Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:55:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
207 times
|
| |
|
|
"Dave Schuler!" wrote:
>
> 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.
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 be restrained by the government
(though we can argue about how long, and what constitutes "inability to
restrain oneself").
> > 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.
Of course the Supreme Court's reasoning in allowing the laws is that
they aren't punishment. Which is partially true. They do place a burden
on the subject to register. Unfortunately, the SC seems to have ignored
the potential for misuse of the information (I think it would be
reasonable to label some sex offenders, and then use that information to
not allow them into certain jobs, and perhaps make some restriction on
where they can live [so long as that restriction doesn't become a
defacto prohibition, for example, if the law said registered sex
offenders are prohibited from living within 5 miles of a school, I think
they would find it pretty hard to find a place to live]). Registration
should not be allowed to make it easy for people to harrass the person
though (which is the problem I have with posting the information on the
web, or even really making it generally available).
> > 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.
Actually is is feasible in our current society, though it is almost
never used (there are various remedies against people who make false
accusations).
> > 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.
I think he was saying "It's just not an abuse that our society accepts
[as an abuse]." I think Chris is mostly against the idea that the kid
should get an allowance for doing chores, or even just be coerced into
doing them. That doesn't mean no chores, just that the kid (or little
people as Chris has said in the past) should be offered the opportunity
to help the family by doing some chores. I think there's sort of a
subtley here that I may not be conveying well.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
