Martinsville sex offender asks to move home

Hmmmmf wrote:

"IF" hes a trhreat he'd be a threat anywhere. Chances are highly that he is not a repeat offender, regardless to all the hate mongering, uneducated voices out there. State Rep. Foley is 100% correct, MOST of those on sex offender registry's simply made a mistake with a minor and are not remotely predators or real pedephiles. People do make mistakes, including ones of a sexual nature and only the very smallest of numbers are threats to children and society. America must learn to use common sense, psychological experts and modify laws that permanently are punitive. geesh, manslaughter convicts get far less time and punishment than someone who engaged in sex with a minor (often a very willing minor, altho still illegal).

Give me a break Bozo wrote:

Once a SEX OFFENDER/ALWAYS A SEX OFFENDER
END OF STORY. NO MEANS NO BOZO!!!!!!

stand and deliver wrote:

hey lafguy60 are you a child molester?

lafguy60 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes there is a reason I am defending constitutional rights and that is so you can post remarks that border on slander. It is amazing that many of you think that defending a persons rights is the same as defending the person. How wrong you are. Regardless of what you want to believe the taking of anyones constitutional rights is serious. If you look back through history all despots and dictators started by taking rights little by little until there were none left. In the present day world you only have to look to China and several Middle Eastern countries to see those examples. We would not have the freedom to post to these boards or for that matter would these boards exist under a totalatarian regeime.

Advocate wrote:

You are way off base. This discussion is not about China, dictators or the Middle East. It's about a convicted child rapist here in Indiana who wants live next to a school.
Besides, posting remarks on a message board doesn't infringe upon anyone's constitutional right of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Raping a 9 year old child does. "John Doe" infringed upon the constitutional rights of the child. Hopefully one day you will be able to comprehend that.
BTW. I didn't slander you. You slandered yourself by defending child molesters.
<quoted text>

ljheidel wrote:

<quoted text>I feel the same way about armed robbers, they traumatize people, too! Let's execute them. Then how about people who drive recklessly. Off with their heads!
In a free society, we have to be willing to pay for our freedoms. The second we start depriving others of liberty once they have paid their debt to society, or committing them to cruel and unusual punishment, is the second we give up a little freedom ourselves.
There are two quotes we would all be wise to remember:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -H.L. Mencken
"hose who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin

JJJ wrote:

This man has served his sentence. He should not be penalized twice by this law, which is likely unconstitutional. Eventually, the right case come before the right court, which will do its job and strike down this law.
The law is also likely unconstitutional on grounds that if he owns this property, his restriction from living in it may constitute a taking requiring the state to provide him compensation. I don't think it's a far stretch to get to that result.
This law should be repealed. If a sex offender is a danger, then let's go back to the legislature and provide judges with stricter sentencing guidelines. Then, if an offender is convicted and is truly dangerous, that offender may serve a very long time in jail. As the law stands, it punishes an offender twice for one crime - unconstitutional at the federal and state level.

PEEVED wrote:

Huh? He ONLY SERVED ten yrs?? Geez!! My nephew violated his probation and got 10 yrs for larcery (??) and This man MOLESTED a kid and got only 10 yrs!! Something's wrong with the system!! BURN HIS HOUSE!!!

lafguy60 wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a law passed within the last 2or 3 years and is now being implemented. This person was sentanced in 1991 and completed his incarceration and probation in 1996. Now he is being froced to move from his home, and you don't see the problem. Let me try to clarify the problem for you - let's say you committed a traffice violation in 2001 and paid a $25 fine. Next year the legislature passed a law that increased the fine for that infraction to $2500 and anyone who has this on their driving record is required to pay the new fine. You get a bill for $2475 and you either pay it or have your license suspended. I suspect you would be more than just a little p*&^%d off. Double jepordy applies regardless of the crime.

goob wrote:

He is not being punished twice. Being on the sex offender registry is a part of sentencing, and part of that is the 1000 feet limit. If he wanted to live where ever he wanted, he shouldn't have molested a child.

gsn wrote:

<quoted text>
I just want the 1000 ft. law to be upheld. He is on the sex offender registry.

INDY wrote:

<quoted text>
GLAD TO SEE YOU COULD RE-JOIN THE CONVERSATION JOHN DOE!

get a clue wrote:

<quoted text>
You must be an idiot to compare a traffic ticket to child molestation.

lafguy60 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh how I love to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. First, he is a child molestor not a rapist and there is a difference both in the commission of the act and the legal definition. Second, no John Doe did NOT infringe on the young victims constitutional rights unless you are going to again bring up the Preamble where it could be argued that each of us has had our right to Pursuit of Happiness infringed on at some time by someone. Perhaps one day you will truly understand constitutional rights. Finally, read or reread the definition of slander. It is impossible to slander one's self.