If it saves one child

  • This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 1 day ago by AvatarLacona.
Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #61514 Reply
      Sandy Rozek
      Sandy Rozek
      Admin

      Originally published at corrections.com July 2, 2012  By “Shelly Stow” . . . It would be difficult today to find a person who had no idea what the sex
      [See the full post at: If it saves one child]

    • #61517 Reply
      Avatar
      obvious answers

      safe rule of thumb. Qualifications to be a horrible law:
      1) Passed in shady rooms with no oversight. Blank check laws that can be filled in with anything later.
      2) Named after a victim, family member or a tragedy. Adam Walsh, Meagan,Patriot, ect….
      3) Requires Hitleresque catch phrases, propaganda, and straw man arguments to garner support: If it will save only one child, Think of the children, ect….

      I am against more laws as we have too many now already that confound their ability to serve any intended purpose already BUT if we must have a new law it should be that any law that fits or has ever fit into one or all of the above three categories needs to be removed from the books. Always has been and always will be the tools of tyrants and dictators..

      • #61522 Reply
        Sandy Rozek
        Sandy Rozek
        Admin

        I maintain that as far as those who are suspected, arrested, or convicted of a sexual offense — and this actually applies to everything else — that if one law were in place, our work would be done. That one law would read that before any laws were passed, the person(s) proposing them would be required to include evidence-based support showing the law addressed a real problem that needed solving and that the law would address and solve the problem.

        • #61580 Reply
          Avatar
          Lacona

          Good point, Sandy! That would be such an excellent law! If only …

    • #61520 Reply
      Avatar
      Mike

      Explain to me how the US government did there study on recidivism rate in 1991 and results were 9% and every study our government has done since rate are below 5% and they had the results in 1994 and enacted the registry anyways? If i was a suspicious guy i would think there’s another motive. The studies are on Doj & Smart.gov website or ask me i have them, also every state in our country has done studies and they all show results below 5% because they said high recidivism (80%) is why we need to have a registry plus they said ” joe public” will know who the dangerous offenders are, what? Do you know that the most violent SO’s are on the registry but the public can’t see there profile only law enforcement can, what? Every reason “they” said they need the registry. They spead it pretty thick when “they” have a objective. The government has some of there studies (5%) on there website and pushed the laws through and havn’t taken them down, What…..?

Viewing 2 reply threads
Reply To: If it saves one child
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

  • *DO NOT POST LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">