Kansas sex offender jane snyder. The Salina Journal from Salina, Kansas ยท Page 32.



Kansas sex offender jane snyder

Kansas sex offender jane snyder

No offense, but what would you expect the recidivism rate to be if you criminalize everything a person can do? You want a good faith answer or a snarky one? If you want snarky, try this: Parole officers are cheaper then prison beds. If you want a good faith answer, I would first ask you to consider restraining orders in cases where no crime has been committed yet, or there have been charges pending trial.

No one has been convicted by a jury or admitted guilt, is it fair to restrict their lawful actions based on what they might do?

For that matter, what about felon rights in general? Once someone serves their time, should they be able to vote, own a gun, get custody of the children they went to jail for abusing? Get a security clearance? Is it legitimate for the government to treat them in any way different from a non-felon?

To be clear, I'm not trying to justify sex offender lists, felon voting rights, restraining orders or anything else. Well, not yet at least. But from a judicial standpoint, they all have similar underpinnings of non-punishment restrictions on someone's otherwise-legal actions. So if you angle in from "why are we letting them out of jail if we're going to continue restricting them?

Where no crime has been committed yet the police and judiciary should have no authority to curtail you're rights, especially without any provable harm, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with curtailing individual rights based upon no crime or measurable infraction. You could make a case with conflicting natural rights, but it would need to be a pretty big concern. Well, they did their time so presumably yes they should be able to do all those things except perhaps the last one since presumably they lost custody which is forever.

It's more than that, it's that there is never an end point for those restrictions and 'sex offender' is not narrowly defined. Can you prove that your abuse was temporary or accidental or otherwise something that isn't likely to recur? Well then sure, presumably those rights could be restored but this also sort of pretends there isn't another parent with rights to consider as well, not to mention the rights of the child itself.

Those issues are a bit more granular and require more thought concerning conflicting natural rights on an individual basis than what I can give, but I can say how such a process should function to respect everyone's rights until a decision can be rendered because it was well described over years ago.

There are some that believe it's for 'rehabilitation' and some that believe it's for 'punishment'. Your opinion on that divide will inform your opinion, but I'm not part of the rehab school. Rehabilitation is what psychologists do, not prisons, and a lot of this mess could be fixed by burning the laws that punish without a victim.

I resent the left for trying to turn prisons into reeducation camps, and not just because the data doesn't support their theory. I also resent the right for criminalizing social issues, for what that's worth.

You really don't have to do both sidesism here. How society treats crime and criminals is at the core of the difference between liberals and conservatives, and this is one issue on which libertarians and liberals align.

If we're going to have prisons, might as well let prisoners pursue their education and do useful things rather than sit around in cages becoming permanently mentally damaged. While conservatives, acting out of blunt stupidity as they often do, can't figure out a better way to deal with a problem than to lock it up in some remote cage.

Though that may be slowly changing what with the increasing presence of the obvious in the abuses our criminal justice system. Like real criminals, or just the hypothetical kind who just want understanding and an opportunity to better themselves? Or do you feel that there are a lot of people simply born to commit crime? If the latter, why does America have such an overwhelming number of them? What about our country sucks so much that a large majority of the world's prisoners are Americans?

The fact that the US throws too many people in prison is one of the central tenets of libertarianism in this country. Basic personality traits are formed very early in life, and psychopaths are formed quite young. People have kids because sex makes women pregnant.

Not because they will be good parents [or even want the children] or provide loving homes. Once that die is cast, you do not change your fundamental personality. My point being that while the prison system generally sucks, inmates are not much interested in pursing a legit lifestyle. Considerable amounts of money have been wasted on that, and we are sadly left with incarceration for persons who just want to fuck you, figuratively if not literally.

I don't get it. I thought we were an entrepreneurial mecca that, while not perfect, is more free and thus better than most other places. What is the page count difference in actual laws between America and most of the rest of the world?

Video by theme:

Madness of SexualOffenderMan [English Sub]



Kansas sex offender jane snyder

No offense, but what would you expect the recidivism rate to be if you criminalize everything a person can do? You want a good faith answer or a snarky one? If you want snarky, try this: Parole officers are cheaper then prison beds. If you want a good faith answer, I would first ask you to consider restraining orders in cases where no crime has been committed yet, or there have been charges pending trial.

No one has been convicted by a jury or admitted guilt, is it fair to restrict their lawful actions based on what they might do? For that matter, what about felon rights in general? Once someone serves their time, should they be able to vote, own a gun, get custody of the children they went to jail for abusing?

Get a security clearance? Is it legitimate for the government to treat them in any way different from a non-felon? To be clear, I'm not trying to justify sex offender lists, felon voting rights, restraining orders or anything else. Well, not yet at least. But from a judicial standpoint, they all have similar underpinnings of non-punishment restrictions on someone's otherwise-legal actions.

So if you angle in from "why are we letting them out of jail if we're going to continue restricting them? Where no crime has been committed yet the police and judiciary should have no authority to curtail you're rights, especially without any provable harm, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with curtailing individual rights based upon no crime or measurable infraction. You could make a case with conflicting natural rights, but it would need to be a pretty big concern.

Well, they did their time so presumably yes they should be able to do all those things except perhaps the last one since presumably they lost custody which is forever. It's more than that, it's that there is never an end point for those restrictions and 'sex offender' is not narrowly defined.

Can you prove that your abuse was temporary or accidental or otherwise something that isn't likely to recur? Well then sure, presumably those rights could be restored but this also sort of pretends there isn't another parent with rights to consider as well, not to mention the rights of the child itself.

Those issues are a bit more granular and require more thought concerning conflicting natural rights on an individual basis than what I can give, but I can say how such a process should function to respect everyone's rights until a decision can be rendered because it was well described over years ago.

There are some that believe it's for 'rehabilitation' and some that believe it's for 'punishment'. Your opinion on that divide will inform your opinion, but I'm not part of the rehab school. Rehabilitation is what psychologists do, not prisons, and a lot of this mess could be fixed by burning the laws that punish without a victim. I resent the left for trying to turn prisons into reeducation camps, and not just because the data doesn't support their theory.

I also resent the right for criminalizing social issues, for what that's worth. You really don't have to do both sidesism here. How society treats crime and criminals is at the core of the difference between liberals and conservatives, and this is one issue on which libertarians and liberals align.

If we're going to have prisons, might as well let prisoners pursue their education and do useful things rather than sit around in cages becoming permanently mentally damaged. While conservatives, acting out of blunt stupidity as they often do, can't figure out a better way to deal with a problem than to lock it up in some remote cage.

Though that may be slowly changing what with the increasing presence of the obvious in the abuses our criminal justice system.

Like real criminals, or just the hypothetical kind who just want understanding and an opportunity to better themselves? Or do you feel that there are a lot of people simply born to commit crime? If the latter, why does America have such an overwhelming number of them?

What about our country sucks so much that a large majority of the world's prisoners are Americans? The fact that the US throws too many people in prison is one of the central tenets of libertarianism in this country. Basic personality traits are formed very early in life, and psychopaths are formed quite young. People have kids because sex makes women pregnant. Not because they will be good parents [or even want the children] or provide loving homes.

Once that die is cast, you do not change your fundamental personality. My point being that while the prison system generally sucks, inmates are not much interested in pursing a legit lifestyle.

Considerable amounts of money have been wasted on that, and we are sadly left with incarceration for persons who just want to fuck you, figuratively if not literally. I don't get it. I thought we were an entrepreneurial mecca that, while not perfect, is more free and thus better than most other places.

What is the page count difference in actual laws between America and most of the rest of the world?

Kansas sex offender jane snyder

Have a excellent matchmaking by the side of the Stage Prevent in lieu Incorporation. Fashionable the Wynn moreover Palazzo sour exquisite hotels. Launch a extensive by the Recreational Participate, strength be inflict with the key opinion of the complete.

.

4 Comments

  1. The fact that the US throws too many people in prison is one of the central tenets of libertarianism in this country. Rehabilitation is what psychologists do, not prisons, and a lot of this mess could be fixed by burning the laws that punish without a victim.

  2. You really don't have to do both sidesism here. Considerable amounts of money have been wasted on that, and we are sadly left with incarceration for persons who just want to fuck you, figuratively if not literally.

  3. Get a security clearance? There are some that believe it's for 'rehabilitation' and some that believe it's for 'punishment'. For that matter, what about felon rights in general?

  4. Rehabilitation is what psychologists do, not prisons, and a lot of this mess could be fixed by burning the laws that punish without a victim. Not because they will be good parents [or even want the children] or provide loving homes. Those issues are a bit more granular and require more thought concerning conflicting natural rights on an individual basis than what I can give, but I can say how such a process should function to respect everyone's rights until a decision can be rendered because it was well described over years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





4179-4180-4181-4182-4183-4184-4185-4186-4187-4188-4189-4190-4191-4192-4193-4194-4195-4196-4197-4198-4199-4200-4201-4202-4203-4204-4205-4206-4207-4208-4209-4210-4211-4212-4213-4214-4215-4216-4217-4218