 | | Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(URL) are people's thoughts on this? I've heard arguments in the past that mandatory registration for sex offenders is some kind of double punishment after they've already served their prison terms. I've also heard arguments that criminal records (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) I have very serious reservations about this issue. One problem is that there is no way to pettition to be removed from the posting. You can petition to have criminal records sealed. Another problem is that there is a difference between (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) **snip of further good analysis** I knew you'd be the guy with the answer! Good points, all. I wasn't aware that Megan's law doesn't permit the records to be sealed or even, apparently, to have the entire case re-examined. I think people (...) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Does guilt vanish with repayment? If I steal your car and am required to compensate you and pay an additional fine, have I then _not_ stolen your car? I think there are some pretty disturbing abuses of these laws, and I go back and forth about (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) One feeling I have is that if someone is still dangerous, they belong in detention or treatment. Simply hanging a sign around their neck (and these laws are just high tech versions of hanging a sign around a persons neck) isn't really going to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Of course not, and in fact you've nicely paraphrased my objection to a pure "propertly loss/compensation" system of law that some here have previously proposed. But if the accepted laws of society recognize that you have duly repaid your debt (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) As one of the people suggesting that everything can be treated as a property right, I would like to point out that I don't think that compensation is the sole remedy. Certainly people who demonstrate an inability to restrain themselves need to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Frank's "[as an abuse]" is a perfect clarification. Basically, I think that to deny access to our rights as citizens based on the age of the citizen (which I assert kids are) is exactly the moral equivalent of denying rights based on skin tone (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Okay, but would you hold a profoundly retarded person equally culpable for his actions as a fully-functioning, mentally healthy adult? To do so would be, in my view, unforgiveably cruel and unfair. By the same token, if a child is (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
Sorry if I've been a little more rambly than usual, I'm home from work with a stomach flu and I've slept about 90% of the past 20 hours. I just reread my note and while I accept that lots of people write better than me, this one was a bit much. (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) When does the obligation end? I'm inclined to think the obligation ends at adulthood (whatever that is defined to be - I think the law does have to have a way to draw a line as to who is competent to be an "adult" and who is not). (...) I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Never. At least that's the quick answer. As I see it, reproducing is in some ways akin to playing Roulette. There's always a chance that you'll end up with a psychotic or a retard as a kid who will need care forever. You owe them that. If you (...) (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Hmm, does that never mean that the parent has an obligation to support the child if the child loses his/her job in a layoff after attaining self sufficiency? How is this modified when rape is involved? How do we hold the rapist responsible for (...) (22 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) It's hard for me to think of it as an obligation. I've never met anyone able-bodied who was in a position that precluded them from supporting themselves. Also, wouldn't the parent _want_ to help out? Just like the adult kid would _want_ to be (...) (22 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) I agree that in many cases the parent would want to help, and a properly raised kid should want to be productive around the house. (...) Ok, it did seem reasonable that the parental obligation mostly ends when the child attains (...) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
|
(...) My intention is not to give the adoptive parents a way out, but to prevent the natural parents an absolute way out. I believe that the parental responsibility transcends legal fabrications. When you bring a child into the world, you owe that (...) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
|
(...) Ok, I see your point. I guess I'm comfortable with it given that I can't conceive of a situation where the rape victim wouldn't have an opportunity to terminate the pregnancy (ok, there could be situations where somehow the person doesn't (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
|
So, have we debated out this topic? I'm getting sick of the pointless debate going on now... Frank (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | [brainstormin’] [was Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)]
|
|
(...) [brainstormin’] 1. Do think we'd benefit from having more than one debate group? I'm not sure what the best split would be: lugnet.off-topic.deb...nt-affairs lugnet.off-topic.deb...thing-else or lugnet.off-topic.debate.guns (...) (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
|
(...) But you're just defining what the parents owe with an absolute dollar value, while I'm not. I think parents owe time and spending power and even a particular style (or one of several, more like) of parenting. But there is no single good that (...) (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
|
(...) I guess we're getting into the nitty gritty details of what is owed. I don't think I'm looking for absolutes (in fact I think I want to avoid them). I think part of what I'm looking for is how do we judge (I think we have to have some basis (...) (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's tough. One big problem with this is that the wants of the child will often disagree with the thoughts of society on what should happen. Children, even fairly abused children, usually don't want to be seperated from their parents. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
|
(...) Clearly we must trod the path of taking kids from their parents very carefully. This certainly is an area we need to work on. Perhaps there are ways to provide the kids with some safety net without removing the parents totally, so the kids can (...) (22 years ago, 28-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) I've been mulling this over, and something just isn't ringing true for me about it. You claim that your home budget is run democratically, but I don't think I can believe that. I gather that you currently have one child, correct? But suppose (...) (22 years ago, 28-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
