By: Jeff Colt I’m the “someone” who suggested that constitutionally questionable laws that address primal fears and reactive tendencies (which Mr. Werblowsky inaccurately describes as “morals”), while legally well-intentioned and emotionally intoxicating, have no place in a society that sets (or purports to, at least) its legal principles according to constitutional prescriptions, and then, seeks to carefully mold them according to the evolving norms, needs, and social pulse of the contextual time period. This, of course, was in regards to a discussion we were having about Megan’s Law, the controversial law that allows law enforcement to publish location and descriptive information about registered sex offenders. First, in the interest of precision, I never used the term slippery slope when examining the post-incarceration problems of the pedophile. The term slippery slope was in fact offered by someone else, and now, incorrectly attributed to me and repeated in Mr. Werblowsky’s blog entry.
By: Steven (Tzvi) Werblowsky The message is: Last class when, we were talking about laws to protect children against pedophiles, someone mentioned how we shouldn’t have strict, maybe unconstitutional, laws against certain crimes we think are immoral because it will be a slippery slope, where do we stop? I think that this is a faulty answer. The first day of class the question was asked “who decides what is moral?” The Prof. answered that he was only talking about those things that we ALL hold to be moral (i.e. telling the truth, treating people with respect, not raping or stealing etc…) so there is NO danger of a slippery slope, because once we enter into a gray area, where people argue over whether something is immoral, and should have a law against it, or not then we automatically would not make a law for it. We are only suggesting making