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.

[GailA]

Libs and social engineers have been compassionate to criminals for 40+ years, all it's gotten us is more dead children and more raped women and children. hanoi john is against the death penalty.

[jocon307]

"[I]t'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."

I don't disagree with you. And you make a good point about murderer lists, etc. This is why I think lawmakers should keep it simple (stupid! as they say) and increase the jail time given for these types of offenses, and keep the felons incarcerated for their entire sentance.

Of course, I think everyone who gets say 7-10 years should be in jail for AT LEAST 7 years, not 3, not 2 1/2, but 7, or maybe even 10.

And I agree, ex-post facto is not OK, but it sounds like the judge threw out the whole law, even as it would apply going forward.

[sgtbono2002]

Smith was found innocent of a previous snatch and grab on the street. He claimed he was just helping the woman he intended to murder across the street.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

I'd be curious to read the decision as to see exactly how the judge struck down the law. But if the plain text of the statute made it apply retroactively, he would have no choice but to strike down the law in its entirety, no?

I also can't figure out how the offender gives testimony about himself on the basis that he was already convicted of the crime and the list states a mere fact that he was convicted of that crime. The offender isn't offering a thing. Again, I probably need to look at the Iowa law though.

As far as harsher sentencing for violent offenders, I agree 100%. Seven years should mean seven years. The fortunate thing, is it seems like sentencing in this country is becoming more formula based and stringent where you can't get away with serving three years on a 7-10 anymore.

Three strikes and you're out for violent crimes should also be considered and enacted in most states where it hasn't been already. I am not talking about three drug dealing/using convictions here, but violent crime.

[Dante3]

Another example that we are sliding into a dictatorship of judges. We should not be concerned about the type of government other countries have. Instead, we should focus on our own.

[chiefqc]

If this Judge (?) feels so sorry for them, let all the perverts live with him.

[Therapist]

The only "cure" for a pedophile is provided by Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

[robertpaulsen]

"The offender isn't offering a thing."

If he's required to register with the local authorities, then he's offering his record to be made available to the public at large. Because of this action, initiated by the offender, his liberties are curtailed.

This would fall under self-incrimination.

I agree with you -- why stop with child molesters? I would also like to know if the person moving into my neighborhood has been convicted of rape, burglary, assault and battery, etc.

Some on this board are calling for life sentences or even the death penalty for these crimes. Given that "inappropriate touching" will vault you into the child molester category, I fear the molester, faced with life in prison or the death penalty, will go much further.

Recall the phrase, "Have you ever heard of the 'Little Lindbergh' Law?"

[jocon307]

You are right about the whole law being useless depending on the wording. I didn't get the point about the self-incrimination either, that seemed silly. A conviction is part of the public record, so I don't see how one could avoid revealing it.

I live in NJ and I am of the impression that this whole sex-offender registry thing got started out here in a response to the murder of Meagan Kanka. It was clear at the time that it was bi-partisan knee-jerk grand standing on the part of pols who wanted to be seen as doing SOMETHING! The problem is, like so many other folks these days, they didn't want to be bothered to take the time and make the effort to do something good and effective.

And of course, when the leftists and the criminals start howling in protest, well, look how anti-crime one looks then.

[Wright is right!]

"As far as a sex offender registry goes, why not a murder registry, a spousal battery registry, a felonious assault registry, ..."

This has been my objection to the Sex Offender Registry from the very beginning. Here in TN, the Registry applies to ALL crimes involving sex, not just kids. But it doesn't apply to murder or any other capital crime, robbery, burglary, violence/assault/battery, you name it. By George W., I'd for sure want to know if someone who had been convicted of THOSE crimes had moved in next door or across the street a long time before I'd care about whether he'd ever made a sexual misstep and served his sentence.

The whole idea of a sex-offender registry somehow vaults sex crimes to the position of being more "important" than all other crimes, even more serious than murder and mayhem. Something along the lines of "He may have murdered her, but at least he didn't rape her." What kind of convoluted logic is that?

I brought this subject up to a local newspaper columnist the other day, and all she could say was "Good points." She had no rebuttal.

Michael

[Freedom2specul8]

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

[Freedom2specul8]

Thanks for posting this.. We all may need therapy just by reading every single unnecessary, idiotic "ruling" or "law" that makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Heck, pedophiles must have rights too....


GRRRRRRRR!!!

[Freedom2specul8]

If someone posts that they know someone..there is no telling what could happen out of this. >:-(

[cyncooper]

You have got to be kidding me.

[cyncooper]

And a reminder that President Bush must be re-elected. Just look at what kind of judges Clinton appointed.

[The Black Knight]

I have a much better sexaul offender law.

It's called a gun. It can be applied retroactively as well.

[oldfart]

Child molestors and gun owners have more in common than most people think.

Very few gun owners commit crimes with their guns but the media would have the sheeple think that every gun owner is a criminal simply waiting for opportunity. And the recidivism rate for child molestors is actually quite low, though-- again-- the media would have us believe otherwise.

I recently had an old friend commit suicide. After his funeral I recieved a floppy disk with a long explanation on it. I seems that he had molested a child once, 35 years ago, served his time and rebuilt his life. After all that time, his past caught up with him and the State decided that he had to register as a sex offender and post a sign in his window to warn his neighbors. He chose death as a lesser punishment.

In his long and rambling essay, he pointed out repeatedly that he had never re-offended but that every time he was required to admit to his record, he was discriminated against and treated like an old-fashioned leper.

He was a good friend and a good family man. He left a loving wife (who knew of his record before they were married), two children and a number of close friends.

So, in spite of popular opinion, some CAN BE cured and rehabilitated.

[Teacher317]

I agree as well. Encouraging the open mistreatment of others (like tagging "drunk driver" plates) is an incredibly bad idea, not to mention government-sanctioned public discrimination against a specified group. If they aren't "safe", they shouldn't be out. If they are out, they should not be targeted for unequal treatment.

[expatguy]

Speaking of guns, there is a reason why Americans have the right to bear arms.

Have people forgotten what that reason is?

[freedomluvr1778]

They are either too dangerous to not be behind bars, or they have the same rights as anyone else. There is no middle ground. Can't have it both ways.

The judge was swayed, in large part, by the evidence that this is a foolish restriction that doesn't work," Wilson said Monday.

Of course it doesn't work. If the person is a sicko, as long as he/she can access children, NO law will work.

To insure people convicted of molesting children don't do it again, you keep them in prison, not make some silly law saying where they can live once they are determined to be no threat to society.