Skip to comments.ACLU: Don't Evict Sex Offenders
Posted on 08/16/2011 6:24:28 AM PDT by wizard1358
The Delaware American Civil Liberties Union has filed court papers to stop sex offenders from being evicted from a safe house that is located near a new day care center.
The ACLU along with an attorney representing the safe house and three sex offenders has asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the city from evicting the residents.
The state has asked the residents to leave and if they dont leave they will be arrested, attorney Daniel Wolcott, Jr. told Fox News Radio.
Read the entire story at www.toddstarnes.com
(Excerpt) Read more at toddstarnes.com ...
Is rape a “sex crime”?
As much as it pains me to agree with the ACLU I will do it now.
Who would open a day care center near a halfway house anyway? I guess I am questioning the intelligence of both the operators and the parents taking their children there.
Sex offenders should be hanged. Failing that, they should be locked up for life. But if they are going to be allowed to run free, then they should be allowed to live wherever.
Just one of the little complications of life that should be easy to take care of but isn't, thanks to liberals and lawyers.
Flame away, if you must.
Evict the ACLU.
China will welcome them with open arms.
Why doesn’t the ACLU get busy and move the safe house away from the day care center. Problem solved.
I agree! Just kill them in place and let vultures take care of the cleanup.
I agree with you. Some city council/other bureaucracy had to approve both the “safe” house and the day care center. One would think that when zoning a facility for children they’d have to look at whether places like this exist.
OTOH, I've got a problem with buffer zones for perverts. The evidence shows that they are willing to travel far outside their buffer zones, even cross country, for their victims.
I've also got a real problem with how "sex offenders" get classified. Some 19 year old punk who gets it on with a 14 year old slut really isn't a sex offender, but a jerk with poor judgment. Ditto for someone who has a little too much to drink and gets caught "watering" a curb while walking home some night. It is a far more responsible way to deal with a temporary inebriated situation than driving.
However, I've got a real problem with the type of sex offender the ACLU has a track record of protecting-- the real kind who prey on young children. IMHO, most of these s.o.b.s should either be hanged from the nearest lamp post or relocated permanently to a desert camp with barbed wire and guard towers along the Mexican border where they can dig ditches, build fences and be dressed in pink jumpsuits.
Who allowed a day care center near the safe house.
Doesn’t the day car center need a permit? Who granted the permit knowing it was too close to the safe house?
I have no use for sex-offenders, but they were there first, why should they be required to move.
They certainly cannot move every time someone gets close to them.
I have strongly mixed feelings both ways on this one.
In many states, “sex crimes” includes public urination, which means that hundreds of men would be sex criminals at your average NASCAR race. “Sex crimes” includes getting your girlfriend pregnant in high school, or even dating a 15 year old when you’re an 18 year old senior.
Granted, I’d love to lock up the pervs, throw away the key... let’s just be sure who are the pervs, okay?
To be fair to the sex offenders, I think they should be allowed to walk the ACLU attorney’s children to school!
Much as I despise sex offenders, my question is why should the safe house move when it was there first? Why didn’t the proprietors of the daycare due some due diligence about the presence of the safe house PRIOR to putting the daycare there?
due some=do some
how about we put them in aclu offices or in the neighborhoods of aclu staffers and lawyers AND DONORS.
The ever-increasing winching-down Police State is the true threat. A sex crime is increasingly defined downward. The same thing has happened with domestic violence crimes.
“’Sex crimes’ includes getting your girlfriend pregnant in high school, or even dating a 15 year old when youre an 18 year old senior.”
Not just that, but they are unequally applied to males over females. About a year or two ago there were some articles on FR about a boy (maybe 13-14) and 3 girls, ages somewhere around 12, 13, and 14, who had had a sexual relationship with him. This was in New England, maybe Mass. or Maine, but it was a state with no “Romeo and Juliet” laws (meaning if both parties are under 18 no one gets charged).
They charged the boy with three counts of Statutory rape, and NOTHING to the girls. Last I remember reading on FR his laweres were fighting the state because they said each girl would have to be charged also, and put through the courts also. There is little to no justice in the circuses that the courts have become, especially to one gender over another. It’s become a lawyer run abomination unstead of a justice system by the people for the people. Few are even tried anymore, they are charged with so many laws that the bail alone eats up resources they could use for a legal defense.
That said, that’s not all relevant to the topic of the thread, but just your post. Like another poster above said, i don’t agree with “buffer zones.” The recitivism rate of real sexual offenders (not urinators and young Romeos) is something like 75% of just the ones that they catch. Obviously prison time does nothing (unless for life, which I don’t agree with, but do agree with capital punishment), so it doesn’t matter how many extra blocks they have to walk or drive. Either they’re safe enough to be let out, or not. The more rights people allow to be erroded to others, they lose themselves. One you get a precedent set, you cannot control where it goes. Just look to gun control for a simple example. What once was the right of EVERYONE is now a “priviledge” in many states, and you must be licensed in many situations in others. If people keep deciding who has rights and who doesn’t, they’ll always find that eventually someone with the bigger stick (in this case legislative powers), will eventually turn on them.
“The ever-increasing winching-down Police State is the true threat. A sex crime is increasingly defined downward. The same thing has happened with domestic violence crimes.”
+1. And the unequal application is alarming to anyone who cares to educate themselves.
It’s simple: execute pedophiles and rapists
In your call for stern punishment of “sex offenders” doubtless you are thinking of those who commit forcible rape or of adults who force their sexual attentions on pre-pubescent children. You forget, perhaps, that in most of these United States as 17 year old who has sex with his 15 year old paramour, both regarding it as consensual, though the state does not, is a “sex offender”, too, and in many states is put under the same disabilities of not residing near schools, playgrounds or daycare facilities as those who commit the vile acts for which you propose execution.
Or do you, perhaps, want Sharia-style executions and honor killings of those who commit fornication? I trust not. Certainly fornication is a sin, but Christian penitentials have traditionally penanced it less severely than murder, sodomy or adultery, and our society does not seem to be minded to make it a crime, well not unless one of the fornicators is below some arbitrarily determined age which has no relationship to sexual maturity.
Some things are defined as “sex offenses” that should not be.
But, yes, forcible rape, or rape of a child (I do not include older teenagers in this group for statutory rape purposes) deserve hanging, IMO.
I don’t care if people fornicate; that’s between them and God, and the other person.
There’s nothing complicated in what I wrote, why make it so?
All I’m saying is that after they’ve served their time, they should have no restrictions placed on their movements or living arrangements, any more than any other released felon. If they are going to be considered dangerous for life, keep ‘em locked up.
It might make society look a little more closely at what is really criminal, and what, as you so quaintly put it, is just sinful. Not that I disagree with you on the terminology.
This reminds me of someone who buys a home near the airport, knowing it’s there, then complains about the noise, and tries to get the airport shut down.
If the halfway house was there before the day care center, they shouldn’t have opened where they did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.