ACLU to Defend Two Level 3 Sex Offenders

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Each state's definition varies a bit but yes Level 3 are repeat offenders. Likely to re-offend and they are seen as the biggest threat to a community.
 
The organization is consistent on the side of civil liberty. The ACLU once defended Jerry Falwell in a property dispute and won, so don't start thinking they only defend hippies and perverts.

Melon
 
The Disciple said:
This organization disgusts me.... 4 reasons 2 numerous 2 list..

Please spell with complete words rather than using numbers as abbreviations. At first I was confused, wondering where your four reasons were.
 
The law is pretty ridiculous anyway. Do you honestly think living 1001 feet away from a school is going to free the school of sex offenders? Distance doesn't reform.

Oh but I'd hate to sound like I'm defending sex offenders.:rolleyes:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
The law is pretty ridiculous anyway. Do you honestly think living 1001 feet away from a school is going to free the school of sex offenders? Distance doesn't reform.

...I never thought of that. Good point.

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Oh but I'd hate to sound like I'm defending sex offenders.:rolleyes:

No, you're not-that makes sense.

Which is why I'd say that instead of having to create a law to bar sex offenders from living in an area, if you know full well the people are likely to do this again, why not just leave them in jail? :shrug:.

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Which is why I'd say that instead of having to create a law to bar sex offenders from living in an area, if you know full well the people are likely to do this again, why not just leave them in jail? :shrug:.

Angela

Well not you are getting into something for entirely different thread.:wink:

I'm just trying to make the point that the ACLU looks just at the CIVIL liberties of the case and not the client. But conservatives love to jump on the hate bandwagon because they look at the client and it usually isn't them so it's ok to hate.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well not you are getting into something for entirely different thread.:wink:

LOL, hmm, true...

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I'm just trying to make the point that the ACLU looks just at the CIVIL liberties of the case and not the client.

I see. Got it :).

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
But conservatives love to jump on the hate bandwagon because they look at the client and it usually isn't them so it's ok to hate.

Eh...some conservatives, anyway. Some liberals tend to be guilty of this, too. I know you know that, just saying, though...

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Eh...some conservatives, anyway. Some liberals tend to be guilty of this, too. I know you know that, just saying, though...

Angela

Yes, sometimes I write too quickly and don't proofread.
 
I remember a huge controversy that the ACLU was involved in. They defended the right of the Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois, which is (or was) a predominately Jewish neighborhood. They lost quite a few members over this. Melon is rigiht, they don't just don't defend hippies and perverts.
 
There was a piece about the ACLU on 60 minutes or maybe 20/20 which was a real eye-opener about the Assn. It's amazing how much money they get from federal and state governments in the for "defending" a client.
 
yes, it's terrible to think that the worst among us are still entitled to the same rights and protections of the legal system as the best among us.

let's shoot them instead. that's what Jesus would do.
 
sex offenders are something that's easy to talk about in the abstract, when it affects someone personally it gets a bit muddled I'd say

yes we are all entitled to legal protection (and I agree w/ that) but that's small comfort to a victim or a victim's family member
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
sex offenders are something that's easy to talk about in the abstract, when it affects someone personally it gets a bit muddled I'd say

yes we are all entitled to legal protection (and I agree w/ that) but that's small comfort to a victim or a victim's family member

Agreed, although that's putting it mildly. With that, I shall bow out and leave this to the more abstract among us, having said more than enough in few words.
 
but it's fairly simple. no matter how henious your crime, you are still entitled to the same legal right to a defense as anyone else. it's the preservation of the rights of the lowest of the low that ensures that the rights of all are protected.

i'm speechless that anyone could possibly take the ACLU and think that their defense of a sex offender is an endorsement of sexual offenses. that's simply stupid. is a lawyer who defends an axe murderer endosing the act of axe murdering? no! they're doing their job.

sheesh.
 
Irvine511 said:
yes, it's terrible to think that the worst among us are still entitled to the same rights and protections of the legal system as the best among us.

let's shoot them instead. that's what Jesus would do.

:ohmy: Clever.

Did I read that right, though??
See I have this huge plank in my eye that seems to blur much as it keeps me busy as I try to remove it.
 
it's like free speech.

because Larry Flint can publish whatever he wants, because the KKK can say whatever they want, i am free to say whatever i want. (beyond the obvious "fire in a crowded theater" distinctions).

it's also like the separation of church and state. it is precisely this separation and the existence of a secular government that allows everyone to practice their religion as boldly and as robustly as they see fit. if the state were to endorse a particular religion -- and, yes, even religion itself -- *that's* when you'd start to see the rolling back of all the religious freedoms you now enjoy.
 
Sexual offenders generate the highest levels of NIMBY you can imagine. Politicians trying to translate this to broad-based laws end up with less than ideal solutions.

There are multiple principles addressed by the ACLU in this case (multiple punishments for crime, zoning, preemption), but the label "sex offender" makes the sexiest headline.
 
nbcrusader said:
There are multiple principles addressed by the ACLU in this case (multiple punishments for crime, zoning, preemption), but the label "sex offender" makes the sexiest headline.



absolutely. and it inspires maximum outrage.
 
I always had a problem defending the ACLU. While most of the time they defended civili rights in cases I agreed, there were always a few that made me dislike the organization. Defense of the KKK and some other despicable types. Limbaugh included :wink:

Then the Patriot Act came along as did a more mature and tolerant view of the world. I also began to see much more gray than black and white, in many situations. So I'm now a card carrying member.

While, I dislike this particular issue, and I work with domestic and sexual crime victims, I still support their work.
 
Irvine511 said:
yes, it's terrible to think that the worst among us are still entitled to the same rights and protections of the legal system as the best among us.

let's shoot them instead. that's what Jesus would do.

If one of these scumbags did something to your child i bet you'd feel differently. Or is it just about "rights" and nothing else to you? What about the rights of children to feel safe in their own neighborhood from sick f@#ks like this? Or should we just wait until they do it again?As a christian, I find your comments about Jesus way off base. Sounds like you're stereotyping christians to be vigileantes. I thought liberal idealogy was AGAINST stereotyping? Oh wait, its okay to stereotype anyone who has an opposing point of view. :|
 
They are going to live somewhere. There was a big lawsuit in a town in Ohio, that made so many stipulations that there was nowhere in town they could live.

Rehabiltaion?
 
Back
Top Bottom