Advertisement

Rudy101

Follow

Comment history

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

No, the registry must have a point to it. That means there must be an articulable reason why a certain person must have their information actively disseminated to the community.

Why?

Because the effects of putting out such information in unlimited ways, which includes violence directed toward the offender.

Your suggestion to move because an environment is intolerable is illegal. That is the definition of exile.

I will not bring up any issues to a political organization who inherently has no business deciding what is justice in a specific case.

A legislature does not inherently decide issues on individuals. That is a job for a COURT to do.

Your argument that because there are disclaimers hardly ameliorates the actual violence and threats of violence directed toward a registrant and the apathy that the police and society takes towards those actions.

In other words, it is about OUTCOMES, not intentions.

Also, I am not only speaking about Kansas, but about the insanity that exists in the vast majority of States and federal law.

And finally, long prison sentences for evading illegal registry laws makes MY argument so much stronger.

Of course, in the prison culture that has been built in the U.S. you and most people would not agree.

I laugh at registry and all registry laws. I am not following them and nor do I have fear of them. If that ever does happen and I do become fearful of registry laws, I will destroy ALL the credibility of the stupid registry.

You all think you are dealing with a person with a label. It is your first mistake. I am an individual before the law. Only despots can't see that.

May 5, 2012 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

And YES, I am still around...

May 4, 2012 at 7:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

From Wikipedia: Ex-post facto law: retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.

Anyway, a legislature is in no position to determine who is or is not a danger to the community. Only a court can.

The idea that putting oneself up for a life time of banishment laws, community condemnation, police visits and visits by the police; that a person must give up all his personal information, some of which is also published on a website (including work info, shoe size, car details, internet details, along with periodic pictures, and a map to one's home) and doing all of that AFTER the sentence (sometimes decades after) and then using that information to exclude a person from a community through law or policy IS an illegal ex-post facto law.

It is nice to think that the registry is only publishing facts related to a registry and that is all it is doing. But that is clearly not the case.

The registry strips a person of safety and/or security; forces instability, makes normal conduct criminal conduct and adds long prison terms for not abiding by the laws and laughably you believe that none of that touches on the rights to live freely.

Believe me, your registry is already beat because you, and most people refuse to see the obvious.

May 4, 2012 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

Yes, CIVIL in nature. Why would you need a CIVIL law? For fun? To oppress? Or to protect?

The registry, does not protect society, therefore, there are no civil outcomes.

At the end of the day, you seem to be arguing that the State can set up a police State, call it civil, put anyone they want on it, not have any civil outcomes, and still be called a free country?

It is called, by definition, totalitarianism.

May 4, 2012 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

UH-HUH. Because a website makes a ridiculous assertion that it is not telling anyone that they are dangerous, and THEN a legislature uses that list to systematically banish, makes the statement ridiculous at its core.

What your argument is, that the State can set up a police State around people who are not dangerous. They can ban them from the community and community events. The public can use the list in order to take away the right to live in peace and even to speak out and create relationships within the community.

You use an argument for whatever is convenient for you. At one point, a registrant can't go to a school yard. At another point, some may not actually be dangerous.

Which is it? Can the State ban non-dangerous people from living within the community because they don't like them? Or should there be some way (like through a court) to have a dangerousness established?

Don't try and justify despotism by reading illogical and self-serving opinions by the Supreme Court.

May 4, 2012 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

Don't you wish it was that simple. It isn't. I am making the assertion that the registry strips a person of safety and/or security.

I believe I can PROVE that.

If I can, the registry is in big trouble.

May 4, 2012 at 12:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

The U.S. has a problem and needs to be stopped.

I do love my country. That is why I am doing what I am doing. There are people who understand my motivations. I don't have any enemies; just misunderstandings. We have all heard the expressions, to know someone is to love someone.

The registry isolates people and implants ideas into the public that a person is dangerous. It is done without any knowledge about that person.

I know there are dangerous people on the registry. I know that the reason there are limits placed on governments are because that the people will always have a tendency to simplify and oppress when given the chance. The world is a complicated place for everyone and complicated answers are difficult for many to comprehend.

The road to peace for humanity truly was started about 225 years ago, upon ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The broad language of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS along with the right to express one's opinions were nails that were going to free prejudices and expand knowledge, the founding fathers could have never understood.

NOW, those same principles are laid out in every single free and un-free country in the world (some take freedoms more seriously then others).

After WWII, and amid a world of destruction was laid out a new set of laws that every single person falls under. Those laws were based, in a very large part on the U.S. Constitution.

In effect, those laws as laid out in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights prohibits the State from making enemies out of people simply because they are not liked.

You get to follow procedures. No more legislative declarations of dangerousness or passing of banishment laws on groups.

At the heart of international law are two concepts; both violated by the registry. One is that, every person is an individual before the law, AND that freedom of speech is the HIGHEST virtue and deserving the most protection.

I am very serious, your registry does NOT have to be followed.

May 4, 2012 at 11:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

It is interesting to actually read those two cases.

For one, the cases are contradictory at their core.

In one case, the Alaska case, the court said that the registry is not a punishment because it protects against those that are potentially dangerous.

In the Connecticut case, they ruled that it doesn't matter if a person is not dangerous, the registry is only putting out information that is factual.

It also should be noted that those cases were heard BEFORE ALL residency restrictions and other restrictions that grew out of public notification.

In other words, the court left it wide open for a legislature to do anything they want under any theory they want.

The courts, as well as America culture, has a long history of illegal laws that were held to be constitutional.

A few of them are Jim Crow laws, forced sterilization and the imprisonment of Americans simply because they were of Japanese decent.

NONE of those laws, in hindsight, had to be followed BECAUSE they obviously deprived a person of freedom without any due process.

The same applies here. It is obvious that the registry takes freedom (it is common knowledge and accepted). Because the State uses different language when speaking to the court and when speaking to the public doesn't make FACTS different.

I am hardly going to put my freedom to the test in a culture who doesn't value freedom or due process. It was so easy, simply through an executive order to label a person a terrorist and then take ALL due process away and torture people. Nobody has EVER been held responsible for torturing innocent people.

American culture, it seems, can't be trusted with defending freedom and rights. It is all just a shell game where whatever the person moving the pieces wants it to fall.

Face it, you have the precedence and 1 out of 4 adults in America has a conviction of some kind.

It seems America is ready and willing to sell out freedom simply based upon popularity.

May 4, 2012 at 11:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

Also, a couple of disclaimers about Kansas. Apparently, and I could be wrong, or there could be misinformation in the article (it happens), but Kansas did not apply, (as most States did) the registry ex-post facto. But Kansas has applied many restrictions upon the registrant ex-post facto (including public notification and residency restrictions).

This is a HUGE problem legally.

May 4, 2012 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agency taking action against sex offenders following report

You don't even have an understanding of what the jobs of each branch of government are. The executive branch enforces the laws. The courts interprets the laws.

But anyway, no ex-post facto laws.

Can you imagine that the most unpopular group of people are beholden to an electorate or a legislature in order to get justice? The residency restriction in Kansas was passed AFTER a sentence. That I know. It is applied by a legislature and has blanket provisions.

That is why there is the requirement for due process.

I don't like the laws. How's that? I won't subject myself to the laws for the specific reason that the laws as applied take away safety and/or security, have no mechanisms for challenge, are constantly added to and violate basic constitutional rights.

Can anyone do anything? In this case? The answer is, NO.

Why? Because of all the reasons I stated above, nobody will move against me.

People being individuals before the law is more powerful than you think.

May 4, 2012 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )