News-Record.com

Let me say that I believe that sex offender registry's are a "double jeopardy." What other convicted criminal, after "paying his/her debt to society" is required to "register" as a convicted felon? By having such people as these "register" the law under which he/she was convicted is invalid. These offender registry's basically keep the person a "criminal" for long after any imprisonment is completed. I would much rather be privy to other types of criminals who were "nearby" as opposed to those convicted of sexual crimes.

I applaude those plantiffs in the Indiana case. When will the good people of this country say enough already!

Shalom

It is a pretty complex issue, however. The problem of repeat offenses when dealing with sexual crimes is a very real issue. Now, whether the means that have been used so far are effective in dealing with the problem, I don't know. I've not heard of any studies on the matter. If there were some, that would help folks make better-informed decisions here.

But let's look at Nancy's statement: "I am not convinced we should care about the rights of child molesters and rapists."

Perhaps it's fortunate that the legal system doesn't look at a citizen's social worth when deciding whether he/she has rights. Who knows?

The nation was founded on several principles, one of which is that we have a government "of laws, not men." If the law is vague, it is not a law, and it depends upon men to interpret and enforce it. That principle is lost when this happens.

Darryl, I would agree with you except that I don't think that incarceration is a "debt to society." It's simply punishment. If the government chooses to extend punishment beyond the incarceration stage, they can try that. They simply have to construct laws that are in accord with the Constitution, which disallows cruel and unusual punishment, and make them specific enough to be enforceable by some objective standard.

Your argument that other crimes are not treated the same way is a good one, nevertheless. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the Constitution that says laws have to be consistent with each other.

Just about anything the ACLU is involved with elicits the same response from me: I don't want to see more victims and I don't want to see true criminals manipulate the law; but they are right, and there is no disputing it.

Lon, always remember, the ACLU fights for you as well. Were it not for the ACLU, there would be no Miranda!

I like it that you do not address the "double jeopardy" which has been addressed by the Supreme Court.

Lastly, a "debt to society" has been one of the slang terms of what a criminal "pay" by incarceration. I am baffled that was not known.

I stay with my position of being against these "registry" systems.

Shalom

You misread me. I agree that the punishments for sex offenders are harsh, I just don't think the arguments you submitted support this.

I know the term "debt to society", I just don't agree that that it was prison time is. There are other theories of incarceration going back to the 17th century, dealing mostly with rehabilitation and reform of the prisoner. I don't believe any of that. Prison time is a punishment, pure and simple. It is a consequence of your actions, if the justice system always worked perfectly.

It is the government's choice to imprison sex offenders, then add to the punishment with registry and the like. It is up to those of us who disagree with this to argue against it and provide evidence that it is not a good idea.

As far as the ACLU is concerned, again, you misread me. I will always defend and support the ACLU. It's how it makes me feel, for instance, when they defend the right of Nazis to march in Skokie. They are right and I support them. But this doesn't make me feel good about it ... purely an emotional thing that has nothing to do with the debate.

Cheers (Irish for Shalom, I think?)