Can't they just live IN the schools?
This probably won't come as much of a surprise, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project are going to court to oppose Allegheny County's rules on where registered sex offenders are allowed to live. The county ordinance, approved last fall, would prohibit these rapists and other low-lifes from living within 2,500 feet of schools, licensed child-care facilities, community centers and parks. The ACLU claims the ordinance is an after-the-fact punishment and that the offenders would have nearly no place to live in the county. To their first point, I would reply, "Who cares?" To the second, I would say, "BS." I guarantee that there are plenty of places to live in Allegheny County that are NOT within a half-mile of schools, parks, etc. Granted, my part of Washington County is more sparsely populated than most of Allegheny County, but I'd have to travel miles to get to any of those places mentioned in the ordinance. And I'm a lot more concerned with the safety of our kids than whether Paulie the Pedophile can find a nice, two-bedroom apartment. Here's an idea for you pedophile rapists: Don't sexually abuse kids in the first place. Then you can live anywhere you want.
Labels: Crime
posted by Brant at
12:23 PM
5 Comments:
This kind of thing is exactly why I hate the ACLU. It's also why that organization looks like a bunch of asses. I've stated it adamantly many times on this blog...when you break the law, you cross the line that separates civilized society which enjoys civil liberties and animals.
In my opinion, there is no penalty reprehensible or cruel enough to punish garbage like child molesters. Give them the death penalty and we won't have to worry about where they live ever again. Problem solved.
I too don't like the ACLU very much. But, the issue at hand of where these folks live, or where they aren't supposed to live, is puzzling. What is special about 2,500 feet? Has anybody done any research to know if proximity to schools and playgrounds causes these folks to to commit crimes against children? It seems to be that the horrible deeds of these people have nothing to do with where they live. Often, the object of their crime is living next door, is a relative, or has some other relationship. I just cannot believe that being a certain distance away from an area highly populated with young children is going to deter anybody with such dastardly intentions.
Please don't take my comments as condoning these despicable acts in any way. My point is that such controls on living location probably has nothing to do with an offender repeating the crimes. Can anybody point to reports or research that proves this one way or another? Or, are the laws in place so that the lawmakers can point to having "done something" about this problem?
Whenever I discuss child molesters, particularly when it comes to anyone thinking they can be rehabilitated, I use this analogy:
Personally, I find Asian women extremely attractive; in fact, I find women of color (any color) much more appealing than I do white women. I'm also a butt man and prefer a woman with a small chest and a high IQ. So if you were to lock me away and tell me I can't get out until I get aroused by a stupid, busty, white, blonde woman with no ass, I'm afraid I'm going to have a long wait. Or I'll lie to get out.
The point is that you can't rehabilitate away what sexually arouses you...certainly not in the confines of prison. In this case, I'm not so sure that the distance is supposed to be the actual deterrent. I think it's more about keeping the molester away from potential victims, and a half mile is a pretty good distance away. The 2500 foot distance is likely designed to prove that "something's being done" in order to appease the neighbors. I'm certainly going to have less to look at if a bus loaded with Asian women is a half mile away than if I were sitting next to it at a red light.
So again, give a convicted child molester the death penalty. No more legal wrangling over where he or she can live and certainly no more molesting. Again, problem solved.
Roger, I think you make a valid point about the arbitrary nature of 2,500 feet. And I think you're correct in that it's a way for the politicos to be able to run re-election ads saying, "Joe Schmo worked hard to protect your children from sexual predators."
And Jane Schmoe voted AGAINST the bill... she wants to move perverts into houses next to schools... would you trust Jane Schmoe with YOUR children?
Jane Schmoe, a pedophile's best friend...
I'm Joe Schmoe, and I approve this message.
-ellipses
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home