New Page 1

	Sign In Sign-Up

Another Comment

11/07/02 01:41 AM

More and more recently I have been seeing news stories that are breaking down what little we (as Americans) have been doing to protect our children from sex offenders. Just today a friend sent me a link from CNN :

A judge has ruled that Michigan's sex offender registry is unconstitutional, saying it lacks a way for people to challenge the government's claim that they are a danger to society.

SEX OFFENDERS ARE A DANGER TO SOCIETY! There can be no "if's, and's or but's" about it!

It is my opinion that anyone who works against protecting our children (and adults too) from sex offenders, and that includes protecting them, giving them aid ABOVE the minimum required by law and making judgments detrimental to society should be held as responsible as the offender in any future actions perpetrated by said offender.

I cannot comment on the judges character in the above incident. It is possible she believed she was right. Who knows. I do wonder though if she has children. I can't see any parent, no matter their position in society, consciously allowing any ruling that is counter-productive and a possible threat to not only their own children as well as well as other children.

People, coddling sex offenders will not protect our children. Open your eyes, people who make and support such stupidity as in the above link should be removed from public positions as a danger to society, specifically as a potential danger to our children

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said the law violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the right to due process.

What about the rights of our children? What of the women (and yes, men) that have been violated? Where are their rights? And how did it grow so that convicts have more rights than the common citizen? When was the last ruling protecting OUR rights? All I ever hear of is rulings that chip away at our rights, but that is not what this article is about.

The ACLU said the list fails to distinguish between sex criminals who pose a continuing risk and those who do not.

I disagree with this. It is not the LIST that is wrong but more what is considered a sex crime. As an example, and not necessarily an actual example, in State A a drunk urinating on a sidewalk may be charged with public drunk and indecent exposure. In Sate B the charge may be drunk and disorderly, and Lewd and Indecent exposure . The difference? In State A the charge is a misdemeanor and in State B it is considered a sex crime.

The problem as I see it is that there is no CLEAR DEFINITION of a sex crime. Oh, the main things are pretty clear, but the example like I gave above can muddle things up. it is things like that which need clarified. This can help . No, a person arrested for something like the example above should not be listed in a offender registry, maybe a things not to do while drunk list or something, but not an offender registry.

What do we do about this situation? First get rid of the judges. ANY judge that holds a convicted felon over the rights of innocent children should not be in office in my opinion.

What do you do? let everyone know your opinion. Write your Congressman, Governor, State Representative and yes, even the President . Start a local citizens committee to educate your neighbors, to inform your representatives of your concerns.

Also check the web site below for information.

http://soinformation.1colony.com/