Good For Franklin
Franklin passed its own ordinance to prevent sex offenders from living or congregating in areas of their city. I say it doesn't go far enough, but it's a step in the right direction.
Its constitutionality is being debated, which is fine. Here is something that concerns me to that effect, taken from the above story:
"Both measures were signed by the governor. But a drafting omission in a subsequent law kept the "return to sender" provision from taking effect."
Nice, huh?
On a personal note I don't think these excuses for human beings should have much freedom, period. Jail or probation or supervision aside, they can never be rehabilitated. I stand by that.
Its constitutionality is being debated, which is fine. Here is something that concerns me to that effect, taken from the above story:
"Both measures were signed by the governor. But a drafting omission in a subsequent law kept the "return to sender" provision from taking effect."
Nice, huh?
On a personal note I don't think these excuses for human beings should have much freedom, period. Jail or probation or supervision aside, they can never be rehabilitated. I stand by that.
posted by Phelony Jones at 8:25 AM
8 Comments:
I agree, though, I am torn. Part of me says to give one chance after they've done their time for the 1st offence. Provided of course, a shrink ok's it. Mess up again, bye bye!For life! The side of me that was molested by one of these freaks says, 1 bullet, .25$, end of story.
Hey sir, glad to see you back!
I am not torn at all. I think the folks that do this have it in their heart. Won't be too black and white about it and I'll say there is probably 1% of them that can turn it around, but overall, once is enough and is frankly too much.
And the other side of me says the bullet is cheaper.
I agree with the bullet. Once is, as you say, too much.
Check the recitivism(sp?) rates.
Well, it was nice of the Journal to catch up. I posted about it on the 18th, and the results on the 22nd. Now we know why the term Snail Media is so fitting.
It's funny that they didn't bother to talk to the man that introduced the measure, Alderman Steve Olson or even mentioned Citizens For A Safe Wisconsin, maybe the Journal should assign a reporter to read the Blogosphere so they don't get scooped so badly :-)
Patrick I must have missed that on your blog.
As for not speaking with Alderman Olson, well, I think the media believes that all measures and laws are gifts from the Big Giant Head. I'll put money on it that the thought never crossed their collective mind.
Oh the stories that can be told about our illustrious members of the legislature and this issue. "Drafting omission" is double speak for "we didn't want it in and didn't want anyone to know it.
As for the constitutionality of the ordinance, since when is sending someone "home" a violation of the constitution, much less their rights.
I'm waiting for Mr. Staskunas to come up with a solution to the problem rather than throwing up roadblocks. Being a legislator is hard work. Some haven't broken a sweat yet.
Stevo, you have to wonder whose side they're on sometimes. I'm starting to wonder if there is a secret Gangster Lobby or Predator Lobby.
It's shuffling problems. It's a lack of integrity and responsibility to the entire community rather than just their back yard. It's a failure to lead, a failure to have big picture views and ideas.
Enregistrer un commentaire
<< Home