Ahh, that’s the ultimate in compromise. With a name like freedom, you just shouldn’t settle for second best. 
Fight to lock 'em up for life!
I’ll help ya if we can do this to all murderers, too. Which reminds me, is murder one always a life sentence?
Anyway…
It’s 2001 and Bi-partisanship is the current buzz-word.
Compromising is required.
That’s why I tend to set out my initial request so far beyond what I would actually be comfortable with:)
aynrandlover wrote:
Wait a minute … I thought “house arrest” meant you weren’t allowed to leave your house.
Bi-Partisanship: How to Make a One-Party State and Get Away With It by Adam A. Kraat.
Only the one with strong convictions loses out in a compromise. Not that they are avoidable in all cases, of course, but this one I think they are. I wouldn’t mind living in the same apartment complex as a known sex-offender, provided he’d done time and got back out. This, to me, is no less dangerous than living around one before he gets caught, and putting a name on a list isn’t gonna help anything but raise hysteria levels of little old ladies.
But are these laws actually on the books somewhere???
Ok. So now you have two kids, ages 6 and 9. Either sex.
You find out a convicted child molestor is moving in next door to you. He was initially convicted of kidnapping a 7 year old and holding him in his house for 3 days. During this time he molested the kid in ways you don’t want to think about. We only know this because he filmed the whole thing. The kid still won’t talk about the experience. The molestor has served 15 years in jail and now he is being let out.
You really don’t mind this guy moving in? You really don’t want to be informed of the dangers in your neighborhood to your children?
The difference being…
The odds of living around the corner from a child molestor are pretty small. And are you really implying you wouldn’t want to know that you were living around the corner from a child molestor who was going to be caught in a couple of months?
Have a child. Meet a child molestor. Let him hang out in your neighborhood.
Then tell me only little old ladies are getting hysterical over nothing.
If a person’s reaction or response to a law is dependent on his/her circumstances–there is a pretty good chance it is not a good law.
A good law is reasonable, understandable, and justifiable under any circumstances.
You’re mixing things up again by assuming that “once a sex offender always a sex offender.”
To start, every time a neighbor moves in I get paranoid. I don’t trust people in general for much more than to be stupid (including myself!). Is this a guy who smokes in bed? Is he a Dahmer? Etc etc. It will not serve me to know that this guy has commited a crime. I have known felons who served their time and got out. Once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer? Nope. Once a gun-carrier always a gun-carrier (that’s me!)? Nope. Once a molester, always a molester?
Hard to say. It could be put forth that to commit any crime against another person physically is to be whacko, and the criminal deserves to be locked up. It could also be put forth that human nature is pretty maleable and there is little that can’t be changed and few who won’t be changed.
Now, I do not have a child. As an excersize, I am going to poll the family members who do have a child. But I don’t think they’ll like the idea either, just knowing my family.
The idea behind our justice system is that criminals are people too. I can’t condone anything less than that, and I feel these laws are on the far side of cruel and unusual.