Jessica's Law promptly declared unconstitutional (?)

Radio Report | 11/08/06

[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.

[stanz]

The Jessica Lunsford case was so horrendous and one of the more recent crimes against children to gain nationwide attention. My wish is that these leftists are all visited by the same violence that they so fervently work to protect.

[Enchante]

ACLU = lovers of terrorists and child molesters

[Wuli]

If history repeats itself, with the ACLU and California's "Jessica's Law", one of the things they are probably arguing will be that they think the penalties placed on the guilty when they get out of jail constitute something like double-jeaprody; that they have already paid for their crime with their jail time.

But, if my memory serves me correctly, they have lost appeals on those grounds in the past.

[Ready4Freddy]

That, possibly, but also the ex post facto aspects - subjecting perps convicted under one set of laws to a newer law.

It's the lifetime electronic monitoring that's probably going to hack this up...

[Tench_Coxe]

You know, this keeps up, there are going to be folks who decide to resolve the problem the old fashioned way. And other folks who tell the investigator they saw nothing.

[LibWhacker]

You'd think voters would realize that you can't vote for something like Jessica's law on the one hand and liberals like BJ on the other and expect the judges they appoint will uphold Jessica. I mean, sheesh... How basic is that? We keep hearing that voters are smarter than all of us. I don't think so. Voters are dumb.

[skeeter]

In the interests of full disclosure, I actually voted against this proposition, mainly because I vote against virtually all propositions.

Mind if I ask why? Would/did you vote against prop 13?

[stanz]

Nothing immediately comes to mind, but why should they care about the constitutionality of a law when it comes to the guilty perpetrators? What of the rights of the REAL victims.....abused dead children? There is no logic in this...no humanity.

[eleni121]

NO actually higher recidivism for child predators like this scum.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8485031/

[Mack the knife]

That, possibly, but also the ex post facto aspects - subjecting perps convicted under one set of laws to a newer law.

---

I think you are right.

Sentencing guidelines are a legitimate topic of a law or initiative, so sentencing people convicted from this date according to new guidelines ( 100 year sentence, 30 years prison time before consideration for parole, and conditions of parole to include satellite monitoring) is legitimate.

However ... passing a law now that imposes new conditions on previously convicted offenders who are already out of parole ... is an ex post facto law, and those are unconsitutional.

[Krodg]

I always thought it skirted the constitutional line.

How?

[gidget7]

Thanks for the article. All I can say is the Atheist Criminals and Lesbians Union, hopefully, has made a lot of people very angry with this one. 70% of them wanted it.

Guss what Pervs, if you refuse to protect our children, "WE" will protect our children, despite the ACLU and this wacky court, and if they want to continue to make that difficult, then these perverts should not be allowed out on parole! Sorry but the time they serve is insufficient and the recurrence of the same offense is to rampant.

On an added note, the NEA is not helping us either, with all the teaching of tolerance, and clouding the issue of what is normal, what feels good, and what kind of behavior is acceptable when it comes to adults. Nor is the teaching of experimentation to older kids. If the NEA had their way, kids would have no morals at all. They even tell the kids their parents are wrong. Is it any wonder young people seek "hook-ups" online, and fall prey to these very perverts?

[Frwy]

What can we do to fight and win against this communist entity? The ACLU isn't the only group that is antiAmerican but it certainly carries a huge stick. I'd love to attack them if I knew how.

[Wuli]

I am not making the ACLU's arguments; I was only remembering what they were in prior similar cases.

[Zeon Cowboy]

Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!

This was one of the few propositions that actually went the way I wanted it to!

[Raymann]

I think the California version is unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong, I think if you rape someone under 18 you should hang but this law doesn't limit it's scope to rapists. Not all "sex offenders" are rapists and I'd hate to be the poor bastard whose ex-wife tells the judge you touched your daughter. I like the law but in order for it to be constitutional it HAS to be more narrowly confined and allow judges SOME leeway to make the time fit the crime.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

California has a long history of ignoring the will of the majority of the people.

[Rte66]

The main argument I've seen over and over again while following Jessie's case and the progress of the adoption of other state versions of Jessica's Law is this:

Because of it, child sexual predators will kill their prey rather than "simply" assaulting them.

This comes from comments within the pedophile community to their counselors, therapists and probation officers, according to reports from those entities.

Th law's adoption is not widespread enough yet to observe whether this is a valid observation, but its very existence tells us this may be true. It's a hell of a dilemma to have to choose between the lesser of the two evils - I consider it blackmail by these monsters.

[Pablo64]

Typical spew from the ACLU (Anti-Christ Lawyers Union).

[HiTech RedNeck]

oh, i didn't know we had the earthly theocracy of the book of Revelation yet