Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:13:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
227 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> I think people sometimes regard this as a kind of community safety issue on
> par with a resident who sought permission to, for example, process dangerous
> chemicals on his property. The analogy works if one identifies the
> individual (after having served due time) as a still-dangerous criminal
> whose rights are subordinate to the public good. But the analogy fails if
> one identifies the individual as a citizen who has served his prescribed
> debt to society and who is now trying legitimately to rebuild his life. The
> latter, of course, should be the correct model if we are indeed presumed
> innocent until found guilty.
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 the double jeopardy issue, but if we implemented it such that
all the people who didn't do anything (very) wrong (as I define it :-) were not
going to be hounded by the registry, would it still be bad? Is the law good
and the application bad? Or does it just need some tuning? Or is it
fundamentally a bad thing? (What if all crime were published that way by all
governing agencies instead of just sex crimes?)
The simple truth is that many people "after having served due time" are in fact
"still-dangerous criminal[s]." What about the public safety? Can we build a
system of law that both preserves the notion that one is innocent until proven
guilty and _prevent_ crimes?
> This whole situation points out the problems with ex post facto handling of
> crimes. Would it be better if registration under Megan's Law were required
> at the time of sentencing as part of the sentencing (when appropriate)?
Yes. I think that would clear up the double jeopardy issue.
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, that stinks. There's a policy in the Pittsburgh area (and probably
> elsewhere) that provides children an 800 number to call if their parents are
> abusive.
That sounds like a good idea.
> Although I abominate child abuse, it turns out that some children
> have called the number with claims of abuse when in fact the parent simply
> refused to purchase a toy, or required the child to help with chores, or
> something of the kind. Hard to find the proper balance, I think.
Hard maybe, but important enough to work for. I think the kids should make a
clear statement about the nature of the abuse and when what the child says fits
a set of criteria that define "real" abuse a case worker should
investigate, or police officers in situations of possible eminent danger. If
they find that the child was abusing the system frivolously, that child (not
his guardians) should be penalized by the court and required to compensate the
system for the time and expense.
Also, I wonder how often that really happens in a family that isn't seriously
messed up (or really, at all)? I have no fear whatsoever that my kids would
use such an option.
Oh, and making kids do chores _is_ abuse! It's just not an abuse that our
society accepts. :-)
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
