Reply #19: I agree with the decision....

[DeSwiss]

...because we can't just kick-out our problems for someone else to deal with. Which is what often happens. Many known sex offenders can't be found because they've left their jurisdictions. Which is what happens sometimes when they can't find a place to live that complies with the terms of their releases. So when that happens, where do they go? Who are they violating then? In some other towns in rural areas where depopulation has been going on for years, the sex offenders are beginning to out number the existing residents. Should country folk now have to pay, and risk the safety of their children for what is primarily a big city problem? This is nothing more than a modern form of shunning. Why is it that we can develop such grand technologies and come to understand the inner workings of the basic elements of nature, but behaviorally we continue to reach back into the Dark Ages for solutions to our problems? Solutions that we already know don't work?

I agree that sex offenders of children should not be around kids. And it doesn't help that many who are, (e.g. - the clergy) get away with it for years without anyone's knowledge except the victims. And their stories hardly ever get told in time to do anything while its going on. If it is true that most sex offenders of children were abused themselves, then we are only continuing the cycle when we try to push it away rather than deal with it head-on. If the states want to keep predators off the streets, then they need to increase the amount of time they must serve as their punishment. Otherwise a person could be "restricted" as to where they can live in perpetuity. Which means there is no such thing as ever being able to serve one's sentence and get on with their lives.

Murderers are often released from prison and yet no one is demanding that they be kept away from children. Indeed sex offenders of all types should be kept away from those who could become their victims. The question is, who is that? We've relied upon our technology and scientific acumen to address so many problems, and the only one that we know that works in these cases, is castration. Is that where we are now? Chemical castration only works when the drugs are taken and the side-effects discourage many for doing so regularly. So until medical science can pinpoint its causes and a means for effectively addressing them, then keeping sex offenders in prison longer seems the only solution.

What this is really saying is that when the state releases a sex offender, they believe that they will offend again. Its not an open admission, but true nonetheless. But bank robbers are released from prison all the time. And they rob banks again too. But at no time are they not permitted to live within 1000 yards of a bank. Physical abusers, particularly men who beat up women are also released among us again. Where do they go? Are they to be restricted 1000 yards from all women? At the base of this is the fact that America is still suffering from its Puritanical roots. And that has translated into bizarre legal consequences, such as a teenager being given an harsh sentence for a BJ -- which has already happened in the great state of Georgia. Maybe if we stopped demonizing the Satanic gateway drug of marijuana, we might have some room in prisons to keep these bastards locked up. But no, we won't do that. Because that would make to much damned sense....

IMHO