Posted on 11/08/2006 3:17:12 PM PST by Steven W.
California news radio reports that Jessica's Law, just passed overnight by the voters, was already been ruled unconstitutional pending appeal. It was unclear from the report which court made the ruling (I believe the ACLU promptly filed suit after last night's election) and the court reportedly ruled that the law is unconstitutional because it unfairly seeks to punish people.
The Press Enterprise has the story. It is pe.com. Last time I linked a story, to my aunt, she couldn't see it, had to register. I'm not very good at this stuff.
Yes, that seems to be what it's all about...making a name for oneself. To hell with human decency and protection of the innocents in this society.
Exactly - what about the poor children the sicko b@stards are molesting.
Link to site on Prop 83
http://www.83yes.com/
Here is my link. Hope it works.
http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California2/CA_ELN_Jessicas_Law_261076CA.shtml
Like I said, not good at this computer stuff.
The judge who blocked it is Susan Illston, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1995.
It's interesting sometimes to see who appointed judges in controversial cases.
The Atheists, Criminals, and Lesbians Union strikes again.
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of Proposition 83, the ballot measure passed overwhelmingly by voters a day earlier and meant to crack down on sex offenders, including limiting where they may live.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, ruling on a lawsuit filed early Wednesday, said the measure "is punitive by design and effect" and unconstitutional.
The so-called Jessica's Law prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park effectively prohibiting parolees from living in many of California's cities.
It also would require lifetime satellite tracking for paroled rapists, child molesters and other felony sex criminals upon their release from prison. It would increase sentences and parole terms for violent and habitual sex offenders, and make more sexually violent predators eligible for indefinite commitments to state mental hospitals.
State law already sets limits on where sex offenders can live, but the new requirement would make it even harder to find homes for offenders released from prison. Parolees currently are prohibited from living within a quarter-mile or 1,320 feet of a school, with a half-mile restriction only for high-risk sex offenders.
Supporters said the initiative would save lives. However, law enforcement and social service workers worry that some sex offenders may simply stop reporting their addresses so they won't have to move.
The scope of the initiative's impact largely hinged on whether it would apply retroactively to the state's roughly 90,000 registered sex offenders. Supporters and critics had expected the expanded residency requirements to be challenged in court.
The case was brought by an anonymous sex offender identified as John Doe who was convicted 15 years ago.
The proposition, according to the suit, "effectively banishes John Doe from his home and community for a crime
he committed, and paid his debt for, long ago." The suit says the proposition forces him "from the home that he owns with his wife and his community of over 20 years."
The proposition is named for Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and suffocated by a convicted sex offender last year. More than 70 percent of voters approved the measure Tuesday.
The case is Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 06-6968.
But the sheeple will sit around and say "gee, isn't that awful" and go back to letting children be molested because of a liberal judge. Instead of demanding the judge be removed by any legal means necessary. How brazen is it to strike down a measure just overwhelmingly passed?
It's also good to remember that name. This election we had about 14 judges up for retention. FR helped me out a lot in voting for/against them.
Ya gotta read this!
it's pretty common in CA for newly passed voter initiatives to be promptly recalled in the courts - it's the way liberals override the vote of the people (except when the people vote for them or their liberal interests)
Thanks.
Yes, 70% total Californians voted for this crackdown on perverts, but interestingly, in San Francisco county, the measure lost something like 25% for it and 75% against it. I find this amusing.
In the interests of full disclosure, I actually voted against this proposition, mainly because I vote against virtually all propositions.
Welcome to the America of 'Rats.
I remember Prop 187. Got blocked and haven't heard about it since. It just seems it stays blocked.
Big F'n GAG.
It's the lifetime electronic monitoring that's probably going to hack this up (has already). In our system once you're done being punished you're done being punished, for better or ill if you want any of the punishment to be for life then the sentence must be for life.
Just more liberal judicial activism. Again, the will of the people is thwarted by the leftist agenda from the bench...and this is not the first time the voters have been told to go pack it, in California BY THE LIBERALS.
Hmm. Where did I hear about this guy writing about incestuous pedophilic rape... was it in Virginia? I guess he's safe if he stays on the east coast.
I remember recent studies that prove that pedophiles actually have a *lower* recidivism rate than violent criminals.
Unfortunately, tis runs contrary to popular wisdom, and is thus politically irrelevant.
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.