Megan's Law is unconstitutional [Archive]

rory_20_uk

08-31-2008, 20:17

All adults and indeed children should be able to differentiate between desires and actions. I find people that find children sexually attractive, but then again I based my desires on what someone looks like, not their chronological age. So, where does statutory rape end and paedophilia begin? A 19 year old sleeping with a 17 year old he picked up at a night club that's over 18 only is one extreme, but what if the guy was 30, or 50? And what if it wasn't a nightclub, but a pub or a shopping centre? To further muddy the waters, in extremis I've seen 14 year olds more sexually developed than 18 year olds.

Paedophiles usually find individuals with no sexual development attractive. OK. But in this lifetime something better kept to yourself. Those that act on it should be punished.

But after serving sentence they should be as free to have a normal life as murderers, drink drivers, arsonists or any other piece of scum that gets released from jail. If they do it again then I'd advocate chemical castration.

Husar

08-31-2008, 20:23

FactionHeir

08-31-2008, 20:57

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-31-2008, 21:24

So little 6 year-old Billy stumbles and falls onto the boobs of the kindergarten teacher who was sitting next to him, she sues him, he's a sex offender and gets shot, sounds good.

Yes, it has a point somewhere, keep looking. :juggle2:

No. There's a certain level where it must be considered reasonable to become a sex offender - grope a bunch of kids, you're a sex offender. Trip and fall on a child - you're not (unless you do it a bunch of times as an excuse). We need to be reasonable - and lock the real sex offenders up for life.

ICantSpellDawg

08-31-2008, 21:38

No. There's a certain level where it must be considered reasonable to become a sex offender - grope a bunch of kids, you're a sex offender. Trip and fall on a child - you're not (unless you do it a bunch of times as an excuse). We need to be reasonable - and lock the real sex offenders up for life.

Since we are making believe, who not just change the laws on child abuse? If the kid says he/she wanted it and so did the adult, why shouldn't they be able to do what they'd like? I don't want to hear any old arguments or potential consequences - lets just change the laws and presto - no more child molesting criminals.

Strike For The South

08-31-2008, 21:40

ICantSpellDawg

08-31-2008, 21:51

because a 6 year old cant give consent

They can say yes. Oh, you mean consent as it is legally understood? Lets just change that as it is clearly out of line with natural consent. When a kid says yes to candy, I'm pretty sure that they want the candy.

Strike For The South

08-31-2008, 21:55

They can say yes. Oh, you mean consent as it is legally understood? Lets just change that as it is clearly out of line with natural consent. When a kid says yes to candy, I'm pretty sure that they want the candy.

Saying yes to candy and being abused by an adult are different things and none of this has to do with the legality of tracking pedos once their out.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-31-2008, 21:57

Since we are making believe, who not just change the laws on child abuse? If the kid says he/she wanted it and so did the adult, why shouldn't they be able to do what they'd like? I don't want to hear any old arguments or potential consequences - lets just change the laws and presto - no more child molesting criminals.

Well, if a six year old trips and falls into his teacher's breasts, it's not reasonable to label him a sex offender. It's also not reasonable to label an 18 year old male who has consensual sex with a 16 year old female a sex offender.

ICantSpellDawg

08-31-2008, 22:00

Saying yes to candy and being abused by an adult are different things and none of this has to do with the legality of tracking pedos once their out.

How do you know that there is abuse? Just because 2 people are drastically different in age doesn't mean that they can't love one another, right? What about "soul mates"? The concept of a lower age limit to marriage is pretty new concept and I'm not so sure that it is rationally founded.

Also - why can't kids work in a serious factory job? A number of automaton ape people who probably arn't as bright as an 8 year old can do it - why not a kid with a good head on their shoulders if they'd like to? The concept of childhood is a Victorian fabrication anyway.

KukriKhan

08-31-2008, 22:01

Take it easy SFTS. As Redleg would say (if he were here now): 'TSMcG is utilizing the false Reductio ad Absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) debate tactic to refute your premise.'

Strike For The South

08-31-2008, 22:03

How do you know that there is abuse? Just because 2 people are drastically different in age doesn't mean that they can't love one another, right? What about "soul mates"? The concept of a lower age limit to marriage is pretty new concept and I'm not so sure that it is rationally founded.

Also - why can't kids work in a serious factory job? A number of automaton ape people who probably arn't as bright as an 8 year old can do it - why not a kid with a good head on their shoulders if they'd like to? The concept of childhood is a Victorian fabrication anyway.

What does this have to do with Meagan's law?

Crazed Rabbit

08-31-2008, 22:20

After a sex offender has served his time (IE his debt to the citizens) The government has no right to track his movements thereafter. If you want to make sure they wont offend again harsher punishments are the only legal way to assure this.

I cannot agree with you here Strike. If they are allowed out of prison before they die, they should be tracked. They've squandered the right not to be tracked by abusing children.

It goes without saying this applies to real sex offenders, not streakers or other nonsense.

CR

CrossLOPER

08-31-2008, 23:04

Everyone with bodies should be locked up.

Louis VI the Fat

08-31-2008, 23:16

Strike For The South

08-31-2008, 23:19

Why quarrel over this? Surely we can settle on a compromise here?

I suggest locking 'em up for life and tracking them in their cells. Or not tracking them and just locking them up. Whatever makes you bleedin' heart paedophile lovers happy.

Where's Dave when you need him? I'm sure he can express my feelings on this subject much more eloquently. :yes:

Its not a matter of liking the pedos its a matter of constitutional law and the government in citizens bidness. The last people you want to defend are usually the first people you need to

Ronin

08-31-2008, 23:20

I cannot agree with you here Strike. If they are allowed out of prison before they die, they should be tracked. They've squandered the right not to be tracked by abusing children.

It goes without saying this applies to real sex offenders, not streakers or other nonsense.

CR

then if they are still a danger keep them locked up....I´m all for locking these kinds of people up and throwing away the key....and hard labor too.

but if they are released logic follows that they are no longer a threat.....so they should not be tracked.

Rhyfelwyr

08-31-2008, 23:24

Just execute serious sex offenders such as Mr. Glitter. Then take everything they owned and put it towards reconstructing their vicitms lives. :idea2:

Louis VI the Fat

08-31-2008, 23:30

Its not a matter of liking the pedos its a matter of constitutional law and the government in citizens bidness. The last people you want to defend are usually the first people you need toNow don't you go all educated and reasonable on me, you uppity freshman college boy.

We Texans - Texan at heart, that is - know just how to deal with child raping scum. :whip:

Strike For The South

08-31-2008, 23:31

Now don't you go all educated and reasonable on me, you uppity freshman college boy.

We Texans - Texan at heart, that is - know just how to deal with child raping scum. :whip:

I love being a Texan. dont you?

Louis VI the Fat

08-31-2008, 23:41

It's the best. A level of grandeur I've aspired to all my life. :us-texas:

AlexanderSextus

09-01-2008, 05:55

i for one, think we need to make the idea of statutory rape more conditional.

For example, if a 30 year old guy forces a 15 year old girl to have sex with him, that is STATUTORY RAPE.

but if a 19 year old guy and a 15 year old girl are in a relationship, and are having sex, why should the 19 year old go to jail???? I mean, if the girl wants to have sex with him, isnt it her body and her choice????

If she gets pregnant that's HER fault, she should've said no.

I really dont buy the idea that a girl under 16 is not smart enough to decide for herself if she wants to have sex with someone. Yeah, it might be true for some girls, but its not necessarily true across the board.

I think that it should only be statutory rape if the girl is 5 years younger or more. The "Age of consent" thing is :daisy:.

even little kids know whether or not they want something...that is to say, not that little kids should have sex, no. but that there shouldnt be an "age where you are smart enough to consent" some people are smarter than others.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-01-2008, 06:01

I think that it should only be statutory rape if the girl is 5 years younger or more. The "Age of consent" thing is :daisy:.

If the girl or the guy is five years younger or more, and the youngest one was below the age of consent. Otherwise I'm sure many married couples would consistently be committing rape.

You'd have to look at the situation as well. If the girl lies to the guy about her age, for example, it shouldn't be rape.

Papewaio

09-01-2008, 06:02

Lock everyone up. Case solved.

AlexanderSextus

09-01-2008, 06:08

You'd have to look at the situation as well. If the girl lies to the guy about her age, for example, it shouldn't be rape.

See thats what i'm talking about.

Actually, my cousin went out with a 15 year old girl when he was 18. Luckily, her parents liked him and he never got in trouble. My point is that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing... she was on birth control, never got pregnant, so what harm was done? see what i'm saying?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-01-2008, 06:10

See thats what i'm talking about.

Actually, my cousin went out with a 15 year old girl when he was 18. Luckily, her parents liked him and he never got in trouble. My point is that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing... she was on birth control, never got pregnant, so what harm was done? see what i'm saying?

I agree with that, yes.

Devastatin Dave

09-01-2008, 06:22

Where's Dave when you need him? I'm sure he can express my feelings on this subject much more eloquently. :yes:

I'm a firm believer in killing two birds with one stone. Instead of looking towards wind power, solar power, and other means of alternative energy so we can become less oil dependent, have our best scientist find a way to grind these people up into some form of energy that can be both ecofriendly, as well as a great topec to debate about in the confines of our glorious Tavern!!!

I love you Louis..:laugh4:

Devastatin Dave

09-01-2008, 06:27

I believe that we've come to a point in our society where we need a completely different legal system for sex offenders. We should have specialised lawyers, judges, and yes, even jurors sitting in these cases. Rape and other sexual crimes simply cannot be properly procecuted or defended for that matter in the usual court setting. Radical idea yes, but I believe necessary.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-01-2008, 06:27

I'm a firm believer in killing two birds with one stone. Instead of looking towards wind power, solar power, and other means of alternative energy so we can become less oil dependent, have our best scientist find a way to grind these people up into some form of energy that can be both ecofriendly, as well as a great topec to debate about in the confines of our glorious Tavern!!!

You, sir, are brilliant. :yes:

Crazed Rabbit

09-01-2008, 06:57

For example, if a 30 year old guy forces a 15 year old girl to have sex with him, that is STATUTORY RAPE.

No, that's plain old rape.

Now, people speak of throwing away the key and locking people up forever. Sure seems to have plenty of support here, but obviously no country, even the US, has the political will to do that. So that 'solution' seems to be a red herring until such time as a western country actually does that for first time child molesters.

CR

KarlXII

09-01-2008, 09:10

After a sex offender has served his time (IE his debt to the citizens) The government has no right to track his movements thereafter. If you want to make sure they wont offend again harsher punishments are the only legal way to assure this.

Obvious troll is obvious.

As to the point, if we don't put in harsher punishments, we need to know who is potentially dangerous to children and keep that person from committing another crime.

rory_20_uk

09-01-2008, 13:32

It's not easy for any of us... (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pedophile_nervous_for_first_day_of)

~:smoking:

Strike For The South

09-01-2008, 16:36

Obvious troll is obvious.

As to the point, if we don't put in harsher punishments, we need to know who is potentially dangerous to children and keep that person from committing another crime.

How am I trolling? The law is unconstitutional. I agree we need to revamp the way we punish these people but Meagan's law is unconstitutional.

KarlXII

09-01-2008, 18:33

How am I trolling? The law is unconstitutional. I agree we need to revamp the way we punish these people but Meagan's law is unconstitutional.

It's normally good to have actual reasons.

Strike For The South

09-01-2008, 18:34

It's normally good to have actual reasons.

So the fact the government has the ability to track citizens after they have done their time isn't good enough for you?

ICantSpellDawg

09-01-2008, 18:48

So the fact the government has the ability to track citizens after they have done their time isn't good enough for you?

Well if Megans law is the law then maybe it is part of their "time served", unless you can make the arguable case that it is cruel or unusual.

Strike For The South

09-01-2008, 19:23

Well if Megans law is the law then maybe it is part of their "time served", unless you can make the arguable case that it is cruel or unusual.

I think its very unusual that a government can say serve 5 years and once your done we can track your every movement. Either lock these people away or get out of there lives but this is the first step to a police state .

KarlXII

09-01-2008, 20:12

I think its very unusual that a government can say serve 5 years and once your done we can track your every movement. Either lock these people away or get out of there lives but this is the first step to a police state .

Then you obviously have no idea what Megan's Law is. If passed, the law requires convicted sex offenders to notify local authorities when they move into a new neighbourhood. The government is not planting a chip that shows up on radar. Or do you not want parents to know who is a potentially dangerous person?

ICantSpellDawg

09-01-2008, 20:25

Strike just wants to question everything, which is fine.

Soon he will realize that everything can be questioned and maybe it would be better to question them based on efficacy and relative importance to the individual.

Lord Winter

09-01-2008, 23:47

What about probation strike?

ajaxfetish

09-02-2008, 00:46

Its not a matter of liking the pedos its a matter of constitutional law and the government in citizens bidness. The last people you want to defend are usually the first people you need to
Child abuse is an extremely sensitive topic in the west right now, and it's hard to keep emotion out of arguments on the subject. I think it's great that you're focusing on the issue from a purely rational perspective, SftS, but just be aware you're unlikely to win many converts in the current political atmosphere.

Ajax

Caius

09-02-2008, 01:15

So the fact the government has the ability to track citizens after they have done their time isn't good enough for you?
They are sick people... I suggest that they MUST be tracked. Just in case.

Strike For The South

09-02-2008, 01:35

Then you obviously have no idea what Megan's Law is. If passed, the law requires convicted sex offenders to notify local authorities when they move into a new neighbourhood. The government is not planting a chip that shows up on radar. Or do you not want parents to know who is a potentially dangerous person?

it also allows parents to look up private citizens on a map. A man who has done his time should be able to return to a normal life.

Child abuse is an extremely sensitive topic in the west right now, and it's hard to keep emotion out of arguments on the subject. I think it's great that you're focusing on the issue from a purely rational perspective, SftS, but just be aware you're unlikely to win many converts in the current political atmosphere.

The wicked and evil have rights to.

KarlXII

09-02-2008, 01:45

A normal life is not a constitutional right.

Strike For The South

09-02-2008, 01:45

A normal life is not a constitutional right.

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

KarlXII

09-02-2008, 02:00

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

That's the Declaration of Independance.

Strike For The South

09-02-2008, 02:06

That's the Declaration of Independance.

Ok how about the 5th and 8th amendments, due process and cruel and unusual punishment

Csargo

09-02-2008, 02:13

Ok how about the 4th and 8th amendments, due process and cruel and unusual punishment

uhh...:inquisitive:

KarlXII

09-02-2008, 02:26

How is it cruel and unusual to make a convicted sex offender notify the proper authorities of his former status?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-02-2008, 02:30

Ok how about the 4th and 8th amendments, due process and cruel and unusual punishment

Is being in a database cruel and unusual punishment after you've sexually assaulted a child? You'd have to be an excellent debater for me to consider waterboarding as cruel and unusual punishment for these scum.

Strike For The South

09-02-2008, 05:10

Is being in a database cruel and unusual punishment after you've sexually assaulted a child? You'd have to be an excellent debater for me to consider waterboarding as cruel and unusual punishment for these scum.

They have paid their debt to socitey

Csargo

09-02-2008, 05:54

They have paid their debt to socitey

No they have not. They've most likely scared the person for the remainder of their life, so they deserve to be watched for the rest of theirs.

rory_20_uk

09-02-2008, 09:39

No they have not. They've most likely scared the person for the remainder of their life, so they deserve to be watched for the rest of theirs.

Ever met an elderly person who'se been mugged? Often they're scared for the rest of their life. A person who was raped, or stabbed, or shot - hell, face it there's nothing special about this than a host of other criminal activities that aren't monitored.

~:smoking:

PBI

09-02-2008, 10:28

Two criticisms I can think of of Megan's Law:

1) It encourages vigilantism and mob rule. There is a reason we have courts and the criminal justice system rather than leaving everything to be decided by the whims of the mob. Mob justice is not justice at all; the mob is often not too concerned with establishing whether their target is a genuine child molester, a teenager who had sex with his slightly underage girlfriend, or simply completely the wrong person or even a paediatrician (the last two have both happened in the UK). There are few things more vile for a community to engage in than a witch hunt.

2) It propagates the myth that most child abuse is carried out by strangers snatching children off the street. In fact the risk of this happening is so slim as to be almost negligible, if your child is abused it will almost certainly be by a friend or family member. Megan's Law is an attempt to treat fear of child abuse rather than the abuse itself, and even in this it is counterproductive since its very existence seems like an admission by the government that there is a dangerous paedophile on every corner.

This isn't to say that police tracking of convicted sex offenders isn't a good idea, that I don't particularly have a problem with. I just don't think that such appeals to vigilantism like Megan's Law or the News of the World's "name and shame" campaign are at all helpful.

This is also to say nothing of whether it is constitutional or not, I neither know nor care about that since I am not a US citizen. I am reading between the lines and assuming the real premise was "Megan's Law is a bad idea" rather than an attempt to discuss the finer points of constitutional law that would exclude all non-US members.

Husar

09-02-2008, 13:07

Ever met an elderly person who'se been mugged? Often they're scared for the rest of their life. A person who was raped, or stabbed, or shot - hell, face it there's nothing special about this than a host of other criminal activities that aren't monitored.

~:smoking:

So your point is we have to trace them other criminals as well? ~;)

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

09-02-2008, 15:23

Locking them up costs so much, why not just execute since they don't really contribute to society (devil's advocate)

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

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.....

Cronos Impera

09-02-2008, 20:21

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

09-02-2008, 21:40

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

09-03-2008, 06:27

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...:thumbsdown:

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. :yes:

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. :smash:

Ja'chyra

09-03-2008, 08:42

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

09-03-2008, 12:33

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

09-03-2008, 15:00

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...:thumbsdown:

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. :yes:

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. :smash:

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 :yes:?

Strike For The South

09-03-2008, 17:11

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

09-03-2008, 18:17

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?

:laugh4: / ~:mecry:

*yes, yes, I too.

Viking

09-03-2008, 18:36

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

09-03-2008, 19:22

Something is missing in this thread. :inquisitive:

Please, someone think of the children! :drama1:

Strike For The South

09-03-2008, 19:34

AlexanderSextus

09-04-2008, 04:12

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 :yes:?

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:dizzy2::dizzy2::furious3:, and that the government CANNOT TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY FROM YOU FOR ANY REASON, unless you GIVE THEM AWAY. :unitedstates:

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

09-04-2008, 20:13

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:dizzy2::dizzy2::furious3:, and that the government CANNOT TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY FROM YOU FOR ANY REASON, unless you GIVE THEM AWAY. :unitedstates:

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 :juggle2:

AlexanderSextus

09-04-2008, 22:53

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

09-04-2008, 23:11

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

09-04-2008, 23:18

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.

Pot should be legal anyway :hippie:

AlexanderSextus

09-05-2008, 04:31

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

09-05-2008, 06:00

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

09-05-2008, 07:08

Was I supposed to laugh?

no, but he was. :yes::beam:

JAG

09-05-2008, 09:02

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

09-05-2008, 15:17

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

09-05-2008, 15:26

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

09-06-2008, 08:56

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

09-06-2008, 17:28

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

09-06-2008, 17:46

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

09-06-2008, 18:05

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?session_key=410011AC420011AC200809061704570535b1020406&plf=pcln&sttgt=Y

You may go

Redleg

09-07-2008, 06:51

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

09-07-2008, 09:41

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

09-07-2008, 10:26

A molestor is a molestor, family or stranger.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

09-08-2008, 16:13

http://www.priceline.com/Default.asp?session_key=410011AC420011AC200809061704570535b1020406&plf=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.

rory_20_uk

09-11-2008, 15:30

Jag, I hear many facts, yet little evidence.

I thought that rates of re-offence amongst all released prisoners was high. Is the rate amongst paedophiles much lower?

Threatened paedophiles are going to offend more "FACT"? What is this "fact" based on?

I'm completely with you on drugs. But then most drug addicts hurt themselves and i'm fine with that. Paedophiles hurt others, and I'm not fine with that.

The "salami of rights" argument can be used on almost anything from not fly dumping rubbish, to being allowed to eat pork sarnies whilst openly masturbating in a Muslim prayer meeting to whatever...

There are few truths from 300 years ago that stand completely unaltered. All men are not created equal, and IMO rights can be lost depending on behaviour.

I am aware that abuse is generally within the family. But there is enough that is not to be significant.

One could argue that almost all laws undermine democracy, as we don't have the right to repeal them.
Morals are based on the individual
philosophical? Well, that can be argued any way one chooses.
Ethical? Again, there are few certainties in ethics.

Personally I think the law isn't going to work. It is the usual compromise that pleases nobody.

~:smoking: