Posted on 11/08/2006 4:04:08 PM PST by newzjunkey
Try reading the law and you will probably have your answer. This thing cross references so many different parts of California code it's a month-long job just to understand what the darn thing does.
Chalk up another NO vote here. Not a bad idea on the surface but the GPS application applied to way too broad a population and the vague language on residency requirements and who it applied to was sure to end up in court. And it has.
The Lautenberg Abomination I referred to. Not tested at the USSC (cert denied). Since the Emerson case indicates that punishments may be modified retroactively for actions which were illegal when performed, while this case seems to indicate the opposite, that would seem to make the issue ripe for USSC review.
-PJ
I guess we all should have read the article linked at the beginning of the thread. She only stayed a portion of this law--the residency provision. She didn't stay the GPS or the myriad of other provisions included in the law.
SAN FRANCISCO -- One day after California voters overwhelmingly passed an initiative tightening legal restrictions on registered sex offenders, a federal judge has blocked local enforcement of a provision forbidding past offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco issued the temporary restraining order today against the provision of Proposition 83 at the request of a Bay Area man who pleaded no contest to a sex crime more than 15 years ago, according to his lawsuit.
Indeed it would.
The founders warned us about the dangers of mob rule.
That is why we have a "representative republic" rather than a pure democracy (although it's beginning to resemble that more every day).
BTW, regardless of the intentions, I really despise this trend of naming laws after victims of whatever the new law is supposedly designed to prevent.
Odds are, there are laws already on the books to deal with whatever it is that Jessica's or Herkimer's or Cable Guy's laws are designed to prevent.
Surprise, surprise, surprise ...
>Lawsuit brought in SF by a "John Doe" sex offender claiming the law is retroactive.
The Constitution is very clear on ex-post facto laws.
The question of retroactivity has to do with those who are required to register as sex offenders. The authors claim that their intent was for it to be prospective (only those being released from jail). But the way the law is written, including the statements about how many offenders would be covered, would indicate a much larger universe (i.e. all offenders in the registry). As I recall, the question of constitutionality came down to whether the new enforcement rules were a form of punishment (which would be deemed unconstitutional) or ongoing regulation (which may not). This got really messy when it came to the 2000 ft residence requirements. If a registered sex offender owns a home that is 1950 feet from a school, could they be forced to move? That was just one example but there are plenty of issues with the way this law was written.
Let's see... who will be the individual responsible for preparing the State's case for upholding the Proposition and removing the injunction? None other than the new Attorney General, Jerry Brown... I'm sure it'll be high on his priority list when he takes office.
When the official title and summary is complete, the Attorney General sends it to the proponent(s), the Senate and the Assembly, and the Secretary of State. The Legislature may conduct public hearings on the proposed initiative measure but cannot amend it.
Had the legislature explored the language, the author's original intent and ex officio judicial viewpoints through public hearings, all may have been more knowledgeable. As it was, outside law enforcement, only political junkies understood the process and pitfalls in the measure's language.
Only if it bubbles up to the 9th with a different result... hey, that's a virtual certainty.
Don't be silly, after all this is Kalifornicator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.