I think Thaed's point is that a HOA works for some people. It doesn't work for some others. The beautiful thing about this country is that you get to choose if you want a HOA. Choices are nice.
Ah, choices are nice. The problem is that there is actually less choice than you think. More and more neighborhoods are governed by HOAs. There are some towns where it is impossible to find a non-HOA house. It is very likely that if I were to get an awesome job in the midwest, I would have no choice but to live under an HOA or commute a ridiculous distance. Another thing is that most new and modern houses are HOA governed. Choosing to not live with an HOA means you either have to pay ludicrous money to build your own house, or live in a much older home. People willing to suffer an HOA can get a more modern home without having to pay to build it themselves.
Notice that I don't have a problem with condominiums. With a condominium there are just as many rules as such. However, those rules typically govern what you can do in common areas that are owned by the condominium as a whole. In exchange, you have just as much right to access those common areas as do the other people living there. With an HOA, you own a plot of land and everything in that plot of land completely. The HOA typically does not provide services or common facilities. Every example of an HOA I have ever seen is simply a way for otherwise bored neighbors to exert their will upon others, typically for the worse.
Also, just to toss this out there, the HOA is an enforcement of the stereotypical American dream way of life. It is built to suit affluent people living with nuclear families. It is in its very nature discriminatory against people who have alternative lifestyles. Many things in this country are.
Maybe you shouldn't assume so much when you debate.
Maybe you should learn how to write persuasively. Go back and read your quote. You referenced "crimes marked on their records." In a discussion about sex-offender registries, this implies that you are referring to the registry.
I was addressing restrictions preventing convicted sex offenders from living near highly populated areas or near schools. I was addressing issues such as requiring them to have pink license plates. Maybe you shouldn't assume so much when you debate.
Now that you have lifted the heavy fog clouding your argument, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Talk to any treatment provider, and they will tell you how important these restrictions are to rehabilitation.
To be clear, there are no restrictions when it comes to living in "highly populated areas." This is a straw man argument at best. The restrictions are more narrowly tailored to assist in rehabilitation. (e.g.; "Don't live next to a playground.; "Don't become a boyscout leader.")
As for the pink license plates, that's new to me and I haven't taken a position on it yet.
Living in an HOA community is not for the lazy. If you don't participate, you give up you're right to complain. The above post with the definition of democracy is accurate. The owners delegate most of their decision making to the HOA and but the owners retain their rights to vote on large expenditures and significant changes. It's all in the HOA articles.
If you live in an apartment you are subject to rules. It's also true with condos. The idea that the Midwest is locked down is ridiculous. There is plenty of land and plenty of places where there are no HOAs. Plus, right now, everything is cheap!
Now that you have lifted the heavy fog clouding your argument, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Talk to any treatment provider, and they will tell you how important these restrictions are to rehabilitation.
Not living right near a school is probably a good idea for a pedophile, that's pretty obvious. However, completely banning them from getting a house they like that isn't near a school seems like it would only be discouraging. Not getting decent jobs for which they are qualified because of the conviction also seems as if it could only be discouraging. I'm no treatment providing expert, but my common sense seems to say that encouraging these sorts of activities makes for easier rehabilitation. That's just my common sense, though.
Can you please point out the sex offender registry that contains this information? I haven't done a survey, but I've yet to see one that has this information made public. It's not saying that there isn't, but since you're making the argument the burden is on you to produce.
As for an address, anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
As for an address, anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
This is true. However, there is a huge difference between putting the burden on the state to track the address of the offender or putting the burden on the offender to announce their address.
Watching Kilarney and Andrew argue is a real pleasure. :-)
Alternative lifestyle Scott? Hmmm. But whatever that means, it's just no big deal so long as it is legal. There's some very interesting living arrangements in my development and that's fine.
I love how there are now two parallel debates going on in this thread.
For the record, my only beef with HOAs is that they give broad latitude with little oversight, empowering people I intensely distrust with regard to my personal property.
Maybe you should learn how to write persuasively. Go back and read your quote. You referenced "crimes marked on their records." In a discussion about sex-offender registries, this implies that you are referring to the registry.
Ok, wow. Let's address this again.
I don't think that the issue is that these people have their crimes marked on their records, but rather that they never become full citizens, even after they have served their punishment.
Key phrase: I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE IS What could this mean? Perhaps it means that I don't have an issue with registries. Just maybe.
Now that I have baby walked you through my argument, I agree that we will have to agree to disagree. However, I stipulate that I have no problem with these restrictions as long as they are not permanent. If experts believe that these restrictions are necessary to rehabilitation, then great. But making them permanent shows that the person can never be rehabilitated and shouldn't be out of jail or a mental institution.
EDIT: Let me rephrase this because I know someone will try to take me out of context. I don't have an issue with the idea behind registries, just the implementation of them.
However, completely banning them from getting a house they like that isn't near a school seems like it would only be discouraging.
When the hell has this happened? The straw man raises his ugly head again. Residency restrictions have always been tailored to address the offender and his/her offense.
Not getting decent jobs for which they are qualified because of the conviction also seems as if it could only be discouraging.
Go ahead and trample on employer's rights. In a trade-off such as this, I'll support the employer's rights over the convicted felon who chose to engage in criminal behavior knowing that there would be sever consequences. I guess our values just don't meld here.
Rehabilitation balances the needs of public protection with the needs of the offender. That's pretty reasonable. And believe me, you can balance both. The offender may not have every option open to them, but they will have sufficient options to lead a successful life should they choose.
Can you please point out the sex offender registry that contains this information? I haven't done a survey, but I've yet to see one that has this information made public. It's not saying that there isn't, but since you're making the argument the burden is on you to produce.
As for an address, anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
Right here in my own state of Virginia. Just take a look at an example record of a sex offender.
However, completely banning them from getting a house they like that isn't near a school seems like it would only be discouraging.
When the hell has this happened? The straw man raises his ugly head again. Residency restrictions have always been tailored to address the offender and his/her offense.
That was the point raised when Jason started this thread (regards to an HOA not state/federal law).
Are convicted sex offenders prohibited from owning a house near a school or just prohibited from residing in said home?
Alternative lifestyle Scott? Hmmm. But whatever that means, it's just no big deal so long as it is legal. There's some very interesting living arrangements in my development and that's fine.
The HOA system heavily favors people who spend a lot of time at home. Someone like me who works all day every day, and spends most weekends out of town, will be extremely disenfranchised in an HOA.
Also, being a geek, and having atypical taste will also hurt. If I actually owned land I would very much like to do things most people would consider weird, and most HOAs would not allow. How would they react to me getting FiOS and having large machines for it outside my house? How would they react to some large tomato gardens or a fruit bearing tree? How about totally crazy Halloween decorations? How about having frequent parties with cars filling up the driveway and the curb for the entire block? How about putting up some antennas and dishes for geek purposes? Making messy YouTube videos out in the street or lawn? Working late at night in the garage on cool projects? If they hate clotheslines, how will they deal with solar cells on the roof? How about having an old junky car that I use for various geek projects?
These are just some of the things I would like to do, but can't, because I rent. If I were to own an actual house, the kind of nice house you find in HOA territory, I would want to do all these things. If those things are not allowed, I might as well just stay put.
But making them permanent shows that the person can never be rehabilitated and shouldn't be out of jail or a mental institution.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It depends on your definition of rehabilitation. If someone can live a productive life outside of jail as long as they have some restrictions imposed on them, then at some point (after the punitive component of sentencing has been achieved) it would make sense to release them - even if they will be supervised for the rest of their life.
It's similar to alcohol. Any alcoholic with a brain on their shoulders knows that they must never enter a bar. These "restrictions" follow them for the rest of their life. (Whether or not there is a parole officer to monitor compliance.)
There is definitely an argument to be made that you should get a sex-offender to a place where they can recognize and impose their own restrictions. The problem, however, is that this is a process. It begins with tight supervision in the community that is gradually loosened. You can't release someone from jail and expect them to have the skills immediately. However, I don't think that you should keep someone in jail just because they will have a continuing need for treatment when they are released.
Scott, you can find plenty of nice houses (or empty land) in non-HOA areas. Just go online to most any real estate search site and look.
Right now you are making a very big strawman out of your HOA fears. I'm sure it will look very nice when you plant it in your front lawn and use it to scare away the crows.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It depends on your definition of rehabilitation. If someone can live a productive life outside of jail as long as they have some restrictions imposed on them, then at some point (after the punitive component of sentencing has been achieved) it would make sense to release them - even if they will be supervised for the rest of their life.
I disagree with you. Personally, I think that if someone cannot live in society without any restrictions (which are permanent, I'm not discussing restrictions which can be lifted), then they obviously cannot be productive citizens and should not be allowed in public. Maybe we have just become jaded with the idea that our current justice system completely fails at rehabilitation so we are willing to sacrifice peoples rights even though we say they are "free".
Would you be wiling to have laws in place to prevent former alcoholics from walking within 500 feet of a bar? There is a difference between self imposed restrictions and restrictions placed upon them by the state. Even then, restrictions which publicly humiliate (pink license plates and requiring sex offenders to list their current address and work address publicly as well as provide current pictures and notifications of name changes) serve no purpose to rehabilitate as far as I know.
Again, I have no issue with public records being available, but I'm weary of the extent that the current sex offender registries have gone. They seems to have crossed the line from trying to help these people to publicly humiliating them for life.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just by a house that isn't subject to a HOA.
I will. But many nice ones I would otherwise buy are in HOA land. It's disheartening. If there were some way to buy out of an HOA, or such, I would be fine with it.
The problem I see is that there are tools that exist to make information regarding one specific class of felonies more readily available to the public than exist for other classes of felonies. Additionally, while criminal records are still publicly available, you have to know who you're looking for to find the information. A sex offender registry lets you pull up a list of who's committed what crime; you might as well just tattoo "I AM A RAPIST" on somebody's forehead when you let them out, as it would accomplish the same thing.
EDIT: My problem with HOA's is analogous to my problem with unions; membership in an HOA is compulsory based on where you choose to live. Imagine if the most feasible place for you to live is an area dominated by HOA's; there's really no way for you to make a sensible choice of where to live while not being in an HOA in such a case. The problem is that there is limited available space for homes, and allowing a non-governmental agency to set rules about an area that they don't directly own is a little shady. I understand the legal aspects of how it works thanks to this thread, but that doesn't make it less shady.
The problem I see is that there are tools that exist to make information regarding one specific class of felonies more readily available to the public than exist for other classes of felonies.
Living out in the real world with restrictions place on you is definitely a good step if you want to give people a gradual path on the road of rehabilitation. However, any path that does not have the potential to end in a return to absolute 100% normal citizenship can not claim to actually have the goal of rehabilitating. In fact, making normal citizenship an impossibility is an admission that true rehabilitation is not a goal. If there was at least a chance the person, by doing right, could get a normal life again, then it would be much more palatable.
Even then, restrictions which publicly humiliate (pink license plates and requiring sex offenders to list their current address
Didn't you just say this:
Perhaps it means that I don't have an issue with registries. Just maybe.
You're either: 1) In favor of public humiliation. 2) Lying about your opinion that listing an address on a registry is public humiliation; or 3) Being cagey on purpose.
I can understand your viewpoint that if someone needs government imposed restrictions for the rest of their life, then they should never be released. It's a judgment call. I tend to think that we ought to give people the tools they need to succeed and to keep the public safe, even if they need a little governmental kick in the ass in perpetuity. But reasonable minds can differ.
Would you be wiling to have laws in place to prevent former alcoholics from walking within 500 feet of a bar?
I would be willing to have restrictions placed on alcoholics who are convicted of alcohol related offenses. I would support a system that teaches them how to make good decisions when they are off of supervision. If they can't do this, then I would support supervision and/or jail for as long as it takes to protect the public.
Even then, restrictions which publicly humiliate (pink license plates and requiring sex offenders to list their current address and work address publicly as well as provide current pictures and notifications of name changes) serve no purpose to rehabilitate as far as I know.
They may. However, we should not have restrictions and/or requirements that serve the sole purpose of public humiliation. If an important and necessary restriction also just happens to humiliate, well... that's life. These are the things to think about before you molest a kid.
They seems to have crossed the line from trying to help these people to publicly humiliating them for life.
They aren't designed to help the offender. They are designed to help the public gain access to public information so that they can make informed decisions.
Anyone who uses this information to injure, harass, or commit a criminal act against any person may be subject to criminal prosecution.
It's nice to know that if you use the sex offender registry to find people to beat up, you might, possibly, maybe, be prosecuted.Shit, that sounds like encouragement or even incitement when you put it that way.
Even then, restrictions which publicly humiliate (pink license plates and requiring sex offenders to list their current address
Didn't you just say this:
Perhaps it means that I don't have an issue with registries. Just maybe.
You're either: 1) In favor of public humiliation. 2) Lying about your opinion that listing an address on a registry is public humiliation; or 3) Being cagey on purpose.
I can understand your viewpoint that if someone needs government imposed restrictions for the rest of their life, then they should never be released. It's a judgment call. I tend to think that we ought to give people the tools they need to succeed and to keep the public safe, even if they need a little governmental kick in the ass in perpetuity. But reasonable minds can differ.
I knew you were going to do this again!
EDIT: Let me rephrase this because I know someone will try to take me out of context. I don't have an issue with the idea behind registries, just the implementation of them.
They aren't designed to help the offender. They are designed to help the public gain access to public information so that they can make informed decisions.
What possible informed decision could come from knowing a persons place of work or license plate numbers? Are they reasonable?
Again, I have no issues with restrictions (which can be lifted), only permanent restrictions. I suppose it will just come down to a difference of opinion. Perhaps a psychologist could come an enlighten us on the process of rehabilitation?
Comments
Notice that I don't have a problem with condominiums. With a condominium there are just as many rules as such. However, those rules typically govern what you can do in common areas that are owned by the condominium as a whole. In exchange, you have just as much right to access those common areas as do the other people living there. With an HOA, you own a plot of land and everything in that plot of land completely. The HOA typically does not provide services or common facilities. Every example of an HOA I have ever seen is simply a way for otherwise bored neighbors to exert their will upon others, typically for the worse.
Also, just to toss this out there, the HOA is an enforcement of the stereotypical American dream way of life. It is built to suit affluent people living with nuclear families. It is in its very nature discriminatory against people who have alternative lifestyles. Many things in this country are.
To be clear, there are no restrictions when it comes to living in "highly populated areas." This is a straw man argument at best. The restrictions are more narrowly tailored to assist in rehabilitation. (e.g.; "Don't live next to a playground.; "Don't become a boyscout leader.")
As for the pink license plates, that's new to me and I haven't taken a position on it yet.
If you live in an apartment you are subject to rules. It's also true with condos. The idea that the Midwest is locked down is ridiculous. There is plenty of land and plenty of places where there are no HOAs. Plus, right now, everything is cheap!
As for an address, anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
Alternative lifestyle Scott? Hmmm. But whatever that means, it's just no big deal so long as it is legal. There's some very interesting living arrangements in my development and that's fine.
For the record, my only beef with HOAs is that they give broad latitude with little oversight, empowering people I intensely distrust with regard to my personal property.
What could this mean? Perhaps it means that I don't have an issue with registries. Just maybe.
Now that I have baby walked you through my argument, I agree that we will have to agree to disagree. However, I stipulate that I have no problem with these restrictions as long as they are not permanent. If experts believe that these restrictions are necessary to rehabilitation, then great. But making them permanent shows that the person can never be rehabilitated and shouldn't be out of jail or a mental institution.
EDIT: Let me rephrase this because I know someone will try to take me out of context. I don't have an issue with the idea behind registries, just the implementation of them.
Rehabilitation balances the needs of public protection with the needs of the offender. That's pretty reasonable. And believe me, you can balance both. The offender may not have every option open to them, but they will have sufficient options to lead a successful life should they choose.
Are convicted sex offenders prohibited from owning a house near a school or just prohibited from residing in said home?
Also, being a geek, and having atypical taste will also hurt. If I actually owned land I would very much like to do things most people would consider weird, and most HOAs would not allow. How would they react to me getting FiOS and having large machines for it outside my house? How would they react to some large tomato gardens or a fruit bearing tree? How about totally crazy Halloween decorations? How about having frequent parties with cars filling up the driveway and the curb for the entire block? How about putting up some antennas and dishes for geek purposes? Making messy YouTube videos out in the street or lawn? Working late at night in the garage on cool projects? If they hate clotheslines, how will they deal with solar cells on the roof? How about having an old junky car that I use for various geek projects?
These are just some of the things I would like to do, but can't, because I rent. If I were to own an actual house, the kind of nice house you find in HOA territory, I would want to do all these things. If those things are not allowed, I might as well just stay put.
It's similar to alcohol. Any alcoholic with a brain on their shoulders knows that they must never enter a bar. These "restrictions" follow them for the rest of their life. (Whether or not there is a parole officer to monitor compliance.)
There is definitely an argument to be made that you should get a sex-offender to a place where they can recognize and impose their own restrictions. The problem, however, is that this is a process. It begins with tight supervision in the community that is gradually loosened. You can't release someone from jail and expect them to have the skills immediately. However, I don't think that you should keep someone in jail just because they will have a continuing need for treatment when they are released.
Right now you are making a very big strawman out of your HOA fears. I'm sure it will look very nice when you plant it in your front lawn and use it to scare away the crows.
I hadn't seen a forum topic that got me excited in a long time!
Would you be wiling to have laws in place to prevent former alcoholics from walking within 500 feet of a bar? There is a difference between self imposed restrictions and restrictions placed upon them by the state. Even then, restrictions which publicly humiliate (pink license plates and requiring sex offenders to list their current address and work address publicly as well as provide current pictures and notifications of name changes) serve no purpose to rehabilitate as far as I know.
Again, I have no issue with public records being available, but I'm weary of the extent that the current sex offender registries have gone. They seems to have crossed the line from trying to help these people to publicly humiliating them for life.
The problem I see is that there are tools that exist to make information regarding one specific class of felonies more readily available to the public than exist for other classes of felonies. Additionally, while criminal records are still publicly available, you have to know who you're looking for to find the information. A sex offender registry lets you pull up a list of who's committed what crime; you might as well just tattoo "I AM A RAPIST" on somebody's forehead when you let them out, as it would accomplish the same thing.
EDIT: My problem with HOA's is analogous to my problem with unions; membership in an HOA is compulsory based on where you choose to live. Imagine if the most feasible place for you to live is an area dominated by HOA's; there's really no way for you to make a sensible choice of where to live while not being in an HOA in such a case. The problem is that there is limited available space for homes, and allowing a non-governmental agency to set rules about an area that they don't directly own is a little shady. I understand the legal aspects of how it works thanks to this thread, but that doesn't make it less shady.
1) In favor of public humiliation.
2) Lying about your opinion that listing an address on a registry is public humiliation; or
3) Being cagey on purpose.
I hope it's #3, as annoying as that is.
I can understand your viewpoint that if someone needs government imposed restrictions for the rest of their life, then they should never be released. It's a judgment call. I tend to think that we ought to give people the tools they need to succeed and to keep the public safe, even if they need a little governmental kick in the ass in perpetuity. But reasonable minds can differ. I would be willing to have restrictions placed on alcoholics who are convicted of alcohol related offenses. I would support a system that teaches them how to make good decisions when they are off of supervision. If they can't do this, then I would support supervision and/or jail for as long as it takes to protect the public. They may. However, we should not have restrictions and/or requirements that serve the sole purpose of public humiliation. If an important and necessary restriction also just happens to humiliate, well... that's life. These are the things to think about before you molest a kid. They aren't designed to help the offender. They are designed to help the public gain access to public information so that they can make informed decisions.
Again, I have no issues with restrictions (which can be lifted), only permanent restrictions. I suppose it will just come down to a difference of opinion. Perhaps a psychologist could come an enlighten us on the process of rehabilitation?