[Steely Tom]

In other breaking news:

According to figures from the Department of Justice, crime rates are down even though prison populations continue to rise. Another paradox.

[Dahoser]

The boy had a troubled home life. Alan, then in his 40s, became a father figure. Then came the oral sex, a confession and five years at a men's colony.

That they know doesn't bother him, he said. It shields him.

Why, of course! It was just a natural progression: A troubled 11 year-old, a 40-something father figure, and oral sex.

That his so-called support group knows doesn't bother this clymer because it doesn't bother him or them what he actually did. After all, the point of the article is how terrible it is what is being proposed to keep track of these cretins who never should see the light of day in the first place.

[marktwain]

Let us not forget the "sex offender" can be an exceedingly broad term.

It is not just Pedophiles. It is the 20 year old who was seduced by the 15 year old.

And don't say it doesn't happen. Sex between young girls and young men a few years older is rampant. It is just that *most* of the time, charges are not brought.

Also, "sex abuse" is now one of the most commonly used "levers" in divorce cases. Attorney friends of mine have told me of cases where the accused went to jail, even when they had evidence that he could not have been at the place and time referred to in the accusation. The prosecutor simply said that the accuser must have been "confused".

[JudgemAll]

It could, they say, make the public less safe by pushing dangerous offenders away from support, into dangerous isolation.

Is this a threat or what?

I mean, what of the dangerous isolation that kid went under because liberals love the privacy allowing them to murder kids before and after they are born, with in between abuses of course.

"Pesky embarassing kid, all your good for is "this" and "there that"... and don't you dare put me in isolation!" <---- common statement by pedophile lawyers

[gcruse]

""That's my best defense. I'm being held accountable. Where am I going to go without anybody knowing about it?" said Alan, who insisted on anonymity."

Then why insist on anonymity?

[CounterCounterCulture]

Oh, sure, use my name. Who did I tick off?

~ Alan

[calcowgirl]

I've decided--I'm voting no.

IMO, the residence restrictions will backfire and the GPS application is too widespread and therefore too costly. I also worry that GPS will give some a false sense of security and they'll start paroling more sex-offenders early, after all, our prisons are overcrowded, etc.

[goldstategop]

No one likes sexual predators who prey on kids. But I think its inhumane. My stated preference is execute a pedophile after their first assault upon a child. If you're that evil, you shouldn't get a second chance because the facts show you'll reoffend again. I feel a better approach is a "One Strike" death penalty law. We're too soft to do the right thing and so we'll ban people from living around our kids for the rest of their lives. If they deserve to remain alive and breathing, it makes no sense whatsoever to ban them from society. That's my problem with Jessica's Law.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Bogtrotter52]

With all the restrictions on where they can live it is getting much like something I read about Puritan New England. If you commited a serious crime, after the punishment they would have the local constable/citzenry whip the offender to the village line, where the next constable/citizenry would whip him to the village line, etc., etc. Not sure if it is true....but as a solution?Works for me.

[Bogtrotter52]

"They can't find places to go. They get very frustrated, so some people just choose to quit registering an address," said Corwin Ritchie."

And when they fail to register they are in violation and can then be picked up and returned to prison. Problem solved.