English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

States like Utah, Colorado and even Illinois are against Jessica's Law because "it may cost to much." Why would these particular states put price tags on their children and protect the sex offender?

2007-03-20 05:11:56 · 16 answers · asked by panthrchic 4 in Politics & Government Politics

16 answers

so true....they say they want the judges to have the power in the situations...to "rehabilitate" the predator...they are too dumb to realize this isnt a disorder...it is Complete evil that needs to be destroyed....I say public castration plus a life sentence in jail with a big gay rapist cellmate.....CHILDREN NEED PROTECTION!! these states could care less about children...(i.e. abortion friendly states) especially Vermont..

2007-03-20 05:17:57 · answer #1 · answered by voiceofreason 3 · 2 1

Before anyone accuses me of being on the side of criminal sex offenders, let me just make it clear that I believe that child rape and murder should be capital offenses. I believe that anyone who has molested a child should be required to serve lengthy "no-parole" prison terms IN ADDITION to any court appointed counselling....

That said, you must look beyond the snappy political packaging that lies behind what is being presented as "Jessica's Law."

Mandatory prison time?...Great. Lifetime registration...No problem there. GPS tracking?...Um, what is the cost vs. benefit there? Who decides on the lucrative contact for all the additional equipment and training? What oversight is there for the additional funds that these laws lump under the noble, but rather vague, heading of "protecting children?"

Some states have, in my opinion, very good versions of this law...others leave me wondering. The point is not "How much is this going to cost?" but "How effectively is this money going to be spent?"

A few facts:
Jessica Lunsford was killed by a multiple-offending drifter who had been released numerous times by the authorities.

Megan Kanka was killed by a multiple-offending drifter who had been released numerous times by the authorities.

Polly Klaas was killed by a multiple-offending drifter who had been released numerous times by the authorities.

Getting a pattern here? Wouldn't it be better to spend money on keeping these guys behind bars in the first place rather than on warning the public that they've been released?

Remember that registered sex offenders number in the hundreds of thousands...different states have different criteria, but some registrants include people convicted of crimes like public nudity or having gay sex in a park. There are some men who had sex with their 16-year-old girlfriend when they were 18, but that was thirty years ago and they've been stable, law-abiding citizens since.

Most current registration laws require that all offenders be treated equally. I want laws that spell out the harshest possible sentences for violent offenders. Keep them out of society and let law enforcement commit its resources toward getting the rest of them off the street.

I want our laws to promote accountable courts and safe children....Not a "Big Brother" state where we have to start tatooing offenders because the system can't be trusted to protect us from them.

2007-03-20 06:56:29 · answer #2 · answered by a_man_could_stand 6 · 1 0

I think they have problems with certain language of the law. Now bear in mind I'm not fully educated on the law, but I've heard some general complaints. For one, I've heard it is too broad and simplistic. For example, it might be possible for an 18 year old to get a mandatory long jail sentence for consensual sex with a 17 year old. Now many would agree that mandatory, long jail time is not in the best interest of the people or the society in that situation. Other forms of punishment should be explored, because they aren't really "sex offenders" in the non-legal term.

2007-03-20 05:17:07 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3 2

in the starting up, i'm vote casting for Ron Paul in spite of if I even ought to write him in on my poll. so a procedures as oil being $one hundred twenty 5 a barrel is going, there's a higher photograph right here. that's my conception that environmentalists are the most important clarification for prime gas/oil expenditures. every time we even imagine about drilling for oil, right here comes the litigation, and courtroom circumstances, from enviromental communities, and shuts it down. EPA regs are so tight that we are able to not even construct a clean oil refinery in united states (very last one outfitted in the '70's), and meet their criteria. The Greenies want $5+ gas, as that keeps each body from using, and 'polluting'. grant, and insist are oftentimes the most important motives for inflated expenditures, and if the availability is regulated then...Dems have blindly lengthy stood in help of environmental lobbyists, and that's the only reason i visit not in any respect help any Democrat EVER. i locate it regrettably amusing that we've environmental regs that ward off us from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, at some historic previous/ water barren area website in our waters close to Cuba. yet it would not quit Mexico, or Cuba from doing it basically on their area of the line, sticking their straws interior a similar oil we arent 'allowed' to take. So we purchase the oil from them that we (the united states) should be getting for ourselves. we are able to not drill there as were retaining our surroundings?! i locate it suspisiously sarcastically conveient that there is a barren area section, or some indangered creature each position we've oil to be drilled. i guess different countries do basically not pollute, and were the in undemanding words ones, so that they get a loose bypass to take our oil. bypass figure!

2016-12-02 07:09:54 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

A simple increase in penalties would suffice. First offense, keep the same penalties, second offense proves that the "rehab" that they had didn't work, so I would say give them the death penalty. Do you thing the sex offender thought of that childs "right to life" as he/she destroyed that innocent child? I would just be returning the same consideration.
We don't need a huge electronic tracking system for these people. Electronic tracking will not prevent the crime. There's ways around the tracking system that I won't post.

2007-03-20 05:20:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Because in the current implementations, many people are labelled "sex offenders" when they truly are not, so what happens is that many people who didn't forcibly rape anybody or have sex with children are labelled "sex offenders".

But all this could be alleviated if people figured out that violent rapists and child molesters should never be let out of prison in the first place. These are people who will NEVER not be a danger to others, and they should never be able to roam freely in society again.

2007-03-20 05:23:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

I wish i knew why also ,It is sad that in this day and age with all the crimes committed against are children that they would think twice about voting in laws to protect our children better

2007-03-20 09:09:12 · answer #7 · answered by Tara 5 · 0 0

They are afraid of the A.C.L.U. who is against Jessica's law but they support the Man Boy Love Association.

2007-03-20 05:36:38 · answer #8 · answered by Micah 4 · 1 2

I honestly can not think of a good reason to vote against that law.

2007-03-20 05:20:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Well, to be fair, EVERYONE puts a price tag on children. We are talking about funding. As far as why? I would have to ask them. See, I don't like to jump to conclusions about things that haven't been compltely disclosed. but I am an independent, so it goes with the territory

2007-03-20 05:15:37 · answer #10 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers