Thursday, November 03, 2005

Uh Sorry

.. At what point are the voters going to complain about the infringement on the rights of these rehabilitated ex-convicts? First it's limiting where they live, next it's banning them from leaving their houses on Halloween, and now it's GPS Tracking.. I am horrified that nobody is coming to the defense of these people.


Jessica said...

Would you put yourself on my blog buddy locator map, please? The link is on my last post. Thank you!

Ryan said...

It's a tough issue for politicians, whose livelihood is not a guarantee - it exists because of the whim and fancy of voters, and each politician's efficacy depends upon the support of those who put him/her in office. What politician in their right mind is going to ignore repeat sex offenders? Furthermore, what politician in their right mind is going to STAND UP and DEFEND a repeat sex offender?

Although our system of justice currently is based on the idea of rehabilitation, and that once you put in the time you are a full-fledged US citizen again, it is simply not the truth in case. People with felony convictions aren't allowed to own a gun. Sex offenders need to register before they move into your neighborhood. And the list continues.

I don't know exactly how I would personally feel if a convicted felon or a rapist or a child molester moved into my neighborhood (and I knew about it). I think rape is an evil thing, but there are also cases where I don't believe it is truly rape (i.e. when two consenting teenagers have sex, it can still be considered rape of a minor if the authorities are notified).

But whatever my personal convictions are, our justice system clearly hasn't made its mind up on the issue yet. Do our laws promote rehabilitation and then fail to protect the rehabilitated, or do they simply bestow a lower-class citizenship on people with a proven criminal record?

I suppose our laws are just as infallibly human as we are.

trace said...

Ryan, you make a few good points in your comment. First off, I can see how politicians can be afraid of voting (or even coming out with opposing legislation) against these issues. I get squeamish whenever I write about this stuff. I fear that people will think that I'm a sex offender myself (which I will go on record and say I am not.. and have never been convicted of any crime).

You do bring up the point of severity of the crimes which is one of my main arguments. I can't see how a priest who molests an alter boy should be put in the same category as an 18 year old who gets convicted for having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend.

Perhaps the key is the concept of the 'repeat offender'. In this case, I would say that we would have filtered out all (or most) of the non-dangerous offenders. Perhaps the repeat offenders are who we should be ostracizing instead of all of them.

Oh and you and I both live in cities. I can pretty much guarantee that we both live within a mile of either an ex-felon or a sex offender. My bet would be that we live within a mile of both.

Janeen said...

By nature I'm not a judgmental person, but when it comes to sexual crimes against kids, I say they are lucky that they were ever able to see the light of day again!!

I am the mother of 3, and if some sorry SOB touched one of my kids he'd never live to see a trial, and I mean that quite literally!

These minor infringements on a child molestor are absolutely nothing compared to the everlasting harm they inflicted on thier victims. I know from experience!

History shows that very few are actually "rehabilitated". Would you want to take the chance with your child?

They slap child molestors on the wrists, and then release them to prey on another child.

On another note the dumbest thing our government has ever done is label an 18 year old boy as a child molestor because he had consenting sex with a 17 year old! That is what the voters need to stand up and complain about.

Sorry, I know it is a 180 from your opinion. Few things get me really fired up and this is one of them.

trace said...

Well, like most crimes, when they hit home people tend to get a lot more extreme then if they happen in the abstract. Just like murder or rape or robbery, child molesting when it happens to a close family member goes beyond a crime and the perpetrator gets no trial as far as you are concerned. This is understandable but in the long run, not a good thing for society at large.

We as a people need to create and enforce laws that we all see as fair and just. This is essentially what I'm complaining about here. We have laws concerning sex offenders (pedophiles, statutory rapists, public masturbators, etc.) that we as a people created. We built (actively or through our ambivalence towards the government process) the system of rehabilitation that exists today. My central argument is that if we don't like the system as it exists, we should rally to change it instead of locally putting in measures that actively go against the spirit of the laws we have now.

Janeen said...

I'm pretty sure I'd be just as adamant about a person who commits crimes against children had I not experienced it first hand.

Like I said I am a very tolerant person, but hurting a child in any way is unforgivable in my book.

You are absolutely right, we need to do something else to ensure rehabilitation. (Castration comes to mind!)

I honestly think we are entirely too lieneant on sex offenders in general let alone child molestors and child abusers.

I agree with Ryan that no politicain who values his career is going to stand up and say "I think we're too hard on sex offenders".

Like I said I'm all for people living thier lives any way they want as long as it isn't hurting another human being in the process.

Ok, I'm done. You'll hear no more from the peanut gallery on this one. Sorry I get so fired up about this subject. ;)