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.
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.
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.
When parties from all camps can't agree on what the words mean, let alone what was intended by the proposition, it only proves what a piece of garbage Prop 73 really was. No one can know what the voters actually thought they were voting for. Some support retroactivity, some don't. The flawed language was pointed out before the election--discrepancy after discrepancy.
They should throw out the whole darn Proposition and start over with responsibily written legislation. Else they will just spend a lifetime in court, all on the taxpayer dime.
Wasn't Jerry Brown found not qualified to be Attorney General? I have not heard of a court ruling justifying his eligibility.