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

[orangeninja]

Personally I support the law, but at least you are making an informed choice and not just going off of knee jerk gut reaction using little to no facts.

I agree with sex offender registration, but then I also believe sex offenders should be locked up for life, however there needs to be a distinction between a pedophile, violent rapist, etc.

Rapists and pedophiles will commit another crime of a similar nature. Whether or not they will be caught and convicted is a matter of debate, but they will do it.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Thousands of Missouri sex offenders could have their home searched without a warrant...

Are all those thousands of individuals living in one home?

People who can't even square up singular and plural shouldn't try to masquerade as journalists.

 

[DRZinn]

Either they're still being punished, in which case they should still be in jail, or they've been adequately punished, in which case they should be free. Completely free, just like we are.

 

[orangeninja]

DocZin, I completely disagree. I don't feel like footing the bill for every clown who decides to be a sex offender for the rest of his natural life, let him make his own way and work to support himself. But then neither do I believe in letting them go just because it gets expensive. Probation, parole, limitations and registrations are part and parcel of the punishment, but much, much cheaper than incarceration.

Of course if you don't mind 50% of your salary going to taxes in fruitless ventures like prision, then by all means, write a check to the IRS, I'm sure they won't mind.

 

[Waitone]

I hate to bring it up, but our courts are adrift. Kelo is proof. Kelo is outrageous but it still passed constitutional muster. Who knows what the courts will do with a Missouri law, after all it is for he chilren.

 

[Beren]

convicted felons are not full-rights citizens, nor should they be.

Too bad it's so EASY to become a multiple felon these days. If someone wanted to make a case of it, there probably isn't one of us here who couldn't be brought up on some technicality.

 

[Powderman]

I don't see "unless he's a sex offender" anywhere in there.

I'm a cop. Sex offenders are my natural prey. However this is going too far.

For those of us who wear the uniform, it can't be said any better than this.

In our passion to fight monsters, we are becoming monsters.

Amen.

And that quote from Nietzsche is indeed thought provoking--and true.

 

[cracked butt]

How far a stretch is it for gunowners homes to be searched without warrant whenever there is a shooting?

Its not a stretch at all, in fact you're a year and a 1/2 too late.

Google 'oshkosh gun confiscation'


Sometimes I feel like child molesters are given more rights than gun owners.

 

[Geno]

Constitution? Constipation? Constilation? What's the difference?

Remember, the "constitution" is a "Living Document". It was never intended to protect society forever, just until government wanted to oppress. It's doing such an effective job because we are allowing it. It all started with the Unpatriotic Act. Who's next? Drunk drivers' refrigerators will be searched? At the surface, it may seem fine, protect the kids--LET THE PARENTS CONTROL, AND THEREBY PROTECT THE KIDS!!!

The best protection is to know where their brat is...at all times. Children are children. They should NEVER, NEVER, did I mention NEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVER be allowed to unsupervised!

The only thing I hate worse than a child-molster is a negligent parent who allowed it to happen!

Sorry if I seem out of control there. This is wrong. Better trials; better sentences; better "monitoring". Less "Rights" violations.

Doc2005

 

[c_yeager]

How many rights have we given up so far "for the children"? How many more are we prepared to sell off?

I'm starting to think that "the children" arent really on our side here.

 

[orangeninja]

I never thought I'd see the day where CONVICTED sex offenders are protected by paranoid gun owners....jeez.

As for not being a stretch between the rights of sex offenders and gun owners...yes it IS a stretch...because they have been investigated, charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced. It's a long process and most arrests do NOT end up in a conviction....so no it wouldn't be likely that most people could be brought up on a technicality, you would still have to be charged, convicted and sentenced, which isn't as easy as T.V. makes it out to be.

As for my fellow cops who’ve posted here, I respectfully disagree with you guys on the basis of my understanding of Constitutional law. On a strictly legal argument, your rights may be changed (most likely) upon conviction of a crime by that sovereign body that exercises it’s jurisdiction over that crime and person. Otherwise how do you justify prison, parole, probation, fines or even civil sanctions and garnishments? They would all be unconstitutional under the understanding that just because you walk among freemen you are entitled to the rights of a freeman. Certainly not. As for a moral argument, well, I too am a natural enemy to a child molester and sex offender, thus I have no moral qualms with a shakedown supported by law and would do so with absolute glee.

As for the Patriot Act, well, I support it, but I don't expect everyone to. But anyone with a basic understanding of Constitutional law cannot argue that a convicted felon or sex offender is entitled to full reinstatement of rights after being rightly convicted or deny a courts rights to limit such rights after a conviction….this is Constitutional Law 101 stuff here folks.

I also think it pretty chicken (insert slang for fecal matter here) to blame parents for their kids being molested or raped. Are you serious? I have actually been rendered semi-speechless by that ignorant and base charge....:banghead:

Let me tell you something as someone who has worked with children and abused children, it's not the kid's fault, it's not the parent's fault though each will blame themselves....it is the SEX OFFENDER'S FAULT!!! or do you not believe in individual accountability Mr. Constitutional defender? A sex offender should be sentenced for life but barring that, this is the next logical step....they are not ENTITLED to any greater Constitutional protections than the courts grant once they have placed themselves under the discretion of the court by violating the law....and in the case of a sex offender, in a most heinous way.

I am a 2nd Amendment advocate, ask anyone here who has ever met me. I swore personally to uphold the Constitution and am still under that oath as I type this. It is not something I take lightly, but this is NOT a gun issue folks and it is NOT a prudent course to sideline the rights of gun owners next to child molesters…it is political suicide. Think people!!! Be intelligent before giving gun grabbers fodder.

If you don't believe in compromise and don't play politics, well then enjoy your guns now, because those who do play politics will control your future, I recommend you get involved and get smart.

 

[Kodiaz]

You know with all the sex offender's on their lists they will be searching houses until the kid shows up in a ditch.

 

[garyk/nm]

I am not a learned man in matters legal, but consider myself at least thoughtful. Having read all of the arguments, I am leaning towards Alduro's POV.
We already have a system in place (levels 1-4) to differentiate offenders, so why not use that in sentencing? If you are sentenced as a level 1 (most likely to re-offend) that sentence should be life in prison. Doesn't mean they can't be parolled, just that they will be under the court's jurisdiction for the remainder of their life. Level 2- 50 years, level 3-20 years......or some such.
As long as an offender is within their sentencing timeframe, in or out of prison, they are wards of the court and subject to control.
This would dispense with the 4th amendment issues that seem to bother folks.
Parole is not a get out of jail free card; there are conditions attached.

And this in no way relates to gun ownership!

 

[cracked butt]

A bullet in the back of the head of a child molester will ensure that they never molest again.

For the poster that blames the kids or the parents when a kid is victimized: get real! Why don't we just extend that logic and blame women who get raped because they are women?

 

[Lupinus]

tough one for me, I can see the good I can also see the can of worms.

Good being that statisticly sickos that like little boys/girls specificly (young ones, we aren't talking about the sixteen year old with the big....) WILL likly repeat after release. This is by no means a sure thing, but statisticly it is likly, and it is one of the few statistics I actually trust. So sex offenders being subect to a peek around when their neighbors child goes missing could be useful.

But bad here also. Once we open the can of worms letting the goberment search homes it will escalate. We start somewhere good like with sex offenders when a kid goes missing. But whats next? Burglers and thieves when the neighborhood mini mart gets robbed? Alcoholics houses when someone just got run over in a hit and run and the car was moving in a way consistant with a drunk driver behind the wheel? Gun owners homes when someone is shot? Also given the fact damn near anything today will get you slapped as a sex offender. 18 and had sex with your 17 year old girlfriend? Walking through the park at night with no one around and your girl feels frisky? Walk around your house naked and someone just happens to get a glimpse through your window? Whip out big jim to take a leak on the sidewalk? Set up a romantic evening with farm freds blue ribbon sheep? (sorry...I couldn't resist after that thread ) Damn near anything these days will make you a sex offender and it has been totaly corrupted from what it was started for, a way to list and identify sick guys that like to abduct and hurt little girls or boys.

All this would of course be solved if they got their heads out of their rectums started putting only the people the list was created for onto the list and locked them up for very stiff sentancing and on repeat offense shipped them off the sex offender island for the rest of their life.

 

[Hypnogator]

slipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslope
slipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslope
slipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslope
slipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslope
slipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslope
slipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslope
slipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslope
slipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslopeslipperyslope

 

[Flyboy]

Since study has shown time and again that the recidivism rate for child molesters is nearly 100%....

One. More. Time.

The brief cites data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which show that rapists are more likely to be rearrested for rape than other offenders are. But that does not mean they are more likely to be rearrested.

Among prisoners released in 1994, 46 percent of rapists were arrested again for any offense within three years, compared to 62 percent of violent felons generally. Recidivism rates for nonviolent criminals were even higher: 79 percent for car thieves, 74 percent for burglars.

Even if we focus on repeats of the same offense, rapists do not stand out. Less than 3 percent of them were arrested for a new rape in the three years covered by the study. By comparison, 13 percent of robbers, 22 percent of (nonsexual) assaulters, and 23 percent of burglars were arrested again for crimes similar to the ones for which they had served time. [Bold emphasis mine.]

http://reason.com/sullum/110802.shtml

 

[DRZinn]

I don't feel like footing the bill for every clown who decides to be a sex offender for the rest of his natural life, ...But then neither do I believe in letting them go just because it gets expensive.

That made no sense whatsoever.

Look, we've created another class of citizens this way. Sure, they put themselves there, but wouldn't it be better to do what we will for punishment and them make them full, functioning members of society with all the rights and privileges thereof?

Add in the fact that many people are registered sex offenders without having actually sexually assaulted or abused anyone, and that many more are convicted felons for things that harmed no-one in any way, and it really gets ridiculous.

It all started with the Unpatriotic Act.

If you really believe that, put down the kool-aid cup and step back. It's been going on for at least 145 years.

 

[gc70]

by alduro:
On a strictly legal argument, your rights may be changed (most likely) upon conviction of a crime by that sovereign body that exercises it’s jurisdiction over that crime and person. Otherwise how do you justify prison, parole, probation, fines or even civil sanctions and garnishments? They would all be unconstitutional under the understanding that just because you walk among freemen you are entitled to the rights of a freeman. Certainly not. As for a moral argument, well, I too am a natural enemy to a child molester and sex offender, thus I have no moral qualms with a shakedown supported by law and would do so with absolute glee.

I have no problem with whatever punishment or restrictions the courts may hand down when people are convicted of crimes. But we should not accept the government's actions to impose subsequent, new punishments or restrictions after the punishment or restrictions stated on conviction have been completed.

Who among us has not been guilty of a least some minor infraction of the law (i.e. speeding, expired parking meter, etc.)? Based on this theory of subsequent punishment, what is to prevent the government from decreeing that anyone with a past speeding ticket must have a speed governor installed on their car?

I am not morally against the idea of the blanket authority for warrantless searches of the houses of sex offenders. But I am legally against a blanket, after-the-fact law authorizing such searches as a bad precedent. If we want such search authority, it should be stated in the verdict against every sex offender.

 

[Manedwolf]

I don't think the slippery slope applies, here.

When someone CHOOSES to be a violent criminal, they can't ever own a firearm again.

When someone CHOOSES to be a sicko pedophile, they give up a lot more rights...which I think is justified.

It's all about personal responsibility. I don't even think these people should be on the streets, period. A convicted pedophile needs to be locked up forever, they can't be "cured". And taking away a kid's childhood is about one of the most heinous crimes there is.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Nope, I don't support this bill.

If they want to argue that a missing child within 3 miles of a known pedophile is probable cause to issue a warrant, then that might be worth discussing.

Then there's a judge, and one warrant, with one team to serve it.

What you don't do is invent out a a whole cloth authority to bypass cherished protections on thin pretext, giving any arbitary policeman broad tromping through the house powers without oversight or limit.

 

[baz]

4th amendment just as important as 2nd

While I do not like court decisions that "handicapp" LE unnecessarily, I adamantly oppose any watering down of the 4th amendment. The idea that government can ever, under any circumstances, violate the security of my person, house, papers, or effects without a warrant is too chilling to even consider. It is the same reason that if I'm stopped by an LEO, and he asks "Do you mind if I look in your car" the answer will be a kindly "No, not without a warrant." It is not because I have anything to hide. It is not even because I am supiscious of LEO's? Most of them are heroes to me, putting themselves in harms way to "protect and to serve." But there are bad apples in the lot, and the 4th amendment is supposed to protect us from them.

Why would LE need to relax the 4th amendment in the case of sex offenders? Have courts made it difficult to get warrants? Then address the issue by legislation that makes it easier to get the warrant. But don't do away with the warrant. That is just one more step down a slippery slope to tyranny.

IANAL, but couldn't "probable cause" be that the person is a registered sex offender, and the scope of the warrant limited to searching for the missing person and nothing else?

 

[bogie]

I've got a good friend from college who has a record as a sex offender.

Indecent exposure.

He got busted for mooning.

 

[LawDog]

If a convicted sex offender is on Parole or Probation we can already search his house.

You simply go get his Parole or Probation officer, you explain the case, and Voila! the P.O. uses the powers he already has to enter the domicile and look around.

No muss, no fuss. Done it many a time, and I'm sure every other officer has, also.

So...why do we need this law?

Not to save the children, we can already do that, see the Parole/Probation Officer above.

Methinks I have a pretty good idea why they want this law, and I think it involves setting precedents for other warrantless searches, rather than saving kids.

LawDog

 

[sm]

Methinks I have a pretty good idea why they want this law, and I think it involves setting precedents for other warrantless searches, rather than saving kids.

I agree 1000% !

Exactly my point in my earlier post.

History has a way of repeating itself - Tryanny has a way of repeating what works as well.

Steve