|
Edited on Thu Nov-01-07 09:01 PM by Wash. state Desk Jet
At the end of the Dinnard Rossi fandango and James West former mayor of Spokane was being ousted, there was this thing happening around Halloween 05 . The thing was public outrage over sex offenders not being tracked at all or much. And the other thing was a housing issue. There are just not very many places or neighboorhoods far enough away from their temptation.
Ordinances became the hot issue in one city in particular. Industrial locations were to be designated a ok zone for sex offenders to live . Thereby keeping them out of neighborhoods where there are schools, child care centers and children.
I recall a civil liberty,s lawer speaking threw the telivision news media , the civil liberties lawer was defending sex offenders rights to live amoung the people.
And when asked ,how than do you keep the children safe, the civil liberties lawer answered that question ,in law of course, she said, You keep them safe.
Meaning it is up to the individual parent or parents to keep them safe, you do it.
And now it,s Larry Craig. Civil liberty,s lawers.
If than there is no ethical or unethical, no right or wrong , no fair or unfair, just win or loose ,than you keep them safe-you the individual, just might make legal sense.
But does it?
On the very same side of that coin ,is the right to own and bear arms. And protecting your family from what that is , is the very reason for the long standing laws reguarding guns.
Don,t we just want to quell that, because guns and crime go hand and hand !
And on top of that there is no cure for the sexual psychopath /child molester.
You keep them safe, civil liberties lawers.
To do that we need to change or amend some laws!
Or create special laws that address the problem of the incureable sexual psychopath /child molester ,or any rapist predator.
But the civil liberty,s lawers are telling us that would infringe upon the sex offenders freedoms. Or that sex offenders are entitled to the same freedoms as everyone else. Isn,t that odd? Shouldn,t we regulate where sex offenders can and cannot live ,keeping it fair for all?
Because it is not at all fair or just to place the children at risk because society just isn,t quite sure how to go about dealing with the whole of issue.
Hope just isn,t good enough, and science isn,t any closer to finding a cure for that ,is it?
But the law, the law is complicated.
Maybe it should be about drawing lines. And consequences of crossing those lines. Isn,t that what the Senate is telling Craig ?
Spokane got right, a code of conduct. Shouldn,t there be consequences?
Because there really is a right and a wrong. Isn,t that right?
|