The reason we need to give up our rights...

We are told that we must give up our right to privacy in order for the
government to protect us from the horrors of child molesters, et al.

Recently, a Canadian man was charged with 572 instances of having
individual and group sex with pre-teenage boys. He was sentenced to
a 'duece-less' (two years less a day), which is 'soft time' in Canada,
and is served in a provincial jail instead of a federal institution.

We are expected to give up our right to privacy so that the sores on
our children's bums can be healed just in time for this guy to get out
and have another go at them?
Would it be ridiculous to suggest that the government *needs* this man
back out on the streets in 16 months (if he does 'good time') because 
there is a shortage of child molesters to hold over our heads for their
next attack on our rights and liberties?

Hell, give Tim McVeigh a pardon, and then use it for an excuse to make
use of compost in the commission of a crime a felony.

Personal not to FedUpMonger:
I'm just OldAndTiredMonger. I don't need this shit anymore.

On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> Recently, a Canadian man was charged with 572 instances of having
> individual and group sex with pre-teenage boys. He was sentenced to
> a 'duece-less' (two years less a day), which is 'soft time' in Canada,
> and is served in a provincial jail instead of a federal institution.

It's also the longest sentence they can give with no possibility for
parole.  You neglected to mention that, and I think it's highly relevent. 
I'm not familiar with the particular case you describe, but I used to know
a man who ended up going to jail for two years less a day for raping his
daughter, and in the decision, the judge said he really wanted to give him
a much longer sentence, but considered it more important to be certain
he'd be kept away from the family as long as possible.