FOXNews.com - Convicted Sex Offenders Finding Homes Near Campus - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

I just saw this news story.

If these people are STILL predators, why are they free.

If they are "rehabilitated" and free, why are they tracked and forbidden to live where they want?

If they are still a threat they shouldn't be free and if they are free, they shouldn't be bothered.


What'd'all think?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

This is complicated. No one is ever really rehabilitated -- all of us pose some danger to society because we are sinners. But the state can't lock everyone up, even people who pose a higher than average probability of doing harm. Generally punishment should be a result of what a person has already done, right? These sex offender regulations use past conduct to justify restrictions on freedom, but we all know the restriction is really based on the probability of future harm. (And from the small amount I know about criminal law, this happens to many types of criminals now. For example, past criminal conduct can be used to justify denying bail, if i remember my criminal procedure correctly. . .)

My guess is this: Yes, if they are really rehabilitated, they should be as free as anyone else. And yes, if they are still predators, they should be entirely restrained. But the state never knows which one is the case, and, outside of the work of the Holy Spirit, rehabilitation is never 100% effective, anyway. Since we don't know where former sex offenders stand on the scale of Rehabilitation <-----> Still Predator, we have to choose some middle path in regulating their behavior.

I'm not sure that the current regulations are effective, and I think generally they are ridiculous when applied to people who committed statutory rape twenty years ago. Also (if I remember correctly from criminal procedure) people who are subjected to these kinds of liberty restrictions do not get the same procedural protections (such as a jury and burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt) as someone facing incarceration, even though regulating, for a potentially indefinite period of time, where someone can live is a pretty serious infringement on liberty. I can see the policy justification for having sex offender regulations, but lack of procedural protections has caused unfair applications to individuals.

__________________
Evie B.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Attending Park Street Church, Boston

"Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert." --Isaiah 43:18-19 (ESV)

What future restrictions ought to be put on former thieves then? Why do sex felons seem to be targetted in a special way? Due to a low rate of rehabiliation?

To me that's the key, and another reason I could wish for more Biblically based law in our society. When a 19 year old has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, it's wrong, and under Biblical law there's either a fine or a marriage (as long as she isn't engaged to someone else), and the case is done with. But in a case of what we've historically called rape, the man is put to death, as there really isn't any cure for that sort of behavior.

Lumping both kinds together make things impossibly awkward.

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member Redeemer OPC, Santa Maria CA.

Perg,

You need to become a theonomist

God's civil laws, as delivered by Moses, are the most just and the most merciful. "The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel". California is a big "favor-the-pedophile" state. We all live in fear because our tyrannical overlords refuse to execute pedophiles.

That said, God's most just sentence is that restitution be made for any given crime, and that once restitution is made, the crime is not on some degenerated "permanent record". It's gone, and over with. So, if a man steals, he restores three or four fold, and the crime is erased. If a man murders, he is put to death. If a man rapes a little child, he is buried under a pile of stones (or was that burnt at the stake), and the issue is settled.

When wicked men refuse to hear the law, God breaks them speedily with no remedy. Our society is broken, and will soon crumble, unless we repent.

Cheers,

__________________
Adam Brink, Livermore, California
Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA

He who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

I imagine so. I think people perceive (maybe accurately?) that it takes a unique, fundamental perversion to be a pedophile. But anyone, in bad circumstances, could be a thief. Theologically, I suppose we are all horribly perverted sinners, and the obviously twisted behavior of pedophiles ought to be an illustration to all of us of our failure to conform to God's law. But on a human level, we regard pedophiles and other sex offenders as fundamentally different from ourselves. They are just "that kind of people." We don't understand it, so let's keep them away. I'm not sure to what extent the distinction is valid, but I would rather be robbed than raped.

The criminal justice system as a whole is biased against people who have already committed any crime (and I'm not sure how bad this is). I don't think stealing falls under this category, but when a person with a history of violent crime, felony, or drug crime is arrested for a new crime, he can be denied bail based on the probability that he will commit crime between the time of the arrest and the trial. The denial of bail significantly increases the probability that the defendant will be convicted. Part of the reason is practical: The defendant is not as able to find witnesses for his defense or to gather other evidence. Part is psychological on the part of jurors: A person who comes into court from jail already looks guilty.

But there is obviously a big difference between bail restrictions and sex offender registration: Bail restrictions only matter if the person is arrested again, while sex offender regulations do not (as far as I know) need some future triggering event.

Anyway, it is hard not to write in a convoluted way when writing about law, so I apologize for the lack of clarity in this post, and for any inaccuracies.

Adam, thanks for the invite. If I go over to the daerk side, you'll be the first one to know.

I do consider myself a small t theonomist, since we are to follow God's law...I think all who follow the WCF have to be. But that general equity clause calls for a whole world of change between Levitical law and Paul's I Cor 5 injunction to cast out the evil doer (aplying excommunication as fitting in the NT to the death penalty of the OT).

[Darth Vader voice] Luuuuke... Come to the dahk side..

As for Paul's injunction to the church, I think you may be mistaking jurisdictions. The church has the "sword" of excommunication, and the keys to the kingdom. The state has the "beheading sword", as Paul mentions in Romans 13. They are to execute the wrath of God against criminals; criminals such as pedophiles. This has nothing to do with excommunication. Different jurisdiction; different enforcement technique; same law.

Cheers,

Labeling a person a sex offender is much like a permanent disability inflicted on the individual. I don't think that's necessarily an unjust punishment as there is at least one crime in the OT that is punished by cutting off the offender's hand.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

Hmmm. a scarlett letter?

I think it depends on the offense. Building on what Adam said, it may be fair for pedophiles and rapists, but not for most statutory rapists (whose "punishment" in OT law would have been marriage). I am not necessarily a theonomist, but I think it's relevant that in OT law, there would not have been some sort of restriction on where a statutory rapist could live after his or her crime. Edit: As far as I know.

No restrictions. The only time that comes up is with contagious diseases and non premeditated murder.

I'm unfamiliar with the hand cut off; can you elaborate? Is that the one where the two guys fight and the wifey steps in to "help"?

I think so (Deut. 25:11), though I'm not trying to answer SRoper's question. But just a thought: If hand amputation is specifically prescribed as a punishment for one crime, doesn't that exclude it for other crimes, for which it is not prescribed? And -- maybe this is a stretch? -- by analogy, does it mean that crimes without permanent punishment in OT law should not be given permanent punishment under our law? I am not sure.

Perg,
Is there a reason you want this thread in a members only forum; this discussion is going to devolve into something appropriate for Law of God forum if members only doesn't matter to you.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: Samuel Miller gives a succinct statement of this principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.”

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

One of the points that Rutherford (if I'm not mistaken) made about the judicial laws is that they restrain the magistrate, as well as direct him. In other words, the judicials stop the cruelty as well as the false "mercy" that magistrates tend toward without the light of Scripture. For instance, you may not execute a horse thief; 3 or 4-fold restitution is the only just punishment. Anywho, this is one of the basic problem with not accepting the judicials: it leads to tyranny.

Cheers,

Oh, I forgot this was a member's only forum. Maybe I should have posted it in the "General" place.


And, no, I want to guard this thread from any "What would Rushdoony do" sort of theonomic speculations. If you moved this to the "Law of GOd" forum the theonomists might hijack this thread.

In American society right now and not some theocratic paradise, what should be done (a whole restructuring of civil society is not an option - give answers that are workable today before Gary North takes office and we carve Bahnsen's face on Mount Rushmore )

Adam, I've heard that before and I don't buy it. Israel of old was God's people in the form of a civil state. Now, there is no civil state. Paul was talking to God's people, who are no longer in the form of a civil state. Thus, in I COr 5 Paul's application of OT law is a clear example to us as to how "General equity" works. Paul gives us a case study of "general equity."

P.s. I dislike theonomy but like most of you fellers. Fun talking to you. When your kingdom comes in its postmillenial theonomic glory, don't put me in the stocks for havign anabaptist tendencies.

Third*Millennium*Ministries


Both theonomists and other reformed scholars believe that the moral law continues into the present age and the ceremonial law has been abrogated by the coming of Christ, since He has fulfilled those aspects of the law in His priestly ministry. The point of discussion is over how the judicial law should be applied to the present age. It is important to realize that the Mosaic law "was accommodated to the people of God in their particular redemptive-historical setting" (Pratt 1990, 345). The Jews lived in the land of Israel and many of the penal sanctions (as well as the moral and ceremonial laws) were contextualized to that situation. For instance, "Prohibitions against stealing in the Old Testament included respect for a fellow Israelite's permanent land inheritance (1 Kings 21:1-19)" (Pratt 1990, 345). However, the Christian has no inheritance in the land of Israel. Our inheritance is the New Heavens and New Earth (Hebrews 4:8-11). The coming of Christ and the consequent disenfranchisement of the Kingdom of God so affected history that the proper application of the Mosaic law within the church must account for these situational changes.

John Frame has noted t