Short, sweet and oh-so-complete: here is the "max of the max" sentence ruling in the Larry Maxwell case, in PDF form, just click here for your very own copy!
More details of the sentencing to follow...
(Do not click "Read More")
More details of the sentencing to follow...
(Do not click "Read More")
6 comments:
OUCH, should've plead guilty.
Speaking of criminals, have you seen the red "Jesus" sign in Pete the Pedophile's window facing Penn Ave?
Hey anonymous and JNS, maybe you should read the latest issue of The Economist about sex crime policies in America. It addresses a few of the issues that this blog has magnified. Like, do ordinary citizens need to have access to the lists, especially if the zealots think it's their job to police, thereby denying the offenders any possibility of a true fresh start. Worth thinking about.
Post the link. It will be intestering to see what the Economist considers to be a "fresh start". Pete the Pedophile has been convicted of several sex crimes, different victims, different years. How many chances should he get? Should we all be in the dark as Pete the Pedophile starts up a conversation about the neighborhood children, or should we be ready to call 911? Besides I am sure a lot of parents believe that it is their job and DUTY to keep level three sex offenders who try to pretend that they are not convicted sex offenders, felons, and on extended probation away from their children.
The first Anon is right, Maxwell should have plead guilty.
Julie: Buy the magazine or look it up yourself. Your mind is made up, so why should I bother beyond saying that the article is worth considering.
I have children too, so don't make this out to be what all good parents think.
Maybe, just maybe, we can elevate our minds enough to care for more than just our own, or those we judge to be worthy. This is a concern I have about this blog.
"Julie: Buy the magazine or look it up yourself." How rude.
I disagree with you, and leave this message, with unfounded presumptions, and a generalization?
I am suprised that asking for a commenter's courtsey of attaching a link triggered such a strong reaction.
I am greatful that we have public trials of criminal wrongs in America, and that we can have access to the information. I think a lot of Americans agree, given that we have endless TV shows like LAW & ORDER, SVU that address the subject weekly and some channels, daily. What about COURTTV? So, it didn't seem odd to me to broaden the discussion about what parents think about having access to information about level three sex offenders, a topic you opened. Is ignorance bliss or do you want to have a choice? This sort of conversation doesn't strike me as one that limits our concerns to "just our own" as you put it, but affects a lot a parents that have a level three sex offender live on their block, in their neighborhood where their children play. Besides, I didn't limit my comment to what all "good" parents think -- seems like you are saying only good parents want to keep their children away from sex offenders. I agree that the opposite is probably true: that "bad" parents let their children play with convicted pedophiles.
Can you civily explain your concerns a little bit more?
Here are the links to two separate articles about the issue.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14165460
I haven't read these articles yet, I'm just posting the links since someone on this blog has requested them. I will say, however, that I've had similar conversations with folks who post here about sex offenders. I'm actually not to crazy about the whole sex offender registry laws as I don't think they allow offenders to get a fresh start. However, as Julie pointed out, Pete is a multiple offender and reportedly was found with a computer in his possession, which is a violation of his parole.
How many chances do we give people?
My personal opinion (which may be affected by these articles) is that if someone is THAT likely to re-offend then our laws need to be changed so that serious sex offenders are locked up for a VERY LONG TIME the FIRST TIME. Don't let them out until their likelihood of recidivism is low enough.
Post a Comment