01/13/2013 06:00 AM
| Tracey Petersen|
1 - 24 of 25
First | Prev. |
Previous Posts for this Topic
Vioate sex offenders, sounds right to me . The sex offender has
severly violated the victoms . Keeping law enforcement from
monitoring them is stupid at best . Is this judge a closet sex offender ?
look, if you all in california wonder why the government always over rule the will of the people and common sense watch this video link, then maybe you'll understand "we the sheep" are controlled by the wolfs...
I just wish Judges were as concerned about protecting my rights as they are a registered sex offenders. My opinion is that about 99% of these judges need to be booted out. What about victims rights ????
In my view, sex offenders shouldn't have any rights except to rot in prison.
If you can take away a felon's rights to firearms and voting, why cant you take away their right to free speech?
How about the victims right to not being violated? It amazes me how some people believe that the free speech amendment in America is more important then the other amendments. Any sex crime should be punished severely, period, and end of story.
Just keep on protecting the guilty, while the kids that were harmed are treated like the real criminals. I had my way these guys would be castarated and it would not be in mental hospital either.
Mess with a kid you gave up all your rights.
Sex offenders should not have any rights. PERIOD!
If their crimes were done on the internet or a result of using the internet, I disagree.
Are you kidding?!? Sex offender's rights?!? They should have no rights. The law should be able to do whatever they want to protect the rest of world from sex offenders. Spay and neuter is what should really be happening!!!
I have read down to JoJo and all are spot on. Bottom line things are getting more twisted by the Day. Here again we have a judge that overides a majority. This is Scary stuff!!!!
Sacramento writes a law. The lawyers review. The law passes, and is voted in by the people. Then one man overrides everyone. WTF!
Ret Co Social wkr
This judge is another example of a person over educated beyond common sense.
There are two laws in this country. mans law and Gods law. Look up what God's law says about sex offenders. Internet pervert or not.
People who got caught skinny dipping can get on the sex offenders list. I don't think ALL offenders need to be monitored. If they have violated a child, or committed rape they should forfeit most rights. They must protect the first amendment at all cost, it's the one that allows them to freely lie with immunity.
Stay tuned for the appeal. Here's what the judge wrote, "The government has not demonstrated that the CASE Act's impact on public safety is sufficient to overcome the interest - both to Plaintiffs and to the public - in avoiding infringement of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights," he wrote. "In this case, the government has not provided any evidence regarding the extent to which the public safety might be enhanced if the additional registration requirements went into effect. Plaintiffs' evidence - as yet undisputed - indicates that only 1% of arrests for sex crimes against children are for crimes facilitated by technology, and that registered sex offenders are involved in only 4% of these arrests. While the court does not minimize the significance of any single crime, the record at this stage of the proceedings suggests that the potential usefulness of the Internet registration information is limited to a very small portion of the universe of sex offenses and online sex offenses."
There is a word for this; it's called, "ENABLING".
It's sickening how offenders are coddled (sex offenders are almost ALWAYS repeat offenders) and the innocent are victimized.
Sex offenders are almost ALWAYS recidivist.
Well all you defenders of the U.S. Constitution out there should have no problem with this decision since this law would violate Ex Post Facto laws which 2 articles of the Constitution prohibit... Or, we can throw out the Constitution and get mad at the judge. Keep in mind, this would also apply to the people mentioned in Crocketts comments.
I find it terribly amusing how people feel so entitled to scream at the heavens about obeying the constitution and protecting the rights within no matter what, until the constitution extends those rights to people and beliefs they don't like. Yeah they're criminals, but the constitution says criminals have rights too.
If on parole, they should meet the conditions of parole, even if it means giving up privacy rights. If they have done their time and are off parole, it is a violation of their rights.
Crockett if anyone has offended against a young child, they should not be let out, ever.
Do you remember the recent article about the drunk guy who tickled the kids at the market? He's being charged with molestation. I'm very uncomfortable with him being placed on a sex offender database and losing his privacy rights when he probably meant nothing improper and didn't touch any private parts. On megan's law, I'd like to see only those who molest children, forcibly rape, or lure teenagers into improper acts using drugs or alcohol, not some 20 year old who dated a 16 year old or a drunk dude who said "goochy goochy goo" and tickled a kid.
I love how the liberals wait to spring..
AHHH...the rights to PREY upon people..
when they use WE THE PEOPLE they * on police cars and rape..
but hey!..that's EXTREMISM.
I don't believe the GOVERNMENT has ANY rights..and that's what some of these so-called people advocate.
funny how you want to fund liabilities while taking from those who DO..
to fund it.
Funny how you want to play a prison SYSTEM while not fixing anything.
I am disgusted..
Go to the back of the line.
1 - 24 of 25
First | Prev. |
NOTE: You must be a registered site user and logged in to post comments (see links below).