Pages

Jump to bottom

5 comments

1 kirkspencer  Mon, Feb 24, 2014 5:56:24am

I find myself in the same situation I often do with much of the far right. I may agree with a few of the stated end points, but I disagree with the starting point and the route by which they intend to get there because the other consequences are so ugly.

See, having read the article, I see and to some extent agree with some of Moore’s stated end points. In fact, though it wasn’t about sex offenders, I’ve made pretty much the same two core claims.

Claim 1. Do we have to constrain and restrict and remove the rights from all of a group because of a minority (in this case 19 to 27%)?

Claim 2. We have a justice system that says ‘once you’re done serving, you’re done.’ It’s (notionally) rehabilitation, not just scaled punishment. Shouldn’t offenders who’ve served their time have their rights restored?

A few days ago this came up in a different place, where Dark Falcon and I had a core disagreement. In that case it was voting rights and gun possession rights. Should a murderer who has served his time get those rights back? In that argument I affirmed the answer to the two claims was “yes” and “of course.

Sex offenders, though. umm.

Of course, part of that is the fact that not all sex offenders are the same. Not just the fact that the crimes of child rapists are not those of statutory rapists (to give two of the range) and so one is safe near a school and the other isn’t, but also the difference in recidivism rates.

Still, sex offenders.

The short version of my current position is that first we need to fix our system. Our rehab of criminals of all types could be a lot better if we didn’t have this need to punish excessively. We also need to separate our recidivism rate info. In an ideal world I’d also establish a recidivism ‘threshold’ - any crime whose offenders tend to exceed that (regardless how mild or heinous) should have monitoring restrictions, restrictions on locations and possessions and actions that are relevant to the crime.

Politically, however, I’m not sure starting with sex offenders is the right way. And in fact, knowing Moore’s stated underlying reason makes me know that this isn’t the way. His reason is, well, at heart it’s “sovereign citizenship”. Unless caught in the act of a crime nobody should be required to show ID to a police officer.

So I find myself in the same situation I often do with much of the far right. I may agree with a few of the stated end points, but I disagree with the starting point and the route by which they intend to get there because the other consequences are so ugly.

It’s a shame, though. Because fixing our criminal justice system is one of my major desires.

2 Timothy Watson  Mon, Feb 24, 2014 7:27:17am

It’s the same political party that here in Virginia defeated a bill which would have banned sex offenders convicted of misdemeanors (all felons lose the rights automatically), stalkers, and domestic abusers from possessing or buying a firearm.

The sex offenders convicted of a misdemeanor part is especially absurd when you consider that so they’re considered so dangerous they’re on a public Sex Offender Registry and they can be jailed if they fail to update their information when they move, get a job, etc., but the GOP has no problem with them owning guns.

To make matters worse, both GOP candidates for Attorney General last year are in the General Assembly and they both voted against the bill, one killing the bill as committee Chairman in the House without a recorded vote.

The other, the guy who ended up being the GOP nominee, ran ads (rated as “Mostly False”) last year accusing his opponent, Mark Herring, of being soft on sex offenders.

3 FemNaziBitch  Mon, Feb 24, 2014 9:00:15am

re: #1 kirkspencer

I think there is a clear distinction. It runs along racial lines. Many felons who are ineligible to own a firearm are not white. We’ve learned that the prison situation in this country is being used for both the control and isolation of the mentally health and as a new “Jim Crow” system for disenfranchising African-Americans.

I have not heard of any GOP politician or candidate working for these felons. Only the felons that have their firearm ownership and “sex” rights denied attract their attention.

Yes, there are many situations in which a convicted felon could be considered no longer a threat to society and have many of their rights restored.

Predators who prey on children? I wouldn’t vote to put my child at risk.

4 kirkspencer  Mon, Feb 24, 2014 9:38:54am

re: #3 FemNaziBitch

I think there is a clear distinction. It runs along racial lines. Many felons who are ineligible to own a firearm are not white. We’ve learned that the prison situation in this country is being used for both the control and isolation of the mentally health and as a new “Jim Crow” system for disenfranchising African-Americans.

I have not heard of any GOP politician or candidate working for these felons. Only the felons that have their firearm ownership and “sex” rights denied attract their attention.

Yes, there are many situations in which a convicted felon could be considered no longer a threat to society and have many of their rights restored.

Predators who prey on children? I wouldn’t vote to put my child at risk.

Agreed, but not all registered sex offenders are child predators. That is part of my problem with it all. Sex crimes include the individuals who were caught peeing on public buildings (exposure) and statutory rape (which is a mess with a lot of parents getting rid of unwanted boy/girl friends of their child), plus some serious but not child-endangering crimes like sexual assault.

5 FemNaziBitch  Mon, Feb 24, 2014 10:04:44am

re: #4 kirkspencer

Agreed, but not all registered sex offenders are child predators. That is part of my problem with it all. Sex crimes include the individuals who were caught peeing on public buildings (exposure) and statutory rape (which is a mess with a lot of parents getting rid of unwanted boy/girl friends of their child), plus some serious but not child-endangering crimes like sexual assault.

I understand what you are saying. An 18yo convicted of raping his long standing girlfriend who is 17 (because their birthdays don’t happen to fall on the same day) is not a criminal.

SCOTUS screwed up big time when they denied the death penalty to child molesters. IT would have forced state legislators to examine and revise the laws to fit the crime.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 38 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 92 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1