Jessica's Law blocked hours after it passed

[Demontestament]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/08/sex.offender.law.ap/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of key provisions of a ballot measure designed to crack down on sex offenders, ruling the law was unconstitutional just a day after voters overwhelmingly approved it.

"Jessica's Law" prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, effectively banning parolees from many California communities. It also requires lifetime satellite tracking for some paroled sex criminals upon their release from prison.

More than 70 percent of voters approved the initiative Tuesday. Hours later, an unidentified sex offender filed the lawsuit, arguing that the measure should apply only to offenders who register after the law was approved.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the measure "is punitive by design and effect" and probably unconstitutional. She issued a temporary restraining order against the law's residency requirements, saying the plaintiff was likely to prevail. The judge also ordered a November 27 hearing.

Supporters and critics of the measure had expected the residency requirements to be challenged in court.

State law already sets limits on where sex offenders can live, but the new rules would make it even harder to find homes for offenders released from prison. Most parolees already are prohibited from living within a quarter-mile of a school, with a half-mile restriction imposed on high-risk sex offenders.

The scope of the initiative largely hinged on whether it would apply retroactively to the state's roughly 90,000 registered sex offenders.

The proposition, according to the lawsuit, effectively banishes the plaintiff "from his home and community for a crime he committed, and paid his debt for, long ago."

Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said the state would defend the law.

Supporters said the initiative would save lives, but law enforcement and social workers worried that some sex offenders may simply stop reporting their addresses so they will not have to move.

The proposition is named for Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and killed last year by a convicted sex offender.

Good I am so sick of these people who defend the rights of sex offenders. She says it is unconstitutional, Bull****! I say if you are labled a sex offender you loose all right and freedoms and need to be tracked 24/7. Repaid his debt to society huh? Bull**** again, guarenteed they will rape and kill again, if people are so worried about their rights when they get out of prison I have a simple solution for them. Bullet to the brain, you rape/molest you die simple as that.

[Garbage Pail Kid]

There's always the appeal.

If they just executed every rapist and molester, we wouldn't have this problem.

[Tollwutig]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/08/sex.offender.law.ap/index.html



Good I am so sick of these people who defend the rights of sex offenders. She says it is unconstitutional, Bull****! I say if you are labled a sex offender you loose all right and freedoms and need to be tracked 24/7. Repaid his debt to society huh? Bull**** again, guarenteed they will rape and kill again, if people are so worried about their rights when they get out of prison I have a simple solution for them. Bullet to the brain, you rape/molest you die simple as that.

The problem is most states lump sex offenders into one huge category, so that Pedophiles & Rapists are in with the guys who were 17 and got their 15 year old Girlfriend pregnant and was convicted for Statutory rape as an adult. Was the 17 year old wrong yes, but he also isn't dangerous to children yet this law would force him to not be able to live close to a school, which if he is raising the child could actually hurt that child.



This is my problem with most sex offender laws they want to lump them all in together instead of letting a Judge do what he is supposed to do, that is to Judge. Some Sex Offenders are sick, others are were just dumb teenagers, why are they punished the same way?

[Garbage Pail Kid]

The problem is most states lump sex offenders into one huge category, so that Pedophiles & Rapists are in with the guys who were 17 and got their 15 year old Girlfriend pregnant and was convicted for Statutory rape as an adult. Was the 17 year old wrong yes, but he also isn't dangerous to children yet this law would force him to not be able to live close to a school, which if he is raising the child could actually hurt that child.



This is my problem with most sex offender laws they want to lump them all in together instead of letting a Judge do what he is supposed to do, that is to Judge. Some Sex Offenders are sick, others are were just dumb teenagers, why are they punished the same way?

I agree. That's why I specified molesters and rapists.

[Tollwutig]

I agree. That's why I specified molesters and rapists.

By Law the 17 year old is a Rapist since by law a 15 year old can not give consent, so we begin executing dumb horny 17 year olds?

[Garbage Pail Kid]

By Law the 17 year old is a Rapist since by law a 15 year old can not give consent, so we begin executing dumb horny 17 year olds?

Don't act like you don't know what I ment. Statutory rape shouldn't even be called that. That's a horribly written law.

[Tollwutig]

Don't act like you don't know what I ment. Statutory rape shouldn't even be called that. That's a horribly written law.

But written it is, and that is the point I am trying to make, these laws would have less controversy and less challenges if they would change what constitutes a Sex Offender, or at least make different levels of it instead of lumping them all together.

[Garbage Pail Kid]

But written it is, and that is the point I am trying to make, these laws would have less controversy and less challenges if they would change what constitutes a Sex Offender, or at least make different levels of it instead of lumping them all together.

Okay, I see your point now and I agree with you.

[Demontestament]

Don't act like you don't know what I ment. Statutory rape shouldn't even be called that. That's a horribly written law.

Agreed, this kind of law is one of those that just should not be. Saying that a 15 year old cannot give concent is BS. Lets see a 17 year old and a 15 year old bump uglies and they both wanted it. Sounds concentual to me. I say get rid of this law and keep with the real rapists and molesters.

[Jabrwock]

The constitutional question was whether people who were convicted, and long since served their time, should be retroactively re-punished without a new trial. The judges/juries who sentenced them originally never got to consider the new distance or long-term monitoring when they decided on punishment for the crime.

Hence why it's unconstitutional. It would be like automatically extending all prison sentences by 5 years. Since it would effectively be the legislators deciding the "new" punishment, it circumvents the legal sytem.

I can understand the frustration, but you can't just arbitrarily change someone's sentence by changing a law. You must both change the law, AND put those people back in front of a judge to re-argue the new penalties.

It's why the "3 strikes" rule doesn't automatically apply to criminals who were already in jail for their 3rd offense. It can only apply to those who are at the "3rd offense" or later, WHEN they get put in front of a judge, AFTER the law was put in place.

[Tollwutig]

Agreed, this kind of law is one of those that just should not be. Saying that a 15 year old cannot give concent is BS. Lets see a 17 year old and a 15 year old bump uglies and they both wanted it. Sounds concentual to me. I say get rid of this law and keep with the real rapists and molesters.

At what age is a person unreasonably not able to give consent though? 15, 14, 12!? 10!!? There needs to be a Statutory Rape law, but I don't think they should be lumped in as Sex Offenders, and I don't think it needs to be called Statutory Rape. Basically Laws need to be written so that past a certain age Sex with a minor becomes child molestation, and under a certain age it is always child molestation.

Say from birth to 13 it is Child molestation no matter what. This of course is a sex offense, and should cause the registration as a sex offender.

From 14-15 it be considered Consensual Sex with Minor Unable to Render Consent: I know long name but way more accurate than statutory rape. Any way this charge could only apply to someone under the age of 20, and would not carry the stigmata of being a Sex Offender. It should be punishable by such things as loss of Driving Privileges until the age of 20, and community service in women's shelters & such. Note, this law should equally apply to girls as well as guys, but it would be much harder to prove it happened, I've always hated that particular aspect of the law.

Age 16 and above should be considered age of consent, though I feel there should be some sort of charge for the 30 somethings that have sex with 16 & 17 year olds but if you legally say a person is able to consent to sex you must assume they are capable of choosing thier partners appropriately.

[KN]

Explain to me why this is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out and aaaall those gay marriage bans are a-ok?

EDIT: A sane age of consent is 16, like in most western nations.

[Hannah]

Explain to me why this is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out and aaaall those gay marriage bans are a-ok?

EDIT: A sane age of consent is 16, like in most western nations.

It's 14 in Canada, but the government's upping it to 16.

[Demontestament]

Explain to me why this is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out and aaaall those gay marriage bans are a-ok?

EDIT: A sane age of consent is 16, like in most western nations.

Because in America I guess if you rape/molest a child you are a criminal thus still have rights. But if you are gay, you are a monster and need to die in a fire.

People say it is not right to re-punish those guys. Bull**** I say, to me they lost their rights the moment they decided to steal the child's innocence from them. I wish a judge would just say "Too ****ing bad, you don't like what is happening then maybe you shouldn't be raping children." instead we have these morons who think these guys should still have rights that need to be protected. Sorry but I think it is for the better to keep them as far away from kids as possible. Putting them near a school is just retarded, where is the safety in that. Just because they did their time? Yeah because we all know once you get out of jail you are instantly not going to be bad anymore and will be nothing but and upstanding citizen.

[KN]

It is true that as a rule (usually), you cannot be punished for the same offense (as in something you did, not as in doing something you did once again). They may be invoking that. However, this has nothing to do with punishment. This is placing them far away from trigger situations.

[John]

The problem is most states lump sex offenders into one huge category, so that Pedophiles & Rapists are in with the guys who were 17 and got their 15 year old Girlfriend pregnant and was convicted for Statutory rape as an adult. Was the 17 year old wrong yes, but he also isn't dangerous to children yet this law would force him to not be able to live close to a school, which if he is raising the child could actually hurt that child.



This is my problem with most sex offender laws they want to lump them all in together instead of letting a Judge do what he is supposed to do, that is to Judge. Some Sex Offenders are sick, others are were just dumb teenagers, why are they punished the same way?

Second this. This is what causes so many problems with labelling people sex offenders.

[Thefremen]

My Father in law is a sex offender because when he was 18 and his wife was 16 his wife's mom had a problem with it. Now they're 66 and 64 respectively but if you do a search for sex offenders in maui they make it seem like he's a pedophile who could strike at any moment.

I'm sorry to all the Nancy Grace's in the world but not everyone who is labeled as a pedophile is going to end up on dateline.

[nightwng2000]

http://www.accused.com/clients/cases/rape.html
http://www.legalappeal.co.uk/pages/sexual_offences/rape.php

The "Conclusion" in this one is also interesting:
http://www.hjpmlaw.com/CM/FSDP/PracticeCenter/Criminal-Law/Sex-Offenses.asp?focus=topic&id=3

[Thefremen]

http://www.accused.com/clients/cases/rape.html
http://www.legalappeal.co.uk/pages/sexual_offences/rape.php

The "Conclusion" in this one is also interesting:
http://www.hjpmlaw.com/CM/FSDP/PracticeCenter/Criminal-Law/Sex-Offenses.asp?focus=topic&id=3

Exactly. The conclusion part is what I'm talking about. Statutory Rape where both parties involved have been married for 40 years, and yet the guy involved is in the databases is just mind-numbingly stupid.

[BetaSword]

By Law the 17 year old is a Rapist since by law a 15 year old can not give consent, so we begin executing dumb horny 17 year olds?

Interestingly, there is no federal age of consent. Age of consent is different from state to state. Some states, it's 18, some states it's as low as 14 or 15. 14 seems to be the lowest though. I know Illinois is a 17 state, and I'm pretty sure either 1ndiana or Iowa is one of the 15's.

Of course, with the whole age of consent thing, one needs to take into account a person's maturity. For example, a 15 year old could feasibly be mature enough to make an educated and well thought out decision about sex, while a 23 year old could easily be extremely immature about it and want to stick it anywhere they can. Including the pooper.

And while it's perfectly reasonable to have laws in place to keep younger people safe, at what point does it go from keeping young people safe, to exerting one's own opinion on others? Maybe that 15 year old is ready to have sex. Maybe they are mature enough to handle it mentally. And maybe they are truely in love. And you can't say that a 15 year old can't be in love. Love is a fickle thing, my friends, and can show it's true face to people of many different sorts, including different ages.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people should go out and try to find the youngest person possible to sex. I'm just saying that sometimes, it's a bit more complicated than things appear.

Now, actual rapists. Yeah. They should be shot.