Administration asks Supreme Court to block release of sex offen...

I think as a condition of release sex offenders should first spend a summer in the company of the Richmond VA appeals court justice's children and grandchildren before rejoining the general public.

Just shoot 'em and be done with it /'em.
There's simply nothing lower on the face of the earth than child-abusers and that goes for the Papist Pedophiles as well.

The messiahobama and cohorts need the popular slime vote to get their 52%, just like they got in November of '08.

I am as horrified buy some of these users’ comments as I am with the body of this artcal. Not to mention the way that the current presidential administration appears to be disregarding the constitution. These men have been convicted of heinous crimes however they still have the right to dew proses of law. I agree that sex offenders should be dealt with harshly however once a sentence is agreed upon and imposed it is wrong for anybody to change it never the les extend it indefently.

Constitution wrote:

I am as horrified buy some of these users’ comments as I am with the body of this artcal. Not to mention the way that the current presidential administration appears to be disregarding the constitution. These men have been convicted of heinous crimes however they still have the right to dew proses of law. I agree that sex offenders should be dealt with harshly however once a sentence is agreed upon and imposed it is wrong for anybody to change it never the les extend it indefently.

Registering on the child sex offenders list is mandatory for all child sex offenders.

Not only that but I guess you have not seen any of the Dateline stings where repeat sex offenders have been caught trying to get sex from a 13 year old. One guy brought a bottle of wine and flowers while another man said he didn't care if he went back to jail as long as he could have sex with the 13 year old.

I agree that sex offenders are a danger to our kids however has any one reviewed this law? Or read the case mitral. The opinion is on the 4th Ckts. web sight http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/077... According to the law that this article is about all the government has to do is deem that you are “sexually dangerous” this allows them to hold you as long as they want. There is also no definition of sexual danger this means that an activist DA could have you defined as dangerous with little reason and even less proof.
To me that thought is infinitely scarier then sex offenders lose, it’s a Hitlerism. The constitution gives congress no authority to do that a fact that has been up held in previous cases US V Perry states.
Congress may not, however, authorize
commitment simply to protect the general welfare of
the community at large.
The whole situation is scary even if it starts hear with good intents it only takes one bad politician to twist it into something terrifying like indefinite imprisonment of political prisoners.
If any one wants to argue that we should keep them imprison simply because of there likelihood to commit a crime. Then listen to your self, you want to imprison somebody not fore what they did but what they may do. If that is the society you want to live in then be my guests just don’t ask the rest of us to go live there with you. Esphely when there where times where everybody may have ben about to commit a crime.(who hasn’t wanted to fight somebody?)

Hi,
hab grade eine super neue Seite gefunden http://www.erotik-kleinanzeigen.com da kann man kostenlose Anzeigen schalten, Anzeigen merken, Nachrichten an Mitglieder verschicken. Jetzt haben die auch ganz neu Gratis Videos, Video-on-demand Service eingebaut. Super Seite... Ich kann sie nur weiter empfehlen.

Anyone can go to all sorts of FemiNazi websites to learn how to get a better settlement in divorce court. Simply testify that hubby was so angry that wifey was "terrified" that he would hit her. Of course he didn't hit her but she plants the seeds of doubt that hubby was capable of it and that her fears were founded. The next seed to plant is that she was "terrified" that hubby was going to molest the children so that's why she needed out of the marriage. Of course he didn't do any such thing but she saved "evidence" from his computer or he was too "clumsy" when he changed baby's diapers or a hundred other scraps of "evidence" fabricated from the "suspicious" wife.