Legal aspects of what it is to be a sex offender
Throughout history the moral indignity of sexual offenses has played a great part in the development of culture and the beliefs that people have. While sex offenses were sometimes accepted and sometimes not they were always an issue of what is and isn’t morally acceptable to society. Today we have turned to the law makers to decide how those that violate this moral boundary fit into our moral society. As it turns out the combined effect of the law and the people taking action to regulate those that have been convicted and served a sentence for a sex offense has promoted an upheaval of civil liberties. In essence we not only have laws that prosecute those that commit crimes but have added laws that make having been prosecuted for committing certain crimes punishable.
Table of Contents
- Introduction: A brief history
- Before Federal Regulation
- A Brief History
- The Easy Out
- The Mad Political Scientist
- Federal Legislation
- The beginning of the end
- A look back 1950’s
- Registration laws
- Our Independence and Constitutional Freedoms
- Passing over rights
- The fine line
- Outlaws of the State
- The final say
- Chapter 1 The Current of Current Events
- Freedom from tyranny
- The free person
- Life
- Liberty
- Pursuit of happiness
- A collaborated effort
- Theory of error transmission
- Who to blame
- The end results
- Our only hope
- Chapter 2 S.O.R.N.A. Page by Page
42 USC § 16911
Sex offender: The term "sex offender" means an individual who was convicted of a sex offense.
Before Federal Regulation
A Brief History
Before the Federal Government passed legislation for regulating sex offenders this type of offender generally enjoyed the same rights as any other type of offender. Both in and out of the penitentiary system, they were to be treated the same as any other offender or ex-offender. This, however, was not always what happened. Within the penitentiary system the sex offender became the target of abuse and other more serious crimes. Outside the penitentiary vigilantism grew to such an extent that many sex offenders decided that it was actually safer to finish their sentence in the penitentiary rather than on parole.
As more and more crimes occurred against the sex offenders the outcry to do more to protect them became louder. States began to pass laws in hopes of pacifying those groups that were forming. It wasn’t until the states began housing those with sex offenses in separate facilities that these protests became quailed. Although, the idea was to protect these sex offenders from violence, it also offered a benefit of being able to rehabilitate these offenders in new ways. Now more laws began to be developed to add various treatment programs for these offenders to complete. This would lead to the final steps before the Federal Government takes over.
Times had changed and the politicians running for new offices had exhausted the claims to “protect the sex offenders from other more violent offenders” and “rehabilitation of sex offenders”. These claims would do no good against the increasing media attention on the commitment of new sex offenses. The public became fearful of sex offenders as the media focused as much attention on the few sex offenders that re-offended even after they had completed some form of treatment. The public wanted more and the politicians quickly got on board.
Commercials and programming began to depict the sex offender as monsters that lurk in alleyways and playgrounds looking for some child to snatch up or as two or more predators driving in circles around neighborhoods in white vans. “Stranger danger” became the leader in media hype. School bus stops became ever closer to the schools, police patrols more frequent, and more parents took their kids to school. Public parks became a place of danger and sales on backyard play equipment soared. The newly elected officials would pass legislation, at the state level, to protect its citizens from this new threat. Wide spread panic covered the nation and parents wanted to know just who this threat came from.
The Easy Out
On the political front the war on drugs was losing the faith of the public. It proved too difficult to locate and track what was at best difficult to see. Drug dealers had too much money and could fly in under the radar. It was a blessing that a single capture of a repeat sex offender was a bigger sale to the public than a confiscation of tons of drugs. There was finally a target that they could see and therefore hit. This would prove to be easy as all that had to be done is show the public the sex offenders that were already captured and say “watch out for these people they will steal your peace, security and your kids”. It made little difference that there were more sex offenders that have never gotten caught than those that did. Statistics could easily account for the major portion of sex crimes by splitting it up over all the convicted sex offenders.
For the politician there was no worry of loosing this battle. The hard parts were already done. The media had already pointed out the target to the public. The public was already less afraid of the “child molester or rapist” who were seen as cowards who preyed on the weak and little kids as opposed to the drug dealer who had guns. The public would be willing to take on the sex offender themselves but not the drug dealer. The only thing left for law makers was to throw the dog a bone. And this they did with little thought about the consequences this action would have.
The Mad Political Scientist
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) according to data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1961, there was approximately 1 reported violent crime per city police officer, but while from 1961 to 1991 there was no substantial increase in United States cities’ police employment rate, during the same period the number of reported violent crimes per city police officer rose to approximately 4.6 per officer;
(2) National Crime Survey figures indicate that nearly 5,000,000 households in the United States had at least 1 member who had been a victim of violent crime during 1991;
(3) these victims of violence experienced more than 6,400,000 crimes of which about one-half were reported to law enforcement authorities;
Of course in the final draft of this Bill, statistics like these would be left out. But it was statistics like these that led to forming the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. Much of the statistical information would be based upon information that was of non-statistical origin. Some of the information was from small groups of mostly violent offenders as these were the focus of the treatment efforts. These violent offenders were also the ones that admitted to having multiple victims and had such severe sexual addictions that they would also victimize other inmates and as a result be likely to be placed outside of the general prison population.
Separating the violent sex offenders was a difficulty with prison officials as the cost was sometimes prohibitive. When the prison systems began getting funding for housing of sex offenders the first to arrive at these new facilities were the violent offenders. The prison system now had the ability to study a specific type of offender, the violent sex offender. Studies began cropping up with these new arrivals and with them came the statistics that would be used to influence Federal Legislation. It would be many years before studies could be conducted that would include different classes of sex offenders.
Politicians could now get their hands on data that showed the sex offender to be just what the public thought them to be. The evil monsters became more real and the statistics proved that all sex offenders were the same. They were all sex addicts with a predatory nature and would never stop their perverse behavior.
Federal Legislation
The beginning of the end
The purposes of this title are to—
(1) substantially increase the number of law enforcement officers interacting directly with members of the community (‘‘cops on the beat’’);
(2) provide additional and more effective training to law enforcement officers to enhance their problem solving, service, and other skills needed in interacting with members of the community;
(3) encourage the development and implementation of innovative programs to permit members of the community to assist State, Indian tribal government, and local law enforcement agencies in the prevention of crime in the community; and
(4) encourage the development of new technologies to assist State, Indian tribal government, and local law enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime,
Under pressure by the people, media, and state leaders the Federal Government had to find a way to stop these monsters and protect the people. But there were problems in the way that had to be overcome. The biggest obstacle was the US Constitution. The Federal Government had limits of what they could do. Drug dealers were a different game altogether. They would constantly cross state lines and fell under the Commerce Clause. But most sex offences did not and where they did they were in federal prisons. How could the Federal Government control sex offenders at the state level?
The answer came in the form of older laws that had developed over the years to an acceptable base to build upon. These laws that once served to protect our nation from Communism during the Cold War era would not work as they were, many changes would have to be made. The law makers would have to make changes that would fit within the Constitution. But they were running out of time, so they worked hastily to throw together a package that was just good enough to make it into the bill “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”. This created the “Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act”. It was such a work of art that it went unnoticed in its questionable Constitutionality for several years. By the time it was realized what this law could do toward undermining the Constitution, more laws had modified it a number of times making harder for it to be questioned.
A look back 1950’s
To protect the United States against certain un-American and subversive activities by requiring registration of Communist organizations, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ''Internal Security Act of 1950''.
With the passing of legislation that required registration of Communist political groups came a time of fear of those that were a part of those groups. It made little difference if the group was peaceful or not, or if you were even a member of such groups. You were a Communist if you knew and spoke about the Communist doctrine in a positive way or were friends with someone believed to be a Communist. Questioning the Government was viewed with moral outrage and considered to be Communistic to the good and proud American citizen. As a result few questioned the Constitutionality of the ‘‘Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950''. And for those that did they were being “Un-American” and it was equated with the Communist.
The American people began to cry out for our government to send the Communist packing back to Russia. To the American people it didn’t matter if the person was an American citizen or not, if they were Communist they belonged in Russia and not United States. Good honest law abiding citizens were fearful of being labeled as Communist because of friendships to others who at any time may be labeled as Communist. Messages would be thrown through windows telling them to go home. Peaceful demonstrations sent the same angry message. And with protesting outside of homes, people became fearful of being home.
As a result many would try to sneak into their own homes, waiting till dark to park in the garage, or if they didn’t have a garage they would park several blocks from home and come through the back yard under cover of darkness. Once home the bright electric lights would be covered to dim them or left off and use candles or lanterns instead. Heavy curtains would hide what little light they allowed themselves from the rest of the neighborhood. The common excuse when confronted for doing this was related to being fearful of nuclear war with the Communist. They couldn’t hit what they couldn’t see.
Registration laws
With the creation of the “Internal Security Act of 1950”, court rulings, changes to these laws, and new laws in addition to the act, the Federal Government gained a control over the people that it didn’t have before. A lot of these changes had managed to side step the Constitution it ways that the Government could not have done before 1950 or without the “Communist Threat”. One change was that now the government could not only make lists of people for whatever they could make fall into a “security issue” but, could now require them to put their names on that list themselves.
This breakthrough gave the Government the ability to charge, detain, and deport those that were considered to be a threat to the Government without having to give the right to “Due Process” to them. The threat to the “Established Government” of being overthrown having once been declared to be only right in certain circumstances was now considered to be illegal. The US Government had changed the rights of every free citizen. Our own government effectively had overthrown the entire reason of its existence.
Our Independence and Constitutional Freedoms
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
When the US Government became threatened by the “Right of the People” it passed this threat back onto the people as a threat to their safety. In time of war the President would have charge of the Military but not if the Government came under attack by the people of its own nation. Steps taken over the next six decades by the Government would prove to dominate the American Citizen and remove their power to make dramatic changes to the ruling body.
The freedoms that were once enjoyed by the people had been successfully limited. Free Speech, Due Process, Rights of Privacy and others were now in the clinched hands of the very Government that was sworn to protect them from excessive limitation. By the beginning of the 1990’s the Federal Government was in a position to once again remove rights from a segment of the public known as the “Violent sex offender”.
Passing over rights
The fine line
It wasn’t hard to convince the public that in passing the Bill it was only going to have an effect on those that deserved it. Just as it was seen as ok for the Communist to have to register in the 50’s it was even more so for already convicted felons to have to register. But what wasn’t seen is how this would change the authority of the States and the control the Federal Government would have over the people in the states. A move to greater control was underway and nobody was the wiser. Throughout the Bill were points that allowed more flexibility to Governmental Policing. This new flexibility paved the way to little changes in the laws that the people asked for but not without cost.
Each change or addition to the laws was just a baby step infringement on a person’s rights and seen as acceptable to the public. For the greater good, was the political campaign that took the nation by surprise, so it was accepted. This fine line between acceptable and unacceptable infringement would lead to more fine line legislation. Now that sex offenders had to register to protect the public it was time for the states to pass laws that would effectively outlaw those that were registered. These fine line laws have led to virtually destroying not only the States Constitutions but this Countries Constitution.
Outlaws of the State
"outlaw" is still commonly used to mean those violating the law[9] or, by extension, those living that lifestyle, whether actual criminals evading the law or those merely opposed to "law-and-order" notions of conformity and authority
Just registering as a sex offender was not enough for the protection of the public. The public wanted the Registered Sex Offender out of the public eye. So, states began creating laws that would solidify the difference between the public and the registered sex offender, by exempting them from areas that belonged to the public. Admission to public areas became “out of bounds” to those that had registered as sex offenders. A parent could not be a parent if they had to register as a sex offender. There was no taking the kids to school, no school functions they could go to, and even enjoying their own property was made difficult to do.
The sex offender was now registered and their information gathered and displayed publicly. And the registered sex offender had to keep all this information current beyond what any other type of ex-offender ever had before. Every change, that was made in course of what would be normal for any person, had to be reported within days or criminal charges could be filed against the registered sex offender. Things that would otherwise be able to be kept private had to be made public. Courts ruled that it was within the Constitution to do such things. These court rulings would take with them the “Takings Clause” of the Constitution.
Still, this was not enough for the public there had to be more that could be done to keep the public safe. Congress answered with a total rewrite and update of Sex Offender Laws. This legislation brought together all the advances made over the years. The good news for the public was that in the wake of 9/11 new laws provided the legislation with new tools to use in defense of the public. The bad news was that now the registered sex offender would be virtually stripped of their citizenship. The government now had control of all the vital rights and could control in ways that could match the English rule at the time of the Revolutionary War.
The final say
Now that S.O.R.N.A had been passed, it was time to let the States do their part. And do their part they did. Within no time, deportation of sex offenders began, but it was called civil commitment instead. It wasn’t necessary to have a day in court, no need to convict, and nobody to arrest. New facilities were built to house hundreds of people. Any opposition to the new laws could be easily put aside. This new tide of rulings could now allow the Governing bodies to cast aside any criminal in virtually any way they chose. But this was just the beginning, there was so much more to come.
Chapter 1
The current of current events
When one is determined to make a positive change to one’s self it may prove quite difficult indeed. When one tries to change the wrongs past, it may come to war.
Freedom from tyranny
More than sixty years have passed since the Communist scare began, and people are now beginning to see the end results of the changes in freedom that this time period brought with it. Today the denial of freedom for a select people has upset the balance of freedom for all people. To correct the downfall of freedom may prove to be possible in theory only.
The Declaration of Independence promised us freedom from a tyrannical rule. The message was clear, that it was “The People” that would undo the wrongs that were done to them. The fight for the inalienable rights of the people was taken up by so many that independence was won. The facts spoke for themselves and drove every man to defend those facts, even to their death.
This was not a war of propaganda and lies; it was one of truth and fact. As important as the Constitution is in describing our nation it is the foundation that the Constitution rests that is of great importance for our society today. That foundation is not the Constitution itself, it is not the words of The Federalist Papers, and it is not even the Declaration of Independence. This foundation is far more important. This foundation was, is, and will always be “THE PEOPLE”.
The free person
In the US a free person can enjoy at least the three rights as declared by the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been used in the formation of all other rights that free citizens have. While these rights are limited they are defensible by example. Not all rights have this distinction. These rights can be better seen as the freedoms of; to have, to do, to be. Each of these would correspond to each of the rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Barack Obama July 27, 2004
In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; a belief in things not seen; a belief that there are better days ahead. I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.
Life
A free person has a right to life. This in combination with the other two, grants the ability to live the life one chooses. By itself it gives the person the ability to remain alive to live that life, or, one can choose to endeavor in activities that could result in the end of that life. By example, a person can choose to seek medical advice to cure a life threatening disease or choose to join the military and fight on the front lines of battle. While many enjoy this right there are those that are very limited in the value this right has for them.
This gives each the freedom to have. The ability to have is part of the capitalist ideal of our culture. We can have a car, boat, house, business, or whatever it is that we legally obtained. As long as we pay the taxes on these items we may continue to have them without fear that they will be taken from us by legal means. We may also have others in our care, such as a family. As long as we treat them right we may keep them.
A sex offender that is released from a contract that is part of a sentence is free unless the laws restrict this freedom beyond the limits imposed on all. Registration of sex offenders does just that, and these restrictions do affect the right to life. The ability to live the life one chooses has been limited to such an extent that it even has an effect on the ability to remain alive to live that life.
The American Dream
Let’s say that in high school all students had an assignment of writing their own American Dream. It would be quite unlikely that any one of them would include going to prison, killing innocent people, committing arson, or any number of crimes as a part of that dream. It would be more of a road map toward fulfilling the American Dream as described by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement". Would there be any that would wish to deny their child of fulfilling this dream?
And yet, we look at our children as if to say “if you make a mistake and pay for it, you will never be my child again”. In every person we meet in life, there is the chance that we will meet who our child may become. If one of the students, mentioned above, chooses a path that leads away from fulfilling that dream, we would be only too happy to help them get back on that path. We all like to believe in the goodness that is sometimes buried deep inside each of us. When it comes to the “registered sex offender” we deny them the right to try and achieve the very same dream they had when they were in that high school class. Leaving it up to the legislators, to decide who is eligible to seek out that dream, has resulted in the potential for the same legislation to apply equally to all.
Liberty
The ability to be free is not an exclusive right but one that includes all walks of life. Being free allows us the liberty to go and be where ever that freedom takes us. Our children have a restricted liberty, but not just by law, although the law does put our own children within our jurisdiction. But one our children obtain the age of consent that jurisdiction become void. We have no contractual authority over them. The same holds true for those that commit a crime. Once a convicted criminal obtains their freedom from a contract binding them to a jurisdiction the authority of that contract is void.
If we both require the convict to register and set limits on them after that contract has been fulfilled, the freedom that has been obtained is limited. These limits impose restrictions that remove many of the liberties that would be allowed to all free citizens. The liberty to have a family, to raise children, live where it is most desirable, to take the family to the park, to watch our children in a school play, and the list goes on and on. These same liberties because they are ones enjoyed by all free citizens, and having been removed from some of these free citizens because of a past wrong can now be removed from all free citizens who have committed a wrong. This is for any crime that is committed and punished, from murder down to traffic ticket.
Pursuit of happiness
In our life long pursuits many times it is not our own happiness that we strive for, it is the happiness of our children and their children… that is our driving cause. This pursuit may be a good job or lasting career, a business to call our own, a home in a good neighborhood, a nice car, and good clothes. Whatever our pursuit we undertake the results we desire for these things is to pass them on to our loved ones in the form of their happiness.
When the rights of life and liberty are limited or removed it becomes difficult to impossible to pursue even marginal happiness. This is what the sex offender is faced with when trying to rejoin or form a family, becoming a good citizen, or just be happy off in the world exploring the wonder of it all with new eyes. This potential metamorphosis into what one could be is not only delayed but many times stopped altogether. Our children will make mistakes in life and will seek the forgiveness of all. Did we intend for them to never regain those rights that make us human?
The combination of both federal and state laws that protect the public from sex offenders is what has put these pursuits out of the reach of those that must register. These laws by and of themselves are only two parts of this equation, without a third part the effects of the other two would have little merit in a court of law. It comes down to the same component that made the Declaration of Independence such a vital and energetic proclamation. Without “THE PEOPLE” the reason for offenders to have conflicts with these laws would be reduced to but a trickling of cases that questioned the Constitutionality of these laws, but as it is the flow of these conflicts will only increase.
A collaborated effort
The creation of law works a bit like the theory of rumor transmission, in that the more departments that must create rules for the law the greater the chance of mistakes being incorporated into its overall design. The best way to explain this is by an actual example. Keep in mind that this is a bit over simplified of an example, but a reasonable one.
Theory of error transmission
In 2006 the legislation passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act or “SORNA” for short. This Act required the US Attorney General to fill in the gap of who was required to register under SORNA. For whatever reason, the Attorney General said, “All sex offenders have to register” and left it at that. Well this rule went on to a bunch of people that had to resolve the problems with this rule and cover the butts of those in the Oval Office. Next the states had to fulfill the obligations that were required of them by the Federal Government. The states had the difficulty of resolving these requirements to their respective states Constitutions. They had to do as they were told or lose money, so they did it. Now the local governments not quite understanding the entire set of laws and rules would just throw all of the sex offenders into the system with an attitude of “kill them all and let God sort them out”, so to speak. What else could the people think then that all sex offenders were bad and had to be removed from the public.
Who to blame
Over all, this legal chain of events has still created a working set of laws and rules. But there are some serious problems in the construction of the laws, but who is at fault? Do we blame Congress for giving one man an unquestionable authority, or the man himself for not performing his duty, we could blame those that covered up his indiscriminate act. Perhaps, the states are wrong for not questioning these things themselves. The local governments could be to blame for their attitude. But no, it is none of them and all of them that are to blame. They had all collaborated in giving “THE PEOPLE” what they wanted.
The end results
History tells us all too well that giving the people what they want is not always in the best interest of the people and certainly not for the government. Hitler gave the people of Germany an enemy, the people of Rome wanted to see more death in the arena, and Egypt gave the people slaves. It goes without having to be said what happened to these empires because of giving the public what they wanted. Our founding fathers knew these lessons from history (minus Hitler) and many others when they worked out our Constitution.
The most important resource that we have telling us what this Countries Government was to be like and the way power would be distributed is The Federalist Papers. These papers have time and time again been used to help determine the outcome of many Constitutional questions in the courts. If the Congress had questioned the SORNA against the Constitution and The Federalist Papers it would have failed to pass before they could read beyond the first page. But by passing SORNA our government had put our country at risk of collapse.
Today there is a trend moving through the nation that is removing the rights of the people and shifting the key ingredient of the Constitutions check and balance system into a ruling by a single government body dictatorship. This Nation has gotten out of control and the only thing standing between collapse and recovery is the judiciary system.
Our only hope
Barack Obama July 27, 2004
It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!
A former Missouri Senator and attorney William J. Cason once explained to me everything the average person should know about the attorneys, the law, and winning a case. He impressed upon me that every case that went before a judge was to be taken as a very serious case, that no matter how trivial that the case may appear on the surface, the decision of the court is final and would not only affect the person but the law itself and those that may come after. He would allude to the fact that every case has the potential to affect the freedoms that the Constitution grants us. Mr. Cason told me that an attorney was the voice of reason before the courts and that while well learned in the law was but a person with limitations. An attorney’s job was not to win the case but to convey the client’s position to the court in a legal, moral, and ethical way that would hopefully convince the court that justice would best be served in their clients favor. This all lead to what Mr. Cason believed to be the most important determining factor in any case, “The Client” and that if a client is going to win his case in court, he “must do 200% of what he would expect his attorney to do” in order to win the case. He also implied that the client should do 200% of what was expected of the attorneys on the opposing side.
If the people find a law that is believed to be unconstitutional and wish to have it removed, it could take many days of research and debate to get to the point of being assured that they have the case well formed. But because the people will ultimately be responsible for any change in law it will be up to the people to make that change.
It is “We the People” that formed “a more perfect union” and it is up to “We the People” to maintain that “more perfect union”. It is “We the People” that have cast shame on those that paid for their crimes and humiliated our neighbors, friends, and families. It is in the hope of “We the People” that rests the future of our children.
Chapter 2
S.O.R.N.A. Page by Page
SORNA as seen by our Founding Fathers
Page one
42 USC § 16901. Declaration of purpose
In order to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children, and in response to the vicious attacks by violent predators against the victims listed below, Congress in this Act establishes a comprehensive national system for the registration of those offenders:
Within the "Declaration of purpose" there must be answers to specific questions. On the other hand there are things that should not be included. The Federal Government has been limited to what areas it may control and to the depth that this control may take. So, the first thing that must be shown is the area of control that the law will effect.
§ 15.64. Declaration of purpose.
(a) Use. Language stating the purpose of a statute or a recital of facts upon which the statute is predicated should not be included in a statute. A well drafted statute requires no extraneous statement within itself of what it seeks to accomplish nor the reasons prompting its enactment. The practice of resorting to purpose clauses is but a revival of the tried and convicted preamble. However, if it is desirable to express the policy or purpose of a statute, the ‘‘declaration of purpose’’ is preferred to the preamble in a bill since it is a section of the statute and becomes part of the statute.
(b) Form. The declaration of purpose may be a variation of the following form:
‘‘It is the purpose of this act to protect the health and safety of the people of Pennsylvania from the menace of drug addiction. The General Assembly intends that the criminal laws shall be enforced against drug users as well as other persons. This act shall not be construed as intending to substitute treatment for punishment where crimes are committed by drug users.’’
The purpose as declared here is “to protect the public”. So, we know what the intent is and we know who this purpose is for. The intent here is “to protect”, and who this intent is for is “the Public”. The problem that is addressed is harder to figure out because of it being a mixture of the parts “from” and “response to”. The wording here is problematic because of its needless desire to point to various instances of violence. In the Federalist Papers is found a great deal concerning this type of instrument use as a motivation to incite a reaction from others.
And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.
If the Declaration of purpose were to exclude this type of wording it would read differently and may not pass as law.
To protect the public from the portion of the public that is violent predatory sex offenders
