Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tonight
No, it's No to building more low income housing in nice neighborhoods for the low income people to come in a trash it and tear it up, bring crime into the area, lowering property values. (seeing this go on first hand it sucks) It's not that I don't care about the poor. I would rather see more homeless shelters that ******* programs to help people get educations and jobs, then build more housing for people to live off the govt in for many years to come. (section 8)
And how many propositions have we had for monies to go to the public schools, and the money doesn't go to them? I watched a total of 9 schools in Oakland close in a year....where money was apparently supposed to be going to those schools. I'm wondering where that money is actually went. I've voted yes in the past, even though I don't like the public school system.
|
Those are valid concerns and I won't argue with them. I'm voting yes because I believe more good than bad will come of it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tonight
It doesn't directly, but indirectly it seeks to isolate these people committing these crimes. It's not going to be %100 percent effective. If someone doesn't care about what they do, and they commit another crime with the tracking device on them, then the system would be to blame for releasing these offenders in the first place.
It will keep them away from schools, parks, playgrounds, and other places where children converge. Annnd as I said above I'm willing to vote yes on this to see how effective it is.
The tracker doesn't provide *me* with a false sense of security (I'm sure it will for many), but I believe this is worth the experiment. If california is releasing habitual sex offenders, then they don't have the strictest penalties in place. As mentioned in another post, I don't think they should ever be released. I have zero tolerance or pity for these people. Why are we not concerned with the impact these crimes have on victims, rather than how penalties will effect the lives of these offenders?
Do I want the offender's life to be hell? yes I do...
(aka To starla )
|
This tracker system is going to be crazy expensive. Over $100 million per year and it is not clear who is going to pay for this (state? counties? city?). There must be a more cost-effective solution than this or that money could be better spent elsewhere. I don't think that California is releasing habitual sex offenders (has there been a rash of sex crimes I've missed on the news?). Sexual predators and rapists already get 25 to life in prison. Now this bill wants to give longer sentences to less dangerous people that just have child porn. I have no qualms about that sentiment, but when I take into account our overcrowded prisons and out of control prison costs (California now makes deals with other states and pays them to house their overflow of prisoners), I start to think that this is counterproductive. Then there's the increase in yardage that a sex offender can live within a school (increased to 2,000 from 1320) and the addition of parks, too, that will basically mean that all sex offenders will have to move out of urban areas. This may backfire as sex offenders go live and gather rural areas where there is less law enforcement presence and barely any psychiatric counseling or other social services designed to help them control themselves available.