Megan's Law is unconstitutional

[Cronos Impera]

I think the best sexual laws ware the medieval ones.
If liberal sex is so dagerous for girls and young boys let's just revert to that simple law.

Any emotional or sexual ties between men and women should be forbidden and we should multiply based on a sperm bank and a random lottery for the artificial insemination procedure. Than have the resulting baby raised in foster homes manned by qualified personnel.

And every kind of sex (consented or not) be banned and punishable for both culprits. It is as simple as that.
No more Women's Rights Groups demanding sanctions against male sexual behaviour, no more incest, divorces, domestic violence or custody hearings. The world would become a better, safer world.

[Don Corleone]

Meghan's Law isn't so much a "punishment" as a recognition of the fact that violent sexual offenders cannot be cured, but our laws only allow us to hold them for so long.

Strike, I applaud your Rene Descartes-esque questioning of the assumed absolute. I also applaud your empathy and desire to protect the defenseless. But in order to advance to the next level, you have to start making sound, rational arguments in your own defense, not just advocate "the world according to Strike".

First: Your premise... that Meghan's Law is unconstitutional is patently false. From the pragmatic viewpoint, don't you think some of the more left-leaning federal courts of appeal would have made that argument already, given half a chance? From the legal, the idea of conditional probation/release is well documented, and the conditions, when challenged, have frequently been found to be within the boundaries of the constitution. In order for you to claim 'cruel and unusual punishment', you have to demonstrate how the system of notification is an undue burden which serves to further punish the offender, not indirectly, as a consequence, but directly, as an intent. As the law is specficially written to state it is to allow law enforcement to notify parents of dangerous sex offenders living in their proximity, at best, the bad press for the rapist/murderer is a side-effect.

Second: The whole "does an 18 year old deserve to be branded a sex offender for boinking a 15 year old?" question... it is a red herring, as it is a question of the peculariaties of statuatory rape, not meghan's law directly. We can argue about changing the definition of habitual sex offender, but that matters not in terms of discussing what is to be done with said beast.

You're clearly learning the rights of the individual rather well. Bravo. Now it's time for you to start considering the responsibilities of a society. At some level, society has a duty to protect its members from the likes of John Couey and Richard Allen Davis, both of whom had previous conviction records for sexual offenses before raping and murdering Jessica Lunford and Polly Klaas, respectively.

Finally, let me speak a word to you about what will happen to you if God ever graces you with the ultimate gift of a daughter or a son. Every movie, every televsion show, every news article you come across.... every thing you now read and view with detachment.... they will invade your thoughts and you will know fear and dread as you have never known. It won't happen often, but there will come moments at the mall, at the airport, at the playground, when you'll look around and you'll realize that there is most likely a child predator within eyesight that has just assessed your daughter (or son) as a possible victim. Your blood will run cold, you will clutch your child closer, and you will be deeply thankful for things like Meghan's law, where at least you have some hope of knowing the evil's you face. Semper vigilans, the price of parenthood.

[AlexanderSextus]

But it is not unconstitutional. If you commit a crime, you lose some of your constitutional rights. Don't like it? Don't rape a kid, murder someone,etc.....[/QUOTE]

.....or smoke a little weed, because we all know that makes you a horrible person who doesnt deserve rights...

yeah i know that has nothing to do with sex offenders... but in some states, (like mine) marijuana offenses are treated harsher than sex offenses.

my point is that under the doctrine proposed in the Constitution and the DOI, your rights are not given to you by the constitution or the government. They are yours from birth, the constitution just confirms that the government cant infringe on them. They cant take them from you either, unless you contract them away.

[Ja'chyra]

Got to say that I don't agree with Strike on this one.

In my book sex crimes have got to be in the top 10 worst crimes and if you choose to commit these crimes, and you do have to make that choice its not forced on you, then you need to live with the consequences.

Saying that I do think that we need to rethink the punishments for all crimes in this country, you can get a worse punishment for driving while talking on your phone than some people get for murder, and if you're on drugs the chnaces are you'll get away with some treatment, this is why I'm considering applying to be a magistrate.

[PBI]

you can get a worse punishment for driving while talking on your phone than some people get for murder

If you kill someone because you were on your mobile whilst driving it is murder, or at least manslaughter.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

But it is not unconstitutional. If you commit a crime, you lose some of your constitutional rights. Don't like it? Don't rape a kid, murder someone,etc.....

.....or smoke a little weed, because we all know that makes you a horrible person who doesnt deserve rights...

yeah i know that has nothing to do with sex offenders... but in some states, (like mine) marijuana offenses are treated harsher than sex offenses.

my point is that under the doctrine proposed in the Constitution and the DOI, your rights are not given to you by the constitution or the government. They are yours from birth, the constitution just confirms that the government cant infringe on them. They cant take them from you either, unless you contract them away.

Good Point Alexander, But I'm just saying. If you screw up in life, you lose some rights, that's your punishment. If you Don't Screw up, then nothing to fear, correct ?

[Strike For The South]

Meghan's Law isn't so much a "punishment" as a recognition of the fact that violent sexual offenders cannot be cured, but our laws only allow us to hold them for so long.

Strike, I applaud your Rene Descartes-esque questioning of the assumed absolute. I also applaud your empathy and desire to protect the defenseless. But in order to advance to the next level, you have to start making sound, rational arguments in your own defense, not just advocate "the world according to Strike".

First: Your premise... that Meghan's Law is unconstitutional is patently false. From the pragmatic viewpoint, don't you think some of the more left-leaning federal courts of appeal would have made that argument already, given half a chance? From the legal, the idea of conditional probation/release is well documented, and the conditions, when challenged, have frequently been found to be within the boundaries of the constitution. In order for you to claim 'cruel and unusual punishment', you have to demonstrate how the system of notification is an undue burden which serves to further punish the offender, not indirectly, as a consequence, but directly, as an intent. As the law is specficially written to state it is to allow law enforcement to notify parents of dangerous sex offenders living in their proximity, at best, the bad press for the rapist/murderer is a side-effect.

You're clearly learning the rights of the individual rather well. Bravo. Now it's time for you to start considering the responsibilities of a society. At some level, society has a duty to protect its members from the likes of John Couey and Richard Allen Davis, both of whom had previous conviction records for sexual offenses before raping and murdering Jessica Lunford and Polly Klaas, respectively.

Finally, let me speak a word to you about what will happen to you if God ever graces you with the ultimate gift of a daughter or a son. Every movie, every televsion show, every news article you come across.... every thing you now read and view with detachment.... they will invade your thoughts and you will know fear and dread as you have never known. It won't happen often, but there will come moments at the mall, at the airport, at the playground, when you'll look around and you'll realize that there is most likely a child predator within eyesight that has just assessed your daughter (or son) as a possible victim. Your blood will run cold, you will clutch your child closer, and you will be deeply thankful for things like Meghan's law, where at least you have some hope of knowing the evil's you face. Semper vigilans, the price of parenthood.

I think the law sets a bad precedent thats all.

Second: The whole "does an 18 year old deserve to be branded a sex offender for boinking a 15 year old?" question... it is a red herring, as it is a question of the peculariaties of statuatory rape, not meghan's law directly. We can argue about changing the definition of habitual sex offender, but that matters not in terms of discussing what is to be done with said beast.

I never said that.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, poor Strike. He should be the one considered reasonable, sane and well versed in the intricacies of law and legal enforcement. Instead, the populist sentiment* prevails in this thread, and acusses Strike of trolling.

Is this then what ten years of internet forums does to society? That 'hang 'em by the 00's' has become considered the norm, the reasonable response, whereas exploring the legal, constitutional and criminological aspects of law enforcement is considerent the deviation?

/


*yes, yes, I too.

[Viking]

Argeed. They serve no use, like most serious offenders.

Who's use should they serve? The state's? In the land of the free..

[drone]

Something is missing in this thread.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Please, someone think of the children!

[Strike For The South]

Oh, poor Strike. He should be the one considered reasonable, sane and well versed in the intricacies of law and legal enforcement. Instead, the populist sentiment* prevails in this thread, and acusses Strike of trolling.

Is this then what ten years of internet forums does to society? That 'hang 'em by the 00's' has become considered the norm, the reasonable response, whereas exploring the legal, constitutional and criminological aspects of law enforcement is considerent the deviation?

/


*yes, yes, I too.

one day they'll take me away.

[AlexanderSextus]

Good Point Alexander, But I'm just saying. If you screw up in life, you lose some rights, that's your punishment. If you Don't Screw up, then nothing to fear, correct ?

NO.
My point is that giving a person harsher treatment for smokin some piff or growing a cannabis plant than you would for someone who rapes a little girl is retarded, and that the government CANNOT TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY FROM YOU FOR ANY REASON, unless you GIVE THEM AWAY.

Because under the idea that the government can take your rights for breaking the law, i would have rights taken from me just because i smoke pot. (i need it medically BTW)

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

NO.
My point is that giving a person harsher treatment for smokin some piff or growing a cannabis plant than you would for someone who rapes a little girl is retarded, and that the government CANNOT TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY FROM YOU FOR ANY REASON, unless you GIVE THEM AWAY.

NO.


You Give Them Up. What don't you understand? You screw up, you BREAK THE LAW. When you Break the Law, no matter what you do, in this case rapes a child, you GIVE THEM UP. Don't Like it, Do NOT Break The Law. What so hard to understand?

Because under the idea that the government can take your rights for breaking the law, i would have rights taken from me just because i smoke pot. (i need it medically BTW)

Yea Yea, And I drink Lactose Free Milk (Yuck!) because it's good for me

[AlexanderSextus]

The constitution says your rights are UNALIENABLE.

No matter how bad you screw up, no matter how many times you break the law, the government CANNOT take any of your rights.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The constitution says your rights are UNALIENABLE.

No matter how bad you screw up, no matter how many times you break the law, the government CANNOT take any of your rights.

Which right to you believe the government is taking away by keeping tabs on sex offenders?

[Kralizec]

The constitution says your rights are UNALIENABLE.

No matter how bad you screw up, no matter how many times you break the law, the government CANNOT take any of your rights.

Isn't any form of incarceration or imposing fines a breach of liberty then?
(also, "inalienable" means that you can't give them away yourselves either)

I agree that punishing pot worse then sexual offenses is incredibly moronic and spiteful, though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Pot should be legal anyway

[AlexanderSextus]

nothing in the constitution, bill of rights or DOI says you cant get locked up for a crime.

Pot should be legal, and since your location is the Netherlands, i'm guessing you're smoking a fat spliff right now!!!

[KarlXII]

Pot should be legal, and since your location is the Netherlands, i'm guessing you're smoking a fat spliff right now!!!

Was I supposed to laugh?

[AlexanderSextus]

Was I supposed to laugh?

no, but he was.

[JAG]

Sigh, sad to see the population of the backroom has possibly got even more authoritarian, there used to be at least a couple of us arguing for policies which do not compeltely infringe on peoples right for privacy, movement and life and also destroy not only society and democracy but put children at further risk.

I must of argued this here, what, 15 times over the years, yet it never sticks. Not sure I can be bothered to go through it at this point in time as I really should go to bed, but I will lay out hte basics of the argument I guess.

Pedophiles who come out of prison, in the vast majority have had rehabilitation to the extent that the chances of reoffending are minimal and the WORST thing you can do to push them back into their old ways is to do EXACTLY what Megans law states. Keep constant watch over them, persecute them before they have commited any crime, stop them being able to live in peace anywhere or get a job - make their life hell. Much like crimes of all types, when prisoners are released from prison, if they are allowed to work and become a member of society again, the chances of reoffending is vastly reduced - studies into pedophiles show no difference.

From a philisophical standpoint it is absolutely absurd that people would want this type of surveillance on a member of society. I will list a few of the points which I am not gonna bother going into detail about, I will later if anyone cares - Regardless of what someone has done is this type of big brother state a real good idea? Do you want government to be ABLE to do this to someone? The human rights of someone do not simply go away in an amazing puff of smoke, simply because they have broken a law - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Not only are there rights which should not be taken away, period but who are you or I or the government to take these rights away from anyone?! If you are religious that should be extremely compelling.

Where does the line end? In some dictatorships they take the rights of their citizens away for speaking badly about the government, just because you might believe that pedophillia is worse than speaking badly about your government (and I would agree with you), it doesn't make the point dissapear. Why are they wrong and you right, simply because you believe yours morally superior? You loose all sense of legitimacy in anything when you support anything which monitors people 24/7. Why can't we simply say Megans law shouldn't apply for all burgulars, because they have to be watched in case they steal again? It is a moral and ethical black hole you step into.

Ok now onto why it is also a ridiculous idea - IT DOESN'T WORK You are in fact putting children in MORE danger by treating these people like this. Pedophiles are MORE likely to abuse a child when they feel threatened like this in society, FACT. You may not like it - just like some people don't like the fact that communism hasn't worked or the death penalty doesn't work - but it is a fact. By treating people like this you do in fact, by proxy, encourage and enable MORE children to get abused. Simple. Like the war on drugs, people believe that by behaving 'strong' and dumping people into prison they can solve the situation, the fact remains that it gets no better, indeed it gets worse. Cooler heads need to prevail - following this stupid law, means that more children get abused. Use your head, not your heart. Yes it is an emotive subject, but look at yourself and contain whatever it is you need to contain to realise the facts and how we solve the situation, not simply make yourself feel better - which at the end of the day, most people who support Megans law are doing.

There are further arguments about the fact that pedophila is done in the vast majority not be abduction or strangers but by family and friends of the victims - this all doesn't solve it. etc etc...

Gah, cant be bothered to go on anymore, it is a terrible law which undermines democracy, society and the law itself. It not only doesn't work and is on compeltely troubling philisophical, moral and ethical grounds but at the bottom line - it doesn't work.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

The constitution says your rights are UNALIENABLE.

No matter how bad you screw up, no matter how many times you break the law, the government CANNOT take any of your rights.

It DOESN'T Matter. The Consititution isn't always right, and I personally can't be bother with what a old piece of paper saids.....

[CountArach]

It DOESN'T Matter. The Consititution isn't always right, and I personally can't be bother with what a old piece of paper saids.....

*Steals his guns while he is still enraged at the Constitution*

*Wiretaps the phones on his way out*

[KarlXII]

It DOESN'T Matter. The Consititution isn't always right, and I personally can't be bother with what a old piece of paper saids.....

You know, if everyone disregarded the Constitution as a piece of paper, we'd be in anarchy.


And JAG, these people know what they did. I don't care if they're sick in the head. The proper authorities need to be informed of a potentially dangerous person. Parents should be able to know who is potentially dangerous to their children, before sending them to Bob the neighbour's house.

[Lord Winter]

It DOESN'T Matter. The Consititution isn't always right, and I personally can't be bother with what a old piece of paper saids.....

Actually we're talking more about natural rights now, which are not related at all to an "old piece of paper".

[Crazed Rabbit]

Pedophiles who come out of prison, in the vast majority have had rehabilitation to the extent that the chances of reoffending are minimal

Hahaha!

You are in fact putting children in MORE danger by treating these people like this.

Hahaha!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Not only are there rights which should not be taken away, period but who are you or I or the government to take these rights away from anyone?! If you are religious that should be extremely compelling.

Like the right not to be molested by a pedophile?

Don't quote the Declaration of Independence to me. You're all to happy to take away rights to firearms and property from ordinary people, but don't want to take rights from a class of criminals known for their devastating crimes and high likelihood to reoffend.

CR

[Strike For The South]

It DOESN'T Matter. The Consititution isn't always right, and I personally can't be bother with what a old piece of paper saids.....

http://www.priceline.com/Default.asp...f=pcln&sttgt=Y

You may go

[Redleg]

Unfortunately for many arguements against Megan's law, one sad fact remains - that children are sexually abused everyday by not only strangers but even their own family members. Frankly these people have committed one of the worse crimes possible - they have destroyed a child.

That they loose some freedoms because of their actions - is warranted and yes even constitutional. Read the 5th and 14th Amendment. And look closely at what the paragraph actually states, something about due process of law. A individual's liberty can be restricted based upon the due process of law as a punishment for a crime.

if you dont like the law - fine, but to claim its unconstitutional is false when the constitution does indeed allow restrictions on one's right to liberty when it follows the due process.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Unfortunately for many arguements against Megan's law, one sad fact remains - that children are sexually abused everyday by not only strangers but even their own family members. Frankly these people have committed one of the worse crimes possible - they have destroyed a child.

I agree with your post Redleg, but would like to note one thing (which has been highlighted previously). The vast majority of child abuse - both sexual and physical - is committed by family members or people close to and intimate with the family. It is vanishingly rare for strangers to commit these acts.

Yet public policy rarely recognises this because it is a horror too difficult to address in a sound-bite law.

[KarlXII]

A molestor is a molestor, family or stranger.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

http://www.priceline.com/Default.asp...f=pcln&sttgt=Y

You may go

You're all to happy to take away rights to firearms and property from ordinary people, but don't want to take rights from a class of criminals known for their devastating crimes and high likelihood to reoffend.

Ok, I shall quote Mr.CR here. You people are so happy to take guns away from the people (like me, a llaw-aidbing ctizen), but like CR said, you don't want to take rights from criminals? I mean come on. It's like saying you want to chop somebody's arm off because you think it's a good idea. But if is found that, that person killed someone with the same extact arm, then he should keep his arm.







You putting more kids in danger by not doing this Law, rather you like it or not.