Tracking Sex Offenders Is Unconstitutional

Madison.com via AP ^ | February 9, 2007 | Staff Writer @ AP

[philetus]

Most university professors should be required by law to wear tracking devices.

[rollo tomasi]

loose = lose

[old republic]

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.

California has an explicit right of privacy written into its state constitution, which raises questions concerning this bill's legality.

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

[Sandy]

My profile page is now full of info from framer's days and what punishment is

So? This law has nothing to do with punishment. So what's your point?

[justche]

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Chill out it wasn't directed to you. It's part of protecting children. In the "old days" they would have used capital punishment immediately which would also have protected the children.

[AmishDude]

Perhaps (although I cannot believe that section 1 applies to convicts, as they are deprived of property and liberty when incarcerated, so privacy would go as well) but these legal experts were not refering to the CA constitution as far as I can tell.

[Wolfie]

The whole idea of letting someone dangerous enough to require tracking run loose amongst us is asinine to begin with.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Yes, it certainly is!

[old republic]

It is hard to say exactly how the state courts will act in relationship to this law. The California Constitution is very preferential to the rights of victims over the rights of criminals; however, the California Constitution declares that it shall not be construed to grant prisoners more rights than the US constitution grants them. This raises two questions. First, can the state invade an ex-cons privacy for the rest of his life after he has served his sentence despite the state constitutions right of the people to privacy and to be secure in their persons from unreasonable searches and seizures? At the point they are released into society should they receive full civil rights again? (Afterall, as many on this thread have pointed out, if a person is still a threat shouldn't he be left in prison anyway). The second question is what bearing will the US constitution have on the interpretation of Prop. 83? The rights of criminals in the state of California are closely connected to the interpretations of the US constitution by the Federal courts. Article I sec. 24 indicates that the way that the Federal court decisions interpret the US Constitution will ultimately decide the legality of prop.83 under California's own constitution. It reads:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

[Mastersgte8]

I say wood chippers to every family of an abused child and a few minutes with the molester alone. (put them in feet first it hurts more)