License Plates

All Categories >> Politics

03/12/2007 10:28 pm

Alex's Archive

Rate this Blog

Yours:

Rated 0 times.

I'm too lazy to find the story and link to it, but in summary a law has been proposed that would require sex offenders to have special license plates in Wisconsin (and Ohio and maybe some other states). I did google a little and found out that some states already require convicted drunk drivers to have specially colored license plates.

My initial reaction is total outrage that this would even be considered. It just seems totally wrong on some level.

Then I think, well if I had kids I might want to know who is or isn't a sex offender. Of course, using that logic I'd also like to know if anyone around me has even been arrested for theft, or assault, or any number of other crimes.

Combining this "marking criminals" recent line of laws along with all the "we can do anything we want in the name of national security (hi there feds!)" laws, it seems to me that US domestic policy is headed in a bad direction.

Besides being an awesome game, Civilization IV also brought to my attention the following quote from Benjamin Franklin that plays after researching the Liberalism technology, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Word up B.

	Micah - 584 Posts 03/12/2007 @ 10:37:03 PM
You know the Nazis had pieces of flair, that they made the Jews wear		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 03/12/2007 @ 10:38:25 PM
See the thing about the Sex Offender thing is this. You can get on there for multiple reasons. Some of them, like public urination are BS. Some of them, like stealing panties, and other such bizarre things are just that. Stealing bizarre things. We add people to that list indiscriminately. If you get in legal trouble over anything that could be seen as having something to do with something sexual you could go on it. Even if they limited it to people who had "offenses against children" it wouldn't really help. People with one picture of a girl who is 17 and a half are just as much on possession of child pornography as some one with an attic full of pictures of 5 year olds, under our system. As for the people who truly "deserve" the "Scarlett Letter" (the brutal rapists, child molesters, ect) it wouldn't really help "deter" anything since that is implying these people put some rational thought into their actions before doing it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 03/12/2007 10:39:49 pm

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 03/12/2007 @ 10:46:50 PM
Oh, and a 2 second Google search turned up this: Chicago Trib It was a tricky search though. I had to search 'wisconsin license plates sex offender'. Why can't things just be easy to find?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/12/2007 10:47:02 pm

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 03/12/2007 @ 11:50:31 PM
I'm not sure the deterrent is the main goal. It might be the identification so you can avoid them. But I didn't pay that much attention to the tv report and I'm too lazy to read the article if it says so in there or not. One thought I have is that it would be interesting to see the distribution and number of these plates. You know, like seeing what was once invisible. That thought reminded me of the Scrubs episode where you can see the germs as a glowing green type thing. Which, incidentally, is the same color the plates would probably be from what I hear. I'm sure it would be surprising to see where they would show up and how often. Anyway, none of these thoughts are any sort of endorsement or condemnation of the idea necessarily, just thoughts.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 03/13/2007 @ 01:13:28 AM
Sid Meier is probably turning over in his grave, seeing as Civilization IV misquoted the quote, and that it is not definitively known whether Ben Franklin was the real author of the quote or not. According to Wikiquote (yes I see the incongruity here): Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Tho%u017Fe who would give up Essential Liberty to purcha%u017Fe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both." "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" I just thought I'd post this since the "true" quote does have a slightly different meaning than what comes across in the common misquotations. P.S. The weird characters in there are supposed to show the different style of "s" used in the original, which comes through if you go to the wikiquote page. The link in the wikiquote article also has a little more info.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Matt edited this 12 times, last at 03/13/2007 1:28:49 am

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 03/13/2007 @ 09:07:27 AM
what is essential liberty, since there seems to be a destinction between liberty and essential liberty, based on the wikiquote?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 03/13/2007 @ 09:11:43 AM
I agree with Jeremy that if this is going to take place, there should be a classification for different types of sex offenders. What if the license plate had your category on it? If you stole someone's panties, the license plate could say "Panty Snatcher" somewhere on it. In seriousness though, I wonder what good it would do. While I understand that it is more for the protection of those around the guilty than it is to prevent people from committing the act, if we aren't going to try and help the seriously disturbed, what is the point of letting them out of prison?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 03/13/2007 @ 09:23:45 AM
I believe the article said that it is only meant for the worst sexual offenders. http://www.alternet.org/story/46238/ There's an opposing viewpoint, not that I agree with it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 03/13/2007 @ 09:44:11 AM
Plus it just adds to the whole "we have to make the world look less safe then it is" thing that has been sweeping the nation. Sure it theoretically could alert a couple kids. I however don't want my kids scared out of their minds and constantly "on the lookout" and I don't want to have to explain to them WHY they need to avoid those cars. (Most of the time the kid isn't willingly getting in the cars in the first place.) Kids deserve a certain period of innocent carefree-ness. The fact that there is a .000000001 chance something might happen to them because there are a couple sickos in the city you live in doesn't mean you should make them live in a constant state of paranoia. (Not to mention, how many 911 calls are their going to be from parents whose kids were outside when the guy drove by on his way to get groceries?) Just lock the truly horrid offenders up and lose the key in the first place. What ever happened to just "Don't take candy from strangers?"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/13/2007 @ 10:21:56 AM
I'm agreeing more with Jeremy especially with his last comment. While child molesters are the worst types of people (worse than murderers in my opinion) I don't want to constantly living in fear. Teach your children well, be their heros, be there for them. That's all that really needs to be done from a domestic point of view. Locking molesters up for a long time is another story altogether. I support it, but it's a different story.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 03/13/2007 @ 03:06:19 PM
I disagree with it the same way I disagree with the Whiskey plates of MN		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 03/13/2007 @ 03:21:10 PM
Oh- and that feeling is.... rabble. rabble rabble.....		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 03/13/2007 @ 03:32:46 PM
peas and carrots! peas and carrots! peas and carrots! peas and carrots! peas and carrots! peas and carrots! DERRRTTURKURRRRJEEEERRRR.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 03/13/2007 3:33:07 pm

	Jon - many posts 03/16/2007 @ 03:16:25 AM
Scott I thought you were breaking out in a Crosby, Stills, Nash, and/or Young song for a second there.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/16/2007 @ 08:18:44 AM
Ha. I didn't even do that on purpose.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 03/16/2007 @ 09:36:04 AM
I don't get it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 03/16/2007 @ 09:44:53 AM
teach your children well. It's a line in a Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young song.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tater Salad? 03/16/2007 @ 09:48:49 AM
you'd get it if it was Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, and Vetter.....		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 03/16/2007 @ 09:51:35 AM
Oh, jokes! I get jokes.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.