I have a friend that was convicted as a sex offender.... SHE was
pissing behind a dumpster .... no one saw her. She was convicted
because there was indeed a "puddle" and she admitted that she simply
couldn't hold it any more.

Be careful who you lump in together.

On Nov 6, 7:25 am, Cold Water <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh my bleeding heart!!  The recidivism rate CANNOT be ignored even by Florida 
> rednecks.  The children mentioned were killed by men who should have been in 
> prison serving loooooooooooooonger sentences and now you want to support a 
> judge allowing the fox to play in the hen house?  Don't even talk to me 
> Keith.  A pox on TB forever!!!
>
> CW <g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Keith In Tampa
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 08:59
> Subject: Re: Law restricting where sex offenders can live is 
> unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules
>
> Good Mornng CW!!
>
> "Do the names Jessica Lunsford, Polly Klaas, Samantha Runion, Jennifer 
> Thompson etc., etc., etc. sound the least bit familiar to you???"
>
> Uhm?   They were all little girls who were murdered by guys who were raised 
> in trailer parks up in Ohio?
>
> Okay,  I was attempting to be humorous once again,  and I apologize!
>
> Yes, I know what the recidivism rate is on these kinds of crimes.   That 
> isn't the issue.  
>
> There are many other individuals who have been tagged with the "sexual 
> crimes" tag, that are not of this same mold.  (Geesh, I can tell stories of 
> folks who are no more a sexual deviant or predator than you or I,  but since 
> the Jessica Lundsford laws, they are now deemed as such!)  
>
> IF, we are going to punish these folks by giving them terms of imprisonement; 
> and IF, these individuals  complete these terms of imprisonment, then there 
> must be some place for them to return to.
>
> This was the Judge's point in his ruling.
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Cold Water <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>   Do you have any idea, any idea at all, what the recidivism rate is among 
> these animals?"
>
>   I really hope I never become so stupid that I am sitting around worrying 
> about the rights of these pigs.
>
>   CW
>   On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>
>     Uhm.....Call me a Moonbat, but I agree with this judge...
>
>     On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>       Unbelievable!  This goes with the recent one that an illegal who used 
> someone else's SSN to buy a house, vehicle and to work did not commit a 
> crime...Ferg
>
>       Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. 
> judge rules
>       November 4, 2010 |  8:07 am
>
>      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/law-restricting-where-s...
>
>       Saying sex offenders are being forced to choose between prison and 
> homelessness, a Los Angeles judge issued an opinion this week blocking 
> enforcement of provisions a state law restricting how close those offenders 
> can live from parks or schools.
>
>       Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza issued the 10-page ruling after 
> four registered sex offenders petitioned the court, arguing that the 
> legislation known as Jessica's Law was unconstitutional.
>
>       He said the court had received about 650 habeas corpus petitions 
> raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared by 
> the public defender's and alternate public defender's offices.
>
>       "The court is not a 'potted plant' and need not sit idly by in the face 
> of immediate, ongoing and significant violations of parolee constitutional 
> rights," Espinoza wrote.
>
>       Proposition 83, which is better known as Jessica's Law and was 
> overwhelmingly passed by state voters in 2006, imposes strict residency 
> requirements on sex offenders, including requirements forbidding them from 
> residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park where 
> children regularly gather.
>
>       Before the law passed, those residency requirements were imposed only 
> on offenders whose victims were children.
>
>       Civil rights attorneys have argued that provisions of the law make it 
> impossible for some registered sex offenders to live in densely populated 
> cities.
>
>       Nearly all of San Francisco, for example, is off-limits to sex 
> offenders because of the number of parks and schools close to housing. Los 
> Angeles officials also said that there are few places in the city where sex 
> offenders can find housing that meets Jessica's Law requirements.
>
>       The California Supreme Court ruled in February that registered sex 
> offenders could challenge residency requirements in the law if it proves 
> impossible to avoid living near parks and schools.
>
>       State corrections officials said Wednesday that they could not comment 
> on the specifics of Espinoza's ruling, but said they would continue to ensure 
> residency restrictions are imposed in cases where there is a valid reason to 
> continue enforcing them.
>
>       "There are other tools that the Department of Corrections and 
> Rehabilitation can and will continue to use to further public safety, 
> including residency restrictions specific to each offender," said the agency 
> spokesman Luis Patino.
>
>       In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief 
> Charlie Beck that the Jessica's Law restrictions had resulted in "a marked 
> increase of homeless/transient registrants." The judge noted that in 2007, 
> there were 30 sex offenders on active parole in the city of Los Angeles. By 
> September of this year, that number had jumped to 259.
>
>       "Rather than protecting public safety, it appears that the sharp rise 
> in homelessness rates in sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles County 
> actually undermines public safety." wrote Espinoza, who is the supervising 
> judge of the Los Angeles County criminal courts. "The evidence presented 
> suggests that despite lay belief, a sex offender parolee's residential 
> proximity to a school or park where children regularly gather does not bear 
> on the parolee's likelihood to commit a sexual offense against a child."
>
>       LAPD officials said they were reviewing the court decision and had no 
> immediate comment on its specifics.
>
>       Last month, in a briefing for the Los Angeles Police Commission, Det. 
> Diane Webb, who heads a unit responsible for tracking the whereabouts of sex 
> offenders, said there are about 5,100 registered sex offenders living in the 
> city.
>
>       Of those, about 20%, or approximately 1,020 people, are on parole for 
> felony crimes and are prohibited by state law from living near a school or 
> park where children gather, Webb said.
>
>       She said that some of the city's sex-offender population has come to 
> Los Angeles from surrounding cities that have passed additional sex-offender 
> laws that make it next to impossible for offenders to find a place to live 
> and push them to look elsewhere, but that Los Angeles does not have any 
> additional laws on its books, making it a feasible destination.
>
>        -- Andrew Blankstein
>
>       --
>       Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>       For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>       * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>       * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>       * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>     --
>     Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>     For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>     * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>     * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>     * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>   --
>   Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>   For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>   * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>   * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>   * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>   --
>   Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>   For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>   * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>   * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>   * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to