On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:20:07 -0700, Dave Laird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Good evening, Frank... > >Frank Gilliland wrote: > >> Sure it does. You remember Megan's law? The Amber Alert system? The >> changes in DUI laws that were due primarily to the actions of MADD? >> Those are just a few I remember offhand, but I'm sure there are plenty >> of other examples that I've never even heard about. > >Actually, I was *impressed* with how the Amber Alert System worked during >the Groene kidnapping case, but ultimately it wasn't the Amber Alerts that >resulted in the safe return of Shannon Groene to her dad. It was her >extended family, who saw to it that posters appeared in most public places >in Idaho that resulted in the capture of the sick son-of-a-bitch >responsible for four deaths and sexual depredations too disgusting to >imagine. The point was that the Amber Alert system has been effective at recovering many children, which is why it was adopted as law. It is just one example of how people can change laws. >On the other hand, despite all the hoopla put out by Mothers Against Drunk >Drivers, the carnage of wrecked automobiles continues every holiday, >including last July Fourth. However, I'll concede no amount of work on my, >or anyone else's part, is liable ever to end drunks hopping behind the >wheel of their cars and killing other people. Again, I think you missed the point -- people can and do change laws. The public -does- have influence in the law-making process. >> I think you missed the point: sexual predators don't limit their >> territories to their own neighborhoods. Even if forcing them to live >> somewhere else -did- reduce the risk of crime in your neighborhood, it >> would consequently -increase- the risk to some -other- neighborhood. I > >I agree, and I truly hope that other neighborhoods will follow the example >that is being created for them. They *have* to take action of some kind, >because, in the absence of action, they will be vulnerable to the same >types of actions as took place in Idaho. > >I'll concede there are a lot of flaws in my proposal; in fact, it has more >flaws than it has solutions, but it is a first step toward declaring Level >III Sexual Offenders who are apt to reoffend as persons without standing, >and that society, at large, will need to make arrangements for their >housing in the future in a safe, secure manner, but NOT in neighborhoods >where children reside. Ok, this point isn't getting though either so let's try a different angle: Duncan lived in Fargo, ND. The Groene children lived in Coeur d'Alene. Another victim of Duncan lived in Minnesota. Now, even if the Groene's were capable of preventing -ALL- sex offenders from living in their neighborhood.... or even from the state of Idaho.... would that have prevented Duncan from doing this crime? No. Fact: It doesn't matter where they live. It -does- matter that the system releases criminals that pose a danger to the public. >> don't think you mean to suggest that it's ok for these animals to >> molest and kill children just as long as they don't do it in your own >> backyard, but that's essentially what you are saying. > >In the beginning, yes, that is what I am saying, since I am protecting my >own neighborhood. However, others will realize they have the same rights >and responsibilities, one would hope. At this point I'm going to step away from this discussion because I think you need to learn some facts and think this through a little harder. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
