This was posted in This thread and it got me thinking. Should all criminals be put on a register like Sex Offenders, if so, why? If not Why?
Poll
Should law offenders be put on a register like sex offenders?
| Yes | 34% | 34% - 13 | ||||
| No | 47% | 47% - 18 | ||||
| Other (State Opinion) | 18% | 18% - 7 | ||||
| Total: 38 | ||||||
At the very least, murderers should be as well. I'd say a guy who killed a man is just as dangerous as a rapist.
Yes.
Murder can also pertain a longer incarceration sentence so the crime is just as bad or worse then some cases of Sex Offenders.HurricaИe wrote:
At the very least, murderers should be as well. I'd say a guy who killed a man is just as dangerous as a rapist.
Only serious crimes, like armed burglary or murder. Putting someone in a registry for something like vandalism is silly.
well, I would say only felonies, but i think people who have had more the three DUI's should be on there also.SpIk3y wrote:
Only serious crimes, like armed burglary or murder. Putting someone in a registry for something like vandalism is silly.
Vandalism is still a crime and in some cases can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, still not a serious crime?SpIk3y wrote:
Only serious crimes, like armed burglary or murder. Putting someone in a registry for something like vandalism is silly.
Anyone with more then 3 DUI's shouldn't have a licence tbh.usmarine2 wrote:
well, I would say only felonies, but i think people who have had more the three DUI's should be on there also.SpIk3y wrote:
Only serious crimes, like armed burglary or murder. Putting someone in a registry for something like vandalism is silly.
Last edited by Zombie_Affair (2008-06-21 19:17:13)
felony should really be the measuring stick.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Vandalism is still a crime and in some cases can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, still not a serious crime?SpIk3y wrote:
Only serious crimes, like armed burglary or murder. Putting someone in a registry for something like vandalism is silly.
I agree 100%Zombie_Affair wrote:
Anyone with more then 3 DUI's shouldn't have a licence tbh.
But, that's what happens when liberal judges make rulings.
I do like in Ohio after so many DUI's, you have a yellow licence plate. I truly love that idea.
Really? That's a good idea.usmarine2 wrote:
I agree 100%Zombie_Affair wrote:
Anyone with more then 3 DUI's shouldn't have a licence tbh.
But, that's what happens when liberal judges make rulings.
I do like in Ohio after so many DUI's, you have a yellow licence plate. I truly love that idea.
What about Misdemeanors / Gross Misdemeanors ?usmarine2 wrote:
felony should really be the measuring stick.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Vandalism is still a crime and in some cases can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, still not a serious crime?SpIk3y wrote:
Only serious crimes, like armed burglary or murder. Putting someone in a registry for something like vandalism is silly.
That's actually a great idea. Australia has launched major campaigns against Driving Under the Influence, especially Under the Influence of Drugs. The plate idea is really clever.usmarine2 wrote:
I agree 100%Zombie_Affair wrote:
Anyone with more then 3 DUI's shouldn't have a licence tbh.
But, that's what happens when liberal judges make rulings.
I do like in Ohio after so many DUI's, you have a yellow licence plate. I truly love that idea.
damn right.Gooners wrote:
Really? That's a good idea.
Well, here in America, most of the records are available to the public. Divorce, bankruptcy, etc. Just because people are too lazy too look it up doesn't mean it should be fed to them.Zombie_Affair wrote:
What about Misdemeanors / Gross Misdemeanors ?
But, i think anything over and including a felony should have to register.
Anyone who kills or injures a person while drunk or under influence should never be able to get a license again.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Anyone with more then 3 DUI's shouldn't have a licence tbh.
edit: Obviously their current one would be revoked. Hell for all I know that's how it works now, but just in case.
Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-06-21 19:25:56)
That's one thing I don't agree with. Having Divorce records and stuff on public record.usmarine2 wrote:
Well, here in America, most of the records are available to the public. Divorce, bankruptcy, etc. Just because people are too lazy too look it up doesn't mean it should be fed to them.Zombie_Affair wrote:
What about Misdemeanors / Gross Misdemeanors ?
But, i think anything over and including a felony should have to register.
In some cases you can't. I don't know how things in America operate though.HurricaИe wrote:
Anyone who kills or injures a person while drunk or under influence should never be able to get a license again.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Anyone with more then 3 DUI's shouldn't have a licence tbh.
edit: Obviously their current one would be revoked. Hell for all I know that's how it works now, but just in case.
Then you'll just have people driving without licenses. Seriously, there is no real good way to fix that problem unless laws are actually enforced ... and those laws aren't on the top of the priority list.HurricaИe wrote:
Anyone who kills or injures a person while drunk or under influence should never be able to get a license again.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Anyone with more then 3 DUI's shouldn't have a licence tbh.
edit: Obviously their current one would be revoked. Hell for all I know that's how it works now, but just in case.
Are you serious? Getting pulled over, telling the Officer you have no licence always lands you in trouble here. Telling the Officer you have no licence because your last one got revoked because of multiple DUI's is even worse.. Besides, if you had a register of Law Offenders, the Vehicle Registration Office (I believe you call it the DMV?) would deny you re-registering your vehicle, meaning you have stiff chance of driving a vehicle without being caught. No registration - no Licence, Prior DUI's - Big Trouble.SenorToenails wrote:
Then you'll just have people driving without licenses. Seriously, there is no real good way to fix that problem unless laws are actually enforced ... and those laws aren't on the top of the priority list.HurricaИe wrote:
Anyone who kills or injures a person while drunk or under influence should never be able to get a license again.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Anyone with more then 3 DUI's shouldn't have a licence tbh.
edit: Obviously their current one would be revoked. Hell for all I know that's how it works now, but just in case.
Last edited by Zombie_Affair (2008-06-21 19:34:39)
OK, I should have clarified.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Are you serious? Getting pulled over, telling the Officer you have no licence always lands you in trouble here. Telling the Officer you have no licence because your last one got revoked because of multiple DUI's is even worse..
If the cops pull you over, I hope that you'd get into trouble. However, a friend of mine got into a fender bender with someone in a parking lot. The other person was driving with a DUI-revoked license and no insurance. It became clear that she hadn't had insurance for about 4 or 5 months and while the DMV sent her a letter kindly asking for her plates to be returned, nothing was done when she didn't send them in. Anyway, the police found out after the accident (they exchanged information and left the scene--a police report was needed for an insurance claim) that she had a revoked license, invalid vehicle registration, and no insurance (which is mandatory in NY) and absolutely nothing was done.
I know all this because my friend borrowed my girlfriends car and had that fender bender.
The police didn't care enough to impound her car, take her plates, or charge her with any crime.
Edit: When we met with one of the county sheriff's deputies, he said that this is pretty common.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-06-21 19:41:08)
Replace care with can't.SenorToenails wrote:
The police didn't care enough to impound her car, take her plates, or charge her with any crime.
Why can't they? She had no legal right to the plates. And she was driving with a revoked license...that's a crime too.usmarine2 wrote:
Replace care with can't.SenorToenails wrote:
The police didn't care enough to impound her car, take her plates, or charge her with any crime.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-06-21 19:42:35)
because some liberal judge would find a way to fault the cops.SenorToenails wrote:
Why can't they? She had no legal right to the plates. And she was driving with a revoked license...that's a crime too.usmarine2 wrote:
Replace care with can't.SenorToenails wrote:
The police didn't care enough to impound her car, take her plates, or charge her with any crime.
Insurance is mandatory in Australia. I see no reason why the police had no reason to impound the car. If you travel interstate in Australia and your vehicle is in the state for x amount of days you need to register your car with that state's vehicle registration office or your vehicle gets impounded. It's the same if you don't return to plates.
Wow, America law ftl. Police would have a field day with that case. Revoked Licence, vehicle incident, no insurance... lol.SenorToenails wrote:
Why can't they? She had no legal right to the plates. And she was driving with a revoked license...that's a crime too.usmarine2 wrote:
Replace care with can't.SenorToenails wrote:
The police didn't care enough to impound her car, take her plates, or charge her with any crime.
Last edited by Zombie_Affair (2008-06-21 19:48:31)
One would think that. And kudos to Aussie land. But, there is a reason we have "uninsured" insurance here in the US.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Insurance is mandatory in Australia. I see no reason why the police had no reason to impound the car. If you travel interstate in Australia and your vehicle is in the state for x amount of days you need to register your car with that state's vehicle registration office or your vehicle gets impounded. It's the same if you don't return to plates.
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-06-21 19:48:53)