Paging John Connor

 

1. On the one hand we demand constant monitoring for ‘preverts’

   You would have it otherwise?

   I’ll give a bit of liberty for a modicum of security.

   Don’t go there Allan. I know the quote.

   We live in different times now.

   The framers had no idea we’d be in this mess.

   But here we are.

   I repeat. I’ll shed a bit of ‘freedom’ for some assurance Jessica Lundsford won’t happen again.

   You would too.

   Posted by Steel Turman       05/01/2005  at  05:50 AM  



2. STEEL: Monitoring perverts shouldn’t require the monitoring of the whole populace. Enforcing the laws and giving the death penalty to child molesters will do the job nicely.

   Monitoring the whole populace is assuming that most people are guilty until proven innocent, which is all wrong. I do not like at all the idea of having “eyes” on me all the time. Period. Down that slippery slope lies a “brave new world” I want no part of.

   Posted by The Skipper       05/01/2005  at  09:08 AM  



3. 7-Eleven monitors the entire 6 million people who daily come through their doors.

   Individual people will be able to purchase flying cameras in the future.

   If Barking-Moonbat.com wanted to fly a camera over this group it’s probably our right. 

   Posted by Z Woof       05/01/2005  at  10:29 AM  



4. Steel Turman:
   Main problem there is who’s doing the monitoring, private civilians and corporations, or the government.  Z Woof mentioned 7-Eleven stores - they monitor to protect their businesses from theft, most folks with even half a brain know there are cameras present and can often point them out, and we have a choice to not shop there in protest of those cameras.
   However, a police agency using airborne cameras smacks of the “police state” the Donks have been so fond of worrying about lately.  A government has but one interest - keeping the tax dollars flowing - and they don’t have any business to protect, nor competition to keep them honest.  At the very least, this would be an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer dollars, not just for the flying camera and support systems, but for whoever gets paid to watch the dumb thing.  Worse is the sinister aspect of it - a police state is rather ineffective if it doesn’t know what’s going on.  And as Allan pointed out, this effectively treats innocent people like felons on probation.

   As for monitoring convicted perverts, they’ve already had their Constitutional rights restricted or removed through due process in the court system.  They no longer have the option of claiming a right to privacy; so long as it’s done legally, we could tag their ears with blinking tracking devices.  Actually… that’s not that bad of an idea, really…

   Instead of innocent, free citizens being willing to exchange some freedom for the pretense of security (And, indeed, that’s all it is, a pretense, and false at that.  Government incompetance assures this, as we’ve seen with the TSA), we should be clamping down on those areas that truly matter - real, tangible punishments for violent criminals; secured borders; schools that actually work and are held accountable by some means (either standardized testing, or, better yet, privatized schools); and the reintroduction of the idea that morality is something good that should be strived for, as absolutely no societal system in the world can function properly without at least some sort of non-subjective, non-relativist morality.

   Shoot down the flying cameras over our heads, but leave the ones watching the border.  Assume that our own citizens are, indeed innocent, but “call the whole world” in on the heads of those who truly are dangerous, whether they be convicted felons or foreign terrorists.

   But none of this “I’ll trade some freedom for security” crap.  Because that’s all it is… residue from the south end of a north-bound bovine.

   Posted by JSThane       05/01/2005  at  11:47 AM  



5. If they’re a convicted felon, especially rapists and child molesters, I really don’t have a problem with that.

   If a person chooses to act like scum, he deserves to be treated as scum. 

   Let me throw this idea out… first sex offense (conviction), minimum ten years jail time with a locked ankle bracelet for minimum ten years afterward.  Second sex offense, minimum twenty years jail, with the surgically implanted chip.  If they’re still alive and kicking in time to make a third offense, it’s life with no parole.
   Any sex offense which results in the death of the victim automatically bumps the minimum sentence to the third level, with possibility of the death sentence.  Any sex offense against a child is minimum second level.  Multiple sex offenses at once raise the level as well - two offenses at once, second level.  Three, and he’s never seeing daylight again.
   Any sex offense which results in the death of a child automatically sends the pervert to Old Sparky.

   Make sense?  Agree/disagree?

   Posted by JSThane       05/01/2005  at  10:23 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.