You're missing the point stupid. The sex offender part is not the key
here. Substitute any crime you'd like. What I'm trying to get across
is that a law is a law - the dude broke it whether he went to rehab or
maybe it's not a deterrent, etc... Intentions don't mean a damn
thing.



On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:59:45 -0500, BDK
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:57:16 GMT, "Ross Archer" wrote:

Do I
misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming addicted to
pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought not. No
deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.

Is there any value in throwing a confessed sex offender in jail?
After they sought help a few times? Any value at all? Can't deter a
sex offender right? Can they be rehabilitated? Costs?

It's not a question of liberal/conservative values. Who could give a
flying F about how those ideals apply to this argument. If a law was
broken - pay the consequences. If not - no problem. If anything,
he's not a victim of his politics - just a victim of being famous.

Regards.


Equating sex offenders with drug addiction is just plain nuts.

The drug laws are totally out of whack.


BDK