Georgia trying to banish sex offenders?

[JTFrog]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15843304/

I can understand wanting to keep tabs on sex offenders. And personally, I have zero sympathy for those that have committed sex crimes (with the execption of ridiculous accusations such as a mother being an accomplice to rape because she couldn't stop her 15 year old daughter from having sex...).

What I don't understand, is the attitude of the advocates of this law. They aren't doing anything to protect "children" in general...

"My intent personally is to make it so onerous on those that are convicted of these offenses . . . they will want to move to another state," Georgia House Majority Leader Jerry Keen (R), who sponsored the bill, told reporters.

So, just toss them into some other kids backyard and the problem will disappear? WTF? Is it me or is something wrong with that attitude? The way I see it, unless all states have similar laws, they are just passing the buck here.

[gollygee]

1. There are a few problems here

First, as much as I'd love to never have a sex offender live in my part of Michigan, they have to live SOMEWHERE. They can't all be executed so no one has to live near them. Where do they go?

Second, the definition of "sex offender" is a bit off. I looked at the local list and the ones with green marks, which means there were no children involved, seem very vague. Criminial sexual conduct 4th degree? What does that mean? I have no way of identifying if those people are really problems or not. And one of the few who actually had what he did listed was "exposing self in public." Even there I need more info - was he drunk and urinating in public? If so, he isn't much of a threat to my child, which is my concern.

So, not only do sex offenders have to have SOMEPLACE to live, some of the people listed as sex offenders are probably not likely to be attacking children.

They need to limit these lists to actual pedophiles. Then the lists might be useful.

[Theres-a]

7. When I was 17

My boyfriend and I got arrested while fooling around in a car.It was nighttime, we were way in the back of a parking lot to an empty building.According to today's laws,I'd probably be labeled sex offender and people would be afraid of me.It really is too vague.

[LoZoccolo]

2. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuhOj2dQTrk

[aikoaiko]

3. Its the bus stops that make the new law onerous.

Banning convicted molesters from schools and other places where children congregate is common, but specifically listing busstops can really cover a lot of ground.

As a Georgian, my bottom line is that I'm willing to try this and see what happens. If its counterproductive then it should go.

These types of laws are interesting from a judicial standpoint - from what I've read. They are not a part of the sentencing per se but they are like a sentence. Some people call this unfair. We've been doing it for a while with voting and legally owning guns. I think that such consequences should be a part of the sentencing and be applied to some crimes, but not others.

edited to add: as another poster mentioned, sex offenders includes much more than child molestors and not a lot of info is given to residents when they look up people on the list. It might be better to apply this new law only to sex crimes involving children.

[AllegroRondo]

4. making it difficult to find housing means they go homeless

which makes it much more difficult to know where they are, or if they are near children.

[Toots]

13. You know what they say about that patch don't you

"The road that was never crossed and the horse that was never ridden, the color's the reason why" lol I was in B 2/12 cav. 1st Air Cav but that was almost forty years ago...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. They Can Live Anywhere As Long As They Are Not Living By Me

But I distinguish between the hapless schmuck who was caught pissing behind his car door in a night club parking lot and a person who actually molested a little kid...

They could banish those people for all I care...

[wuushew]

8. Not a logical opinion

dislike of sex offenders is universal. Dislike in town (A) carries no more weight than dislike in town (B).

Where sex offenders choose to settle most likely is dependant on other factors like housing costs or employment opportunities. Why interfere with the movement of labor in a free market? Is social utility maximized?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. It Was My Opinion.

I would do everything legally possible to dissuade a child molester from living next door to me...

[wuushew]

12. As would everyone else

it is nearly a universal sentiment. Maybe child molesters can move to Arizona where cities exist that are complete devoid of children? I don't know what the correct answer is.

[aikoaiko]

6. Does a city like ATL have busstops.

Some cities have busstops and others have kids use the existing mass transportation systems. Aside from the schools and playgrounds, would a large city like ATL be a likely place for them to settle?

[JTFrog]

10. I don't want them living by me either...

that's part of my problem.

That's why this statement just blew me away:

"My intent personally is to make it so onerous on those that are convicted of these offenses . . . they will want to move to another state,"

So make them homeless and hope to force them out of the state? I don't want them coming to my state. Are they going to track these people down and tell their new neighbors about their crimes? And it seems to me that if you make them homeless it would actually make things worse for the people of Georgia by increasing the homeless population while losing track of the offenders.

I'm all for tougher laws if they can actually protect people from these criminals. But they need to redefine their list of who is considered an offender. And they really need to reconsider their attitude of just wanting to dump their garbage in their own back alleys as well as some other state's backyard.

[meow2u3]

11. Repukes would have to ship out of GA en masse

Since the GOPervs are full of (closet?) child predators, the very guys who are making these laws will be Foley'd (in trouble with the very laws they made).

[jarab]

14. If they don't want to send 'em out-of state,

it's quite obvious - not only from the Georgia intent - that they surely want "these people" out of the urban areas and in the rural areas.
It's simply a fact that when the distance restrictions apply to schools, bus stops, playgrounds, etc, the result is that people who choose to live in rural areas must now contend with their "new" neighbors.
"Send 'em all to the boonies!" is the final verdict.
That's not really fair (what is?) to those who might presently reside on the country homestead which has been in the family for generations.
Those are the only places which are "over a thousand yards" from anything kid-related.
Look out, Habersham County, here they come!

...O...

[RB TexLa]

15. And what are they going to do if "illegal humans" want to buy the houses

or rent the apartments vacated by them? Oh the horrors.

[AngryAmish]

16. Banishment is legal in most states

I forget where I read this, but only 6 states have specific anti-banishment constitutional language in their state constitutions. Would it be "cruel and unusual" punishment? Well, expatriation is now illegal but (I think) it is taking away a property interest (in citizenship). Banishment was well understood to be a remedy back when the Constitution was made.

Maybe all states should get together and sent all violent felons to Michigan. The state sucks anyway and it could be like Escape from New York.

[Solo_in_MD]

17. Ahhh, the Leper Colony approach

Then again, I liked the premise of Escape from New York. IMO decaying urban areas are already a kind of prision.