For those who scoffed at slippery slope arguments concerning sex offenders

[MadHound]

It looks like the next step down is going to be taken soon in California. Apparently new AG Brown wants to anklet *all* parolees, all the better to track them via GPS.

"Gunshots ring out in a neighborhood, and law enforcement's first move is to pull up a computer screen to see whether the sound came from areas equipped with electronic devices that track the source of gunfire.

Then a public safety employee keys up another monitor and uses Global Positioning System technology to identify the locations of the city's worst-known violent offenders -- to determine whether any of them are in the spot where the shots were fired.

Such a brave new world is coming to Oakland -- and it seems likely that it will become a reality elsewhere in California now that crime-fighting Mayor Jerry Brown is about to become the state's attorney general." <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/10/BAGF7MA7DB1.DTL>

So, you still don't think this is a bad idea eh? After all, it's only parolees who are having their every move tracked. Well, a few years back, this was the first step taken against sex offenders, and now, after this past election in California, sex offenders, no matter what their crime, are going to be tracked for life. This is what's in store with all people who have been in prison, no matter what their crime.

Do you get it now? Do you see? They make these Orwellian laws that initially pertain only to sex offenders, the most despicable of offenders. Then slowly, but surely over a period of years these laws that have hitherto only been applied to sex offenders are now applied to all offenders. Still not scared? Get this then, the next step will be to apply this Orwellian nightmare to the populace as a whole.

You folks out in California still have a chance to stop this madness. Contact Brown and let him know in no uncertain terms that you find these new practices to be abhorrent. Write LTTEs, let it be known that this sort of treatment is fundamentally Un-American.

[ixion]

1. the same type slippery slope exists with the so-called 'War on Drugs'

which was used to grease the rails for it's ugly older brother, the so-called 'War on Terror', both of which have been used, by and large, to shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You would think after 20+ years of this crap, people would catch on. :crazy:

[papau]

2. Sorry, but I agree w/ anklet'ing *all* parolees so as to track them via GPS

I do not consider this falling down a slippery slope - and indeed given the 40% to 90% repeat offender rate, it seems logical.

I do not buy the "there are no jobs for convicts so they must return to crime" bull - many have no job and live off of welfare for 5 years as they are trained for jobs. And employers are more likely to hire folks with 5 years of clean/no problem with police behind them than they are to hire the just out of jail fellow.

[MadHound]

4. As I said, that was the position taken by many years ago,

When it was just sex offenders who were going to be ankleted while on parole. Now with the passage of Prop 83 in California, sex offenders, no matter their offense, are going to be ankleted and tracked for life. This is the direction we're headed, this is the slope we're plunging down. Do you honestly think it would be a good idea for anybody who has done any crime to be ankleted for life? Don't you think that's fundamentally Un-American?

And frankly, I can see the parolee's point. The overwhelming majority of business owners are not going to take on a parolee. I've seen this happen up close and in person due to various social service sector jobs I've worked. And now with background checks becoming de rigor, they can't even lie on their application lest they be found out.

So would you be in favor of ankleting for life every convict let out of prison? After all, drug dealers, those who commit property crimes and those who commit assaults have a higher recidivism rate than sex offenders.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pretzel4gore]

11. !!!!

you have every right to be angry. the guy who did this was a hate filled goof; hopefully he will get nailed. still, he surely never wanted to be a horrible monster, yet he is. psychos might like being psychos, but, if they could, most surely would prefer to be heroic figures who gladden hearts wherever they go! men do not create and train and pervert THEMSELVES! it happens to them, and hopefully you can use your tragedy to battle the injustice that infests our world, as jesus asked us to.
welcome to DU, you lovely thing

[MadHound]

14. I am very sorry for your ordeal, and I have had a family member

Who was raped and killed, two weeks after we helped her move north to attend college. I know that pain of you and yours to some extent, and I'm not to belittle victims of sexual assault or other crimes here.

However, the classification of sex offender has been broadened in the past quarter century to include eighteen year olds, who get caught having consensual sex with their seventeen yo girlfriends. Or a guy, out on a bender, who is spotted by a mother and child taking a drunken whiz in an alley. This term sexual offender is then used to harry and harass them for the rest of their life. That is a consideration that must be factored in.

In addition, there is the traditional American notion that once one has paid back their debt, then they are square with the citizens and the state. This time honored practice is now being torn away, first by going after everybodys' favorite villian, sex offenders, then by going after other offenders.

And as I pointed out with this article, the slippery slope is in play now. Initially, years ago, sex offenders were required to be ankleted while on parole. Then various other working and living restrictions began to be placed upon them. Now, as of the last election, sex offenders are going to be required to be ankleted for live.

And thus, here we are, starting down that same slippery slope with other criminal offenders. First, the anklet requirement while on parole or probation. Will it come as any suprise that in a few years we'll have the spectre of *all* offenders being required to be ankleted for the rest of their life? Is this what we want in our country? Is this truly American?

Again, I'm sorry for the crime that was committed against you and yours. But please, don't let that incident cloud your judgement as to where this is all going. Do you really want some family member of your ankleted for life in the future, just because they got caught with some dope? For that's where this madness is heading. It's all about that slippery slope.

[seabeyond]

17. go to jail. that is what i think should happen to this person

he has lost privilige to be amongst rest of society. i think he should go to jail. i think everyone on this board would agree, he belongs in jail. but i am not sure wht you are expecting anyone to say in answer to your question. what is the right answer for you. i am curious. becausei gave the obvious answer

[Jose Diablo]

20. Hmmm, are you sure

you are not a disinformation specialist paid by say Wackenhut to spread disinformation and promote financial interests in placing a product on every parolee's ankle?

I'm not buying your story. I don't think it happened. It sounds very similar to another story as told by, supposedly a young woman, that claimed to have been raped repeatedly by a stepfather (from age 7 to 15 and enabled by a mother too afraid to protect her daughter) and then this story pops-up here, of all places, when there was a voter referendum under consideration to do something about all those sexual predators out to get our children.

I don't have questions about what "should happen to this person if he is ever caught"? My question is, what should happen if disinformation specialists are operating for profit trying to influence voters and lying about who they are and what they are trying to do?

Edit to add: I don't think that if the story were true (which I doubt), the perpetrator deserves death. Justice is supposedly balanced, he didn't kill you obviously as you are posting, therefore, he doesn't deserve to "be dead" as you put it.

[Quantess]

28. I am so sorry. For two reasons.

I agree with your views about sex offenders. They need to be stopped by what ever means possible, in my opinion. I am so sorry about what happened to your family. I would be extremely angry if I were in your shoes. I am inclined to agree with your views on sex offenders, especially those who harm children.

The second thing I'm sorry about, is that you're a Republican who is disappointed that Democrats control the House and Senate --did I get that right? I'm not sorry your side lost. I'm sorry that you probably can't stay at DU, because if you did, you'd learn a lot about the Republicans' screwed up ways, and probably realize that you are more liberal than you thought.

[papau]

10. recidivism re property crime is not as threatening as recidivism re sex crime

Ankleting for life for a sex crime is reasonable, IMO.

Drug dealing should not be a crime, but if I am to have those who commit assaults ankleted during parole, I'll accept the drug dealers ankleted during parole.

I agree that the overwhelming majority of business owners are not going to take on a parolee, so the convict is left with welfare and retraining and placement - which does happen - or he can start his own business - which is what most immigrants did 75 years ago because the businesses did not want greasers (Greeks), WOPs (Italians), Kikes (Jews), etc.

If we had people supporting unions in this country the option of day labor via the labor hall might be available - but our anti-union voters - made anti-union by our media - have pretty much killed that option. But day labor for those with "bad documents" is still available - as proven by 11 million illegal immigrants now working in the US.

Perhaps peer group punishment should end with the end of legal punishment - but at the moment it does not. But we are talking about parole which is still part of the legal punishment period, so I do not see the objection to ankleting.

[MadHound]

22. Nice to see that you're more than willing to throw traditional American values

And a couple of centuries worth of jurisprudence overboard.

Your smug sentiment sounds like one that has no basis in reality. You do realize that many start up businesses require a background check don't you. Oops, there goes a significant portion of start up businesses. And honestly now, how many banks are going to loan money to a convict? And regulating people to "day labor" is simply wrong. Not everybody can work day labor, especially the disabled and aging. Hell, I'm a big guy, in good shape and forty five years old. I find that my capacity for doing physical labor has diminished significantly, yet here you are, excpecting a convict fresh out after a twenty five year stint to tote and haul in day labor for the rest of their life? Please.

So will also welcome drug dealers, and other ex-cons being ankleted for life? This is, after all, where we're headed. I clearly remember when this whole issue began that many, many individuals thought that it was only going to be limited to sex offenders, while they were on parole. Now here we are, with sex offenders ankleted for life, and the rest of the convicts next in line for that.

Sorry, you might be more than willing to throw away such conventional ideas as "having paid one's debt", but frankly I find such Un-American actions to be repugnant, and another sign that this country is morphing into a fascist regime that I no longer recognize. When are you going to wake up, when they come and anklet innocent citizens such as yourself? By then it will be far too late.

[papau]

26. A convict loses many American rights - and is never free of their past - no

matter what the law may say about "paid one's debt to society".

During the parole period there have always been "conditions of parole" and is not really much of a change.

The sex offender recidivism rate studies vary by

how is the sex offender population defined?
does recidivism include subsequent arrest or/and subsequent conviction, or/and subsequent incarceration?
which offense types (sexual offenses versus any criminal offense) qualify as recidivating offenses?
does the study follow-up with sex offenders for long enough to truly capture the recidivism being measured (e.g. one year versus 5 years versus 25 years)?

Perhaps the fact that incest offenders have the lowest rates of reoffending - simply because their kids have grown - is not all that comforting to many.

Doren in a 1998 review of the research, reports that the true recidivism base rate over 25 years for extrafamilial sexual abusers is 52% and for rapists is 39%, using the recidivism rates from Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) where CHARGE - not another conviction - was the index of reoffense and using what is called survival analysis. Using new offenses over the 25 year study period gave rates of 26% for rapists and 32% for child molesters.

Sorry - the crime is too heinous to not have anklets for life.

[crikkett]

25. they'll have to take it off to get into courtrooms, and what happens w/ sprained ankle?

I had to practically undress to get into the SS office to change my name
(just married)

The anklet thing is a bad idea. I voted against it. I'm sorry it passed but I trust it'll be ruled unconstitutional.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. The following transition happened:

Only sex offenders on parole -> Only sex offenders, for life -> All parolees plus sex offenders for life.

Essentially, you are saying this movement will stop at this point. What makes you believe that?

[meti57b]

3. How large are those anklets? I wonder if they could be used to track a cat.

Mine are strictly indoor cats but one of them would love to sneak out an open door and is a constant concern. Maybe a little tag on his collar that could be tracked with GPS?

[Phx_Dem]

13. links

http://www.environmental-studies.de/products/pet-tracking/Cat-tracking/cat-tracking.html

http://cats.about.com/cs/lostandfound/a/electronics.htm


:hi:

[meti57b]

16. Hey, thanks ... Phx_Dem!!!

[xchrom]

5. americans don't know or don't care or were never taught

the lessons of our founding.

how many original european immigrants were people fleeing wrongful imprisonment or political oppression.

america -- with schizoid personality -- loves violence and hates criminals -- glorifies the macho, violent individual -- and we quake in our boots from mere thoughts and dreams about him.

we breed violent criminals through epidemic poverty and racism to entertain our lust and tickle our fears.

edited to run spell check.

[baby_mouse]

6. Unfashionable, MH

You're right, but so long as they wait until the acceptance of the latest "reasonable" version of controlling people, they only have to go at it very slowly, one small, tiny step at a time, and then it'll be too late.

The problem is this: the idea that fundamental rights of freedom and privacy can't be violated *at all* or you end up slowly over time with none is unfashionable. People don't see the curtailling of one person's rights for some other percieved benefit as part of a process ATM. In order for them to wake up, someone somewhere's going to hvae to go too fast with the control freakery and freak people out. And these guys are smart now.

You have to work on the SS Officer *within* people to get them to see why these things are wrong, until then only the victims of the abuse will understand. People WANT to control each other, and have other people control undesirables for them. The world without chains must come from forgiveness and offering alternatives to control.

People have forgotten that things being gay used to be illegal, and they think that there's some sort of magical forcefield around Law that stops it going nuts. The level of police abuse of power is now revolting, and substantial chunks of the States now just think it's funny. THEY have to be shown that this sickness comes from their *own* sadism and desire for control...

Like I said, it's probably going to take a catastrophe. It usually does. It took the Holocaust to discredit antisemitism, it's going to take something HIDEOUS to actually *discredit* abusive policing, there's a kind of "acceptable level" that's appeared over the last decade.

[Alacrat]

9. This is how the erosion of rights begin

They start small, with something most people are agreeable with, and slowly it snow balls, and whatever rights we had are gone. This is exactly why groups like the NRA are not willing to give an inch on gun control.

The bush admin has done more to erode the bill of rights than any admin before, and as our rights are taken, some willingly sit by and let it happen, because "it will make us more safe". One day we track sex offenders, next it's everyone. One day we go after heroin dealers, next a person with the wrong pill in their pocket gets a 10 yr mandatory sentence.

We all need to fight the loss of our rights, no matter how insignificant, or agreeable we may be to a particular infringement.

[pretzel4gore]

8. we forget, crime is a measure of freedom...

something police state-ists try to hide is the fact the free-est societies often are the worst crimewise. read a newspaper from 1906 (when hanging and corporal punishment etc were norm) and read that
a) a man was murdered by someone; police suspect was member of a 'hobo' village just outside town, where some 300 homeless people lived in cardboard shacks etc
b) 2 boys killed their mother then hid her body in a shed. the father was on biz trip. neighbors suspected something and called police when they saw scruffy strangers visiting house at all hours. the boys were 10 and 11 years old ...
the thing is, these stories taken from the 1906 'globe and mail' weren't headlines; they were 4 inch colums bottom of the page!

[The2ndWheel]

12. Children of the Machine

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/02/21/children-of-the-machine/

A tag like this has a maximum range of a few metres. But another implantable device emits a signal which allows someone to be found or tracked by satellite. The patent notice says it can be used to locate the victims of kidnapping or people lost in the wilderness(6).

There are, in other words, plenty of legitimate uses for implanted chips. This is why they bother me. A technology whose widespread deployment, if attempted now, would be greeted with horror, will gradually become unremarkable. As this happens, its purpose will begin to creep.

As it is with all such intrusions on our privacy, it won’t be easy to put your finger on exactly what’s wrong with this technology. It won’t really amount to a new form of control, as all the people who accept the implants will already be subject to monitoring or tracking of one kind or another. It will always be voluntary, at least to the extent that anything the state or our employers want us to do is voluntary. But there is something utterly revolting about it. It is another means by which the barriers between ourselves and the state, ourselves and the corporation, ourselves and the machine are broken down. In that tiny capsule we find the paradox of 21st century capitalism: a political system which celebrates choice, autonomy and individualism above all other virtues demands that choice, autonomy and individualism are perpetually suppressed.

[seabeyond]

15. ths is where people are stupid. fear allows them to lose so much

and mostly it is a fear of not real. this will allow the law to get really good at this. and continue to suck in parts of our society. actions reaction. you can bet there will be a reaction

hallalujah that allows govt these powers that they should never have over mankind. even the very worst that are in our society

[Igel]

18. I've always distrusted--and liked--slippery slope arguments.

Sometimes they're just silly. Sometimes they have a ring of truth.

Read an article by an Author That Must Not Be Named (aspersions be upon him) that made the relevant distinctions.

People do not fall for slippery slopes; they know what they will accept and what they will not accept. They don't try to argue from first principles where the cline becomes a brick wall. "Slippery slopes" that crucially depend upon voters and people acting upon their beliefs will usually be slippery only for a short while before they turn into velcro slopes. But only "usually".

Precedent and analogy-based systems fall for slippery slopes. One can always start at X and show that (x+1) isn't really so different, and must be accepted. Then you can show (x+2) isn't much different from (x+1), so it must be accepted. That can be generalized to (x+n) being ok, n --> infinity. Slippery slope. Legal argumentation decided by judges that don't say, at some point, "Case law and legal reasoning be damned, this is just plain outrageous," constitute slippery slopes.

Banding is legal, and a legal issue. How it develops depends not on the electorate, but on judges. Slippery slope. Until a judge comes along that abandons legal reasoning for common sense.

[papau]

27. how does a judge move banding from convicts to non-convicts? n/t

n/t

[zalinda]

19. On some things I agree and on others not so much

First of all, sex offenders covers a big area. There are men who had consensual sex with an underage person (not a child, but a teen). Some of these teens look quite a bit older than they are and a man falls into the trap. It could even be a 15 year old girl with an 18 year old boy and he gets labeled a sex offender. The laws are unjust, and should be looked at as a case by case basis. Those who pose the most danger should be GPS'd. Why? Because when they come out of prison they have had very little, if any counseling. So, we need to reform prisons too.

As for parolees, I don't think all should be GPS'd. Violent ones should be until they can prove that they can obey rules. The non-violent ones shouldn't be unless they stop seeing their parole officers.

To throw a GPS on everyone without consideration of their crime, would be the slippery slope, in my opinion.

The biggest problem is our society. We need to glorify non violence, we need to applaud team work, we need to really strive for peace and have a department of peace. I want us to be more like Canada, instead of well, any violent place in the world.

zalinda

[fishnfla]

21. Does the program work?

Are crime and recidivism a problem?
Does prison work?
Are probation departments fully manned and funded?
Does probation work?
Do the criminals agree to this as a result of their sentencing, or would they rather go back to jail?

Why not use modern technology as a more effective deterrent against violent and sexual crimes, if it works?

[MadHound]

23. First, the big question, "if it works"

Frankly, we don't know the answer to that one. However the real question in my opinion is why is the population sitting on their ass, cheering as their rights and traditions are stripped from our society, all in the name of *feeling* safer? Note, I didn't say actually being safer, merely *feeling* safer.

Do you think that a guy, who gets caught doing a drunken whiz in an alley by a mother and child should be ankleted for life? That's what California just said with Prop 83. Do you think that you, who gets popped for smoking a joint in your house, should be ankleted for the next five years of your probation, your every move scrutinized and recorded? That is what Brown is currently proposing. Do you think that I, after getting a DUI, should be ankleted for the rest of my life? That's where this is all headed. Hell, why not just chip everybody, the better to fight crime and keep tabs on people? That's the fascists' wet dream, one that many in the current administration and outside of it are working hard to achieve. Are you ready to be chipped? Will you willingly accept it in the name of the greater societal good? Sorry, but I don't throw away my rights and liberties away that easily.

We should use modern tech as a more effective deterrent against crime. But all too often now, we're using it to strip away our rights in the name of safety and security. This isn't right, this is fundamentally un-american and should be stopped now while we still can. Because by the time this slope starts affecting ordinary citizens like you and I, it will be too late.