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

[tellner]

It also begs the question "What is a sex offender?" There is a lot of sexual offenses that don't represent a danger to anyone. Sex toys will get you years of hard time, a felony record and registration as a sex offender in about half a dozen benighted pits like Texas and Alabama. Up until the SCOTUS ruled that it's none of the government's business what consenting adults do in private (we note that Scalia and Uncle Tom violently disagreed to the point of frothing at the mouth and predicted the fall of the Republic) there were plenty of things that were sex offenses like oral sex, sex between people who aren't married to each other, sex in anything except the missionary position, sex with the lights on (honest) in certain jurisdictions.

I know I committed dozens of felonies by those standards and should have been in jail for the rest of my life. (Any law enforcement officers from Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, and a couple other states feel free to contact me about extradition). Heck, if the evil "activist" Supreme Court hadn't trampled all over States' Rights in 1954 I'd be in doing time for miscegenation with a "mulatto, free Negro, ... or Chinaman" - okay Chinawoman - for having sex with my wife. Anyone wishing to argue that point and try to bring back those good old days is welcome to try and welcome to the heartfelt kick in the fork he will get as soon as my wife finds out about it.

Do any of these even remotely pose a danger to children? No.

Do any of these make a person a suspect when a child disappears? Hardly.

Does breaking down these people's doors when a child goes missing make the world a safer place in any possible way? Don't make me laugh.

It's typical "seagull legislation" on the part of someone who wants to Do Something about Immorality For the Children. [Seagull legislation: Swoop in. Make a lot of noise. Defecate all over everything. Leave the mess for someone else to clean up.]

Someone with an appreciation for unfashionable things like facts will tell you that the first place to look is a non-custodial parent. Warrantless searches of some Alabaman woman who owns a vibrator are not going to do anything except take police resources away from solving whatever crime may have been committed.

 

[Ezekiel]

Why are we letting folks that every one knows have a high recidivism rate back on the streets???

Quite simply, it's so your tax burden doesn't go up by 100% or more. Politicians find it easier to say "sorry" to a single person's family [when he/she is injured/killed by a parolee] then to radically annoy thousands.

"A single vote doesn't beat you, the thousands do."

 

[Sindawe]

Why are we letting folks that every one knows have a high recidivism rate back on the streets???

In addition to the tax issue raised by Ezekiel, the space is needed for people convicted as a result of the War On Drugs.

Dopers in jail, so pedophiles can walk free. :banghead:

 

[LawDog]

Sex toys will get you years of hard time, a felony record and registration as a sex offender in about half a dozen benighted pits like Texas and Alabama.

What the hell are you talking about?

LawDog

 

[Biker]

Hopefully, not in Idaho.
Biker

 

[Sindawe]

What the hell are you talking about

tellner is referring to this I think:

June 13, 2005

In February, Alabama's controversial ban on sex toy sales went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which — much to the disappointment of sex toy providers — refused to examine the constitutionality of the ban. Under an Alabama law passed in 1998, selling a ***** or vibrator in that state can result in a year of incarceration and a $10,000 fine — and there are six other states where selling sex toys is illegal or greatly restricted, including Georgia and Texas (where schoolteacher Joanne Webb was arrested in 2003 for selling vibrators).

Source: http://www.libchrist.com/New2004-5/sextoyban.html

The felony convition and listed as a sex offender might be stretching it a bit, but I've not looked at the actual statute.

 

[LawDog]

Sex toys will get you years of hard time, a felony record and registration as a sex offender in about half a dozen benighted pits like Texas and Alabama.

(where schoolteacher Joanne Webb was arrested in 2003 for selling vibrators).

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-07-22/buzz.html

Joanne Webb faced misdemeanor charges, not felonies;

[strike]Sex toys will get you years of hard time, a felony record[/strike]

the charges were dropped well before the case even went to trial, and the lady loudly and publically continued selling marital aids in the surrounding counties during the whole hoo-hah, and probably to this day.

On top of which, a conviction for misdemeanor obscenity does not qualify for registration as a sex offender in the State of Texas per Chapter 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

[strike]registration as a sex offender in about half a dozen benighted pits like Texas[/strike]

So, again, I ask what the hell?

LawDog

 

[orangeninja]

Gc70, they are not the same thing at all. One is a misdemeanor or possibly state jail felony depending upon how many times you do it. The other is a Federal felony and a State felony; we’re talking hard core prison time. They are not even remotely the same. On a philosophical level they are not the same, one is considered mala prohibitum the other is mala in se. If someone drives drunk and injures nobody, they have committed a prohibited act. If someone rapes a child, they have committed an evil act. They are not remotely the same philosophically or legally.

So what if the DUI kills someone? Well then you get a separate charge which becomes a felony and have traversed into mala in se.

DocZin….If we aren’t discussing the Constitution, then what LEGAL grounds do you have to disagree with the law? What PHILISOPHICAL grounds do you have? I don’t buy into anarchist B.S. so base your argument on something more tangible than “I want”….check your “id”. Additionally you call “B.S.” on what exactly? A well established sociological theory that is taught all over the world that some of mankind’s greatest minds have espoused? You are arguing with the likes of Locke, Rousseau, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Plato, etc. You can’t just call “B.S.” without a counter argument unless you just like typing “B.S.”; you might just be out of your league, but again, just my opinion.

As for the ideals of civilization being wrong, I hear there is plenty of room to do whatever you want in various parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Tim Burke…See what I wrote to GC70

Tellner….I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Owning a vibrator doesn’t even come up on the radar screen as a sex offense. As for the custodial parent, most of the time when an Amber Alert is issued, it is the parents doing so, generally cops can account for their whereabouts almost immediately.

Sindawe….I see now what Tellner was talking about. It sounds like a mala prohibitum offense and a misdemeanor at that. Certainly not on par with a felony sex offense and certainly not one that requires registration. Calm down Tellner, your toys are safe.

LawDog…I think it’s called panic

I should be a "gall durned lawyur"

 

[Tim Burke]

You gave two reasons why you support the sex offender law, but you didn't support the DUI law. Neither of the reasons hinged on the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. I believe both of the reasons you gave for supporting the sex offender law also apply to the DUI law. Apparently you do, too, since rather than address that question, you change the subject and start discussing the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se.
Since the distinction (whether or not someone is injured) you use to determine whether DUI is malum prohibitum or malum in se is a distinction that is determined by chance, I doubt that it is the appropriate standard to use. I think if someone chooses to act in a fashion that is so reckless as to make it likely that an innocent party is injured, that act is malum in se regardless of whether any injury occurs. So, once again, I don't see a clear reason to support the sex offender law, and not support the DUI law, given that the DUI law is so much less intrusive.

 

[Powderman]

As much as we don't want to acknowledge it, a sex offense based on a status crime--i.e., statutory rape--is a mala prohibitum crime--"it's bad because we SAY it's bad".

(Note for the record: the idea of a 30 year old going to bed with a 12 year old makes me gag mightily.)

Still, it is a crime because SOCIETY says that it's bad.

To me, this changes when the sexual act, no matter how slight, is committed BY FORCE. Now, we cross the line from mala prohibitum to mala in se.

If we're going to start searching the homes of sex offenders when a child is missing, I say that there had BETTER be a warrant.

Barging in and conducting a search is something that attacks the very core of the 4th Amendment--the right to be secure in our persons, our homes and our possessions.

I hold two positions on this:

a. We must hold our Constitutional rights inviolate. There can be NO compromise.

b. If someone is a violent sex offender--a forcible rapist--they should either be put to death or locked up for the rest of their lives.

We cannot sacrifice our rights or the rights of ANYONE on the alter of political correctness or fear.

 

[orangeninja]

You gave two reasons why you support the sex offender law, but you didn't support the DUI law. Neither of the reasons hinged on the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. I believe both of the reasons you gave for supporting the sex offender law also apply to the DUI law. Apparently you do, too, since rather than address that question, you change the subject and start discussing the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se.

Not so, when discussing my personal beliefs and opinions on the matter I am as complex as the next person, though the two arguments presented before were both true, neither of them were a strong enough argument to change your mind and they were not the only thoughts I had on the matter, therefore I submitted yet more evidence for my viewpoint. It’s called debate. We are still very much on the topic.

Since the distinction (whether or not someone is injured) you use to determine whether DUI is malum prohibitum or malum in se is a distinction that is determined by chance, I doubt that it is the appropriate standard to use.

It doesn’t matter if you think it is the appropriate standard to use, it is how the law views it. A prohibited offense is that which is “victimless”, however you get into mala in se when you have a third party which is affected other than the sensitivities of the state. That is why there is a separate charge other than DUI for when a DUI results in the death or injury of someone else.

I think if someone chooses to act in a fashion that is so reckless as to make it likely that an innocent party is injured, that act is malum in se regardless of whether any injury occurs. So, once again, I don't see a clear reason to support the sex offender law, and not support the DUI law, given that the DUI law is so much less intrusive.

Well, you are indeed entitled to that opinion, but case law would seem to disagree with you, which is why a DUI does not result in greater charges in of itself, it is still a misdemeanor. That’s not to say that it will not eventually become a felony, but I doubt it.

 

[orangeninja]

As much as we don't want to acknowledge it, a sex offense based on a status crime--i.e., statutory rape--is a mala prohibitum crime--"it's bad because we SAY it's bad".

(Note for the record: the idea of a 30 year old going to bed with a 12 year old makes me gag mightily.)

Still, it is a crime because SOCIETY says that it's bad.

Exactly correct, which is where we come full circle back to the Social Contract Theory I stated earlier.

To me, this changes when the sexual act, no matter how slight, is committed BY FORCE. Now, we cross the line from mala prohibitum to mala in se.

Actually I think the argument of what is mala in se and mala prohibitum is determined by the society in question. For instance in Kuwait, being anything other than a Muslim is mala in se, but beating your wife is mala prohibitum, unless you do it in private. It certainly does not make it okay to me, but viewed from the legalistic perspective, explains the logic behind the laws.

If we're going to start searching the homes of sex offenders when a child is missing, I say that there had BETTER be a warrant.

Barging in and conducting a search is something that attacks the very core of the 4th Amendment--the right to be secure in our persons, our homes and our possessions.

Once you are a ward of the state your effective 4th Amendment rights have been suspended up to and including death, thus when you commit a felony, you subject yourself to the state’s discretion.

I hold two positions on this:

a. We must hold our Constitutional rights inviolate. There can be NO compromise.

I disagree, the Constitution in of itself was a compromise, however the Bill of Rights should be held fast to any “FREE” man, not a convict who has subjected themselves to the discretion of the state. I believe you may lose your rights and that if you are not a U.S. citizen, the Bill of Rights does not apply to you as you are not part of that contract unless the courts deem otherwise (which incidentally they haven’t, look at Git-Mo).

What's more, the Bill of Rights may be Constitutioally Amended, which is why we gunrights advocates must stay politically active or face losing our rights through an Amendment or unlawful legislation. The people protect the Constitution, not the government.

b. If someone is a violent sex offender--a forcible rapist--they should either be put to death or locked up for the rest of their lives.

Again, it’s a money issue. Will you pay for it? I won’t.

We cannot sacrifice our rights or the rights of ANYONE on the alter of political correctness or fear.

Agreed, there should be a legal basis grounded in logic for every law we enact.

 

[Powderman]

Again, it’s a money issue. Will you pay for it? I won’t.

Sure! I'll pony up.

After all, bullets are cheap.

 

[c_yeager]

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.

You pretty much highlight the entire problem with the system right here. NOONE is sentanced to a "level" the level is determined by some beurocrat/shrink *after* the person has been sentanced. This is a punishment that doesnt come at the hands of a jury, and it is not considered in the instructions to a jury. These levels and restrictions are state imposed punishment without the burdon of due process.

You want to solve this problem? Write your senetor and demand that severe sex offenses be tagged with a mandatory life sentance, there problem solved. THe question you really need to ask yourself is this: Why is it that the politicians who support these invasive 4th ammendment violations dont seem to be pushing higher sentances? Could it be that their goal here has nothing to do with protecting "the children"?

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

It is simply a matter of definition.

A man or woman who has a consensual sex act with a teenaged minor might be a low individual, or perhaps pitiful, but is not anywhere close to the same thing as your average child molester.

I'm a fan of death penalty in cases of child molestation b/c of recidivism. I'm sorry but anyone who is a child molester is soooo likely to repeat the crime precisely b/c they're sexual urges are just as strong for children as an average person's are for sex with an adult.

That being said, the laws need to be specific b/f you violate someone's rights, regardless.

1. What will the definition of child molestation be?

2. What is the definition of statutory rape?

3. What is the definition of sex between consenting adults?

The answer to #1 is obvious in terms of intercourse, and oral sex. But what of petting, what of kissing? How do you draw the line between a loving parent kissing their child, and a sick freak destroying a child's life?

#2 is simply statute. Learn what it is, and follow it. (Even then, to me it should always just be a misdemeanor if that). As long as we make it so that teenagers are the ones covered under this. (there may be some mature 14 year olds running around, but there ain't one 10 year old)

#3 is obvious. If you're over 18, and you consented, no one should touch it at all.

If an adult violates a child the way overtly discussed in #1, being able to go into their home is the least we should be able to do. I'm more a fan of hanging on a courthouse lawn, or allowing the father or mother of the victim to shoot the perpetrator down on television.

 

[Old Dog]

Quote:
Why are we letting folks that every one knows have a high recidivism rate back on the streets???

In addition to the tax issue raised by Ezekiel, the space is needed for people convicted as a result of the War On Drugs.

Dopers in jail, so pedophiles can walk free.

This is too broad a generalization; too many believe this. And, actually, this is not true in some states. For example, while this state probably lets far too many sex offenders back on the streets, Washington did do some degree of sentencing reform with the DOSA (Drug Offenders Sentencing Act) where many of these folks are actually let back in the community under jurisdiction of Community Corrections. This state also has a "special commitment center" at the McNeill Island Correctional Center which houses sex offenders who shouldn't be back in the community ... even though their sentences have expired.

 

[Sindawe]

I'm a fan of death penalty in cases of child molestation b/c of recidivism. I'm sorry but anyone who is a child molester is soooo likely to repeat the crime precisely b/c they're sexual urges are just as strong for children as an average person's are for sex with an adult.

Great. So are you willing to Pony-Up and carry out the death penalty yourself? And are you willing to forfit YOUR life should those executed turn out to have been innocent of wrong doing and victims of prosecutorial misconduct, such as the people in Wenatchee, Washington?

Those in favor of being able to search w/o warrant the homes of registered sex offenders should keep this in mind. Today its sex offenders. Tommorow it may be drug offenders (share a prescription? you're a "drug offender"). The day after, it may be those who buy/read "questionable material" such as The Anarchist's Cookbook or tracts on industrial microbiology (authorities found plans for manufacturing anthrax).

 

[BigRobT]

THe question you really need to ask yourself is this: Why is it that the politicians who support these invasive 4th ammendment violations dont seem to be pushing higher sentances? Could it be that their goal here has nothing to do with protecting "the children"?

That's MY take on it. There are far more things that could be done with pedophiles as far as sentencing, monitoring, & parole than to just have the ability to search on a whim. Is this one of those "slippery slopes" often discussed?? I believe it is.

 

[Old Dog]

Good post, Sindawe.
The 4th Amendment is pretty explicit as far as invasion of our homes ... it should be held sacrosanct here. Merely having been convicted of a heinous offense once, no matter how likely we know one is to re-offend, cannot be grounds for removing this protection.

 

[orangeninja]

Old Dog, then how do you justify imprisonment in the first place? Is that not a siezure? The thing is, once you have been convicted, your rights have been suspended. Even if you lock them up for the rest of their lives, their righst are suspended, to a greater degree in fact than if they were subject to random searches.

Sindawe, that's the kind of tin-foil hat wearing paranoia that gives gun owners a bad name. Slippery sloap indeed.

If any of you have any legal or constitutional argument other than "slippery sloap" which is neither a legal, constitutional or even philosophical argument I am listening...thus far I am unconvinced suffice to say there is a lot of mistrust and paranoia in the gun community and it worries me about what type of message that sends people who are border line, which was me about 6 years ago....however some really nice really reasonable people taught me a little about the 2nd Amendment...had they been tin-foil hat wearing, paranoid "the government is out to get us" types, I may still be in the leftist camp.

If you guys want people to see things your way, put down the sword and get involved a little. Rhetoric and paranoia will get you nowhere....even though "from my cold dead hands" looks really cool on a bumper sticker.

If the NRA or any other gunrights advocacy group takes the side of sex offenders on a constitutional issue such as this, I'm out....

 

[DRZinn]

If we aren’t discussing the Constitution, then what LEGAL grounds do you have to disagree with the law?

Try very hard to understand this: I'M NOT ARGUING LEGALITY.

What PHILISOPHICAL [sic] grounds do you have? I don’t buy into anarchist B.S. so base your argument on something more tangible than “I want”

You saw anarchy where, exactly, in any of my posts? I will not put forth philosophical grounds for my belief that I have a right do whatever harms no-one, because to do so would be to presuppose, as you do, that that right requires a justification. Rather, if you wish to infringe on any part of it, you need to explain why. And some nebulous concept that it's OK because someone who won an election says it is won't suffice, no matter how many great men might have espoused the same theory.

Additionally you call “B.S.” on what exactly? A well established sociological theory that is taught all over the world that some of mankind’s greatest minds have espoused? You are arguing with the likes of Locke, Rousseau, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Plato, etc.

I don't usually do this, but that's called an "appeal to authority" and is a sign of a weak argument. Or perhaps a weak arguer. The value of the assertion is in no way effected by the number or status of other people who believed the same thing.

Incidentally, the "Social Contract" theory supposes a people who remain free, not oppressed:

"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution."

[Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book 1, Chapter 6.]

Out of my league? What, then, is my league, since you seem to know me so well?

 

[orangeninja]

Alllllrighty then, (my best Jim Carey impersonation) let’s break this down in bright red crayon.

"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate,

This is the basis for civilization, a common protection of infringement from one group or individual upon another. In return, the associate must aid the association in the agreed upon terms (in this case the Constitution of the U.S.) and the association will protect the interests of the associate (via the Bill of Rights).

and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution."

Correct, freedom as the association (in this case the Constitution of the U.S.) dictates and is agree upon as members of that association. In America however, you are by default obligated to the association by birth unless you emigrate elsewhere. Thus if at the state level the big mean politician says you are not free to do certain activities, and he was placed into power to enact such legislation by the people and the courts uphold this notion, then by all means that society has the right to limit what it is you want to do, regardless of if it hurts anyone or not. You as an individual (associate) cannot overwhelm the opinion of the association, unless the terms of the social contract have been violated (courts, lawsuits, you get the idea).

Of course since you already read Rousseau (even though you said that my “appeal to authority” is a sign of a weak argument) then you will know that Rousseau set forth early on that people are inherently good and that civilization is the mass corruptor in his work Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts.

However the later work which you have cited, Of the Social Contract he argues that the state is just through the exercise of reason and rationality.

I do not for one think that Rousseau was correct in his earliest assertion that man is inherently good, mainly because of my faith, (look out, here comes an appeal to authority) where the Bible says “all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”…which is the shortest explanation on the nature of man I can quote right at this moment.


Try very hard to understand this: I'M NOT ARGUING LEGALITY.

Yet this is a debate over a law, how intriguing. Perhaps you are setting forth a ground work for a philosophy on life?

You saw anarchy where, exactly, in any of my posts?

In your assertion that you can do whatever the hell you want so long as nobody is hurt.

I will not put forth philosophical grounds for my belief that I have a right do whatever harms no-one, because to do so would be to presuppose, as you do, that that right requires a justification. Rather, if you wish to infringe on any part of it, you need to explain why. And some nebulous concept that it's OK because someone who won an election says it is won't suffice, no matter how many great men might have espoused the same theory.

You are correct, in fact those same great men will agree with the notion, except of course for Plato, that infringement upon freedoms would require a rational justification. In Plato’s writings, he sets forth the notion of the Philosopher King or the notion of a communistic, wealth free, representative that operates on a higher moral plane of existence than mere common folk, thus this representative would be setting forth legislation from pure reason rather than material gain or power, which while nice, does not take into account man’s inherent corruptibility once in power. Why would the powerful willingly stay poor? Plato argues that it would be because of what we now call the Social Contract Theory, because it is the expectation of society.

I don't usually do this,

That is apparent

but that's called an "appeal to authority" and is a sign of a weak argument. Or perhaps a weak arguer. The value of the assertion is in no way effected by the number or status of other people who believed the same thing.

You are sort of correct in a half knowledge sort of way, however I am exercising an argument from authority in that the ideals that I have set forth are not necessarily just my own but certainly are mine. I learned them and added my own flavor to them, this is a legitimate debate tactic which may be called upon after one has clearly set forth his argument and reasons for doing so (which I have) which are shared by known experts in the field of the debate (which they are) and are reputed to be trusted sources (no doubt about this is there?). To learn more on appeal to authority in philosophical discourse and debate see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Since this is a quick and easy shorthand explanation of “appeal to authority” and it’s my favorite price, free. However entire volumes have been written over effective debate and negotiation, so do not assume that this is comprehensive (I know you already know that though).

Cheers----Alduro

 

[DRZinn]

then by all means that society has the right to limit what it is you want to do, regardless of if it hurts anyone or not.

Need I enumerate some of the things that certain societies, including this one, have deemed to be wrong in the early 20th century and before? Did those societies have a right to prohibit those activities? Should the citizens of those societies have shut up and followed the will of the collective?

Perhaps you are setting forth a ground work for a philosophy on life?

Sort of. Actually, a philosophy on government. It looks something like this: Government exists to protect the rights of the people, and for nothing else.

In your assertion that you can do whatever the hell you want so long as nobody is hurt.

Maybe you better look up anarchy again.

To learn more on appeal to authority in philosophical discourse and debate see:

I really don't care to learn more about the technicalities of how to debate philosophy. My point was that if I disagree with an assertion, it makes no difference whatsoever who has said it. The statement can stand or fall on its own merit.

If you reply tonight don't expect a reply until tomorrow night; I'm out for now.

 

[G27 Hider]

Since the issue of "What legal basis is there for arguing against this" keeps coming up, I'll propose one: the bill of attainder.

The US Constitution specifically prohibits ex post facto laws and bills of attainder in Article I, Sec 9. (see here)

Ex post facto laws criminalize something that happened in the past, and was legal when it happened. As an example, suppose that when the AWB had been passed, there was a clause that said "and anyone who possessed a high-capacity magazine between 1986 and today is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Bills of Attainder are legislative acts that punish a person or persons without benefit of a jury trial. The general legal concept is that it is the role of the courts looking at individual cases, to impose punishment based on the law, not the legislature - they may craft the law, but may not impose punishment.

If you find yourself asking "Well, how is (insert law here) legal? Sounds like a bill of attainder to me" - keep in mind that whether or not a law is constitutional is immaterial until someone challenges it. The Supreme Courts of the states or the US Supreme Court do not browse through laws looking to see whether they are constitutional. It takes an appellant with a case working its way through the system.

Just because a law is unchallenged to date doesn't mean it's constitutional. More significantly, an appellant has a long way to go sometimes to get relief from an unconstitutional law. In-state appeals court judges may have the same point of view as the legislators who passed the unconstitutional law and not every appellant has an infinite supply of money to continue their appeals.

It is inherently unjust to tell a man convicted of a crime: "You have done wrong and here is your punishment." and then continue changing it after the fact. There are plenty of laws and concepts that support this fact, the most familiar being protection against double jeopardy. No doubt, if you asked the family of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ron Goldman whether the state should be able to "have another shot" at convicting OJ, they would answer with a resounding yes. That doesn't change the fact they would be wrong.

Part of the social contract that keeps coming up in this thread is that you know where you stand in society. The government tells you what we collectively decided the laws are and what the punishments are for breaking those laws. When the government decides to increase the punishment and apply it retroactively, they are breaking that contract.

 

[orangeninja]

Need I enumerate some of the things that certain societies, including this one, have deemed to be wrong in the early 20th century and before? Did those societies have a right to prohibit those activities? Should the citizens of those societies have shut up and followed the will of the collective?

Nope…I’m very familiar with slavery, prohibition, etc. Of course from a legalistic point of view, society has the right determine whatever rules it wants to. Slavery however was a rare exception simply because that society “impressed” into service those people without the benefit of birthright, representation or agreement. Meaning they had no recourse or voice, thus an exception. Was this your argument? It would be a good one had those folks actually been part of the social contract, however they were not, thus society had violated its own terms.

It is worthy of note that being in a minority where society disagrees with you does not mean that you do not have a voice, merely that most people disagree with you.

Slavery was always a very hot topic of debate even before the U.S. became in independent nation. I am a fan of H.W. Brand and am currently reading the Life and Times of Andrew Jackson (great book) where slavery is really put into the political perspective of the time.

As for the other laws, if a people had a voice, then they were part of the social contract and thus society had a “right” to do what it deemed prudent so long as the social contract was not violated. Where the social contract had been violated the courts or the legislation made it right, do you not agree? Again, look how the dreaded AWB sunset.

Sort of. Actually, a philosophy on government. It looks something like this: Government exists to protect the rights of the people, and for nothing else.

I am in agreement with you upon this. I see searching a sex offender’s house as neither an infringement upon their rights, as they have been effectively limited according to due process and I DO see it as a protection of the interests of the people. On this we are of one accord, the only difference is you see the offenders as having rights when in fact they have had their rights suspended, which is the prerogative of the state and within the established social contract that is our Constitution.

Maybe you better look up anarchy again.

From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anarchy

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order (which if pertaining to something you don’t agree with and it doesn’t hurt anyone, this would be your case…at least from what I gather from your writing.)

If I’m wrong then I apologize.

I really don't care to learn more about the technicalities of how to debate philosophy. My point was that if I disagree with an assertion, it makes no difference whatsoever who has said it. The statement can stand or fall on its own merit.

Actually I think your point was to illegitimize or weaken my argument through assertion of the rules on debate…which of course is entirely respectable and fair, no hard feelings here.

Additionally you are correct with logic standing upon it’s own merit, which my argument of course does, however when you disputed the writing of those that I mentioned I felt you may be out of your league (with them, not me) as they have spent lifetimes debating and thinking over such topics as we find ourselves now discussing. All I ask is that you back your argument with something more tangible than how it makes you feel…which you did, somewhat, good show, however I think you misunderstand Rousseau, which is easy to do, it’s not exactly light reading. Hell, I’d be out of my league refuting Marxism if talking to Marx, regardless of how wrong I feel he is.