Election 2010 Ballot Measures

[thekfc]

There are a few interesting measures on this November Ballot.

Here is a run down of a few of them by state.

Arizona:
Legalization of medical marijuana.    
Prohibit rules against participation in specific health care.

Arkansas:
Right to hunt, fish and trap wildlife

California:
Legalize and tax marijuana,    
Suspend AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act" until unemployment falls below 5.5% for a year.
 
Colorado
Eliminate property taxes for individuals or businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit.

Florida:
Repeal of the public financing of statewide candidates who agree to spending limits.
Changes the current "maximum" class sizes to school-wide "average" class sizes.

Georgia:
Allow the enforcement of contracts that restrict competition during or after the term of employment.
Provides for inventory of businesses to be exempt from state property tax.

Hawaii:
Replaces the elected state board of education with a board appointed by the governor.

Idaho:
Allow public medical facilities to enter debt to upgrade facilities.
Allow airports in the state to take on debt for endeavors that would improve facilities.

Illinois:
Allows voters to recall the governor.

Indiana:
Add a property tax cap amendment to the Indiana Constitution.

Kansas:
Allow citizens to bear arms in the state .
Eliminate mental illness as a voting disqualification.

Louisiana:
Gives Judges and Prosecutors say in criminal's choice of a bench trial.
State elected official salary increases.
Limitation on property tax increases.
 
Maine:
Calls for a casino in Oxford, Maine .

Maryland:
Increases the amount of money in controversy in civil proceedings.

Massachusetts:
Sales tax eliminated for alcohol sales in the state.
Roll 6.25% sales tax back to 3%

Michigan:
Would bar any office holder convicted of a felony involving deceit and fraud from holding public office for 20 years.
 
Missouri:
Prohibit taxes for the sale/transfer of homes or any other real estate.
Property Tax Exemption for Disabled Former Prisoners of War.
 
Montana:
Prohibit any new tax on the sale or transfer of real property.
Cap yearly interest rates of payday and title loans at 36 percent.

Nebraska:
Whether or not to abolish the position of the state treasurer.

Nevada:    
Allows lawmakers to make certain tax changes without going to a vote of the people.
Prohibit the taking of private property if it is to be transferred to a private party.
 
New Jersey:
Dedicate assessments on wages to employee benefits.

New Mexico:
Extend term limits to New Mexico county officials.

New York:
Term limit reduction:

North Carolina:
Prohibit convicted felons from running for sheriff in the state.

North Dakota:
Bans fenced hunting such as game preserves where people pay to shoot big-game animals.
   
Oklahoma:
English is "common and unifying language of Oklahoma".
Potential voters must provide proof of identity. 

Oregon:
Requires an increased minimum sentence for some sex crimes and repeat DUIs.

Rhode Island:
Change the state's official name.

South Carolina:
Allow secret union ballots as fundamental rights to workers.

South Dakota:
Extends smoking ban to apply statewide.
Proposes legalization of medical marijuana.

Tennessee:
Personal right to hunt and fish within state laws and property rights.

Utah:
Amends and clarifies legislative residency requirements.

Vermont:
Would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they turn 18 by Election Day.

Virginia:
Exempt elderly & veterans from property taxes.

Washington:
Gives judges authority to deny bail whenever they deem the public at risk.
Closes state liquor stores and authorizes sale, distribution, & importation by private parties.
Taxes gross income above $200,000 for individuals, $400,000 for couples. Reduces state property tax by 20% and reduces certain business and occupation taxes

So all you documented voters - go out there & vote.

[fathertime]

I gotta giggle about CA getting the unemployment rate under 5.5%.   In my opinion that will not be happening for 10 years or more.  Even then it will probably be some false reading the govt. makes up!

Massachusetts voting to roll back taxes from 6% to 3%. Well that is an interesting one.  I wonder what the catches are with that.

Oregon:
Requires an increased minimum sentence for some sex crimes and repeat DUIs.
and who wouldn't vote for this new law?  You can't punish these types of criminals enough.  My question is why do these two very different types of criminals have to be bundled together in a single law?

Fathertime!

[piglett]

Oregon:
Requires an increased minimum sentence for some sex crimes and repeat DUIs.
and who wouldn't vote for this new law?  You can punish these types of criminals enough.  My question is why do these two very different types of criminals have to be bundled together in a single law?

Maybe they want to really crack down on sex offenders who molest children while driving drunk
bureaucrats write up this sh*t so who really knows what they have between their 2 ears


pig

[Ray]

Maybe they want to really crack down on sex offenders who molest children while driving drunk
bureaucrats write up this sh*t so who really knows what they have between their 2 ears
 

I can’t speak for Oregon, but in California it isn’t bureaucrats who write all this stuff.

Anyone can write up an initiative and get it on the ballot with the required number of valid signatures on a petition.

[jm21-2]

Minimum sentencing in OR is really bad already. They keep raising it by these ridiculous initiatives. I actually wanted to be a prosecutor in OR at one point but the injustices that resulted from minimum sentencing were so sickening I would never be able to do the job until they fix things.

Why sex crimes and DUIs? I haven't read the legislation but would put bets it's statutory rape [edit: probably possession of kiddy porn too] and DUIs, crimes that can be pretty harmless depending on the facts and judges may be more lenient towards the perpetrator depending on the facts of the case (as they should be). Currently you can't plea bargain a DUI in OR and there are strict sentencing requirements. So if you get caught jokingly kicking back a few beers in your old classic car that's on blocks in your garage, you're [snip]ed. Juveniles can also be tried as adult with very strict minimum sentencing laws. One kid got locked away for years for statutory rape, very bright guy, wrote some award winning plays while in prison and was eventually pardoned.

[thekfc]

A 25-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for repeat offenders of any four felony sex crimes.

90-day jail term for a third drunk-driving conviction. The conviction would also be considered a Class C felony if the previous convictions were within the past 10 years

http://kdrv.com/news/local/191964

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_Minimum_Criminal_Sentence_Increase,_Measure_73_%282010%29

[fathertime]

Great link KFC,


Jim I like how you always take the obligatory other side of the argument, but I don’t know how the hell you can actually have these viewpoints. 

I don’t view repeat drunk drivers as ‘pretty harmless’ and I am pretty amazed you would too.  I want as many impaired drivers off the road as possible, because my family and I are interested in having our lives ruined by some other idiot’s idiotic decisions.  First time offender, ok a moderate sentence is probably in order, second time, there is just no excuse, and lock him up for a few years, keep him off the road and let him reconsider his decisions.


Regarding the sexual offender law, if you read the text that KFC provided, it is talking about much more severe crimes then statutory rape.  I agree with you though on the statutory rape laws.  I don’t view an 18 and 16 year old as a serious crime, or a 22 year old with a 17 year old for example, but a 55 year old with a 15 year old that is a different story. Each case has to be looked at separately so a mandatory minimum would unnecessarily tie the hands of the judge.   

Fathertime!

[thekfc]

Regarding the sexual offender law, if you read the text that KFC provided, it is talking about much more severe crimes then statutory rape.

Measure imposes mandatory-minimum sentence of 300 months for person convicted of “major felony sex crime” if previously convicted of major felony sex crime; defines “major felony sex crime” as first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, using child in sexually explicit display; previous conviction includes statutory counterpart in another jurisdiction, and separate criminal episode in same sentencing proceeding.

[william3rd]

In San Bernardino County DUIs work like this-

in exchange for plea to misdemeanor DUI

1st Offense-

1- credit for the time in jail- usually a couple of hours but can count as 2 days if you are booked before midnight and release after midnight
2- Alcohol classes- enhanced for high BAC.
3- fine with penalty assessment- about 1700
4- 3 years summary probation

2nd offense- within 10 years

1- 30 days jail- work release authorized. Credit for time served. 50% "discount" so about 14 days actual time cleaning a park. $100 work release fee.
2- multi-offender alcohol classes
3- fine with penalty assessment- about 1900
4- 3 years summary probation

3rd offense- within 10 years

1- 180 days county jail, credit, work release, "discount"- about 88 days
2- multi-offender classes 18 months
3- fine is the same
4- 3 years summary probation

LA county is similar but due to jail over crowding the time may be only a few days. The smart guys take the jail, do about five days and go home with their jail time completed

[jm21-2]

FT,

I completely disagree with you on the seriousness of those crimes. The statistics regarding DUIs have been incredibly warped by MADD and the definition of drunk driving has been expanded to the point of being ludicrous. Those "major" sex offenses are also potentially not a big deal since their definition is vague and ever-expanding.

There is a bit of role playing which is supposed to go on in the courts. The over-zealous prosecutor makes the case for the maximum sentence to satisfy the news and sometimes the victim. It's the judge's role to rein them in by being able to determine sentencing. Similarly the ridiculous sentence the prosecutor is requesting makes it easier for the defense attorney to get his/her client to plea bargain to a reasonable sentence if it's pretty obvious the person committed the crime. Not a great system but it works.

Our criminal and prison system is also already financially unsustainable. IF everyone had a trial and everyone had a mandatory minimum sentence we'd be spending an even more insane amount on locking people up. It may not even be financially possible to do.

Now even if you were right and these offenses were serious problems there's also a lot of cases that I think should get a more personal touch as far as sentencing goes. I am reading the explanation submitted and the statutes as the articles posted did not go into too many details. http://www.oregonvotes.org/nov22010/m73_es.pdf

So some examples of what I would consider unfair and unjust that appear to be required under this law:

Sex crime example: Guy is in college with a promising future. He goes to parties on Fridays and Saturdays and tries to hook up with girls. He hooks up with girl on two separate occasions after they drink too much partying. He enjoys the sex (she's kind of kinky and into sex toys) but ultimately she's not his type and he doesn't want to date her seriously. Girl gets pissed off at guy and claims he took advantage of her while drunk. That's two counts of unlawful sexual penetration I in two separate episodes, mandatory 25 years in prison. When he gets out he's a felony sex offender which severely limits what little is left of his future. Just or unjust?

DUI example: Guy is in high school. He is 17 and drinks a small glass of wine at his girlfriend's house while visiting with her parents. Gets pulled over for a busted tail light on the way home, cop smells alcohol, blows a .01 and is convicted under zero-tolerance for minors law. Goes through a $4,000 diversion program that teaches him exactly how much alcohol it takes to be considered drunk (a .08). Guy doesn't drink until he is 21 because he is so scared. After 21 he's finishing college and socializes occasionally in bars (maybe one time per month), but he's always mindful of the lesson he learned in the diversion program and makes sure that if he does drink with his friends he keeps it under a .06 (just to make absolutely sure he's definitely under the .08 limit). Unfortunately he didn't keep up on legislation and the limit was lowered to .04. He gets pulled over for having a headlight out, blows a .04, and gets his second conviction. He swears off drinking completely and stops going to bars. Has to be on probation and spend another $4k on a useless treatment program. Guy graduates with an engineering degree and starts work at a non-profit bio engineering firm working on an AIDS vaccine. He turns 26 and meets up with an old college buddy. They are messing around riding skateboards on the driveway of his friend's new house. His friend is working at a local microbrewery and wants some feedback on a couple new recipes he's hoping will land him as brewmaster. Guy is convinced to try the beer despite having not had a drink since he got his second DUI. Cop sees them and gives him a breathalyzer. He blows .05 and the skateboard is considered a vehicle so bam, third DUI. He gets locked up for 90 days and is now a felon. Loses his job, can't find any firm that will hire a felon, and ends up living in his parents basement and working at office depot. Definitely more of an outlier but [snip] like this does happen.

[fathertime]

FT,

I completely disagree with you on the seriousness of those crimes. The statistics regarding DUIs have been incredibly warped by MADD and the definition of drunk driving has been expanded to the point of being ludicrous. Those "major" sex offenses are also potentially not a big deal since their definition is vague and ever-expanding. 

Jim I just read your long and incredibly ridiculous scenario about the kid getting 3 drunk drivings.  I also read your scenario about the 'rape' 

I'm just not buying it.  There are repeat sexual offenders all over the place committing crimes.  Obviously they haven't been housed long enough in jail. 

Regarding your dui examples.  I don't know any states that convict somebody over 21 of DUI for being .04, if there are states that do, then show me.  In my opinion that is too little a threshold for being considered drunk.  What I do know is I have two people I know that have multiple DUI's  One good friend has 3 spread of 15 years.  And the other has 7 spread of 20 years.  Both of these guys are still free and guess what they are doing?  Well the one with 3 is riding his bike to the bar ( i see his bike locked to the tree) so that is better than being the wheel. The other guy with 7 (multiple states), is still driving around drunk, just waiting to run over some unlucky kid.  He has major bucks and since the prison system can't seem to hold him somebody should chop off his hands so he can no longer drive. 

All this being said, I would like courts to consider the extent of drunkiness as well, if somebody is blowing .08 that should be handled differently than somebody blowing .24, which is a complete disrespect for society.

Fathertime!

[piglett]

Regarding your dui examples.  I don't know any states that convict somebody over 21 of DUI for being .04, if there are states that do, then show me. All this being said, I would like courts to consider the extent of drunkiness as well, if somebody is blowing .08 that should be handled differently than somebody blowing .24, which is a complete disrespect for society.

well this is a rare situation JM & I are on the SAME side of an issue 

my understanding is this, to be convicted of DUI years ago you had to blow something like a 1.8 then they lowered it a little & then a little more, hell i recall when it was 1.0 around here. Also some states are also busting people driving while impaired
which CAN be as little as 0.4 or 0.6. My question is this, why do some states ( New Hampshire is one of them) sell alcohol? Yes that's rite no private liquor stores here, the state sells it to you & where are some of them located? on a very busy 4 lane highway WTF???  you have to drive to go get it, what in the hell where they thinking?


pig

[fathertime]

well this is a rare situation JM & I are on the SAME side of an issue 

my understanding is this, to be convicted of DUI years ago you had to blow something like a 1.8 then they lowered it a little & then a little more, hell i recall when it was 1.0 around here. Also some states are also busting people driving while impaired
which CAN be as little as 0.4 or 0.6. My question is this, why do some states ( New Hampshire is one of them) sell alcohol? Yes that's rite no private liquor stores here, the state sells it to you & where are some of them located? on a very busy 4 lane highway WTF???  you have to drive to go get it, what in the hell where they thinking?


pig

Hey pigllettt!
 I don’t know if any of us disagree on the .04 part of the issue.  That seems a little low to be considered drunk driving,  driving while impaired perhaps, if the driver is swerving or doing something else that indicates they are not driving safely.    My impression is that law is pertaining to DUI’s more specifically MULTIPLE DUI’s which I don’t have much patience for and think the penalty should be more stringent.  I view habitually driving drunk as a complete disrespect for those around you.  It is not the drinking I object to, but for a person to put others in harm’s way by driving is exactly what laws are for, to protect the innocent from the dangerous. 

Somebody who has been popped on multiple occassions for DUI’s is intentionally continuing the dangerous behavior and has to be taken out of circulation until it is established that he is going to knock that crap off.  Innocent kids do die from DUI’s, as a matter of fact tonight on Halloween there will be quite a few kids killed needlessly while trick or treating, because some inconsiderate sob is driving drunk.  It happens every year. 

In California, your average 200 pound man can drink 4 beers within an hour and still may barely pass the .08 threshold by the time he is tested.  That seems reasonable to me, perhaps even slightly lenient.  Back in the old days I think the level was 1.5 in CA, that would mean the same man could drink 8 beers in that hour and still possibly pass the DUI test.  To me that is clearly WAYYYY to much beer in an hour to be driving.  Whaddya think piggglett?

Fathertime!

[william3rd]

So- dont drink and drive.

Last DUI I handled, he got his third DUI when he rear ended a family who was lawfully stopped at a functioning traffic signal. Poor guy. We oughta lock up that family, damn it. I mean how dare they get in the way of a drunk driver trying to get home. Damn kids screaming after the accident. . . . they should have been charged with disturbing the peace

While I think that MADD probably has gone too far, especially on first offenders, once you get past that first DUI, what is your excuse? Most of the second offenders I have seen are still on probation from the first and all of the thirds have been on probation from prior DUI offenses.

Funny thing- it is said that each DUI driver has probably driven 100 times drunk before he got caught.

Part of the plea admonition now is that you the defendant realize that alcohol impairs your ability to drive and if you kill someone while DUI, you can be charged with murder.

[jm21-2]

Oregon is .04 for off-duty commercial drivers. They lose their CDL for it. The push seems to be for a .04 limit and given how successful MADD has been in the past I see it coming down the pipeline eventually. Here is how I bet they will push it: They will ingrain it in people that .08 is drunk. Then they will say, well, they have a .08 when they got in the car, but it goes down to a .04 by the time they get to the police station, have a phone call to a lawyer, and blow. So we need a .04 to get a better conviction rate.

Piglett, the BAC was at .12 or above for a long time, as according to studies that was when it started to effect driving safety in the average person.

How many drinks it takes to get to .08 can be a little bit confusing as different beers and wines have vastly different alcohol content and hardly anyone measures wine by the accepted standard. The standard for a glass of wine is 3.5 ounces but usually people put quite a bit more than that in a glass. 1-2 strong beers and 1-2 generous glasses of wine could put people over .08 pretty easily.

FT, of your two examples of drunk drivers, how many people have they killed or injured? I often hear people look at examples of how people drove drunk for many years and never got busted and think "wow, those people are so reckless and dangerous!" but strangely they don't think "hm, I know plenty of people who have been doing this for decades and never hurt anyone...is it really that dangerous?" There were statistics going around something like "drunk drivers only get pulled over 1 out of [insert huge number] times they drive drunk." People looked at it and said "wow, we need more enforement," rather than questioning how dangerous the activity really was.

A not uncommon repeat sex offender scenario: Guy is a pedophile. Gets a statutory rape when he's fairly young. Can't control his urges and every few years gets busted for possession of kiddy porn. Never has a relationship with a minor again but can't have a normal relationship with a woman his age and eventually needs some sort of release so looks up porn.

The 25 year minimum applies even on the first conviction if there were more than 2 episodes. 2 episodes is not a lot. I can think of plenty of situations that are potentially morally reprehensible but not deserving of a 25 year sentence under the law.

For example, the following relationships could result in a mandatory 25 year sentence:

Two eleven year old boyfriend/girlfriend, provided one was tried as an adult. (for example, no adult knows about the sex until the kids are older, but the statute of limitations hasn't run)

Two 15yo half brothers/sisters who decide to fool around with each other.

A guy who has an affair with his step daughter. If he married an older woman it would be possible they would be around the same age.

Pretty much any relationship involving excessive use of alcohol/drugs and kinky sex.

[piglett]

I talked to a real old timer a couple years back & he showed me an old jeep sitting in his barn.
he told me that ( probably back in the 50's) he & his friends used to drive around in that old jeep & because there was no top & only a roll bar they would throw their empties out when they were done with then & crack open another one. now granted there was much less traffic back then but "they" never got into an accident & at the time the law for an over the limit BOC was around 1.8
 now does that mean that we should all go out drunk as a skunk & drive around in an open top jeep?
I would say probably not. laws for DUI & pee pee touchers have gotten much stricter as time goes on.

I myself could have had a BIG problem back when i was 21
a black girl who said she was 16 took a liking to me & started to call me at work.
as i later found out she was only 14 & it would have probably went rather bad for me in the "crow bar motel"
i would say that one of the rather large black dudes would have wanted to make me his b*tch once he found out the conditions for my incarceration. lucky for me i found out the scoop on this chick & avoided her for a while till she got the hint


pig
   

[fathertime]

I myself could have had a BIG problem back when i was 21
a black girl who said she was 16 took a liking to me & started to call me at work.
as i later found out she was only 14 & it would have probably went rather bad for me in the "crow bar motel"
i would say that one of the rather large black dudes would have wanted to make me his b*tch once he found out the conditions for my incarceration. lucky for me i found out the scoop on this chick & avoided her for a while till she got the hint


pig
   

well yeah you might have found a heap of trouble for that one pigglettt.  But there are some pretty big differences in the situation that you are describing and one where an older man is doing the pursuing and using his stature to lure a young gal into a situation where he can molest her or rape her.  What you are describing was mutual consent, even if she wasn't old enough to legally consent in most states. 

I am for REALLY strengthening the laws against real abusers, the type that go after young school aged girls intentionally and against their will.  I also want to see men or woman that use violence to rape/molest someone of the opposite/same sex.  It appears to me that this law is more concerned about these type of crimes, rather than what piggglet is describing. 

Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

well yeah you might have found a heap of trouble for that one pigglettt.  But there are some pretty big differences in the situation that you are describing and one where an older man is doing the pursuing and using his stature to lure a young gal into a situation where he can molest her or rape her.  What you are describing was mutual consent, even if she wasn't old enough to legally consent in most states. 

I am for REALLY strengthening the laws against real abusers, the type that go after young school aged girls intentionally and against their will.  I also want to see men or woman that use violence to rape/molest someone of the opposite/same sex.  It appears to me that this law is more concerned about these type of crimes, rather than what piggglet is describing. 

Fathertime!

And this is precisely the problem with our sensationalist media and laws that are misleadingly titled. There are not many "real abusers" as you termed them. The vast majority of cases are more like Piglett's. That is why minimum sentencing statutes are particularly bad. People get freaked out by a few really bad cases where someone got off easy, they get fooled by special interest groups, they don't really understand the criminal justice system, and they wind up punishing many people excessively.

People rely too much on emotions to make their decisions. Look at children being kidnapped by strangers, for example. A huge amount of time, money, and energy is spent on that issue but it almost never happens. Maybe 100 cases per year. Arguably "stranger danger" is far more dangerous to children on the whole (really hurts social development) than the almost non-existent chance of being kidnapped by a stranger.

[fathertime]

And this is precisely the problem with our sensationalist media and laws that are misleadingly titled. There are not many "real abusers" as you termed them. The vast majority of cases are more like Piglett's. That is why minimum sentencing statutes are particularly bad. People get freaked out by a few really bad cases where someone got off easy, they get fooled by special interest groups, they don't really understand the criminal justice system, and they wind up punishing many people excessively.

People rely too much on emotions to make their decisions. Look at children being kidnapped by strangers, for example. A huge amount of time, money, and energy is spent on that issue but it almost never happens. Maybe 100 cases per year. Arguably "stranger danger" is far more dangerous to children on the whole (really hurts social development) than the almost non-existent chance of being kidnapped by a stranger.

well Jm, i agree with some of what you said in your second paragraph about the socialization regarding children. Many parents are a little scared and perhaps overreactive because of the occasional kidnapping that does occur.  But once again the consequence is so great when it does occur that I fully understand why parents are worried. 
in your first paragraph i have some issues.  it seems to me that when a person is booked for a crime, their is some give/take in what the crime is that they are booked for.  Is it not safe for me to make the assumption that DA's are charging people properly and not overcharging?  I mean to say, clearly I wouldn't want someone in pigggletts situation to be charged with aggravated rape and I would assume that does not happen.

What it comes down to for me, is I'd rather have people that are guilty of crimes more time rather than less, so I don't have much sympathy for violent/sexual criminals.   

BTW: I don't even consider an 19-16 year old relationship a crime to begin with, in most cases. 

Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

well Jm, i agree with some of what you said in your second paragraph about the socialization regarding children. Many parents are a little scared and perhaps overreactive because of the occasional kidnapping that does occur.  But once again the consequence is so great when it does occur that I fully understand why parents are worried. 
in your first paragraph i have some issues.  it seems to me that when a person is booked for a crime, their is some give/take in what the crime is that they are booked for.  Is it not safe for me to make the assumption that DA's are charging people properly and not overcharging?  I mean to say, clearly I wouldn't want someone in pigggletts situation to be charged with aggravated rape and I would assume that does not happen.

What it comes down to for me, is I'd rather have people that are guilty of crimes more time rather than less, so I don't have much sympathy for violent/sexual criminals.   

BTW: I don't even consider an 19-16 year old relationship a crime to begin with, in most cases. 

Fathertime!

Again, your comments on kidnapping strike me as emotional. Is it that much worse when a child dies of a kidnapping than a drowning? A dead child is a dead child. Yet we spend a huge amount of effort on kidnappings by strangers (almost none occur and a large cost) and almost nothing on safety equipment for pools (many small children drown in pools and the equipment is very cheap). Further, most children who are kidnapped by strangers are found later (though just barely a majority). So, I don't see why we have any fear of kidnapping by strangers. It should be probably our smallest fear with regards to children.

I have worked ina  prosecutor's office and all the prosecutors I know dramatically over-charge criminals. Not as far as the nature of the crimes but in the quantity of charges. As stated previously, a lot of this is so the defense attorney can tell their client they got them a "good deal" and accept a reasonable charge as a plea bargain. I remember one prosecutor chortling over how she had been able to ramp up charges. The perpetrator had shot a BB gun and hit a can with it that was near three children. Illegal discharge of a firearm, four charges of child endangerment (one for each child and one for children who may have been near) and I believe four counts of reckless endangerment. That kind of charging seems to be pretty typical. For example, a sex offender will rarely get charged with just rape, when they can also be charged with unlawful penetration, sodomy, kidnapping, and so on as well. The absolute maximum allowed by law. They don't charge people with something they know they can't get as it turns off jurors, but they charge as many crimes and counts as possible. There's usually quite a bit of overlap between offenses so there are usually multiple crimes that can be charged for one incident.

[fathertime]

Again, your comments on kidnapping strike me as emotional. Is it that much worse when a child dies of a kidnapping than a drowning? A dead child is a dead child. Yet we spend a huge amount of effort on kidnappings by strangers (almost none occur and a large cost) and almost nothing on safety equipment for pools (many small children drown in pools and the equipment is very cheap). Further, most children who are kidnapped by strangers are found later (though just barely a majority). So, I don't see why we have any fear of kidnapping by strangers. It should be probably our smallest fear with regards to children.

Yes of course my comments are emotional when it comes to children being kidnapped.  Practically all parents of young children or children in general are emotional about this subject.  To me you sound completely unemotional and talk about children as if they are suitcases. The way you talk about kidnappings it sounds like you are missing part of your heart  This is one area of spending I am completely on board with and every effort should be made to find a kidnapped child.   
I don't know how many children are kidnapped each year but I've heard about enough local cases to know it happens often enough.  You are stating that kidnapping should be our smallest fear regarding children?  That is just nuts, you don't have kids and judging from your posts you have no emotional connection to how a parent thinks.

In case you didn't know, most parents are EXTREMELY concerned about their kids drowning as well.  Parents feel they have more control over a situation with pools because they can put a fence up around it, they can put an alarm on the water or netting, and they can keep an especially close watch on the kids that don't swim well.

Fathetime!

[jm21-2]

Yes of course my comments are emotional when it comes to children being kidnapped.  Practically all parents of young children or children in general are emotional about this subject.  To me you sound completely unemotional and talk about children as if they are suitcases. The way you talk about kidnappings it sounds like you are missing part of your heart  This is one area of spending I am completely on board with and every effort should be made to find a kidnapped child.   
I don't know how many children are kidnapped each year but I've heard about enough local cases to know it happens often enough.  You are stating that kidnapping should be our smallest fear regarding children?  That is just nuts, you don't have kids and judging from your posts you have no emotional connection to how a parent thinks.

In case you didn't know, most parents are EXTREMELY concerned about their kids drowning as well.  Parents feel they have more control over a situation with pools because they can put a fence up around it, they can put an alarm on the water or netting, and they can keep an especially close watch on the kids that don't swim well.

Fathetime!

Please read my posts. I was talking about kidnapping by strangers. This is where the fear is centered but not where the problem is. From the statistics I have seen, less than .01% of kidnappings are by strangers. Almost all kidnappings are by people who know the child. The idea of "stranger danger" and protecting children from strangers is completely wrongheaded. If you want to worry about kidnappings, fine, but don't worry about strangers doing it. Though I can't imagine what it's like to live in fear of everyone who knows your child. Got to be nerve-racking.

I don't want to see a child die, and certainly not my children, nor do I want them injured. But injecting emotion into the argument and saying that one way of dying is far more horrible than others does not help children. In fact, it prevents us from protecting them more effectively.

Now I will admit to having much more faith in childrens' ability to take care of themselves compared to the Americans I know. So does my fiance. She started riding the subway in a major city at around 6 or 7 years old, but parents here would probably worry about a 12 year old taking a county bus or ferry by themselves. People reply that Asian cities are safer, apparently because Asian strangers are less prone to kidnapping for some reason, but I think Asian traffic is probably far more dangerous to a child than the nearly non-existent chance of being kidnapped by a stranger in the US.

Safety seems to be by far the highest priority here...no wonder the country is so screwed up.

[Jeff S]

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/about-2/

[fathertime]

Please read my posts. I was talking about kidnapping by strangers. This is where the fear is centered but not where the problem is. From the statistics I have seen, less than .01% of kidnappings are by strangers. Almost all kidnappings are by people who know the child. The idea of "stranger danger" and protecting children from strangers is completely wrongheaded. If you want to worry about kidnappings, fine, but don't worry about strangers doing it. Though I can't imagine what it's like to live in fear of everyone who knows your child. Got to be nerve-racking.

I don't want to see a child die, and certainly not my children, nor do I want them injured. But injecting emotion into the argument and saying that one way of dying is far more horrible than others does not help children. In fact, it prevents us from protecting them more effectively.

Now I will admit to having much more faith in childrens' ability to take care of themselves compared to the Americans I know. So does my fiance. She started riding the subway in a major city at around 6 or 7 years old, but parents here would probably worry about a 12 year old taking a county bus or ferry by themselves. People reply that Asian cities are safer, apparently because Asian strangers are less prone to kidnapping for some reason, but I think Asian traffic is probably far more dangerous to a child than the nearly non-existent chance of being kidnapped by a stranger in the US.

Safety seems to be by far the highest priority here...no wonder the country is so screwed up.

I disagree with practically everything you have to say in this post.

The idea of "stranger danger" and protecting children from strangers is completely wrongheaded.

Completely wrongheaded? 
Your elevator isn’t reaching the top floor today.  Children need and want to be protected from strangers and even from ‘creepy relatives’.   I’m not talking about hovering over them night and day, but I’m damn well interested in keeping close tabs on where they are when they are travelling alone.    It does not have to do with outright ‘fear’ of strangers, but assessing risk with strangers is completely normal. 

Though I can't imagine what it's like to live in fear of everyone who knows your child. Got to be nerve-racking.

Of course you have no idea, he are childless and have no clue how to raise a child.

Be that as it may neither can I imagine what it would be like to be scared of everybody that knows a child of mine. I think you are talking to yourself on this one because nobody is making that argument. 

But injecting emotion into the argument and saying that one way of dying is far more horrible than others does not help children.

Hello, Hello! anybody home??
Nobody is talking about one way a child dies vs another, you are creating a phantom argument here once again?  Who on this thread was saying one way of dying was far more horrible than another? 

Safety seems to be by far the highest priority here...no wonder the country is so screwed up.

This country being screwed up doesn't have anything to do with a parent doing his/her job in keeping a child safe.  I suppose you would rather leave it up to fate or dumb luck that a man's children are protected. 

  When you have some kids you can have your little social experiment and let them go up to strangers and strike up conversations while they are alone.  Most children are absolutely helpless against a surprise attack from a full grown man and any decent parent is going to minimize the risk by teaching their children basic safety and by also being around when need be. 


So if the risk is so low, why is that when they set up a sting operation pretending to have 12-14 year old girls available, they can’t keep up with the number of 30-50 year old men that are beating down the door trying to ‘befriend’ these girls?  This is in every major city in our county?    There is just cause for reasonable concern which does not mean everybody is assumed guilty but one duty of the father is to be there.

She started riding the subway in a major city at around 6 or 7 years old, but parents here would probably worry about a 12 year old taking a county bus or ferry by themselves. People reply that Asian cities are safer, apparently because Asian strangers are less prone to kidnapping for some reason, but I think Asian traffic is probably far more dangerous to a child than the nearly non-existent chance of being kidnapped by a stranger in the US.

I think it would be a wonderful idea for you to let your future 6 year old ride the bus/subway by herself here in the states.  I'm sure she will make it unharmed to her final desination 95% of the time, and that other 5% she only be killed, raped, molested, robbed, or beat up.  Not a big deal and I'm sure it is worth the risk.   



FINALLY:  I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you believe that we should be letting rapists/ child molesters off easy.  That is what this law was targeting and I stand behind it four square.  If it were up to me, a violent rapist/child molester would be thrown out a 4th story window, anything less is giving him/her a break. 

 Now what exactly should a police force be concentrating on if it isn’t protecting the children and doing everything they can to find them after they are abducted?

Fathertime!

[robert angel]

There is a lot of child molestation in the USA and a great deal of it happens within (by) family members and from so called 'friends' of the family, within the family home, usually.

But outside of the home, I think that by far, most rapes and molestations are committed by people who don't really know the victim. They may have seen the victim and developed a perverse mental & physical 'connection', but I don't think they're 'acquaintances' in the true sense of the term.

Also outside the home, I think most sex crimes are committed by people who act in such ways when the opportunity occurs, often in connection with another crime.

There are people who go to parks, malls and other public places, looking for victims and I doubt they know the victim's names--they're just hunting for opportunities to satisfy their sick desires.

From what I see, in recent years sentences for criminals convicted of sex offenses have become much more severe, with more multiple count charges. At the same time, I see a lot of people who are young, white and wealthy, getting off, with the help of very high priced lawyers, with little more than slaps on the wrists and then they later go on to commit the same, or even worse crimes.

People who are sex offenders are about the hardest sort of criminal to 'rehabilitate' if doing so is actually even possible.

It also appears to me that if you take a male and a female and charge them separately with the same sort of crime and obtain convictions, that the male will get a much more severe sentence than will the female, but that also seems to be slowly changing.