort to protect the rights of the sex offender.

Remember, most MURDERERS are penalized less severely than this. Only a moron would suggest that most sex crimes are worse than murder; only aggravated (violent) rape would even be theoretically possible to be as severe, and I'd certainly disagree.

Add to that the fact that in most of these cases the punishment is retroactive ... which is BLATANTLY in violation of the fifth amendment.

Mob rule

Makes me wonder about the concept of democracy sometimes...

hence my point about gut emotional reactions.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Since we dont get to euthanize them, quite a bit of work has gone into trying to cure them. Why wouldnt it have? It can only benefit a society to remove a threat to itself.

Why wouldn't it have? Because society would much rather treat nice people who just have diseases than sicko monsters who only pretend to be human.

[SpencerH]

Bull****. NIH spending on mental disorders in 2001 was $900M, nearly double that of breast cancer! While I dont know what part of that was spent specifically on the type of disorder that includes pedophiles, I'd guess it's a significant number given the size of the pot of money it's drawn from. It's sure a bigger pot than that from which I draw my research money.

Spend 5 minutes on google you'll find that there is significant work going on but I guess you'd rather work yourself into a froth of self-righteous indignation.

[chequita guevara]

The real problem with this law is it's exporting your problems to someone else. Sex offenders cannot live in Miami-Dade, so they have to move to Broward County. Thanks a lot, Miami. :MAD:

Sex offenses: taking your shirt off in public if a woman, having sex in public (lots of folks have sex on the beach--not the drink--or in cars, etc.), having sex with your minor SO when you've just reached the age of majority.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Bull****. NIH spending on mental disorders in 2001 was $900M, nearly double that of breast cancer! While I dont know what part of that was spent specifically on the type of disorder that includes pedophiles, I'd guess it's a significant number given the size of the pot of money it's drawn from. It's sure a bigger pot than that from which I draw my research money.

Spend 5 minutes on google you'll find that there is significant work going on but I guess you'd rather work yourself into a froth of self-righteous indignation.

There's some confusion here, due mostly to the fact that you'd rather attempt to degrade my character than debate my arguments. There is a lot of money spent trying to deal with mental disorders. I won't deny that; it was my point.

I am simply willing to bet that the more traditional mental disorders (depression, DID, schizophrenia, etc...) receive a whole hell of lot more attention than a disorder that most people think is just an evil human being (pedophilia) wrt to money spent on treatment research.

I don't have any figures for this. You've got the $900M number from NIH - is there any way we can figure out how that (or other numbers like it) are divvied up?