I am all for this, after all, if a draconian online hit-list is good enough for ex-sex offenders, then we should have a online shaming registry for all criminals. With the "high" recidivism rate of all other criminals, they have shown they are dangerous and should be monitored for life.
06/05/2012
By Matt Zapotosky
By the end of July, those convicted of gun crimes in Prince George’s County will have to register with police, check-in regularly and agree to let officers randomly visit their homes.
After a brief public hearing Tuesday, Prince George’s County Council members unanimously passed a bill authorizing police to operate a so-called gun-offender registry — an effort, council members and law enforcement officials said, to reduce gun crime that has plagued the area. County Executive Rushern L. Baker III (D) said afterward that he plans to sign the bill as soon as possible, meaning the registry will take effect in late July, 45 days from the time it was passed.
“At the end of the day, what this county is going to see is a reduction in crime,” said Barry L. Stanton, Baker’s public safety director.
- Yeah, Gun offenders are all of a sudden going to stop and think, "Hey, I don't want to be on that gun offender registry so I better not kill someone!"
The law puts Prince George’s among a growing number of local governments regionally and across the nation that allow police to monitor gun offenders. In recent years, Baltimore and the District — following the lead of New York — have created such registries, and officials have seen some evidence they reduce recidivism, authorities said.
- So they say they have "seen" evidence, but seen and actual evidence are two different things. I want to see the facts, not someone's personal opinion.
Public safety officials said they are still working out the precise details of how the registry will be implemented in Prince George’s — details they plan to submit to the council next week to consider as a formal resolution. But much is already clear.
The bill will require anyone convicted of a gun crime in Prince George’s to provide police with his or her name, any aliases and a host of contact information, including a home address, telephone number and e-mail address. Every six months, those on the registry will be required to meet with police to verify the information they provided, and officers can periodically visit — though not search — offenders’ homes to make sure the information is accurate and up to date.
- Why not model it after and implement it into one registry? You can use the existing draconian shaming hit-list known as the sex offender registry, and make sure you also instigate some residency restrictions so these folks cannot live near any place humans congregate, and make them register for life as well.
Those convicted of most gun crimes will stay on the registry for three years; those convicted of using a handgun in another crime will remain on the registry for five years. Anyone who either fails to register or moves without notifying police will face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Offenders have 48 hours from the time they are sentenced — or released, should their sentence involve prison time — to register.
- Why not for life?
At Tuesday’s hearing, Prince George’s top public safety officials pointed to 180 non-fatal shootings last year and 63 so far this year as evidence for the registry’s necessity, while local NAACP officials and a few residents questioned the bill’s constitutionality and fairness.
- The same can be said for all other criminals. Like gang members, drug dealers/users, thieves, DUI offenders, etc. Why aren't they on a registry for life and faced with similar residency laws? After all, you say it's necessary and "reduces" recidivism, so why not? If it "saves one child," then it's worth it, right?
Bob Ross, head of the Prince George’s NAACP, said the registry “sort-of violates one’s constitutional rights” and urged council members to delay passing the legislation because a state circuit court judge in Baltimore last year had deemed a similar program there unconstitutional. In that case, though, the judge said the police department was not specific in explaining how the program would be implemented, not that the registry was unconstitutional per se.
- If it's constitutional for ex-sex offenders, then it's constitutional for all other criminals.
Darrell Miller, the legislative co-chairman for the Prince George’s NAACP, said after the hearing that though council members had good intentions, the registry might discourage gun criminals from seeking to reform their lives by hampering their ability to seek jobs.
- Amen, and the same can be said with ex-sex offenders!
Council member Karen R. Toles, (D-Suitland), who sponsored the legislation, disputed that: “It would discourage them from using a gun to commit a crime. That’s what it would do.”
- These politicians are really ignorant! This is like saying that passing laws against selling drugs will prevent people from selling drugs. Well we all know how good that worked! It won't prevent anything!
Police have said they would initially assign a sergeant and four or five detectives to handle the registry, pulling them from other jobs. They have said that the database could be created by those who run the department’s sex-offender registry and do other IT work, and there would be no additional administrative costs.
- So let's rename the sex offender registry to the "All Criminals Registry," which would save a ton of money instead of having to spend money to hire more people to build a similar registry and update it.
Council members also debated — without reaching any conclusions — about whether the registry should be public record. Toles said that though the registry is designed as a database for police eyes only, county lawyers would have to investigate whether it could be requested under the Maryland Public Information Act. Some council members indicated they would like to see the registry as a public database, much like the sex-offender registry, while others said they preferred it remain accessible only to those in law enforcement so that those legitimately trying to reform their lives could still seek work.
- Yes it should be public record. I want to know any and all criminals who live around me, especially those with guns who could kill me, and isn't it ironic how they want it non-public so those who have committed crimes can get on with their lives, but not sex offenders?
If everyone were trained in the use of firearms, rifles, 12-gauges and so on, there would be a far less crime rate, because criminals would be afraid to rob the Smith's down the road because they all KNOW how to use a gun and WILL use it if needs be.
ReplyDeleteI can't say I agree with any registry, as nice at they sound they aren't helping anything...these comfort laws are just nicer looking bull, but it all comes down the same when it hits the fan. :-/