Subject:
|
Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Nov 2001 01:48:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
200 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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...)
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 25 years... and that the someone so tagged is chosen
relatively arbitrarily (because they are 2 days older than the other person,
for example, which HAS happened).
I'm OK with the concept of tagging people as such if the situation is
different... the more conventional violent rape of an unwilling victim is
clearly a situation where the perpetrator has waived some of his rights by
violating the rights of another.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| This doesn't really apply to the root question anymore, but... (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
