The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Toastedturningtidelegs on November 05, 2010, 11:37:28 AM
-
Starts out like this.
alp227 (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-04-10 08:03 PM
Original message
Part of Jessica's Law ruled unconstitutional (restrictions on sex offender residency)
Source: Los Angeles Times
California corrections officials this week stopped enforcing portions of Jessica's Law in Los Angeles County after a judge ruled that the 2006 statute restricting how close sex offenders can live to parks or schools is unconstitutional.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza concluded that the controversial measure left sex offenders in some areas with the choice of being homeless or going to jail because the law restricts them from living in large swaths of some cities such as Los Angeles.
He issued the 10-page ruling Monday after four registered sex offenders petitioned the court. He noted that the court has received about 650 habeas corpus petitions raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared.
In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck that Jessica's Law restrictions had resulted in "a marked increase of homeless/transient registrants." In 2007, there were 30 sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles. By this September, that number had jumped to 259, Beck said. Most of the new cases were filed in the last six months.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sex-offenders-2...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well...shouldn't those offenders just have been kept behind bars if the state is uncomfortable letting them live in normal society like other civilians?
Alert | Hide Thread | Recommend +10 votes Unrecommend
Then look who shows up?mike_c (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-04-10 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. exactly-- Jessica's Law is just vigillante justice institutionalized...
...for after convicted offenders have finished their primary punishment. We perceive sex crimes to be especially heinous, so we institute additional ways to extract revenge even if offenders have done their time and warrant release. I have always opposed that sort of injustice.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig
This ****ing guy has to be on a list somewhere! He defends pedophiles at every turn. :o :censored:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4601154#4601200
-
I'd say that you might be onto something there.
-
mike_c (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-04-10 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. exactly-- Jessica's Law is just vigillante justice institutionalized...
...for after convicted offenders have finished their primary punishment. We perceive sex crimes to be especially heinous, so we institute additional ways to extract revenge even if offenders have done their time and warrant release. I have always opposed that sort of injustice.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig
I guess that means you are in favor of ending all "hate" crime legislation then.
Fwiw...you commit a sex crime against a child you don`t ever see freedom again and preferably you don`t live incarcerated for very long either.
-
Big fight over there with bugman and someone named Tavulon duking it out, over moral stance and stats. Bugman's premise is that 3% of the sample, or 3,000+ children being raped by a repeat offender is pretty damn OK. 3% is so low!!! Extrapolate that number out to the population as a whole, and now you're just engaging in sick child-sex fantasies.
One of my most hated DUmb****s.
-
This is tough in my mind. OTOH, if one serves their time or debt to society, why should they be treated like criminals. If that logic prevailed, we would probably conclude that thievery, and murder were part of one's basic make up and all crime is predisposed so keep all criminals locked up or constrained. Then, of course, the crime is so heinous and the victim so utterly innocent, it would be prudent to have extra caution. Like all legislated morals it is a slippery slope.
My solution is death penalty for the crime of child molestation. Then the moral ambiguity of paying one's debt is defined as death.
-
I think that mike_c is concerned that one day his choice of where to live may become very restricted.
-
This is tough in my mind. OTOH, if one serves their time or debt to society, why should they be treated like criminals. If that logic prevailed, we would probably conclude that thievery, and murder were part of one's basic make up and all crime is predisposed so keep all criminals locked up or constrained. Then, of course, the crime is so heinous and the victim so utterly innocent, it would be prudent to have extra caution. Like all legislated morals it is a slippery slope.
My solution is death penalty for the crime of child molestation. Then the moral ambiguity of paying one's debt is defined as death.
First offense, castration.
Second offense, lobotomy.
Third offense, death, no appeals, one chair, no waiting.
But I'm just an old softie.
-
mike_c (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-04-10 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. exactly-- Jessica's Law is just vigillante justice institutionalized......for after convicted offenders have finished their primary punishment. We perceive sex crimes to be especially heinous, so we institute additional ways to extract revenge even if offenders have done their time and warrant release. I have always opposed that sort of injustice.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig
WOW! Backwards thinking at every angle. Like someone said earlier, this dude must be a sex offender himself to be so opposed to Jessica's Law.
I bet this dude has no kids of his own, otherwise, he'd be singing a different tune for sure.
-
mike_c ie either a typical soft on crime asswipe or hes a full blown member of NAMBLA. I can't wait till the news pops up with him either having been caught by the cops chasing after kids or he had a run in witha platoon of Marine Infantry and started to spout off with his "I hate America" crap. Both would be highly entertaining.
-
mike_c ie either a typical soft on crime asswipe or hes a full blown member of NAMBLA. I can't wait till the news pops up with him either having been caught by the cops chasing after kids or he had a run in witha platoon of Marine Infantry and started to spout off with his "I hate America" crap. Both would be highly entertaining.
What was left of him would have to be hosed off the pavement.
-
mike_c ie either a typical soft on crime asswipe or hes a full blown member of NAMBLA. I can't wait till the news pops up with him either having been caught by the cops chasing after kids or he had a run in witha platoon of Marine Infantry and started to spout off with his "I hate America" crap. Both would be highly entertaining.
I guarantee you question him long enough and he'd admit that Age of Consent Laws should be with lowered or completely removed from the books.
.
-
I didn't know that sheep and goats had age of consent. :???:
-
Well...shouldn't those offenders just have been kept behind bars if the state is uncomfortable letting them live in normal society like other civilians?
I actually agree with that.
They should be kept behind bars.
You know why they aren't DUmmy?
Liberal judges is why. You guys defend criminals then can't figure out why it goes wrong.
-
Why keep them behind bars and spend tax payer money to support them when you can let them out into the woods with $20 worth of steak tied around the tree you nail them to? The bears will do the rest of the work for free.
-
This is tough in my mind. OTOH, if one serves their time or debt to society, why should they be treated like criminals. If that logic prevailed, we would probably conclude that thievery, and murder were part of one's basic make up and all crime is predisposed so keep all criminals locked up or constrained. Then, of course, the crime is so heinous and the victim so utterly innocent, it would be prudent to have extra caution. Like all legislated morals it is a slippery slope.
My solution is death penalty for the crime of child molestation. Then the moral ambiguity of paying one's debt is defined as death.
I agree. That crime is about as close as you can get to killing a person without ending their life. You write on who that child is and more than likely created another molester. :(
-
I didn't know that sheep and goats had age of consent. :???:
I've seen his pic, you meant Warthogs and Hyenas
-
Letting them live nextdoor to playgrounds and schools is like letting hunters hunt over a baited field......it just ain't right.
-
Letting them live nextdoor to playgrounds and schools is like letting hunters hunt over a baited field......it just ain't right.
Of those 2 scenarios the DUmmies would only be bothered by the hunting in baited fields.
-
Of those 2 scenarios the DUmmies would only be bothered by the hunting in baited fields.
That is true. ....DUmmies have a complete lack of commonsense.
-
My girlfriend is a parole agent, and she says that 290 (code for sex offenders in California) parolees, though comprising only about 10% of her caseload, takes over 70% of her time, with the bulk of her work in determining (or deciding) residency. Frankly, I think the residency law IS stupid on this factor alone. We have had two dinner dates aborted by emergency calls by agencies who wanted her clients violated for that very reason.
What SHOULD be done is the sentencing in the FIRST place should be directed toward the whole process, from punishment (incarceration) through reintegration (parole, and eventual completion of sentence) into the community. Sex offender laws are based more upon parental and community fear factors than actual danger metrics. Recidivism statistics are what they are, and 5.3% recidivism for all 290's is far lower than those who have committed violence (41% recidivism), auto theft (38% recidivism), and general property damage (62% recidivism). All those figures are derived from Department of Justice statistics, considered the most reliable of all criminal statistics that are used by law enforcement and prosecution departments around the country.
Keep in mind the ruling takes away from the BLANKET residency restriction enforcement. It does NOT TAKE AWAY the right of a court to enforce a residency restriction on INDIVIDUAL offenders, which in MY opinion should be the rule in the first place.
So what is the answer? My own personal belief is that there should be NO Internet registry, that sentences for vile crimes be life-long, that lesser sex offenses punishments be tailored to the particular offense, and that strict, but doable reintegration paths be set up for offenders (including tailored notification to the immediate neighborhood, schools, and other children's facilities as warranted). 19 year olds who screw their 15 year old girlfriends shouldn't have to be considered the same level as the guy who picks up girls, rapes and murders them, who should be executed immediately.
Again, let me remind you: this opinion is NOT based upon the DUmmies, but on COLD HARD FACT.
-
Within the last few weeks there was a guy arrested at a park in one of the small towns here. He lived in another town, but was visiting the park in another to watch little kids. Fortunately, parents got concerned enough in time to catch him. He was violating his parole, and was arrested.
http://www.wandtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13291851
-
Within the last few weeks there was a guy arrested at a park in one of the small towns here. He lived in another town, but was visiting the park in another to watch little kids. Fortunately, parents got concerned enough in time to catch him. He was violating his parole, and was arrested.
http://www.wandtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13291851
Excellent work by the mother. As a registered sex offender recidivist, he should get the book thrown at him. But note this had nothing to do with residency or type of crime he originally committed until AFTER he was caught. Registration inclusion had nothing to do with this case.
-
Excellent work by the mother. As a registered sex offender recidivist, he should get the book thrown at him. But note this had nothing to do with residency or type of crime he originally committed until AFTER he was caught. Registration inclusion had nothing to do with this case.
But the fact that he went from pictures to watching the kids seems like he's not a recidivist, but was possibly going to escalate his crimes.
-
But the fact that he went from pictures to watching the kids seems like he's not a recidivist, but was possibly going to escalate his crimes.
The problem with that is the word "seems" and "possibly." One could make the same argument that a driver arrested for being barely over the limit caught at a checkpoint, on a first offense, should be treated the same as a multiple-DUI offender who has killed people in a crash he caused while flaming drunk.
In addition, the ONLY reason the offender was arrested was because of his earlier conviction for a sex offense, and not that he was on the registry.
But aside from that...
I just gave you the percentage of my gf's workload. I stated that 70% of it is directed to the 10% who have 290 considerations. (It should also be noted that not all of the 10% of the offenders were actually on parole for the sex offense they committed that got them on the registry, but by law, if they are on parole for anything, and they are required to register, they fall under the restrictions.) So basically, my gf's workload for non-290's is that she has to direct only 30% of her time to over 90% of those who AREN'T 290's. These include the gang bangers, child and spouse abusers, criminals who uses violence (knives, guns, weapons) in non-290 offenses, etc. Finally, keep in mind that there are more attacks against by children that result in more physical damage that are NOT registrable; hence, no residency restriction for those offenders.
Again, this is not defending the DUmmie's stupid column. But I've always had an uneasy feeling with regard to sex offender registration, because I sense that we are ignoring the real problems of child sexual abuse while concentrating on the post-correctional facility punitive aspect. In short: it's not HOW many children we SAVE from previously convicted offenders that matter ALONE. It is HOW many children we save from ALL offenders, registered or not? Going by DOJ stats, coupled with my gf's real-world experience, I can't say that the registry is a good cost/benefit system to our criminal justice system.
The OBVIOUS solution is to increase the penalty for those who commit violence, that we make sure we differentiate between classes of rape (consensual statutory vs. forced, etc.), and we use common sense for all aspects of the crime. The prisons are the place to segregate criminals during the punitive phase, and we need to overhaul the parole system into a complete community reintegration plan to prevent recidivism across the board. Once you introduce a registry, you dillute the correctional system's purpose to that of a community vigilante service, which leads to all the crap we've had with regard to residency and GPS, which by and large do not work as advertised.
If you want specifics, talk to my girlfriend. She is *DEFINITELY* no fan of crime, and criminals, but she understands the point of restitutive reintegration. The main focus of criminal prosecution is victim restitution, followed by a collective disincentive to committing crimes. If an offender is forced into a situation where he is more likely to commit another offense, then that is where I (and my gf) draw the line.