TriggerFinger


BlogRoll

From the Barrel of a Gun
Lurking Rhythmically
Random Nuclear Strikes
Daily Pundit
Borepatch
Only Guns and Money
Mostly Cajun
Massad Ayoob
The View From North Central Idaho
Armed and Dangerous
Hell in a Handbasket
View From The Porch
Patterico
Guns, Cars, and Tech
Alphecca
Legal Insurrection
Irons in the Fire
Volokh Conspiracy
Snowflakes in Hell
Shot in the Dark
MArooned
Power Line
Michael Bane
Reason
The Smallest Minority
Publicola
Sharp as a Marble
The Silicon Greybeard
3 boxes of BS
Saysuncle
Alphecca
Of Arms and the Law
Bacon, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives
Infodancer
Speculative Fiction
GunBlogBlackList
John Lott
Confiscation

Categories

FeedBoomershoot 2008 

Most Popular

Featured Posts

State to launch Internet sex-offender registry


Officials plan to put information about the state´s 1,200 registered sex offenders on the Internet to allow residents to easily determine if a convicted offender lives in their neighborhood.

The Department of Public Safety plans to launch the online sex offender registry on Monday.

The Legislature instructed the department to have a site up and running by the end of the year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such Internet registries do not infringe on sex offenders´ constitutional rights.

This one comes back to the basic issue of what happens to a criminal once they have "served their time". There are basically three options:

  1. Allow full restoration of rights, including privacy, upon release.
  2. Use registries like this one to "keep an eye on them" (in a manner similar to a criminal on probation).
  3. Do not release those deemed liked to commit additional crimes if released.

    The problems with each proposal should be obvious. If you allow full rights, some will likely commit new crimes (and the rate for sex offenses is supposedly very high). If you use "sex offender registries" then you are taking an active measure that will likely prevent the criminal from ever having a normal, successful life; in other words, while you are making sure that potential victims are aware of the criminal's history (if they bother to check), you are also increasing the rate of recidivism by denying non-criminal activities. And if you simply keep them locked up once their sentence has been served, you've suddenly moved into the realm of locking people up for what they might do; thoughtcrime.

    I don't know what the answer is, but I'm not sure I like any of them.


    This entry was published 2005-09-24 10:43:35.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org and last updated 2005-09-24 10:43:35.0. [Tweet]

    Recent Entries

    Most Popular

    Featured Entries

    Related Categories

    comments powered by Disqus
    If you would like to receive new posts by email:

    I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice. this site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


    This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.