Go to Court Of The One-Eyed Judge
- Add a comment
- Go to Reserving The Right To Ban Sex Offenders
It could start a movement, this commingling of smartnesses.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 21, 2005 at 6:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
We seem to have agreed again. I thought we probably would, but at the time I found myself unable to resist the urge to spout off. You seem to think like I do, which makes you a very smart guy.
JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 21, 2005 at 6:43 AM
| link to this | reply
JJ, you are absolutely correct. I am not condoning free license by
corporations and groups to disriminate or relegate or aportion certain limits to certain peoples. I agree that anything and everything done to maximize the protection of society (and, in this case, mostly our children) should be done under legal means. It is only a small step, as you point out, from something seemingly benign and socially good to enter into the fascistic. I do beleive that those who have chosen to circumvent or ignore the law deserve restictions placed upon them (and not just the inability to vote or to move freely without registering as an offender).
posted by
saul_relative
on May 21, 2005 at 6:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
I agree with you thoughts on keeping the children safe, but I still think that it needs to be done in a way that is proscribed by law. If we need the laws, we enact the laws and they are enforced as laws. There is a particular problem in exactly the area, sexual abuse of children, that you point out here. In AZ people of that ilk are told where they can live, how, etc. That, to me, is well and good, but it does need to be taken care of through sentencing and the laws. Otherwise, there is no control and we put our society at the precipice of disaster. A disaster that, if extrapolated, becomes exactly the problem that existed in Nazi Germany with the Jews. I know that sounds extreme, but public behavior that is not controlled by legal means is nothing more than the seeds of chaos planted within a society.
JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 20, 2005 at 8:19 PM
| link to this | reply
JJ_Wilde and StraightForward:
Of course, distinctions within the rules and regulations must be made, or you face the possibility of lawsuit (which is one of the reasons Six Flags issue the statement to begin with). But, in this case, with regards to civil liberties, you are protecting society from social deviants and potential deviant acts. Barring sex offenders, and I will make the distinction here for Six Flags to include only the sexually predatory offenders who pursue children, might be a form of discrimination but one done for the common good. The civil liberties of a person who chooses to live his life outside the bounds of social convention and against common law aren't obviated but should be restricted when the potential for a continuation of their antisocial behavior presents itself. Simply put: you don't leave the sugarbowl uncovered if you want to keep the flies away.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 20, 2005 at 7:49 PM
| link to this | reply
I would agree with this logic specially for children's parks
but the point is at waht stage do you decide that a person is a sex offender? if he is seen doing somethign amiss in the park/ if he is convicted? what?
posted by
Straightforward
on May 20, 2005 at 6:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
Things such as this are fine, as long as they are watched closely by someone. The stripping of civil rights can become a rampant, uncontrolled disease that can expand to include religion, politics, region of residence, skin color, anything that becomes unpopular. The exclusion of sex offenders is now fashionable, what is next? How big is the problem? Should it be treated by public sanction, or criminal law? Who is in charge of the ''attributes eligible for persecution'' list? Does fulfillment of criminal sentencing become meaningless only here?
Although I agree that protection of children from sex offenders is a definite necessity, is there not a better way of dealing with it through the law? Probation? Sentencing? It is never best to allow sanctions for a crime to be performed outside of the law. Control disappears and vigilantism rears its ugly head. JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 20, 2005 at 6:46 PM
| link to this | reply
not a bad idea, mysteria, for they truly are beasts among men
and deserve tell-tale marks by which all people should know them.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 20, 2005 at 6:18 PM
| link to this | reply
f**K the sex offenders...I say brand them
on their f**king foreheads with a f**king scarlet alphabet.
posted by
mysteria
on May 20, 2005 at 6:11 PM
| link to this | reply