Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:46:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
196 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
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 for your infraction, then, legally, you have met the
requirements for completing your sentence.
> 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?
I think that the individual would have to be reasonably identified as a
continued threat, and therefore subject to continued incarceration (or the
equivalent), and that would have to be part of the original sentencing. Under
the current system, a post-"time served" application of punishment is
unconstitutional, even if it nominally protects the public.
> > 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's my feeling as well. It's the retroactive (and summary) assignment of
additional punishment that's a problem. I'm sorry that past (but still
dangerous) offenders have been allowed to roam without any sort of monitor, but
we can't legally apply laws to people who have already been convicted and
served their prescribed sentences. That would be a very Kafka-esque society.
> 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.
Not a bad thing to hope for, but not really feasible in our current society.
> Oh, and making kids do chores _is_ abuse! It's just not an abuse that our
> society accepts. :-)
I think you meant to omit the "not" from that statement. I see your smiley
face, but I don't know that chores can be called abuse, even under what I
understand of your societal model. If the parent is not otherwise compensated
for the costs of child rearing, I don't see how the assignment of moderate
tasks can be called abusive.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
