Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:45:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
232 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> 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?
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 stop them. One of the biggest
concerns I have is that these laws may do several things:
- force the real criminal farther underground
- leave some folks who might be able to toe the line, or at least come
pretty close, with so few options that crime becomes the only thing to
do to survive (if people can't get jobs because of the label, and get
run out of homes, where are they going to go).
- the branding of everyone just seems like an overreaction, especially
if there is no way to "prove" oneself reformed, and get off the list
(I'm not sure how each states laws work here, I'm pretty sure at least
some are permanent registries).
- puts a heavier load on the court (if you're going to be branded for
life even though you plead guilty to a lesser sex crime, you may choose
to take a spin of the justice wheel instead) of course maybe this is a
good thing, I wonder how many innocent people plead guilty to a lesser
crime because going through a trial is too traumatizing and leaves
potential to really get screwed)
Clearly there is a need to be able to take pre-emptive action in extreme
cases (killing in self defense is clearly a generally accepted form of
pre-emptive action).
> > 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.
That would certainly be better. Combine that with some leeway on whether
a person is listed and it becomes a whole lot better, especially if
there is judicial review so that you have a chance of getting off the
list if you live clean for some time, or otherwise present a convincing
argument.
> > > 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.
I suspect it's pretty rare, and you're probably right, there is probably
some level of abuse in just about any situation where an accusation is
made (though I'm sure a few joke calls get made, but they should be
pretty quickly dismissed). What I am generally much more concerned about
is false accusations of people outside the family. I also think that any
investigations from tips like this need to start off very under wraps
because the potential to damage the accused if their name is splashed
across the front page is so high. If substance is found, sure, then it
needs to go to the paper. Also, the records of handling of cases need to
be able to be reviewed in order to be able to hold the investigators
accountable (but that shouldn't result in false accusations getting on
the front page). Of course the accused should always be informed of the
accusation at some point (either because the accusation is
substantiated, or if the accusation is not substantiated).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
