|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:02 pm
In my recent travels, I have come upon a petition to slap ankle bracelets on child molesters. And so, I ask you all, should this be, or not be law, and why?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:04 pm
But what of those others of us who just want to wear ankle bracelets? That's not very fair. sad
I think there has to be a better way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:11 pm
chikushou But what of those others of us who just want to wear ankle bracelets? That's not very fair. sad I think there has to be a better way. *snicker* Not those kind, the kind that shock you when you go past a certain range... But I digress: Yay, or nay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:34 pm
That's possible?
Ahem. But anyways, I still don't think that it should be done. It's kind of treating them like they're incapable of acting on their own accrod. We shouldn't put electric fences on people lest they misbehave. I know what they do is bad, but it doesn't mean they still aren't human. They're capable of stopping themselves if they so chose. If they're not, then they should be removed from society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:37 am
I don't believe in 'shock if you go outside of range x' bracelets, but allowing sex offenders an earlier parole in return for agreeing to wear a tracking bracelet could prove a powerful deterrant.
I have a STRONG belief in privacy, but once convicted of crimes, especially fairly nasty ones like sex offenses, I believe that you naturally sacrifice some of that, and It'd be better to be able to be tracked by the police than to be flat-out in jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:19 am
My freind strapped her dog's collar on me, and I accidentally walked outside of her yard. God damn, those things tingle. If the shocky bracelets would stop small children from being molested...I give a definate maybe. They SHOULD be punished, but electrical shocks are a little odd/kinky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:42 am
I don't believe in shocking to teach a lesson. It doesn't always work.
I would say that the idea of having a chip inserted into the individual which acts as a tracking device would be marvellous - the ankle braclet could simply be removed or planted on somebody who lives next door to the *****. When there's a will, there is a way!
I think it would work (the braclets) in certain states depending on the penal system in place there...if you have conservatives that want to fry every murderer's a**, then I'm pretty sure it would go down well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:42 pm
Yes 6000%
Anyone who preys on a child to me is one of the lowest pieces of scum on the planet. And to be honest, he/she/it/whatever should get a lot worse.
(Also, I apologize about not being in here as often as I'd like to.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:36 pm
I agree with Aoi, if a person ruins the life of a young child, the attacker gives up their own rights. If we let them get away with it a first time, then they will (might) do it again. That's two (if we're extremely lucky) young children molested and scarred for life. That's two lives ruined. It's almost as bad as murder, the way I see it. It's best to n** it in the bud before any other children get harmed, or should we just let them touch a few more kids before we throw them in jail, instead of giveing them ankle bracelets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:19 pm
An ankle bracelet that keeps track of where you are, or one that shocks you when you leave a proximity?
Because the later would make convincing pray to come over to my house a very interesting challenge, but the former is really no more invasive than owning a cellphone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
