|
|
Forum: Polls
Thread (Discussion): Poll 1043 - Are you in favor of buffer zones that bar convicted child molesters from living near schools? - Michigan
Message 158954
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Aug 16, 2005 10:18 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss Poll 1043 - Are you in favor of buffer zones that bar convicted child molesters from living near schools?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 158961 (In Reply to Message 158954)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 17, 2005 03:04 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I'm in favor of buffer zones for a variety of different reasons. However, anything more than 500 feet is overkill IMO. 2,500 foot rules are not buffer zones; they are smoke screens for banishment.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158954)
Message 158969 (In Reply to Message 158954)
Posted by Navigatr1
on Aug 17, 2005 04:37 AM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
While buffer zones may sound nice on the surface, they are just smoke screens for banishment and are further punishment after an offender has served their time. We have no say as to where they live once they are no longer on probation.
If we have buffer zones for sex offenders, where do we stop? Who do we banish next from a certain area? blacks? gays? drug dealers? theives?
--Navigatr1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158954)
Message 159010 (In Reply to Message 158954)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Aug 17, 2005 07:35 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
banning a person from living any incrimental distance from a school or other location does absolutely nothing to prevent that person from going to it and committing a crime and since you never know when that could occur there is no way of preventing it from happening. Even a total ban from entering that "zone" would not prevent it unless you were to implement a "checkpoint" on all access roads into the zone. If a person is deemed as being a high risk of commiting a new crime against a child, then they should not be walking freely upon the streets. Instead of focusing our attentions on creating new "protective zones" we should instead be focusing our resources on extending minimum sentencing guidelines that are far more severe and educating the youth of this country better.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158954)
Message 159022 (In Reply to Message 158954)
Posted by rwjourneyman
on Aug 17, 2005 09:29 PM | Also by rwjourneyman
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
While I do not feel that these buffer zones help in any way to secure our children, I do feel that it helps parents _feel_ secure. I also do not believe it should be a blanket law covering any current sex offense. Many of the listed offenses in many states have nothing what-so-ever to do with children. I would settle on a more specific set of rules that state 'sexual offenses that involve minors'. Even that is not foolproof, but at least it is more on the topic of the law trying to be passed.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158954)
Message 159034 (In Reply to Message 159010)
Posted by Navigatr1
on Aug 17, 2005 10:58 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I agree. The focus is in the wrong area, and is only wasting valuable and limited resources.
--Navigatr1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159010)
Message 159041 (In Reply to Message 159034)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 18, 2005 01:12 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The focus is in the wrong area, and is only wasting valuable and limited resources.
But it looks good on NBC Nightly News, and that's ALL that counts if you're a politician.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159034)
Message 159042 (In Reply to Message 158954)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 18, 2005 01:14 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Nope. A total waste of time and resources.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158954)
Message 159157 (In Reply to Message 158954)
Child molesters or sex offenders??
Posted by polykenos
on Aug 19, 2005 05:31 AM | Also by polykenos
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: New Mexico,
Country: United States |
Are you in favor of buffer zones that bar convicted child molesters from living near schools?
Child molesters or sex offenders??
Are there buffer zones that only apply to child molesters?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (158954)
Message 159230 (In Reply to Message 159157)
Posted by rwjourneyman
on Aug 19, 2005 11:45 PM | Also by rwjourneyman
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
AFAIK, these laws read "any sex offender" - that is how they are being reported by the media. Maybe DP can substantiate that (cue)?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159157)
Message 165530 (In Reply to Message 159230)
Michigan
Posted by june5
on Oct 26, 2005 10:23 PM | Also by june5
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
In Michigan the buffer zone is 1,000 feet and it applies to ALL RSO's, not just those who molest children.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159230)
Thread
158954, admin, Aug 16, 2005 10:18 PM [Introduction]
158961, dp1, Aug 17, 2005 03:04 AM
174367, Pending Further Review
158969, Navigatr1, Aug 17, 2005 04:37 AM
159010, rabbitreborn, Aug 17, 2005 07:35 PM
159034, Navigatr1, Aug 17, 2005 10:58 PM
159041, orolan, Aug 18, 2005 01:12 AM
159022, rwjourneyman, Aug 17, 2005 09:29 PM
174446, Pending Further Review
159042, orolan, Aug 18, 2005 01:14 AM
159157, polykenos, Aug 19, 2005 05:31 AM [Child molesters or sex offenders??]
159230, rwjourneyman, Aug 19, 2005 11:45 PM
165530, june5, Oct 26, 2005 10:23 PM [Michigan]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
