January 17, 2020
Augusta Latest News | UMaine Basketball | Bangor Metro | Travis Baker | Today's Paper

Comments for: LePage matches $18,000 donation to study electronic monitoring of domestic violence offenders

  • The press conference was this morning but the article was posted at 6:38 p.m. on Friday night. Wonder why so late?

    • Guest

      …..

    • Anonymous

      They were saving it to offset any bad press LePage may have stirred up in the meantime. 

      • Anonymous

        Not enough ink in the entire state to do that, 66.

      • Anonymous

        The BDN covering for LePage??? Far more likely they were looking for something more juicy to publicize.
        Maybe he would accuse some Democratic of criminal activity.

    • Superuser23

      They spent an enormous amount of time actually reviewing and correcting any errors with the article rather then cramming it out the door this time

    • Anonymous

      8:19 pm and it still has not made the KJ or the Portland Press — so I guess that makes the BDN the news breaker

  • Anonymous

    Good thing to fund. The reporter could have added the source of the additional funding to make it more clear as to the source. The concept is in the incubation mode and needs a lot of work to be successful. Hope this pushes it along the way for all concerned. That way, they could put one on Bill Nemitz, famed Portland Press Herald reporter, who absolutely hates Lepage and help keep him out of Augusta.

  • Anonymous

    Sometimes LePage does something that merits kudos. This is one of those times. I wonder though if the money he donated was from his personal funds. The article doesn’t mention the source.

    • Anonymous

      It’s tax money from his “contigency fund” according to the news.

      • Anonymous

        I wonder why this newspaper gives LePage personal credit for the payment.

        • Anonymous

          Because this ‘news’paper & the rest of the MSM is out to defame, derail, slander, smear & misrepresent anything that is anti progressive liberal.

          • Huh!
            anti progressive liberal.Anti==== defame, derail, slander, smear & misrepresent 

        • Anonymous

          The newspaper probably gave him credit because his office probably said it that way – you know…Oops, he meant to say it came out of tax money.   Because reelection was also mentioned in this article I think the reason behind this is fairly obvious.  That said, I totally agree with this use of our tax money… but this changes nothing for me. I wouldn’t vote to reelect Paul LePage even if he was the only one running!

      • Anonymous

        In that case, subtract 5 kudos from the total I gave him.

    • Anonymous

      I think because if Libby or Baldacci had done it, they’d have said it the same way.

    • Anonymous

      I doubt he would give anything without mentioning the source unless it was his to give.

      • Anonymous

        You doubt that? You don’t think Paul LePage would omit something like that?  Well, I guess in LaLa land you might want to choose to believe that maybe he “forgot” to mention where the money come from. He forget that the money came from our tax dollars that were set aside in his contingency fund.  That’s should keep the illusion going for anyone who doesn’t think PL is capable of omitting the source on purpose… of course, it was just a blunder! Or maybe it was the BDN’s fault!

        • Anonymous

          Obviously you didn’t check out your facts before engaging on this thread. According to the Maine Telegram, “The governor….pledged to match the donation (the amount raised by a private effort) with an equal amount from his contingency fund.” By “his contingency fund” I presume the Telegram meant the state’s contingency fund since no further clarification was made in the report.

          Gotcha! Pal.

          • Anonymous

            Gotcha? What????  I don’t think so… read what I wrote again.

            Obviously you didn’t check your facts before engaging in a response on this thread. That’s EXACTLY what I said.  I said that the matched funds were coming from his contingency fund and obviously  I too presumed the “contingency fund” did NOT come from his own pocket but instead came from State monies (which ultimately come from our tax dollars)…  

            So, tell me, what exactly is this “Gotcha” all about? I’m curious… what do you think you got?  And what’s this calling me “Pal”? I have a lot of pals and I’m always open to more but I never allow negative or hostile people into my circle of friends (pals). I would appreciate it if you would refrain from assuming any personal familiarity with or about me. You are not my pal.

          • Anonymous

            There’s no: ‘maybe he “forgot” to mention where the money came from’, as you stated earlier. Actually, Mr. LePage did NOT forget. But if you only read the BDN you’d never know otherwise.

          • Anonymous

            Here is the entire sentence.   I said “Well, I guess in LaLa land you might want to choose to believe that maybe he “forgot” to mention where the money come from.”

            In fact, here is the entire post “You doubt that? You don’t think Paul LePage would omit something like that?  Well, I guess in LaLa land you might want to choose to believe that maybe he “forgot” to mention where the money come from. He forget that the money came from our tax dollars that were set aside in his contingency fund.  That’s should keep the illusion going for anyone who doesn’t think PL is capable of omitting the source on purpose… of course, it was just a blunder! Or maybe it was the BDN’s fault!”

            This was in response to your claim “I doubt he would give anything without mentioning the source unless it was his to give.”You are the person who doubted if Paul LePage would give anything without mentioning the source… or giving anything that was not his to give.

            Obviously I disagree with that.  I DO believe that Paul LePage would certainly give the state’s money and intentionally omit the source of the money he claimed to be “giving”.  In my opinion Paul LePage is NOT AT ALL forthcoming about anything. 

            Listen… it’s pretty clear that you made a feeble attempt to distort the meaning of my post by cropping a portion of one of my sentences.   Next time don’t answer at all if you have to do that… my post is there for anyone to read and I think most people are intelligent enough to notice that you omitted half the sentence in order to distort what I said.    Just leave it alone… or, at the very least, try to limit this type of distortion to verbal exchanges where there is no written record of what was really said. 

            In the future you (and Paul LePage) might want to be aware that it looks and sounds ridiculous when you attempt to change the meaning of a comment or imply something dishonest by omitting a word or words, particularly when the correct information remains available to be read by others in print.  Come to think of it, isn’t this exactly what Paul LePage just did when he omitted mentioning the source of funds for “his” money match gift.  He obviously attempted to imply that  it was HIS money but some of us DO read and know that it is not his at all.  It is the state’s money.

          • Anonymous

            As for Paul LePage, we know each other socially. I never had any reason to believe he was dishonest. Incidentally, there is no evidence the governor omitted to mention the source of the gift money. Had he done so, the newspaper, particularly this one, would have picked up on the faux pas. And the Telegram reported the gift giving event as though LePage had mentioned the source. There you have it with your wild speculation about the governor.

    • I’ll donate my dogs Shock Collar for Lepage!

      Will that give me a Kudos?

      Edit; It will surely save Adrienne Bennet alot of work!

      • I D Durkin

        Does the Governor of Maine preserve his constitutional pledge,
        or does he not ?

        CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MAINE
        Article I.  Declaration of Rights.
        Section 2. Power inherent in people. All power is
        inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in
        their authority and instituted for their benefit; they have
        therefore an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute
        government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same,
        when their “safety” and “happiness” require it.

        CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
        more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
        provide for the common defense, promote the general
        Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
        our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
        United States of America.

        AMENDMENT XIV
        SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
        States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
        United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
        shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
        or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
        any State deprive any person of life, “liberty“, or property, without
        due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
        the equal protection of the laws.

        Liberty, defined :  basic right: a political, social, and economic 
        right that belongs to the citizens of  a state or to all people. 

        Give the people their federal rights to health care.

  • Superuser23

    What a useless idea, really we can’t even keep up with Sex offenders you think slapping a little device on someones ankle is going to make people feel safe? Put them behind bars and keep them there, just as long as it is not Charleston anyways….

    • Anonymous

       Cutting off the peter to slay paul lepage don’t hunt.

    • Anonymous

      I completely agree with you. This
      is completely useless and ineffective. What is next? Having a State of Maine database
      for all felonies that people have committed in the state of Maine? A registered
      arsonist? A registered OUI offender? A registered animal cruelty offender? A
      registered operating after suspension offender? A domestic abuse registry? A
      drug charge and related registry? A breaking & entering registry? And so on
      and so forth.  If an individual
      commits a felony, should they be immediately be put on a registry (5yrs, 10yrs,
      or life) so the general public can be aware of their surroundings?

       

      Should we narrow this down to be
      a more precise registration system by having a said offender put his/her home
      address, work address, their make, model, year, color, and license plate to
      their vehicle and include a picture of the person, home(s), and vehicle(s), in
      order to protect the general public? 
      So when a parent(s) notices a strange and suspicious car at a park or
      some other public location, the parent can easily go to a website and type in
      ‘Red,’ ‘2005,’ ‘Chevy,’ ‘Impala,’ ‘license plate number 123456?’ on their
      phone, ipad, or other computerized device to see if it comes up on the Maine
      Felony Registration?

       

      No, this is crazy and would be
      extremely cost ineffective.  Once a
      person pays their debt to society (prison, probation, etc) shouldn’t they be
      allowed to live their lives and try to better themselves and be a productive
      member of society?  Because if we
      start down this road, then individuals may began falling into the self-fulfilling
      prophecy and becoming a repeat offender for what ever offense they may have
      originally committed.  

      • Dan Troop

        I don’t think you quite understand the concept of the program.

        • Anonymous

          I believe I have a very good understanding of the program and I am questioning just how far this could possibly go… to what extremes? As the article title states ‘Electronic Monitoring for Domestic Violence Offenders’ and to the bottom of the article it states, ‘…Fredette said the ankle monitor also could be used on high-risk sex offenders and low-risk people in jail.’  So initially the Gov. LePage wants to use it for one purpose, but then it is suggest for other uses as well…? So once again, I ask, how far will it go? From ankle monitors for a certain crime to all crimes to one type of registry to a plethora of different types of registries just to supposedly make the public ‘feel’ safer with these feel-good monitoring devices? No.  As one person already stated, if a person wants to commit a crime, the crime will be committed.  

      • Anonymous

        Why not?  Convictions are part of the public record, are they not?  Why not make the information available to people?  Sound like a much better incentive against future crime than a slap on the wrist punishment. 

        Your argument about self-fulfilling prophecy is not supported by the evidence.   We already perform criminal checks on all job applicants.  Lying about a criminal past disqualifies applicants.  Full disclosure allows us to think about the risk the applicant poses.  Its unlikely we would hire an embezzler as a bookkeeper.  However, that person could do well in any other position not in a position of authority with money.  Why shouldn’t we have the right to know this and make an informed choice?  

        Sound like you want “criminal” to be a protected class, as if they are the victims.  I’m not for onerous punishment, but others have a RIGHT to be protected from known criminals.

      • Superuser23

        It is LePage trying to use what we are told his own experiences, couple that with a tragic event to make himself look better. Put these people in jail period, don’t let them out on any parole, slaps on the wrist or anything. The whole argument about this was to create stiffer penalties for domestic violence criminals. The whole rage since this event took place was to stop letting these people out where they can get in touch with the people they were to stay away from to begin with.
        We already know a court order paper like a restraining order, does nothing.

        I know it will go beyond the “domestic violence” LePage wants everyone with an ankle alarm it seems. What is it going to take for any administraition in Augusta to use common sense?

        How many false alarms are people going to get because someone stepped out of their house that they might be in danger?

        What happens if in fact this goes into place, and someone falls asleep at the computer and criminal goes to house that he doesn’t belong in?

        These people, don’t and should not be allowed outside in public. They should not be given a chance to get a gun and shoot someone, look at the gun laws, how many felons get their hands on guns still?

        Abusrd weaste of time with this money, I am not saying these events can turn out tragic, but as I said, the point of this rage to begin with was the fact that our laws on the books last year allowed someone who posed a serious threat back out on the streets, an ankle alarm will do nothing!

        We will be asked to wear ankle alarms for simply not being in any kind of database

  • Anonymous

    What kind of maroon asks the question about less government in relation to this program?   It relieves overcrowded jails, eliminates the need for more FTE at the prisons, saves money.   In other words, it’s a no brainah.

    C’mon people…at least try to demonstrate cognitive ability…

    • Yep, I’m as libertarian, small government minded as you can get and this is good to go by me, it is fair punishment and not unussually cruel, and it is a reasonable way to keep folks safe with out infringing on peoples rights. Hopefully more states will implement using these devices and the price will drop. If someone is convicted of domestic abuse then why not make this part of their punishment, it might even help lower our tax burden as it is cheaper then jail time, though it should not be used as a substitute for jail time.

  • Conley Raye

    NOW, THIS MAKE SENSE .  imagine, saving the tax payer,  money and time.

  • ChuckGG

    This makes sense, especially for the domestic violence offender.  You see the victims take out a “restraining order” and that usually just ticks off the offender.  You know full well that once one of these guys gets it in his mind that the “b*tch messed him over,” he is out for blood.  With this monitor, police can be instantly notified.

    What they might want to add is the remote Taser option!  Zap the S.O.B. before he has a chance to harm his wife and kids.

    (Yes, I know there are women offenders, too, but we all know the vast majority are men with gross insecurity issues.)

  • Anonymous

    would really like clarification as to where these funds came from….lousy reporting here….

  • Guest

    Who donated the money? LePage personally or taxpayers?

    • Anonymous

      taxpayers.

      • Guest

        Hmm.

    • Anonymous

       The extra money came from the Governor’s contingency fund that is created from tax payer dollars but is left for the Governor to decide when and how it is spent.

  • Guest

    Yay Gov!  Thanks!!

  • Anonymous

     The only winner in this poorly thought out plan will be the money makers of the Houston-based Satellite Tracking of People.  Sending more jobs and money to Texas will not be of much benefit to a state such as Maine which is cutting back in its law enforcement manpower.  Tracking, responding, and prevention… how would the first (an ankle bracelet) have prevented the recent deaths in Dexter? A man set on killing his family will not be stopped by such a simple fix.

    • Anonymous

       but the advanced knowledge of his being in the area would have allowed the family time to get to a safe location and not just at the house getting ready for another day of school.  It would have allowed the police an opportunity to intercept him before he got to the house.  Perhaps the family did not need to die if the town was an off limits zone for the guy.  Ever think of it like that?

    • It will not prevent all domestic abuse murders but it will help to alert possible victims and allow easier convictions of the people that do carry out the crime with the bracelet on. It’s not a perfect option but it isnt a terrible idea, and cost will go down as more states start using them. Also you can hire all the cops that you can and there still wont be enough to be everywhere at once. People need to remember even with these devices you need to be willing and ready to protect yourself.

    • If the victim had known he was coming (her pager going off) she might have had time to run or at least armed herself and maybe saved her children. That’s worth $4.50 per day in my book.

  • Anonymous

    Paul lets monitor drunk drivers or people who eat at McDonalds next.  all for the benifit of the people right?

    • Anonymous

      Just want to be clear here.. you’re opposed to criminals being monitored to reduce the risk they will hurt people?  You’re opposed to saving $145.50 per day per criminal who can be safely released from prison and allowed to work and take personal responsibility for their lives?  And this opposition is because you fear your McDonald’s visits will be monitored?  Seriously?  Are you drunk?

      Kudos LePage.. credit where credit due.  Why our legislature has left us one of only 4 states not doing this is beyond me.

  • Anonymous

    Did LePage make a personal contribution (which would be very honorable) or did he simply take money out of his state contingency account?

    • Anonymous

       The matching funds are from the Governor’s contingency fund which is basically a taxpayer slush fund.

      Very poor reporting when the reporter fails to explain that these funds are not out of Mr. LePage’s personal account.

  • Anonymous

    surely the gov.donated that contribution out of his own pocket.The way he portrays the budget woes of maine,There wasnt money set aside for that but i guess when you want something you get it no matter what.   

  • Anonymous

    It’s not really all that heroic for LePage to match funds when the money isn’t actually his but instead comes from tax money from his “contingency fund” but, I think it’s a fantastic use of our tax money.  

  • Anonymous

    A study > we are one of four states that do not use this technology, WHY do we need a study. ????

  • Anonymous

    Good man, he cares…..

You may also like