Judge rules in favor of sex offenders against sheriff who was attempting to protect trick or treater

[MindWars]

A federal judge has ruled in favor of sex offenders against a Georgia sheriff who was attempting to protect trick-or-treaters from predators.

Judge Rules in Favor of Sex Offenders Against Sheriff Who Was Attempting to Protect Trick-or-Treaters


We told you they're going to legalize being a pedo sooner or later if you zombie ass dumb asses don't wake the hell up and pay attention to your kids schools and ALL THEY are learning.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If you can't live with the label, don't do the crime in the first place.

God bless you and those who give the proper and very much appreciated heads up always!!!

Holly

 

[Coyote]

The judge is right. They served their time. You can no more force signs on their private property then you can on anyone else.

Since they are registered sex offenders, all a parent needs to do is look them up and avoid going to those addresses.

 

[Dekster]

I am not really sure how the hell this became a first amendment case. The article isn't clear what type of offenses they committed. If it was just kiddie molesters, then I would be more okay with it than I would be if it were every registered offender.

 

[captkaos]

The judge is right. They served their time. You can no more force signs on their private property then you can on anyone else.

Since they are registered sex offenders, all a parent needs to do is look them up and avoid going to those addresses.

The Sheriff should post a Deputy in front of their houses with a sign "pedophile lives here "... mission accomplished.

 

[elongobardi]

Judges like that need to go. It’s scary parents have to watch there kids like hawks. Reward the animals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

The judge is right. They served their time. You can no more force signs on their private property then you can on anyone else.

Since they are registered sex offenders, all a parent needs to do is look them up and avoid going to those addresses.

The problem with the registries is that they make no distinction between an outright child molester and some guy who had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend when he was 18.

 

[JoeB131]

Judges like that need to go. It’s scary parents have to watch there kids like hawks. Reward the animals.

Parents should be watching their kids, anyway. Of course, a kid is far more likely to be molested by a relative or acquaintence.

 

[airplanemechanic]

If you can't live with the label, don't do the crime in the first place.

God bless you and those who give the proper and very much appreciated heads up always!!!

Holly

It's not as simple as "don't do the crime" because a lot of times people are not aware its a crime and many times their punishment is increased AFTER the fact which is, of course, illegal. Did you know that in Louisiana its legal for two 17yo kids to have sex, but if they film it or take pics of the act that's production of child porn which is punishable by 25 years in federal prison? So in Louisiana the saying is "fuck, but don't film." You think a 17yo horndog kid who is legally fucking his gf will think its illegal to take pics of her naked? I mean logic would say if he could fuck her he could film her. But no. Our laws are THAT fucked up.

What about illegal retroactive laws? In Louisiana, for decades, an offense such as pornography involving juveniles was a 10 year registration. One day, for no reason at all other than Bobby Jindal passed the law, that jumped to 25 years and was retroactive. Meaning if you pled guilty and agreed to 10 years registration and had 1 day left, you now have 15 more years. You didn't reoffend, you didn't do anything wrong. They went BACK and illegally added more punishment to your crime. It ended up in the supreme court. You could easily make the claim that you agreed to 10 years and since you can't go back and re-plea not guilty they can't go back and re-sentence you to more time on the registry.

The label is bad enough, but that doesn't give cops free reign to do what they want. The constitution applies to everyone, even sex offenders.

If society really cared about kids they'd keep an eye on relatives and not sex offenders. Stranger danger is so rare its considered a myth. The true dangers to kids are cars and swimming pools. Can you show me 5 instances in the last 5 years where a child was molested by a sex offender on halloween? It doesn't exist. The number of kids that were abducted and harmed by true strangers last year I believe was under 100, in a country of 65 million children. More kids died by choking than were harmed by strangers.

90% of all new cases against kids are by people NOT on the registry and sex offenders have a reoffense rate of 5% which is the lowest reoffense rate of any type of crime except murder. By comparison, drug offenders have a reoffense rate of 67%. Oh yea, and murderers, when and if they do get out, don't have to register their addresses on a public registry and are welcome to live right next to a school or park. No problem there.

But you'd never know that by media coverage. Sex offenders are a politicans baby, they know that being "tough on sex offenders" gets them votes. But nobody is smart enough to question what exactly they're accomplishing by doing this. Making it more difficult for sex offenders to reenter society makes them MORE likely to reoffend. Do politicans really want more child victims? Does society?

And the fact that the same label is applied to a child rapist and someone who was 18 who had sex with his 16yo gf in high school renders the registry useless. And if you actually look at the registry, they make the "age of victim" prominent on the page and "date of offense" very small and usually something you have to dig to find. So a guy who was 18 who took nude pics of his 15yo gf keeps getting older and older, and 20 years later he's 40 and it shows his victim was 15 which makes him look like a child molester. But if you dig and look you'd see his offense was 22 years ago. But who is going to spend that much time digging for info when "age of victim" is the first thing they see?

I did a paper on this for a communications class in college. I learned just how fucked up our system is.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This looks like a crude piece of electioneering by the sheriff.

The outcome of this is that the pervs will get attacked and disappear. Where they go nobody knows.

Police generally prefer to know where they live so they can keep an eye on them.

Whether they should be free at all is another matter.

 

[airplanemechanic]

This looks like a crude piece of electioneering by the sheriff.

The outcome of this is that the pervs will get attacked and disappear. Where they go nobody knows.

Police generally prefer to know where they live so they can keep an eye on them.

Whether they should be free at all is another matter.

This sounds good, but if you make the punishment not fit the crime, it can increase the chance that the perp kills the victim. If they know they'll get at most 5 years for something then they'll let them live. But if they know if they get caught they'll do life in prison, the chances of them killing the victim is much higher because dead people can't testify against you in court and it becomes worth the risk since the penalty for molestation equals the penalty for murder so they mine as well just murder the victim.

There has never been any proof that making punishments harsher decreases crime. Look how many people commit murder every year and the punishment for that is the death penalty in most states and that doesn't stop them.

And there are 900,000 people on the registry. You can't lock up everyone, we don't have the facilities to handle it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This looks like a crude piece of electioneering by the sheriff.

The outcome of this is that the pervs will get attacked and disappear. Where they go nobody knows.

Police generally prefer to know where they live so they can keep an eye on them.

Whether they should be free at all is another matter.

This sounds good, but if you make the punishment not fit the crime, it can increase the chance that the perp kills the victim. If they know they'll get at most 5 years for something then they'll let them live. But if they know if they get caught they'll do life in prison, the chances of them killing the victim is much higher because dead people can't testify against you in court and it becomes worth the risk since the penalty for molestation equals the penalty for murder so they mine as well just murder the victim.

There has never been any proof that making punishments harsher decreases crime. Look how many people commit murder every year and the punishment for that is the death penalty in most states and that doesn't stop them.

And there are 900,000 people on the registry. You can't lock up everyone, we don't have the facilities to handle it.

About 15 years ago there was a paedo living in our village. We found out when the school wrote to parents warning them. An old bloke was beaten up and had his windows smashed. He moved away from the area. A little while after the actual paedo left the village as well. Probably somewhere he could carry on offending.

I dont think we are anywhere near solving this problem, there is no obvious solution.