Should tax payers have to foot the bill or sex offenders once they leave prison?
Search
Should tax payers foot the bill or sex offenders?
Submitted by mwilliam on June 2, 2008 - 4:05pm.
current events | N&O
the state should pay. Many
Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on June 3, 2008 - 7:41am.
the state should pay. Many of these folks are committed nothing more aggressive then look at pictures, yet folks who actually KILL people could be next door. Not only that, EVERY other criminal is more like to recommit their crime then a sex offender. The whole fear-mongering hysteria around sex offenders is a great example of how there are no grown ups left in politics or the media.
Why not just lynch sex offenders? that would safe the tax money!
» reply
I agree Many
Submitted by Pilot (not verified) on June 3, 2008 - 9:36am.
I think Many has hit the nail right on the head. Execution would in fact, solve the issue.
That being said, why is the taxpayers responsibility to provide a place for them to live? SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE has to have some common sense in our State Government! Think of some other way to pay for these lunatic programs other than to stick it to the taxpayers, AGAIN!
» reply
Sex offender room? Yes or No
Submitted by Jimmy (not verified) on June 3, 2008 - 11:20am.
I guess that next time I book travel plans that besides be asked if I want a smoking room or non, I will have to answer if I want a sex offender room or non sex offender room. Will hotels then have to advertize that they are sex offender free sites to get family travel business, especially now with how families are tightening their budgets? What are schools and little leagues going to change the way they book for out of town tournaments?
No, I believe we need to look at the laws and change them so that sex offenders have more chances to get on with their lives and not put them in a confined area with the kids in bathing suits going to the hotel pool. Temption for sure!!
» reply
Residence Restrictions
Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on June 4, 2008 - 12:20pm.
What I don't understand is why people who have committed a sex offense are restricted as to where they can live, but drug dealers, drunk drivers, murderers, people who are convicted of breaking and entering, etc... are not. People who have committed sex offenses have a much lower recidivism rate than, say, drug dealers. If someone has been convicted of selling drugs, should they then not be allowed to reside within 1000 ft. of a school, or is it OK to have someone selling drugs to your children?
Or is the question really whether it is even constitutional to restrict someone who has committed a crime and served his time from living in a certain place. These people, whatever mistake they have made, once they are released, are citizens again. They should be afforded the same rights as other citizens. If their crime was bad enough for them to be incarerated forever, then they are most likely still in prison, having been senteced to life in prison.
If you believe that it's good to restrict people from living anywhere they want, then what other crimes should be included, and what other places? I'd be interested to know. Should anyone convicted of DUI have their license permanently revoked. Should they not be allowed to live near schools because they are likely to drink and drive again and run over a child? Where should burglers be allowed to live? Next door to you?
» reply
Let them live with you.
Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on June 6, 2008 - 10:33pm.
um, the difference between a drug dealer and a sex offender is that drug dealers are not forcibly, violently abusing people and sex offenders are freaking sex offenders... you know, rapists and child molesters-- people who commit horrible crimes against children and violently attack people. look up the laws and you will see that most sex offenders-- even repeat offenders are not incarcerated at lengths or rates comparable to other violent crimes. so, yeah, there should be restrictions to protect the public. personally, i would like to see longer and harsher sentences. keep them in jail. until that happens-- put their photo up on the sex offender registry and keep them away from children. I'll gladly let the drug dealers live next to me as long as all the sex offenders can live in your neighborhood.
» reply
You see, that's the problem.
Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on June 9, 2008 - 9:45pm.
You see, that's the problem. You pick and choose what questions you want to answer because you don't have a good argument. You avoid the question of whether people who are convicted of DUI should have their licenses taken away. Should they? Do you not care that they crash their cars into people and kill them, and that it could be you or your children if they live in your neighborhood?
You avoid the fact that the recidivism rate is lower for sex offenders. In fact, it would appear that you don't even care that there is not only no evidence that keeping them 1000 ft. from a school makes no difference, but that the reality is that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. You would be happy to live next to a drug dealer becuase, you say, people make the choice to take drugs. Do I understand then that you are alright with your child making the choice to buy crack from the neighborhood drug dealer?
Have you even really thought out your position, or are you just knee jerk reacting?
» reply
sex offenders
The sex offenders should foot the bill and anything else, If they had not done a crime they would have to fine housing and anything else just like anyone else would. What do they think they should get a metal or something for doing such a thing?