2006-09-05 11:36:55 · 21 answers · asked by kat 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Well simply, they have civil liberties per the constitutional because they have served their time. I think we are trying to do our best as a society by making them register but that has yet to be perfected.
2006-09-09 11:36:18 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean offenders, or former offenders? People committing offences should be reported to the police. People _not_ committing offences shouild be left alone to get their life together.
Did you you that sex offences in general have the second-lowest re-offending rate of all crimes, under 5%? (The lowest being murder). It's not the ones you know about that you need to worry about, it's your father, uncle, health visitor, priest, babysitter, etc. The people you know personally that seem so nice.
To the person who says there's an ex-offender living up the road. Do you know the details of his offence? How long ago it was? The circumstances surrounding it? And exactly why do yu think he's a danger to you? You're more likely to be struck by lightning than this guy is going to attack you.
As for distance limits from school and other places, just how less likely is someone going to offend because he lifes 800 feet from somewhere than 1100 feet? Or any dstance you name? It's absurd, and protects no-one.
2006-09-05 23:12:51 · answer #2 · answered by Loz T 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why were Jews herded into concentration camps?
Sex offenders may be undesirable and heinous people (just as the Jews were deemed undesirable and heinous by Hitler and his goons), but sex offenders are entitled to all constitutional rights that we have. No law should force them to live away from society in unpopulated areas. Technology exists to track them forever and ever as long as someone cares to follow them. More children die when people ignore a sex offender than during the actual act that made an offender a sex offender.
2006-09-05 11:43:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Once someone has been convicted of a crime and served his/her sentence, that person returns to being a regular citizen.
If you want to advocate longer sentences for sex offenders, you could make a strong argument I'm sure. However, it is simply unconstitutional to take away someone's civil rights after they have served their term and been released from prison. It's un-American. Our justice system is not based on the premise that there are bad people and good people. There are only crimes. You commit a crime, you pay the price.
I think the question should be, "Why don't we give longer sentences to sex offenders?"
2006-09-05 11:45:30 · answer #4 · answered by dark_phoenix 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there is overcrowding in the jails, and after the offender is off of probation and out of parole, as long as they register, they can live anywhere they want to. The law only covers them up to the end of parole time. I know an offender he lives with kids, and since he is off parole and no probation, the laws hands are tied. That's is per the Prosecutor and Judge.
2006-09-05 11:47:11 · answer #5 · answered by spiritwalker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, because the term "sex offender" is way to broad a category, includes too many different crimes and levels of intent to be meaningful.
Second, it's up to the legislatures if they want to inflict permanent punishment on these people, by forcing them to live in unpopulated areas of the county or state.
2006-09-05 11:41:58 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because the liberals worry themselves sick about the "rights" of people like sex offenders. They would much rather see 100 more victims than see a sex offender's "rights" denied in any way.
True, sex offenders do not worry about the rights of their victims, but that is OK with liberals, since they do not worry about the rights of the victims either.
edit: I see a pedophile (or someone that loves them) gave a thumbs down. Like I care what a pervert or pervert lover thinks?
2006-09-05 11:52:04 · answer #7 · answered by innocence faded 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In our area the police are always checking on this...In small communities it takes up a lot of policemens time..The sex offender "lists" have to be changed...some are classified as such and really shouldn't be. Just the predators should be on the list...not someone who was convicted of sex with a minor......If you know of someone report them......Citizens have to be aware too.........
2006-09-05 11:58:43 · answer #8 · answered by iluvcats58 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i really dont understand why, I believe it is unsafe for them to live close to the school and parks, even if they were let out of jail or prison because they did their time. Just because they did their time doesnt mean they changed and they cant be trusted, I think it just makes everyone else's life worse because they have to constantly worry about the person harming them or their children and you have to keep a closer eye on your actions of your children. they really shouldnt be allowed to live in our communties but I think its a technicality concerning civil liberities which, they shouldnt have for the crime they committed.
2006-09-05 11:47:22 · answer #9 · answered by Jenna 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Where I live, sex offenders have to live so many miles away from schools..BUT if they have lived there before this went into affect they get to stay there...which is stupid.. I have 4 girls and i have one that lives 4 houses down from me and it makes me SICK to know he is there.I have called to try and get him removed, but it was useless..
2006-09-05 11:45:38 · answer #10 · answered by BlueEyes4172004 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋