not in my back yard

I came across this article about citizens opposing the building
of an institution in their community.

Quote:

---

The civil commitment program is designed to house convicted pedophiles, rapists and other violent sexual predators deemed by courts to be too dangerous to be freed after their prison sentences are finished.

---

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030...4531-8328r.htm

By now, I've gotten used to this, the staple of local politics, ie where to put this
facility (the NIMBY, or not in my back yard syndrome).

What jumped out at me is this:

Quote:

---

deemed by courts to be too dangerous to be freed after their prison sentences are finished.

---

Now,I hate perverts as much as anyone, but it seems to me that, if you gave the
person a sentence, then that's it. Maybe the bastards should have been given
longer sentences to start with (long rope), but, having missed that opportunity
at the trial, tough luck.

We're getting like a communist country, where you can be held beyond your lawful
sentence to recieve bogus treatment for an alleged illness.

The authorities should "play fair" with criminals. If it is a serious offense,
give him an appropriate punishment, but when he has served his time, he
should go free.

We shouldn't lock people up for "being dangerous" (hell, I'm dangerous!),
but for actual crimes committed, and proven in court.
Otherwise, no one is safe from arbitrary imprisonment.
:cool:

I'd have to say I suffer from NIMBY syndrom also. It's one thing to have ONE sick perverted bastard living next door, but to have a whole building full is just pushing it a bit too far. True they should only be free after serving their sentence but gawd... How would you like to live next door to a building FULL of sick perverted bastards while your kids play on that same street.... They shouldn't be locked up just for being dangerous but the least the could do is put them on some kind of probation.

Remote_Access_

Not only should they give the "too dangerous too be freed" criminals longer sentences, they shouldn't be lessening thier time for so called "good behavior". Just because they were good on the inside doesn't mean they would be good on the outside.

Quote:

---

Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services

---

this jumped out at me. because this department exists and because it is not clear whos needs they are servicing.

Quote:

---

deemed by courts to be too dangerous to be freed after their prison sentences are finished.

---

If the person they release has not been rehabilitated into the community to the satisfaction of a court and reoffends, what do you think happens. Everyone says 'he shouldn't have been released', blame falls on court/government, massive public backlash, etc etc. I'd say their hands are tied in this instance, especially in the case of paedophiles/rapists.

It's not a great situation, because the person in question could bullshit their way through the courts, get out, and still reoffend. However, in this instance, the government has a defense to the charge, so it ceases to be their problem. Unfortunate but true.

I'm definitely a NIMBY when it comes to this.

I worked hard, saved my pennies, sacrificed and bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood to raise my children in a nice place. And then I should be happy when the government decides to pollute that nice place with an institution. Jeopardize my family, destroy the value of my property?

Why should you place that in a residential area at all? In the northeast (US) we've got all sorts of industrial parks that aren't fully populated. Build the institution there. Maybe the employers will be willing to hire them.