Sex Offender's Homes to be Searched without Warrant Whenever a Child is Missing

[orangeninja]

G27 Hider you are absolutely correct. I have not read the actual legislation of debate of now, but my argument is based upon this being a condition of the sentence after due process. Not enacting said law into effect by previous convictions unless as such they are still active wards (probation, parole) etc. of the state.

For instance in Texas we now have a risk factor associated with sex offenders which is released to the public, but not on those before the law was enacted, thus heeding to case law concerning ex post facto. I assume this law would follow in due course. It would take a few decades to be fully effective, but it is still a good idea.

Normally ex post facto laws do not include previous sex offender registration because the courts ruled this to be a civil matter in Smith v. Doe in Alaska, thus not viewed as further punitive treatment. I don’t necessarily agree with the Court’s opinion on this as I see this an extension of control, but the Court has repeatedly recognized the limitations imposed upon ex-felons concerning firearms ownership and the right to vote, this is a natural extension of that course of thought, thus the Court is following letter of law and being consistent.

As for searches, if the Court is willing to suppress any criminal evidence found in due course of search, then of course this follows that thought a little further, however the Court would likely not agree with this as the found child would constitute as evidence and cause a legal nightmare. There would have to be imposition of ex post facto even though the notion of supression based upon fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would make me sick in a case like this.

A great article on ex post facto may be found here: http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/59-ex-post-facto-laws.html

 

[tellner]

What the hell am I talking about? Simple. In several states conduct which most reasonable people wouldn't raise an eyebrow at is or was illegal. The people who engage in harmless behavior can end up convicted of serious "sex crimes". If the Powers that Be decide that the police must crash into all sex offenders' houses every time a child goes missing you will end up wasting a lot of time on people who could have been technically convicted of sex crimes who aren't even vaguely a risk to anyone. The resources expended could be better spent actually investigating the case in some useful fashion.

 

[DRZinn]

Of course from a legalistic point of view, society has the right determine whatever rules it wants to.

Let me try this again: I'm not arguing legality.

The point is that society doesn't morally and shouldn't legally have the right to determine 'whatever rules it wants to," only those that don't infringe on anyone's rights.

If I’m wrong then I apologize.

Accepted. Consider me a minarchist. (I don't know if that's really a word, but in comparison with anarchist it works quite well.)

Actually I think your point was to illegitimize or weaken my argument through assertion of the rules on debate

Not me, I don't play that way. I rarely (that may have been the second or third time ever) point out logical fallacies as such.

I think you misunderstand Rousseau

Quite possible, I've read very little. I prefer to get main ideas and then sort things out for myself. I've spent a good part of my lidetime debating and thinking over such topics as well; isn't it possible I'm as good a thinker as they were?