Deleware ACLU Looking Out For Sex Offenders
Posted on February 14, 2006
In yet more of their pervert defending, and lack of responsibility towards the safety of our most vulnerable, the ACLU of Deleware are protecting the predators.
Town officials are considering a ban on allowing registered sex offenders from living within a half mile from schools, daycares or parks. People that spoke with WBOC say they support such a move.
“Children are innocent and they don’t know how to protect themselves and these type of people take advantage of them,” said Ronald Celozzi, who supports the proposed law.
But the American Civil Liberties Union in Delaware said the bill would not be fair.
“We have a legal system here in this country that punishes people suitably and tries to return them to their communities and they have to have a community to return,” said Drewry Fennell of the Delaware ACLU.
Sex offenders already in banned areas of Bridgeville would not have to move. The Bridgeville Town Council votes on the ban next month.
One can become quite outraged when they see the America the ACLU envision, where sexual predators live next door to schools, prostitution is legal and unregulated, and child porn distribution is legal.
Trackback URL
Comments
23 Responses to “Deleware ACLU Looking Out For Sex Offenders”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Delaware is straight up the pennisula from me and WBOC is my “local” TV station. I hope they pass the ban because returning a perpetrator to society doesn’t mean providing them a “crime scene”. The ACLU is nuts!
That’s **peninsula**…Dooh! Not enough Java this morning !!
I thought Republicans believed in the rule of law? It’s not about child molesters, it’s about the government’s ability to punishment for “future acts.” If your going to make the argument that this law should be passed, don’t just say child molesters are bad. Say why the government should be able to punish them for alleged future bad acts.
Example: If there were evidence that offenders who lived near schools and parks (EVIDENCE is not your assertion) were 90% more likely to offend, that would be good support for your argument.
Thanks Meg, Let the ACLU know that you are willing to have sex offenders live next door to your child’s school.
Government should be able to punish them after a prison term is complete as an extension of punishment from their past actions.
We could solve this all by just keeping them in prison, would you find that more fair? Show me evidence, not assumptions that they can be rehabilitated.
Extension punishments, like you’re suggestion, have major Double Jeopardy issues/problems.
Try thinking of a Constitutional way to punish them.
By the way, the ACLU doesn’t ever argue that Sex Offenders get unjust (i.e. too long) prison terms.
There is no double jeapordy issue. They need to make it part of the original ruling of punishment, and part of their probation details. Perhaps after a certain period of time, 10 years or so, after they prove to society they can behave…
I’d prefer life sentences for child molesters. That is just personally because I don’t believe they can be rehabilitated.
Wait, are they trying to just punish future offenders? Only people convicted after the law is passed.
I think it’s something they are going to do to all current sex offenders.
Do you have a link to the story, I’m going to find out.
No this would apply to people already convicted that are not currently living in these areas.
Sex offenders already in banned areas of Bridgeville would not have to move. The Bridgeville Town Council votes on the ban next month.
Okay, then Double Jeopardy DOES apply.
If you want to make it part of the original punishment, that’s FINE that would be Constitutional, and the ACLU doesn’t dispute sentencing.
Punish them, just do it Constitutionally. Is that too much to ask?
Many people, me among them, feel that a society that cannot protect its innocent children from horribly vile sex offenders (and that is all of them) is itself sick. I agree that all the evidence to date has shown that pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. Therefore, the only sensible and responsible thing to do is to remove them from society forever.
I have often wondered how many of the people who are sympathetic and defend pedophiles are saying inwardly “there, but by the grace of luck, go I”. I have no idea how many, but it always does make me wonder.
I’m shocked. Are you accusing me and the entire ACLU of being pedophiles? That’s completely outrageous.
A look at HISTORY will show you that the people who cry the loudest for the punishment turn out to be the perpetrators. Example: Rush Limbaugh calling for harsher drug laws.
Anyway, no one is arguing that we shouldn’t protect ourselves. But let’s do it constitutionally!
Meg,
“Say why the government should be able to punish them for alleged future bad acts.”
Do you consider ‘protective orders’ constitutional?
Are you talking about personal protection orders. They are probably okay since they do require some kind of adjudication. And I’m not sure that there would be any double jeopardy problems.
No Meg. I am not accusing you of anything.
But I do honestly say that I wonder about people who can defend such horrible behavior as child molesting and murder. I just can’t understand their mental processes that would allow them to forget past and future victims while focusing on defending the convicted pedophiles. One has to wonder if they more strongly identify with the victims or the criminals. Its a valid question, not an accusation.
Finally, please don’t give me lawyer talk, many people other than lawyers support the ACLU and its protection of pedophiles– namely all ACLU members and supporters.
“And I’m not sure that there would be any double jeopardy problems.”
What does double jeopardy have to do with this?
Double jeopardy protects defendants from two things, being tried twice for the same crime and being punished twice for the same crime.
I’m a proud Republican and a supporter of the ACLU. Don’t think we’re all crazy just because this blog is, Meg. Read any of the previous posts here. StopTheACLU.com takes everything they do out of context in order to portray them as some sort of Satanic evil. He’s more interested in getting blog hits and comments than contributing anything to political discourse. If you can access Wikipedia or any of the Supreme or local court archives, you can get the whole story on these cases he’s “referring” to.
Thanks Adam. You’re so right. I would rather spend my time listening to intelligent conservative though, which I know is out there!
Meg: That’s why Jessica’s Law is so crucial. Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated from their sexual preference of children any more than a homosexual can stop prefering gays. 25 to life is not punishing them for future crimes, its punishing them for what they were convicted for. Period.
” A look at HISTORY will show you that the people who cry the loudest for the punishment turn out to be the perpetrators. Example: Rush Limbaugh calling for harsher drug laws.”
Speaking of taking things out of context… Rush Limbaugh crying for harsher drug laws and ADMITTING openly to being addicted to pills and seeking help is not hypocrisy, its called learning from past mistakes. You’re just taking shots now since this has nothing to do with the issue.
“I’m a proud Republican and a supporter of the ACLU.”
Being a Republican has nothing to do with being a conservative. Look at Arlen Spectre.
” StopTheACLU.com takes everything they do out of context in order to portray them as some sort of Satanic evil.”
No, defending pedophiles is not taking things out of context. The ACLU has trampled all over the civil liberties (you know, those things they swear to protect?) of anyone they don’t agree with. This site has repeatedly given strong evidence of that and if you can prove otherwise do so instead of being a typical liberal and insulting everybody without offering an argument.
Apostle, you would defend pedophiles if there was a law requiring them to be shot without trial. You wouldn’t see it as defending pedophiles, you’d see it as defending the rule of law. But if someone made a website and accused you of “defending pedophiles,” wouldn’t that be taking things out of context?
For another example, John Ashcroft stayed the execution of Timothy McVeigh because of new FBI evidence. Does this mean John Ashcroft supports terrorism or is more worried about the rights of terrorists than the American people? That’s how the spin could go.
Meg,
I know what double jeopardy is.
I asked, what does double jeopardy have to do with this?
I am sorry but I believe that some sex offenders can be reformed
and that there are some sex offenders wrongly accused because of
young girls that go out with older men lie about there ages
then scream rape when their parents find out that they were
having sex this is being done to way to many men.I also
believe it is not right that sex offenders have to register
where they live they should have to register while they
are on probation or parole but not after that and when is
something going to be done about the young girls out having
sex and lying about how old they are.If sex offenders have
to register then so should all other criminals thieves
drug dealers drug users murderers all of them sex offenders
are being singled out and this is not right something needs
to be done about this issue
I TOTALLY agree with Laurie RomineIs there any type of punishent for the girls/kids (that look like adults!!) that lie about their age? Is there any type of punishment for their parents/guardians? If not, how do you go about getting that type of legislation started? How do we help these people that have had their lives ruined by a lying child? These men(people) are released from prison (where they shouldn’t have been in the first place) and have difficulty finding a job and a place to live because they now have this stigma from society that they’re perv’s. They no longer have a chance at a productive life because of it. I agree that they should have to register for a time, but 25 years? The laws need to be re-evaluated so that everyone is protected. There is no reason that a girl/child should be able to lie to a man about her age, have sexual contact with him, and he goes to prison, gets a felony record, must register as a sex offender for 25 years, pay fees,take tests and be subjected to some of the most degrading circumstances while NOTHING happens to the girl/child or her parents/guardians. The parents and childeren should take some of the blame and get some type of punishment. Maybe that would help decrease the number of cases where these adults are being lied to by thise children that look like and want to be adults before their time.