Officials Try To Take Baby - Dad Is Convicted Sex Offender

[The ClayTaurus]

But it won't, You're "we the people" part will though, and they are the legislature which dictate the sentence guide lines for crime. That is where to start, if you don’t, it’s no more than subtle vigilantism which does subvert the system.

Exactly.

 

[Gunny]

But it won't, You're "we the people" part will though, and they are the legislature which dictate the sentence guide lines for crime. That is where to start, if you don’t, it’s no more than subtle vigilantism which does subvert the system.

As I stated previously, society already violates the rights of released sexual predators on a daily basis. Whenever the law has not reflected the will of the people, the people have tended to take matters into their own hands.

I have no problem with amending the law to reflect the will of the people. The problem is in this instance, the will of the people is in conflict with the supreme law of the land.

In this case, I think my sig says it best .... when we do nothing, evil triumphs. When it does, all the punishment and after-the-fact social remedies one can muster will not undo the crime.

If it is not OUR responsibility to protect the weak/defenseless among us .... WHOSE is it?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

As I stated previously, society already violates the rights of released sexual predators on a daily basis. Whenever the law has not reflected the will of the people, the people have tended to take matters into their own hands.

I have no problem with amending the law to reflect the will of the people. The problem is in this instance, the will of the people is in conflict with the supreme law of the land.

In this case, I think my sig says it best .... when we do nothing, evil triumphs. When it does, all the punishment and after-the-fact social remedies one can muster will not undo the crime.

If it is not OUR responsibility to protect the weak/defenseless among us .... WHOSE is it?

You keep bringing this back to us advocating apathy. That's not the case. We advocate fixing the system. Doing something just because it's already being done is not sound reasoning.

 

[Mr. P]

...

If it is not OUR responsibility to protect the weak/defenseless among us .... WHOSE is it?

No one is challenging that we must protect children, nor who’s responsibility it is.
The issue is how to fulfill that responsibility. We have two choices; one is the system the other Mob rule. I choose the system, and if it’s broken we fix it, but just because we don't agree doesn't mean it's broken.

This represents the fine line between a "true Democracy" (majority/Mod,rule) and the Republic in which we live.IMO.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Clay, I think we all agree that the judicial system needs fixing, and I think many peple have been working towards that end. But change can be very slow.

Where we disagree is on what to do to protect children in the meantime, while that slow process unfolds. You apparently feel that on balance, "subverting the sytem" by imposing restrictions on liberty after release from prison,and the slippery slope that may engender, is worse than a child possibly being raped and killed. I disagree. I think the objectionable aspects of curtailing someone's freedom for just one evening, pale in comparison to any increase in the likelihood that a child could be raped, however small.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Clay, I think we all agree that the judicial system needs fixing, and I think many peple have been working towards that end. But change can be very slow.

Where we disagree is on what to do to protect children in the meantime, while that slow process unfolds. You apparently feel that on balance, "subverting the sytem" by imposing restrictions on liberty after release from prison,and the slippery slope that may engender, is worse than a child possibly being raped and killed. I disagree. I think the objectionable aspects of curtailing someone's freedom for just one evening, pale in comparison to any increase in the likelihood that a child could be raped, however small.

That's a good point. Risk assessment, if you will... I'm not sure I oppose what you are suggesting, but moreso that I am very cautious that a precedent isn't set that can be abused later on. That's all.

 

[Gunny]

That's a good point. Risk assessment, if you will... I'm not sure I oppose what you are suggesting, but moreso that I am very cautious that a precedent isn't set that can be abused later on. That's all.

OH I SEE ... risk assessment wasn't good enough for me, but it is for Abbey. Sexist.

I agree that fixing the system is the proper way to go about solving the problem. I have not said otherwise. Obviously, the fact that I consider current treatment of released sex offenders violations of their Consitutional Rights supports this notion.

Back to my initial post (of risk assessment) .... it is my opinion that in absence of legislation to support it, putting the rights of the innocent above the rights of sex offenders is the right thing to do under questionable circumstances.

If the decision by this court is legally wrong, it will be reversed on review. I'm quite sure the ACLU will make sure it happens since it now is a high profile case that will get them some crusader ink.

 

[Abbey Normal]

OH I SEE ... risk assessment wasn't good enough for me, but it is for Abbey. Sexist.

Sexist is good.

 

[Mr. P]

...
Where we disagree is on what to do to protect children in the meantime, while that slow process unfolds. You apparently feel that on balance, "subverting the sytem" by imposing restrictions on liberty after release from prison,and the slippery slope that may engender, is worse than a child possibly being raped and killed. I disagree. I think the objectionable aspects of curtailing someone's freedom for just one evening, pale in comparison to any increase in the likelihood that a child could be raped, however small.

“Possibly” being the key word here. How far do we go to prevent what we view as a possibly without public law? As far as we need to? In our private life sure, in public life too?

Let’s look at this with a bit of change in words… It's risk assessment.”. I think the objectionable aspects of curtailing someone's freedom for just one evening, pale in comparison to any increase in the likelihood that a child could be hit and killed by a car, however small".

So tonight, Halloween when the risk is high, no one may drive after 5pm. Is it clear how very slippery this slope is yet?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

“Possibly” being the key word here. How far do we go to prevent what we view as a possibly without public law? As far as we need to? In our private life sure, in public life too?

Let’s look at this with a bit of change in words… It's risk assessment.”. I think the objectionable aspects of curtailing someone's freedom for just one evening, pale in comparison to any increase in the likelihood that a child could be hit and killed by a car, however small".

So tonight, Halloween when the risk is high, no one may drive after 5pm. Is it clear how very slippery this slope is yet?

Also a good point

 

[The ClayTaurus]

OH I SEE ... risk assessment wasn't good enough for me, but it is for Abbey. Sexist.

I agree that fixing the system is the proper way to go about solving the problem. I have not said otherwise. Obviously, the fact that I consider current treatment of released sex offenders violations of their Consitutional Rights supports this notion.

Back to my initial post (of risk assessment) .... it is my opinion that in absence of legislation to support it, putting the rights of the innocent above the rights of sex offenders is the right thing to do under questionable circumstances.

If the decision by this court is legally wrong, it will be reversed on review. I'm quite sure the ACLU will make sure it happens since it now is a high profile case that will get them some crusader ink.

I'm only sexist in knowing that the woman is always right

Abbey conveyed what you were trying to say in a way that I could easily comprehend. I don't totally agree with her, but her reasoning was easy for me to follow. If that's how you feel, than the same statement goes for you

 

[theHawk]

One problem I see in this country is alot of people tend to think of a prison sentence carried out as "he has paid his debt to society" and afterwards should be treaded equally as all other citizens. While this may be true of lesser crimes, when it comes to things like murder and rape, I think its a flawed way of thinking. Simply jailing someone for a certain amount of years is not always the answer. You can't jail a pedophile for X number of years and thereafter say "he has paid his debt to society." I'm not saying in all cases someone guilty of that needs to be jailed for life, but we need to look beyond a numbered amount of months/years as "payment" to society. I think people like this need to be watched in some manner for the rest of their lives. Yes, that includes taking away some of the "rights" and more so privileges we all enjoy, buy we are talking about people that grossly violated someone else's rights, thus, they aren't entitled to any for themselves. We the law abiding citizens determine how convicts "pay their debt to society". That can be an X amount of years behind bars, or up to a lifetime of restrictions as we see fit.

 

[Gunny]

I'm only sexist in knowing that the woman is always right

That's called wanting dinner and to sleep in the house tonight.

Abbey conveyed what you were trying to say in a way that I could easily comprehend. I don't totally agree with her, but her reasoning was easy for me to follow. If that's how you feel, than the same statement goes for you

It's going to hurt when you fall off that fence ..... :crutch:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

One problem I see in this country is alot of people tend to think of a prison sentence carried out as "he has paid his debt to society" and afterwards should be treaded equally as all other citizens. While this may be true of lesser crimes, when it comes to things like murder and rape, I think its a flawed way of thinking. Simply jailing someone for a certain amount of years is not always the answer. You can't jail a pedophile for X number of years and thereafter say "he has paid his debt to society." I'm not saying in all cases someone guilty of that needs to be jailed for life, but we need to look beyond a numbered amount of months/years as "payment" to society. I think people like this need to be watched in some manner for the rest of their lives. Yes, that includes taking away some of the "rights" and more so privileges we all enjoy, buy we are talking about people that grossly violated someone else's rights, thus, they aren't entitled to any for themselves. We the law abiding citizens determine how convicts "pay their debt to society". That can be an X amount of years behind bars, or up to a lifetime of restrictions as we see fit.

And I'd say most of us would agree. But that needs to be handled at sentencing, not 5, 10, 15 years down the road, whenever it's convenient.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It's going to hurt when you fall off that fence ..... :crutch:

I'm smart enough to get me some dinner

 

[Abbey Normal]

“Possibly” being the key word here. How far do we go to prevent what we view as a possibly without public law? As far as we need to? In our private life sure, in public life too?

Let’s look at this with a bit of change in words… It's risk assessment.”. I think the objectionable aspects of curtailing someone's freedom for just one evening, pale in comparison to any increase in the likelihood that a child could be hit and killed by a car, however small".

So tonight, Halloween when the risk is high, no one may drive after 5pm. Is it clear how very slippery this slope is yet?

There are many activities for which we weigh risk versus benefit. The way housing is spread out in the US today, driving is a necessity for many people. Answering your door to kids trick-or-treating is not. And btw, parents take lots of precuations on Halloween to protect their kids from being hit by a car. Flashlights, walking in groups, etc. Unfortunately, there are no flashlights tp protect kids from sexual predators.

That is also the reason we often permanently take away licenses of drunk drivers. Even though they've already "served their time", they are at high risk for recidivism.

But the bottom line is, of all the things that could happen to my child, having her raped and killled by sexual predator is the worst imaginable, for her and for us. I think most parents would agree. And that is why all other comparisons are flawed.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm smart enough to get me some dinner

You sure are! How's 7:30 sound?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Unfortunately, there are no flashlights tp protect kids from sexual predators.

I've figured out how I'm going to make millions. Now to design a flashlight with a pervert detector and automatic mase dispenser built in... who wants in on the ground floor?

 

[Abbey Normal]

I've figured out how I'm going to make millions. Now to design a flashlight with a pervert detector and automatic mase dispenser built in... who wants in on the ground floor?

I like it. Will it work on husbands too?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I like it. Will it work on husbands too?

The delux model will.