| September 15th, 2006 |
The Missouri Supreme Court is taking up the issue of the constitutionality of the sex offender registry. The case was brought to the court by two people who had been put on the registry as suspected abusers. They have not been found guilty of any sex crimes.
Judge Ronnie White asked, "Shouldn't they have the right to have witnesses subpoenaed, take evidence?" He goes on to say, "What good does it do to get it after your name is on the list?" Not only that, but I'm wondering just what the fuck is the hurry? Why can't people be added to a registry after they have in fact been proven guilty?
Chief Justice Michael Wolff said, "I'm not going to hire this person if she's on the registry. This certainly affects these people's employability." It most certainly does!
Assistant attorney general Joel Anderson argues, "This issue is, does the law itself impose that burden?" He further argues, "It's not their right to earn a living."
So if the state acts in ways that leads to people being denied work they have no recourse? The state puts you on what amounts to a blacklist without any due process and you're just fucked? Not a goddamn thing you can do except have your name removed later... Nice argument, fascist.
Just because the law doesn't directly deny these people employment doesn't make it fair or legal to put them on a list of persons with past dangerous criminal behavior. The fact that the law itself doesn't deny them employment is not a valid argument. Try using that in a slander case. If you falsely accuse someone of committing a crime you can in fact be held libel financially for any damages they incur.
As far as I'm concerned this is nothing less than libel. The State should not be in the business of blacklisting people who have not been proven guilty. Newspapers can report on pending court cases and allegations, but they have to be very careful how they describe the accused. It's one thing to have an article mentioning a person's name as a possible connection to a crime, it's another thing entirely to presume their guilt if it has not been legally established. People can face public humiliation for having their name in the paper in connection with a scandal, but at least it is an allegation. Furthermore, if the authorities have charged someone or claim they fall under suspicion and the alleged is found to be innocent they might be able to file suit for false arrest or prosecution. If no charges have been formally made but the paper characterizes them as guilty then the paper could be sued for libel.
When your name is on a registry of sex offenders it is implicated that you are guilty of a sex crime. In this case the state is characterizing these people as guilty of a heinous crime and dangerous to children even though they have not been found guilty or accountable. The state has a responsibility as well as anyone else not to make false accusations about people or willfully contribute to their public humiliation on false information. I hope the state gets burned on this and the law which allows a board of inquiry to put whomever it deems fit on a public list as a 'sex offender' is overturned.
|
| Insensitivity or hypersensitivity? | 03:44 pm |
|---|
Remarks by Pope Prompt Muslim Outrage, Protests
So the Pope made some so-called anti-Islamic statements at a mass in Germany. I don't know exactly what he said, but what I have seen of it didn't seem particularly offensive. I'd have to agree with him if he condemned the notions of 'holy war' and 'jihad', saying, "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," and apparently agreeing with some of the sentiments of 14th century Emperor Manuel II Paleologos whom he quoted several times saying "the Emperor goes to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable." Damn right it's unreasonable!
Now just why a Pope needs to condemn the actions of certain Muslims to a crowd of Christians I don't understand. It seems a very unwise thing to do. It's bound to stir up controversy, especially with many in the Muslim community who are quite thin-skinned when it comes to their beliefs. This was made so abundantly clear with the outrage, riots, and calls for violence and curtailing freedom of speech and press in the wake of the Danish cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed.
The thing that really stands out about all this is the reaction his remarks are getting from several high level authorities in the Muslim world. They are making such claims that the whole Muslim world is offended by this. Nice of them to speak for everyone. And suggesting that Pope Benedict rid himself of feelings of hate. It sounds like they're actually trying to stir up public outrage.
While I definitely don't like or trust the guy for many reasons, like the fact that he's very anti-homosexual and I think he was more pro-Nazi than he admits. I never have bought the argument that he was a hapless victim who was forced to join the Nazi Youth Core since I am aware that during the early years of the Nazi regime — when Ratzinger around age 14 became one of Hitler's youth — German boys were intimidated into joining the Nazi Youth corps but it was not required that they join. Perhaps he was brainwashed like most Germans at the time and has later seen the error of their hateful worldview. Maybe he doesn't hold Jews in contempt anymore but has shifted to Muslims. Who knows? Who fucking cares? But I think the {over}reaction he is getting is such an obvious example of the typical demagoguery of these times. If you say something that could be construed as insensitive toward a group of people then you are considered to be 'filled with hate'. Oh the rhetoric!
I know Ratzinger is intolerant of homosexuality and has a lot of negative perceptions about us and our 'lifestyle' in general, but I also seriously doubt that he hates us explicitly.
Seriously, the only way I can sum all of this up is to say: freaking get over it people...
Feeling like:  exhausted |
|
|
| Top of Page |
Powered by GreatestJournal |