Judge throws out sex offender rules

The Des Moines Register ^ | 02/10/2004 | Mark Siebert

[Therapist]

A federal judge Monday ruled that Iowa's law prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or child-care center is unconstitutional.

The Iowa Legislature enacted the law in 2002 in an effort to keep sexual predators away from children.

[Therapist]

A Clinton appointed federal judge ruled that Iowa's law was too hard on pedophiles. (pun intended)

Unfortunately, this scum of the earth doesn't receive the Sicilian Solution (Badabing, badabing) and then we wouldn't have to worry about housing these freaks next to our children.

[goldstategop]

Thanks to another liberal federal judge and the evil ACLU, child molesters have more rights than children. After all its considered trendy to be compassionate to criminals. This from the same folks who always justify every other government abridgement of our liberty as being "for the children."

[jocon307]

We could save ourselves all this trouble and conflict over "re-integrating" these losers into society merely by increasing the penalties for the crimes they commit, and passing "no parole" laws for sexual offenses.

The old lock 'em up and throw away the key method.

[goldstategop]

We already do that. To liberals however that as well as the death penalty is inhumane to their felon voter base.

[babaloo]

This is the same judge that overturned Iowa's ban on PBA. He obviously holds children in the highest regard.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

The old lock 'em up and throw away the key method.

Flame away, but I have a problem with the government telling a prisoner that they are going to be incarcerated for 10 years, having them serve their sentence, and be allegedly integrated into society only to have themselves placed on a list that was not a part of their original sentence. It stinks of ex post facto to me.

As far as a sex offender registry goes, why not a murder registry, a spousal battery registry, a felonious assault registry, the list could go on and on to the slippery slope of eroding the whole underlying purpose of our criminal justice system -- be it rehabilitation or recidivism.

To me, it's one thing to say, you know what criminal X? You committed a sexual assault, your sentence is 20 years, and for 10 years afterwards you go on this sex offender list. It's totally different situation to keep adding penalities after sentencing has been completed.

Again, I realize I am probably in the minority here. And it's horrible what sexual predators do to people. Sentences should be stiff and severe for those that commit a sexual assault. However, I have a serious problem with the government making and changing up the rules of the game as they go along because it fits the political whim of the time without much regard to the Constitution and due process of law.

[Lazamataz]

Flame away, but I have a problem with the government telling a prisoner that they are going to be incarcerated for 10 years, having them serve their sentence, and be allegedly integrated into society only to have themselves placed on a list that was not a part of their original sentence. It stinks of ex post facto to me.

You won't get a flame from me. I agree.

The same "logic" is applied to gun owners: No possession allowed within 1000 ft of a school. This also shrieks of ex-post-facto.

[goldstategop]

I know what you're thinking. But child molesters are seen as cuddly next to gun owners. Ask yourself which group the Left hates and fears more and you'll grasp why the latter is treated more harshly than the former.

[VoteHarryBrowne2000]

The only issue that I have with registration of sex offenders is that they are alive to have to do it. If they were all dead and buried it would be much easier to assure that they would not pose any more problems and if that makes you feel sorry for the molesters then how about castration?

[goldstategop]

How about the death penalty for them? Jesse Jackson and Mike Farrell won't hear of it.

[SevenDaysInMay]

We must legislate mandatory life sentences for these chickenhawk perps. By stripping judges of soft alternatives, we shall see which blackrobes act to usurp law for their own agendas. Impeach and remove blackrobes who refuse to stay in their place, constrained by LAW.

[Nataku X]

I agree. You pay your debts, you should be free. First it's child rapists. Then it'll be pot smokers. Next, when Hillary (or a clone) becomes President, it'll be gun owners and Freepers.

What gets my goat, however, is that the state apparently feels that the offenders are still a THREAT, but lets them out of jail anyway. Does anybody really believes that a child molester can be "cured"?

It's the state fault for not locking the child molesters up for life.

[Nataku X]

Excuse the pre-coffee grammar.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

The same "logic" is applied to gun owners: No possession allowed within 1000 ft of a school. This also shrieks of ex-post-facto.

Couldn't agree with you more on that issue. Like owning a home and having a gun within 1000 feet of a school is somehow going to affect what goes on across the street. And taking away guns out of the hands of otherwise lawful gun owners is a travesty against the Constitution.

If you go and use the gun it will, but in that case, does it matter if you live 1,000 feet or 10 miles away? And start shooting at people at school? no.

[babaloo]

How do you cure a child molester? I do not think you can. Another troubling issue is that these guys often move to crummy areas of town where the residents with kids do not have the financial assets to move. Why should they have to when they have done nothing wrong?

[babaloo]

How do you cure a child molester? I do not think you can. Another troubling issue is that these guys often move to crummy areas of town where the residents with kids do not have the financial assets to move. Why should they have to when they have done nothing wrong?

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

How do you cure a child molester? I do not think you can. Another troubling issue is that these guys often move to crummy areas of town where the residents with kids do not have the financial assets to move. Why should they have to when they have done nothing wrong?

It's not like most violent ex-convicts can live in swanky Beverly Hills or tony Chappaquah, NY after they are released into the general population, including sex offenders.

I understand the purpose of the sex offender list. I am not opposed to the list per se. I am only opposed to it as to those sex offenders on the list for which the registry wasn't a condition of their sentencing.

To answer your question, short of moving, you can tell your children to stay away from the dude at 123 Main Street because he is a bad man.

As far as curing a child molester goes, that's not an easy question. Perhaps, they shouldn't be set free so quickly in the first place.

[Nataku X]

Yep... another good point re: housing. That the state knows that the sex offender is still a threat, and let them out anyway, is criminal.

Remove them from society as long as they live, period.

[goldstategop]

Our friend the federal judge in Iowa never heard of a fellow named Joseph P. Smith who surfaced this past weekend in the news.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Maybe Joseph P. Smith shouldn't have been let out of prison to begin with given his record. But was Smith even a sex offender? I see drugs and battery from some of the newspaper articles, but no evidence of sexual assault.

Let's face it, you can't protect your children from every piece of scum out there. But it helps if the government keeps the scum behind bars once they commit multiple offenses.