do you believe that the current criminal justice system protects the state and the rights of the offender?
491735
Yes the system protects offenders, but the state has some disadvantages. The fifth amendment stops a person from self-incrimination. This lead to the Miranda rights. Miranda is a combination of the fifth and sixth amendments. The Sixth amendment guarantees one an attorney in all criminal prosecutions, where jail time is a possible sentence. The sixth amendment also guarantees speedy, fair, public trials. If one is found not guilty the state cannot retry that person again for the same crime. The constitution and Supreme Court decisions like Miranda V. Arizona, Escaped V. Illinois, and Gregg V. Georgia have been aimed to give the accused rights.
621242
The question is puzzling.  A defendant does have the right to know what they state presumes his actions were and what they state alleges are the consequences of those acts.  In simple terms, you have a right to know everything the state may have against you.\n\nIt is hard to imagine a law that is corrupt, without any more information.  Law changes, evolves over time, as law is applied to new circumstances and conditions.\n\nThis idea of conditions of release really has more to do after the judgment, verdict and sentencing.  If a person is released, it may be conditonally.
1097458
The offenders willfully gave up their rights when they commited a sexual assault. They violated another's rights. I think notification isn't enough. They should require them to live far away from their victims. The only victims are the actual victims of the crime.
346266
I've never felt the sex offender registry protected anyone. Many people believe there is a high rate of re-offending among sex offenders. This belief is caused by the misinformation portrayed by the media looking for ratings and politicians looking for votes.\n\nThe facts are, according to the US Dept. of Justice that only 3.5% of sex offenders will be reconvicted of another sex crime. The same US Dept. of Justice report states that it is far more likely someone with a previous drug conviction will be convicted of a sex offence than a sex offender. Current and pending legislation ignores these facts. Another fact is there have been more sex offenders murdered by vigilantes in the past year than children murdered by properly registered sex offenders. Those few sex offenders who went on to commit the heinous crime of murder were also drug abusers, they were not registered as required by law and no law would have stopped them.  Addresses and Pictures on the internet did not save one single child.\n\nWhile it is true there are some high risk offenders it is also true that most on the registries are not high risk. The majority of people on the registries go on to live a crime free life and reunite with, or build a new, family. These families do in fact include children. Are we to wait until one of these children are killed before changes are made? How many more murders must happen? \n\nThe only real way to protect our children is parental supervision. The vast majority of these highly publicized cases the past few years could have been prevented if the child's parent/guardian were present. In this day and age anyone who allows a 10 or 11 year old to walk the streets alone should be charged with child endangerment. Let's not forget that less than 10% of all sex crimes are reported. This means that for every sex offender in your neighborhood there are at least 9 who are not on the registry because they have not been reported or caught yet. \n\nIt is time for community groups, professionals and lawmakers to come up with solutions that will help stop the cycle of child sex abuse, and all sex crimes. The time for continuing to punish offenders who completed their court ordered sentences and their families for a crime someone else MIGHT commit needs to end. 80% of all sex offenders report being a childhood victim of sex abuse. Most never reported this and therefore never received victim treatment. With these facts in mind let's remember that today's victims are tomorrow’s offenders. Will the registries prevent this? NO
35241
No. The typical Federal prison doesn't have any more "perks" than a state prison.  The only differance between the two is the crime that was commited.
716299
The justice system is so royally screwed up that I sometimes wonder if we might even be better off without one at all.\n\nAs someone who was abused by a sexual offender in the past, I would love to know why the accused offenders are getting more sympathy than the victims? That's no different than how the system currently works. Some officials won't believe a kid no matter what they say so the offender is never tried for their crimes and continues to do it.
1056715
NO!\n\nA mentally ill, mentally disturbed, or mentally handicapped person should be treated no differently than the rest of us, if they are a criminal.\n\nHere's why:\nA murderer kills a bunch of people, including little children. His lawyer says he is mentally unstable. He does not get the maximum sentence, in fact the judge orders him into a psychiatric ward instead of prison. Then, another person kills a bunch of people, and his lawyer isn't smart enough to use the "insanity" loophole. He gets the death penalty.\nHow is this a fair, consistent, just system?\nHere's another little tidbit for your brain to chew on:\n\nIsn't EVERY serial murderer, by definition, insane?\nIsn't EVERY rapist, by definition, insane?\nIsn't EVERY armed robber, terrorist, or assassin, by definition, unstable?\n\nEvery immoral criminal act is a sign of psychotic or sociopathic tendencies. So, why have prisons? Why not release everyone with a doctor's note? Execute all the murderers, retarded, insane, underage, you name it. Make the system fair. There's no reason why one murderer should be executed while another one goes free on a bullsh*t technicality.\n\n"But, I don't know the difference between right and wrong!"\nSo? How does that excuse you from consequences?\nDOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU EVEN MORE A DANGER TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS??? HOW IS THAT A GOOD THING?\nBeing ignorant does not make you innocent. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's what the law says. It should apply equally to everyone.\n\nWhat do you do with a dog that doesn't know better than to viciously attack humans? You put them down. That's all there is to it. Save the innocent, punish the guilty.
7143
I think the broken part of the system is the endless appeals cycle.  The fact that someone on death row actually has a smaller annual chance of dying than the average inner city youth (I got that tidbit from Freakonomics if I remember correctly) seems wasteful to me.\n\nBut at the same time, we're not running the Tower of London here.  I think, in a perfect world, we would establish a system with a limited set of appeals or appeal conditions (really new evidence not "judge roulette") and when a case is beyond a shadow of a doubt, the swiftest possible justice should be applied.  As long as you're under the shadow of doubt though, we need to treat incarcerated citizens with full human dignity.
1005664
Do you want murderers and rapists running loose in society? Do you want child molesters to go free? We must have law enforcement or we will be at the mercy of criminals.
713259
All excellent points - and the simple truth is that people **DO** afford criminals more rights than victims. It isn't politically correct to do otherwise.\n\nHowever in the US, a very interesting project has been set up. In short although people cannot be FORCED to submit to corporal punishment - some criminals can VOLUNTEER to be treated in that way under some conditions - and perhaps get reduced jail time in return.\n\nLots of details here http://www.okplus.com/fedup/index.html \n\nVery interestingly, they presently have a ZERO recidivism level for people that have been through their system.\n\nDo not be thrown by the site, the program is still running BUT the website is badly in need of some updating (or was when I last looked)\n\nI think one hangup people have about corporal punishment, is the perceived severity of it. The old UK / USA way of flogging across the back in fact left little more than "shaving nicks" - if it cut at all.\n\nAnyone who has seen too many "Mutiny on the bounty" style films and wishes to disagree should try to remember that the make-up department tends to get more than a little carried away.\n\nWet rope is not sharp enough or dense enough to "lay a mans back open to the bone" Something does not need to cut to be felt ;)\n\nThe scheme mentioned above in fact uses low-voltage cable as a cheap disposable lash material. Like the rope, little or no cutting at all - but apparently the welts are quite tender at the time.\n\nI just wish we had a system like this in the UK too, I think it could be a valuable tool to help people stay out of prison and to reduce the prison population. Nanny-state in the UK though at the moment so not much chance for a while yet.
563890
I agree with Jason. Once their sentence is over (counting probation), and maybe a fixed time after (1-2 years? just what some states do), ex-felons should be allowed to get their right to vote back.\n\nThe idea is to rehabilitate criminals by giving them a reason to re-integrate into society. Now, repeat offenders, I have less sympathy for. But someone should not lose their rights for life because of a single bad act.
564291
That's a tough one. I think it is better to keep innocent people out of jail at all costs. Although frightening to let criminals walk I suspect most of them will be caught again.
882218
The government was put in place to protect the people.  Do you want rapists and murderers near you?\n\nAre you saying jails are too expensive for our society to incarcerate felons?\n\nDo you have any alternative suggestions to bestow upon us?
199397
I think we should forget about the three strikes law, and keep all first time violent offenders in prison. Unfortunetly, that's like asking for a pot of gold. I think stricker criminal backround checks for prospective gun owners is one way. Better parenting at home is another. And truely, those who are already in prison for violent offenses, should never be let back out into society. Rehabilitation does not work.
252060
Yes, they both violate Constitutional Rights.  \n\nLittle by little our rights are going to be stripped away. It is going to happen with such subtlety that we won't even notice. \n\nFirst the sex offenders, then the drug dealers, then the attempted murderers... there will be lists for everyone eventually. Just like the Scarlet Letter. And because the majority justify it and are brainwashed that it is a necessity, they will allow it to happen. \n\nThe Sex Offender list denies those on it Due Process of the Law. They are being punished for a crime that they "might" commit one day. So much for "beyond a reasonable doubt." I agree that pedophiles might be a danger, but many people on the list are not pedophiles, although the ignorant people (even many that answered your question), don't know the difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. \n\nThey are not synonyms. They should be judged on a case by case basis on whether they are actual threats to society. But I guess the judicial system is just too lazy so they throw them all on the list and stereotype them. \n\nLittle by little... your rights are being taken away... yet you do nothing. You let it happen. One day it is going to be you...
976678
Have you ever seen the prisoner section of a mental hospital or the hospital section of a prison?  Neither is a nice place.  And how much rehabilitation can someone have if they are out of contact with the world and/or themselves.\n\nFor concepts of justice, yes, there should be an insanity defense.  For making criminal prosecution easier, perhaps not.  \n\nIt might be an eye opening encounter if you see how few people get out of criminal charges through an insanity plea..  Get in touch with your local criminal prosecutor`s office.
377965
Stephen Does Raise A Good Point\nBut I ALSO Believe That \nAs In The Case Of The "WAR ON DRUGS"\nThat MANY Non Violent "CRIMINALS"\nSuch As POTSMOKERS\n(Who I May Add Are Generally Too STONED And LAZY And PEACEFUL :)>- To Commit Violent Crimes)\nAre Being Imprisoned For Only ONE REASON\n\nTo FILL The Prisons\n\nDoes Anyone Notice How Many New Prisons Are Being Built In Recent Years?\n\nEach Prisoner Brings STATE SANCTIONED REVENUES To The (NEWLY) Privatized Prison System\nThe More PRISONERS You Got=The More $$$ You Get\n\nSo I Believe That IMPRISONMENT=MONEY For The STATE From The Federal Govt. Which In Turn Trickles Down To The Corporate Elite That Own The Prisons