Enlighten Me! :)
This time I am actually FIRST!!! That will never happen again...
This proposal is evil and unamurikun. I am ashamed of us. We are headed not backward but eastward, toward the kind of repressive government this country spilled a lot of blood to end when I was a toddler and a teenager. God help us.
Although not an activist, I encourage all you Ohio bloggers to use the links at the bottom of this post to inform your state government - very politely and cogently, no ranting - of your ire and disgust with this proposal.
Come to thinnk of it, why don't you non-Ohio bloggers contact them, too. Tell them you find us ridiculous, stupid, undemocratic, etc., and you won't buy any more Campbell products or Etch-a-Sketches or Sauder furniture until they shape up. Thank you.
Jimmyb, this more of what I was talking about here. We need to address the problem. So first, let's identify the problem. The problem is the existence of sexual predators, right? That's a pretty easy fix right there. End the existence of sexual predators. How does making it easier to call people "sex offenders" fix anything. This is just like lowering the legal BAC level. It's more stupid "look how tough I am" legislation and I hope the people of Ohio won't stand for this.
Unfortunately, nobody listens to me. I'm gonna have to run for office at some point because there is nobody championing extending the death penalty to sexual predators. Yeah, we have it if a child under the age of 10 is raped, but our DAs are such pansies they won't push for the death penalty.
Like I said, more guns, more executions, less taxes less governemnt. That's my platform and I am sticking to it.
Scary! Man, that is crazy. What about a 16 yr old who has sex w/his 15 yr old girlfriend? Is he a "pedophile"? This isn't about Democrats, this is a bunch of religious fanatics trying to f*** with people who don't fit their version of morality.
That's seriously frightening, though thank God it's not a Federal thing (though I wouldn't put it past Gonzales, who is a total asshat -- can't we please have Ashcroft back?)
Frightening. I can imagine how this sort of thing could turn into a literal witchhunt. Due process is important. That's why it's in the Constitution.
Just think...
I don't want to think about it. This needs to be stopped.
personally, I think the death penalty for rapists and pedophiles, would be way too quick and kind, I could think of many ways to make their demise long and tortuous, giving them time to think about their past transgressions.But that is not what many folks would want, they would be saying I have a sick mind to want such a thing, heck what about their victims,what did they experience?
I hate rapists and pedophiles as much as the next person
That's one thing I hate hearing is "seriousness of the charge" considering I can claim charge of very serious things against anyone if I feel like it.
Oh, and it's good to be back... I've been missing this blog!
Alright, I'll go and charge the AG with sexually abusing me, an under-18 guy, and see if that changes anything. seriously. Tuesday, expect to see something along those lines on the news, if I can swing it.
Disconcerting to say the least! It is the right of every citizen to face their accuser or challenge charges of criminal behavior. Considering that judges have had extremely poor judgement(remember Cashman?), this fails my common sense test...
Considering these same folks are bitching about terrorist detainees in Guantanamo Bay not having rights & due process, they are complete & total hypocrites!
Ugh...this country scares me.
OK. I have an extreme distaste for perverts too... but this crosses a bad line!
When is it time to grab our stuff and get a hide out?
this sucks...i hate pedophiles too, but there HAS to be a better idea out there!?
This is the type of sloppy, feel good policy you get, when the judiciary is broken. People cannot get justice from the justice system. They resort to unconstitutional methods, which destroy people in the court of public opinion. The recent story about the lawyer, who stabbed his neighbor to death is a perfect example. He knew as an insider, that the process would fail him. He resorted to vigilante justice. Who do we blame? The ACLU. The trial lawyers association and the liberal judges who fail to protect us, by punishing criminals and making the punishments stick.
You're right. Due process, all the bells and whistles, and then if they're judged guilty by a jury of their peers, I say boil the fuckers in oil. Some other grizzly medieval bullshit would do.
Right on.
Does this mean the Left finally admits that Bill Clinton is an unregistered sexual offender? It should !
**disclaimer - I wrote this in response to CUG's email asking my opinion. I had only read the article, not the blog post or comments before writing it.**
Do you have any idea what a wave of trumped up accusations that would happen if this thing goes in to effect? The blackmail that could take place? The opportunties for women to get revenge on boyfriends, etc.
In order for a jury to get a guilty verdict, they have to 12 guilty votes. A civil trial only requires "perponderance of evidence," not guilt "beyond a shadow of a doubt." In otherwords, it might be really easy to convince 6 housewives on a jury that watch too many soaps that the accused is a sexual abuser when all he may really be is a big jerk. He wouldn't even have to be that if he could be made to look bad enough.
Imagine the single mothers that would make accusations of child abuse against the father's of their children for revenge or just plain spite. Again, it wouldn't require a conviction or even formal charges.
The last thing I want to do is find myself sideing with sex abusers but don't forget for a second that these people are only "accused" of something. There are plenty of rape and child molesting accusations made that are fabricated out of whole cloth.
Needless to say that passage of this law would be a travesty of justice.
I'm surprised no one else said this:
Didn't we learn anything from the Salem Witch Trials?
There are enough real pedovores out there that we don't have to go after the innocent to get a quota. Sadly the words "protect the children" will get just about anything, good idea or not, rubber stamped.
Jimmyb,
While I understand and agree with those who find this abuse of the state police power to be outrageous, something about the outrage coming from conservatives puzzles me.
I tend to view judicial conservatism as being far too deferential towards the will of the majority (perhaps moreso than judicial liberals although both pick their moments). I do not see this as much at the federal level (though it exists) as I do at the state level.
Ignoring the fact that this should fall under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV, if we are to make a due process argument, it would have to be one of substantive due process. We are not questioning the procedural aspects; instead, we are questioning whether or not the state government is constitutionally authorized to exercise its police in the manner mentioned.
The problem I see with the use of due process as a claim, especially coming from a conservative, is that it runs contradictory to the majoritarian principles they generally espouse. It puts a judiciary in a position to strike down a "popularly" elected law. Is this not judicial activism?
Making this a potentially more tenuous situation is the fact that the real constitutional violations involve unenumerated liberty rights as opposed to any right explicitly stated in the Constitution. Even if we use a looser construction of the Washington v Glucksberg test (rights "deep-rooted in our nation's tradition and history"), how does someone with a generally majoritarian bend make a countermajoritarian argument without compromising his or her conservative constitutional principles?
Make no mistake. We are in agreement and you are absolutely correct to criticize this law on constitutional principles. What I do not know or understand is how you get from point A to point B. I do not necessarily see the bright line distinction based on my understanding of judicial conservatism (I'm not saying it doesn't exist...just saying that this libertarian is struggling with the logic.
Enlighten me please.
Commenting by HaloScan
