Posted on 12/09/2012 5:37:50 AM PST by Salman
Attorneys for sex offenders who claim they’re too poor to register have filed a separate case against the city of Chicago on behalf of homeless sex offenders who say they can’t register because they don’t have permanent addresses.
Douglas M. Montgomery, a plaintiff in the new case filed Thursday, says in the lawsuit he’s been in the Cook County Jail since July 2011 when he was arrested for urinating in public. He’s awaiting trial on a charge of failing to register as a sex offender.
Montgomery, 57, said he was living under a bridge in January 2011 and police refused to let him register without an address. He says he was unable to find a homeless shelter to take him. He’s being held in lieu of $150,000 bail, court records show.
...
Last month, another group of sex offenders filed a lawsuit in federal court saying the city should waive a $100 registration fee because they’re too poor to pay. U.S. District Court Judge John Z. Lee refused to allow those plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit to include the homeless plaintiffs, which is why the homeless men filed a separate case.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
If the bastards can register to vote for Obama, they can register as sex offenders.
The problem with the whole ‘sex offender’ registry is that a guy who rapes a 12 year old is in the same classification as a guy who can’t make it to the bathroom and pees in the bushes.
This is just another way that feminists are punishing men for being guilty of nothing more than having male genitalia. This is part of the War on Men.
A few years ago I went to the sex offender registry to see all the ‘bad guys’ living in my neighborhood and (if I remember correctly) there were about half a dozen in my town. One was a 19 year old who’d had sex with his underage girlfriend when he was 18. Two were guilty of public urination. I don’t remember all of the cases, but NONE of them were guilty of rape or child molestation. NOT ONE.
To completely ruin a man’s life for a moment of poor-judgement is insane.
Certainly I have no desire to see somebody urinating in public. Yechhh. What I don't understand is why this crime is under the umbrella of sex offender status that will brand this man for the rest of his life. Yet the gays can hold perverted public parades and show and do the most grotesque displays of sexually oriented activities and it's under protection of free expressive rights.
It doesn’t come out and say that crime is the reason he is registered as a sex offender.
I am much in agreement with you.
The Registry is for more important offenses than having a few beers and taking a leak. Also placing an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old on a sex registry is BS too.
If that list had every male who committed either offense on it, it would be longer than Santa’s Good list.
Perhaps the public urinators have a case here. Seems to me that a point could be made regarding "equal protection".
Or they could simply decry the abuse and harassment of an public artist practicing his craft...
No it doesn’t, yet another poorly written article. But the assumption can be made, as a quick google shows that in many places, public urination in fact gets you sex offender status. The reason is public urination categorized as “indecent exposure” rather than what it should be (something along the lines of disorderly conduct).
It is of course ridiculous but it seems that so many laws are not written to actually serve the purpose for which they are ostensibly passed, but to perpetuate a sense that someone somewhere is “doing something” about something that someone somewhere doesn’t like.
A sex offender should be neutered to prevent further crimes against humanity. If they are too poor to register give them a job IN JAIL and pay them a dollar a day.
When in doubt about what address to list in Chicago, go with 1060 W. Addison. Problem solved.
Do you think they care about common sense?
Just think about how much money is generated by lumping these men into the same category as the real criminals. You might as well lump drunkeness in public with DUI. Because of course they are both capable of committing a far worse crime.
This is more about MONEY than protecting the public. It ALWAYS is!
This is just another way that feminists are punishing men for being guilty of nothing more than having male genitalia. This is part of the War on Men.
A few years ago I went to the sex offender registry to see all the ‘bad guys’ living in my neighborhood and (if I remember correctly) there were about half a dozen in my town. One was a 19 year old who’d had sex with his underage girlfriend when he was 18. Two were guilty of public urination. I don’t remember all of the cases, but NONE of them were guilty of rape or child molestation. NOT ONE.
To completely ruin a man’s life for a moment of poor-judgement is insane.
______________________________
The sex offender designation and the way it is managed is another way of keeping the population indignant, manipulated and cowed.
It really hit home to me when I read that Pope John-Paul did not think that the allegations against priests were real because allegations and procecution of sexual abuse were rampant in Communist countries against political enemies.
Yup. It’s a case of ‘crying wolf’.
Now the ‘SOR’ is losing it’s impact and the original intent is watered down.
I remember the line 15 will get you twenty, when I turned 16.
He has two previous Sex Crime convictions, and not for peeing in public, and he wasn't an 18yo teenager when he was found guilty of his first sex offense.
Give 'em a permanent address at Joliet Correctionsl Center.
Thanks for the additional info. Sounds like he has a major malfunction other than homelessness.
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.