clicky (http://tinyurl.com/7jcfr)

Good. Some of those bastards may turn from their ways, but they should never get the chance to turn back. :)

What do you guys think?

It establishes a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life behind bars for people convicted of certain sex crimes against children 11 and younger, with lifetime tracking by global positioning satellite technology after they are freed. Now to make that the sentence for all molestation and rapes.

I personally consider rape to be worse than murder. Atleast with murder you're dead. There's no pain.

Rape is a horrible, horrible crime. But there is the advantage of knowing what's on the other side of rape: feelings of humiliation, degradation, pain, social isolation, the possibility of STDs... but the chance to live the rest of your life.

With death, ey, we don't know what's on the other side of it. Might be worse.

Personally I'd rather not be raped OR murdered...

I'm afraid someday, they will put that on everyone. A wolrd of total government control.

I don't get it? how will that make things better?

What cuases crime? when people rape, maybie its becuase they were a product of bad parenting and social neglect. Just like when people rob, it is becuase they are underpaid while fat cats hoard all the money. When people murder, it is becuase people are angry theyre lives are too tough, or they are too rich for their own good. I say crime is only a symtom of society's problems rather than crime being the actual broblems. Any one following me?

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I'm afraid someday, they will put that on everyone. A wolrd of total government control.

Two different things.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I don't get it? how will that make things better?

Monitoring them will alert police to when the person is in a danger zone, such as a park where children play, or a school. Something of that nature. Allowing crime to be avoided.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
What cuases crime? when people rape, maybie its becuase they were a product of bad parenting and social neglect.

Or maybe they're just bad people.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Just like when people rob, it is becuase they are underpaid while fat cats hoard all the money.

No. People are always screwed over. Yet not everyone robs people.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
When people murder, it is becuase people are angry theyre lives are too tough, or they are too rich for their own good.

As someone who's seen people killed, I call bull****. Murder is committed by people from all walks of life.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I say crime is only a symtom of society's problems rather than crime being the actual broblems.

I say you're trying to justify criminal acts. These people don't deserve the same level of rights as a harmless citizen. They denied others their own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.

If they're concerned about their rights being "denied". They shouldn't have done the crime in the first place.

Great idea. Republicans do good things, too, after all! If you're going to let those monsters back into society, at least know where they are at any and all times.

I'm afraid someday, they will put that on everyone. A wolrd of total government control.
That's like saying we're in danger of a government throwing everyone in jail just because criminals get thrown in jail.

And everything Sith said in the post above me is hereby seconded (if that's a verb:p) by me.

when people rape, maybie its becuase they were a product of bad parenting and social neglect.
Rapists are weak people who think they have to abuse others to feel strong. That's pretty much considered a psychological fact.

The Winnie agrees.

Rock on GPS tracking. Rock on.

*eats a smackerel of honey*

As with a lot of these things I think its a good idea if used sensibly and in moderation but i don't have much faith that it will be used in that way.

We've reached an odd point in society where more and more people are willing to give up large amounts of their freedom and privacy in order to get a quiet life. Which i guess is understandable. But i can't help but think this is based on an unreasoning fear (or crime, terrorism, whatever) that politicians are exploiting to gain control.

So i wouldn't be surprised if in a few years it was extended to all criminals. then a few years after that to all suspects, truants, etc... Then all kids... and by then it will be in everyone's phone and you won't get free burgers or somethign without it.

I do think it's value is almost entirely as a deterent though. Ie... the hope that people will be less likely to commit a crime if they can be tracked and proved to have been there.
The whole "we can stop them going into sensetive areas" argument is pretty irrelevant. Almost all sex offenses (especially against kids) are commited by people who know, or are related to, the victim. This myth of a "shadowy, black cloaked pedophile" who hangs around outside schools and playgrounds looking for kids to bundle into the back of a van is, thankfully, almost entirely in people's minds.

So knowing that a sex offender is or isn't passing near a school is going to have pretty much no effect in stopping them re-offending... as they are most likely to be living with or visiting at home any potential victims.

Frankly, i think tagging would be more use in crimes like antisocial behaviour (banning people from certain areas), burglary and gang situations.... but i understand that this move is pretty much just for show so they can say "we know where these people are!"

Except that they're not allowed to see minors without supervision by a parent (of the child) and police officer.

Originally posted by toms
Almost all sex offenses (especially against kids) are commited by people who know, or are related to, the victim. This myth of a "shadowy, black cloaked pedophile" who hangs around outside schools and playgrounds looking for kids to bundle into the back of a van is, thankfully, almost entirely in people's minds.
Except that child molestors are still likely to watch children and rekindle their desire. Not that they're there to pick out a kid and rape them in the back of a van.

If the alternative is life in prison, I'm all for it.

However, I am of the opinion that it cannot be stressed enough that this really is the equivalent of imprisonment. Cheaper? Yes. Less likely to get you butt-raped? Certainly. But it is still equivalent to imprisonment, and should be used as such.

I don't get it. Many of these people are disgusted by their previous actions, and wants to live better lives. If we put GPS tracks in all of them, it will be to paint them all black, minimizing the chances of successfully returning to society.

And what purpose will it have anyway? "Man, how I want to molest that child, but I don't dare since they have me tracked!". I don't think any of them think that way.

Jeez. Criminals are human too. Let's at least try to help them back into society, rather than freeze them out and make them commit crimes or suicide.

I don't get it. Many of these people are disgusted by their previous actions, and wants to live better lives. If we put GPS tracks in all of them, it will be to paint them all black, minimizing the chances of successfully returning to society.

So you don't think it fitting that they should pay for their mistakes? I don't think it matters if they are disgusted by their previous actions, they RAPED A CHILD. The lasting physical and psychological damages to the child alone are enough to warrant a lasting punishment, and the risk of them returning to past behavior is something I personally don't believe is worth the attempt of returning them to everyday society.

So you'd want to use punishment as a revenge? A sort of "pay-back-time" for society against the criminal?

Not my piece of cake.

That, too, but that's not why I support the GPS unit. I do so because it keeps the crime from being repeated if the government has to free the suspect.

In my opinion, the only thing a rapist deserves is life-long jail.

Life-long jail has no purpose. The purpose of all punishment in a civilized society is IMO to have a criminal serve his debt to society and go out as a free and law-abiding man. Life-long jail and death sentence does not have this ability. IMO, they are the cruel joke of the legal system.

Jeez. Criminals are human too. Let's at least try to help them back into society, rather than freeze them out and make them commit crimes or suicide.

Have you even thought about what you said? So whenever someone takes out a gun and pops somebody you'll just say"Oh there human, things like that happen." I don't think so. They should deserve severe retribution for their hideous actions.

Oh and I'm all for GPS tracking.

They deserve it for what they do to a little innocent child.

Just thinking about it makes me sick.

Originally posted by Breton
Life-long jail has no purpose.
Aside from, you know, keeping people whose morals allow them to kill or rape other human beings from doing the same thing to MORE people, inflicting damage on MORE and MORE people.

Apparently you've never read / simply ignored the stories of rapists who leave jail to do it again, or murderers who leave jail and kill again.

Yes, some people may actually be reformed, but in MY opinion, too damn bad. We all make choices in life and must live with the consequences of our actions.

I know if I had a child I wouldn't want to live next to someone who was convicted of a rape/murder, no matter HOW reformed they were. There is obviously a PART of them that wanted to do it in the first place, which means there is a part of them that still wants to do it, no matter how deeply buried it may be, and I'll be ****ed if I'd risk the well-being of my family just so someone else (who has already PROVEN that they are incapable of following the rules of society) gets their chance to get back in.

Then what about the majority who have no relapse, are disgusted over what they have done and are motivated to return back to society as nice and law-abiding citizens? What about them, ET? "Too bad"?

Have you even thought about what you said? So whenever someone takes out a gun and pops somebody you'll just say"Oh there human, things like that happen." I don't think so. They should deserve severe retribution for their hideous actions.

"An eye for an eye, and the whole world would be blind" - Mahatma Ghandi

Yes, what about them.

Too bad.


I'm sorry, but if you make the mistake of walking up to a tiger and punching it in the mouth, you deal with the consequences...typically death.

If you rape or murder somebody, then I say too goddamn bad if you're sorry that you did it. The consequences of your actions were known PRIOR to your offense. They KNOW if you get caught raping or murdering someone it's a decent chance of life imprisonment. So it was a decision THEY made to take that risk, and it is THEIR responsibility to accept the consequences.

Originally posted by Breton
Then what about the majority who have no relapse, are disgusted over what they have done and are motivated to return back to society as nice and law-abiding citizens? What about them, ET? "Too bad"?

I'm sorry, but it's a neccessary risk. Safety of a human being overruns that of a convicted rapist. I'm glad they're reformed and I hope they can live a moderately normal life. But we should still take measures to ensure the safety of other people.

And most reformed rapists actually support measurements like these because they see it as a helper to keep on the straight path.

Originally posted by Breton
"An eye for an eye, and the whole world would be blind" - Mahatma Ghandi Except this isn't eye for an eye. This is taking a small measure in ensuring safety. We're allowing them free, but with one small compromise. Eye for and eye would be raping them.


Originally posted by ET Warrior
If you rape or murder somebody, then I say too goddamn bad if you're sorry that you did it. The consequences of your actions were known PRIOR to your offense. They KNOW if you get caught raping or murdering someone it's a decent chance of life imprisonment. So it was a decision THEY made to take that risk, and it is THEIR responsibility to accept the consequences.
Exactly. I've done many wrong doings in my life, but I admitted to them, served out my punishment. Because I knew the consequences of my actions. Breton, you seem to have a thing for (trying to) justify, the unjustifiable. I could understand if they grew up in some backwoods area unknowing of any common morals. But knowing full well the consequences of your actions, you should take responsibility.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
I'm sorry, but it's a neccessary risk. Safety of a human being overruns that of a convicted rapist. I'm glad they're reformed and I hope they can live a moderately normal life. But we should still take measures to ensure the safety of other people.

And most reformed rapists actually support measurements like these because they see it as a helper to keep on the straight path.

Except this isn't eye for an eye. This is taking a small measure in ensuring safety. We're allowing them free, but with one small compromise. Eye for and eye would be raping them.



Exactly. I've done many wrong doings in my life, but I admitted to them, served out my punishment. Because I knew the consequences of my actions. Breton, you seem to have a thing for (trying to) justify, the unjustifiable. I could understand if they grew up in some backwoods area unknowing of any common morals. But knowing full well the consequences of your actions, you should take responsibility.

...you did wrong, served punishment, but they didn't put a GPS tracker on you...

he also didn't RAPE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.


There are different levels of mistakes. Like, if I forget to change the tags on my lisence plates, I'll get a ticket. Obviously the punishment for rape should be more severe than that.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
...you did wrong, served punishment, but they didn't put a GPS tracker on you... I didn't hurt anyone. I was caught with weed. I served my probation time. And yes, I did have to wear a tag. I wore it for the month I was required to wear it for.

Kipperthefrog: People may be influelnced by many things in their lives, but it just gets down to their choice to give in to whatever sick temptation they may have, and totally violate another human being. It's not their parents' fault for neglecting them or not hugging enough. It's not the fault of their boss for being a cheap jerk. It is their own fault.

Breton: Why defend these people? Let's just consider if you were victim to rape or other sexual offense. How would you feel towards the person who did this to you?

As for me, I'd most certainly forgive that person, but there is no way that I would say, 'Hey, I can see that you're sorry, so let's just forget about this, and live our lives.' No Way. That person would pay. I would have my retribution, and, if I had it my way, that person would never ever, get the chance to hurt someone, anyone, ever again.

So I say track their asses. I doubt that it would be some enormous device that would be shown to the world. No, it would just be something to keep sick people from doing sick things.

Life long jail might well provide one function, that of keeping the person off the street.

As far as i'm concerned "taking them out of circulation" is the ONLY advantage of jail.
The problem is that, unless you never release ANYONE who is jailed it also has severe drawbacks once they are released.
So I guess you could insist everyone is jailed for life... but practically there needs to be variations in sentances. If you get life for rape and life for murder... why not just kill your victim so you are harder to catch?
If you get the same sentance for taking dodgy photos as for full on assault then why not just move straight on to the more serious offences? What have you got to loose.
And, unless you are going to run your MASSIVE no-release prisons like something out of a sci-fi novel then you need to have the prospect of release and rewards for good behaviour to allow you to control the prisoners. Otherwise they might as well kill each other, guards, try and escape etc... all the time... after all, what do they have to loose.

In all this emotive "hang em all" language actual practicality and logic goes out the window!

Seriously, anyone who thinks that monitoring the location of ex-pedophiles on a big map to make sure they don't go near schools is gonna have ANY effect on whether they reoffend is deluding themselves.
They don't have to go near a school to see kids, or come into contact with them, or "rekindle their interest".

(a) Stop them disappearing - probably
(b) Catch them and provide evidence if they reoffend - probably
(c) Discourage them from reoffending because of (b) - maybe
(d) Warn when they are about to reoffend - hah...

If you get the same sentance for taking dodgy photos as for full on assault then why not just move straight on to the more serious offences? What have you got to lose.
Am I hearing you imply that you think we want life-time jail for taking a photo of a kid?

You're way off.

And, unless you are going to run your MASSIVE no-release prisons like something out of a sci-fi novel then you need to have the prospect of release and rewards for good behaviour to allow you to control the prisoners. Otherwise they might as well kill each other, guards, try and escape etc... all the time... after all, what do they have to loose.
Privilegues inside the jail, as you said.
I've been locked up myself, although not in a jail (it was a high-security psychiatric hospital unit), and trust me, there are other things than being released to look forward to and be good for. Getting to go outside is one...

As far as i'm concerned "taking them out of circulation" is the ONLY advantage of jail.
Nope. There's education (which is given in jails), security (food, water, shelter, and protection), rehabilitation, work offers (yes, many jailed people have jobs inside the jail), and many other things.

As usual, people comment on the topic without actually making note of the information at the link. Let me quote from the source:

It establishes a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life behind bars for people convicted of certain sex crimes against children 11 and younger, with lifetime tracking by global positioning satellite technology after they are freed.

Until the new law goes into effect Sept. 1, molesting a child under 12 is punishable in most cases by up to 30 years in prison.

It seems that there is an assumption by some in this thread that every person convicted of a sex crime with a minor is going to automatically be given the sentence that includes a monitoring device.

The article didn't go into details about which "certain sex crimes" would receive the 25 to life + GPS. But I would have to assume that someone that fondles a niece and is convicted on circumstantial evidence would be given different consideration than someone who penetrated an eight year old and was convicted based on DNA left behind.

Moreover, I would want to know where this latter individual was in my neighborhood. Not to drive he/she out, but so that I might be familiar with the person enough to keep my daughter from his/her house, etc.

In Texas, you can look up convicted child molestors on the internet based on their mandatory-reported addresses and see where they live. My wife and I found one in our community and the community by-laws prohibit sex-offenders and felons from living here. He was residing with his mother. "Was" is the operative word, since someone ratted on him. That someone was me. If I didn't have a 3-year old daughter, I probably wouldn't have, but being a dad changes your perspective on things like this.

Having GPS tracking device for the most serious child-molesters makes sense. It gives the probation department the ability to verify residence without sending out an officer to see the individual. It allows the P.O. to know in advance where he can find the individual to do spot checks -saving on man-hours billed to the taxpayer. It allows patterns and habits to be established with the offender. And it provides a ready alibi to an offender should a child be molested (or the offender be accused) in his neighborhood.

If I were a truly reformed child molester, I think I'd want one of these... just to give myself an alibi for everyone that wanted to pin something on me later.

I have to agree with Skinwalker now. Before, I beleived "Those people are't animals!" but come to think of it, they're close enough.

I remember once my cousin said a guy stopped by his 6 year old little sister and kept asking her name. Then he exposed himself to her, to put it as delicately as I can.

Why wold you WANT to shag a kid? I admit they do have pretty mixed up ideas, I'll give you that. It kind of makes you wonder how they (molesters) see the world.

Edit: Lets put one on Micheal Jackson too:D

Edit: Let's put one on Micheal Jackson too
That is the most brilliant idea you've ever had, frog:D .

Originally posted by InsaneSith This is taking a small measure in ensuring safety. We're allowing them free, but with one small compromise.
(My emphasis.)[/B]

That is a sentiment that I consider extremely dangerous. In my opinion, GPS tracking should be used only as a substitute for prison. The notion that it is a minor punishment could lead to acceptance of its use in many other situations. What about people who drink and drive? Should they not be GPS tracked? Surely, making sure that they did not move faster than 20 km/h after they visit a pub is a relatively minor penalty and would produce huge effects in the form of increased safety on our roads? Oh, and why not extend it to people who have been convicted of thievery or tax swindling? Or everyone? Surely total surveylance would reduce crime considerably.

:trooper::trooper::trooper::trooper:

"He who is willing to sacrifice his freedom for security is deserving of neither."

- Franklin

EDIT: Putting these things on prisoners, on the other hand... And making them out of reinforced steel so they can't be broken open... Now that would put a sharp stop to escape attempts...

And one might also consider using them instead of imprisonment of people waiting to stand trial when the risk of their tampering with evidence is minimal but the risk of escape is substantial.

My Dad just told me it is a violation of civil rights. I agree with shadow templar that when people get used to this, we will exept more types of people to be GPS tracked. eventually everyone could be GPS tracked.

this can't be good considering government wants more power. don't expect government to do anything good with more power. that is why our founding fathers originally gave the power to the people.

simular to the Bible prophecy "mark of the beast", the government puts a chip in your hand and keeps a record of everything you do for more control, tax you ETC... and if you don't have one you can't buy sell or trade. (if you beleive in that sort of stuff or not, it is simular to the concept of "mark of the beast".

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Putting these things on prisoners, on the other hand... And making them out of reinforced steel so they can't be broken open... Now that would put a sharp stop to escape attempts.

They could have explosives in them and be programed to take your leg off if you try to leave the prison.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
My Dad just told me it is a violation of civil rights.

So are the crimes these people commited. Can't accept the punishment, don't do the crime. They know the consequences.

And I think considering they know the consequences, that's a fair warning. Therefore they're taking away their own rights by doing such things. I could claim the banning of marijuana is violating my civil rights because it's criminalizing my ability to the pursuit of happiness, but I know it's illegal and accept punishment should I be caught doing it.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I agree with shadow templar that when people get used to this, we will exept more types of people to be GPS tracked. eventually everyone could be GPS tracked.

Except not.


We've had these trackings for years, so far it hasn't been put on innocent civilians. Looks to me like it's being limited to, proven, dangerous people.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
The notion that it is a minor punishment could lead to acceptance of its use in many other situations.

Slippery slope argument eh? Well if we look at the fact that alot of people under house arrest have, in the past had to wear anklet devices that monitor their locations, I don't see why we can say that this use of them will lead to use for everyday civilians, just to ensure that they aren't doing things they shouldn't be doing. These people are sex offenders, and like Sith said I belive they forfeited alot of their civil rights when they chose to flagrantly ignore a law that isn't even culturally relative. They have broken a law that humans as a whole do not tolerate.

This can't be good considering government wants more power. don't expect government to do anything good with more power. that is why our founding fathers originally gave the power to the people.
I'd say you should spend more energy on wiping out the "Patriot" Act and less energy on protecting criminals from surveillance.

(...) the government puts a chip in your hand (...)
I've nothing against an implant if it only shows 100% vital things like name, blood type, etc. that could aid rescue workers if they find me unconscious.

Other things, no. An implant that tracks my position? Definite no.

I usually don't buy the slippery slope argument. But there has been a definate trend in the past few years of people being willing to give up more and more "minor" rights in return for percieved security. Sure there is a balance to be struck, but we are already in a state that would have been thought of as unthinkable a decade ago... and it shouws no sign of slowing down.

Its unlikely the government would cone stright out and chip everyone. But they are definately moving in that direction with biometric RFID passports, a recent school that RFID tagged it's pupils (til the parents complained, but the company is still working on it), GPS in phones etc..
However i suspect it will be the commercial sector and people's desire for an easy, convienient life that eventually leads to everyone voluntarilly getting tracked. Phones will offer you far more services if they know your location... etc..
Remember the adverts in minority report that talked to you?
Remember how there were concerns about privacy and gmail (or even just cookies)? But when it came down to it it was a choice between a possible, hard to pin down privacy worry and a tangible cool gadget/service.. and people opted for the later.

The issue with GPS, biometrics, etc... isn't really the ability to track you. Its what they do with the data. People already track lots of stuff you do, and if we could trust them to use the data in a responsible way then it really wouldn't be an issue.

The problem is, when all this tempting data is sitting in a database somewhere it is very hard for corporations or government depts to resist peaking, and then rules get changed so a few people can use the data, then a few more, then a feww more.

ANd soon the data that was collected to monitor your road usage to ensure a fair road tax starts getting accessed by police, fbi, ins, republican party central etc...

Its both humerous and scary to think that the US used to point at communist countries and decry the lack of freedom and privacy that the citizens had, and now the us and uk and others are fast overtaking them.

Originally posted by jon_hill987
They could have explosives in them and be programed to take your leg off if you try to leave the prison.

I call that barbaric overkill. And quite apart from that, you assume that such devices would be ifallible. That no odd currents or freak EMP could trigger the alarm. No, charming(?) as the idea might seem at first glance, it simply isn't a viable option.

So are the crimes these people commited. Can't accept the punishment, don't do the crime. They know the consequences.

And I think considering they know the consequences, that's a fair warning. Therefore they're taking away their own rights by doing such things.

IIRC, the opening line of the human rights charter says something along the lines of:

"These inalienable rights are..."

The keyword here being: Inalienable. That means that you can't give them up, sell them or loose them. I happen to agree with that phrase.

I could claim the banning of marijuana is violating my civil rights because it's criminalizing my ability to the pursuit of happiness, but I know it's illegal and accept punishment should I be caught doing it.

But what we discuss here is not whether or not these things should be illegal. They should be. I'm not even arguing against the notion that motion-trackers could be used to track the type of offenders in question. What I rail against is the notion that it is a light punishment. It is not.

We've had these trackings for years, so far it hasn't been put on innocent civilians. Looks to me like it's being limited to, proven, dangerous people.

People who drink and drive are dangerous as well. As are people who abuse psychoactive drugs. Should they be tracked as well? Of course not. What I'm arguing is not that it should not be used in this particular case, but rather that we should make a decision about what kind of crimes we should punish by surveylance.

Well if we look at the fact that alot of people under house arrest have, in the past had to wear anklet devices that monitor their locations, I don't see why we can say that this use of them will lead to use for everyday civilians, just to ensure that they aren't doing things they shouldn't be doing.

That is in and of itself correct. But again, my point is not adressed: As a substitue for prison and/or manual surveylance, it is fine. But it is imperative that these measures are used only as a substitute for imprisonment, manual surveylance and house arrest. Basically, whenever you lock a tracking unit around someone's ancle, you place a virtual police officer two steps behind him. Every minute of every day of every year. That's imprisonment.

If we can agree on that, then we can start debating whether or not imprisonment (or its equivalent) is appropriate punishment for these kinds of crimes. For the record, I believe that it is.

These people are sex offenders, and like Sith said I belive they forfeited alot of their civil rights when they chose to flagrantly ignore a law that isn't even culturally relative. They have broken a law that humans as a whole do not tolerate.

And yet it is the most sacred foundation of Democracy to protect the rights of everyone. Even the most heinious criminal.

I'd say you should spend more energy on wiping out the "Patriot" Act and less energy on protecting criminals from surveillance.

Zero-sum logic. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Its both humerous and scary to think that the US used to point at communist countries and decry the lack of freedom and privacy that the citizens had, and now the us and uk and others are fast overtaking them.

Now, that's an overstatement. But you made your point.

And on the issue of biometric passports: That's just stupid in so many new and innovative ways. Passport security has always failed mainly because control routines were sloppy. It's virtually impossible to believably forge passports as it is - if, that is, the guy who checks it is remotely competent and bothers to run it through the mandatory control routines.

And at the other end of the line, the issuing authorities are, on many occasions downright lazy when it comes to identity verification. So what's the point of forging a passport, when the local police station can make you a perfectly genuine, false passport?

Basically, whenever you lock a tracking unit around someone's ancle, you place a virtual police officer two steps behind him. Every minute of every day of every year. That's imprisonment.
No. Imprisonment is being confined in a prison, not being allowed to walk around where-ever you want to "with a police officer two steps behind you".

Zero-sum logic. [Ankle-bands and the Patriot Act] are not mutually exclusive.
No, but the "Patriot Act" is far more dangerous and thus deserves your attention much more than this does.

Just because it's okayed for crazies/previous crazies doesn't mean that everyone is gonna have to be tracked. Personally I'm not in favor of a all time tracking thing for everyone. I happen to like a feeling of anonymity. :)

I don't think that tracking everyone is right. It's rather invasive, ane I don't think that that it's going to happen. It seems really far fetched to even think that it would go that far. And if it does indeed go to that extreme, then it'll just further prove to me that the government is screwed. :xp:

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
If we can agree on that, then we can start debating whether or not imprisonment (or its equivalent) is appropriate punishment for these kinds of crimes.

I agree with that, it is a form of imprisonment. My contention is that these people deserve imprisonment, but if reformed deserve imprisonment to a lesser degree, IE GPS tracking.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
I agree with that, it is a form of imprisonment. My contention is that these people deserve imprisonment, but if reformed deserve imprisonment to a lesser degree, IE GPS tracking.

I aggree. Say someone does something absolutely horrible and totally violating to another person, serve their time, and turn from their ways. Good for them, but turning away from their wicked past doesn't change the fact that it happened. So I say keep track of them; don't ever let them regress, or think that maybe they could do it just once more.

I think that it's far more cruel to the rest of (or a good number of) humanity, to let these previous criminals go without some way of keeping track of them, and keeping them from doing something awful. What's even worse is when a sexual crime/s has been commited and reported, yet it goes ignored. That is despicable.