Comments on: AWAinCT: We dun’t want yer kind ’round ‘ere

By: The Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act | a public defender

The Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act | a public defender — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:24:34 +0000

[...] already written about one nonsensical aspect of this “Act” before: on the requirement that travelers [...]

By: RSO

RSO — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:28:34 +0000

As a RSO off paper for a non-contact sex crime, and as a CT native who lives in another part of the country, this law means that I will be severing ties with my home state. Which is how the lawmakers want it. Better to be aware of the law now than to make the trip and be thrown in jail.

As others have pointed out, the law is absolutely Orwellian.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:51:54 +0000

In addition to the new law, CT SO law requires RSOs to appear in person at State Police headquarters within 72 hrs. of a new job to report private employment information (name, location) or face 5 yrs. in jail. If the job is terminated or location changes, another appearance and reporting must be done within 72hrs. For those in the trades whose location changes very often, this is restrictive to movement, onerous and an extreme hardship. Getting to Police HQ can take over 3 hrs round trip. Also, besides providing email and IM info, IP addresses are required. This would mean that a SO could not use a public computer or even their own if it has dynamic IP. These laws are unconstitutional. It pleases me to see how the politicians are digging the grave for SO laws. They will be so obviously punitive, restrictive, preemptive and clearly unjustified by current research that it will be a matter of time RSO civil rights will be acknowledged and restored. Current law was justified by myths and hysteria, including SVP laws that have clearly circumvented U.S. law protocol.

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:32:29 +0000

The issue is separating the truly dangerous guys that you have to look after. It’s a resource allocation issue. Also, to have a lifetime of a scarlet letter for a minor offense is needlessly cruel.

You break into a home, rape the daughter and get out after 15 years, then yeah, I don’t care how harsh the law is (within some reason, of course). When you were 21 and you fooled around with a 15 year old, and have led a clean life since, then I don’t want the government keeping tabs on you.

Funny how libs in the criminal justice field never seem to carry this over. Obama is trying to involve the government in an ever-bigger slice of our lives, and I don’t see a whole lot of libs really caring. But subjecting a sex offender to state registration requirements, well . . . .

Me, I like to think my views are pretty consistent. I favor harsh punishment to serious criminals, and that’s it. I have little interest in silly nonsense like prosecuting a 14 year old girl for stupidly sending nude pictures of herself. (Now there’s a prosecutor who’s in dire need of a budget cut.)

By: S

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:28:44 +0000

Ooh, how about this one. You’re in a neighboring state, about 5 miles from the Connecticut border. You’re in a car accident with life-threatening injuries. The nearest trauma hospital is in CT, so the helicopter flies you there. Felony!

These laws are so absurd and have gone so over the top, they no longer do anything to protect the public safety. (If they ever really did is still pretty unproven in my mind.)