Reply To: Supreme Court justices do botch the truth, even in cases of great importance


Tim L

I too believe SCOTUS opinions are sometimes based on common sense rather than facts. In this case in the beginning there was little proof of the “dispositive intent” behind SORNA.

Kids DO get murdered by deviants AND their parent sometimes too. It happens! What parent or society can look itself in the mirror knowing they had done little to protect their family. Surely a nation who failed in this important endeavour could not survive? NOT ONE!

So our Federal government undertook the endeavour utilizing the power of the electronic database to set forth protecting our vulnerable. Keep in mind it was a top down approach. Fed law first then states followed via law under the threat of loss of Byrne grants. IF AN IDEA SO GOOD WHY THE NEED FOR COERCION?

From what I see NARSOL does not dispute the idea of protecting the vulnerable, it merely demands A RATIONAL APPCH. Preferably a social policy that works! So while electronic notification massages the peoples desire for the right to “know.” Such notification IS justifiable given that the information is accurate. IN THIS LIES THE RUB for me at least.

SORNA says something but little of importance. SORNA made online notice of conviction and not actual behavior. In other words, it tells what the STATE
DID and NOT what wrongful behavior actually committed – or exactly what behavior was done. Instead it leaves too much unsaid, leaving the facts to the imaginations of the public. Personally knowing what an know, I would prefer the trial transcript be open to the public via the database. In my eyes such an approach, would alleviate the unjustified stereotypical obfuscation used to impose affirmative disability and constraint. It would also prevent the cops
local, county and fed from coming to my door demanding unreasonable search when a kid comes up missing near me. IT CANNOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO INVESTIGATE those not involved. This is the same as saying the collection of METADATA wholesale is unconstitutional, because it presumes too much.