Rights Of The Convicted

CptSternn · 02-26-2007, 01:59 AM

This article from USAToday about the living restrictions on sex offenders points out something most people never think about.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...st_x.htm?csp=1

In some states, if you have been convicted of a sex crime, you can only live in areas where the state deems appropriate. On top of this, in many states, you have to 'check in' with a department of corrections officer, sometimes for life - even after being released from prison.

Now, of course I am not a advocating any type of pro-sex offenders discussion here nor am I advocating what they have done or been convicted of.

That being said, this is a new trend in the American judicial system which is quite bothering to me, and should be to anyone living there.

In the past, if you commit a crime, you were given a sentence with one of three goals - either to deter, detain, or reform. All sentences in America under the system there are supposed to preform one of those three tasks.

After serving your time, you are considered a 'free' person. These new laws directly challenge that idea. Under these laws any sex related crime automatically becomes a life sentence.

Now once again people will argue that if anyone deserves such differential treatment it is the sex offenders, and personally, I feel they deserve probably more than they get in the way of sentencing, HOWEVER I do feel that under the law anyone who serves their time should be free and clear after their release.

The reason being is the proverbial 'slippery slope' which is encounter in the legal world - which for those not familiar with the term is when a law is passed for one reason, but leads to a whole new set of abuses under the system.

For example now in Nevada - ALL persons with a felony conviction now have to report in like sex offenders and also now have to be authorised to move. It started with sex offenders, now ALL felons, even if your just there for writing bad checks, which is a felony if its over $2000, have a life sentence.

The question I pose is does anyone else feel this is excessive? To treat all convicts the same and make all their sentences life sentences? With 20% of Americans either in prison or having been in prison, doesn't this appear to have a larger impact that one might think? If 20% of the population has to check in with the government on a regular basis, and get permission to move about in the country, where does it stop?

This reminds me once again of the rights of the accused, which is in another thread, so feel free to post about that there, but the same type of events - first the remove all rights for the alleged terrorists, then next they took them from sex offenders, now we see all persons have been stripped of some of the rights promised in the Constitution.

This appears that now, even after convicted, you once again are party to an abusive system stacked against the citizen with more rights being stripped away in the name of security.

HumanePain · 02-26-2007, 03:18 AM

Living here in the U.S. I can say that the general opinion that has fostered these kind of laws is outrage over previous leniency, which led to repeat crimes that could have been otherwise prevented. There are many examples, but just one would be that previous to the "harsher" laws, the sex offender is released, he goes to a new place to live, and then rapes and kills a child next door, the poor parents of the child completely unaware that a pedophile had moved into their neighborhood until the tragic loss of their child. This has happened so many times that people got angry enough to propel the local representatives to foster such legislation.

Valerius · 02-27-2007, 03:34 AM

If I remember correctly, it was in Cambodia where convicted rapists were castrated. I think. I think a punishment like that is more than enough deterent for would-be rapists. But that leaves the wrongfully-accused.

Anyway. I think such restrictions where convicts have to report and seek permission to move should only be applied ro repeat offenders, or those deemed by courts to be dangerous enough to warrant such restrictions. Either way, you get two choices in such a game - freedom, or security. Choose your poison.

CptSternn · 04-07-2007, 01:50 AM

In a further development...

Sex offenders live under Miami bridge

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070407...VOpfkdN3Os0NUE

MIAMI - Five convicted sex offenders are living under a noisy highway bridge with the state's grudging approval because an ordinance intended to keep predators away from children made it nearly impossible for them to find housing.

Some of them sleep on cardboard raised slightly off the ground to avoid the rats. One of the men beds down on a pallet with a blanket and pillow. Some have been there for several weeks.

...

The state moved the men under the bridge from their previous home — a lot next to a center for sexually abused children and close to a day care center — after they were unable to find affordable housing that did not violate the sex-offender ordinance....

The state moved people under a bridge - living on cardboard. Anyone else see this as a problem? Sex offenders have mental issues that require years of therapy, like any other mental patient. To move them under a bridge, outside in the elements and force them to live among rats like animals does not help the therapeutic environment.

Anyone else bothered by this?