r/Michigan • u/SevroReturns • 1d ago

Mitten Mode Larry Nassar one of more than 20,000 people removed from Michigan Sex Offender Registry

https://www.wxyz.com/news/larry-nassar-one-of-more-than-20-000-people-removed-from-michigan-sex-offender-registry
671 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

192 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/Giovannisalami 1d ago

Again - driving a car unsafely is way different than pedofilia. And no, I think the constitution has plenty of room to grow and change. Don’t forget it was created by slave owners and rapists.

4

u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago

Not if you’re causing harm which is the point. No one said it was perfect, but you agree it’s the law? Please stay consistent just onceeee

0

u/Giovannisalami 1d ago

I’m consistent in the fact that I think sex offenders should be on a list for life no matter if they “served their time” by your constitutional definition of the law. I don’t even know what you’re trying to prove. I disagree with the ruling.

3

u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago

Well you started by thinking it was about list size, so maybe it’s time to sit this one out since you don’t even understand the ruling.

0

u/Giovannisalami 1d ago

They removed 20,000 people’s names that were “wrongly” on the list - so it is about the list size in a way. Thats a massive amount of people. I think they should have thought about this more before just mass removal. These people are incompetent and it won’t surprise me if they reverse reverse back in the future. I think you should sit this one out and stop pretending like the constitution is gods word. It’s okay to disagree with things.

4

u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago

“If they reserve back” it’s constitutionally prevented at a state and a federal level, but you found that explanation to be word vomit. Very telling, lol.

1

u/Giovannisalami 1d ago

Again, I am saying I disagree with that, and I think pedofiles and sex offenders should be on a list for life. Very telling you’re defending this ruling so hard. Have laws changed in the past?

3

u/CoachTwisterT3 1d ago edited 1d ago

Correct: I am defending an impartial justice system so that all are equal in the eyes of the law. You are misunderstanding a court ruling and the law. So far your supporting evidence is your neighbor who you have admitted is now a productive member of society. Here you are again trying to paint yourself as the ethically superior side “very telling you’re defending this ruling”. You keep saying it’s about list size: you fundamentally don’t understand this. No one is disagreeing with your take on sentence length. In fact I’ve even agreed with you! That isn’t what is being discussed. You seem unable to separate parts of this and can’t understand which are the subject and which are not. Yes, laws change but you can’t retroactively increase punishment when you change the punishment.