YET 1000 yards of a school...

[RetiredGySgt]

This article has several people bemoaning the loss of rights of a person that has made dangerous comments. The one I love best is the complaint that the restraining order goes to far because one can not meet the requirements of it reasonably....

Without showing a person has committed a crime against a child, I don't see how this can stand," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. "There's no way someone can organize their life without somehow being within 10 yards of a child."

Which then brings up the question of actual laws that restrict people to never being within 1000 yards of a school or church or playground, etc etc... I wonder if this law professor finds any fault with those laws?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_re_us/pedophile_blogger

Now my personal opinion is that the restraining order is illegal. The man is dangerous BUT he has, as far as anyone knows, not broken any laws. We live in a country of laws. Unless we are going to make laws that criminalize thoughts with no actions then this restraining order is simply wrong. But then I think the laws making people released from prison and done with parole stay 1000 yards from x site illegal as well. They in effect make it impossible for these people to legally live in just about every big town or city in the country. Which is an infringement on those peoples rights. If someone is still dangerous to society, don't release them from prison. Once one has paid their debt to society the Constitutional rights once again apply across the board. I submit that such laws violate the " cruel and unusual" amendment.

 

[Larkinn]

This article has several people bemoaning the loss of rights of a person that has made dangerous comments. The one I love best is the complaint that the restraining order goes to far because one can not meet the requirements of it reasonably....

Dangerous comments? Well then lets just take him back and shoot him...no need to allow him to continue to have rights after he has made "dangerous comments".

Which then brings up the question of actual laws that restrict people to never being within 1000 yards of a school or church or playground, etc etc... I wonder if this law professor finds any fault with those laws?

Those laws are after someone commits a crime.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_re_us/pedophile_blogger

Now my personal opinion is that the restraining order is illegal. The man is dangerous BUT he has, as far as anyone knows, not broken any laws. We live in a country of laws. Unless we are going to make laws that criminalize thoughts with no actions then this restraining order is simply wrong. But then I think the laws making people released from prison and done with parole stay 1000 yards from x site illegal as well. They in effect make it impossible for these people to legally live in just about every big town or city in the country. Which is an infringement on those peoples rights. If someone is still dangerous to society, don't release them from prison. Once one has paid their debt to society the Constitutional rights once again apply across the board. I submit that such laws violate the " cruel and unusual" amendment.

The restraining order is...but I don't think 1,000 feet from a school is that huge of a deal. I've lived in numerous places in the past 5 or 6 years and I don't think I've ever lived that close to a school.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dangerous comments? Well then lets just take him back and shoot him...no need to allow him to continue to have rights after he has made "dangerous comments".



Those laws are after someone commits a crime.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_re_us/pedophile_blogger



The restraining order is...but I don't think 1,000 feet from a school is that huge of a deal. I've lived in numerous places in the past 5 or 6 years and I don't think I've ever lived that close to a school.

Not just schools, it includes parks, daycare centers and a host of other structures or places that children may be found in. In our society and our laws and Constitution the principle is once you have paid your debt you are free and have all your legal rights and protections returned to you ( with the only exception being ownership of weapons and possibly the ability to vote) and both of those can be petitioned to be returned.

There is an amendment that provides a bar to "cruel and unusual" punishment. Not only is the law that restricts them falling in that catagory it is assuming that they have NOT paid their debt, it is attaching a permenant punishment that can never be removed, never forgiven. That is unconstitutional.

Further it is illegal and unconstitutional to punish the family of a criminal, these laws do exactly that. They prevent the free movement of the individual and restrict where the family can live or travel with the individual. All done even though legally the individual has already been punished and paid his debt.

 

[Larkinn]

Not just schools, it includes parks, daycare centers and a host of other structures or places that children may be found in. In our society and our laws and Constitution the principle is once you have paid your debt you are free and have all your legal rights and protections returned to you ( with the only exception being ownership of weapons and possibly the ability to vote) and both of those can be petitioned to be returned.

Well if it makes it impossible for them to live in any cities, than yes it is cruel and unusual I'd say...but as for the paying the debt, you are assuming that once they are out of jail, they have paid their debt. Perhaps some part of their debt never gets paid off.

There is an amendment that provides a bar to "cruel and unusual" punishment. Not only is the law that restricts them falling in that catagory it is assuming that they have NOT paid their debt, it is attaching a permenant punishment that can never be removed, never forgiven. That is unconstitutional.

You think its unconstitutional for us to use punishments that can never be removed, and never forgiven on offenders?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well if it makes it impossible for them to live in any cities, than yes it is cruel and unusual I'd say...but as for the paying the debt, you are assuming that once they are out of jail, they have paid their debt. Perhaps some part of their debt never gets paid off.



You think its unconstitutional for us to use punishments that can never be removed, and never forgiven on offenders?

I believe that life in prison is acceptable, I do NOT believe that once the system has determined the sentence has been served, including any probation or parole is acceptable legal or Constitutional.

If the crime is so bad that it requires permanent punishment, then make that the sentence. These laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Larkinn]

I believe that life in prison is acceptable, I do NOT believe that once the system has determined the sentence has been served, including any probation or parole is acceptable legal or Constitutional.


If the crime is so bad that it requires permanent punishment, then make that the sentence. These laws are unconstitutional.

This IS permanent punishment...its just not punishing someone very harsly (i.e. jail time) permanently. Thankfully there are other ways to punish/limit someone without just always throwing them in jail.

 

[ReillyT]

I believe that life in prison is acceptable, I do NOT believe that once the system has determined the sentence has been served, including any probation or parole is acceptable legal or Constitutional.

If the crime is so bad that it requires permanent punishment, then make that the sentence. These laws are unconstitutional.

I don't know the extent to which a restraining order levied after the commission of criminal activity would be unconstitutional. I doubt that it is unconstitutional merely because it is so common. I imagine someone must have challenged it by now.

I am very uncomfortable with the situation described in the article. The guy is obviously a creep, but he has never broken any laws or indicated that he was willing or intended to do so. In such a case, the restraining order seems inappropriate. Where do you draw the line? Can you restrain someone from approaching government buildings because he is a self-described anarchist on the theory that he might someday decide to deface or destroy them?

 

[Little-Acorn]

This sort of thing came up when the Clinton administration passed a law saying that no one could bring a firearm within 1000 feet (not yards) of a school.

Someone got several maps of large cities, and started drawing 1000-foot radius circles around every elementary school, middle school, high school, college, trade school, preschool, etc. in the city, and coloring the circles in. They wound up with totally black maps in most cases. The new law had effectively banned firearms in the entire city, almost universally.

Now someone has a restraining order saying a pedophile can't be within 1,000 YARDS of a school, park, daycare center, etc.?

I certainly laud the sentiment - pedophiles are sick individuals who must not be given access to children, ever.

But I suspect this law will effectively ban the pedophile from every city, large or small, in the country. He can't even drive through one. Offhand, how many grocery stores are NOT within 1,000 yards (about 2/3 mile) of a school?