Regarding these new laws aimed at convicted "sex offenders".

Specifically the ones that are prohibiting them from living within so many
feet of a school, day care, playground, etc.

I see the point that it helps protect kids.
And I see the point that it makes it virtually impossible for the convicted to survive.

But you guys are failing to see something that is even worse, as far as I'm concerned.

Consider how many of these sex offenders were convicted several years ago,
for something relatively minor.

Think of a big drunken frat party, and you grabbed a girls boobs.
What would you be accused of?  Assault, battery, a "sex offense"?
Who knows.  

Probably wouldn't have mattered much if none of it involved jail time.

Someone could EASILY have pled guilty to a petty sex offense to avoid a more expensive
and long/drawn out trial, where there might have possibly been jail time.

MANY people plead to things just to avoid the possibility of jail time.

How many of these people would have reconsidered their plea agreement if there was
ever a chance that 30 years later, this kind of shit could happen to them.

As far as I'm concerned, if these rules weren't on the books when the person was convicted,
then the rules don't apply to him.

I know a few guys who were arrested for battery because they got into a fight at a bar.
I'm sure a lot of you do to.  Hell, some of you might have a similar conviction on your record.

How would you feel if 20 years after the fact, the law decides that fighting indicates
an agressive disposition, and therefore you don't need to possess weapons.

Are you going to hand them over with a smile on your face?

Seriously, what is the difference?

I dont really agree with these laws either. If you are a legitimate sex offender you should be executed, there should be no concern about what you do after you get out of jail. All these so-called "minor sex offenses" are bullshit. Someguy that gets drunk and pisses in public, or grabs some chick's ass isn't in the same class as a rapist or child molester. Not the same class, not the same league, not the same planet, not the same universe. Totaly different things.

I'm not very familiar with the US legal system but does not "plea bargaining" promote grey area's where there should be none?

Taffy

Clear cut

Quoted: I'm not very familiar with the US legal system but does not "plea bargaining" promote grey area's where there should be none? Taffy Clear cut

you are probably correct about this to an extent. I'd rather that district attorney's just admitt when they dont have a case or have the balls to go forward with a trial even when a conviction isn't a sure thing.

BTW, how do laws in Britain work in regard to plea bargains?

at least in NY there are levels of sex offenders, at least 3. so if you get a notice you can kind of figure out how dangerous the guy really is

The real problem is that we do not throw the true perverts in jail and throw away the key.  Not enough executions as well.  Instead we are creating a police/lawer state.  

If a society fails to have the courage to punish their criminals.  Then eventually, all citizens will live like prisoners.

Shoot, Shovel, Shutup!!!!

.

Look for Lautenberg (creator of the misdemeanor violence against women gun ban) or Schumer to push this in the Senate.

They never met an anti-gun bill they didn't like.

The original felon gun ban dates back to the 1930s, but never was enforcible.  The one that actually worked came about from Henry ("give my son my seat when I die") Dodd of CT.  It has been justified in the academic press as in conformance with English tradition whereby convicted felons (at least, those who were not executed outright) were denied membership in the militia.  I have serious problems with denying convicted felons access to firearms once they have departed the supervision of the criminal justice system (i.e., once they have "paid their debt to society"); but this intrusion into the area of less serious crimes has no justification, only political popularity.

I's be's quiet, here.

But i's sit back and watch.

It's a touchy subject politically, but clearly these kinds of laws are irrational.  If there was a real, rational, reasonable reason that someone shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a child, or shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, they probably shouldn't be allowed out of prison to begin with.  Anyone who truly cannot be trusted around a child or with a gun, I don't trust to be around any of my loved ones, or to drive a car, or any of a number of seemingly mundane things.

But a number of felons who are now out in public, yet restricted in these ways, are no doubt relatively decent people who just made a mistake (or series of mistakes) at some earlier point in their life and have long since moved forward and become a better person.  And the rest of them probably never should have been let out.  I don't see much room for in-between.

I just don't get this halfway-measure crap where someone has supposedly "rehabilitated" and/or "paid their dues", yet suffers restricted freedoms on the outside because of their past conviction.

Quoted: It's a touchy subject politically, but clearly these kinds of laws are irrational.  If there was a real, rational, reasonable reason that someone shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a child, or shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, they probably shouldn't be allowed out of prison to begin with.  Anyone who truly cannot be trusted around a child or with a gun, I don't trust to be around any of my loved ones, or to drive a car, or any of a number of seemingly mundane things. But a number of felons who are now out in public, yet restricted in these ways, are no doubt relatively decent people who just made a mistake (or series of mistakes) at some earlier point in their life and have long since moved forward and become a better person.  And the rest of them probably never should have been let out.  I don't see much room for in-between. I just don't get this halfway-measure crap where someone has supposedly "rehabilitated" and/or "paid their dues", yet suffers restricted freedoms on the outside because of their past conviction.

In the original law, the BATF (as a branch of the Treasury Dept.) could perform an investigation to see whether a person convicted of a felony should be "relieved of disability" to own and possess firearms.

More than a few people had their rights restored as a result  (NOTE:  It was always recommended that the person not state that self-defense was a reason; it had to be an economic or property maintenance reason.)

In 1992, then-Representative Charles Schumer pushed through a provision in the budget that such activities by the BATF would be unfunded.  This is not an optional portion of the law; it is against the law for Treasury or BATF (as it was then-organized) to spend a single penny to make those investigations.

It has long been Sen. Schumer's ambition to whittle away at gun rights, and he has bragged about it.  Any time someone brings up the idea of restoring funding to these investigations, the anti-gun crown screams "he's trying to arm convicted felons."  Politicians, being the craven and cowardly lot that they are, immediately fold.  No one has brought this up on years, as far as I know.

The ONLY problem with the sex offender laws is that theyare not detailed enough.

A child rapist or molestor should be labled as such and the laws should apply only to THEM not other "sex" offenses which in some jurisdictions could be as inocennt as taking a piss on the highway.

The term SEX OFFENDER should be eliminated and replaced with CHILD MOLESTER CHILD RAPIST. call a duck a duck. Only apply the laws to the child rapists/molesters.

Better to just SSS but in the absense of that the offenders need stronger and more accurate definitions. People who are no threat to kids should not be outcast like the real bad ones.

+1

But, what can we do about it?

Going to prison is only half their debt to society. The other half is never voting again, never owning a gun again and if they are a sex offender having to register.

Quoted: Going to prison is only half their debt to society. The other half is never voting again, never owning a gun again and if they are a sex offender having to register.

The point of my original post was that they are now paying debts they weren't required to pay
when the original sentance was executed.   THAT should not be legal, regardless of the crime.

Your point is taken.  This is definitely not a case of "ex post facto" (after the fact) legislation, because the behavior made criminal did not occur in the past (i.e., the person's behavior made criminal was not past behavior, but future behavior).

On the other hand (and I am stretching the legal point), it does begin to resemble ex post facto's close cousin (and mentioned in the same clause of the Constitution) -- a bill of attainder.  I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I do not think that any appeals level court would entertain the idea that this act was a bill of attainder, but some of the attainder cases begin to look very similar.

When I get my desk cleared off I'm going to look at this.

tag

I'm already late for class.

This is definitely not a case of "ex post facto" (after the fact) legislation, because the behavior made criminal did not occur in the past (i.e., the person's behavior made criminal was not past behavior, but future behavior).

ex-post-office  what?

You know far more about the legal stuff than I.

All I know is I have been told you can't get punnished twice for one crime.

Or at least that was the way it used to be.