CA: Federal judge blocks proposition (83) on sex offenders

[Kadie]

CA: Federal judge blocks proposition (83) on sex offenders
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, November 8, 2006

(11-08) 15:08 PST 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.

The suit claims that Prop. 83, approved Tuesday by a vote of 70 percent to 30 percent, would impose retroactive punishment by forcing the man to move immediately from the community where he has lived for more than 20 years.

Illston found that the plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, had shown a "substantial likelihood of success'' in demonstrating that Prop. 83 is a punitive measure that should not be imposed retroactively on people who committed sex crimes before it passed. She barred enforcement of the residency restrictions until Nov. 27, when a hearing is scheduled before another judge on a preliminary injunction that would extend the ban.

more...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/08/BAGOJM8RDM4.DTL

[tritsofme]

1. Seems like the sort of thing that should have been written in the law

Ex post facto laws are a no-no.

[cally]

2. Good news!!!

This was a bad law. :woohoo:

[Ms. K]

4. Most "Megan's Law" ordinances on the books

are bad laws.

Sorry, but I don't think a 17 year old kid who was having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend belongs on a sex offender registry, just because her daddy found out, got mad, and filed statutory rape charges.

Actual, honest-to-God sex offenders? Sure. If by that, you mean actual rapists, child molesters and the like. I don't see weenie waggers as major threats, or folks convicted of statutory rape for consensual sex. Molesting children should put one on a list, not having some fun in the back seat.

Oh well. I should just stop my rant now. I voted no on 83 anyway, so I figure I did the right thing anyway.

[Vorta]

3. No one likes child molesters or rapists

But we all know that "sex offender" is not so narrowly defined. It also includes statutory rape which is exactly what it means, and completely inconsistent considering that often those engaged in a statutory situation would be perfectly legal to marry with parental consent.

Even if the definition of "sex offender" were to be cleaned up and restricted only to those crimes of violence, a 2000 foot restriction would mean that a sex offender probably couldn't live most places other than the middle of a large corn field. These people have served their sentences, if that is not sufficient, then the sentences for future offenders should be increased. A 2000 foot restriction would mean that no one legally labeled a sex offender could live any place in my town. You simply can't be more than 2000 feet from both a school and a park here.

None of this addresses the fact that these laws are simply feel-good pablum which doesn't keep an unrepentant sex offender from repeating his crime. If these people were governed by consequences, they wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place. So all these laws accomplish is to give people a false sense of security which makes them more vulnerable.

In my opinion, of course.

[bluedogyellowdog]

5. "Sex offender" also includes

those gays and lesbians convicted of "sodomy" for having consensual gay sex before the Supreme Court overturned those laws, people convicted of adultery in those states where it is still illegal, people prosecuted for selling soft-core porn in such places as Provo, Utah where people have been prosecuted for selling Playboy, and people convicted of "public indecency" for such things as say, mooning or streaking.

People need to start thinking before they give their knee-jerk support to "one size fits all" punitive laws. Laws imposing ex post facto punishment should all be repealed or invalidated by the courts anyway - they're unconstitutional.

[Tesha]

6. I suspect one could get such convictions vacated now.

> "Sex offender" also includes those gays and lesbians convicted
> of "sodomy" for having consensual gay sex before the Supreme
> Court overturned those laws, ...

At least for the case of gays convicted of sodomy, I suspect one
could get such convictions vacated now.

Tesha