The American Spectator

LONG MEMORY br> Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Naming Names : /p>

The arguments about the constitutionality of the various “Megan’s Laws,” both federal and state versions, are, to me, a waste of time. I am convinced that the framers of the Constitution never expected anyone found guilty of such a crime to live long enough to be released into society. Therefore, they didn’t waste their precious time on such matters.

p>As far as the case of the man who killed himself, back when European armies cared more about honor than not hurting anyone’s feelings, an officer who shamed his regiment often came into his quarters to find a pistol on his bed. The message was clear, and often acted upon by the officer in question. It seems that the Claxton case is a 21st-century civilian version of this. br> — Vincent Mohan /p> p> With respect to Jay Homnick’s article on child predators, I think we’re all in agreement that a society that wishes to survive and flourish needs to protect its most valuable asset, its children. Given that child predators have one of the highest recidivist rates of all criminals, and are considered the “lowest of the low” in the prison pecking order, the concern for maximum protection of children is very real. The approach on the part of the Chicago Jewish community in policing its own is admirable and reflects the proper concern. However, the rest of society, with its ever increasing transient nature of both good and bad people, attempts to find solutions in dealing with the same problem legally in ways that suits them. Regarding active notification of the citizenry may seem extreme, however, given the nature of the criminal and his crime, may warrant it. I suspect that the damage done to a child, assuming the child isn’t murdered, affects that child, and their family, for life. To maximize the prevention by active notification, which obviously disturbs the comfort level of the convicted predator, seems scant in comparison. Just a thought ; it may seem brutal by today’s standard, but the old practice of banishment seems to make sense with certain criminal types; why cause heightened levels of anxiety to society by having this type of deviant pariah in its midst, when you can concentrate them in their own society away from their most innocent victims? I believe rapists, terrorists and other violent criminals would be fitting candidates also, but I digress. br> — David P. Bennett br> Chicago, Illinois /p>