Comments on: IN: Senate approves bill limiting when sex offenders can move, workplace contact with kids

By: educator

educator — Wed, 02 Apr 2025 19:32:35 +0000

In reply to Bwj. the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend, is what RECIDIVISM is

By: Love2ClearClouds

Love2ClearClouds — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:33:52 +0000

So they continue chipping away at The Constitution. I’ve been watching it for decades. If you knew who was ultimately behind all this, you’d be even more furious. But then real change might happen if everyone knew the whole truth.

“The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
-Henry A Kissinger, War Criminal

By: FAC-3

FAC-3 — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 16:00:29 +0000

In reply to RM. Thanks RM. I believe this was an excerpt from the article. Appreciate the correction.

By: RM

RM — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:57:35 +0000

The description of this bill in both the article and the FAC post is very misleading. The law only applies to probation transfers from one county to another and only affects those on probation. Such a law would be patently unconstitutional if applied to all persons forced to register, if not on community supervision or other sanctions. It is well established law that the constitutional rights of probationers can be curtailed provided that the government has a rational purpose for doing so. In some states (such as Florida), probation conditions cannot be imposed retroactively. I don’t know what Indiana caselaw is on that point.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:44:10 +0000

In reply to obvious answers. Perhaps the government wouldn’t “get away with creating a subset of Americans for abuse, slavery, and inhumane treatment” if we ourselves refrained from labelling others as “violent illegal terrorists” with “non rights.”

By: Tereto

Tereto — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:53:09 +0000

Ah yes, the states just keep stripping away your rights, and the SCOTUS sits by doing nothing. Amazing what America has become.

By: obvious answers

obvious answers — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:19:10 +0000

if the ACLU was more interested in the violation of American citizens rights then violent Tren DeAguira illegal terrorists non-rights Perhaps the government wouldn’t get away with creating a subset of Americans for abuse, slavery, and inhumane treatment…Seems any case involving RSO is defended lackluster and designed to fail while cases to defend drug Lords and gangsters are defended like they have JAG corps lawyers in a movie. But of course how can I forget RSOs aren’t allowed to have jobs or homes so we can’t donate the millions of dollars that fund them which is really their only true concern . Sad but fact . USA is the new WW2 Germany. I was mocked when almost 30 years ago I said this was only going to get more Draconian.. anyone still laughing? It still has much worse to go …

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:41:08 +0000

Inalienable: unable to be taken away.
Inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The states can not go against the constitution. If they are restricting your rights after your sentence is complete, it would mean they converted your sentence to a LIFE SENTENCE. That would be against the statutory maximum for most of us as well as violating other laws.
In Florida this could mean that if our rights are abridged it is equal to being under state control, meaning our sentence will never be complete. If our sentence isn’t complete, doesn’t that mean we don’t have to register? Just following the logic…

By: Bwj

Bwj — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:14:56 +0000

In reply to Mr D. Let's talk about recidivism. The recidivism rates for people who have been convicted for a sex crime is extremely low. Installation of these restrictions would doom any chance of someone being able to rebuild a life post conviction. Especially those who don't have family. It's unnecessarily cruel without addressing the problem of preventing sexual assault.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:05:23 +0000

In reply to Mr D. You forgot to add that you were being sarcastic.