This is Kinda Scary..

[Hearly]

Not trying to bring any politics into the forumns as I know thats a Major No-No.

But, if you go read the link below....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06 ... alth-care/

(cut and past of first paragraph)
"Monday's announcement means Graydon Earl Comstock will remain in federal custody under a civil commitment law upheld by the justices last year. The law allows government officials to seek the continued detention of individuals who are considered likely to commit more violent sexual crimes if they're released from custody."


It talks about how the Federal government can just hold people under a civil commitment, if they think the person is going to re-offend again..

I mean Yes for Sex offenders it sounds great and all, but what is next? Drug addicts/Dealers who have been arrested a few times, Why bother releasing them, someone who has 2 DUI's why release them as they might get drunk and kill someone.

Where does it stop?

Personally if someone is convicted of raping a child, (with real proof like DNA) they should just be taken out and Shot, But where does the Line stop?


Things that make me worried about the future of the Country..

[dellstart]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Hearly]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It isn't so much who watches the watcher, but where is the line drawn?

I mean anyone could probably produce statistics that shows people who are arrested for 2 DUI's have a 75% chance to re-offend, and using the same logic they're using for sex offenders should be locked up too.

Like I said before to me sex offenders should be taken out and shot, but if someone is convicted of a crime and completes the sentence they were given, they shouldn't be able to be locked up because they might re-commit the same offense in the future.

[Never_Fear]

Considering how many criminals are being released early because of prison over crowding in California I don't think it will happen too often.

I completely agree with your opinion about sex offenders needing to be put down. I wonder why they don't do it to this guy since he is so likely to re offend, if he is too much of a danger to release they shouldn't waste tax dollars feeding him.

[afrigeek]

Instead of putting sex offenders down and then dealing with all the hullabaloo concerning capital punishment, why not simply deprive them of the ability to re-offend by turning them into eunuchs?

[J-Man5]

An individual does not need to be able to "perform" in order to be a sex offender.

J-Man5

[Omegano]

Yes, but I think the threat of it would stop many in their tracks...

Omegano

[dawich]

They've done it chemically, with some good results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

[lapland]

80% of all offenses are commited by a family or friend. Usually someone who has never commited such a thing before, and is usually not a threat outside their family. Secondly a sex offense, even a child sex offense is often so broadly defined many commit those acts without realizing it. If a man takes a leak outside and is seen, or could be seen anywhere around a child, he is guilty. If you have a photo of your baby without a diaper on, even if the child is in the bath, you are guilty. So many things are now considered sex offenses the label has become useless.

The sex offender registry now has over one of every one thousand Americans and after ten years (the original length one would be on it) many are now being listed as lifetime registrants. But not because of potential of reoffense, but because of some statistic of their offense. Those who are most likely to reoffend are well recognized. Mostly those who have a history of offense as well as other mitigating situations such as weapons, violence or drug offenses. If we limit the registry to those likely to reoffend or keep tighter ranes on them we wouldn't have to put EVERYONE on the registry and it would mean something.