Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judge Richard Matsch is the judge who presided over the Oklahoma bombing trial of McVeigh and Nichols. He was appointed by Richard Nixon.
I guess that would explain the dearth of posts decrying 'activist judges'--if you can't put Liberal and Obama appointed in front of the accusation..why bother, eh?
This is a tough one. I believe we need to re-look at who we place on these lists but in some cases they serve a proper purpose.
The judge makes a valid point but you have to counter that with the safety of the public. In some cases the public is at zero risk but in others that is not the case.
I don't know what these three did to comment on this particular case. Will be interesting to watch.
Apparently, the judge felt that the public sex registry serves no useful purpose beyond public shaming, punishes sex offenders by placing them at risk from angry citizens..thus punishing them above and beyond the statute.
This is big because it could be used to strike down public access to sex offenders addresses, names and criminal history, all across the nation..certainly within the 10th circuit court area.
Sex offender Registries, per se, are OK...for law enforcement use only.
So...a case of individual rights trumping the public weal?
I can guess how many will respond, can we take the 'shootings too good for them' posts for granted and get a reasoned debate?
The registery and background checks should be abolished completely. Either the offender has paid the debt or hasn't. Make up your mind, people. If they have paid by serving the sentence, why continue the sentence by isolating them from the society? If they haven't, why let them out?
By having registry and background check, we essentially sentence them for life and give them no other way to right themselves.
If "sex offenses" were narrowly tailored, I'd disagree, but what can land someone on one of these registries is so overly broad and varied that idiocy is treated as seriously as rape.
I'm more worried about ban the box legislation. My city passed the Fair Chance Hiring Ordinance last year which prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an applicant based on their criminal history unless the employer has a good faith belief that the individual is unsuitable for the job based on an individualized assessment conducted by the employer.
I never let anyone I hire for a repair, putting up a light fixture, cleaning the carpet, painting a ceiling, or mowing the lawn in my home or go outside to even talk to them unless my spouse is with me. I always assume an employee of any business is a felon with a violent history now.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 09-01-2017 at 08:45 PM..
The registery and background checks should be abolished completely. Either the offender has paid the debt or hasn't. Make up your mind, people. If they have paid by serving the sentence, why continue the sentence by isolating them from the society? If they haven't, why let them out?
By having registry and background check, we essentially sentence them for life and give them no other way to right themselves.
The registery can be a part of a sentence. Just the same as some still have to report to a parole officer after getting out.
Some should be off the streets for a longer period of time.
Some shouldnt be on a list. A drunk taking a leak can also be convicted of indecent exposure or public lewdness. = Sex offender list.
If the registry was confined to pedos and violent rapists, then I would object to this being struck down. However there are a lot of minor or relatively minor offenses which those lists should not include. There are also crimes which are not included on these lists which should be (specifically, gang members should be on these lists)
Putting a 21-year old male, who got caught peeing on a statue after drinking too much during spring break, on a lifetime sexual offender list should be unconstitutional. As should placing the kid that got charged with statutory rape the day he turned 18-year old, despite the fact he had been dating that same 15-year old girl for the previous 2 years without being charged with anything, on a public lifetime list. Neither of those individuals are a danger to anyone. Those lists should be reserved for only predators who are a danger to the community, not idiots who need a good smack to the head. What is more, they shouldn't be automatically for a lifetime and there should be mechanisms for re-evaluation every X number of years.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wondered where I had heard that name...
