Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lockyer moves to toss Proposition 83 sex offender lawsuit { Jessica's Law }
AP ^ | 11/16/6 | DAVID KRAVETS

Posted on 11/16/2006 7:37:05 AM PST by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO - A lawsuit challenging the voter-approved measure that toughens restrictions on where registered sex offenders may live should be dismissed because it does not specify any penalties for violators, California's attorney general says.

Proposition 83 prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. A day after the measure passed Nov. 7, an unidentified California registered sex offender who lives within the 2,000 boundary filed the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that it punishes him for a crime he's already paid for.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer moved late Wednesday to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing in a brief that Proposition 83 "does not call for punishment, mush less imprisonment, for violation of the residency restriction."

While the measure makes living within the 2,000-foot boundary illegal, it does not add any crimes to the state's criminal statutes.

The plaintiff, identified in court papers as John Doe, is not on parole or probation for a sex crime. He was convicted 15 years ago and served no time.

Lockyer's office also said the lawsuit should be dismissed because the measure does not apply to registered sex offenders like John Doe who are already living in a prohibited area and who are not on parole or probation. It was not immediately known how many California registered sex offenders are living within 2,000-foot zones and who are no longer on parole or probation.

There are some 90,000 registered sex offenders in California's communities, but the attorney general's brief only addressed how the law applies to persons such as John Doe. Which registered sex offenders the law ultimately would cover is to be the subject of further litigation.

A spokesman for the measure's author, State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, said he did not intend for it to apply to sex offenders already in the community.

"We've stipulated all along in every news article in which Sen. Runner was quoted that it was his intent that it would be prospective only," Runner's spokesman Will Smith said.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston temporarily blocked the 2,000-foot requirement from taking effect, ruling that it was likely unconstitutional as applied to sex offenders in the community because it amounted to new punishment on them after their convictions. Illston set a Nov. 27 hearing.

The so-called Jessica's Law also increases prison terms for sex offenders and requires lifetime satellite tracking for rapists, child molesters and other felony sex criminals upon their release from prison. None of those provisions was a part of the lawsuit.

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 Nov. 7.

The case is Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 06-6968.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: lockyer; pervertlover; prop83
I've never liked Lockyer, but he is defending California's new Prop 83 law from a lawsuit by criminal activists.
1 posted on 11/16/2006 7:37:07 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Demonrats are the party of perverts. This is what Demonrats do to America. And what their judges support.


2 posted on 11/16/2006 7:51:25 AM PST by bushfamfan (DUNCAN HUNTER FOR PRES. 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Attorney General Bill Lockyer (said)..."does not call for punishment, mush less imprisonment, for violation of the residency restriction."

Don't make statements when you have been drinking Bill.

3 posted on 11/16/2006 7:53:44 AM PST by Michael.SF. (Note: Sell Diebold Stock.................NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
A lawsuit challenging the voter-approved measure

So much for "democracy."
In America, there's at least one "victim" to be found anywhere that can be used to silence and control the majority who fight to remain free. One judge, just one, who abuses his/her power can destroy a nation.

4 posted on 11/16/2006 7:53:56 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

It was a poorly written law to begin with and should not have been passed. The proposition system thrives because of the failures in Sacramento.


5 posted on 11/16/2006 7:55:06 AM PST by Michael.SF. (Note: Sell Diebold Stock.................NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Yep.
The people who live in rural areas are annoyed because the perves essentially will not be able to live in any city. The intent was good, the writing of it leaves a bit to be desired. It could really ruin a few fine little communities as they will be the only places the pervs with jobs in a given area will be able to live.
6 posted on 11/16/2006 7:58:16 AM PST by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, Deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
It was a poorly written law to begin with and should not have been passed.

Democrats taking over the house and senate was a poor decision, too, but that's what the voters voted for. Should we find a "victim" of the election and sue to change it, too?
The people have spoken. What right does the court have to re-vote their votes for them?

7 posted on 11/16/2006 8:01:08 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
What right does the court have to re-vote their votes for them?

I'm sure you already know the answer to that one.

8 posted on 11/16/2006 8:25:26 AM PST by Michael.SF. (Note: Sell Diebold Stock.................NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"filed the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that it punishes him for a crime he's already paid for."

How about the Federal Statutes that make it a crime for anyone convicted of a felony to possess a firearm?

Since those same people have already paid for their crimes too. This same attorney don't mind if an America is denied their basic Const. Right to keep and bear firearms, but, don't by God take the Rights away from a sex offender.

Go figure.
9 posted on 11/16/2006 8:29:43 AM PST by paratrooper82 (82 Airborne 1/508th BN wounded and home recouping with my family!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Should we find a "victim" of the election and sue to change it, too?

Yes! If anyone had their constitutional rights violated during the election then we should sue.

10 posted on 11/16/2006 10:02:54 AM PST by opinionator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

If I was a victim (or mother of the victim) and the rapist bas*ard was set free it doesn't matter where he lives - he's a dead man as soon as he settles in. Tortured first.


11 posted on 11/16/2006 11:25:47 AM PST by AmericanChef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson