Busted In Bama

 

1. Hey, I know, let’s make them wear a scarlet letter all the time!! Better yet, let’s brand them with a nice “P” for pervert stigma burned into cheeks. This is no different really.
   Ooh, let’s stone them in public! My God, that 18 year old boy had sex with your 15 year old daughter, you know, the one who walks around mostly naked all the time? The one you bought miniskirts, makeup, and high heels for when she was 12? The one who wears all those different colored bracelets that advertise which sex acts she’ll do at parties? Kill HIM, he’s the PERV!!!

   I’ve about had my fill of this . If you feel these people are a serious danger to society, and many of them are, then DON’T LET THEM OUT OF JAIL. If you let them out, then they have paid their debt to society and are as free and clear as the rest of us. Anything like this, or Megan’s Law, or any form of registration, public notification, etc., is cruel and unusual punishment.

   Wasn’t their a post here just the other day telling us how some state is passing a law that gets you labeled as a sex offender based merely on an accusation? Maybe that was over at Mischa’s site. Either way, this is today’s witch hunt and it’s just as sickening a practice as it was back in 1635.

   I am completely fed up with knee jerk reactionary laws like this one. You either solve the problem by changing society (to de-sexualize children, to get teens to value their chaste reputation, and to make inappropriate relationships inconceivable) or you lock these people up forever. Lock them up forever that is, once you tighten up the laws a great deal.

   Yes this problem exists. Yes it seems there are sickos everywhere you turn. Funny how that wasn’t the case 30-50 years ago. Hmm, maybe today’s lax society encourages them? Either way, this practice of never ending punishment is against one of the founding principles this country was based on and is totally wrong. Execute them, lock them up forever, that’s your choice.

   If you let these people back into society you have to let them back in, no strings attached. If this state tried to pass a law that would mark the liscenses of all criminals the public reaction would be thunderous, yet that would be equal application under the law. You can’t have it both ways.

   Posted by Drew458       09/02/2006  at  08:31 AM  



2. While I like the idea of “marking” sex offenders for all to see, I agree that this particular law has its flaws.  I’m pretty sure that most sex offenders who are looking to re-engage in criminal behaviors aren’t going to show their victims their shiny new “Pervert” ID before raping them.  And I doubt the new ID will stop them from any recidivism.  Finally, what makes these lawmakers think that the pervs won’t just run to a neighboring state that doesn’t have this law?  Or maybe that’s the idea…

   You either solve the problem by changing society (to de-sexualize children, to get teens to value their chaste reputation, and to make inappropriate relationships inconceivable)

   
   Yeah, loads of people need to start being more responsible in their parenting.  Drives me freaking nuts…

   Lock them up forever that is, once you tighten up the laws a great deal.

   Truth in sentencing drives me nuts, too.  20 years should be 20 years - not 5 years and 15 more doing parole.

   Posted by shinjinrui       09/02/2006  at  09:22 AM  



3. Truth in sentencing might be the solution. Personally, I don’t think that even employment forms should ask if you have a criminal past. None of their damn business. Really! If you have paid the price then you are free and clear. Period. Never ending “parole” is akin to loan sharking; not matter how long you pay you’re never free of the debt. It’s wrong.

   Posted by Drew458       09/02/2006  at  09:36 AM  



4. I have to agree with both Drew and Shinjinrui. A good Alabama ass whooping would be preferred to soft sentencing but Drew’s right. If they have served their sentence then they have paid their debt. unfortunately with these people I feel they are not actually “cured” by prison and really they should be detained indefinitely. Not so sure about the idea about not disclosing a criminal past though. Over here in order to own a shotgun or firearm you have to disclose if you have a criminal record. I don’t see this as unreasonable, though in the case of job apps I see where you coming from Drew, but I would still rather know if my prospective employee has done 8-10 in the State Penn as it were.

   Posted by LyndonB       09/02/2006  at  10:46 AM  



5. The job I just got requires a criminal background check, something I entirely agree with, considering it is a banking job and I will have account access to anyone who I happen to deal with.

   Posted by John C       09/02/2006  at  11:17 AM  



6. That’s the way it is in most of the country John, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. And Lyndon, maybe if we made that less of an issue - because it’s nearly a guarantee that you would not hire the guy - there would be less recidivism? I am NOT talking about sex offenders in this case. For them, maybe what they need is long term commitment to psychiatric institutions. Maybe they shouldn’t be let loose ever. But for those who did do time for something stupid and rash they could get a break afterwards. Under the Truth in Sentencing bit, repeat offenders would go away for longer times. I dunno; it’s a complex issue I’d need at least 3 beers to solve, but what we have now isn’t working. Too many people going to jail for too many BS reasons, too many laws making certain things multiply illegals, too many people getting off with a slap on the wrist for major crimes, etc. Maybe I’d need a whole six pack to get a handle on the entire thing.

   Posted by Drew458       09/02/2006  at  02:56 PM  



7. We need to get more proactive about screening our DAs

   Posted by mythusmage       09/03/2006  at  12:05 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.