User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:44:08 AM EDT
Basically imposing YEARLY fees after someone has been convicted. The reasoning...To help maintain their website info.
 All this from our new acting sheriff be cause the last one was stealing from the counties money and got arrested in a casino spending it.  http://www.theindychannel.com/news/24845058/detail.html County Wants Sexual, Violent Offenders To Pay Fee$50 Fee Would Cover Database MaintenanceHANCOCK COUNTY, Ind. –– Hancock County has proposed making sexual and violent offenders pay an annual fee to appear on a mandatory list.The $50 fee would offset the expense of monitoring the offenders through an online database, said acting Hancock County Sheriff Donnie Munden."It's going to make the registration process smoother," he told 6News' Renee Jameson. "I think it will make it more efficient, and it's going to make it easier for the community to check and see if there's a sex or violent offender nearby their residence." Falk, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said state law allows a county to adopt the $50 a year fee for people who must register on the sex and violent offender registry.Several other counties are already imposing the fee."This particular horse has left the barn," he said. "The Legislature has said the fee can be assessed, but I think this is something that certainly isn't voluntarily."Hancock County commissioners would need to sign off on the policy, which they are expected to discuss at a meeting next week.Munden, who recently took on the role of acting sheriff after the arrest of Sheriff Bud Gray on obstruction charges, said he wants to restore the department's image."We've got a fine group of men and women that work here that are capable and professional enough to do their job and to keep Hancock County a safe place to live," he said.Gray relinquished his duties to Munden, but will continue to get paid his salary. His term expires at the end of this year and he is not seeking re-election. seeking re-election. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:45:59 AM EDT
[#1]
Sounds fine to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:49:43 AM EDT
[#2]
We charge a fee for registration (not the data base) to cover paperwork time photos etc etc etc
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:50:24 AM EDT
[#3]
have no problem with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:50:40 AM EDT
[#4]
Would you rather them just jack up their initial fine by 3-4 thousand to cover the cost of the database?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:54:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Forcing someone to pay for something that they have been ordered to do just seems wrong to me.
If they want a database so badly, they need to pay for it out of their own budget. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:55:57 AM EDT
[#6]
so you are defending these pieces of shit who have been convicted of felonies and destroying the lives of innocent victims? or, did i miss something
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:56:47 AM EDT
[#7]
I'm not defending anyone, but this is a pathetic way to make $ a website is not that expensive to maintain.
Quoted: I personally see nothing wrong with a one time fee, but yearly is pathetic. This county is run by a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers. We moved here I was glad to leave the coltsWe charge a fee for registration (not the data base) to cover paperwork time photos etc etc etc bullshit fastfood and lodging tax behind and the EVIL empire known as COMCAST. Well both the fucking things followed us here. FUCK THE COLTS, FUCK COCKCAST, FUCK THIS STUPID FINE BULLSHIT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:58:32 AM EDT
[#8]
It's less of a punishment then I'd administer
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 2:59:45 AM EDT
[#9]
He's just mad that hes gotta pay 50 dollars a year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:02:44 AM EDT
[#10]
If the people have been adjudicated as criminals by the courts (due process) it is perfectly acceptable to deprive them of liberty or property as the courts deems fit. That's the whole basis of criminal law.
This is akin to claiming it is an outrage to put people in prison, or levy any sort of fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:03:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Forcing someone to pay for something that they have been ordered to do just seems wrong to me. And there is also the issue of double jeopardy. Adding additional punishments after the trial is double jeopardy. Adding extra punishment without the right to a trial is something I can't believe so many people here are supporting.z |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:06:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Forcing someone to pay for something that they have been ordered to do just seems wrong to me. And there is also the issue of double jeopardy. Adding additional punishments after the trial is double jeopardy. Adding extra punishment without the right to a trial is something I can't believe so many people here are supporting.z Usually it is stipulated as part of probation/parole -the whole restitution thing |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:08:24 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
I'm not defending anyone, but this is a pathetic way to make $ a website is not that expensive to maintain. Quoted:
I personally see nothing wrong with a one time fee, but yearly is pathetic. This county is run by a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers. We moved here I was glad to leave the colts
We charge a fee for registration (not the data base) to cover paperwork time photos etc etc etc bullshit fastfood and lodging tax behind and the EVIL empire known as COMCAST. Well both the fucking things followed us here. FUCK THE COLTS, FUCK COCKCAST, FUCK THIS STUPID FINE BULLSHIT! It is not a one time fee. It is a fee every time they register, be it quarterly or annually (different amounts for each). Website = cheap. As to the cost yeas and no. How many folks are on the database? Does the agency employee some one who can set up, how often does it have to be updated, do you have some one twiddling their thumbs who can do all the data entry etc are all factors. As to the poster saying take it out of the LE budget: Who wants the database to exist? Generally the citizens. If it is a local requirement, how bout the locals who voted for itpay for it or the criminal pays for it? If it is a state mandate then how bout the state pay for it, the citizens who wanted the law pay for it, or the criminal pays for it. Or are you a big fan of unfunded mandates ala the feds fucking the states? ETA:Also, it sounds as if the fee has been around as an option for a while. Anyone know how long? Relevance? It opens the possibility that the fee could have been charged at any time in the past but the Sheriff chose not to charge it, but recently changed. This is not all that uncommon an occurance. For years my agency did not charge for fingerprints, VIN inspections etc etc. Demand grew to the point the Sheriff started charging for them. Similar deal with a booking fee. Legally we could have been charging one for years but did not. Due to a combination of increased work load, smaller budget and people driving two hours to turn themselves in on other agencies warrants we started charging a fee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:15:10 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Forcing someone to pay for something that they have been ordered to do just seems wrong to me. And there is also the issue of double jeopardy. Adding additional punishments after the trial is double jeopardy. Adding extra punishment without the right to a trial is something I can't believe so many people here are supporting.z Agreed. All new convictions should have this yearly fine formally administered by the courts. Persons already sentenced should not have their senteces increased without due process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:25:33 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
It's less of a punishment then I'd administer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:26:00 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Sounds fine to me. You do the crime, you pay the fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:28:57 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds fine to me. You do the crime, you pay the fine. As far as I am concerned, given the offense, they are getting a slap on the wrist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:41:36 AM EDT
[#18]
It should be $500. That way they'll remember to be good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:48:44 AM EDT
[#19]
If problems like this were taken care of the right way the first time, there would be no need for a database.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:04:09 AM EDT
[#20]
I don't like it. It'll take a year to discover that the plan doesn't work, that the offenders won't pay. Then they'll take a hint from the gun controller's playbook: Just as the anti-gunners want to tax bullets (a tax that will only be paid by honest citizens), Hancock County will impose a tax on every condom sold.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:08:00 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
If problems like this were taken care of the right way the first time, there would be no need for a database. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This. There shouldn't be a need for the database. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:18:16 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: so you are defending these pieces of shit who have been convicted of felonies and destroying the lives of innocent victims? or, did i miss something If their original sentencing is not acceptable to you, change the sentence. Tacking on fees afterwards is BS, and its only happening because the community has squandered its money in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:21:54 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
If the people have been adjudicated as criminals by the courts (due process) it is perfectly acceptable to deprive them of liberty or property as the courts deems fit. That's the whole basis of criminal law. This is akin to claiming it is an outrage to put people in prison, or levy any sort of fine. It's not up to the sheriff's office to decide your punishment for commiting a crime. That is up to a judge. That whole "separation of powers" thingey. ETA I've got no love for most of the people that would probably have to pay that fee, but I also don't like the idea of a sheriff having the power to fine people after they have finished their court-ordered sentence. Besides, some of the shit that can put you on a sex offender list is .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:22:19 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
If problems like this were taken care of the right way the first time, there would be no need for a database. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile FUCKING A RIGHT 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:26:13 AM EDT
[#25]
Sounds good to me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:33:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Better check the state statutes, there may already be a provision in the law that allows the registering agency to charge a fee for processing the paperwork, photos, fingerprints etc. If there is then by fact that they were convicted of an offense requiring registration and sentenced by a court for an offense requiring registration, then it's not double jepordy, as it's provided for in the statute that requires registration.
Additionally the state may have a statute that allows the Sheriff and other LEA's to charge for processing paperwork, data input, and record checks. Alot of states do and some sheriffs just don't charge the fee
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:35:25 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Basically imposing YEARLY fees after someone has been convicted. The reasoning...To help maintain their website info.
All this from our new acting sheriff be cause the last one was stealing from the counties money and got arrested in a casino spending it.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/24845058/detail.html County Wants Sexual, Violent Offenders To Pay Fee$50 Fee Would Cover Database MaintenanceHANCOCK COUNTY, Ind. –– Hancock County has proposed making sexual and violent offenders pay an annual fee to appear on a mandatory list.The $50 fee would offset the expense of monitoring the offenders through an online database, said acting Hancock County Sheriff Donnie Munden."It's going to make the registration process smoother," he told 6News' Renee Jameson. "I think it will make it more efficient, and it's going to make it easier for the community to check and see if there's a sex or violent offender nearby their residence."
Is the fee a financial burden for you ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 4:35:39 AM EDT
[#28]
In addition to my sky-high child support which is not spent on my child, I pay a fee to the county to pay for the child support division which hates men. They do not care about anything other than if you have a Y chromosome. If so, you're the debil. And I pay their salaries.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 5:04:34 AM EDT
[#29]
I have to pay a fee for my concealed permit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 5:33:59 AM EDT
[#30]
Adding a fine after the fact is not right. That's like the DMV calling everyone and saying the rate went up halfway through the year and now you owe us if you want to continue to drive.
That said Most of those people need to be on the data base. Some don't. Like the guy who smacked a woman on the butt and she took offense. Now he registers for life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:30:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: I have to pay a fee for my concealed permit. Not the same thing at all. A permit is voluntary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:35:23 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Forcing someone to pay for something that they have been ordered to do just seems wrong to me. If they want a database so badly, they need to pay for it out of their own budget. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile So in a round about way you're saying the tax payer should pay it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:41:33 AM EDT
[#33]
I fail to see the problem.
Why should I have to pay for something that has to be done because they decided to go full retard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:50:50 AM EDT
[#34]
Sounds great, unless you're the guy who got put on a sex-offender registry for pulling off the side of the road and taking a piss in the bushes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:14:09 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:18:30 AM EDT
[#36]
I would have a serious problem with it if they were burdening the taxpayers at large with this.
No problem with the way it is being done in that article. No different than an inmate being tasked with sweeping out his cell daily IMO |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:20:03 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Sounds fine to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:21:37 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
It's less of a punishment then I'd administer No shit. Just shoot 'em. $1.00 for the bullet. Dump body at sea. Charge the family a la China. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:21:58 AM EDT
[#39]
OP must be mad that he will have to send another $50 a year to Uncle Sugar for his... erm... transgressions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:23:24 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have to pay a fee for my concealed permit. Not the same thing at all. A permit is voluntary. A fee to express a right we have, a fee imposed on a law abiding citizen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:33:45 AM EDT
[#41]
Well it appears that everybody pissing and moaning about convicted sex offenders having to pay a registration fee and thinking the Sheriff has gone of on his own hook...........haven't got a leg to stand on.
Google up Indiana Code IC 36-2-13-5.6. It allows the County to enact an ordinance that enables the Sheriff of the County to impose and collect a fee not to exceed 50.00 annually on persons required to register as Sex or Violent offenders. So as much as you may hate, it's perfectly legal, not double jepordy, not the sheriff imposing an arbitary fine etc, etc etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:44:24 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: OP must be mad that he will have to send another $50 a year to Uncle Sugar for his... erm... transgressions. I'm so pissed I have to pay  Incase you haven't heard yet, our last sheriff got busted for stealing county $ and was arrested in a casino. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:48:12 AM EDT
[#43]
The only problem I see, is that they are only charging them $50.00.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:53:31 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have to pay a fee for my concealed permit. Not the same thing at all. A permit is voluntary. Who forced them to commit the crime in the first place? Oh yeah thats right, no one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:53:32 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Forcing someone to pay for something that they have been ordered to do just seems wrong to me. And there is also the issue of double jeopardy. Adding additional punishments after the trial is double jeopardy. Adding extra punishment without the right to a trial is something I can't believe so many people here are supporting.z Agreed. All new convictions should have this yearly fine formally administered by the courts. Persons already sentenced should not have their senteces increased without due process. The only reason people are ok with it in this thread is because it doesn't effect their pocketbooks. The only reason the county is doing it is because they know that nobody will stand up for a molester. When the terrible things come for the last of us there will be very few left.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:55:17 AM EDT
[#46]
as long as I dont have to pay for it.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:57:26 AM EDT
[#47]
I'm not all fine and dandy with just tacking on extra fees and punishments later on down the road as a county Sheriff sees fit. However I don't have any conceptual problem with making that forward-going part of the conviction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 9:00:46 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: I have to pay a fee for my concealed permit. Not the same thing at all. A permit is voluntary. When you drive drunk and the court mandates alcohol training of some kind, you're forced to pay their fee, same with traffic schools. And the fees aren't set by the judge, they're set by the school you're attending. And they're more than $50. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 9:04:04 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Sounds great, unless you're the guy who got put on a sex-offender registry for pulling off the side of the road and taking a piss in the bushes. If you can't figure out how to take a piss on the side of the road without getting arrested for it then maybe the $50 is just for being a moron. Hint, don't piss in front of cops or anywhere near the vicinity of an elementary school or a girl scout jamboree and you'll be fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 9:08:01 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Forcing someone to pay for something that they have been ordered to do just seems wrong to me. And there is also the issue of double jeopardy. Adding additional punishments after the trial is double jeopardy. Adding extra punishment without the right to a trial is something I can't believe so many people here are supporting.z Agreed. All new convictions should have this yearly fine formally administered by the courts. Persons already sentenced should not have their senteces increased without due process. The only reason people are ok with it in this thread is because it doesn't effect their pocketbooks. The only reason the county is doing it is because they know that nobody will stand up for a molester. When the terrible things come for the last of us there will be very few left. You are really trying to draw a parallel between the policy posted in the OP and the escalating selectivity of the Third Reich? 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
