08-14-2005, 07:25 AM
Looks good to me. Its well-written. Except you might want to change the definition to "someone convicted" instead of "someone charged."
I'd support this if it were targeted even more narrowly. The definition of a sex offender as one who commits non-consensual acts is a great start- gets rid of the whole 18-year old who slept with his 17-year old girlfriend situation. Here's an interesting article that brings up some more possible problems. The 13-year old boy who molested a classmate should be written out of the law. I want child rapists tracked down, not stupid kids.
There's also the problem with punishment. Is it really fair for someone who's served her or his time to be outcast from society for the remainder or their life? According to the strange foreign entity, the "US Department of Justice," few sex offenders do it again. Just because a small number of children may be at risk does not justify stripping citizens of any of their rights.
And in Adam Island, our courts would most likely not allow the enforcement of this resolution for already convicted criminals, because it would be ex post facto. You can't tack on additional punishments for the same crime after the sentence has already been served. It could work for future rapists though.
I'd support this if it were targeted even more narrowly. The definition of a sex offender as one who commits non-consensual acts is a great start- gets rid of the whole 18-year old who slept with his 17-year old girlfriend situation. Here's an interesting article that brings up some more possible problems. The 13-year old boy who molested a classmate should be written out of the law. I want child rapists tracked down, not stupid kids.
There's also the problem with punishment. Is it really fair for someone who's served her or his time to be outcast from society for the remainder or their life? According to the strange foreign entity, the "US Department of Justice," few sex offenders do it again. Just because a small number of children may be at risk does not justify stripping citizens of any of their rights.
And in Adam Island, our courts would most likely not allow the enforcement of this resolution for already convicted criminals, because it would be ex post facto. You can't tack on additional punishments for the same crime after the sentence has already been served. It could work for future rapists though.