Posted on 02/09/2007 5:47:00 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
A new state law forcing sexual predators to wear tracking devices for the rest of their lives is unconstitutional, according to three University of Wisconsin-Madison law professors.
The measure violates privacy rights and amounts to punishment and warrantless surveillance when applied to offenders who aren't on parole or government supervision, the professors said in a letter sent to Corrections Secretary Matthew Frank on Feb. 3.
"A clearer example of governmental intrusion into personal privacy is difficult to imagine," wrote law professors Walter Dickey, Byron Lichstein and Meredith Ross.
The law's main author, state Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, called the professors "Monday morning quarterbacks" with weak arguments.
"They might want to talk to the victims of these crimes before they make such outrageous statements," Suder said. "Nothing is going to stop us form implementing GPS. We are on very solid constitutional grounds."
The law, which takes effect July 1, requires the Corrections Department to use global positioning technology to track offenders found to be sexually violent. Tracking would begin when they're released from prison and continue for the rest of their lives. The requirement would also extend to serious child molesters.
The law calls on Corrections to establish zones where offenders could not linger and ensure the bracelets immediately alert the agency or local police if they violate those zones.
Corrections officials asked for $23.7 million and nearly 235 additional positions in the two-year budget starting July 1 to run the tracking system.
The professors argue forcing offenders on supervised release to wear trackers is unnecessary because they're already being supervised and forcing offenders who have completed their government supervision is unconstitutional. Corrections has no authority over them, they said.
The measure doesn't authorize police to stop offenders from moving into off-limits zones, the professors point out. That means the measure doesn't protect the public, negating a possible legal defense.
Constantly wearing a GPS unit that must be recharged every 12 hours amounts to punishment and warrantless surveillance, the professors wrote.
"Constant, lifetime GPS tracking is physically and psychologically burdensome," they said.
Anne Sappenfield, an attorney with the state Legislative Council, said in a Jan. 3 letter to state Rep. Mark Pocan -- the only member of the state Assembly to vote against the law -- the measure could be unconstitutional because it applies to sex offenders who were convicted before the law was enacted.
Suder insisted the law is designed to protect the public, not punish offenders. He said the law allows Corrections to write rules on how to handle zone incursions.
Pocan, D-Madison, a member of the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee, called the law a "knee-jerk" reaction.
"The bill was written in such a way to say 'hey, we're tough on sex offenders' instead of actually being tough on sex offenders," Pocan said.
Questions should be raised about the law now, before the Legislature releases millions of dollars in the upcoming state budget for the tracking system, Pocan said. That money could be better spent on helping Corrections develop ways to determine if individual offenders might re-offend, he said.
Frank's executive assistant, Susan Crawford, said Corrections has run into a myriad of problems as it prepares to implement the bill.
The law provides no penalty for offenders who refuse to wear the trackers, Crawford said. Corrections has no authority to return a sex offender on GPS who has completed his sentence to prison, and nothing in the law allows police to stop them for a violation, she said.
"It points to a need for the Legislature to ... fix some of these defects," she said.
Can you think of a more cruel and unusual punishment... for the sex offenders ?
I should really read all the comments before posting.
The question really becomes, if a sex offender is such a threat he has to be tracked by gps for rest of his life when released, why isn't prison bed spaced freed up for his continued incarceration, by released non-violent drug offenders, or some other non-violent offenders.
There's a whole little contigent on FR that think the same way - of course they won't answer if they are registered sex offenders!
Just hang them instead!
I SO totally agree with you.
My profile page is now full of info from framer's days and what punishment is....because of a previous discussion of it.
I have a lot of respect and awe for our Founding Father's. But they were human and had no way of seeing where society would be 200 years later, and the way the justice system is manipulated.
Hopefully a gaggle of sex predators will bugger these professors and change their minds
I agree. What if they started tracking people because they voted republican?? Where will it end? People tend to look at things in the here and now. What will this lead to in 200 hundreds?
Nothing is beyond the reach of the government once the cat is let out of the bag.
John
To put it bluntly, the 13th amendment pretty much permits anything after due process of law unless it's cruel and/or unusual.
So an "invasion of privacy" doesn't hold. But this can only apply to newly-convicted offenders because it can't be ex post facto.
200 years, not 200 hundreds.
John
Larry,Moe,and Curly have spoken
No. Felons lose their rights upon conviction. It's called attainder and goes way back in English common law. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring them to wear the things.
Looks like it applies to all of them though, not just pedophiles. I have zero respect for WI's "sex" laws. Getting caught pissing in the bushes is a sex crime. Two teenagers 17 y/o doing it is a serious child sex crime. Sofar there's at least 2 couples that got engaged in HS, parents knew and were planning a wedding, girl got pregnant and the DA charged and convicted the guy with criminal child sexual assault. Coward Thompson refused to pardon the one. I really hate these moralists as much as the jihadis. They have as much compassion, and moralality as any wahabist jihadi. They're just bigger cowards than their religious counter parts are.
except that voting republican isn't (currently) illegal. I mean we could go into further differences but that's a pretty big leap of "what ifs"
Whatever the technical rubric it's under, as long as it's part of the original sentence, it's constitutional.
That the devices have to be visible some how, brings about cruel and unusual punishment arguments going back to colonial Massachusetts branding punishments.
Possible. However, if they can be hidden under clothing, I'm sure this would not be an issue. And, of course, people are restricted in their movements by visible ankle bracelets. Presumably, one can wear one and be outside of their house (but not far from it).
Third problem is strict confidentiality issues on such huge amounts of gps data.
From here, you're off topic. These are issues, but not constitutional ones. The convict has been prosecuted by due process of law and that's it. If it results in lawsuits or has issues related to Megan's law-type issues, it's not a constitutional question.
Fourth, if the state actually knows where sex offenders are on a hourly basis, is the state then responsible to pick up and re arrest every sex offender who violates his/her probation and enters within the 500 or 1000 foot buffer zone of schools and parks or whatever terms of his/her probation?
Once again, not a constitutional issue. And, if those buffer zones mean anything, then the offenders should be arrested if their daily commute does go through a school buffer zone.
Life in prison for sex offenders. If they have to be monitored when they're released, then they shouldn't be released in the first place.
Attainder, or loss of rights occurs at conviction. There is no such thing as ex-post facto for them. Ex-post facto only applies to criminal law that applies to non-felons
> that's a pretty big leap of "what ifs"
Yeah, but it all comes back to the same principle: Giving money and power to the government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. You may truthfully claim that you didn't know what was going to happen, but if you had a lick of sense, you knew it wasn't going to be good.
Step back and view this new government power from, say, the depths of the late 80s drug hysteria. Don't have any doubt that, should such a public bout of dementia come around again that non-violent drug offenders wouldn't be sentenced to the same thing.
Remember, the first guy prosecuted under the Patriot Act wasn't named Achmed and had nothing to do with terrorism, it was just some penny ante loan shark in Vegas.
The law of unintended consequences is *always* appended to every new piece of legislation.
> Attainder, or loss of rights occurs at conviction.
Is it your opinion that the government has the "right" to go round up every convicted felon and throw them back in prison indefinitely? Execute them all?
If not, at what point does the piling on of additional after-the-fact restrictions become a problem for you?
That's why it's called The Criminal Justice System, and not the The Victims Justice System.
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.