Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
A
alien amp pharm
Guest
Isn't statutory rape even of the willing considered a sex crime?
That is what I have a problem with.
That is what I have a problem with.
California Prop 83 passed
- Thread starter Wulfgar
- Start date
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Why would he have to be a sex offender to observe that a law is unfair and unrealistic?
We really need more laws? You are marked for life if you're a sex offender, shit just got worse.
I cringe at every DUI law that passes cause I know I will be involved somehow (people I know getting popped - I dont drink and drive).
We really need more laws? You are marked for life if you're a sex offender, shit just got worse.
I cringe at every DUI law that passes cause I know I will be involved somehow (people I know getting popped - I dont drink and drive).
you guys
no need to bash me.
Bash this CRAP piece of legislation
And no, I am not a sex offender.
The negatives of this are extremely far reaching.
1: This legislation will be ineffective for preventing repeat offenders(of which the 85,000 registered sex offenders in california only 3% are repeat). The GPS tracking system is NOT a 24 hour surveillance system. AT BEST it COULD help to find an offender AFTER THE CRIME. Maybe, or it would incarcerate an innocent man or woman who happens to live locally to where the crime took place. The crime will still happen, period.
2: The law ruins families. Hey, Im all for a legislation that will keep true predators off the street. But the simple fact is. This expensive program wont do it. the VAST majority of who will be affected by this are one time offenders who have NEVER repeated. These poor folks have new lives, families, jobs...ect and many have had them for 10,20, even 30 years with no repeat offense. These families will be torn apart, the person will not be able to go to thier kids school functions, will not be able to take thier kids to the park. Familes unable to move financially will be evicted from thier homes and forced to relocate. It is a backwards reggressive program that supports sepration and alienation rather than healing and therapy for these folks.
3: The 2000 foot thing is the stupidest thing Ive ever heard of. A TRUE offender WILL find a way to drive his car, ride a bike, fucking walk an extra .5 mile to a school to stalk. This law again just promotes more separation and angst for families by forcing them into selling thier homes in a down market. And for what reason??? none, it is foolish and not @ all useful to preventing any crimes whatsoever.
4: The COST to the taxpayers is overwhelming for a system that will do little, if anything, to prevent sex crimes. " a couple HUNDRED MILLION a year"?????!?!?!?!? wtf? Wouldnt this money be better spent on education and school programs (since this IS all about saving the kiddies right
)
It is a foolish foolish thing to do. Society is worse off than I thought when this thing passed with such a landslide vote. Watch what harm this bill does as it rips away rights and incarcerates those who havent done anything wrong. Plus driving true offenders into more loosely populated areas will police will have a more difficult time with dealing with them.
no need to bash me.
Bash this CRAP piece of legislation
And no, I am not a sex offender.
The negatives of this are extremely far reaching.
1: This legislation will be ineffective for preventing repeat offenders(of which the 85,000 registered sex offenders in california only 3% are repeat). The GPS tracking system is NOT a 24 hour surveillance system. AT BEST it COULD help to find an offender AFTER THE CRIME. Maybe, or it would incarcerate an innocent man or woman who happens to live locally to where the crime took place. The crime will still happen, period.
2: The law ruins families. Hey, Im all for a legislation that will keep true predators off the street. But the simple fact is. This expensive program wont do it. the VAST majority of who will be affected by this are one time offenders who have NEVER repeated. These poor folks have new lives, families, jobs...ect and many have had them for 10,20, even 30 years with no repeat offense. These families will be torn apart, the person will not be able to go to thier kids school functions, will not be able to take thier kids to the park. Familes unable to move financially will be evicted from thier homes and forced to relocate. It is a backwards reggressive program that supports sepration and alienation rather than healing and therapy for these folks.
3: The 2000 foot thing is the stupidest thing Ive ever heard of. A TRUE offender WILL find a way to drive his car, ride a bike, fucking walk an extra .5 mile to a school to stalk. This law again just promotes more separation and angst for families by forcing them into selling thier homes in a down market. And for what reason??? none, it is foolish and not @ all useful to preventing any crimes whatsoever.
4: The COST to the taxpayers is overwhelming for a system that will do little, if anything, to prevent sex crimes. " a couple HUNDRED MILLION a year"?????!?!?!?!? wtf? Wouldnt this money be better spent on education and school programs (since this IS all about saving the kiddies right
)It is a foolish foolish thing to do. Society is worse off than I thought when this thing passed with such a landslide vote. Watch what harm this bill does as it rips away rights and incarcerates those who havent done anything wrong. Plus driving true offenders into more loosely populated areas will police will have a more difficult time with dealing with them.
Also,
yes, people convicted of statuatory rape are included in this. So someone who had a 17 y/o gf when they were 19 and the girls mommy and daddy got pissed and charged him with the "crime" is now fucked for life. EVEN IF it happened 30 years ago.
and the penaties for sex offenders are tough enough. This was completely unecessary.
oh, and one more thing. this is copy pasted from a anti prop 83 site...this type of law has been tried before and was met with horrible results
Proposition 83 would have other dangerous, unintended consequences. The Proposition’s monitoring provisions would be least effective against those posing the greatest danger. Obviously, dangerous offenders would be the least likely to comply, so the proposed law would push the more serious offenders underground, where they would be less effectively monitored by police. In addition, by prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, the initiative would force many offenders from urban to rural areas with smaller police forces. A high concentration of sex offenders in rural neighborhoods will not serve public safety.
Prosecutors in the State of Iowa know from sad experience that this type of residency restriction does not work. In 2001, Iowa adopted a similar law, but the association of county prosecutors that once advocated for that law now say that it “does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirement and unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measures.” (February 14, 2006, “Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa,” Iowa County Attorneys Association.) (To see the full Statement, go to: www.iowa-icaa.com/index.htm or www.cacj.org.)
A summary of the Iowa prosecutors’ findings shows why the Iowa law was a disaster and why Proposition 83 must be rejected:
* Residency restrictions do not reduce sex offenses against children or improve children’s safety.
* Residency restrictions will not be effective against 80 to 90% of sex crimes against children, because those crimes are committed by a relative or acquaintance of the child.
* Residency restrictions cause sex registrants to disappear from the registration system, harming the interest of public safety.
* Enforcing the residency restrictions is expensive and ineffective.
* The law also caused unwarranted disruption to the innocent families of ex-offenders.
yes, people convicted of statuatory rape are included in this. So someone who had a 17 y/o gf when they were 19 and the girls mommy and daddy got pissed and charged him with the "crime" is now fucked for life. EVEN IF it happened 30 years ago.
and the penaties for sex offenders are tough enough. This was completely unecessary.
oh, and one more thing. this is copy pasted from a anti prop 83 site...this type of law has been tried before and was met with horrible results
Proposition 83 would have other dangerous, unintended consequences. The Proposition’s monitoring provisions would be least effective against those posing the greatest danger. Obviously, dangerous offenders would be the least likely to comply, so the proposed law would push the more serious offenders underground, where they would be less effectively monitored by police. In addition, by prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, the initiative would force many offenders from urban to rural areas with smaller police forces. A high concentration of sex offenders in rural neighborhoods will not serve public safety.
Prosecutors in the State of Iowa know from sad experience that this type of residency restriction does not work. In 2001, Iowa adopted a similar law, but the association of county prosecutors that once advocated for that law now say that it “does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirement and unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measures.” (February 14, 2006, “Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa,” Iowa County Attorneys Association.) (To see the full Statement, go to: www.iowa-icaa.com/index.htm or www.cacj.org.)
A summary of the Iowa prosecutors’ findings shows why the Iowa law was a disaster and why Proposition 83 must be rejected:
* Residency restrictions do not reduce sex offenses against children or improve children’s safety.
* Residency restrictions will not be effective against 80 to 90% of sex crimes against children, because those crimes are committed by a relative or acquaintance of the child.
* Residency restrictions cause sex registrants to disappear from the registration system, harming the interest of public safety.
* Enforcing the residency restrictions is expensive and ineffective.
* The law also caused unwarranted disruption to the innocent families of ex-offenders.
silverbackn
New member
It's hard to draw the line and say what is too restrictive. If it makes it hard to integrate someone back into society then I think it is fucked up. Should somoene be punished forever if they aren't a repeat offender? I don't think they should. I think child predators are the sickest motherfuckers alive but scare tactics and propaganda aren't going to fix the problem. The problem will never be fixed. Here's what you guys aren't seeing, CRIMINALS DON"T FOLLOW LAWS THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM CRIMINALS.
exactly
this supposed "logic" is like saying " Since you have had 1 DUI, we are forever banning you from being able to drive, or living withing 2000 feet of a car dealership or a parking lot, oh and here, wear this GPS thing on your body for the rest of your life so everyone that sees you knows u have somehow broken the law"
this supposed "logic" is like saying " Since you have had 1 DUI, we are forever banning you from being able to drive, or living withing 2000 feet of a car dealership or a parking lot, oh and here, wear this GPS thing on your body for the rest of your life so everyone that sees you knows u have somehow broken the law"
ya I know bro. And that poor woman, under this law, would be demonized for the rest of her life. These people have DONE thier time. It should be over and done with. It is unconstitutional to punsih those who havent done anything and have already done thier required sentances.CO B-man said:
besides, who here thinks Debra Lafave is a criminal? Or that she "forcibly raped" this kid?? its BS. Completel BS
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Wulfgar said:
the punishment that keeps on punishing
seriouslyUA_Iron said:
how long until every every ex-criminal or misdeameanor offender is thrown into this "surveillance" system? or different demographic of people "likely to commit a crime".
fuck, one day if this shit continues we are all gonna have government leashes up our asses.
talk about Big Brother
