ACLU at it again

Is the legislation fair to ALL involved?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    16
G

Glock 31

New member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_us/molester_ban

Wed May 31, 3:35 PM ET

INDIANAPOLIS - Six sex offenders sued the city Wednesday to block a new ordinance that bars them from venturing within 1,000 feet of parks, pools and playgrounds when children are present.

The plaintiffs went to federal court to argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates their rights to vote and attend church, and prevents them from freely traveling on roads that may pass within 1,000 feet of the affected sites.

The ordinance was approved May 15 and took effect immediately. It carries fines of up to $2,500.

The law includes an exception that permits sex offenders to visit those sites as long as they are with another adult who is not a convicted sexual offender.

The six, who include convicted child molesters and rapists, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Tenley Drescher, an attorney for the city, said officials planned to defend the ordinance. "The important part is protecting kids," he said.
Click to expand...

Somehow, this just doesn't surprise me. I for one would not agree with this. And while I'm sure the ACLU has been on the side of a couple of actual victims every now and then. They seem to love to show how they are there for the criminal, when the criminal doesn't want to be a criminal.

This just means that, while their victims have to think about what happened to them for the rest of their lives. They just have to study a road map for a few seconds during the day. Not a fair trade IMHO.:cool:
 
Good for the ACLU

I think true pedafiles should be thrown in a hole and covered up. But our legal system has gone to hell. It used to be, at least I thought, that if you paid the fine or did the time then you had met your obligation. How can you expect a person to not go near a park or public place?

But then my state just wants to kill them. Any person with a smidgen of legal knowledge would know that this would never fly in todays world...but our politicians (S.C.) spend days debating this.

I'm a liberal and would actually support the ACLU if they did what they claim to do, which is defend the constitution.
 
The six, who include convicted child molesters and rapists...
Click to expand...
I read something like that and I have no idea what it means. "Child molester" is increasingly used by the sensationalist media to describe someone convicted of inappropriate contact with a person under the age of consent, but not necessarily anything that could be called "sex." (and I don't mean Clinton's definition). Similarly, "rapist" can often mean someone convicted of statutory rape.

Regardless of the sins of the 6 who are suing, there are plenty of "sex offenders" whose sins, if any, amount to statutory rape or something even more benign. Banning such people from public parks is absurd, however socially misguided they may be.

Glock 31 said:
This just means that, while their victims have to think about what happened to them for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...
So the punishment for all crimes should be a lifetime of remorse? Maybe it should, but you can't legislate that. Trying to partially implement that by banning criminals from public places is not particularly sane, IMO.
 
Exactly how is this law going to stop pedophiles and sex offenders. Its just another piece of legislation that isnt going to solve the problem. Must be election time there. If they had made provisons for right of way and access to other activities they might have had something workable. Instead we get something to make a politician a headline and cost the taxpayers $$$ defending it in the legal process.
 
It's a stupid law. It effectively curtails some citizens ability to move freely and use public property that their taxes pay for.

The fact that the people affected are disgusting doesn't make the law any more constitutional. Our laws are supposed to be blind, remember?


I like to think that putting down laws like this, even when distasteful, serves as a good warning to those that would try to limit normal citizens' freemdoms: It is unacceptable for ALL people.
 
And while I'm sure the ACLU has been on the side of a couple of actual victims every now and then. They seem to love to show how they are there for the criminal, when the criminal doesn't want to be a criminal.
Click to expand...

Well, before everybody gets their shorts in a knot about how the pinko leftist ACLU does nothing except defend criminals, everybody should realize that they at least are taking an aggressive stance on the whole NSA phone record issue, and they aren't taking the government's side:

http://www.aclu.org/newsroom/viewallpressreleases_21660.html

There's a number of people - conservative and libertarian - who frequent L&P that certainly aren't going to take issue with that.

Glock 31, I know you didn't label the ACLU as pinko leftists, but give it time, certain people will show up shortly to say as much. :rolleyes:
 
While I don't hold full grown men who rape children in the same boat as say a 17 and 18 year old lovers. How, if not for laws like this, are we supposed to protect children from hardcore pedophiles, who have "paid there debt to society", who continue to stalk and assault their victims. I assume the law was passed for criminals such as this. The police can't monitor them all, assuming they register at all. With these people's faces on websites and in the media, it's going to be up to the public to recognize them and realize they are not allowed to be in these places. Though the fact that it can affect some dumb teen as well, is unfortunate. When it comes to pedophiles, doing the time just isn't enough. Many consider pedophilia a disease which, in some cases, is incurable regardless of any psychiatric help they recieve. Some of these people, such as NAMBLA members, don't see anything wrong with having sex with 6 or 7 year olds. These are the people who I think are targeted under the spirit of this legislation. Since these people's victims have to live with what happened to them for the rest of their lives, so should the hard core perpetrators. I think the law, amended so as not to target the lesser crimes such as teenage lovers, would have the potential to truly safe guard children.

And when I talk about the 17 and 18 year olds who just got caught by overreactive parents, it's because I understand not all statuatory rape cases are truly rape. I can understand teens who believe they love each other and all that, but then again, the law is still the law. If the guy, or girl for that matter, can't wait. Then maybe they shouldn't be doing it.

I'm sure the ACLU does good work, specifically their stances against abortion. But I wouldn't compare phone records to sex offenders, at least not in this case. The ACLU does cover a broad spectrum, and they have many different branches that handle different cases. But when it comes to sex offenders, and again I'm talking about true, hardcore pedophiles, why do they always seem to be on the criminal's side? Do they review each case before representing someone or do they simply jump when someone says their rights are being violated. Or is it just the political aspects that the ACLU is interested in. If so, what is there political agenda, if any, in the matter?:cool:
 
The point is that you wish to kill the patient to cure the disease.

No one argues that pedofiles are good people. But how much freedom are you willing to give up to be safe? That's a fundamental question that reflects on guns, search and seizure, gov't monitoring and police entrapment. There comes a point when you become a slave to your own good intentions.


Tracking devices have become cheaper and cheaper. Why not "collar" all deserving sex offenders and use that data when and if a child is missing or abused? It would probably remove suspicians from the undeserving quicker than traditional methods, and might allow the tracking of a child before it is too late. As long as the collar or whatever is part of the sentence when convicted, it should not be a legal issue.
 
Glock 31, why don't you contact them and ask how they determine what cases they decide to take and why? I certainly couldn't answer that question.

Just glancing at the various news releases on their site, I didn't see too much mention of them defending either sex offenders or hardcore pedophiles. I believe they were involved in some of the work against the various state registries for these offenders, and of course they are involved in the case you cited, but did you have something else in mind?
 
The problem, Glock31, is that the law does not distinguish between horrible, nasty hardcore child-rapists and the nitwit 21-year-old caught in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old. They're all banned...unless they get a Speciali Friend to take them to the park, in which case everything is hunky-dory 'cos the lawgivers just know that no real child predator has any friends, especially not among uncaught, unconvicted child predators. Right?

Actual effect of the ordinance:

1. Bans nitwits who have been caught dating across the age of consent from parks.

2. Establishes an apprentice system among hardcore predators, where older, experienced types with prior convictions can only visit parks and pools when accompanied by a trainee predator.

Thus we may see the superior wisdom of our elected and appointed officials, removing a particular subgroup of low-class persons from the parks while essentially sanctioning a training system for the serious grab-and-abuse types. Brilliant, isn't it?

The ACLU has many faults but opposing this bit of idiocy isn't among them.

If people would pay closer attention to their children, an awful lot of the more lurid sorts of abuse could be prevented -- and, I note without necessecariliy endorsing, there are many states of the union in which the need to stop a predator would constitute an affirmative defense to the use of arms against him. Law can be got 'round; armed parents are a bit more of a deterrent.
 
Last edited:
That'd work too. But if you are going to let convicts out, eventually, you must have more of a plan than a bunch of arbitrary and unenforceable BS.
 
handy, who's taxes are paying for these revolting pukes?

Again, why so much concern for molesters. What about the kids?
 
What are you talking about? Paying for what? Keeping them in jail forever? Monitoring?

If you're suggesting we execute sex offenders to save a buck, have at it. Hell, we could kill all convicted criminals and cut down on drunk driving and tax evasion, too.


If your only concern is kids, I have a long list of things that we could also ban or make illegal. Your other rights might take a beating, but you'd do anything for the kids, right?



That is totally off topic to a discussion of whether this particular set of laws is constitutional or not, and whether injustice is worth fighting on principle.
 
Let's not forget, they caused the loss of their own rights.

The kids had no choice in the matter and there for will suffer the loss of they're rights to a balanced chidhood and a questionable adulthood.

Yes, molesters should do long hard time in the least costly way for the tax payer.

The ACLU also represents NAMBLA, that says it all folks.
 
Anyone can write nice things about themselves to fool the people, that is six year old propaganda by he way.
Have they nothing better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top