Subject:
|
Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2001 22:04:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
227 times
|
| |
|
|
This doesn't really apply to the root question anymore, but...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> you may be taggable as one of those "sex offenders" that gets
> watched for 25 years. (someone ought to test the constitutionality of that,
> actually, but I digress...)
I've wondered about that as well. On one hand, if a medically
demonstrable risk continues to exist that an individual will commit a crime
again, is it not in the public's interest to be appropriately informed, even
at the expense of that individual's right to privacy? The crux appears to
be whether or not the individual has paid his "debt to society" by serving a
prison term (or what-have-you), but if sexual predation isn't simply a crime
but an illness, might not more stringent controls be appropriate? Granted,
the treatment for illness should't be incarceration in prison, but some sort
of treatment (and detention in the meantime) seems justifiable.
Certain drugs like Depo Provera show promise as a means of reining in
predatory urges, and, while the chemical effects wane after treatment is
terminated, the behaviors learned during treatment can help control such
behaviors. However, the long-term health effects are not known; might that
sort of treatment be acceptable, or at least preferable, to prison?
Just asking, really--I don't have a good answer.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| (...) Yes. (...) Yes. (...) But why should the rest of society have to live with the possibility that the offender's behavior may not be controlled? Or the possibility that the offender may decide not to show up for his Depo Provera treatment (or (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| (...) When I said "that" I was referring to someone being tagged as a sex offender (for statutory rape if both parties "consent", that is, no violence was involved, and both parties are under age. (yes they might be below the age of consent...)) for (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| (...) I was thinking of posting about being leery of age of consent issues myself, but you have hit it on the head, James... The age of consent in Michigan is 16. Unless you're both 16 or older you are in a world of trouble if they want to *make* (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
