My View Of The Sex Offender Registry, And Other Constitutional Issues.

You know we live in a system of law, not individual passions. And you can't manipulate the law to your own ends. The only purpose of the sex offender registry is to protect communities. Not to punish again. They paid their debt to society. Accept it. And where I live, Michigan, the sex offender registry is retroactive to the 1930's. Right or wrong, punishing someone again for a crime they did in the 30's is a violation of double jeopardy, ex post facto, cruel and unusual punishment, and the first principle of justice. That justice be fair and reasonably kind to all. And that, as I said, once you've paid your debt to society, we must all move on.

On a message board once, I said these laws make the sex offenders lives unreasonably difficult. Some guy said, that's what there for. No, I said. The four classic purposes of punishment in our system, are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. No, no one guy said. I'm a lawyer, and I know what you are referring to. But I still think they deserve it.

Anyways, conservative judges say, no to deterrence with the registry, according the Constitution (hence what the above guy said). But to protect communities, as I said. You can't live within 500 feet of a school. People can just walk you know. And that extra foot? What difference would that make? A while ago in a suburb, they said sex offenders weren't allowed in public parks. But the city council said, allow them at city council meetings. They have a right to have their say. No, people said. Don't give them access to the legal system. They'll be able to defend their rights that way. (Policemen often make that argument about mentally ill and mentally deficient people where I live.)

Plus what is a sex offender. I just saw on satellite TV yesterday. An African American drag queen in Louisiana said a cop arrested her for wearing women's clothes. And then she was declared a sex offender. Because they do that in Louisiana. No, they don't! People have told me. She said they did. And that was the only reason. She wasn't wearing her skimpy outfit near children, whatever that even means.

And on that same above message board. They told me, well I think I should make their lives as difficult as possible. I said, what? When they go to a restaurant, the waiter should spit in their food? The cashier at McDonalds should put a hair in their Big Mac? Starbucks should dip their cup in the toilet? Always silence on that other message board when I said things like that. I wonder if that wasn't part of the reason why I was banned. Probably not.

But no, I am not a sex offender. Look me up. I live in Michigan. No, I'm not planning on ever being one, though I am gay. Not the kind that wears women's outfits or who travels to Louisiana. Thankfully. I am just pro Constitution. That 240 year old document that makes conservatives here so angry. Though people in Europe think it's outdated, boorish and stupid. I'm pro First Amendment, pro Fourth Amendment. I'm a Fifth Amendment nut. I'm sorry. I'll stop if you want. And I am pro Second Amendment. I don't think the federal government should ever interfere in a state's right to form a state militia. Not private gun ownership, because it never said that. I am also very pro Third Amendment. I don't think the federal government should quarter soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent during peacetime. That hasn't happened since 1776. But it's still wrong. Yes it is. Call me a nut. Call me old fashioned too.

 

Same shit as this https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2566&context=lawreview

First it was the sex offenders now its people who were addicted to drugs and alcohol.

 

It is a very difficult question.
Communities need to know about people who commit sexual acts with children, along with those who jump out of the bushes and commit violent rape.
People who have been reported for committing sexual acts against more than 3 DIFFERENT people should also be on the register.

But a child should not be classified as a child when they were not obviously under age and a willing participant. Particularly if the offender admits the mistake and shows remorse. Neither should an offence when an act takes place where the victim was previously a willing participant and violence was not involved.

People who abuse others will always be a menace, but kissing someone at a party should not be seen as a crime, unless the offender runs around kissing everyone as a pastime

Perhaps there should be 2 levels on the register. A high risk one that is available to everyone, along with a lower risk one that is only available to employers running institutions such as schools, care homes and hospitals.