Beethoven said:
- Prohibit sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any park or school
Will be used to ghettoize sex offenders. In many areas this will block more than 90% of possible housing for them. Most will still have a car, allowing them, if they choose to prey on children, to do so quite fine. I walked, as a child, more than 2,000 feet to elementary school many times. Heck, I even experienced a potential abduction attempt(I ran). The closer catholic school and a park would be what would disqualify my parent's house. Now, I'd be more in support of this if it was restricted it to the 'Class III' type offender who's targeted actual children (15+ statutory doesn't count). Of course, I'd rather support just keeping those freaks in prison for life, or executing them along with the murderers.
- Require lifetime GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders
Looks like a better idea as it restricts itself to felons. Still a problem as felonies are a dime a dozen today. I'd rather see the monitoring restricted to those who fit the 'predator' profile.
- Expands the definition of a "sexually violent predator"
I'd want to see what the old and new definitions are, along with the studies used to draft the new, hopefully more accurate definitions. Until then it's just too vague for me.
- Changes the current 2 year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health & petition by the sexually violent predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge.
Court review? Trial by peers? Are there going to be advocates to ensure that the Director doesn't just 'throw away the key'? Is this process for those who manage to get 'not guilty by reason of insanity'?
Clearly, these seem like good ideas, but I was wondering if there is any argument against this proposed law.
Well, you asked for it. Out of the four terms, I find only 1 to be meritorious. 2 more may be salvaged with proper modification. 1 is iffy until I get more info.
Beethoven said:
Can you provide evidence of even one case in which someone has been successfully convicted under such circumstances?
Michigan will become one of 39 states to post pictures. Since 1999, the state has been posting the names, addresses and date of birth for people who have been convicted of sexual crimes such as rape, statutory rape or multiple charges of public urination.
Beethoven said:
No, they can't live next to me because I'm well within 2,000 ft. of both a School and several parks.
Ahh, so you're happy about this because they won't be able to live close to you. In places where this has passed, I've seen neighborhoods do things like open parks, daycare centers, etc, to force them to live elsewhere. If we expect reformation, we have to provide some opportunity to live a law-abiding life.
NO, I have NO PROBLEM with expanding the government's powers to punish and control sick, twisted, sadistic CHILD MOLESTERS and RAPISTS.
Like what every post has said, we're not worried about the hardcore pedophiles, we feel that a life sentence or execution is the correct course of action for them, not release. We're worried about the drunken urinators, the streakers, the guys convicted of dating a girl a couple years too young 20 years ago.
Is this law perfect?
No.
Is it the best possible solution to the problem?
Of course not.
Does that mean that we shouldn't do anything at all unless it is absolute perfection?
I don't think that is reasonable either.
But we should attempt to make a law that is as good as possible. We should avoid passing 'feel good legislation'. We've analyzed the proposed law, as stated by your post, and find that it appears too vague and overreaching to fulfill it's stated purpose without major overhaul.
Besides, you asked us to find fault with it. Don't yell at us for doing so. Use our comments to write up suggestions for improvements. We've seen, with guns, far too many ineffective, stupid, and restraining 'feel good' laws passed to stand idly by for another, whatever it's intended purpose.
Our question, to ourselves, is "Will it work?" I think it won't for the most part.
I don't hang out here too much because of the decidedly leftist/militant libertarian slant and this post I've quoted above is a shining example of this garbage.
People defending the "rights" of child molesters and rapists....wow.....
What? Advocating imprisoning for life or shooting them in the head is defending them? Well, you learn something new every day...
"It's for the children!" and it's varients have been bandied around far too much in the context of gun restrictions for us to take any such proposal at face value. Remember that libertarian's default view is to limit government power, not expand it. We ask ourselves if the law will be effective, will it interfere with citizen's rights, etc... This law fails the test to be effective, for the most part, and definitly will interfere with people's rights.
Seems like you would be more comfortable with an echo chamber.
