Skip to comments.
Tracking Sex Offenders Is Unconstitutional
Madison.com via AP ^
| February 9, 2007
| Staff Writer @ AP
Posted on 02/09/2007 5:47:00 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
Discuss amongst yourselves. ;)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
Life in prison for sex offenders. If they have to be monitored when they're released, then they shouldn't be released in the first place.
To: Diana in Wisconsin
Just hang them instead!
No tracking needed.
3
posted on
02/09/2007 5:49:12 PM PST
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
To: Diana in Wisconsin
According to three Wisconsin law professors .... well that settles it for me.
To: Diana in Wisconsin
My view is if a pedophile cannot control his urges, he should be executed. Why risk more damage to future victims? Let's call it a One Strike And You're Out For Good Rule.
"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 Palelologus
5
posted on
02/09/2007 5:51:59 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
Please note that they talk about rights for the offenders but never their victims.
6
posted on
02/09/2007 5:52:48 PM PST
by
proudofthesouth
(Mao said that power comes at the point of a rifle; I say FREEDOM does.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
If the law applies retroactively then his point is valid. The solution though is just don't release any offenders.
7
posted on
02/09/2007 5:55:51 PM PST
by
Squawk 8888
(Is human activity causing the warming trend on Mars?)
To: Capt. Jake; Diana in Wisconsin; Kuksool; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; BlackElk
3 Wisconsin law profs... from MADISON ! The Ivory Tower has spoken. Maybe we can pass a law to have registered sex offenders be required to live in the homes of University profs in lieu of prison.
8
posted on
02/09/2007 5:56:10 PM PST
by
fieldmarshaldj
(Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
Why do we let the scum bags out in the first place?
The measure violates privacy rights
what a crock of bull that line is......every April 15th WE are forced to tell the Feds everything about ourselves: where we live, how much money we have, how much money we made, any gifts we received, where we put our money, when we moved our money, how many children we have, the names of our children, our SS#, our children's SS#, what we donated and to whom, who lives with us, where we go/our kids go to college and how much it cost, assets, if and when we sold a house, how much we sold it for etc...THAT is the real violation of privacy...an invasion of privacy that the libs love.
9
posted on
02/09/2007 5:58:44 PM PST
by
socialismisinsidious
( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
To: fieldmarshaldj
"Maybe we can pass a law to have registered sex offenders be required to live in the homes of University profs in lieu of prison."
LOL! Yep. That'll happen. ;)
10
posted on
02/09/2007 5:59:46 PM PST
by
Diana in Wisconsin
(Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
I just don't understand why no one has signed up for my tracking device: A single piece of lead is implanted in the molester's skull. The lead pellet is far cheaper than other tracking devices. One always knows where the pedophile is once the implant is complete.
11
posted on
02/09/2007 6:02:05 PM PST
by
samm1148
(Pennsylvania-They haven't taxed air--yet)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
Fine. Life without chance of parole.
12
posted on
02/09/2007 6:05:01 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
The professors are probably on solid grounds constitutionally. That doesn't mean nothing can be done, however. If the mutts are dangerous enough to require that much tracking, then they should not be out. Period. Note, too, the professors qualified their opinion that it applied to those not on parole. If there is a reason one cannot be kept behind bars, then lifetime parole should be a reasonable requirement for release. And that would clear the constitutional objection.
13
posted on
02/09/2007 6:05:12 PM PST
by
NonValueAdded
(Prevent Glo-Ball Warming ... turn out the sun when not in use)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
I am really not fond of tracking devices either.
If it were up to me they would have to wear the testicles and johnson on a chain around their neck for life.
14
posted on
02/09/2007 6:05:43 PM PST
by
sgtbono2002
(I will forgive Jane Fonda, when the Jews forgive Hitler.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
As written, the law is probably unconstitutional if applied to those convicted before it becomes effective; they have a sentence and when they've served it, that's that. However, there doesn't seem to be any reason why future sentences can't include lifetime tracking.
15
posted on
02/09/2007 6:09:23 PM PST
by
Grut
To: goldstategop
My view is if a pedophile cannot control his urges, he should be executed. Why risk more damage to future victims? Let's call it a One Strike And You're Out For Good Rule. That works for me.
If we cannot work up the righteous execution of such... things. Then we might buy "Devil's Island" from the French and premanently exile such swine.
16
posted on
02/09/2007 6:10:19 PM PST
by
LibKill
(ENOUGH! Take the warning labels off everything and let Saint Darwin do his job.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
"A clearer example of governmental intrusion into personal privacy is difficult to imagine," wrote law professors Walter Dickey, Byron Lichstein and Meredith Ross.How about when a pedophile "intrudes" on the personal privacy of a six-year old?
17
posted on
02/09/2007 6:10:38 PM PST
by
TruthShallSetYouFree
(Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
Don't like tracking?
OK, put them in one place where we can keep an eye on them:
a hole in the ground.
18
posted on
02/09/2007 6:14:51 PM PST
by
Redbob
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
That is exactly the point. If they are enough of a danger that they need to be tracked after release, then they are dangerous enough to keep locked up.
19
posted on
02/09/2007 6:16:13 PM PST
by
TheBattman
(I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
If this is retroactive, it's clearly unconstitutional ex post facto sentencing.
If it isn't retroactive, sex offenders who are sentenced to wear the gps devices would have to be sentenced to lifetime active probation.
That the devices have to be visible some how, brings about cruel and unusual punishment arguments going back to colonial Massachusetts branding punishments.
Third problem is strict confidentiality issues on such huge amounts of gps data. The next step is the state will give access to gps tracking info to researchers looking for whatever. Or leaked gps info will get sex offenders attacked, intimidated or killed. Leaving the state liable to lawsuits.
Fourth, if the state actually knows where sex offenders are on a hourly basis, is the state then responsible to pick up and re arrest every sex offender who violates his/her probation and enters within the 500 or 1000 foot buffer zone of schools and parks or whatever terms of his/her probation? If offender drives past a school during his commute?
None of the politicians pushing this are seriously talking about this, and damned if it won't end up in the courts, where the whole law might get thrown out.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson