Parker County sex offenders to be out of circulation on Halloween night

wbap820 ^ | 10/20/2005 | wbap820

[sinkspur]

Not up on the website yet, but Mark Davis has been discussing a local news story. Parker County (Weatherford is the county seat) in Texas has decreed that all sex offenders in the county must report to their parole officers by 6 pm on October 31. They will then be congregated in one location for the duration of the evening.

Also, police officers will go to the homes of all registered sex offenders and remove any Halloween decorations or anything else "that might attract children."

[sinkspur]

The discussion has centered on whether this is an overreaction. The county is maintaining that this will also prevent any false accusations against sex offenders, since they'll all be gathered in one place.

[sinkspur]

One bump.

[SquirrelKing]

They will then be congregated in one location for the duration of the evening.

Scarier than any haunted house...

[Bluegrass Conservative]

Okay, I understand the intent. But doesn't this just seem wrong in some way? I'm not usually one to issue the "violates civil rights" warcry . . . but, I don't know. Something just isn't right about this.

[Shalom Israel]

If the county's spin weren't a lie, they could make this "Halloween Party for Pedos" optional--but it isn't. Non-optional attendance based on the risk of what might happen in the future is also known as "pre-emptive detention."

I believe the right punishment for child molestation is execution. That said, the constitution doesn't exactly authorize pre-emptive detention.

[LIConFem]

"They will then be congregated in one location for the duration of the evening. "

Just one grenade...

[CSM]

Are all registered sex offenders on parole? If these drastic actions are actually necessary to protect society, why are these people even out of jail?

[LIConFem]

"Okay, I understand the intent. But doesn't this just seem wrong in some way?"

In spite of my last post, I agree with you. Detaining citizens who're not at least currently under suspicion of having committed a crime is unconstitutional. The answer, in my opinion, is to lock convicted pedophiles up for life.

[cyclotic]

Where's Jim Brown when you need him?

[sinkspur]

Detaining citizens who're not at least currently under suspicion of having committed a crime is unconstitutional.

Almost every one of these sex offenders is on parole. That means the parole officer can reel in the leash they're on at any time, for any reason. Their attorneys agree to this as a condition for parole.

[steveo]

I wonder if they had information on a potential terrorist attack they would round up all Muslims and detain them 'just so nothing happens'.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

This Jim Brown?

[NJ_gent]

"the constitution doesn't exactly authorize pre-emptive detention."

You've hit the nail on the head. While I agree that we should not be allowing such dangerous, violent predators out onto the streets, the fact remains that the laws we, the people, have allowed to be put in place do just that. I imagine we're going to catch Hell as "rapist lovers!" and other such nonsense, but the fact remains that in a society ruled by law and order, the only thing more dangerous than out of control citizens is out of control government. When the government starts locking people up who haven't been accused of wrongdoing "for their own good", I get nervous.

(And yes, I know they've been convicted of horrible crimes, but the fact is that our government has punished and released them, and they would not be out on the street if they were accused of further wrongdoing.)

[LIConFem]

"Their attorneys agree to this as a condition for parole."

Well, that does make a difference. Still, I'd rather see convicted pedophiles locked up for life. They're just too dangerous to be running around loose.

[NJ_gent]

"Almost every one of these sex offenders is on parole. That means the parole officer can reel in the leash they're on at any time, for any reason. Their attorneys agree to this as a condition for parole."

The conditions of parole are agreed upon by the parole board and the parolee (as well as a judge). The specific conditions can vary widely, depending on the circumstances of the case and the offender's situation. For those not out on parole, there exists no law that does not directly violate the US Constitution and all the principles upon which it was written that would allow the government to legally detain them, enter their home, destroy their property, and otherwise interfere with the lawful course of their lives.

Personally, I don't think we should be allowing sexual predators back onto the streets ever. I don't think there is any real evidence of rehabilitation for these types of criminals. However, the laws that we, as a society, have accepted, let them out onto the street after a certain period of time. Once they're released, especially when that release is not contingent on terms of parole, they have all the rights and privileges of you and I. The frightening thing is, if they can be rounded up by the government "for their own good", then so can you and I.

Want to protect sex predators from new accusations? Change the law so they never get out of jail; don't come around with an illegal government action, applying some Ex Post Facto policy because it suddenly, magically becomes obvious that they're still a threat to society.

[NJ_gent]

"Detaining citizens who're not at least currently under suspicion of having committed a crime is unconstitutional. The answer, in my opinion, is to lock convicted pedophiles up for life."

Unless and until the laws are changed to do this (and I agree they should be), this type of action violates the highest laws of this nation and threatens the liberty of each and every citizen. When the government may arbitrarily decide to detain anyone or any group of citizens "for their own good", every single last one of us is in danger. Every time an action like this is announced, we need to be asking WWHD (What Would Hilary Do?) with the powers being exercised.

[LIConFem]

Yup.

;o)

[3dognight]

Unless and until the laws are changed to do this (and I agree they should be), this type of action violates the highest laws of this nation and threatens the liberty of each and every citizen. When the government may arbitrarily decide to detain anyone or any group of citizens "for their own good", every single last one of us is in danger. Every time an action like this is announced, we need to be asking WWHD (What Would Hilary Do?) with the powers being exercised.

This is not arbitrary. These people are on probation or parole. The alternative is prison and they have to abide by the conditions of their parole or probation.

[upchuck]

The answer, in my opinion, is to lock convicted pedophiles up for life.

Why should you and I pay out for these scumbags for the rest of their life?

Just kill 'em.

Cleans up the gene pool and maybe acts as a deterrent.

[NJ_gent]

"This is not arbitrary. These people are on probation or parole."

Based on the information provided thus far, this does not seem to be the case. If you have further information from the county indicating that only those who are on parole, and only those whose parole conditions specifically allow this are included in the round-up, then I'll certainly be a lot less critical of the move.