Absolute proof that lawmakers enact laws based on myths which serves only a political purpose. As the ACLU points out, the politicians resolution is nonsense, that is not how crimes are committed. That is the problem with lawmakers, year after year, session after session, they are stuck in cliche's and myths and they never solve the issue.
What shoould lawmakers use as their basis for deciding how to protect a place best?
Consider:
To say that no crimes are committed at places where kids congregate would be untruthful because crimes are committed at those places. With that said, we also cannot say, that, legislation can only be enacted if the crimes committed at a place reach a certain % or greater.
So the impasse, what should lawmakers use as a basis to decide whether or not to enact a law governing a place. i.e, a place where kids gather.
A reasonable man would study the PAST crimes committed at the place in question, then see what is logical to enact to prevent those crimes in the future. Unfortunately, such a system as a basis, although logical and likely to prevent the most crimes occurring at a specific type of place where kids gather, would not prevent all crimes occurring at that specific type of place.
However, over time it would make that place safer and safer, but never reach 100% safe because of the inventiveness of man.
eAdvocate
6-24-2009 Rhode Island:
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A bill that would make it a felony in Rhode Island for a convicted child molester to knowingly enter a playground, day-care center or school is either a needed protection for children or a constitutional quagmire that misses the real problem.
That's how the debate played out before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Nicholas A. Mattiello, D-Cranston, enlisted recent controversy over Cranston's Harrington Hall homeless shelter on Howard Street, where sex offenders were staying, roughly a quarter-mile from the Brayton Park playground and a half-mile from a school.
"There is no reason compelling enough to allow these types of individuals" to have potential to be around children in the three kinds of locations, Mattiello testified for the bill, which would apply to those convicted of first-degree or second-degree child molestation. First- and second-degree molesters are required to register as sex offenders.
Some committee members posed scenarios that might raise constitutional questions. Suppose someone with a second-degree molestation conviction in the distant past plays on an adult softball team in an area where there is a playground? Rep. J. Patrick O'Neill, D-Pawtucket, asked.
Mattiello said the person should not be allowed there and therefore could not play on that field.
"You know what, these people have been found guilty," added another panel member, Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, D-Cranston, so that may mean they "can no longer play baseball." He went on to say that it's time to "stop worrying about the rights of sex offenders" and to err on the side of caution for children.
.Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the ACLU, testified against the bill, saying it will not protect children because it "focuses on the wrong problem." Statistics shows it is most often a family member, not a stranger on the street, who molests a child, Brown asserted. He said the proposal also raises a host of constitutional questions.
Committee member Rep. Roberto DaSilva, D-East Providence, said that the bill could run into problems on the House floor without some language tweaking. There could be instances where a person "may have turned his life around," said DaSilva, a police officer who said he supports the bill.
Mattiello said he believes that sex offenders who turn their lives around are in "the overwhelming minority." He added that he would be open to language making an exception for when a school is used as a polling place.
Reps. Rodney Driver, D-Richmond, and Edith H. Ajello, D-Providence, foresaw situations where someone who has turned things around could be banned from attending any school events involving his or her child.
A father "couldn't go to the graduation of his son?" Ajello asked.
"Could not," said Mattiello.
The bill is now slated for the committee's vote on Thursday. It is one of several proposals this session dealing with sex offenders -- bills getting attention amid media reports about Harrington Hall. The state has hired a different agency to run the shelter, dropping a practice in which convicted sex offenders had places set aside for them to sleep there, the Journal has reported. Sex offenders will not be turned away if they arrive seeking a place to stay, but the shelter will not reserve space. ..Source.. by Mike McKinney
No comments:
Post a Comment