|
guido911
|
 |
« on: May 17, 2010, 08:48:24 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2010, 08:50:29 am » |
|
I sure woud hate for them to apply that to enemy combatants. They have rights under our Constitution you know. /bedwetting |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
guido911
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2010, 09:01:23 am » |
|
I sure woud hate for them to apply that to enemy combatants. They have rights under our Constitution you know.
/bedwetting
That is a spot on good point. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
patric
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2010, 11:00:40 am » |
|
Seems rather extreme for peeing on a bush, considering the bulk of "sex offenders" in Oklahoma are Public Indecency (i.e. public urination) charges.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 12:15:44 pm by patric »
|
Logged
|
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights." -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
|
|
|
|
Cats Cats Cats
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2010, 12:04:50 pm » |
|
Actually, they said that the government could deem them a threat and hold indefinitely. That would mean constitutionally they have the right to do that for anybody that the state deems a threat. I believe they might have to pass another law in order to hold people that get arrested for drunk driving. But the supreme court already said it was ok.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gaspar
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2010, 12:19:19 pm » |
|
Not Constitutional unless said offender shows intent to commit another crime.
You can't keep a DUI in jail beyond his sentence because you think he's going to get behind the wheel of a car drunk again, even though he probably will.
If the sentence fails to rehabilitate or safeguard the public, than it's the sentencing that must be changed. You can't give the state the power to imprison absent of evidence of a crime, or proof of intent.
If a repeat sex offender gets 10 years. . .Well there's your problem
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.
|
|
|
|
sauerkraut
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2010, 09:23:34 am » |
|
Why not other crimes - such as murder and armed robbery? They are very dangerous too. Why not hold on to them also? In fact why even sentence them, just find them "guilty" and jail 'em till whenever-  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Proud Global Warming Deiner! Earth Is Getting Colder NOT Warmer!
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2010, 10:19:30 am » |
|
Why not other crimes - such as murder and armed robbery? They are very dangerous too. Why not hold on to them also? In fact why even sentence them, just find them "guilty" and jail 'em till whenever- You make a strong case for a "poll tax" on public computers |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2010, 11:00:25 am » |
|
If the sentence fails to rehabilitate or safeguard the public, than it's the sentencing that must be changed. You can't give the state the power to imprison absent of evidence of a crime, or proof of intent.
If a repeat sex offender gets 10 years. . .Well there's your problem
Wow, I sure have been agreeing with Gaspar a lot lately. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
Cats Cats Cats
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2010, 11:11:49 am » |
|
Not Constitutional unless said offender shows intent to commit another crime.
You can't keep a DUI in jail beyond his sentence because you think he's going to get behind the wheel of a car drunk again, even though he probably will.
If the sentence fails to rehabilitate or safeguard the public, than it's the sentencing that must be changed. You can't give the state the power to imprison absent of evidence of a crime, or proof of intent.
If a repeat sex offender gets 10 years. . .Well there's your problem
Why can't you keep anybody who is in jail? This specifically says that if an official deems you to be a threat the have the constitutional right to hold you. All they need is a law to make it so. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 11:14:19 am by Trogdor »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cats Cats Cats
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2010, 11:13:40 am » |
|
Why not other crimes - such as murder and armed robbery? They are very dangerous too. Why not hold on to them also? In fact why even sentence them, just find them "guilty" and jail 'em till whenever- This is basically what the law says. Just jail people until a government official says they are rehabilitated. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2010, 11:40:24 am » |
|
This is basically what the law says. Just jail people until a government official says they are rehabilitated.
Let's be accurate with our outrage. Per the usual civil commitment procedures, a review board must hear the person's case every six months and specifically determine that they are still a continued danger to themselves others. The detainee is entitled to have an attorney or mental health advocate speak on their behalf. It's still crappy, but it's not done just on the warden's say-so. I hate the inconsistency more than anything. If someone is mentally ill, we shouldn't put them in prison. We should put them somewhere where they can get treatment. If they're not mentally ill, they shouldn't be declared to be just so we can keep 'em locked up. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
patric
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2011, 06:36:55 pm » |
|
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Hundreds of sex offenders could be coming off the statewide registry because of changes to sex offender laws.
http://www.newson6.com/story/15930844/new-oklahoma-law-softens-penalties-for-public-urination
Before November 1, people caught urinating in public had to register as sex offenders, but a new law is softening the penalty.Meanwhile, the same TPD spokesperson who claimed the Pedobear cartoon is how pedophiles club together is also saying no public peers were registered.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights." -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
|
|
|
|
carltonplace
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2011, 07:48:39 am » |
|
Why not other crimes - such as murder and armed robbery? They are very dangerous too. Why not hold on to them also? In fact why even sentence them, just find them "guilty" and jail 'em till whenever- If the government ever has a reason to consider you dangerous you should advocate throwing away the key (kraut of monte cristo style) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
