It depends on the crime, and whether or not it is absolute;y proven that the arrest, conviction was in whole correct.
Fror thgose of you who vote no with such statements as "they should be on there forever," etc: What about those who are wrongfully convicted, or put on there for trivial things? Where I am, you can get placed on the list merely for pissing in a bush in public, for an 18 year old screwing his 17 year old girlfriend - which while not //necessarily// correct to some, doesn't justify ruining their lives.... what about those who were wrongfully convicted? How about people who were in situations similar to the Duke LaCrosse situation, but weren't lucky enough to prove that their alleged victim lied about the whole ordeal?
. Those people should NOT be on the list in the first place, and yet if the nos had their way, they'd be there with no appeal. And contrary to hyperbolic ideologies, giving these people the ability to get off the list and letting violent rapists and molesters free are not, nor ever are, the same - you can do one without the other, that is, let the people who feel wrongly convicted, and those who did things that didn't even qualify in the same vain get off while those who did the things you'd expect to get on such a list for stay on.
And short of v...
Fror thgose of you who vote no with such statements as "they should be on there forever," etc: What about those who are wrongfully convicted, or put on there for trivial things? Where I am, you can get placed on the list merely for pissing in a bush in public, for an 18 year old screwing his 17 year old girlfriend - which while not //necessarily// correct to some, doesn't justify ruining their lives.... what about those who were wrongfully convicted? How about people who were in situations similar to the Duke LaCrosse situation, but weren't lucky enough to prove that their alleged victim lied about the whole ordeal?
. Those people should NOT be on the list in the first place, and yet if the nos had their way, they'd be there with no appeal. And contrary to hyperbolic ideologies, giving these people the ability to get off the list and letting violent rapists and molesters free are not, nor ever are, the same - you can do one without the other, that is, let the people who feel wrongly convicted, and those who did things that didn't even qualify in the same vain get off while those who did the things you'd expect to get on such a list for stay on.
And short of v...
It depends on the crime, and whether or not it is absolute;y proven that the arrest, conviction was in whole correct.
Fror thgose of you who vote no with such statements as "they should be on there forever," etc: What about those who are wrongfully convicted, or put on there for trivial things? Where I am, you can get placed on the list merely for pissing in a bush in public, for an 18 year old screwing his 17 year old girlfriend - which while not //necessarily// correct to some, doesn't justify ruining their lives.... what about those who were wrongfully convicted? How about people who were in situations similar to the Duke LaCrosse situation, but weren't lucky enough to prove that their alleged victim lied about the whole ordeal?
. Those people should NOT be on the list in the first place, and yet if the nos had their way, they'd be there with no appeal. And contrary to hyperbolic ideologies, giving these people the ability to get off the list and letting violent rapists and molesters free are not, nor ever are, the same - you can do one without the other, that is, let the people who feel wrongly convicted, and those who did things that didn't even qualify in the same vain get off while those who did the things you'd expect to get on such a list for stay on.
And short of violent criminals who probably wouldn't even be getting out of jail easily if at all, why do we continue to have such a list? I thought once people served their time, then that was it. I mean, its one thing to have a list of people to potentially look out for, but this list has become nothing short of a witchhunt for not only the guilty in jail, but those who already served their time, and those who don't even belong on such a list in the first place. Basically, a good idea that needs to be scaled back, and given more oversight to work as it should.
(more)Fror thgose of you who vote no with such statements as "they should be on there forever," etc: What about those who are wrongfully convicted, or put on there for trivial things? Where I am, you can get placed on the list merely for pissing in a bush in public, for an 18 year old screwing his 17 year old girlfriend - which while not //necessarily// correct to some, doesn't justify ruining their lives.... what about those who were wrongfully convicted? How about people who were in situations similar to the Duke LaCrosse situation, but weren't lucky enough to prove that their alleged victim lied about the whole ordeal?
. Those people should NOT be on the list in the first place, and yet if the nos had their way, they'd be there with no appeal. And contrary to hyperbolic ideologies, giving these people the ability to get off the list and letting violent rapists and molesters free are not, nor ever are, the same - you can do one without the other, that is, let the people who feel wrongly convicted, and those who did things that didn't even qualify in the same vain get off while those who did the things you'd expect to get on such a list for stay on.
And short of violent criminals who probably wouldn't even be getting out of jail easily if at all, why do we continue to have such a list? I thought once people served their time, then that was it. I mean, its one thing to have a list of people to potentially look out for, but this list has become nothing short of a witchhunt for not only the guilty in jail, but those who already served their time, and those who don't even belong on such a list in the first place. Basically, a good idea that needs to be scaled back, and given more oversight to work as it should.
Who is to say that once you have yourself clean you wouldn't do it all over again?
There is a reason why an alcoholic cannot get a liver transplant in Canada even as he's dying from alcohol poisoning; nobody believes him when he says he'll change his ways.
OTOH, if you're on the registry for pissing in a bush, or something trivial, which happens frequently.... ?
Neither of these individuals are predators, but are listed. Let's reserve the list for those who are predators of women and children, anyone that victimizes another. Those are who we need to be concerned with. Not the others.
end of story... yeah, if one is a pompous ass that ignores little hitches like this, and believes that only the guilty get in trouble. Logic dictates otherwise.
Though to think of it, it doesn't specify the people who are allowed to appeal in the blurb below, so for all I know that's all this law allows for. In which case, yes, I support it.
Sex offenders lose their rights when they elect to violate another's humanity.
What about the victims rights? More double-think and inverting right and wrong. This is the face of a CONservative led coalition.
It's not a black and white queston to me. Some people make minor mistakes that should not impact them 20 years later. Others make seriously wrong decisions that should impact them for the rest of their lives. A scarlet letter.
Besides, having the right to appeal does not mean you will win the appeal.