Sex offenders: Tougher restrictions a necessity (Opinion)

Admin

West Virginia – Lawmakers in the state House of Delegates are to be applauded for their passage of a measure that would prohibit certain sex offenders from loitering within 1,000 feet of a school or childcare facility. House Bill 2025 cleared the legislative chamber by a unanimous vote last week. The bill now moves to the state Senate where its passage is critical. Full Opinion Piece

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is nothing but your typical uninformed, pants-shitting drivel.

0
Reply

Well, these are fairy tales law enforcement tells so as to bamboozle the gullible into imagining there are terrors lurking behind every bush or tree. I agree that “we” need to keep jackasses of all types away from the little ones. But to return to my metaphor: when we say there are scary people lurking behind the trees, IS IT TRUE? Have we actually seen anybody behind those trees, or is it just another lie?

We need to be hard headed about this sort of thing. Let’s not scare ourselves to death over purely imaginary dangers, quite possibly invented out of thin air to justify somebody’s bloated law enforcement budget.

0
Reply

This just in…

Newhall father accused of sexually abusing, killing 3-week-old baby
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-newhall-father-accused-infant-death-20150127-story.html

Looks like tougher restrictions, against parents or fathers at least, are in order.

Paraphrased from the article: “It’s no secret that we have many registered sex offenders parents in our neighborhoods, towns and cities, including right here in Mercer Los Angeles County. That’s why tougher laws to protect our children from those who may seek to do them harm is absolutely critical.”

Looking forward to the details of Ellorah’s Law. If it does not pre-emptively keep parents from loitering in places where children congregate I will be beyond disappointed. Won’t someone pleeeease think of the children…

(If not Ellorah’s Law, perhaps we will soon see Kimberly’s Law with the same effect.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mother-drowning-baby-20150126-story.html). – just from today’s news in LA…

0

A necessity? Who are they kidding? Laws, regulations, rules, codes of conduct, and restrictions do nothing to stop anything. Here’s a novel idea; why not focus on oh I don’t know LETTING FEWER PEOPLE BECOME SEX OFFENDERS BY COMMITTING SEX OFFENSES because that would be logical. Trust me I am not great at math, but this is a simple problem.

Less people committing sex offenses means less victims, fewer people to prosecute, fewer people to watch/contain/manage and better allocation of limited resources. Yeah I know the number of sex offenses committed every year is probably way lower than most expect and than governments would publicly admit, but guess what? The only viable option in the long run is stopping offenses prior to them ever being committed and before anyone who is a potential offender or victim ever comes within years of being on either side.

0