When does a law go too far?

[bipper]

I*Love*Green*Olives writes to tell us the Toledo Blade is reporting that State officials have rubber-stamped a "civil-registry" that would allow accused sex offenders to be tracked with the sex offender registry even if they have never been convicted of a crime. From the article: "A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit. The rules spell out how the untried process would work. It would largely treat a person placed on the civil registry the same way a convicted sex offender is treated under Ohio's so-called Megan's Law
."
What the freddie prince jr? That is horrible. So you can basically be treated as a sex offender, with out being one. This is known as "Pre-crime" treatment. What the hell is our society comming to, racial [read: racist] profiling, precausious accusation, delimited sentancing - where does it end? All this to make sure one does not potentially commit a crime. Is this considered democratic facism of sorts? I would simply call it gross entrapment.

Is this going too far? Can this even be justified? Your thoughts?

Bipper

[Araciel]

i think you pretty much hit it on the head. what they are doing here would be criminal in itself, and alienates someone for something they haven't been proven as doing anything wrong. the law is largely based on witness testimony which is the problem, if you are accused of something, automatically people are going to think you did it, cause someone said you did, but that's where it should end. you shouldn't be LEGALLY affected unless undeniable proof is shown.

way too far, unjustifiable

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Well... so much for "innocent until proven guilty". Under this law even if you're found innocent then you're still guilty enough to be put on a registry. :(

[Araciel]

the more security a country has, the less freedom it has
it's sad but true.


if even being accused as a sex offender would cause someone to be on the registry, sure they might catch a few of those bastards more often, but the price is far too much to pay for all the innocents who get labeled as monsters

[Arrianna]

I give it 6 months before it's found unconstitutional. One challenge is all it would take.

[Araciel]

oh yah the constitution....USA all the way....

forgot it was in toledo and stuff

[bipper]

oh yah the constitution....USA all the way....

Oh? That peice of toilet paper that gets trumped by all three branches of the government nearly daily?

[Araciel]

thats the one
:D:D:D:D:D:D

i actually don't know that much about the constitution, surprise

[Peegee]

Unfortunately there are more emotionally charged mothers and supporters to justify this type of banality. Consequently discussing this topic sensibly is not only counterproductive to understanding the 'reasoning' (of which is emotional not logical), nor helpful to finding a solution that won't anger said people.

All I see here is evidence that even at the age of 35-40+ adults are just as prone to mob mentality and public ostracization of concepts they see as negative. It is good to keep kids away from sex offenders, but this is going too far.

[Araciel]

eloquently put for someone called pureghetto

[Levian]

You mean "When does a law GOE to far?" don't you?

I still don't get that joke or whatever it is, btw.

[bipper]

PG: I don't know if I would call it mob mentality so much as unified secular bitching. Small individual units can get parts of the government to do things by simply kicking up a fuss, and justifying it. Unfortunately, our governmential entities and employees therein, are not properly acclemated to digress such emotionally charged issues, in fear of bad PR. It is a pathetic state we find our selves in.

Eidit : Oh Levian was right, can a Mod please fix my sacreligous typoE? It should read as Levian states.

[Araciel]

you mean the same reason creationism is taught in schools?

[bipper]

you mean the same reason creationism is taught in schools?

izit?

[Arrianna]

thats the one
:D:D:D:D:D:D

i actually don't know that much about the constitution, surprise
I would say 90% of the people in the US don't either. Including the judges unfortunately.

[Araciel]

somewhere 'down there' it actually is...because some parental group argued that evolution, etc, is a belief and is not fully accepted by everyone, that creationism should be taught as well. if my child were in that school i would demand that they taught the theory of me going back in time and injecting adam and eve with my own DNA

edit: i know i'm not showing proof but i forget where i saw that i think it was on tv...

[bipper]

In America, evolution is taught as fact, and many other theory are taught as fact. Creationism is usually ruled out of school the second it is brought up; which is fairly pathetic. Even a scientist should have an earnest wonderment for the inner workings of a primative human's mind. One that would bleive or create realigion. Purely speaking with bias aside.

[Araciel]

agreed. i have no idea where we all came from or how any of this giant circus we call a planet works for sure. i said what i believe best when pluto not being a planet was news

as far as i know, it doesn't even exist anyway, since i've never seen it for myself aside from books and tv.

[your.mind.is.on.the.line]

It's 'guilty until proven innocent' only one step further. It's backwards democrocy, oh wait no it isn't; that's just what they want you to think....

[Madame Adequate]

Over here in England our government is now trying to bring in various stuff which will identify delinquent youths before they do anything wrong - and sometimes before they are even born. This "pre-delinquent" status will tar people who have done nothing wrong with a brush that will make their lives harder, ironically, this will probably increase the chances of them turning to crime.

Edit: And we don't have a consitution or anything to point to.

[Araciel]

rock on...glad i'm an adult...damn punk kids

[Jojee]

It doesn't say in the constitution innocent until proven guilty, I believe...

However, this is pretty crappy. I'm gonna go register my roomies as sex offenders, now ^_^

Haha I'm just disappointed this thread isn't about Freddie Prince Jr like when I hovered over the title :(

[Madame Adequate]

Actually, you're right, but the 5th strongly suggests that the presumption is to exist.

[Old Manus]

A law goes too far when it jumps out of the lawbook, imo

[bipper]

A law goes too far when it jumps out of the lawbook, imo

That actually makes a /xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gifton of sense manus. Well put, deep, and insightful. I never expected that out of you. I am dissapointed.

P.S. You said goes.

[Araciel]

hah i laughed when i read it

[Bart's Friend Milhouse]

Cut police funding

[starseeker]

To quote the Magna Carta of 1215:


20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.


So punishing someone who has done nothing wrong, had been forbidden under British law for nearly 800 years. Plus the Magna Carta
is part of the base of American law since it is so old.

[bipper]

To quote the Magna Carta of 1215:


20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.


So punishing someone who has done nothing wrong, had been forbidden under British law for nearly 800 years. Plus the Magna Carta
is part of the base of American law since it is so old.

I love you for finding that exact quote. I am far too lazy :greenie:

[Araciel]

i like article 21....peasants cant be wronged against by earls or barons, or at least they can't personally do anything about it hahah

[Madame Adequate]

To quote the Magna Carta of 1215:


20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.


So punishing someone who has done nothing wrong, had been forbidden under British law for nearly 800 years. Plus the Magna Carta
is part of the base of American law since it is so old.

Errrr, no, that clearly states that if fines are imposed as a legal punishment they should not be so great as to ruin a man's livelihood. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever with regards to presumption of innocence or guilt. Moreover the Magna Carta is almost 800 years old - Britain is a nation with common law. The vast majority of what is written in the Magna Carta has since been either drastically changed, or entirely removed.

[starseeker]

To quote the Magna Carta of 1215:


20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.


So punishing someone who has done nothing wrong, had been forbidden under British law for nearly 800 years. Plus the Magna Carta
is part of the base of American law since it is so old.

Errrr, no, that clearly states that if fines are imposed as a legal punishment they should not be so great as to ruin a man's livelihood. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever with regards to presumption of innocence or guilt. Moreover the Magna Carta is almost 800 years old - Britain is a nation with common law. The vast majority of what is written in the Magna Carta has since been either drastically changed, or entirely removed.

Will this do then:


(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice

[bipper]

Errrr, no, that clearly states that if fines are imposed as a legal punishment they should not be so great as to ruin a man's livelihood. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever with regards to presumption of innocence or guilt. Moreover the Magna Carta is almost 800 years old - Britain is a nation with common law. The vast majority of what is written in the Magna Carta has since been either drastically changed, or entirely removed.

I think that is all it had to say, to adhere to the present topic. Not so much innocent before guilty, but the fact that a punishment that could ruin a mans lively hood be persued over a superficial claim.

[Arrianna]

Will this do then:

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. It would except at the moment it IS the law of the land.

That's actually why the US has an "innocent until proven guilty" clause in the 5th Amendment.
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[The Devil Man]

You guys in America are lucky you actually have a decent law system.

Here in the UK you can drive over the limit without consequence. You can kill a child drink driving, be given a 2 year prison sentence and then be released after 4 months. You can cripple a person in an accident and be released after 2 months.

You can rape a woman and be released after a few months. You can rape a child and be released after a few months. You can kill a person, another adult, and be given 10 years in jail and be out after about 3. Or you can actually kill someone, racially, and the whole country can know you did it, but the police will do as much as they can to make sure you DON'T go to jail (Stephen Lawrence anyone?)

Or you can kill two children, go to to jail and be treated extremely well (as in the case of Ian Huntley. Anyone see how fat and bloated he looks now?) because the jails are more like a hotel then a place for justice.

No matter how unfair you think the law system in USA is, it's much, much worse here in the UK. At least the police over there actually care about their citizens and want to protect them. Not many people can say that about the UK. You can't leave children out of your sight. You can't ever leave your door open, unattended. You feel more like a prisoner of your town then prisoners feel in prison! (I live in London by the way). The police here are an absolute joke. Trust me, I'd rather be in USA anyday.

[Jojee]

Ah, but what is due process of law?

Also, the first ten ammendments were made to apply only to the federal government. It's only a later interpretation that caused the Supreme Court to say it applies to the states as well. There's really nothing in there that says the states can't prohibit the freedom of speech, religion, etc themselves. It's all interpretation. ^_^

[nik0tine]

Hahaha America. :p

[The Devil Man]

Oh, yeah, and continuing my little whinge, when you are the victim of a crime and you have to call the Police, they'll usually take a couple of hours making their way to you rather then a few minutes.

I know of someone who was working in a shop and the window got smashed and there was a fight outside. He called the police and told them exactly what was going on. The fight continued for arounf 20 minutes. Still no Police. By the time the cops came, the ones beating up the teenager had long since disappeared. They came, I think, over an hour after the first phone call.

It should be said that the media here in the UK are pretty envious of the American police and justice system and often cry out how much we should adopt it. Only we can't because we've signed up to the EU and the friggin' Human Rights Act/Crap.

[Vincent, Thunder God]

This must be in the US. I don't think we have that in Canada, and hopefully we never will. There are quite a lot of false accusations of sex offense, so if someone just accused another of that and lied, the supposed offender would be treated the same as a pedophile! Rubbish.

One of my favourite artists, Frank Zappa, was also a very wise person, even though he dropped out of school at a very early age (take that, school boards!). He believes that the Reagan Administration was moving America towards a facsist theocracy. The key word is moving, he didn't say it was a fascist theocracy. If he was alive today, he might still hold by that opinion during the Bush Administration, and. in light of this little example, he'd probably be right.

[Arrianna]

Ah, but what is due process of law?That would be defined in the sixth amendment.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

As for it applying to the states that was done in 1868 with the 14th amendment.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[DarkLadyNyara]

I*Love*Green*Olives writes to tell us the Toledo Blade is reporting that State officials have rubber-stamped a "civil-registry" that would allow accused sex offenders to be tracked with the sex offender registry even if they have never been convicted of a crime. From the article: "A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit. The rules spell out how the untried process would work. It would largely treat a person placed on the civil registry the same way a convicted sex offender is treated under Ohio's so-called Megan's Law


That is sick. There is no justification for this. I'm sorry for people who are victimized, but declaring someone a sex offender with no evidence is out of line. Are these idiots not aware of the rate of false accusations? This undermines every single aspect of due process there is, not to mention basic priniples like, oh, I don't know, simple decency. No way in hell will this be upheld.

[farplaner]

thats the one
:D:D:D:D:D:D

i actually don't know that much about the constitution, surprise
I would say 90% of the people in the US don't either. Including the judges unfortunately.

Why should the majority of us know it? It's an antiquated document that doesn't (in many ways...with some obvious exceptions) make sense in the modern world.

This topic reminded me of my half-brother (in a tangential sort of way), which inspires me to make a thread...

....and, oh yeah, that law does indeed go too far.

[DarkLadyNyara]

Why should the majority of us know it? It's an antiquated document that doesn't (in many ways...with some obvious exceptions) make sense in the modern world.
Seeing as it is the law of this country, knowing it would be a very good idea. And can yuo explain how it's "antiquated" and "doesn't make sense in the modern world"?

[farplaner]

Why should the majority of us know it? It's an antiquated document that doesn't (in many ways...with some obvious exceptions) make sense in the modern world.
Seeing as it is the law of this country, knowing it would be a very good idea. And can yuo explain how it's "antiquated" and "doesn't make sense in the modern world"?

Damn it! Can't I be cynical without having to provide evidence!? :tongue:

To answer your question: no, not really....:eep:

Generally speaking, though, I was referring to items such as the ever-popular "right to bear arms" amendment. It may or may not have made sense at the time, but the thought is ridiculous in today's society.

My point is that times change, societies change, and while some of the guiding principles behind some of the ideas behind laws transcend time, much of any legislature written in any given time period will, at some point, become meaningless.

[Madame Adequate]

Yes, the idea that the right to bear arms needs to be spelt out is pretty crazy, but sadly there are a lot of people who think this right doesn't exist. I don't know exactly where they get that from - maybe they like the thought of old people being mugged and young women being raped - but until it's as basic an assumption as the right to breathe, it's a good thing that it is in the constitution.

[farplaner]

Yes, the idea that the right to bear arms needs to be spelt out is pretty crazy, but sadly there are a lot of people who think this right doesn't exist. I don't know exactly where they get that from - maybe they like the thought of old people being mugged and young women being raped - but until it's as basic an assumption as the right to breathe, it's a good thing that it is in the constitution.

Sooo...let me get this straight. You're saying that every old person, young woman, and anyone who might potentially be victimized (that is to say- everyone) should carry a gun? So that way any time someone feels threatened, they can respond with lethal force?

*Feels threatened by MILF and promptly shoots him in the head.

[Madame Adequate]

Uh, yes, because clearly "I think people should be able to defend themselves against criminals" equates to "I think people should be able to act on their paranoid feelings against people who look at them funny". :rolleyes2

[farplaner]

Uh, yes, because clearly "I think people should be able to defend themselves against criminals" equates to "I think people should be able to act on their paranoid feelings against people who look at them funny". :rolleyes2

clearly. (*tries to deny that MILF is cool...."must.....de-ny!")

[NorthernChaosGod]

Well... so much for "innocent until proven guilty". Under this law even if you're found innocent then you're still guilty enough to be put on a registry. :(

[Raistlin]

Also, the first ten ammendments were made to apply only to the federal government. It's only a later interpretation that caused the Supreme Court to say it applies to the states as well. There's really nothing in there that says the states can't prohibit the freedom of speech, religion, etc themselves. It's all interpretation. ^_^

A later amendment to the Constitution says "this applies to everyone." Thus, the Constitution now <i>does</i> say that all of the amendments apply to the states. :p

That being said, this is preposterous.

Also, Jojo, 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

A few months ago Ireland lost its statutory rape laws for being unconstitutional. There's no reason for this law not to get shot to tiny pieces if it can be proven to be unconstitutional too.

Never underestimate the power of the constitution.

[Dreddz]

In some areas of south-london, theres a law that you cant been caught with any Alcohol on the street. If the police catch you, they literally take the alcohol you have on you and be on there way. This hasnt happened to me but some of my mates has had it done to them. I personally think the police have crossed the line, or rather, the man whos in charge...

[starseeker]

In some areas of south-london, theres a law that you cant been caught with any Alcohol on the street. If the police catch you, they literally take the alcohol you have on you and be on there way. This hasnt happened to me but some of my mates has had it done to them. I personally think the police have crossed the line, or rather, the man whos in charge...

There's the same law in my local town centre, because it's a controlled drinking area. It's to prevent people getting drunk and disorderly. The irony is that the town has a dozen pubs.