ACLU at it again
- Thread starter Glock 31
- Start date
So does the public defender's office.
For similar reasons, BTW.
I suppose we could hash out all the reasons for the existence of the ACLU, but it really is no difference than the reason a crowd lynching someone is bad, no matter whether they're guilty or not. Guilt or innocence is not the question. It is a question of rights, and how they exist no matter who you are or what you're accused of doing.
I think it is bizarre that someone on a gun board would need a civics lesson in how important civil rights are.
For similar reasons, BTW.
I suppose we could hash out all the reasons for the existence of the ACLU, but it really is no difference than the reason a crowd lynching someone is bad, no matter whether they're guilty or not. Guilt or innocence is not the question. It is a question of rights, and how they exist no matter who you are or what you're accused of doing.
I think it is bizarre that someone on a gun board would need a civics lesson in how important civil rights are.
The problem I see is too many "sex crimes" are lumped together and all required to register forever.
If your 16 year old son has a 15 year old girlfriend who instigates sex with him or is a very willing participant should he be ostracized as a sex offender for the rest of his life? I know of a person locally in this position. He is 22 years old now, has custody of the child whose conception caused the conviction, is married, has a bachelors degree and has to work in a foundry because no one in his field will hire a convicted sex offender.
If the sex offender lists only required registration by serious or repeat offenders there would be far less people for LEO to try to keep track of.
I have no problem with registration or special rules for those who register. I do have a problem with scenarios like the one I just mentioned and there are many more where that came from.
If your 16 year old son has a 15 year old girlfriend who instigates sex with him or is a very willing participant should he be ostracized as a sex offender for the rest of his life? I know of a person locally in this position. He is 22 years old now, has custody of the child whose conception caused the conviction, is married, has a bachelors degree and has to work in a foundry because no one in his field will hire a convicted sex offender.
If the sex offender lists only required registration by serious or repeat offenders there would be far less people for LEO to try to keep track of.
I have no problem with registration or special rules for those who register. I do have a problem with scenarios like the one I just mentioned and there are many more where that came from.
The ACLU is earning an anti American reputation.
Picking on boyscouts of America because they believe in God and recieve tax funding to help mold a positive life for these kids. WOW..........
Thats the ACLU. Hey, how much do you think they owe the tax payer for all they're court battles against christians and children alone?
Lets crush those darn boy scouts and save NAMBLA.
Thats American, oh, and didn't they defend the nazi movment in the upper east in the Jewish areas.
Thats all American.
Picking on boyscouts of America because they believe in God and recieve tax funding to help mold a positive life for these kids. WOW..........
Thats the ACLU. Hey, how much do you think they owe the tax payer for all they're court battles against christians and children alone?
Lets crush those darn boy scouts and save NAMBLA.
Thats American, oh, and didn't they defend the nazi movment in the upper east in the Jewish areas.
Thats all American.
The Boy Scout issue was NOT that they believe in God. The issue was that they were receiveing public money, but weren't open to the public, claiming a religious reason for excluding some boys and allowing others.
But you knew, that, Carbiner. Instead of talking about the issue squarely, you're going to twist the facts and misrepresent the issues until they begin to resemble your prejudices.
I think, somewhere in there, you even understand that doing the right thing isn't always so noble sounding. But you're so damned right wing that you'd rather see your biases catered to than support the Constitutional rights of ALL Americans. Like those who ban guns and hide behind bodyguards, you want to pick and choose who deserves to be treated as a citizen, as if they weren't rights at all, but priveledges for the deserving ruling caste.
That isn't America. There are a lot of countries in the world where your take on race, sexuality, religion and language will earn you a place in the controlling elite - but here we attempt to make laws and protect liberties for ALL people - not just whoever you think deserves it.
But you knew, that, Carbiner. Instead of talking about the issue squarely, you're going to twist the facts and misrepresent the issues until they begin to resemble your prejudices.
I think, somewhere in there, you even understand that doing the right thing isn't always so noble sounding. But you're so damned right wing that you'd rather see your biases catered to than support the Constitutional rights of ALL Americans. Like those who ban guns and hide behind bodyguards, you want to pick and choose who deserves to be treated as a citizen, as if they weren't rights at all, but priveledges for the deserving ruling caste.
That isn't America. There are a lot of countries in the world where your take on race, sexuality, religion and language will earn you a place in the controlling elite - but here we attempt to make laws and protect liberties for ALL people - not just whoever you think deserves it.
Huh? What a bizarre statement.
Going back to the issue of public spaces and convicted sex offenders, I wonder if this isn't the type of law that only is enforced when other laws are enforced. For example, a sex offender commits some other crime near a school, and gets slapped with this charge as well.
Constitutional or not, I don't possibly see how it could be enforced effectively in and of itself.
Leif is absolutely right.
Just like concealed carry laws, the only way to enforce this is to brand "gun owner" or "sex offender" on the person's forehead, or, failing that, to institute unconstitutional spot checks.
Otherwise, such laws merely provide for an additional charge when someone gets dinged for something else (like a speeding ticket, or jaywalking).
Just like concealed carry laws, the only way to enforce this is to brand "gun owner" or "sex offender" on the person's forehead, or, failing that, to institute unconstitutional spot checks.
Otherwise, such laws merely provide for an additional charge when someone gets dinged for something else (like a speeding ticket, or jaywalking).
handy, attacking me won't help the ACLU. Unlike them, I love children, reguardless of race, gender, etc.
The ACLU evens threatens they're own employees against free speech, now thats gut buster
Why does the ACLU hate kids so much, or christians, and those darn crosses are threatening who?
Al the tax payer money used to defend simple law abiding Americans could have helped children who are raped by orgs the ACLU protects. All so more kids get molested.
The ACLU has some real nut jobs, a little parnoid too!
The ACLU evens threatens they're own employees against free speech, now thats gut buster
Why does the ACLU hate kids so much, or christians, and those darn crosses are threatening who?
Al the tax payer money used to defend simple law abiding Americans could have helped children who are raped by orgs the ACLU protects. All so more kids get molested.
The ACLU has some real nut jobs, a little parnoid too!
Carbiner,
The ACLU is so unprincipled that they would defend even you, if it was a civil liberties case. They take ALL civil liberties cases, including some involving guns.
The fact that there are more cases of those everyone hates losing their rights is the reason Nazis, rapists and gays are being defended more than immigrants, blacks and women, as in the past. EVERYONE has civil rights - they don't just vanish into the ether with a criminal conviction or because you're and Arab.
So I'll leave it at that. You can play dumb on someone elses time.
Yes, I'm giving you credit for playing.
The ACLU is so unprincipled that they would defend even you, if it was a civil liberties case. They take ALL civil liberties cases, including some involving guns.
The fact that there are more cases of those everyone hates losing their rights is the reason Nazis, rapists and gays are being defended more than immigrants, blacks and women, as in the past. EVERYONE has civil rights - they don't just vanish into the ether with a criminal conviction or because you're and Arab.
So I'll leave it at that. You can play dumb on someone elses time.
Yes, I'm giving you credit for playing.
Like Handy said, this means that the so called rehabilitation efforts of the department of corrections is lacking in it's effectiveness.
I like the idea of tracking pedophiles through collars or bracelets or whatever technology is available. Especially if it finds a new victim in time. The only problem I can forsee with it is that it would require an enormous amount of money to implement the technology to monitor movements 24 hours a day. Especially in states like here in New Mexico. It seems we have the country's majority of sex offenders flocking here because the laws aren't as strict as other states. Sure it would create more jobs for people, but then the amount of calls to police officers just cause some guy went down the wrong street on his way to the store, would inundate police with time consuming problems that would overstretch their abilities to effectively perform their duties.
And of course we can't just throw them all on an island somewhere and let them manhandle each other till their all blue in the face. That would be a violation of their civil rights wouldn't it. But couldn't you argue that since they already violated their victim's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They in effect, forfeited their rights to the same? But of course that's eye for an eye thinking which is not permited under our legal system.
Well, why do we have to give up OUR freedoms to be safe. I know that criminals, even pedophiles, are still technically human beings. But they have demonstrated the inability to function is a society that values law. Especially the repeat offenders such as the 78% in Renfield's quote. I would propose a seperate set of laws to deal with the ones that cannot be helped. Laws that for the severly depraved, sick and twisted, remove some of these rights and freedoms they take for granted and exploit to the detriment of others. Laws that can deferentiate between the hardcores and stupid teens. I mean the way the legal system works now, except for some specific cases involving mental instability, the main theme seems to be lock them up for a long time. Since this already strips these 'people' of their right to move around freely, these new laws wouldn't be setting any real precedent. And I don't see how the ACLU would have anything new to argue against this. We already strip rights as a punishment to criminals, why is it so hard to make sentences that just take it to the point where the criminal truly suffers for what they did?
But you can't tell me that a prisoner, though while having life, also has happiness and liberty. I don't believe you can uphold the rights of the victim AND the criminal to the same height, without endangering the victim. Why must criminals be given the same liberties as law abiding citizens? Does doing this say we are Americans any more than being able to keep the public safe from dangerous people? That we are fair in all instances, even when being fair threatens safety and life?
Repeat offenders, if ever released from prison again in the first place, would have to remain in their homes 24/7. They obtain food either over the internet or through companies like Swanson who do home delivery. And of course their computers would be automatically montiored for nefarious activities to include chatting. I could think of a couple of others but they are too numerous to mention here.
Basically a grand jury would decide whether or not to enact these laws. Or it would be up to the judge since sentencing is up to them anyway. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch, and it protects victims without impacting the rights of law abiding citizens, or even the rights of the "stupid teens who made a mistake" type of offenders. More and more today it seems that doing the time and paying your debt is no longer enough in some cases. Especially for some people who have it better in prison than they did outside of it.
What are the holes in this line of thinking? Since I'm sure I don't understand all that is involved in determining sentencing laws I would appreciate insights in to how and why this type idea for special sentences for special criminals would not work.