[Diana in Wisconsin]

Discuss amongst yourselves. ;)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

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.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Just hang them instead!
No tracking needed.

[Capt. Jake]

According to three Wisconsin law professors .... well that settles it for me.

[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.

"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

[proudofthesouth]

Please note that they talk about rights for the offenders but never their victims.

[Squawk 8888]

If the law applies retroactively then his point is valid. The solution though is just don't release any offenders.

[socialismisinsidious]

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.

[samm1148]

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.

[metmom]

Fine. Life without chance of parole.

[NonValueAdded]

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.

[sgtbono2002]

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.

[Grut]

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.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

"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?

[Redbob]

Don't like tracking?

OK, put them in one place where we can keep an eye on them:
a hole in the ground.

[JerseyHighlander]

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.

[justche]

There's a whole little contigent on FR that think the same way - of course they won't answer if they are registered sex offenders!

[pissant]

Hopefully a gaggle of sex predators will bugger these professors and change their minds

[Diggity]

I agree. What if they started tracking people because they voted republican?? Where will it end? People tend to look at things in the here and now. What will this lead to in 200 hundreds?

Nothing is beyond the reach of the government once the cat is let out of the bag.

John

[AmishDude]

To put it bluntly, the 13th amendment pretty much permits anything after due process of law unless it's cruel and/or unusual.

So an "invasion of privacy" doesn't hold. But this can only apply to newly-convicted offenders because it can't be ex post facto.

[Diggity]

200 years, not 200 hundreds.

John