Invasion of Privacy

I got a piece of mail that politicians send out. It said "Dan Reitz wants to track sex offenders as closely as we track packages." It also said "Reitz backed legislation to require those convicted of the sexual assault of a child to wear an electronic GPS tracking bracelet so their whereabouts can be known at all times. Now he's working on legislation that would require ALL sex offenders to wear such devices." I think that this is complete bullshit and is a very HUGE INVASION OF PRIVACY .say if you want to go to a friends house they would know exactly where you are or if they have a search warrant for someones house and they had a grudge against you they could use it while you are in there and make bogus bs charges against you and say you where trying to buy illegal items. This is the downfall of this country we have gone so far away from our roots of this country we are becoming a communist country. Democracy no longer exist.

 

Sexual predation as a crime is a public event and should be recognized as such. If you molest or rape a child, that knowledge can and should be made public, and everyone should be aware of what you've done as you are obviously a potential threat to people's children. I could not care less about the privacy rights of sexual predators, the only exception being obviously retarded statutory rape indictments.
Considering that the majority of people agree with me, your quip about how "democracy no longer exists" is kind of ironic.

 

I know, let the sex offender visit his ten year old friends house in peace dammit.

 

Sex offenders should be chemically castrated just like they are in Poland.

 

So your saying if you make a mistake when your young you get fucked for the rest of your life or say if you are wrongly convicted you get something that will tell the government where you are. It is a step closer to totalitarianism and then politicians could say that all people need to wear them in case they suspect illegal activity. How is it ironic? democracy principles involve human and civil rights. So say also you are at the wrong place at the wrong time you can get charged with something you didn't do. Oh and say if a parent doesn't like you and they want to put you back in jail they could easily talk their kid into hiding in his house while he is there and calling the police about it. It is an invasion of privacy and it won't stop just at sex offenders in the future it might be drug trafficers. This is the same thing a national I.D. just to get in you social life just to tell you how to live it. How would you like if you got a gps on you for the rest of your life just because you where young and dumb and wanted an adventure.

 

The problem with sex offenders is demographically they're the most likely to repeat their crime. Rape and pedophilia generally have deep subsoncious causes and are not crimes of economics, opportunity or mischief. Though making sex offenders wear a GPS monitor forever is more than a bit extreme.

 

The law and the consequences for breaking it are not set in place with the assumption that people will be wrongly convicted. That's fallacious and completely besides the point.

Sexual predation is a "mistake" no matter at what age you commit it.

No it isn't and no they can't. Look up the definition of totalitarianism.

Democratic principles are about publicly expressing through a standard what the majority wants, and in this case, the majority wants sexual predators to be monitored.
Hence the irony.

 

Not as extreme as chemical castration.

 

You say that until one of your kids or family members is raped and molested.
When that happens I bet you'll feel differently on the subject.

 

True, for repeat offenders though I don't see it as that bad an option.

 

Definition of totalitarianism : a governing body with absolute control over all aspects of life.

It is a mistake but you shouldn't be forced to wear a gps bracelet if you committed a crime when you where young. Say if the majority of people said that we should kill all muslims we should just because the majority doesn't like them because of ignorance we should kills them?

 

When you break the law often society dictates that the consequences of your actions require you to relinquish certain freedoms.
That is not totalitarianism. Actually the opposite of it.

The enormity of difference between killing an innocent person because of their religions beliefs, and requiring a sex offender to wear a GPS bracelet is incredibly vast. I'm sorry that you cannot see that.

 

There is a difference in extremeness, it is a limit on our freedom it gives all of our privacy away.

Your missing the point so if we commit a crime early in life we should get that shoved in our face for the rest of your life even if you regret it?

 

I'm sensing that this is personally relevant to you.
When it comes to minors the law is even more complicated.
"Committing a crime early in life" is extremely broad, I don't know how to meaningfully comment on something that general. Too many variables.

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment. This would also violate the fourth amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" Which basically means the people have the right of privacy.

 

Once again, a fairly prevalent consequence of breaking the law is the relinquishment of freedom.
Revoking liberties that are extended to citizens of a society is the only means of punishment said society has when it comes to enforcing law.

 

Actually it isn't but most crimes a person will commit will be earlier in their life than later. Stupidity gets the best of us and drugs can to. Imagine being in your teen's and you rape someone under the influence of drugs. They fuck with your judgement you know. And you rape someone and get screwed for the rest of your life on something you would of never done sober.

 

You know when you break the law and are convicted, you lose some of your constitutional rights, this is generally how most law and order societies work. Generally it'll end with the end of a probation, prison, parole, ect term, but it is a common thing for rights for serious/frequent offenders to still be curtailed. For example voting is the obvious for convicted felons, but a lot of countries won't let convicted felons into their country for a certain amount of time even after their sentence is over. Like Canada, even if you get a DWI in the US, you can't enter Canada for 7 years since in Canada DWI is a felony.

*edit*
On this note getting a passport in general can be hard.

 

Raping someone while you are a teen is still rape. It's just as damaging to the person who is being raped, and it makes you just as much of a threat as an adult who has raped. I honestly don't see a difference.

You are looking at this from the perspective of the rapist, I'm looking at it from the perspective of a victim, and I'm sure it doesn't make one bit of a difference to a woman if her rapist was 17 or if he was 27. She was still raped.

That isn't true at all.
Rape is violent and ruthless behavior that undermines another person's humanity. That isn't something that the average person is going to do just because they took a hit of acid or started smoking weed. The type of mindset that rape requires would be deep-rooted in a person's psyche.

 

You know there's a google maps type thing that actually lists all sex offenders in your area, state, ect, and when you look at them all, you can see their information, age, conviction, date of conviction, and pictures sometimes, and they're generally not young.