Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Megan's Laws - Out of Control?

galenbladegalenblade Registered User regular
edited August 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
So, this was kind of a thought provoking article in the Economist this week. Basically, it posits that due to political and societal pressure, so-called "Megan's Laws" across the country have careened out of control, and are unjustly applied to people that it was never meant to apply to. The social stigma associated with it, and the repressive laws that then govern your life afterwards can be devastating to your social and financial well-being.

And the rub is that there's no real way for a representative to take on this system, as defending "sex offenders" is pretty much political suicide.

Some choice bits from the article:

674,000 registered sex offenders in the US - More than the population of Wyoming, Vermont, or North Dakota.
According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.
Budgets are tight. Georgia’s sheriffs complain that they have been given no extra money or manpower to help them keep the huge and swelling sex-offenders’ registry up to date or to police its confusing mass of rules. Terry Norris of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association cites a man who was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married. “It doesn’t make it right, but it doesn’t make him a threat to anybody,” says Mr Norris. “We spend the same amount of time on that guy as on someone who’s done something heinous.”
Publicising sex offenders’ addresses makes them vulnerable to vigilantism. In April 2006, for example, a vigilante shot and killed two sex offenders in Maine after finding their addresses on the registry. One of the victims had been convicted of having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 19.
Several studies suggest that making it harder for sex offenders to find a home or a job makes them more likely to reoffend. Gwenda Willis and Randolph Grace of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, for example, found that the lack of a place to live was “significantly related to sexual recidivism”.

So what do you think? Are these laws too harsh? And what (if anything) can be done to make them more fair, given the political climate?

galenblade on
linksig.jpg
«1345

Posts

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yes, but since it's easy to demonize sex offenders and politically difficult to ever show anything but contempt and moral outrage for sex offenders, the laws are only ever going to get stricter and more draconian.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sex offenders are the new drug users. Getting shafted for minor offenses- only this time, they're getting fucked for the rest of their lives.

    BNsig.jpg
  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I have a friend who is a sex offender forever because he diddled his current wife when they were both in highschool, just because he was 18 and she wasn't

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I have a friend who is a sex offender forever because he diddled his current wife when they were both in highschool, just because he was 18 and she wasn't

    Man, am I lucky that my then girlfriend's parent's liked me, or this could have been me.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • KillgrimageKillgrimage Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The sexting thing is getting way out of control, that's for sure. The people who wrote the laws about distributing child porn didn't have these kids in mind and the law is pretty clearly not written for them.

    Consensual sex between two 14 year olds, while gross, should not completely ruin both kids lives (unless they get pregnant of course) just because they "had sex with a minor."

    I'm not really sure how great an idea the sex offender registery was. I know they are sex offenders and that makes me as angry as anyone else, but after they've served their time (if they even make it through prison without being shived) they do deserve to be given their privacy back. People knowing where they live is just putting gas on a fire.

    I think ultimately technology is moving faster than lawmakers can keep up. I imagine there is going to be some pretty big shift in many laws, not just sex offender ones, and that right now we are feeling the growing pains of that.

  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I think the point the sherriff brings up is the big one -- if more and more people become sex offenders due to stupid reasons, clogging up the system, how do you watch out for the serious ones? The ones who rape children, do their time, and then try to move near schools?

    A lot of it strikes me like 3-strikes laws. It makes sense politically, but in practice it's rather inane.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I did a research project on this a year or so ago, and it's the most incredibly frustrating thing to read about. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all felonies (something like 4% are repeat offenders), too. I wish I didn't have to re-image my hard drive since I did that project, otherwise I'd have a whole bunch of sources just lying around for something like this.
    Suffice to say that it isn't going to change anytime soon though, yeah. The only way I could see it happening is if it gets lumped into some other huge prison reform bill or something like that.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    EggyToast wrote: »
    I think the point the sherriff brings up is the big one -- if more and more people become sex offenders due to stupid reasons, clogging up the system, how do you watch out for the serious ones? The ones who rape children, do their time, and then try to move near schools?

    A lot of it strikes me like 3-strikes laws. It makes sense politically, but in practice it's rather inane.

    Duh! iPhone app.

    ht_sex_offender_locator_090728_mn.jpg

    God knows, we aren't scared enough in this country.
    Spoiler:

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The best way to prevent recidivism, especially for crimes like sex offenses closely associated with mental illness are to keep a tight leash on the parolee - make sure they check in with their parole officer, make sure they comply with therapy, and make sure they have a job.

    Megan's Laws force sex offenders to live in remote locations, outside urban boundaries, far away from police departments and medical/psychiatric services. They make it difficult or impossible for the parolee to get a job.

    Basically, they drive these people to live out in trailers and cabins, squat in shacks, get apartments with assumed names, and otherwise disappear off of the social radar. This makes it more likely that they'll reoffend, not less.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2009
    Yes.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Basically, what it boils down to is that if they're dangerous enough to be put on the Megan's Law registries, then they shouldn't have been let free in the first place. If they're safe enough to be let free (even with police & psychiatric supervision) then Megan's Laws serve no purpose except to let Congresspeople tell their constituents a "tough on crime" fairytale.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    EggyToast wrote: »
    I think the point the sherriff brings up is the big one -- if more and more people become sex offenders due to stupid reasons, clogging up the system, how do you watch out for the serious ones? The ones who rape children, do their time, and then try to move near schools?

    A lot of it strikes me like 3-strikes laws. It makes sense politically, but in practice it's rather inane.

    This is exactly right. These databases basically have no information about what kind of crime was committed, so how do you know who are the real bad people and who gave somebody a BJ when they were 17?

    There should definitely also be some kind of time-limit on these databases - if you don't commit another crime in 5 years or whatever then you're taken off the list.

    This seems pretty reasonable:
    Human Rights Watch urges America to scale back its sex-offender registries. Those convicted of minor, non-violent offences should not be required to register, says Ms Tofte. Nor should juveniles. Sex offenders should be individually assessed, and only those judged likely to rape someone or abuse a child should be registered. Such decisions should be regularly reviewed and offenders who are rehabilitated (or who grow too old to reoffend) should be removed from the registry. The information on sex-offender registries should be held by the police, not published online, says Ms Tofte, and released “on a need-to-know basis”. Blanket bans on all sex offenders living and working in certain areas should be abolished. Instead, it makes sense for the most dangerous offenders sometimes to face tailored restrictions as a condition of parole.

    steam_sig.png
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    The best way to prevent recidivism, especially for crimes like sex offenses closely associated with mental illness are to keep a tight leash on the parolee - make sure they check in with their parole officer, make sure they comply with therapy, and make sure they have a job.

    Megan's Laws force sex offenders to live in remote locations, outside urban boundaries, far away from police departments and medical/psychiatric services. They make it difficult or impossible for the parolee to get a job.

    Basically, they drive these people to live out in trailers and cabins, squat in shacks, get apartments with assumed names, and otherwise disappear off of the social radar. This makes it more likely that they'll reoffend, not less.


    Every word of this is excellent.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Snork wrote: »
    I did a research project on this a year or so ago, and it's the most incredibly frustrating thing to read about. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all felonies (something like 4% are repeat offenders), too. I wish I didn't have to re-image my hard drive since I did that project, otherwise I'd have a whole bunch of sources just lying around for something like this.
    Suffice to say that it isn't going to change anytime soon though, yeah. The only way I could see it happening is if it gets lumped into some other huge prison reform bill or something like that.
    Dudes who rape kids almost always do it to a family member or, at the most distant, the victim has some established relationship with the rapist. Yeah, there are rapists who prowl playgrounds and stuff, but they are a minority.

    Piling social ostracization on top of the exile from one's family and friends won't help a sick individual the help he or she needs.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    By the way, I have a friend. She has a gay uncle who recently passed away. I don't know how old he was exactly - late 60s, maybe?

    Anyway, she recently found out that he never followed his dream of becoming a teacher. Why? Because he was once busted for soliciting homosexual sex from another adult during a police raid of a gay bar in the 1960s.

    Gay men who were busted under homophobic anti-sodomy laws in California are exempt from registration under California state law, but not all states are quite so tolerant of homosexuality. Since the bust happened in another state, he had to register there in the 1980s. Consequently, he came up as a Megan's Law registree in criminal background checks.

    At the very least, there should be exemptions in all states for gay men who were busted under archaic anti-sodomy laws, as well as minors were were busted for statutory rape for having sex with other minors.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    When you cant take pictures of your own kids because the photo might include other kids, yes, the law has gotten out of hand.

    For anyone who watches Scrubs, theres an episode where Janitor follows Dr Cox to the park to photograph him not taking brilliant care of his son. During this he takes photos of a young girl. I can't help but think every time I see that scene that Janitor would be in jail and/or beaten up by parents at the park who think hes a pervert.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I know someone who is currently in jail as a sex offender because he met someone on myspace who's age said she was 18. They slept together, and the then she went to the cops where she revealed that Whoops! She's actually only 17! Off to jail for you!

    So yes, myspace is totally out of control.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • galenbladegalenblade Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Snork wrote: »
    I did a research project on this a year or so ago, and it's the most incredibly frustrating thing to read about. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all felonies (something like 4% are repeat offenders), too. I wish I didn't have to re-image my hard drive since I did that project, otherwise I'd have a whole bunch of sources just lying around for something like this.


    The US recidivism rate is about that, but this passage implies that it could be higher. If true, worrying.
    A study of nearly 10,000 male sex offenders in 15 American states found that 5% were rearrested for a sex crime within three years. A meta-analysis of 29,000 sex offenders in Canada, Britain and America found that 24% had reoffended after 15 years.

    linksig.jpg
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The laws sex offenders are required to comply with are often changed too. One of the popular things to do in the last few years was to increase the distance away from schools, parks, etc. that sex offenders have to live. Luckily, I think people started realizing it was a stupid idea because you end up with sex offenders living under bridges or worse -- ceasing to register periodically because there is no legal place for them to live.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Basically, what it boils down to is that if they're dangerous enough to be put on the Megan's Law registries, then they shouldn't have been let free in the first place. If they're safe enough to be let free (even with police & psychiatric supervision) then Megan's Laws serve no purpose except to let Congresspeople tell their constituents a "tough on crime" fairytale.

    This all day long.

    The US justice system claims that incarceration is both rehabilitation and a warning for people considering criminal activities. If the terms of sentence for a sex offense are really rehabilitating then there is no logical need for a registry. The existence of the registry, then, is either a legalized witch hunt or an admission that the system does not work. If it's a witch hunt then it needs to be stopped; if it's an admission of a broken system then the system needs to change.

    In South Carolina public indecency is a sufficient crime to warrant placement on the sex offender registry. Urinating in public is considered public indecency. So if you get drunk and pee in an alley on your way home or you go behind a tree in your back yard and you get caught, sex offender town for you. It's ridiculous. And it's a horrible quagmire because, as other posters have said, there is no way to get back out of this rabbit hole once you've jumped down it. As soon as a sex offense law is passed it may as well be graven into the foundation of city hall for all that any politician is ever going to come within a country mile of challenging it.

    There was a big, long, occasionally heated thread on here a while back about a girl who was potentially going to be sentenced for child pornography after posting pictures of herself on myspace. Whether you think that's right or not, I can't think of any possible justification for the punishment to follow her for the rest of her life as a dot on an iPhone app saying "PREDATOR HERE! FLEE!"

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    galenblade wrote: »
    Snork wrote: »
    I did a research project on this a year or so ago, and it's the most incredibly frustrating thing to read about. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all felonies (something like 4% are repeat offenders), too. I wish I didn't have to re-image my hard drive since I did that project, otherwise I'd have a whole bunch of sources just lying around for something like this.


    The US recidivism rate is about that, but this passage implies that it could be higher. If true, worrying.
    A study of nearly 10,000 male sex offenders in 15 American states found that 5% were rearrested for a sex crime within three years. A meta-analysis of 29,000 sex offenders in Canada, Britain and America found that 24% had reoffended after 15 years.

    Just this passage alone is awfully vague though. What were their offenses and situations? A serial rapist reoffending is quite a bit different from a guy who had sex with his girlfriend in highschool and then 12 years later got drunk and pissed behind a tree.

    Even someone who actually did do something terrible but didn't have a proper support system in place is much different.

    And even at 24%, isn't that still way lower than the recidivism rate for other crimes? (This is one of those "I thought I read it somewhere" things, so I could be wrong on that)

  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, I have a friend. She has a gay uncle who recently passed away. I don't know how old he was exactly - late 60s, maybe?

    Anyway, she recently found out that he never followed his dream of becoming a teacher. Why? Because he was once busted for soliciting homosexual sex from another adult during a police raid of a gay bar in the 1960s.

    Gay men who were busted under homophobic anti-sodomy laws in California are exempt from registration under California state law, but not all states are quite so tolerant of homosexuality. Since the bust happened in another state, he had to register there in the 1980s. Consequently, he came up as a Megan's Law registree in criminal background checks.

    At the very least, there should be exemptions in all states for gay men who were busted under archaic anti-sodomy laws, as well as minors were were busted for statutory rape for having sex with other minors.

    The LA Weekly did an article on this subject awhile back. The statute that was used to convict gay men pre-1975 still exists, but it now only applies to child molesation and rape. Gay men convicted under those old laws are still winding up on the sex offender registry here in California, and as the article notes, getting off the registry is "a nightmare".

    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    That's just insulting, I think DBZ is bad but I'm not going to insinuate that it only appeals to people who are equal parts retards and psychopaths.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    What does Megan think about all this?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    mrflippy wrote: »
    The laws sex offenders are required to comply with are often changed too. One of the popular things to do in the last few years was to increase the distance away from schools, parks, etc. that sex offenders have to live. Luckily, I think people started realizing it was a stupid idea because you end up with sex offenders living under bridges or worse -- ceasing to register periodically because there is no legal place for them to live.

    Which raises questions of double jeopardy.

    It would be nice if someone managed to get all the various politicians who keep ratcheting up sex offender laws on the registry because they pissed in an alley after a ball game or got caught with a prostitute. You'd figure that might change some of their views toward actually solving the criminal justice system.

    tea-1.jpg
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What does Megan think about all this?

    Not much.
    Spoiler:

    sonopovera
  • GryphGryph Registered User
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What does Megan think about all this?

    Considering she was murdered after being brutally raped, I'm thinking we will never know.

  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What does Megan think about all this?
    Are you going to dig her up and ask?

    *edit*
    SO SLOWWWWWWWW!

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    The laws sex offenders are required to comply with are often changed too. One of the popular things to do in the last few years was to increase the distance away from schools, parks, etc. that sex offenders have to live. Luckily, I think people started realizing it was a stupid idea because you end up with sex offenders living under bridges or worse -- ceasing to register periodically because there is no legal place for them to live.

    Which raises questions of double jeopardy.

    It would be nice if someone managed to get all the various politicians who keep ratcheting up sex offender laws on the registry because they pissed in an alley after a ball game or got caught with a prostitute. You'd figure that might change some of their views toward actually solving the criminal justice system.

    For that matter, how many of them were virgins on their 18th birthday?

    Statisticly, damn near everyone is a sex offender. They just haven't been prosecuted yet.

    Well. apparently roughly half of highschoolers report having had sex. That's self-reported though, I bet the real figure is higher.

    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    That's just insulting, I think DBZ is bad but I'm not going to insinuate that it only appeals to people who are equal parts retards and psychopaths.
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Are you going to dig her up and ask?

    *edit*
    SO SLOWWWWWWWW!

    Have no fear, Judgement is here!

    And I brought Candy!

    For anyone who suffers from the TL;DR bug, the basic story is that 2 boys were put on the sex offender registery...when they were 10 and 12. They've grown up now, and the one they sexually assualted(their sister...EWW!) says she forgave them. But they are still registered sex offenders.

    I'm not justifying their actions, but they were 10 and 12. I don't think it was nessecary to put them on a list with rapists and child molesters.

    309151-1.png
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    The laws sex offenders are required to comply with are often changed too. One of the popular things to do in the last few years was to increase the distance away from schools, parks, etc. that sex offenders have to live. Luckily, I think people started realizing it was a stupid idea because you end up with sex offenders living under bridges or worse -- ceasing to register periodically because there is no legal place for them to live.

    Which raises questions of double jeopardy.

    It would be nice if someone managed to get all the various politicians who keep ratcheting up sex offender laws on the registry because they pissed in an alley after a ball game or got caught with a prostitute. You'd figure that might change some of their views toward actually solving the criminal justice system.

    For that matter, how many of them were virgins on their 18th birthday?

    Statisticly, damn near everyone is a sex offender. They just haven't been prosecuted yet.

    Well. apparently roughly half of highschoolers report having had sex. That's self-reported though, I bet the real figure is higher.

    Or lower, if you wanted to be cool.

    309151-1.png
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Hah, I suppose.

    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    That's just insulting, I think DBZ is bad but I'm not going to insinuate that it only appeals to people who are equal parts retards and psychopaths.
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited August 2009
    In all seriousness, though, I'm sure highschoolers lie about their experiances. Socially developed stigmas, such as "Purity in the eyes of God" or the deroggitory use of "Virgin" perpetuate fears of abstinence/sexuality. You want to be accepted by friends and family, but when the two conflict you have to choose.

    Also, not to sure polls are the most reliable sources of information becuase you can lie pretty easily on one(depending on how its done, that is).

    309151-1.png
  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    The laws sex offenders are required to comply with are often changed too. One of the popular things to do in the last few years was to increase the distance away from schools, parks, etc. that sex offenders have to live. Luckily, I think people started realizing it was a stupid idea because you end up with sex offenders living under bridges or worse -- ceasing to register periodically because there is no legal place for them to live.

    Which raises questions of double jeopardy.

    It would be nice if someone managed to get all the various politicians who keep ratcheting up sex offender laws on the registry because they pissed in an alley after a ball game or got caught with a prostitute. You'd figure that might change some of their views toward actually solving the criminal justice system.

    For that matter, how many of them were virgins on their 18th birthday?

    Statisticly, damn near everyone is a sex offender. They just haven't been prosecuted yet.

    Well. apparently roughly half of highschoolers report having had sex. That's self-reported though, I bet the real figure is higher.
    At the state level, the average age of consent is actually closer to 16 (for female/male. It blows my mind that places like Tennessee actually go out of their way to legislate that two gay dudes can't do it until they're 18 but 16 is fine for reg'lar folks).

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The real question here is, how can you go about changing laws that it is politically impossible to be against?

    It seems that this illustrates a serious flaw in the political system that there is no outlet for addressing these kinds of issues.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User
    edited August 2009
    I know it varies. California's is 18, no "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions, same as the federal statute, and I was mostly thinking about CA.

    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    That's just insulting, I think DBZ is bad but I'm not going to insinuate that it only appeals to people who are equal parts retards and psychopaths.
  • redxredx Bow Down! Before the power of Santa!Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The real question here is, how can you go about changing laws that it is politically impossible to be against?

    It seems that this illustrates a serious flaw in the political system that there is no outlet for addressing these kinds of issues.

    This sounds like a job for an activist judge.

    Bow Down, Bow Down
    Before the power of Santa
    Or be crushed, be crushed
    By his jolly boots of doom.
  • hangedman1984hangedman1984 Registered User
    edited August 2009
    redx wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The real question here is, how can you go about changing laws that it is politically impossible to be against?

    It seems that this illustrates a serious flaw in the political system that there is no outlet for addressing these kinds of issues.

    This sounds like a job for an activist judge.

    most needed superhero evar

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    redx wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The real question here is, how can you go about changing laws that it is politically impossible to be against?

    It seems that this illustrates a serious flaw in the political system that there is no outlet for addressing these kinds of issues.

    This sounds like a job for an activist judge.

    most needed superhero evar

    But conservative judges are the only ones that get to be activist without being lambasted for it, and no conservative judge is going to want to do anything sensible with "tough on crime" legislation.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • FerrousFerrous Registered User
    edited August 2009
    I think there needs to be a law stating that "If one use the argument 'For the Children' in the creation of any law you never ever get to talk about anything related to the legal system EVER. Seriously its worse than "We need this to stop the terrorists". Its the worst kind of emotional manipulation and literally makes it impossible to have any sort of reasoned discourse about whether said law will actually improve the situation or not.

  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    It seems the only way to change these laws is to have more police departments speak up about the money and time involved in policing people who aren't actually sex offenders.

    I mean you can't realistically have a guy come up and admit he got slapped with a statutory because his girlfriend was 17 and he was 18. People will lynch him. The lack of a public face for these individuals is what's hurting them. Police officals coming up and saying "Monitoring these people is wasting your money and preventing us from watching the truly dangerous individuals" would be a massive boon to them.

«1345
This discussion has been closed.