Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:56:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
174 times
|
| |
|
|
"Dave Schuler!" wrote:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.sex.offenders.ap/index.html
>
> What 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 are a matter of public record, and registration of
> this kind (and specifically the internet posting of pictures and names) is
> merely the propogation of public record.
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 criminal records being available to those who
make an effort to find them, and the criminal being REQUIRED to
advertise their past (by reporting moves and such). I wonder if anyone
has explored the interstate ramifications of this (are you required to
continue to register with the state you are convicted in even though you
now live in another state, and how do you do that registration). Can the
new state require you to register based on your conviction? Note also
that the records they are publicising (your address and such) are NOT
public records.
The whole setup also makes an assumption about future action (so much
for innocent until proven guilty). If someone really has insufficient
control of themselves that they will be a repeat offender, then they
belong in jail or a treatment center. If someone has to register because
they made the mistake of having sex with their 15 year old girlfriend on
their 16th birthday (in at least one state you can be branded for life
as a sexual offender for this), with no proof whatsoever that you are
the type of criminal they are trying to protect against, that's pretty
senseless.
I might be comfortable with such a registration being _part_ of the
sentence for repeat offenders if the sentence must be justified through
court proceedings. But the SC has said, no, you don't need to follow
normal court proceedures to put this requirement on a criminal.
And why don't we have the same types of policy for drunk drivers? They
cause far more damage (maybe it's better to have your kid killed than
raped?).
And with this kind of crud, I wonder why I continue to work with kids.
It would be so easy to get branded as a sexual offender for life because
some kid makes up a story.
I also wonder how many people will become more serious criminals because
with such a system, their life is ruined. How easy will it be to find a
job? How easy will it be to find housing?
I think the Supreme Court really blew it on this one. But don't worry
we're not becomming a police state. Please turn in your guns because
they're dangerous...
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 7-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 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
|
|
|
|
