Posted on 04/19/2006 9:24:57 AM PDT by Monk Dimittis
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to spend the money on a)longer incarceration and b) bird-dog supervision of the really dangerous ones.
From a practical standpoint, a reevaluation of who gets put on the list and how much information is released (and to whom) might be necessary. As for extending incarceration times, that would be open to a debate over what is an appropriate punishment for the crime committed. Keeping a convict in jail beyond that would be problematic.
At any rate, if the system of requiring them to register after their release in order to comply with the law results in them having a perception that it places them in real danger, then they will have a significant incentive to break that law.
Limiting the number of people required to register to include only those deemed a likely threat to the public at large would certainly allow for a greater degree of monitoring for this smaller group, not only of their movements and activities, but also of signs that they may become the target of unlawful attacks that might jeopardize the overall compliance of other sex offenders regarding registration.
How ironic. Perhaps some day it will occur to them that it's all of their own making?
Nah, probably not.
If you insist:
Public urination law may change
Alderman Ken Ortmann, with an eye toward next month's Mardi Gras celebration, introduced a bill that he hopes will lower the penalties for some instances of public urination.Sex-offender bill moves in Iowa House
Public urination "does not uniformly constitute indecent exposure," Ortmann's bill states, and should not always be grouped with sex offenses and similar crimes.
For starters, the 2,000-foot rule applies to all persons convicted of a so-called "sex crime," including such offenses as indecent exposure and public urination. Horbach said that while he does not condone these actions, a vast majority of them are high-school and college pranks, offenses he believes should not be subject to the serious repercussions of the 2002 sex-offender bill.Shall I go on?
Really, I thought I'd bested you often enough that you'd have learned your lesson....
Prove it.
Utah State Law:
77-27-21.5. Sex offender registration -- Information system -- Law enforcement and courts to report -- Registration -- Penalty -- Effect of expungement.(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Department" means the Department of Corrections.
(b) "Notification" means a person's acquisition of information from the department about a sex offender, including his place of habitation, physical description, and methodology of the offense, and other information as provided in Subsections (10) and (11).
(c) "Register" means to comply with the rules of the department made under this section.
(d) "Sex offender" means any person convicted by this state or who enters a plea in abeyance for violating Section 76-7-102, 76-9-702.5, 76-5a-3, 76-10-1306, or 76-5-301.1 or of committing or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit a felony, under Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4, Sexual Offenses, and any person convicted by any other state or the United States government of an offense which if committed or attempted in this state would be punishable as one or more of these offenses. "Sex offender" also means all persons committed to a state mental hospital by reason of their mental incapacity and their commission or alleged commission of one or more offenses listed in this Subsection (1)(d).76-9-702. Lewdness -- Sexual battery -- Public urination.
(5) A person is guilty of public urination if the person urinates or defecates:
(a) in a public place, other than a public rest room; and
(b) under circumstances which the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm to another.
And I also forgot to ping steve-b (see post #65).
Case in point: in the late 1800s, new west of the time (West Texas and Eastern New Mexico) had little in the way of law enforcement. A district federal Marshall and, maybe a county sheriff. If you were luck enough to live in a town where the district Marshall was stationed you generally felt pretty safe but you could still be deputized in an extreme situation. There were small towns in west Texas in those days that were regarded as vigilante towns and the criminals stayed away. The justice was swift, a short trial and a strong rope usually awaited the ones that made it past the posse. The citizen community were armed and they took care of their town with those arms and sheer guts. Seldom were these people wrong about violators of the law. Bank robbery, cattle rustling, murder (not a fair gun fight but shooting a man without provocation), armed robbery of a business, and criminal assault were capital offenses according to the citizenry of those towns. It was made clear to the criminal element that their actions would have consequences in those little towns.
Those little towns didn't just happen in the south. If you will look to Minnesota there was the great Northfield Raid. Citizens shot and killed most of the failed bank robbers on a spring day in the late 1800s. Northfield was a farming and cattle community of mostly Lutheran and Catholic people. They were a strong community and a very wealthy community (for the times). It was the citizens of Northfield that brought down the band of robbers. They had firearms at hand and they were ready to defend their town. After all, it was their money that those dirtbags were trying to steal.
Those days are gone! What a shame it is.
Regardless where these towns were the same principal appears. The citizens of these towns didn't look at the richest or the poorest to be excluded from justice and protection. They looked, and acted, for the whole of the town. The blacksmith, storekeeper, bartender, banker, stable hand, cowboy, barber, all of them took up for the town. It was their law and they wanted law and order. They got it by their own actions.
My liberal friends say, "you can't equate those times to ours". I say, that in the absence of law and order people make law and order, that's the old days. In these days, in the absence of justice by legislation people will override the injustice and provide law and order themselves, it's a natural human reaction, in this country.
Do I agree with this? No! But it is the natural reaction of a people that are sick and tired of justice gone amok.
"Sex Offenders fearful for their safety"
Oh,cry me a f*king river.
The biggest problem with vigilante justice is that the numbskulls may easily go after the wrong person. Balbir Singh Sodhi was killed on September 15, 2001, by a vigilante seeking revenge for 9/11. Obviosly, the idea of killing moslems in general just because some other moslems flew planes into buildings is pretty bizarre in itself. But the idiot who did this particular crime was too stupid to know the difference between a moslem and a Sikh.
"Sex Offenders Fearful for Their Safety"
In the wise words of Fats Domino, "Ain't That a Shame".
Or Chester Good said to the saloon lady, "Tough Ti!!y Miss Kitty!"
Oh, and btw, none of the five was on the list for "public urination."
The passive way this was written creeps me out. Their "actions?" How about crimes? How about "for the way they've ruined children's childhoods and warped children's lives"
I don't advocate hunting these b@$tards down, but I want them to be afraid. They are the reason parents get anxious when the kids are late coming home from school, etc.
Reap the whirlwind beeyotches. turnabout is fair play.
Sorry, that should be the rule, not exception.
reap what you sow in full measure.
I bet their victims didn't want to be raped or molested.
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.