ACLU Loves Those Sex Offenders!
Posted on July 19, 2008
On a local Raleigh radio station, WPTF, they used to do a feature called “What were they smokin’?” with the previous morning host. I think this qualifies, though, to be honest, 99% of the time, you can ask that question when it comes to the ACLU – Mayor, ACLU debate sex law
Jeff Thompson can’t walk down his street without running afoul of Sunbury law.
The 46-year-old city resident lives on North Seventh Street, too near a bus stop to take his dog around the block without facing jail time, too close to a day care to consider strolling to the grocery store without being locked up.
When Thompson was convicted of possession of child pornography almost 10 years ago, his picture was posted to the Megan’s Law Web site. And though the state does not deem Thompson a sexually violent predator or put any limit on where he cannot go, a city ordinance makes the majority of Sunbury off-limits to Thompson and anyone else listed under Megan’s Law, regardless of the seriousness of their crimes.
The ordinance, adopted in 2006, states that if Thompson “loiters” (the city’s definition of loitering includes “strolling in, near or upon”) within 1,000 feet of a school, bus stop, child-care facility, day-care center, recreation area, community center, park, playground, arcade, movie theater, athletic field, public library, skate park, public tennis court, pool, ice rink, YMCA, homeless shelter, motel or bed-and-breakfast, he will be thrown in prison for up to 60 days and slapped with a $500 fine.
Sunbury’s law is unheard of and unconstitutional, according to an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Said ACLU attorney fails to provide any evidence of the law being unconstitutional, just some bloviation that it is “mean” to people who have child pornography on their computers, something which truly, in a sane world where the ACLU would protect the rights of citizens against criminals, would be “unheard of.”
I’m just wondering, maybe Jeff Thompson should have thought about the consequences of having child porn on his computer. He may not be an actual predator, but, is he the kind of guy you want to take the chance on, allowing him to hang outside the YMCA and other places where children hang out?
In other news, the ACLU, along with other groups, are suing Sheriff Joe Arpaio for doing sweeps of people that fit the profile of a criminal.
The ACLU is seeking answers from John Ashcroft about waterboarding people who, last time I check, were not American citizens. Go figure. Yawn. Get over it. They get this worked up over waterboarding three (3!) terrorists, years ago, yet, barely raised an eyebrow over the rights of almost 3,000 people on a September morning almost 7 years ago.
» Filed Under ACLU, Child Exploitation, Homosexual Agenda, News
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “ACLU Loves Those Sex Offenders!”
Leave a Reply
Ah, the Scarlet ‘S’ – must be worn at all times for the reminder of a convict’s life.
I agree with keeping ’sex offenders’ away from children..with permanent limitations on their visiting schools/childcare centers or taking pictures of schools/childcare centers/playgrounds.
BUT to prevent them from walking down the street because it is within 1000 feet
(333 yards or 3 football fields)
of a school/childcare center is excessive.
If he had child porn on his computer, it is not necessary to find out whether or not he committed the act of child molestation for in any situation conceivable, such would only be a matter of time. The thrill, just like drug addiction, requires increasing levels of depravity to satisfy.
The Machine thinks that it is cruel and unusual to subject this miserable worm to such, though.
Just put a bullet through its head and be done with it.
Put it down, like a rabid dog.
Oh — and before teh moonbat faux outrage can get going, I cite their own claims of evolution as my model.
Survival of the fittest.
!
I’m thinking that the title of this article should be “Those sex offenders love Arpaio.” Here in Maricopa County, Arpaio has redirected his law enforcement resources to rounding up civilly offending illegal immigrants, using skin color as the primary determinant of whom to stop. Meanwhile, violent crime is on the rise in those areas of the county that Arpaio is responible for, officer response time has increased, and in one town, investigations of sex crimes is not happening. I’m thinking that the real criminals in Maricopa County’s outlying areas are heaping praise on Arpaio for chasing after busboys, while they are able to go about their nefarious business unobstucted.
The fact is that dangerous people like this shouldn’t be given the privalege to live outside of prison in the first place. Prison is a merciful punishment, and they should be there for life.