Posted on 01/17/2007 11:16:36 AM PST by radar101
it bums me out when I agree with Jerry Brown on issues....
what a cluster - trying to figure out that because this guy molested someone in 2005 he can live next to a park but the guy convicted in December 2006 can't...
Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' and Section 10 says: 'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .'This is way out of my pay grade, but there seems to be a conflict.The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.
"Gov. Schwarzenegger and other supporters of the law have said the provision banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather should not apply to people who committed their crimes before voters passed the initiative."
BULL!
It needs to be RETROAVTIVE FOR ALL PERVERTS!
Do it for the KIDDIES, for a change!
REALLY look out for them instead of just pretending you care.
There is a conflict, but the issue is a lot simpler than this proposed measure. Simply lock child molesters up for the rest of their lives, with no chance of parole. Once the current batch dies off, you won't have to worry about recidivism.
the provision bans sex offenders from living
"retroactive" laws are unconstitutional. Those are Ex Post Facto Laws.
That's the dilemma here. The law may be needed, the intent good and 'for the children', but illegal.
This could go to SCOTUS to be sorted out.
But then you get the ACLU with the 'cruel and unusual' crap.
I think what we have here is a prosecutor posing for the cameras. He KNOWS ex post facto laws don't stand a chance in court. It is akin to increasing a sentence after sentencing.
Political games the MSM refuses to expose.
I can't say what I think about the ACLU without going to confession, so I'll abstain.
SCOTUS sidestepped the issue by saying registration wasn't a punishment, therefore no ex post facto law.
Which makes utterly no sense on several levels, but, then again, we're talking SCOTUS here.
;-) ditto
It really doesn't matter because this one is going to get overturned in the courts, and that is a GOOD THING. This is one of the most poorly written laws ever to go before California voters and aside from the ex post facto issue, it is going to be found unconstitutionally vague. The very fact that the government can't determine WHO THIS LAW APPLIES TO should tell people how poorly it was written.
FWIW, this law was specifically designed to do one thing in California. It drives sex offenders completely out of the densly populated LIBERAL coastal areas of the state, and into the less densely populated REPUBLICAN parts of the state. Back when this measure was debated, it was pointed out that the entire San Francisco Bay Area would become a sex-offender free zone, and that most of those sex offenders would probably relocate to the Central Valley and Sierra foothills. The liberals wanted this law to protect THEIR kids, and didn't really give a dang about anyone elses.
Brown is posing for the cameras.
He is also being very free with the tax dollars to fight this.
How about this, tax breaks for land lords of apartments who prohibit convicted sex offenders from living in their appartments.
Convicted felons are not subject to fair housing or discrimination laws. So you give the land lord a $500 per year discount if he puts a written clause in his lease with and actually does a $35 criminal back ground check.
No ex post facto constitutional violation of state or federal constitutions.
Take it up with the Founding Fathers: Ex post facto laws, are unconstitutional. There's always a good cause for taking away liberty: protection from perverts, protection from drunk drivers, protection from starvation, . . . No tyranny was ever imposed on a previously free society without some 'benefit' being promised.
What I'm getting isn't so much the registration, it's the 2000 ft rule.
I believe the one offenders complaint is that he has no plan on moving but what happens if they build a Park or School near his house? He's then in violation but was there first so why should he have to move. IMO that gets pretty close to Ex Post Facto if he's forced to move.
[I am not sticking up for these maggots. But these Ex Post Facto laws come into play with Gun Free School Zones. Thankfully SCOTUS shot down Di-Fi's unconstitutional law under Rehnquist (I was pretty close to the borderline distance - TOO close)].
"Take it up with the Founding Fathers: Ex post facto laws, are unconstitutional."
They must be rolling in their graves over how we are diligently ABUSING obvious common sense.
There is NO time limit on prosecuting murders and their should be NO time limit in keeping kids safe from PROVEN PREDATORS.
Any other specific clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America you want to go around?
I would argue that really long prison termns for sex offenders would be far more effective.
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.