I Guess People Can’t Change After All
Scores of sex offenders in Anderson, South Carolina, will be corralled for Halloween tonight in a move authorities say is needed to keep kids safe as they trick or treat.
Thank for clearing that up South Carolina. Sounds constitutional to forcibly hold people for crimes they could potentiality commit.
This also serves as nice reminder that the state has a monopoly on force.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Geeze, where would state police even get the idea that they should start pulling potential criminals off the street and detaining them on the suspicion that they might attack innocents? I mean, what could have possibly given them that idea?
November 1st, 2007 at 1:04 am
“I mean, what could have possibly given them that idea?”
I mean, what is possibly the LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR THAT?? That is unbelievable - the legal system I grew up in does not have the means to enact such “preventive actions” without a distinct hint for a likely danger.
Well, let’s see: I think, on Christmas, all sex-offenders need to get detained, curfewed, surveilled, limited in their personal rights, once again, cause after all, they could pretend to be Santa and make it through the chimeneys, yes, on Easter too - there have been a lot of rapes lately, where the paroled rapist came along - dressed as the Easter bunny.
I am severely concerned. Happy Halloween.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Anyway, since you’re not responding to my veiled sarcasm, I’ll say it plainly: My slippery slope argument re: illegally detaining people was right. I win.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Man you have confidence issues.
I got what you meant in your first comment I just figured you were taking a jab at me but not seriously about laying out a real argument. You can’t possibly be suggesting that only because some of the war on terror policies local government are embolden to detain citizens in this way? I’m sure you have the wisdom to see that such an argument can’t possibly go anywhere mostly because it would be difficult to actually prove that point.
I might also point out that part of your argument relies on institutions sending messages. A position you have found less compelling in matters of the second amendment.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Steve - that’s quite a strange argument coming from the person who has argued that seatbelt laws embolden the government to oppress people.
I am inclined to think that the connection between indefinite detention with no access to a lawyer and oppression is far less tenuous than the connection between seatbelt laws and oppression.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 am
yeah, I’m mostly just taking a jab at you, but it’s still more fun when you respond in some way.