SUbscriber Login | NEW SUBSCRIPTION  

Facebook ban raises questions

  • warning: Parameter 2 to ad_flash_adapi() expected to be a reference, value given in /var/www/vhosts/rustonleader.com/httpdocs/includes/module.inc on line 497.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to ad_flash_adapi() expected to be a reference, value given in /var/www/vhosts/rustonleader.com/httpdocs/includes/module.inc on line 497.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to ad_flash_adapi() expected to be a reference, value given in /var/www/vhosts/rustonleader.com/httpdocs/includes/module.inc on line 497.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to ad_flash_adapi() expected to be a reference, value given in /var/www/vhosts/rustonleader.com/httpdocs/includes/module.inc on line 497.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to ad_flash_adapi() expected to be a reference, value given in /var/www/vhosts/rustonleader.com/httpdocs/includes/module.inc on line 497.
in
MELINDA.jpg

Sex offenders are an easy set of criminals to condemn. Their offenses are reprehensible. Politicians can get a lot of mileage out of seeming tough on crime when they load up their sentencing requirements.

But when does the list of penalties become too outrageous? Do lawmakers and the governor believe sex offenders can’t be rehabilitated? Can someone have served his time and move on, or because it is a sex offense, is that impossible?

A recent legal argument over sex offenders is raising those questions.

Full text of this article is available to subscribers only. Login if you are already a subscriber. If you are not a subscriber, you can subscribe to the online version here.

Bookmark and Share