Out of character, Amy insisted I blog this, as I am so frustrated, I can't contain it. Maybe it's because I listen to so much Penn Jillette. Maybe it's because of my experience at seeing my neighbors do unspeakable things to a locally registered sex offender. Maybe it's because I am a student of history, and have seen time and time again Americans handing over their freedoms, without understanding they did not have to. Yet tonight, we Californians have gone and done it again.Tonight, we passed Proposition 83, heaping a ton of penalties on sex offenders. Why, you are asking, is a man of reasonable intellect stupidly arguing AGAINST a proposition that punishes violent sex offenders? Many reasons: these are penalties put on them AFTER they are released from prison, and they are attempting to somehow dissuade these sick individuals from offending again, even though we all acknowledge they have a sickness, not a choice, and penalties will not dissuade that.
But the real reason I am incensed is this one piece of the Proposition: "Requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders."
Now, think 1984. George Orwell. The USA PATRIOT act. Ok, you're saying...that's a little creepy, but hey, it's for sex offenders, the most vile of the vile. Surely, you can't be against that?
I am.
Why? Two major reasons.
1) Once the technology is in place for law enforcement to GPS track a sex offender, exactly what are the provisions that say this technology can not be used for anything else? Drunk drivers? Philanderers? How about speeders? Tax evaders? There is NOTHING that restricts this use, nor makes any provisions for any governance of this technology. NOTHING. And remember, this is post-conviction and sentencing. You run a red light, get pulled over. You pleas guilty, pay a fine. There is NOTHING stopping the judge from LoJacking you with a GPS tracker for the rest of your days, AFTER you have paid the fine. And if there is one thing we know, it's that government is pretty good at pushing the boundaries of the tools they have.
2) Assume, for the sake of argument, that there was some sort of restriction to keep this on sex offenders only. How, exactly, does this help? Yes, you always know where the person is. Well, you always have access to the data on where they are. Well, you always have access to the people who have access to the data. Ok, so, how does this help? Is your son/daughter LoJacked, as well? Can you see when the two are in proximity? Is there any sort of proactive alert that gets fired? The answer is, of course, NO. That means, in order for this to have any sort of preventative value, you need to monitor this person 24x7, AND you need to monitor your children in the same fashion. In other words, NO VALUE.
I have no children, so I am obviously not qualified to make judgment on this. 70% of my fellow Californians, most of whom have kids, did. Yet I bet NONE of those thought through points 1 & 2 above. To me, this is just another excuse for bad parenting. With Megan's Law, you already know where these people live, and can tell your kids to stay away from them (that is, if you and your fellow neighbors have not yet taken your torches and pitchforks to the crappy motel they live in and forced them to move out of your town). You teach your children to NOT talk to strangers, and come right home. It worked for hundreds of years; why not now? You already have more than enough of the information you need to be informed; it's up to you to instill these values in your kids. My friend Stephanie has two young kids: when one, who is learning to speak, wants something and makes frustrated noises, she patiently asks him what he wants, until he finds the words, and rewards him when he does. It's called education, and she is a master of applying it to the real world. every parent needs to educate their kids, and take the most aggressive, reasonable precautions, to ensure their children know right from wrong: the government will not do it for you.
5 years ago, we gave George W. Bush a blank check and a poorly worded bill to go stop terrorists. 5 years later, he used it to invade a sovereign nation who posed no direct threat to us, used it to hold hundreds of prisoners, without trial or legal representation in Guantanamo Bay, used it to torture US citizens in far of nations, and used it to spy on your conversations. Tonight, this country elected a Democratic House to reject those abuses of power. We look back now and say, "How could we have put such power in the hands of this man, with no way to limit the power to terrorists?" We all have learned from 5 years of history, and we vowed to never let it happen again.
In California, with Proposition 83, we just did. We should all be ashamed of what we just did to ourselves: a nation that is the "home of the brave" just gave into irrational fear, without understanding what we were allowing. That tearing sound? That's the Bill of Rights ripping up, under the buckle of a GPS locator. As Penn says, defending freedom for the law-abiding citizen is not the need; it's defending it for the worst of our society, as governments will continually use the same repressive measures for that population on anyone it sees fit to. In other words, today paroled sex offenders; tomorrow: you.
Comments