ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110801867.html

VRT MBasile

iTrader: (17)

so do you think a just turned 18 year old was reported for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend of 2+ years and the girlfriends parents dont like him, its ok for him to have to wear a gps device and all that crap for the rest of his life? The idea behind the proposal was good, but it needed to be focussed instead of so widespread

ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

That's a pretty weak argument. You can do better.

VRT MBasile

iTrader: (17)

explain how its weak and where it falls apart rather than just stating "thats a weak argument" for that in itself is a rather weak argument for not backing itself up

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

he has a point.. (mbasile)

ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

Did you even read the article? First of all you are stating a hypothetical situation, what you stated was the argument for inacting Jessica's Law not imposing tighter restrictions to those who are affected by it. Which is what the propostion that was VOTED into law just this past Tues. did. 70% that's right 70% of CA said they want tighter restrictions on sexual offenders. One liberal judge stops the will of 70% of the population. It doesn't matter on the age, situation. Where was the 9th when SF decided they were going to ban firearms in thier county? Out to lunch maybe?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

The problem with the prop was that it was sneaky with the GPS part. The rest of it (convicted felon sex offenders not being able to live/work by schools, etc) is great. But GPS on every one of them? That is just plain crazy. Only a person who is a moral conservative but a fiscal nut job would suggest that. Every true conservative would balk at the idea of strapping a GPS unit to every felon sex offender...

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Did YOU? It plainly states that most registered offenders already can't live within 1/4 mile of schools...that's 1320ft. Are you really that pissed about 680ft? And high risk offenders can't live within 1/2 mile before the new law...that's 2700ft, or 700 more than required by the new law.

VRT MBasile

iTrader: (17)

you're right that the situation I stated was a hypothetical one, but its not an uncommon one

Salty

iTrader: (14)

It says "some" offenders after parole, Mbaslie. Let's not be stupid... I'm sure a judge wouldn't shackle a lust-filled teenager when the age difference was only a year. I'm sure that would be determined by the court. If this is so unconstitutional then how is it not for the device we put on some parolees. Here's one of a sex offender in 2005: http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...om=moreStories This judge may have opened pandoras box...

I voted for it. Can't find a house? Oh well! Maybe you should of thought twice about felling up a 12yr old you sick ****. I'd make the same rule for a rapist... you wouldn't be able to live 2000ft from a woman. Talk about finding a place to live then! You'd have to pitch your coleman tent on farmland or desolate acreage. Why not make it hard on these guys?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Gotta love it!

SilverScoober02

I'm all for cracking down on sex offenders and I don't know the law you are speaking of because I don't live in CA but isn't strapping GPS's to sex offenders pretty costly? Where does the money for that come from? If it is finacially feasible then great. The only thing is they have to revamp the sex offender list thing. There was just a huge story in the news around here about a guy who was put on the sex offender list because he was caught taking a leak on a golf course. That is the most asinine application of the law I have ever heard. Also a woman that I work with, her son was prosecuted for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend (he was 18) and put on the registry. He hung himself about 2 months back....I don't have a problem with sticking it to child molesters, etc but there has to be some legal language in there to distiguish because it can get out of hand.

spedmunki

I'm a sophmore at school and i know two girls who are registered sex offenders now from going to the bathroom in the men's room because they were too lazy to go down a floor in the dorms.

ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

If they can strap a GPS unit to Martha Stewart for insider trading violation, we can certainly Justify straping one on a sexual offender. Money??? Youth being violated by a sicko, money???
I am astounded with the defense you guys are alying out there for these sick *****. Shame on you.

SilverScoober02

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, and it was passed by a vote of the people so it shouldn't be touched by a judge. I was just asking if it would be cost prohibitive.

Relax sparky I don't think anyone here is sticking up for sexual offenders that prey on kids. Most of us are realistic in the thought that the law needs to be well defined though so as not to trap 18 year old's that have sex with their 16-17 year old girlfriends and guys that take a leak on the golf course with the "Sexual Offender" tag, because that happens.

Caught preying on kids should be a wholly separate issue with separate charges and definitions. There should be mandatory minimums that put these guys away in PRISON not a "mental health" facility for good amounts of time and when or if they get out they should be monitored much, much more stringently than the average burgler/theif etc.